The URL can be used to link to this page

2018, 03-27 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, March 27, 2018 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION: Pastor Joe Pursch, Valley Fourth Memorial Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION: Honoring Katherine Morgan, CEO, Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on March 27, 2018 Request for Council Action Form, Total: $2,311,111.05 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 15, 2018: $337,292.64 c. Approval of March 2, 2018 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting d. Approval of March 6, 2018 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session e. Approval of March 16, 2018 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting NEW BUSINESS: 2. Administrative Report: Legislative Update — Briahna Murray & Chelsea Hager of Gordon Thomas Honeywell [no public comment] 3. Second Reading Ordinance 18-007, Small Cell — Erik Lamb [public comment] 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-008, MClmetro Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell [public comment] 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-009, Verizon Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell [public comment] 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-010, Mobilitie Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell [public comment] 7. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Sprague Ave. Sullivan to Corbin — Erica Amsden, Gloria Mantz [public comment] 8. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, ITS Infill Phase 1 Project - Gloria Mantz, Craig Aldworth [public comment] 9. Motion Consideration: 8t11 and Carnahan Right -of -Way Acquisition Remediation — Gloria Mantz [public comment] Council Agenda 03-13-18 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 10. Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunities: (a) SRTC, (b) SRTS, (c) PBP, and (d) CSP — Adam Jackson, Colin Quinn -Hurst [public comment] 11. Motion Consideration: Barker BNSF Grade Separation Design Contract — John Hohman [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 12. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed):n/a 13. Department Reports CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2—d and 4t—h Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1St 3=a and 5r'—' Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 03-13-18 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 Spokane Valley rocdomotion of Rppreciation To 1.atijerine fRorgan WHEREAS, Whereas, the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, founded in 1921, has dedicated its mission to serving businesses, improving community vitality and fueling economic prosperity for more than 96 years in the greater Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, Whereas, The City of Spokane Valley acknowledges that a successful Chamber of Commerce begins with visionary leadership a leader who can rally contributing communities and collaborate with business professionals to implement a collective vision and mission. In Spokane Valley, that leader has been Katherine Morgan; and WHEREAS, Whereas, Katherine joined the Chamber in September 2014 and went right to work in regard to building community partnerships and expanding Chamber membership. Thanks to her energy, enthusiasm, marketing expertise and visionary leadership, the Chamber is currently 750 -members strong and growing by the day; and WHEREAS, Whereas, under Katherine's leadership, the Chamber implemented a community -wide planning process in summer 2015 that identified five key initiatives that would stimulate community vitality and economic prosperity. Known as "The BIG 5," these initiatives continue to guide the Chamber's efforts to enhance key industries and promote workforce development; and WHEREAS, Whereas, the Chamber advocates for projects and initiatives that support economic prosperity. Through Katherine's ongoing dialogue with legislators, city councils, mayors and county commissioners, the Chamber has made a significant contribution to the Greater Spokane Valley business community; and WHEREAS, Whereas, Katherine has served in her position with great grace and skill. Her confidence and ability to inspire employees, business members and participating communities has resulted in greater unification and collaboration, and renewed focus on furthering educational opportunities for Spokane Valley youth. 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 Katherine Morgan, Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce President/CEO for her conscientious work, dedication, and commitment to making the Chamber the best it can be. We wish her well as she pursues this next chapter in her career. Dated this 27th day of March, 2018. L.R. Higgins, Mayor CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2018 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS 03/08/2018 44083-44125; 3828233; 3865657 03/09/2018 44126-44148 03/13/2018 7570-7572 03/15/2018 44149-44194 03/16/2018 6222, 6235, 6236, 6238, 6240; 44195 TOTAL AMOUNT $2,040,930.56 $105,067.03 $1,052.00 $89,236.52 $74,824.94 GRAND TOTAL: $2,311,111.05 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.032.000. Public Works 001.058.050.558. CED - Administration 001.058.051.558. CED — Economic Development 001.058.055.558. CED — Development Services -Engineering 001.058.056.558. CED — Development Services -Planning 001.058.057.558 CED — Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't -Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preservation Other Funds 101 — Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121— Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 204 — Debt Service 301 — REET 1 Capital Projects 302 — REET 2 Capital Projects 303 — Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist 03/08/2018 12:13: 03 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44083 3/8/2018 000197 ACRANET 44084 3/8/2018 006382 AHBL INC 44085 3/8/2018 003775 AM HARDWARE 44086 3/8/2018 002603 B&H PHOTO VIDEO 44087 3/8/2018 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 44088 3/8/2018 004439 BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS INC 44089 3/8/2018 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 44090 3/8/2018 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 6281 105917 40833 139017313 17414 25813861 53398772 CONNECTION COSTS 44091 3/8/2018 000603 CONTRACT DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC 42111 44092 3/8/2018 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 44093 3/8/2018 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 44094 3/8/2018 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 415314 415791 10226322219 79399493 Fund/Dept 001.018.016.518 303.303.123.595 001.033.000.518 107.000.000.594 001.040.041.558 001.076.305.575 001.040.043.558 309.000.237.595 001.040.042.558 311.000.248.595 314.000.143.595 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.548 UTILITY PERMIT 303.000.259.595 Description/Account Amount EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND CHECk Total : ENGINEERING/ARCHITECTURAL S Total : SUPPLIES Total : 16X9 MONITORS FOR TV STUDIO Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : PHONE SERVICE AT CENTERPLAC Total : FEBRUARY 2018 FLEET FUEL BILL Total : 0237 - APPLEWAY TRAIL WATER SI Total : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- MIKE 0248 - TRAFFIC PLANS 0143 -DESIGN SERVICES Total : Total : DELL LATITUDE 12 5285 TABLET Ft COMPUTER LEASE: 3 YR WORKS1 Total : 113.00 113.00 11,650.30 11,650.30 39.41 39.41 2,497.50 2,497.50 1,732.50 1,732.50 427.52 427.52 1,179.08 1,179.08 14,400.00 14,400.00 1,635.46 1,635.46 4,117.05 3,029.88 7,146.93 1,586.83 2,286.44 3,873.27 CIP 0259 - NORTH SULLIVAN ITS 500.00 Page: 1 vchlist 03/08/2018 12:13:03PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44094 3/8/2018 000734 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 44095 3/8/2018 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC INC 44096 3/8/2018 005491 ECIVIS, INC 44097 3/8/2018 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES INC 44098 3/8/2018 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 44099 3/8/2018 003261 FEHR & PEERS 44100 3/8/2018 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 44101 3/8/2018 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 44102 3/8/2018 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 44103 3/8/2018 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 44104 3/8/2018 003297 HIGGINS, LEWIS ROD 44105 3/8/2018 001944 LANCER LTD (Continued) 112786 17-100920 CD201806675D 481362 482967 482968 120222 120327 48259 48336 Feb 18 1042 116762 28048 28053 EXPENSES 0468422 Fund/Dept 001.013.015.515 001.040.042.558 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : ECIVIS - GRANTS NETWORK ACCE Total : 1012 - ICE SLICER 303.303.123.595 ADVERTISING 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 314.000.143.595 314.000.223.595 0143 -TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 0223 -TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 303.303.123.595 ADVERTISING 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.011.000.511 001.040.042.558 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.040.043.558 GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : BASE INVESTMENT/PUBLIC INVES Total : FEBRUARY BUSINESS CONNECTI( FEBRUARY 2018 BUSINESS CONN Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 500.00 45.00 45.00 5,540.00 5,540.00 3,710.61 3,710.61 55.50 23.70 91.64 170.84 3,923.40 351.00 4,274.40 124.80 107.95 232.75 4,738.82 4,738.82 3,583.34 3,583.34 70.00 35.00 105.00 88.93 88.93 BUSINESS CARDS 42.98 Page: 2 vchlist 03/08/2018 12:13 :03 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44105 3/8/2018 001944 LANCER LTD 44106 3/8/2018 000472 LAWTON PRINTING 44107 3/8/2018 004632 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS 44108 3/8/2018 002552 MDM CONSTRUCTION INC. 44109 3/8/2018 001035 NDM TECHNOLOGIES INC 44110 3/8/2018 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 44111 3/8/2018 005050 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC 44112 3/8/2018 000058 OMA 44113 3/8/2018 002592 PURE FILTRATION PRODUCTS (Continued) 0468547 41752 67063496 PAY APP 8 26851 26852 106593023001 109662695001 109662923001 109766505001 109766551001 111347343001 111767085001 111767453001 113244550001 113244551001 808503 A500163 41501 Fund/Dept 001.040.041.543 001.090.000.518 001.076.305.575 303.000.251.595 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.090.000.519 001.090.000.519 001.076.305.575 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.015.515 001.018.016.518 001.033.000.518 Description/Account Amount BUSINESS CARDS RECEIPT BOOKS TELECOM SERVICES Total : Total : Total : 0251 -CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Total : EQUIPMENT REPAIR & MAINTENAP EQUIPMENT REPAIR & MAINTENAP Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: CPW OFFICE SUPPLIES - CPW OFFICE SUPPLIES - CPW OFFICE SUPPLIES: IT OFFICE SUPPLIES: IT OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE OFFICE SUPPLIES: COUNCIL/EXEC OFFICE SUPPLIES: EXECUTIVE OFFICE SUPPLIES: EXECUTIVE OFFICE SUPPLIES: EXECUTIVE Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL EXAMS Total : 42.98 85.96 646.27 646.27 1,350.11 1,350.11 4,190.76 4,190.76 1,197.00 1,197.00 2,394.00 12.07 16.00 10.51 17.83 17.21 126.41 64.05 39.14 62.82 4.34 370.38 65.00 65.00 100.00 100.00 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 146.14 Total : 146.14 Page: 3 vchlist 03/08/2018 12:13 : 03 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44114 3/8/2018 003407 RIGHT! SYSTEMS INC 44115 3/8/2018 002616 ROADWISE INC 44116 3/8/2018 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS 44117 3/8/2018 002835 SCS DELIVERY INC 44118 3/8/2018 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE SI -155954 SI -155963 57381 57382 57383 57434 57435 IN77542 11116 FEBRUARY 2018 44119 3/8/2018 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 42000472 51504170 44120 3/8/2018 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 44121 3/8/2018 006422 SUPPLYWORKS 3368076818 3368076819 3368076820 3368076821 3368076822 3368076823 3368076826 423670025 427089339 427089347 428422182 428620942 Fund/Dept 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.040.043.558 001.011.000.511 303.000.259.595 001.016.000.554 001.016.000.523 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 Description/Account Amount BARRACUDA MESSAGE ARCHIVEF RUCKUS R510 AP FOR BASEMENT Total : LIQUID FREEZGARD CI PLUS LIQUID FREEZGARD CI PLUS LIQUID FREEZGARD CI PLUS LIQUID FREEZGARD CI PLUS LIQUID FREEZGARD CI PLUS Total : FEBRUARY 2018 COPIER COSTS Total : Total : RECORDING FEES Total : BROADCASTING ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE FEBRt FEBRUARY 2018 HOUSING Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. Total : SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL 2,651.05 1,311.19 3,962.24 6,097.45 6,140.12 6,088.56 6,079.67 6,141.89 30,547.69 1,868.85 1,868.85 75.00 75.00 1,214.00 1,214.00 22,130.52 134,244.81 156,375.33 16.95 74.62 22.40 67.65 33.93 15.25 179.66 410.46 313.16 199.86 84.17 20.24 60.71 Page: 4 vchlist 03/08/2018 12:13: 03 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 5 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44121 3/8/2018 006422 SUPPLYWORKS 44122 3/8/2018 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRISES LLC 44123 3/8/2018 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 44124 3/8/2018 003210 WEST CONSULTANTS INC. 44125 3/8/2018 002651 WOODARD, ARNE 3828233 2/28/2018 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 3865657 3/5/2018 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 45 Vouchers for bank code : apbank (Continued) 429558851 429558869 429558877 2282018 59611 010025 EXPENSES 9290201285 FEBRUARY 2018 Fund/Dept 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.011.000.511 311.000.248.595 001.040.043.558 001.011.000.511 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.512 Description/Account Amount SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL Total : BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTGS Total : POSTAGE SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : LE CONTRACT BILLING FEBRUARI Total : SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES Total : Bank total : -60.71 242.48 64.56 924.47 1,004.00 1,004.00 1,084.90 1,084.90 246.65 246.65 82.00 82.00 1,535,279.00 1,535,279.00 230,822.69 230,822.69 2,040,930.56 45 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,040,930.56 Page: 5 'vch l ist 03/09/2018 1:24:09PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44126 3/9/2018 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA 44127 3/9/2018 006402 ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER 44128 3/9/2018 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 44129 3/9/2018 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 44130 3/9/2018 004813 FIRST CHOICE COFFEE SERVICES 44131 3/9/2018 003618 HAUGEN, DANA 44132 3/9/2018 000070 INLAND POWER & LIGHT CO 44133 3/9/2018 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 44134 3/9/2018 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 44135 3/9/2018 005169 LATIOLAIS, LORRI 44136 3/9/2018 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO Expenses 1990586500 1990597475 I NV02425 Feb 2018 200841 Expenses 2301 FEB 2018 1263984 1263985 1267063 1267064 Expenses FEB 2018 FEB 2018 Fund/Dept 001.040.041.543 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.033.000.518 001.018.013.513 001.076.305.575 001.040.041.543 101.042.000.542 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.040.041.543 101.042.000.542 001.076.302.576 Description/Account Amount EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : JANITORIAL SVCS: CITY HALL, PRI Total : PEI 1Y CASH: 16321,22,24,25,1660: Total : COFFEE SVCS FOR CENTERPLAC Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : UTILITIES: FEB 2018 Total : UTILITIES: PARKS & CPW FEB 2011 Total : FEB 2018 MONTHLY CLEANING AT EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : UTILITIES: CPW FEB 2018 UTILITIES: FEB 2018 PARKS 55.65 55.65 445.21 445.21 890.42 9,115.45 9,115.45 76.80 76.80 128.66 128.66 14.82 14.82 446.51 446.51 199.00 199.00 7,849.60 31.61 21.07 42.14 7,944.42 7.09 7.09 12,863.78 1,435.42 Page: vchlist 03/09/2018 1: 24: 09 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44136 3/9/2018 000132 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO (Continued) 44137 3/9/2018 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 44138 44139 44140 44141 44142 44143 44144 44145 3/9/2018 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 8268176 8268211 8268530 8268636 FEB 2018 3/9/2018 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 56752 3/9/2018 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOLUT 8010747490 3/9/2018 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 3/9/2018 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 3/9/2018 006507 VIP PRODUCTION NORTHWEST INC 3/9/2018 006178 WALTER E NELSON CO 3/9/2018 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 44146 3/9/2018 004917 WHITE, KARLA 59108183 Feb 2018 34817 351415 0067187-1518-5 0611937-2681-9 0612812-2681-3 0613560-2681-7 Fund/Dept 001.016.016.521 001.033.000.518 001.076.300.576 001.016.016.521 402.402.000.531 001.016.016.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 101.042.000.542 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.033.000.518 001.076.305.575 001.016.016.521 001.033.000.518 Expenses 001.018.014.514 Description/Account Amount Total : SNOW REMOVAL AT PRECINCT CITY HALL WINTER SVCS CONTRACT MAINT: PARKS FEB 20 MONTHLY SVCS AT PRECINCT Total : WATER CHARGES FOR FEB 2018 Total : FEB 2018 MONTHLY MAINT PRECIP Total : ANSWERING SERVICE FOR CENTS Total : J8028-1 MONTHLY DRINKING WATI Total : UTILITIES: FEB 2018 GREAT ROOM REPAIR AT CP Total : Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : WASTE MGMT: CITY HALL WASTE MGMT: CENTERPLACE FEI WASTE MGMT: PRECINCT WASTE MGMT: CITY HALL FEB 201 Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 14,299.20 1,224.00 2,252.16 60,343.90 84.81 63,904.87 110.02 110.02 642.90 642.90 39.44 39.44 28.50 28.50 3,769.27 3,769.27 359.75 359.75 73.22 73.22 75.85 816.37 292.68 351.79 1,536.69 16.35 16.35 Page: vchlist 03/0912018 1:24:09PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44147 3/9/2018 000129 WRPA 44148 3/9/2018 001793 WWRC 23 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 23 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date 3106 WWRC18-Mem Fund/Dept 001.076.302.576 001.076.000.576 Description/Account Amount CONFERENCE REGISTRATION Total : 2018 WWRC MEMBERSHIP DUES Total : 658.00 658.00 750.00 750.00 Bank total : 105,067.03 Total vouchers : 105,067.03 Page: vchlist 03/13/2018 3:43:30PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 7570 3/13/2018 006510 CERNAT, VLADISLAV 7571 3/13/2018 006511 HOOPER, AMY 7572 3/13/2018 004837 SPOKANE INDIA COMMUNITY 3 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref 3 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM/. Total : 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LOUI Total : 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 110 Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 52.00 52.00 1,052.00 1,052.00 Page: .� vchlist 03/15/2018 9:29:10AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44149 3/15/2018 002931 ALL WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 105988 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS 44150 3/15/2018 006403 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS INC S104521675 44151 3/15/2018 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 209401 44152 3/15/2018 003319 CO -ENERGY, CONNELL OIL 0211105 -IN 44153 3/15/2018 000603 CONTRACT DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC 42196 44154 3/15/2018 006327 DEVRIES MOVING PACKING STORAGE 83431 44155 3/15/2018 000999 EASTERN WAATTORNEY SVC INC 112838 44156 3/15/2018 004950 EIGHT31 CONSULTING 44157 3/15/2018 003697 ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE LLC 44158 3/15/2018 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 44159 3/15/2018 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 1076 1082 15211162 4272721 483523 483525 483526 483527 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 001.013.015.515 001.090.000.513 001.090.000.513 001.090.000.586 101.000.000.542 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 44.54 Total : 44.54 176.66 Total : 176.66 131.00 Total : 131.00 18.74 Total : 18.74 2,389.12 Total : 2,389.12 338.25 Total : 338.25 60.00 Total : 60.00 406.25 562.50 Total : 968.75 235.81 Total : 235.81 5,221.85 Total : 5,221.85 22.50 40.29 43.45 50.56 Total : 156.80 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIP. - STI SUPPLIES: STREET DEPT. SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS CUBE WALLS CUBICLE INSTALLATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERNET SERVICE FUEL FOR SNOWPLOWS/MAINTa LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Page: JD vchlist Voucher List 03/15/2018 9:29:10AM Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44160 3/15/2018 001232 FASTENAL CO 44161 3/15/2018 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 44162 3/15/2018 005474 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST 44163 3/15/2018 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 44164 3/15/2018 002538 HYDRAULICS PLUS INC 44165 3/15/2018 003694 IEDC 44166 3/15/2018 002384 IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MGMT. LLC 44167 3/15/2018 005269 INDUSTRIAL WELDING CO INC 44168 3/15/2018 003362 INLAND GEAR 44169 3/15/2018 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE & FITTINGS 44170 3/15/2018 006457 JH LANDWORKS LLC IDLEW128086 IDLEW128136 IDLEW128198 48355 48357 48358 48359 PC001406312:01 116819 22223 270681 12617-7 28125 30218 1004262 1692 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 101.000.000.542 001.011.000.511 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount SUPPLIES: STREET DEPT. SUPPLIES: STREET DEPT. SUPPLIES: STREET DEPT. LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : Total : SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT Total : 2018 REGIONAL DC FLY -IN - B PEE Total : Total : Total : 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS 001.040.042.558 2018 M BASINGER 2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PL Total : EQUIP. REPAIR & MAINTENANCE Total : SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS Total : SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS Total : Total : SNOW REMOVAL 106.13 148.06 27.62 281.81 51.20 46.75 49.30 57.80 205.05 840.48 840.48 2,300.00 2,300.00 68.82 68.82 185.00 185.00 22,625.00 22,625.00 522.24 522.24 13.10 13.10 23.14 23.14 1,086.72 1,086.72 Page: vchlist 03/15/2018 9:29:10AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44171 3/15/2018 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY 44172 3/15/2018 001944 LANCER LTD 44173 3/15/2018 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 44174 3/15/2018 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO 44175 3/15/2018 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 44176 3/15/2018 004621 OREILLYAUTOMOTIVE STORES INC 44177 3/15/2018 005049 PEDERSON, MICHAEL ROY 44178 3/15/2018 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 44179 3/15/2018 000029 PITNEY BOWES INC 44180 3/15/2018 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 44181 3/15/2018 006509 POE, JOSEPH S POI N2731480 0468546 462 97993 113244042001 113244548001 113244549001 114241886001 2862-250618 2862-250789 2862-253166 FEBRUARY 2018 3305561998 1006715483 45642 870471 Fund/Dept 101.000.000.542 001.040.043.558 001.013.015.515 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.517 001.018.014.514 001.090.000.517 001.018.014.514 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.519 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS BUSINESS CARDS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : Total : SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT Total : OPERATING SUPPLIES SUPPLIES: KITCHEN OFFICE SUPPLIES: EMPLOYEE AP OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE Total : SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS SUPPLIES FOR #203 SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL Total : Total : LEASE CONTRACT 2969758001 Total : POSTAGE METER SUPPLIES Total : 2018 STREET MAINTENANCE Total : SNOW REMOVAL Total : 90.31 90.31 142.00 142.00 1,106.20 1,106.20 183.57 183.57 9.01 9.77 4.34 59.35 82.47 51.44 13.05 17.40 81.89 900.00 900.00 1,066.12 1,066.12 305.16 305.16 4,204.24 4,204.24 1,147.50 1,147.50 Page: 33, vchlist 03/15/2018 9:29:10AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44182 3/15/2018 002510 POHL SPRING WORKS INC 44183 3/15/2018 005968 PRECISE MRM LLC 44184 3/15/2018 002290 PURCHASE POWER 44185 3/15/2018 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC 44186 3/15/2018 003407 RIGHT! SYSTEMS INC 44187 3/15/2018 006079 SHOCKEY PLANNING GROUP INC 44188 3/15/2018 004535 SHRED -IT USA LLC 44189 3/15/2018 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 44190 3/15/2018 004099 SPOKANE VALLEY ACE HARDWARE 44191 3/15/2018 006422 SUPPLYWORKS 44192 3/15/2018 004740 THOMSON REUTERS -WEST 174653 I N200-1016038 POSTAGE 46620 46689 SI -155737 SI -156008 201802007 8124276495 50317204 24151 430330746 430330753 431157916 431157924 837815446 Fund/Dept Description/Account 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.143.70.00 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.040.043.558 001.090.000.518 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.033.000.518 001.013.015.515 Amount REPAIR #206 DATA PLAN REFILL POSTAGE METER Total : Total : Total : PICTURE WALL LABLES AND NEW NAME PLATES IT SUPPORT IT SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION Total : Total : Total : Total : COUNTY IT SUPPORT FEBRUARY Total : SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT' Total : SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: JANITORIAL SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES Total : Total : 1,460.31 1,460.31 275.00 275.00 5,017.00 5,017.00 1,039.04 201.28 1,240.32 11,319.55 887.81 12, 207.36 330.00 330.00 156.30 156.30 11,981.91 11,981.91 9.74 9.74 63.63 281.77 -32.63 363.87 676.64 797.69 797.69 Page: vchlist 03/15/2018 9:29:10AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 44193 3/15/2018 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 44194 3/15/2018 001792 WHITEHEAD, JOHN 46 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 46 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date UTILITY SERVICE EXPENSES Fund/Dept 309.000.237.595 001.090.000.519 Description/Account Amount CIP 0237: DEPOSIT TO INSTALL W/ Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 7,565.00 7,565.00 316.91 316.91 Bank total : 89,236.52 Total vouchers : 89,236.52 Page: -8` vchlist Voucher List 03/16/2018 9:18:33AM Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6222 3/20/2018 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben79102 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 1,844.37 Total : 1,844.37 6235 3/20/2018 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben79104 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 32,268.92 Total : 32,268.92 6236 3/20/2018 000682 EFTPS Ben79106 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 31,042.75 Total : 31,042.75 6238 3/20/2018 000145 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFERAGENTS, 457 PL/ Ben79108 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 8,562.39 Total : 8,562.39 6240 3/20/2018 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC PL Ben79110 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 637.50 Total : 637.50 44195 3/20/2018 006468 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COLLECTION Ben79100 101.231.20.00 WAGE ASSIGNMENT: PAYMENT 469.01 Total: 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 469.01 74, 824.94 74,824.94 Page: vchlist Voucher List 03/16/2018 9:18:33AM Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just. due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2018 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 15, 2018 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Gross: $ 279,207.83 $ Benefits: $ 58,084.81 Total payroll $ 337,292.64 $ Council Total $ 279,207.83 $ 58,084.81 $ 337,292.64 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley Special Council Meeting 3:00 p.m. Friday, March 2, 2018 City of Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 10210 E. Sprague Ave., Spokane Valley, Washington Attendance: Spokane Valley Council Mayor Higgins Deputy Mayor Haley Councilmember Peetz Councilmember Thompson Councilmember Wick Councilmember Wood Councilmember Woodard Staff Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager Mike Basinger, Economic Dev. Mgr. Rob Lochmiller, Senior Engineer Mike Stone, Parks & Rec. Director Ray Wright, Senior Engineer Colin Quinn -Hurst, Sr. Trans. Engineer Carolbelle Branch, Public Info. Officer Elisha Heath, Executive Assistant Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Mayor Higgins explained that "the purpose of today's meeting is to clarify points of misunderstanding on the Barker Road Grade Separation project. This meeting was originally scheduled on very short notice last evening, events overtook us, and with the legislative session moving quickly coming to a close, the transportation budget was being considered with literally no notice necessitating our moving rapidly to respond appropriately, hence, our having to reschedule for this afternoon. I apologize for the short notice. The original meeting was scheduled to allow for Council action if necessary. After discussion with our legislators and action by the budget committees, Council action is no longer necessary. Today's meeting then will be for information only as a first in a series of meetings to involve and inform our citizens on what the Barker Road project entails, what entities are involved, and how the project benefits the City of Spokane Valley. With that in mind, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Hohman will continue from here." City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. 1. Barker Grade Separation Project — Mark Calhoun, John Hohman City Manager Calhoun said today's presentation will begin with him doing his best to describe why we are here, and John will discuss the history of the Barker/BNSF Grade Separation Project and how we arrived at the point we currently are. "Discussion on the Barker/BNSF Grade Separation Project has been a topic of local conversation for many years with formal discussions at a municipal/SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) level taking place in 2004 that resulted in the development of the Bridging the Valley concept. Ideas behind the concept revolved around eliminating "at -grade" crossings, that is, perpendicular conflict points where trains and cars share the same space and unfortunately, occasionally at the same time. The idea was to create either over or under passes to completely avoid the conflict between trains and passenger vehicle and trucking traffic. Benefits of grade separation projects include: safety of the traveling public; it saves time assuming 56 trains a day passing through the Valley with a wait time of three - minutes per train, that's 168 minutes of wasted time at each of these crossings each day; also with the number of oil trains passing through the Valley, this is arguably a form of aquifer protection in the event of Special Council Meeting, Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT an oil train mishap. Another benefit specific to this particular project is economic development in this northeast industrial area, and that the current at -grade crossing has in part retarded economic growth. So, based upon the fact the City has focused on this to the extent we have these past few years, we've reached a realistic resolution at an estimated cost that is realistically attainable. By coupling this design with a Planned Action Ordinance, we have been successful in making this area more attractive to the business sector and in fact we now have serious interest including Katerra which will soon construct a 250,000 square foot facility employing 150 people, and a second still unnamed business which will reportedly also construct a new facility employing yet an additional 150 people. The City's preferred alternative for this project was until recently a diamond interchange that in 2016 was estimated to cost $36 million. This has proven to be been an insurmountable sum of money to secure even though we've attempted to apply for grants through the variations of the TIGER, FASTLANE and INFRA programs over the past five years, all of which have been unsuccessful. You'll recall that through this past year 2017, Council and Staff began discussing six alternatives to the diamond interchange with the intent of finding a more fiscally responsible and realistic alternative, with the most recent discussion taking place on January 30, when Council gave a head nod to Alternative 5 which includes a bridge over the railroad tracks and a roundabout on Trent Road. Since that time we've been working with the design team of DEA/HDR to develop a contract to complete the final design and plan to bring this forward to Council in the very near future where we will be seeking Council authorization to proceed with that design. Through the Legislative session each year, the City's lobbyist in Olympia, which is Gordon/Thomas/Honeywell with Briahna and Chelsea, provides periodic legislative updates, and on Monday, February 19, just eleven days ago, we received an e-mail that the House Transportation Budget had been released, and it added language regarding the $1.5 million that had been awarded last year, that stated that the amendment was `no State moneys could be expended to plan for or construct a roundabout as a part of this project' and it did go on to say `provided that this restriction didn't increase the overall cost.' I forwarded this e-mail to Council on February 19 and in that correspondence noted that City staff would be participating in a phone conference to discuss this topic and this prohibition, and included in that phone conference would be several city staff including John and I, our fourth district legislators, representatives from the Washington Department of Transportation, and our lobbyists from Gordon/Thomas/Honeywell. In that February 21 phone conference, City staff provided a brief history of the project including how we arrived at Alternative 5. Our Legislators expressed a number of concerns about that alternative, especially the fact that it included a roundabout on Trent. Representative Shea sketched an alternative concept that they felt would better serve the traveling public in terms of safety, convenience and cost, and noted that they thought it would be less expensive than the Alternative 5 we've been discussing; that it wouldn't slow 50 mile -per -hour traffic on Trent as would a roundabout; that it would be more navigable for trucks moving to and from the industrial area, and would better accommodate future growth. Because the project is so expensive we recognize that it's beyond the City's ability to solely come up with our own internal resources to finance the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction, and in light of the fact that the House Transportation Budget now included prohibitive language, and because we need the support of our legislators to pursue financing for this and other projects going into the future including $6 million from the National Highway Freight Program that the legislators still need to approve and I think that happens next year; based on all of that, we felt it was necessary to back up a bit in our process and seriously consider the concept advanced by Representative Shea. To that end, we asked the design team of DEA/HDR that had developed the six initial alternatives, to explore an additional concept including the estimated cost. By early this week we heard back from the design team and their analysis showed that the concept advanced by Representative Shea would not work, and would actually preclude the construction of the solution to that intersection quandary. This led us back ultimately to the 2004 diamond interchange that I discussed earlier and that DEA/HDR currently estimates that would cost now $41 million; so we had been using $36 million with all the gyrations that happened and as a result of that we are really back to the original design Special Council Meeting, Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT concept at $41 million which is clearly substantially greater than the $19 million cost estimate we are currently working with on Alternative 5. So we felt this price difference would allow WSDOT- the Washington State Department of Transportation - to conclude that Alternative 5 would be the most cost effective option. However, we then learned that WSDOTs interpretation of the bill language was that State moneys couldn't be used on any project at this intersection that included a roundabout. So at that point we were facing a very real conundrum because the $41 million price tag for a project of this magnitude is simply so far beyond our ability to afford, even if we continue to pursue grants into the future as we have in the past. So we had a Finance Committee meeting this week as a consequence of this proposed legislation and we discussed how the City should proceed. Our options included: (1) asking our lobbyists in Olympia to work to remove the roundabout prohibitive language from the bill; (2) look towards attempting to self -finance the project, which there is just no way the City is going to be able to come up with $41 million, and then also related to that, (3) we would continue to pursue grant financing recognizing that based upon past experience this is not likely realistic. Now, as Mayor Higgins noted at the beginning of the meeting, the language prohibiting a roundabout is in the process of being removed from the bill. However, with that said, community discussion on this topic should perhaps continue, and I think following John's presentation, that may be a topic of discussion with Council, looking towards how do we as a City staff and the Council, and the community, move forward in a very timely and orderly manner. With that said, I'm going to turn this over to John who is going to have the more interesting part of this discussion I think, and that is providing the history of the project and how we ultimately arrived at alternative 5, and really what this project means to the economic development in that northeast industrial area." In going through the PowerPoint presentation, Deputy City Manager Hohman explained that the Barker Road/BNSF grade separation replaces an at -grade intersection at Trent and an at -grade intersection with the BNSF tracks; said this has been a problem intersection for a long time and has been at a failing level of service for several years; that anyone trying to make a left turn from Barker onto westbound Trent knows this, and that anyone who gets stuck due to train traffic, ends up waiting for about three to four minutes for the train to pass. Mr. Hohman noted that the project is located in the northeast part of the city. He mentioned that it is a challenging area with Trent coming in a T -intersection with Barker, there are parts of Trent eastbound that continue straight, and westbound circles around the Wellesley fly -over, which is the bridge that bends to the north then back around to the south; there is also a steep hillside and a lot of rock in the way; there is a neighborhood to the north that has been there for some time and has a lot of development potential; and there are the railroad tracks and other associated roads to the south. Mr. Hohman noted the area also includes a lot of undeveloped property. On the aerial map, Mr. Hohman pointed out the northeast industrial area and the vacant properties that staff has been looking at advancing as part of the economic development process; he said there have been several initiatives throughout the last few years in this area; there are about 840 acres in this area, and 575 are vacant, although some of that is now being filled. Mr. Hohman explained that some of the local and regional benefits associated with this project include improved safety, eliminated at -grade railroad crossing, improved failing level of service, improved emergency access and reduced train noise, and that it predominately allows for industrial growth of the area, and he noted some of the data included in the table in the PowerPoint slide, and said that staff is hopeful the project would raise the 'F' existing level of service, to an 'A' level of service. Concerning an economic development impact for this project, Mr. Hohman stated that in 2015 we commissioned a study from ECONorthwest, and as a result, economic benefits would include about $2 billion in economic output for the state, 9,800 new jobs supported in the state, $12.3 million in new City general fund taxes, $50.8 million in new state general fund taxes, and would improve freight movements. Mr. Hohman explained that this project is the backbone of this industrial area and the issues in the area must be fixed. He stated that when we began the City's Economic Development Program in 2012, one of the things we noticed as we studied our economy was we had to diversify; he said the City is very dependent Special Council Meeting, Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT on sales tax revenue which can and has fluctuated greatly over the last ten years; that we are currently in a comfortable position concerning sales tax, but you never know when the next economic decline will occur. Mr. Hohman said that we have developed very strong partnerships with GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.), and Spokane County; that GSI is our Associate Development Organization that is tasked from the Department of Commerce to bring in recruits to this area, and to develop business in the region and they have been a great partner working on this particular area; that Spokane County provides sewer for the area and as we reconstruct roads, they install sewer at their cost to provide the sewer service needed by these industries; and he again stressed that future development of this area is contingent upon intersection improvements. Mr. Hohman spoke of the original concept from 2004, which is referred to as a diamond interchange; said there wasn't a lot of work done for several years and there was some federal earmarked funding that became available in 2010; he said we have revisited that over the year and the design has recently updated the cost, with today's projected cost at $41 million as compared to the previously cost of $36 million. Mr. Hohman noted that Barker comes up to the north and intersects Trent in an overpass, so the bridge would come up over the pass and stay over Trent, and there would be long ramps on each side, and that they would be long because of the grades necessary due to the elevation of Trent and the bridge being raised over Trent; also with this design is the northwest ramps cuts off existing access to the neighborhood so the connection shown in the project, going up to the north would have to be built. Mr. Hohman said this was one of the issues discussed over the years that if we did an interchange project, could that piece be cut off, and the design team just recently re-examined that and said that would not be possible as the ramp would come out and cut off the access, that would be an emergency access only, so more of a right -in, right -out and left turns would not be able to be made; so that north connection to the neighborhood would have to be built as part of this project. Mr. Hohman noted in the slide depiction, there is also quite a bit of infrastructure being removed which is a lot of work, and Wellesley Avenue would be re-routed to the south to get it away from the intersection. Mr. Hohman also noted there was not a lot of activity from about 2004 to 2016 concerning the design, but as more mature proposals are bring brought on the economic development program, staff knew this was a hindrance to that, necessitating looking at advancing the project. Mr. Hohman stated that there have been many discussions on the diamond interchange concept and the Bridging the Valley and whether there was 30% design completion; some environmental work had also been done at that time, so the hope was we could hire a consultant engineer to take that 30% design to full design completion, and we could rely on the environmental documentation, and get this project moving. However, he said, as staff looked into this further, they found that there really wasn't a 30% completion of the design, and what we had lacked detail. In order to initiate the project, Mr. Hohman explained, we would have had to had surveying done and then GEO technical work to make sure that whatever was built, would be have a solid foundation; but none of that work had been done. Mr. Hohman said that staff came to the realization that we were starting from scratch; that we had set aside $1.27 million for design and this was not the full cost to get a complete design, it was just what we could afford at the time; he said there were many unknowns about what that money would buy us, the numbers fluctuated, Council was not comfortable with the project, and in January 2017, Council ultimately rejected the motion to allow the City Manager to contract with the design firm. In February 2017 staff brought this back to Council, noting that staff had, in the meantime become aware of several concepts that were initiated several years prior by HDR Engineering; and ultimately Council directed that an alternative design be pursued. Mr. Hohman noted that members from WSDOT, including an individual expert in the design and construction of roundabouts, gave Council a presentation on roundabouts; that thereafter staff developed several potential concepts, and a phase one contract was awarded to the design team of HDR and DEA to examine those concepts in detail and develop potential costs. Mr. Hohman explained that in October 2017, and January of 2018, staff brought this to Council again and there was Council consensus to select Alternative #5. Mr. Hohman said HDR had some proposals for the project, and that was the basis for the start; he said that staff did not have any preconceived idea about Special Council Meeting, Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT which proposal would be best, but rather examined and analyzed the facts to come up with the alternatives; and he then n went over the various alternatives including pros and cons, design and approximate cost. Mr. Hohman said there were several public outreach meetings as shown on the various slides; that staff met with the Secretary of Transportation, which meeting was sponsored by Senator Padden, and attended by Senator Padden, Representative Shea, and WSDOT Secretary of Transportation Roger Millar; said the meeting included a bus tour and coincidentally during the bus tour, they got stuck for about four minutes waiting for a train to pass; he said the following week staff received a letter of support from Mr. Millar. Mr. Hohman stated that in addition to the other listed public meetings, staff spent time talking to individual business and property owners as well as the police and fire departments, Spokane Industrial Park, and Centennial Properties to describe the alternatives and gain feedback. Mr. Hohman also mentioned the public meeting/open house held October 18, 2017 with 123 people attending; he said most people were in favor of the project, with alternatives 1 and 5 as the top alternatives, and most did not like alternative 4 which would have shifted the traffic to the east; since the proposal mentions closing Flora to the south, Mr. Hohman said many businesses were concerned about that closing. Since roundabouts are fairly new to this region, Mr. Hohman said there were some public concerns, and some people were also concerned about what happens with the connection to the north. Mr. Hohman said that neighborhood has been looking for a second access, and it could be accommodated in the design process of alternative 5; and he said our consultants are analyzing that to see how much traffic could come from the north before it starts causing a problem; he explained that if we move forward to a phase 2 or a design process, we would have that connection analyzed so it would not be precluded in the future; he said our staff met with staff from Spokane County, and had a meeting with the owner of the property to the north and that is something we will continue working on; and said although we are showing a three-legged intersection, the possibility is that it could easily accommodate a fourth leg; and all this input, Mr. Hohman explained, led staff to recommend to Council back on January 30, that alternative 5 would be the preferred project to build. Concerning intersection safety, Mr. Hohman explained that putting in a signal on a state highway where previously there was none, causes problems; for example, he said the accident rate out at Flint Road on Highway 2 in Airway Heights has increased at that intersection since the installation of that signal; he mentioned that roundabouts outperform signalized intersections with fewer car and pedestrian collisions, about 75% fewer injury collisions because the speed is slower and there is no T-bone broadside conflict; and with a roundabout, there are about 90% fewer fatalities. Mr. Hohman mentioned the Project Specific Safety Analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers, that the existing intersection averages about 3.4 crashes a year and .8 fatal and injury crashes a year; that they did some projections out to the year 2040, and found that a signalized intersection would have a likely and potential increase of about 3.7 crashes a year and 1.3 fatal and injury crashes a year; but a roundabout would have about 2.3 crashes a year and only .3 fatal and injury crashes a year. Mr. Hohman said he realizes there are misconceptions about conflict points in a roundabout, and some estimates of conflicts points in the 200+ range, but City staff and DOT's expert in Olympia looked at this and determined there are seven merging conflict points, and three diverging conflict points; that we are proposing a dual -lane roundabout similar to the one near the casino in Airway Heights; comparing these ten conflict points to a similar intersection, DOT tells us there is a minimum of 32 conflict points in a signalized intersection in this same configuration. In further comparisons of roundabouts and signals, Mr. Hohman noted roundabouts have a better level of service, have reduced annual maintenance, reduced congestion, noise, and air pollution due to less idling; and he mentioned signals also cost for electricity and maintenance, and that about once a year, someone runs into the signal light and destroys the box, which he said is very expensive to repair. Mr. Hohman said we do not have someone in-house to maintain those traffic signals and since incorporation, we have contracted with Spokane County for that service; he said we also contract with DOT to do the signal work on that state highway, SR 27 and Pines. Mr. Hohman said for this particular location, we estimate we would be able to reduce maintenance between $5,000 and $10,000. Mr. Hohman acknowledged that there is an educational component of roundabouts; that according to DOT there is generally opposition before they are installed, but afterwards that shifts more positively; he Special Council Meeting, Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT said that DOT is planning on more roundabouts, including one on Highway 2, the Newport Highway at the new Costco facility under construction; and that a developer will be putting another on Highway 2 in Airway Heights as part of a development project. Concerning funding, Mr. Hohman explained that as the alternatives are examined, this is becoming a mature project, which means it has been analyzed, necessary engineering work has been done, and we are getting the necessary finances together for this estimated $19 million project; that if we were looking at a $41 million project, we would be very far from that, but in examining the figures noted on the slide, we are getting closer to the $19 million. Mr. Hohman noted state traffic concurrency is also an important part of this discussion; that concurrency is a state law which must be followed; that concurrency means that at the time of development, infrastructure needs to be in place or a plan needs to be in place to accommodate that development; that "concurrent with development" means that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. Mr. Hohman explained that the risk of not doing something here means that our ability to continue to permit projects is at risk. As noted on the PowerPoint slide, the local traffic concurrency (SVMC 22.20.020B) mirrors the state's concurrency. Mr. Hohman said that we have our consultant closely examining this issue; and whether that means if the project is not constructed within the six year time period, are there any other strategies we could put in place to continue to permit projects; he said this is a scary subject for us especially for those managing our economic development program; said we have had amazing success in 2017 to have two large manufacturers purchase property in this area; he said that over the past few days he has learned there is more interest, and staff met with GSI last Tuesday who indicated more people are interested and want to be located in this area. In summary, Mr. Hohman said we believe we have identified a fiscally responsible and attainable project; we need to finish the phase 1 analysis, which is the alternative analysis and part of that includes working with DOT to approve what's called the `basis of designs" so means all the different technical aspects of the project they are looking at, and we anticipated that to be approved for alternative 5; he said this is something we have coordinated with them all through this last year; our staff and DOT's engineers have discussed this and DOT's engineers have been a great help. Mr. Hohman said we realize additional public outreach is needed on this project, and we are planning accordingly; we believe we need to move forward into the design (phase 2) soon as we would like to initiate construction in 2020 or 2021; he said that some of the funds allocated to this project have an expiration date so we need to get moving; and that he hopes he has shown that we have done a lot of work and came up with a project that ensures that there is adequate infrastructure for not only today's time, but for full build -out as well; and that this allows us to continue with the very aggressive economic development efforts that we and GSI have done over the last few years. Councilmember Woodard asked concerning the development to the north, who has to ask who for access to that highway? Mr. Hohman replied that staff has discussed with Mike Gribner from the DOT and with Spokane County Engineer Chad Coles, and the County and the developer need to talk about what potential project they have, and then bring that to DOT through their development review process, which is the guidance Mr. Gribner gave the County; and that at the same time we have been involved to make sure we are being included in the coordination of these efforts. Mr. Hohman explained that we want to make sure that if we come forward with a three-legged project, that a fourth leg can be easily accommodated; however, he mentioned that the north part of this project is outside our jurisdiction so we will be working on an interlocal agreement with Spokane County to allow us to be in the position of acquiring that right-of-way, adding that we are also looking for different options for right-of-way agents since we don't have staff for that; and to make this happen, he said the City would have to buy some property, but we would accommodate any future connection in our design. Councilmember Wood asked if staff talked to trucking associations about the ability to maneuver that roundabout. Mr. Hohman said absolutely staff has talked to several companies, including Mr. Matt Ewers Special Council Meeting, Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT of Inland Empire Distributions in the Spokane Industrial Park, who is also on the board of FMSIB; and although staff hasn't spoken with him recently, he and staff did communicate throughout the gestation of this project and said Mr. Ewers is in favor of a roundabout in this location and also in other locations, and said we are currently studying the intersection of Sullivan and Wellesley, which is a high profile intersection, especially with the County working on the Bigelow Gulch project, which when fully constructed will divert traffic, including truck traffic to our City through that route; if one of the alternatives ends up being a roundaboutm the question is how would that impact trucking; and he said that Mr. Ewers thinks that is a good solution in that area, as does the School District. Mr. Hohman said staff also spoke with property owners and truck companies who understand the situation; he said if money were no object we would all likely prefer the larger project, even though for himself as an engineer, said he would have a hard time going that route because it is difficult to justify it as part of the engineering ethics, you need justification for such a large project. Mr. Hohman stated we have reached out and will continue to reach out to the community. Councilmember Wood asked if we would be bringing some of those companies forward to hear their comments. Mr. Hohman said we can do that; said he received an e-mail today from Doug Yost at Centennial Properties, noting that they are comfortable with the roundabout design and imploring us to move forward because they have a potential new project coming. Councilmember Wood asked if this design would impact the Del Rey entrance and Mr. Hohman said that alternative 5 will not, nor will it impact the Wellesley infrastructure. Concerning the bridge over Wellesley, Councilmember Wood commented that if we were to do that design that crosses over so much industrial land, which isn't very practical; that he would assume that bridge would need a lot of work since it has been in place for a long time. Mr. Hohman said the bridge is in very good condition and wouldn't need much; that some work is needed on the deck, but the width and elevations work, and it is a viable alternative in theory if it didn't shift all the traffic to the west. Councilmember Thompson said that BNSF has been talking about double tracking; and she asked how that would affect this project. Mr. Hohman explained this will accommodate it quite well; that the Bridging the Valley concept actually had width for six tracks, and a reason for that was that an important process in Bridging the Valley was that the idea was the Union Pacific tracks would be co -located in the same right- of-way as the BNSF thereby eliminating all those crossings along I-90, but in the subsequent years, the two railroads have parted ways on that project and we have confirmed that neither is interested in co -locating in the right-of-way; he said staff will bring more information back later about the double track process; that it had been rumored for several years but we learned about this in our meeting with BNSF only a few weeks ago; and they have initiated the process with an environmental checklist that staff has reviewed; he said staff learned that the double tracks in this area will be fairly close together, with an offset centerline to centerline about 16.5', so that means that for any of these alternatives, the bridges don't need to be as long, and said we have designed it with that thought in mind so these costs are accurate for that; and we found that the tracks won't be so wide that it impacts our design and forces us to a more expensive alternative. Mr. Hohman added that as staff brings this forward, there will be significant impacts to Sullivan and that is one of the things we learned, and the railroad stated that they would like to close Sullivan for a four to six month period; he said staff told the railroad that would be a significant issue for us and would cripple our economy in our industrial area; so those items need more discussion with BNSF, and staff will bring that to Council later with more details. Councilmember Wick asked for a quick summary to explain where we are now. Mr. Calhoun said staff has been working at this, and up until the last eleven days have been solely focused on advancing alternative 5 and working with the design team of DEA/HDR to develop that contract and bring it forward for Council approval; this has been a bit of a monkey wrench but perhaps a necessary monkey wrench as it gives another opportunity to vet through the community; he said that in Mayor Higgins' discussion with our legislative delegation last night prior to them actually agreeing to remove this language, said he thinks they were looking for some additional public meetings; and we are certainly willing to do that and will do so quickly as we don't want to put this project any further behind than we have to; ideally the big picture is we have a Special Council Meeting, Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT final design contract, we have that contracted design finished by the end of 2018 or early 2019; we go through the right-of-way acquisition in 2019, we are conceivably breaking ground as early as the end of '19, and certainly in 2020, so we don't want to slow this down at all. Mr. Calhoun said that as Mr. Hohman mentioned, some of this money, that $1.5 million that was awarded to us by the 2017 legislature, will have to be spent by June 30, 2019; and for the $6 million, we have to be committed for that by October 2020; so we are very aware of those deadlines. Mr. Calhoun said if Council is interested, we can schedule more public meetings in the near future; he mentioned this topic is scheduled for discussion at our March 13 meeting, and we plan to carry that forward again with a presentation very similar to tonight's, but we really want to be sure that the Council and the community understand how we arrived where we are, and that it was not presupposed that this would be a roundabout or presupposed that there was any particular design; we really entered this with an open mind after we abandoned the initial diamond interchange concept. In addition to the March 13 council meeting, Mr. Calhoun said we will have additional meetings where we will seek comment and that we hope to be back before Council March 20 or 27 at the latest, seeking a Council motion as to which direction we should proceed. It was also clarified that for the upcoming March 13 meeting, it will be a formal meeting so the public will have opportunity to comment. Councilmember Wick said to summarize, there were some proposed language changes at the state level that would have impeded some dollars, but now that language has changed provided we get some public comment, they will allow us to move forward with those dollars and allow us to get those dollars back for the project. He asked if this is correct, and Mr. Calhoun replied it is; that it is his understanding of Mayor Higgins' conversations with the delegation. Councilmember Wick said he knows we had some short notice for today's meeting and noted we have quite an audience; and he asked Mayor Higgins if it would be appropriate to allow some comment today to help our legislators get an early indication of what the public feels. Mayor Higgins said he feels that there are still some aspects in play and that might be a little premature, as the legislation session has closed and this has actually gone from the legislation. Councilmember Woodard commented that he has not been privy to any phone calls from any of the legislators or to any inside information; that he knows we have worked cooperatively with our fourth legislation delegation for years; we have helped them and they have helped us; they continue to be friends of our City and as they all live here they have personal interests in what goes on; he voiced his appreciation over the continued dialogue over the last few days and the continued openness to find paths to make sure they get the assurances they need as well as making sure we knew where we were going; and that he looks forward to the ongoing cooperation and partnership, and that he hopes this project will break ground in '19. Councilmember Wood said he spoke with Senator Padden last night who assured him that amendment has been removed from the bill; said that Senator Padden isn't "real fancy" about roundabouts, but nor is Senator Padden fancy about $41 million. Councilmember Wood said that if we had unlimited funds, the diamond interchange would be the better solution, but we don't have $41 million and will need a little time to get $19 million; and he said that Senator Padden's final conclusion was that a roundabout works just fine. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Council Meeting, Barker Grade 03/02/2018 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT Attendance: Councilmembers MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington March 6, 2018 Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mark Calhoun City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Bill Helbing, City Engineer Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Admin. Analyst Doug Powell, Building Official Dan Duffy, Accounting Manager Mike Basinger, Economic Dev. Mgr. Colin Quinn -Hurst, Sr. Transportation Planner Craig Aldworth, Sr. Engineer, Project Mgr. Carolbelle Branch, Public Info. Officer Mark Werner, Police Chief Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll, all Councilmembers were present. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. ACTION ITEMS: 1. First Reading Ordinance 18-006, False Alarm Code Amendment — Morgan Koudelka After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to advance Ordinance 18-006, amending the False Alarm Code, to a second reading. Sr. Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that this ordinance follows an administrative report given a few weeks ago where he explained that this amendment would add some clarification to our alarm system. Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Proposed Amendment 2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) — Colin Quinn -Hurst Mr. Quinn -Hurst explained about the TIP amendment process and that this would represent our first amendment to the 2018 TIP; that the amendment is necessary to show updated dollar amounts for projects, carry-over projects, and new projects, and he explained the various changes as per his PowerPoint presentation. Councilmember Woodard asked about some areas on the Appleway Trail, Pines to Evergreen that are flooded and will this include some of that cleanup. Mr Quinn -Hurst said he would have to research that question. After other brief discussion, including meeting deadlines and coordinating our projects with other entities, there was Council consensus to move this forward. Council Study Session: 03-06-2018 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT 3. Pines and Grace Intersection Safety Project- Gloria Mantz, Craig Aldworth Ms. Mantz introduced Mr. Craig Aldworth, Project Manager, who then went over the background for this intersection safety project, including its location, conditions, history, design, temporary traffic control, project cost and funding, and the tentative schedule. It was noted the hope is to move to construction in 2018. There was brief discussion about the vinyl fence and us asking the owner to remove it at their expense. Mr. Aldworth noted there are two fences; and the one on the northwest corner will be moved at the City's expense because we bought additional right-of-way and as part of the negotiation with that owner, we agreed to move the fence at City cost; he said staff came up with the same deal on the other fence but we could never agree on price so we don't have the right to be on their property, so the only way to move that fence and make the improvement would be through code enforcement. Ms. Mantz explained that the fence was built without a permit, with Mr. Lamb added that permitting was not required for that kind of fence in that location; however, they placed it without checking to see if it would be in the clearview triangle, and it is in a small portion of that clearview triangle. 4. Code Text Amendment, Small Cell Facilities — Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained about the proposed small cell deployment regulations and of our own proposed amendments; he discussed existing wireless monopole facilities versus small cell facilities and showed some depictions of different cell pole technology; explained some of the considerations for new Spokane Valley Regulations, and mentioned the associated upcoming franchisees. After Mr. Lamb went over some of the proposed amendments, Council concurred to move this forward to a first ordinance reading. 5. Accomplishments Report (2017) — Mark Calhoun Before getting underway with the report, Mr. Calhoun announced that we have just been notified that we were awarded $9 million in TIGER grant funds toward the Barker Rd project, which he said will provide us enough money to complete this entire project; said he does not know yet whether the grant requires a match, and that we will be working with our federal representatives and members from DOT concerning this specular news; he said this was quite a team effort. The Accomplishments Report started with an explanation from Mr. Calhoun of the 2017 Council Goals and the work done in association with each goal; he explained the Legislative and Executive departments, including the number of Council meetings and committees Council serve on; and moved into the City Clerk's Office with public record requests and information on records management. Sr. Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained about the contract administration; followed by an explanation of respective departments and areas of expertise from Human Resources Manager Whitehead, City Attorney Driskell, Accounting Manager Duffy (standing in for Finance Director Taylor), IT Specialist Phillip Kole; then City Engineer Helbig discussing community public works engineering, following by Mr. Hohman discussing Street issues; then Mr. Basinger for Economic Development. Mayor Higgins called for a brief recess at 8:00 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:07 p.m., at which time Building Official Powell went over the accomplishments associated with building and planning, followed by Parks & Recreation Director Stone reporting on the various aspects of Parks & Recreation, and ending with Chief Werner discussing the police accomplishments. Council thanked staff for the presentation and work; and City Manager Calhoun noted the remarkable amount of work accomplished through the joint effort of Council and staff. 6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 7. Council Check-in — Mayor Higgins Councilmember Thompson said that the first Youth Voice meeting will take place next Monday at CenterPlace, beginning at 5:30 for pizza; and she extended thanks to Carolbelle Branch for her assistance Council Study Session: 03-06-2018 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT with this event; that although only two students have signed up so far, Councilmember Thompson said it is her understanding that many will be attending. 8. City Manager Comments — Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun said that both he and City Attorney Driskell have been in contact with our lobbyists in Olympia; that although he is not aware of anything written yet concerning the prohibitive language on the Barker grade separation, he said our lobbyists assure us that language will not be in the bill proceeding through. Mr. Calhoun noted we had a special meeting on this topic March 2, 2018, and one week from tonight we will have an administrative report on this project, and although it will be an admin report, we will open the floor for public comments. Mr. Calhoun noted we are working with the Chamber of Commerce to host a meeting sometime next week, probably from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. in an effort to reach out to the business community, and said he anticipates this same presentation will be given at that time. Mr. Calhoun said that he hopes this issue will come back to Council again March 20 to ask Council for a motion to select a specific option, and assuming that alternative 5 is chosen, we will be back again March 27 seeking contract authorization. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session: 03-06-2018 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley Special Council Meeting 7:30 a.m. Friday, March 16, 2018 City of Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 10210 E. Sprague Ave., Spokane Valley, Washington Attendance: Spokane Valley Council Mayor Higgins Deputy Mayor Haley Councilmember Thompson Councilmember Wick Councilmember Wood Councilmember Woodard Absent: Councilmember Peetz Staff Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager Mike Basinger, Economic Dev. Mgr. Bill Helbig, City Engineer Colin Quinn -Hurst, Sr. Trans. Engineer Carolbelle Branch, Public Info. Officer Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. He welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked the Valley Chamber of Commerce for the donuts and coffee. Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Peetz. It was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Peetz from the meeting. 1. Overview: Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project — John Hohman, Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun said today's meeting is about the Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation Project and the surrounding infrastructure. He said Frank Tombari of the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce will moderate the meeting following the presentation and staff will be available after the meeting to answer questions. Deputy City Manager Hohman said we are here today because our fourth district legislators have concerns about the project and asked that the City do additional public outreach to get public comments about the project. He said this is the third meeting we have had, the first meeting a couple weeks ago did not have public comments but we had forty-five minutes worth of public comments at last Tuesday's Council meeting and we will take comments today and again at the March 27th Council meeting. Beginning the presentation, Mr. Hohman said the project is intended to get Barker Rd over the BNSF railroad tracks and improve the intersection at Barker and Trent. He said the project is located in the northeast section of the City and he said it is a strange intersection with various elements and it is a technically difficult project to fix from an engineering standpoint. He said the Northeast Industrial Area is about 840 acres and approximately 575 acres of undeveloped property. He said we have been successful in recruiting manufacturing companies and some of those acres are currently developing. He said some of the benefits to improving the intersection include improving safety and eliminating at -grade crossings. He said currently there is a failing level of service at Trent and Barker, at level "F," and there have been a number of injury accidents at the intersection. He said the City commissioned EcoNorthwest in 2015 to look at economic benefits of this area and determined at full build -out it is a very beneficial area for the community. He said the City began an Economic Development program in 2012 and an ad-hoc committee was commissioned by the Council that included Councilmember Wick and former Councilmember Grassel, to look at the economy and economic development efforts and we decided to focus on manufacturing. The City formed partnerships with GSI for recruitment and Spokane County for sewer improvements and environmental services, and we developed relationships with property owners in the area. He said staff developed a plan to address the shortfalls in roads and infrastructure and Council felt this was an Special Council Meeting, Barker/BNSF Grade Separation 03/16/2018 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT important area to develop and authorized the use of City funds to reconstruct Euclid Avenue, allowing the sewer lines into the area and providing the backbone to the system. He said without the grade separation project it is very hard to move anything into this area because by state law we have to have an ordinance that prohibits development if approval of the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below adopted standards in our Comprehensive Plan. He said the intersection at Trent and Barker is already at an "F" so it is hard to move anything forward without a plan for the deficiencies. He said the clock is ticking and per WAC 365-196-840(6)(a)(ii) we are to have the strategies in place to complete the improvements within six years. He said we have been working with a consultant for the last fourteen months and he then introduced Scott Marshall from HDR Engineering to discuss the Bridging the Valley plan and alternatives for the project. Mr. Marshall said he has been working on Bridging the Valley projects since 2011, and the original design for Barker was similar to the current diamond interchange alternative and included four bridges, three crossing the BNSF lines, including ramps and a roundabout to the north. He said they evaluated that plan and with that configuration it cost more than the $45.3 million of the diamond interchange. He said it did not seem like a practical or constructible option. The 2004 diamond interchange concept consisted of ramps realigning Wellesley to the south and a four -lane structure over the railroad tracks to accommodate six tracks, it included a six -lane bridge across Trent to accommodate heavy left-hand turn movements from Wellesley and Barker. The 2016 traffic analysis indicated the diamond interchange wasn't warranted based on the SRTC 2040 projections. He said the ramps are longer on the Barker diamond interchange design vs. the Sullivan Bridge due to the new WSDOT design standards and clearance needed for trains to pass under. Mr. Hohman said the City has had many discussions about the diamond interchange and assumed thirty percent of the design was completed but that was incorrect and he said we would be starting from scratch and we are now struggling to come up with funds for design. He said Council was uncomfortable with the design and the motion to approve the design contract failed in January, 2017. In February, he said staff was directed to pursue design alternatives and they considered approximately a dozen options with six that were the most favorable. He said there were a number of presentations to Council discussing the options. Mr. Marshall said the original design considerations had a crossing for six railroad tracks, three dedicated to BNSF and three to Union Pacific (UP). Since then, the two have decided not to collocate in the same corridor so that is no longer an option. He said they looked at different alignments, whether the alignment should be an overpass or underpass, and whether the intersection is controlled with a signal or a roundabout. Mr. Marshall briefly touched on the six alternatives detailed in the slides. Deputy City Manager Hohman said the City had a number of public outreach meetings in addition to the Council meetings in 2017 kicked off by a bus tour on October 4, 2017 sponsored by Senator Padden. He said the outreach meetings were targeted to connect with local individuals, property owners, emergency responders, trucking companies, the Industrial Park, and Centennial Properties. The public outreach meeting held on October 18, 2017, had over 120 people in attendance, most were favorable in moving a project forward and options 1 and 5 rose to the top. He said option 4 was not held in high favor because it was too far out of the way for access. He said some of the common concerns with the project included anticipation that Flora may have to be closed, impact on traffic flow with a roundabout, longer trips for Wellesley traffic in alternative 2 and 3, and many from the Highland Estates neighborhood expressed concerns with access to the neighborhood and impact of a diamond interchange to the neighborhood access point. He said an additional access point to the neighborhood is not part of this project or warranted by this project but the ability to connect to this project with a fourth leg is a possibility. He said it is out of the scope of the project and outside the City's jurisdiction because the neighborhood and the fourth leg access is in Spokane County. He said we have been in discussion with the County and WSDOT and that is continuing to be coordinated. City Engineer Helbig said the designs need to meet WSDOT standards in and through the evaluations and analyses they did, they found alternative 5 is the preferred alternative. He said it is estimated to cost $19 million in 2020 construction dollars and as far as intersection safety, roundabouts don't have the t -bone accidents that signalized intersections have, accidents in roundabouts are mostly sideswipes so there is very low property Special Council Meeting, Barker/BNSF Grade Separation 03/16/2018 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT damage cost and very low injury. He said in projecting a 2040 safety analysis, the signalized intersection accidents are much higher due to increased population and traffic and significantly decreased if a roundabout is utilized. He said once the public is used to the roundabouts, the perception is they find them to be better and they have a lower maintenance cost because they operate without electricity. Mr. Helbig said we have nearly $25 million in secured funding for the project, including FMSIB, TIGER and National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) funds to get started in 2020 with potential to finish the project in 2022. In summary, Mr. Hohman said staff looked at a lot of different alternatives for the project and focused again on the original design concept and found the other alternatives are not practical solutions. He said as engineers, we need to come up with designs that are practical, reasonable and meet the budget. He said we have coordinated efforts with WSDOT, stakeholders and the public, developed and evaluated alternatives and identified the fiscally responsible and attainable project solution, and he said for the cost of the diamond interchange option the City could build both the Pines Bridge separation project and Barker separation project alternative 5. He said when projecting full build -out, a roundabout works for today, 2040 and for years after 2040. Mr. Hohman said future growth in this area is dependent on moving forward with a solution and he said the clock is ticking and we could find ourselves at risk to permit development if we don't come up with a solution and build it. He said the NHFP and TIGER grant applications we received are dependent on alternative 5 or a similar design; he said we cannot use money from those grants for a diamond interchange so we would need to find alternative funds. He said we need to complete the conceptual work, conduct additional outreach and public meetings at this stage and throughout the design process. He said we will be looking for Council approval of the design concept on March 27 and for design approval at the following meeting. 2. Open Discussion: Facilitated by Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce Transportation Chair Mr. Frank Tombari Mr. Tombari thanked the City on behalf of the Chamber for allowing this dialog and opened the meeting to the public for questions. Commenter In Opposed Concern or Question & Response Demographic Favor Alt 5 Alt 5 Resident & Oversized loads: he asked if oversized loads can circumvent Business, roundabouts? Oversized Load Mr. Marshall said the dual -lane roundabout is designed to Operations accommodate two WB67 loads side by side, there may be a need for special flagging or a temporary closure but the oversized load truck can use the mounting apron, the roundabout will not have landscaping and will be concrete to be used by large trucks. Unspecified x Traffic Flow & Flora Closure: He said circles are disasters, he said currently traffic counts are 19,000 per day at that intersection and will grow, he asked how much of the circle is driven by funding rather than practicality of the diamond and wants to know why we would want to close Flora. Mr. Marshall said the closing of Flora has not been decided yet and the City is talking with BNSF about that. As an engineer, he said he thinks a roundabout is a really good idea, Liberty Lake is a good example, they are safer and because they are designing a dual lane roundabout, trucks will move safely as well. Mr. Hohman added that the City did not go into this project with any preconceived notions, they worked through the designs and analyzed them. The roundabout came in at about half the cost of the diamond interchange and he said as an engineer he can't ethically recommend to Council that we spend extra money on a project that is not warranted. Special Council Meeting, Barker/BNSF Grade Separation 03/16/2018 Approved by Council: Page 3 of 5 DRAFT Highland Estates x Traffic Flow & Safety: He said the public perception vs safety of Resident roundabouts: Federal Highway Transportation and other agencies "best practices" since the 1980's show roundabouts are safer and first responders move more quickly through roundabouts. Statistics from a study in the last year show that before roundabouts are built, 31% of people are for them and 41% are against but after they are built, 63% are for them and less than 15% are against. Business, x Traffic Flow & Safety: He said drivers at Sunshine Recyclers prefer the Sunshine roundabouts but they typically use them during off-peak hours. They Disposal are able to do a rolling stop through the roundabout rather than coming to a complete stop in a heavy vehicle and they are able to get moving again without holding up traffic behind them. He said roundabouts save maintenance costs on brakes and they are safe. He said a fatality incident occurred at a signalized intersection with one of their trucks when someone ran through the light and was hit by their truck. Highland Estates Highland Estates access: Peak -hour traffic on Del Rey already Resident difficult, why is a secondary access point not under consideration with this project? Mr. Hohman said connection to north Highland Estates is possible and has been considered but is outside the scope of this project. He said Whipple Engineering is working on a proposal and will discuss it with WSDOT; the intersection design is being done with potential access to link to the north. Business, WA Closure of Flora: would add traffic to Trent and limits access, he said Trucking & High he would like Flora to remain open. Mtn Horsepower Business, x Closure of Flora: he moves a lot of large loads from Flora onto Trent Wagstaff Inc. and employs 350+ people at his facility on Wellesley, would like Flora Resident to remain open. Agrees a roundabout is an improvement over the other options. Business, Barker Rd & Sewer: Asked for clarification on the design of Barker Precision Cutting Road lanes and asked if we can extend the County sewer with the Technologies additional funds at the same time. Mr. Hohman said full buildout of Barker is three lanes, a north, a south and center turn lane. He said it is $8 million to upgrade Barker from the terminus of the grade separation project to the river and the County has put three different segments of sewer extensions in their capital improvement budget and we are trying to get funding for the road to match that. He said we are not in a position to say if we have extra funds yet. Business, Valley x Traffic Flow: He thanked Council, state and federal representatives Hospital for their work on this project. He said he came from a Colorado community where every signal intersection was replaced with a roundabout and at first people were against them but after they were embraced by the community and traffic flowed much better. Resident Noise & Safety: He inquired as to train traffic numbers and whistles per day, he asked if they pertain to BNSF or are they combined with UP and he asked if adding a fourth leg would severely impact the number of collisions per day/year in comparing the diamond interchange with a three -leg roundabout. Mr. Hohman said the traffic accident statistics are today's numbers, staff would need to analyze the impact of adding a fourth leg and Special Council Meeting, Barker/BNSF Grade Separation 03/16/2018 Approved by Council: Page 4 of 5 DRAFT the statistics are for BNSF only. He said BNSF trains will increase but we don't know how much yet. Highland Estates x Highland Estates access: He said he thinks alternative 1 better Resident addresses the needs of the neighborhood but it is too costly. If the City goes with alternative 5 he would like it to include access to his neighborhood. Mr. Hohman said our traffic engineers have analyzed the three- legged roundabout and believe with the gaps in the traffic exiting the roundabout, it will not be a problem to Del Rey access onto Trent; however, he said, a fourth leg would help the situation at Del Rey. Highland Estates x Highland Estates access: He said he would like access to the Resident neighborhood to be included in alternative 5. County x Highland Estates access: She said the County is concerned and in Commissioner discussion with Spokane Valley to address the fourth leg. She is Kuney attending this meeting to listen to the concerns, the County takes them seriously, and they will look to see what they (at the County) need to do for a funding model. She said it is important to do the interchange for safety and economic development. Business, x He commented that the Liberty Lake roundabout turned out well and Centennial said he thinks a roundabout looks like a great, viable solution. He Properties said Spokane Valley has been great to work with, this is not an easy project, and thanked the City for their efforts. Business, Waste Safety: She thanked Council and staff for their hard work and said it Mgmt is important to look at this now and move forward. She said safety is a core value for Waste Management so anything the City can do to increase safety is appreciated. Business, x Highland Estates access: he said he has lobbied in support of the Development diamond intersection that allows access to Highland development and he would like to know what was in the TIGER grant that excludes the diamond interchange from funding. Business, x Roundabouts: She said the first weekend in June SRTC will have a Spokane panel on roundabouts as part of their education series for business Regional members that will include national experts to discuss emergency use, Transportation oversize loads, pedestrian issues and other topics pertaining to Council roundabouts. State Senator He thanked the Mayor and Council for having another outreach Padden session to listen to the concerns of the public. Mayor Higgins thanked the Spokane Valley Chamber for coordinating the meeting and again for the food and coffee, and he thanked Mr. Tombari for moderating. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:41 a.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk L.R. Higgins, Mayor Special Council Meeting, Barker/BNSF Grade Separation 03/16/2018 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA TITLE: Legislative Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Lobbyists Briahna Murray and Chelsea Hager of Gordon Thomas Honeywell will brief Council on the latest State Legislative Session. OPTIONS: Discussion only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time. COUNCIL/STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation 2018 LEGISLATIVE SESSION END OF SESSION REPORT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs Briahna Murray & Chelsea Hager 2018 SESSION OVERVIEW 60 -day short legislative session: FINISHED ON TIME Primary objective: adopt supplemental operating, capital, & transportation budgets:ALLTHREE BUDGETS ADOPTED Record number of bills introduced: 2,388 Democrats in control of House & Senate November 2018 Elections BUDGET SUMMARY February economic revenue forecast $1.2 billion of additional funds for the four-year budget outlook 2018 Operating Budget $935 million to provide a one-time property tax relief of .30 cents/$1,000 assessed valuation in 2019 Funding for teacher salaries to respond to the McCleary court decision to fully fund education in 2018 No new taxes (Capital Gains or Carbon) LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES Capital Budget: Appleway Trail Park Amenities Transportation Funding: Barker Road Grade Separation Project State Shared Revenues • Reforming the State's Regulatory Burden Abandoned/ Foreclosed Homes • Indigent Defense Funding 7 Marijuana Legislation Q Parental Rights Legislation CAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST ApplewayTrail ParkAmenities $540,000 included in 2017-2019 Capital Budget TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Barker Road Grade Separation Project $1.5 million in 2017-2019 Transportation Budget left unchanged in 2018 Supplemental Transportation Budget I-90/Barker/Henry/Harvard Additional $500,000 appropriated in 2017-2019 Ongoing support from legislative delegation to advance project schedule REFORMING THE STATE'S REGULATORY BURDEN No viable legislative solutions in 2018 2017 Carryover legislation did not advance House Bill 1013 — reducing SEPA redundancies ® House Bill 1014 — peer review of Ecology rulemaking ® House Bill 1328 — alternatives to rulemaking ® House Bill 1587 — transparency in rulemaking Interim state agency rulemaking efforts begin now! ABANDONED/FORECLOSED HOMES House Bill 2057 passes the Legislature after multi-year effort! A city can now determine if a home is: I) abandoned, 2) mid -foreclosure, and 3) a nuisance YES? 4 financial institution foreclosing on the property may access the home to abate the nuisance and secure the property If financial institution doesn't abate the property, a city can conduct a nuisance abatement action City can recover its costs by placing an unlimited, first -priority lien on the property MANY ATTEMPTS TO FUND INDIGENT DEFENSE House Bill 1 128, sponsored by Rep. Matt Shea passes Legislature $30 of civil arbitration filing fee goes towards indigent defense costs House Bill 2687 Would have increased indigent defense funding to local governments by 10% a year until it was fully funded by the State Bill died in Appropriations Committee Study Request Evaluation of felony and misdemeanor indigent defense costs and revenues Not included in budget proposals Senate Bill 6420 Fully fund indigent defense and decriminalize DWLS 3 Floor Amendment for $25 million towards indigent defense Not adopted in final budget MARIJUANA LEGISLATION: ALL BAD LEGISLATION DEFEATED Recreational Marijuana Home Growing House Bill 2259 — six marijuana plants per housing unit (24 ounces of usable marijuana) Bill died in fiscal committee Preemption of Local Authority to Ban Marijuana Retail Stores House Bill 2336 — Public vote required prior to banning marijuana retail stores Preemption of Local Authority on Medical Marijuana House Bill 2471 — Cities can't regulate medical marijuana co-ops without a grant of authority from the state PARENTAL RIGHTS LEGISLATION Senate Bill 5598 — "Grandparents Rights" Bill Passed Legislature What it does: Non -parent relatives may request court-ordered visitation with a child if: I) the relative and child have an ongoing and substantial relationship, and 2) denying visitation risks harm to the child. GTHGA signed in opposed to the bill throughout the legislative process Still, broad support in Olympia for bill (House vote: 56-42; Senate vote: 43-6) Parental Rights Bills that did not advance: House Bill 2840 — No vaccines with mercury House Bill 2841 —Vaccination risk information distribution House Bill 2842 - Notification of parents and guardians about immunization exemptions PLAYING DEFENSE MULTIPLE CHALLENGING BILLS Wrongful Death Occupational Diseases PostTraumatic Stress Disease Voting Rights Act AWC PRIORITIES Strengthen city tools to address housing conditions in our communities: HB 1570: Increases the $40 document recording fee to $62 and makes it permanent. HB 2057:Tools to address abandoned, foreclosed, & nuisance homes Enhance Economic Development Tools Preserve State -Shared Revenues & BLEA Funding SST Mitigation phase-out funded in 4 -year budget outlook All state -shared revenues protected; increase in marijuana revenue Two additional classes for BLEA funded Use of Body Worn Camera Legislation Passes Small Cell Technology Legislation is Defeated WHAT'S NEXT? Develop interim plans to prepare for the 2019-21 legislative biennium Watch November 2018 elections: Entire House/half of the Senate up for re-election Very narrow majorities October/November — Begin reaching out to legislators for 2019 session QUESTIONS? Briahna Murray (253) 310-5477 • bmurrayggth-gov.com Chelsea Hager (253) 359-0474 • chagerggth-gov.com CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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. 18-007 to adopt small cell deployment regulations. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Various Federal laws; chapter 35.99 RCW; RCW 35.21.860; chapter 22.120 SVMC. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At its February 14, 2017 workshop, Council heard an administrative report on small cell deployments generally. On December 19, 2017, Council heard a report on the proposed amendments. On March 6, 2018, City Council heard an administrative report. On March 13, 2018, City Council moved to advance the proposed ordinance to a second reading. BACKGROUND: Wireless telecommunication facilities are subject to a number of increasing federal and state laws. Further, wireless telecommunications are ever evolving, with new technologies and new business models continuing to be implemented. Currently, the wireless telecommunication providers are in the midst of rolling out "small cell" technology to meet growing bandwidth and data needs of their customers. The City has been working with the providers, a consortium, and internally to develop appropriate draft franchises and draft regulations to allow implementation of the small cell technology. The proposed regulations were presented to Planning Commission. Planning Commission considered the proposed regulations during its meetings on January 11, January 25, February 8, and February 22, 2018. The Planning Commission received substantial input from three small cell facility providers - Mobilitie, Verizon, and T -Mobile — through the Planning Commission's public hearing. Generally, the providers were supportive of the proposed regulations, although there were some comments to certain Planning Commission recommendations, as detailed below. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend the proposed amendments with several modifications for City Council consideration and approval. On March 6, 2018, City Council gave consensus to move the proposed amendments forward to a first reading. Of note, staff determined that an old version of the permitted use matrix was inadvertently used in prior drafts of the proposed amendments. Accordingly, proposed Ordinance No. 18-007 contains the updated permitted use matrix and associated amendments to SVMC 19.65.030 to provide that small cell deployments are subject to the supplemental regulations set forth in chapter 22.121 SVMC. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(G), City Council may modify the amendments recommended by Planning Commission and may determine to conduct a public hearing if the modification is "substantial." City staff believe that the modification is not substantive since it effects the same proposed change as before and thus is not substantial. History Wireless Technology. Historically, wireless communications have been provided through antenna arrays located on private property, either attached to large "monopoles" or attached to Page 1 of 5 existing structures, such as tall buildings or water towers. Monopoles can be upwards of 150 feet tall. An example of a monopole is the pole located east of City Hall adjacent to the Appleway Trail. The primary array is referred to as a "macrocell" and it delivers wireless transmissions to a large area. However, as one gets further from the macrocell, the signal gets weaker and becomes less reliable. Additionally, with the advent of smart phones, there has been an exponential increase in the demand for wireless data, and the macrocells have limits on the amount of data they can transmit. Accordingly, wireless telecommunications providers have developed technology to assist with the transmission of data from the macrocell and to boost the signal of the macrocell within the primary coverage area. This technology is referred to as "small cell" technology. It consists of smaller antennae located in various sites around the macrocell. It is referred to as "small cell" because the antennae generally are small and could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than three cubic feet. These cells are located on smaller structures, such as light poles, power poles, and other smaller poles between 30-60 feet tall. The small cells collect the wireless signals and retransmit those signals to the macrocells wirelessly (which requires line of sight) or through fiber. This "backfill" boosts the capacity, reliability, and speed of the macrocells for all customers. Legal Framework. Since historically wireless telecommunications were provided through macrocells, the City developed appropriate local regulations addressing the placement of macrocells on monopoles or existing private structures. These regulations are included in chapter 22.120 SVMC and provide for appropriate height limitations based upon the zone where the facility is located. There are also design standards that primarily involve stealth shrouding to minimize the aesthetic impact of the facilities. Federal law provided that cities could not effectively ban all wireless facilities through local regulations. Recent Federal law changes authorized providers to place certain facilities within public rights-of- way (ROW) and provided that cities could not preclude all wireless facilities. Additionally, the changes provided for specific timelines for local review of permit applications. Such timelines are in some instances different than existing permitting timelines under state and local law. With the recent federal changes, chapter 35.99 RCW is now applicable, as it governs placement of wireless telecommunication facilities within the public ROW. It allows cities to require master use permits for placement of wireless facilities within the public ROW. It also allows cities to require "use permits" in addition to the master use permit. It further provides that wireless facilities shall not interfere with the normal use of the public ROW and shall not interfere with the public health, safety, and welfare. Finally, it provides that cities cannot regulate services based upon content or the kinds of signals used, and cities cannot prohibit placement of wireless facilities within the City. Additionally, RCW 35.21.860 provides that cities may require site-specific charges for placement of certain new wireless facilities, replacement wireless facilities over 60 feet tall, and personal wireless facilities on city -owned structures, when such facilities are in the public ROW. Actions to date. In late 2015, the City was contacted by Mobilitie regarding placement of its small cell technology in the City's ROW. In 2016, the City joined a consortium of numerous cities in order to assist it with development of appropriate regulations. The consortium also provided education and assistance with development of draft wireless franchises. In 2017, the City was also contacted by Verizon and MCI Telecom regarding placement of small cell technology in the City's ROW. The City has been working with Mobilitie, Verizon, and MCI Telecom on negotiating a draft franchise. Proposed Ordinance No. 18-007 contains the results of all of the efforts to develop small cell regulations. Page 2 of 5 Draft Small Cell Regulations In developing the draft franchise and small cell regulations, City staff considered numerous factors. State and federal law prevents the City from prohibiting wireless facilities within the City's ROW. The City currently has a large number of varied facilities already existing within its ROW. These range from smaller power and light poles to large primary poles carrying lines from substations. There are numerous signs and trees throughout the ROW. Further, there are already existing power and cable boxes on the ground within the ROW. Thus, the addition of small cell facilities is not likely to create significant additional aesthetic impact. However, staff believes it is appropriate for the City to maintain some restrictions to ensure the ROW remains available for its intended use and that such facilities do not negatively impact the public health, safety, or welfare. Finally, staff was cognizant that specific state and federal timelines apply to processing of wireless facility permits, so ease of permit processing was important. Draft Small Cell Regulations. Specific changes are discussed below. Appendix A: Definitions were added related specifically to the small cell and timeline provisions. SVMC 17.80.030: Table 17.80-1 — Permit Type and Land Use Application was modified to provide that small cell permits are Type I permits subject to the permit processing requirements of chapter 17.80 SVMC except as otherwise required by federal and state law and as subject to any applicable time periods as set forth in newly proposed chapter 22.122. SVMC 19.60.050: The permitted use matrix was modified to permit "small cell deployments" in all zones subject to the supplemental regulations set forth in newly proposed chapters 22.121. As described above, staff determined that an old version of the permitted use matrix had inadvertently been used in prior drafts of the proposed amendments. Proposed Ordinance No. 18-007 contains the correct permitted use matrix. SVMC 19.65.030: As described above, staff determined that an old version of the permitted use matrix had inadvertently been used in prior drafts of the proposed amendments. To effect the same change as occurred in prior drafts, the amendment to SVMC 19.65.030 provides that small cell deployments are subject to the supplemental regulations set forth in newly proposed chapters 22.121 SVMC. Chapter 22.120 SVMC: Chapter 22.120 currently exists and governs all wireless telecommunications within the City. It primarily address macrocell and monopole siting. The proposed amendments to chapter 22.120 SVMC remove small cell services from chapter 22.120 SVMC. Further, the amendments update Table 22.120-1 — Tower Height Limitations to address the zone changes that occurred in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update process to remove nonexistent zones and update zone name changes as appropriate. Newly proposed chapter 22.121 SVMC: A new chapter 22.121 SVMC is proposed to govern all small cell services and facilities. • In accordance with state law, the amendments provide regulations for applying for "master use permits," which are in the form of franchises. Franchises are agreements between the utility provider and the City and are approved in ordinance form by the City Council. However, by having them as "master use permits," it allows the City to better control its ROW and ensure there are not unknown utility providers trying to place small cell deployments in the ROW. • In addition to the master use permit requirement, the deployment of specific small cell facilities requires a small cell permit. Small cell permits are designated as a Type I permit. The provider may include up to 30 small cell facility locations per small cell permit application. Small cell permit applications require: Page 3 of 5 - Sites to be located with a description of the facilities to ensure compliance with design standards; - A copy of the valid franchise or evidence that it is being processed concurrently; - Elements of the small cell deployment that are "collocations" or "eligible facilities requests," which are subject to the unique review periods must be identified; - A declaration from an RF Engineer regarding conformity with applicable FCC regulations on frequencies used; - Necessary environmental checklists for SEPA; and - Evidence of authorization from other utility providers if the small cell facilities will be located on the other providers' utility poles or facilities. Applicant must also provide evidence that the small cell facility design will not impact the structural integrity of the utility pole on which it is placed. • Small cell facilities are subject to design and concealment standards. These include: - For new poles, integration into the new pole unless technically infeasible. - For existing poles, integrated into the existing design of the pole, with external projections limited to the greatest extent technically feasible. Vertical projections are limited to fifteen feet above the pole. Antenna and antenna enclosure size is limited to three cubic feet in volume. "Unified design enclosure" that contains both the antenna and equipment in one enclosure in a unit that is up to six cubic feet in volume is allowed in lieu of separate antennae and primary equipment enclosures. - External projections shall be painted a color to resemble and match the pole. - Small cell facilities shall not interfere with the normal use of the pole and shall not interfere with the normal use of the ROW. - Small cell facilities must be located at least 20 feet above grade unless technically infeasible. - Primary enclosures shall be no larger than seventeen cubic feet except for certain metering and other equipment which may be allowed on the outside of the enclosure. - Ground based enclosures shall be buried or locked and integrated into the surroundings unless technically infeasible, shall not be located in an improved street or sidewalk, and shall not be located in a stormwater facility, including stormwater swales. - Advertising is not allowed on small cell facilities and no artificial lights are allowed, unless required by the FAA. - Small cell facilities are not permitted in public parks. - Small cell facilities must be located at least 250 feet apart unless technically infeasible. If required to be within 250 feet, the provider is required to use a good faith effort to collocate the new facility on the pole with the existing facility. If collocation is not possible, then new facilities within 250 feet would be allowed. Newly proposed chapter 22.122 SVMC: A new chapter 22.122 SVMC is proposed to provide for appropriate permit review timelines for certain wireless telecommunication facilities. • Specifies the City must review and approve an "eligible facilities request" within 60 days of receipt of a complete application. Eligible facilities are defined under federal law and Appendix Page 4 of 5 A as "request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station." • Specifies City must review and process an eligible "collocation" application within 90 days of receipt of a complete application. Eligible collocations are defined under federal law and Appendix A as "mounting or installation or transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communication purposes." • Specifies that new wireless communications facilities shall be processed within 150 days of receipt of a complete application. As a note, SVMC 17.80.130 requires the City to issue decisions on Type I permits within 60 days and Type 11 and Type III permits within 120 days after fully complete applications are received. Washington Legislative Amendments The Washington Legislature did not adopt any small cell legislation during the recent Legislative session. OPTIONS: Approve proposed Ordinance No. 18-007 adopting small cell deployment regulations, with or without further amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 18-007 adopting small cell deployment regulations. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown, but likely not applicable as small cell facilities are privately owned, installed, and operated. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 18-007 2. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations 3. Staff Report to Planning Commission 4. Minutes from January 11, January 25, and February 8 Planning Commission meetings 5. Written comments from Mobilitie, Verizon, and T -Mobile Page 5 of 5 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING SMALL CELL FACILITY REGULATIONS BY AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 17.80.030, 19.60.050, AND 19.65.030, AMENDING APPENDIX A, AMENDING CHAPTER 22.120 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTING CHAPTERS 22.121 AND 22.122 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley (City) has authority to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary, and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws;" and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, the City Council "shall have all powers possible for a city or town to have under the Constitution of this state, and not specifically denied to code cities by law," including, but not limited to, "acquisition, sale, ownership, improvement, maintenance, protection, restoration, regulation, use, leasing, disposition, vacation, abandonment or beautification of public ways...;" and WHEREAS, chapter 35.99 RCW authorizes the City to adopt a system for permitting use of public right-of-ways by telecommunications service companies, including authorizing master use permits, use permits, and adopting certain other necessary regulations; and WHEREAS, federal law and regulations set time limits on the processing of applications for eligible facility requests to expand new and existing wireless communications facilities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted chapter 22.120 SVMC to regulate wireless communication facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined adoption of regulations governing placement of small cell facilities is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and such regulations are necessary and desirable; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, on December 28, 2017, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified at least 60 days in advance of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2018, the Planning Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 2018, and January 12, 2018, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAs, on January 25, 2018, and continued to February 8, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report followed by deliberations and provided a recommendation; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2018, the Planning Commission approved the findings and recommendations; and Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 1 of 25 DRAFT WHEREAS, on March 6, 2018, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2018, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the amendments bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, and welfare and protection of the environment. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend SVMC Appendix A, 17.80.030, 19.60.050, and 19.65.030, chapter 22.120 SVMC, and to add new chapters 22.121 and 22.122 SVMC to add regulations to govern installation, placement, and permitting of small cell facilities within the City. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and recommended approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Planning Policies, set forth below. Goal ED -G1: Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. Policy ED -P8: Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. Policy ED -P15: Pursue technology-based solutions that improve assistance to businesses. Goal LU -G1: Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. Goal LU -G2: Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Goal CF -G1: Coordinate with special districts, other jurisdictions, and the private sector to effectively and affordably provide facilities and services. Goal U -G1: Coordinate with utility providers to balance cost-effectiveness with environmental protection, aesthetic impact, public safety, and public health. Policy U -P1: Promote the efficient co -location of new utilities. Policy U -P2: Promote the development of citywide communication networks using the most advanced technology available. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 2 of 25 DRAFT Section 3. hereto. Policy U -P5: Require the placement of cellular facilities, substations, and antennas in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on adjacent land uses and utilizes existing structures. Policy U -P6: Coordinate with utility providers to ensure that sizing, locating, and phasing of utility systems are appropriate for planned growth. Policy U -P8: Encourage the construction and maintenance of utility, communications, and technology infrastructure that will help attract business and industry. C. Conclusions The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F). Amendment. SVMC Appendix A is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached Section 4. Amendment. SVMC 17.80.030 is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto. Section 5. Amendment. SVMC 19.60.050 is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto. Section 6. Amendment. SVMC 19.65.030 is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto. Section 7. Amendment. Chapter 22.120 SVMC is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto. Section 8. Adoption. Title 22 SVMC is hereby amended by adding a new chapter, to be designated "Chapter 22.121 Small Cell Deployment," as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto. Section 9. Adoption. Title 22 SVMC is hereby amended by adding a new chapter, to be designated "Chapter 22.122 Wireless Communications and Small Cell Facility Review Periods," as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto. Section 10. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of the SVMC not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 11. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 12. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after the publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 3 of 25 DRAFT Passed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley this 27 day of March, 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 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 4 of 25 DRAFT EXHIBIT "A" APPENDIX A — DEFINITIONS Radio/TV broadcasting studio: Facilities serving the broadcast media. See "Communication facilities, use category." Repeater facility: A facility for the noncommercial reception and retransmission of radio signals. See "Communication facilities, use category." RF Engineer: A person who is qualified with education, training and experience in wireless communication services, radio frequencies, and FCC and other applicable governmental regulations to provide the necessary certification(s) required pursuant to chapter 22.121 SVMC. Telecommunications: The transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of audio and/or visual information and data of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. • Alternative mounting structure: A water tower, manmade tree, clock tower, church steeple, bell tower, utility pole, light standard, freestanding sign, flagpole, or similar structure designed to support and camouflage or conceal the presence of telecommunications antennas. • Antenna: Any exterior apparatus designed for telephonic, radio, data, Internet or other communications through the sending and/or receiving of radio frequency signals including, but not limited to, equipment attached to a tower, pole, light standard, utility pole, building or other structure for the purpose of providing wireless services. Types of antennas include: - An "omni -directional antenna" receives and transmits radio frequency signals in a 360 -degree radial pattern; - A "whip antenna" is an omni -directional antenna that is up to 15 feet in height and no more than six inches in diameter; and - A "directional or panel antenna" receives and transmits radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattern of less than 360 degrees.A structure or device used to collect or radiate radio, television, or microwave electromagnetic waves, including directional antennas, such as panels, wireless cable and satellite dishes, and omni directional antennas, such as whips, but not including satellite earth stations or noncommercial antennas installations for home use of radio or television. • Antenna Height: The vertical distance measured from average building elevation to the highest point of the antenna, or if on a rooftop or other structure, from the top of the roof or structure to the highest point of the antenna. For replacement structures, antenna height is measured from the top of the existing structure to the highest point of the antenna or new structure, whichever is greater. • Approved small cell facility: Any small cell facility that has received all required permits. • Array: An arrangement of antennas and their supporting structure. • Base Station: A structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC -licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein nor any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without limitation: - Equipment associated with wireless communications services as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. - Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS") and small-cell networks). Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 5 of 25 DRAFT - Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the City, supports or houses equipment described above that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing that support. The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the City, does not support or house equipment described above. • Collocation: The mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communication purposes.A single telecommunications tower and/or site used by more than one telecommunications service provider. • Concealment technology: Transmission facilities designed to look like some feature other than a wireless tower or base station or which minimizes the visual impact of an antenna by use of nonreflective materials, appropriate colors and/or a concealment canister or enclosure. • Dish: A parabolic or bowl shaped device that receives and/or transmits signals in a specific directional pattern. • EIA -222: Electronics Industries Association Standard 222, "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antennas Support Structures." • Electric transmission: A self-supporting structure in excess of 50 feet in height designed to support high voltage electric lines. This does not include local utility or distribution poles (with or without transformers) designed to provide electric service to individual customers. • Eligible Facilities Request: Any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving: - Collocation of new transmission equipment; - Removal of transmission equipment; or - Replacement of transmission equipment. • Eligible support structure: Any tower or base station as defined in this section, provided that it is at the time the relevant application is filed with the City, houses or supports an antenna, micro cell or small cell deployment. • Equipment structure: A facility, shelter, cabinet or vault used to house and protect electronic or other associated equipment necessary for processing wireless communications signals. "Associated equipment" may include, for example, air conditioning, backup power supplies and emergency generators. • Existing: A constructed tower or base station is existing if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and reviewed because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of chapter 22.122 SVMC. • Guyed, tower: Any telecommunications tower supported in whole or in part by cables anchored to the ground. • Height: The distance measured from grade to the highest point of any and all components of the structure, including antennas, hazard lighting, and other appurtenances, if any. • Microcells: Has the same meaning as set forth in RCW 80.36.375, as now adopted or hereafter amended. • Monopole: A self-supporting telecommunications tower, which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the ground and/or attached to a foundation. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 6 of 25 DRAFT • Other support structure: A structure used to support small cell facilities or equipment structures, excluding buildings, utility poles, and water reservoirs. Examples of "other support structures" include flagpoles and ball field light standards. • Panel: An antenna which receives and/or transmits signals in a directional pattern. • Prior approval: Certification of approval(s) from the City authorizing the initial installation of a specific wireless carrier's small cell facilities on a base station or tower. Prior approval may also include the subsequent approval(s) from the City authorizing modifications to the initial installation that have resulted in the existing state of the small cell facility including, but not limited to, the number and location of equipment structures, antennas, antenna support structures, and ancillary equipment. • Self-supporting lattice tower: A telecommunications tower that consists of an open network of metal braces, usually triangular or square in cross-section. • Service: The offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used. • Service provider: Has the same meaning as set forth in RCW 35.99.010(6) as now adopted or hereafter amended. Service provider shall include those infrastructure companies that provide telecommunications services or equipment to enable the deployment of personal wireless services. • Small cell and small cell deployment: Have the same meaning as set forth in RCW 80.36.375, as now adopted or hereafter amended. • Stealth: A telecommunications antenna that is effectively camouflaged or concealed from view. • Substantial change: A modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria: - For towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, it increases the height of the tower by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases the height of the structure by more than 10% or more than ten feet, whichever is greater; - For towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure by more than six feet; - For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four cabinets; or, for towers in the public rights-of-way and base stations, it involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-existing ground cabinets associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are more than 10% larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; - It entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site; - It would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure; or - It does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment, provided, however, that this limitation does not apply to any modification that is non-compliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified above. • Telecommunications antenna: An antenna used to provide a telecommunications service. This excludes lightning rods, private mobile radio systems, amateur radio antennas less than 35 feet in height Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 7 of 25 DRAFT in residential districts and 50 feet in height in nonresidential districts, and whip antennas less than four inches (10 cm) in diameter and less than 10 feet in height. • Telecommunications service: Has the same meaning as set forth in RCW 35.99.010(7), as now adopted or hereafter amended. • Tower: Any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC -licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul and the associated site. A "tower" shall not include a replacement utility pole as authorized by a lease with the City, a franchise or a Small Cell Permit.A self supporting or guyed structure more than 20 feet in height, built primarily to support one or more telecommunications antennas. Does not include ham operator or wind turbine support towers. • Transmission equipment: Equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC -licensed or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. • Unified design enclosure: Concealment of antennas and equipment within a single enclosure. • Utility pole: A structure designed and used primarily for the support of electrical wires, telephone wires, television cable, traffic signals, or lighting for streets, parking areas, or pedestrian paths. • Whip antenna: An omni directional dipole antenna of cylindrical shape which is no more than six inches in diameter. • Wireless: Having no wire or wires, operating by means of transmitted electromagnetic waves. Tower, ham operator: A structure less than 75 feet in height above grade used for two-way communication for hobby or emergency service purposes by private individuals. See "Communication facilities, use category." Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 8 of 25 DRAFT Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures 17.80.030 Assignment of development application classification. A. Assignment by Table. Land use and development applications shall be classified pursuant to Table 17.80- 1 below: Table 17.80-1— Permit Type and Land Use Application Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross - Reference Type I Accessory dwelling units 19.40 Administrative determinations by city manager or designee or building official Multiple Administrative exception 19.140 Administrative interpretation 17.50.010 Boundary line adjustments and eliminations 20.80 Building permits not subject to SEPA 21.20.040 Floodplain development 21.30 Grading permits 24.50 Home business permit 19.65.180 Shoreline letter of exemption 21.50 Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan 20.60.040 Right-of-way permits 22.130.100 Site plan review 19.130 Small cell permit 22.121; 22.122 Temporary use permit 19.160 Time extensions for preliminary subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan 20.30.060 Type II Alterations — preliminary and final subdivisions, short subdivisions, binding site plans 20.50 Binding site plan — preliminary and final 20.50 Binding site plan — change of conditions 20.50 SEPA threshold determination 21.20.060 Shoreline conditional use permit 21.50 Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review 21.50 Shoreline substantial development permit 21.50 Shoreline variance 21.50 Short subdivision — preliminary and final 20.30, 20.40 Preliminary short subdivision, binding site plan — change of conditions 20.30 Wireless communication facilities 22.120 Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 9 of 25 DRAFT Type III Conditional use permits 19.150 Planned residential developments 19.50 Plat vacation 20.70.020 Preliminary subdivision — change of conditions 20.50 Subdivisions — preliminary 20.30 Variance 19.170 Zoning map amendments (site-specific rezones) 19.30.030 Type IV Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments (text and/or map) 17.80.140 Area -wide zoning map amendments 17.80.140 Development Code text amendments 17.80.150 B. Assignment by City Manager or Designee. Land use and development applications not defined in Table 17.80-1 shall be assigned a type based on the most closely related application type by the city manager or designee, unless exempt under SVMC 17.80.040. When more than one procedure may be appropriate, the process providing the greatest opportunity for public notice shall be followed. C. Shoreline letters of exemption, shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, shoreline variances, and shoreline nonconforming use or structure review shall be processed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.80 SVMC, subject to any additional or modified procedures provided in Chapter 21.50 SVMC, Shoreline Regulations, including submittals, completeness review, notices, hearings, and decisions. D. Small cell permits and wireless communication facilities shall be processed pursuant to the procedures set forth in chapter 17.80 SVMC except as may otherwise be required pursuant to federal and state law, including but not limited to 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012) and chapter 35.99 RCW. Chapter 22.122 SVMC specifies applicable time periods for review and processing of eligible facilities requests, collocations, small cell permits, and new wireless communication facilities. DE. Except as provided in Table 17.80-1, change of conditions for permits shall be processed the same as the original permit type. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 10 of 25 DRAFT SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 11 of 25 Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC MU I POS Communication Facilities Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P Repeater facility P P P P P P PP Small cell S S S SS S S SSS S deployment Telecommunication wireless antenna array S S S SS S S SS S Telecommunication wireless support tower S S S SS S S SS S Tower, ham operator S S S SS S S SS S Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 11 of 25 DRAFT SVMC 19.65.030 Communication Facilities. A. Small Cell Deployment. Small cell deployments shall comply with the provisions of chapter 22.121 SVMC, Small Cell Deployment. AB. Telecommunication Wireless Antenna Array. Telecommunication wireless antenna arrays shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 22.120 SVMC, Wireless Communication Facilities. DC. Telecommunication Wireless Support Tower. Telecommunication wireless support towers shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 22.120 SVMC, Wireless Communication Facilities. CD. Telecommunication wireless support towers located in a residential or multifamily zoning district require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC. DE. Tower, Ham Operator. 1. A building permit for the private tower is required; 2. The applicant shall submit a site plan showing the height and location of the private tower; 3. The applicant shall furnish a copy of the tower manufacturer's construction and erection specifications; 4. The private tower shall be erected in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications; 5. The applicant shall demonstrate the impact area (that area in all directions equal to the tower's height above grade) is completely on his/her property. Up to one-half of the tower's impact area in distance may be administratively approved if located on adjacent property pursuant to the administrative exception process contained in Chapter 19.140 SVMC or if the applicant has secured the appropriate easements for all property within the tower's impact area if not entirely within his/her ownership. Such easements shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor with a statement that only the City may remove the recordation; 6. A residence shall be on the same site as the private tower, except for a private repeater facility or remote base operations; and 7. The height limitation of the zone shall not be exceeded without approval of a variance or administrative exception as either may respectively pertain. EF. Tower (does not include wireless communications support tower), provided: 1. A conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC is approved; 2. The tower base shall be enclosed by a fence not less than six feet in height with a locking gate; 3. The tower shall have a locking trap door or the climbing apparatus shall stop 12 feet above the ground; Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 12 of 25 DRAFT 4. The tower collapse or blade impact area shall lie completely within the applicant's property or within an adjacent property for which the applicant has secured and recorded an easement(s) for all property in the tower's impact area; and 5. Before issuance of a conditional use permit, the applicant shall have demonstrated all the applicable requirements of the FCC, FAA and any required avigation easements can be satisfied. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 13 of 25 DRAFT Chapter 22.120 SVMC Wireless Communication Facilities 22.120.010 Purpose and intent. These standards were developed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and minimize visual impacts on residential areas, while furthering the development of wireless communication services. These standards were designed to comply with the Telecommunication Act of 1996. The provisions of this sectionchapter 22.120 SVMC are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting wireless communication services. Chapter 22.120 SVMC shall cover all wireless communication services other than small cell services, which are regulated pursuant to chapter 22.121 SVMC. 22.120.020 Permits and exemptions. Where a transmission tower or antenna support structure is located in a zoning district which allows such use as a permitted use activity, administrative review, and a building permit, shall be required, subject to the project's consistency with the development standards set forth in SVMC 22.120.040. In instances where the use is not allowed as a permitted use activity, a conditional use permit and building permit shall be required in addition to a demonstration of consistency with all required development standards. Exemption: Wireless radio utilized for temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster is exempt from the provisions of this section and shall be permitted in all zones. 22.120.030 Required application submittals. All applications for wireless antenna arrays and wireless communication support towers shall include the following: A. A letter signed by the applicant stating that all applicable requirements of the FCC, the FAA, and any required avigation easements have been satisfied. B. A scaled site plan clearly indicating the location, type and height of the proposed tower, antennas, on- site land uses and zoning, adjacent land uses and zoning, adjacent roadways, proposed means of access, setbacks from property lines, elevation drawings of the proposed tower, the equipment structure, fencing, buffering and the type of stealth technology which will be utilized. The full, detailed site plan shall not be required if the antenna is to be mounted on an existing structure. C. The applicant shall have performed and provided a photographic simulation of the proposed facility from all affected properties and public rights-of-way. D. The applicant shall provide copies of any environmental documents required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). E. The applicant shall have demonstrated effort to co -locate on an existing support tower or other structure. New support towers shall not be permitted within one mile of an existing support tower unless it is demonstrated that no existing support tower or other structure can accommodate the proposed antenna array. The City reserves the right to retain a qualified consultant, at the applicant's expense, to review the supporting documentation for accuracy. F. Evidence to demonstrate that no existing support tower or other structure can accommodate the proposed antenna array may consist of the following: 1. No existing support towers or other structures are located within the geographic areas required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 14 of 25 DRAFT 2. Existing support towers or other structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. 3. Existing support towers or other structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna array and related equipment. 4. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing support towers or other structures, or the antenna on the existing support towers or other structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna. G. The applicant of a new tower shall provide a signed statement stating the applicant has provided notice to all other area wireless service providers of its application to encourage the co -location of additional antennas on the structure. H. A signed statement from the owner and/or landlord to remove the facility or obtain another permit for the facility within six months of when the facility is no longer operating as part of a wireless communication system authorized and licensed by the FCC. I. Proof that all the necessary property or easements have been secured to assure for the proper construction, continued maintenance, and general safety of the properties adjoining the wireless communication facility. 22.120.040 Design standards. The support tower, antenna array, and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment shall be installed using stealth technology. Stealth technology applies to all personal wireless service facilities, including, without limitation, antennas, towers and equipment structures. For any facility, stealth technology means the use of both existing and future technology through which a personal wireless service facility is designed to resemble an object which is already present in the local environment, such as a tree, streetlight, or traffic signal. It also includes: A. For personal wireless service support towers: 1. If within existing trees, "stealth technology" means: a. The tower is to be painted a dark color; b. Is made of wood or metal; and c. A greenbelt easement is required to ensure permanent retention of the surrounding trees. 2. Stealth technology for towers in a more open setting means that they must have a backdrop (for example, but not limited to, trees, a hillside, or a structure) on at least two sides, be a compatible color with the backdrop, be made of compatible materials with the backdrop, and that architectural or landscape screening be provided for the other two sides. If existing trees are the backdrop, then a greenbelt easement is required to ensure permanent retention of the surrounding trees. 3. Antennas shall be integrated into the design of any personal wireless service tower to which they are attached. External projections from the tower shall be limited to the greatest extent technically feasible. 4. For rooftop antennas or antennas mounted on other structures: a. For omni -directional antennas 15 feet or less above the roof, stealth technology means use of a color compatible with the roof, structure or background; b. For other antennas, stealth technology means use of compatible colors and architectural screening or other techniques approved by the City. B. For antennas mounted on one or more building facades, stealth technology means use of color and materials such that the facility has architectural compatibility with the building. It shall be mounted on a Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 15 of 25 DRAFT wall of an existing building in a configuration as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted. C. For equipment structures, stealth technology means locating within a building, or if on top of a building, with architecturally compatible screening. An underground location, or above ground with a solid fence and landscaping, is also considered stealth technology. D. Advertising or display shall not be located on any support tower or antenna array; however, the owner of the antenna array shall place an identification plate indicating the name of the wireless service provider and a telephone number for emergency contact on the site. E. No artificial lights other than those required by FAA or other applicable authority shall be permitted. All security lights shall be down -shielded, and installed to be consistent with Chapter 22.60 SVMC. F. The facility shall be enclosed by a site -obscuring secured fence not less than six feet in height with a locking gate. No barbed wire or razor wire shall be permitted. G. The support tower foundations, equipment shelters, cabinets or other on -the -ground ancillary equipment shall be buried below ground or screened with a site -obscuring secured fence not less than six feet high. The requirement for a site -obscuring fence may be waived provided the applicant has secured all on -the -ground ancillary equipment in a locked cabinet designed to be compatible with and blend into the setting, and the means of access for the support tower is located a minimum of 12 feet above the ground. H. All support structure(s) for wireless communication antennas shall have their means of access located a minimum of eight feet above the ground unless the requirement for a fence has been waived. I. The support tower shall meet the minimum primary structure setback requirements for the underlying zone. J. Support towers shall not be permitted inside a public park, public monument or private holding located within a public park or public monument. K. The height of the support tower or antenna array above grade shall not exceed the maximum height identified in Table 22.120-1 below. The height of a support tower shall include antenna, base pad, and other appurtenances and shall be measured from the finished grade of the parcel. Table 22.120-1— Tower Height Limitations Zone Antenna Array Support Tower R-1, Single -Family Residential Estate 20 feet above the zoning height limitation or 16 feet above existing structure 60 feet R-2, Single -Family Residential Suburban R-3, Single -Family Residential Urban R 11, Single Family Residential Urban MFR-, Multifamily Residentialedium Density Residential Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 16 of 25 DRAFT Table 22.120-1- Tower Height Limitations Zone Antenna Array Support Tower MF 2, High Density Residential Mixed Use Ccntcr 20 feet above the zoning height limitation or 16 feet above existing structure 60 feet (MUG) Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) City Ccntcr (CC) Garden Office (GO) Office (0) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Community Commercial 20 feet above the zoning height limitation or 20 feet above existing structure 20 feet higher than the maximum height allowed in the zone or 80 feet whichever is less* (C) Regional Commercial (RC) Light Industrial Mixed Use (IMU-1-) Heavy Industrial (I-4) *An additional 20 feet in height for each additional antenna array co -located on the support tower, up to a maximum tower height of 100 feet, including the height of all antennas. 22.120.050 Landscaping. Refer to Chapter 22.70 SVMC for landscaping requirements applicable to the underlying zoning district. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 17 of 25 DRAFT Chapter 22.121 SVMC Small Cell Deployment 22.121.010 Overview. In order to manage its right-of-way in a thoughtful manner which balances the need to accommodate new and evolving technologies with the preservation of the natural and aesthetic environment of the City while complying with the requirements of state and federal law, the City adopts chapter 22.121 SVMC for the deployment of small cell and microcell technology. Service providers who seek to utilize the public right- of-way for small cell deployment in order to provide wireless communication, data transmission or other related services to the citizens of the City shall receive a valid franchise to provide the specific service seeking to utilize the small cell deployment. Entities with franchises who wish to utilize a small cell deployment to upgrade or expand their existing services shall utilize the processes set forth in chapter 22.121 SVMC and implementing small cell permits to deploy their technology and obtain design approval of specific installations. A. Nothing in chapter 22.121 SVMC revises or diminishes the rights and obligations of an existing franchise. B. The term "small cell deployment" shall include the deployment of small cell facilities, micro cells and small cell networks as those terms are defined by RCW 80.36.375 as now adopted or hereafter amended. Small cell deployment elements which require SEPA review may utilize these processes only in conjunction with SEPA review. 22.121.015 Administration. The City Manager is charged with administration of small cell deployment permitting and other wireless communication review processes established under chapters 22.120, 22.121, and 22.122 SVMC. 22.121.020 Small Cell Deployments. A. Small Cell Deployments in Rights -of -Way. Small cell deployments in the public rights-of-way shall only be made pursuant (1) to a valid franchise with the City, and (2) in compliance with all federal, state, and local small cell permitting requirements. B. Small Cell Deployments outside of Rights -of -Way. Small cell deployments outside of the public rights- of-way shall only be made in compliance all federal, state, and local small cell permitting requirements. 22.121.030 Franchise Application. A. Franchise Application. Service providers that desire to deploy small cell deployments in public rights- of-way shall apply for a franchise using the City's franchise application form and submit a fee deposit commensurate with the estimated administrative costs of processing on application for a franchise. Service providers seeking to utilize City rights-of-way for small cell deployments shall specify geographic boundaries for the small cell deployment described in the application and provide detailed schematics and visual renderings of the proposed facilities to be utilized. Phased development is permitted and an applicant is encouraged to specify at least the initial small cell deployment in its application. B. Designation of Facilities. All applicants for franchises seeking to utilize small cell deployment shall provide the following information. Existing franchisees that seek to utilize a small cell deployment to expand, assist or implement an existing franchise may provide the information as a part of a small cell permit application for small cell deployment. The applicant shall specify in the franchise application: Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 18 of 25 DRAFT 1. whether and where small cell facilities are proposed to be located on existing utility poles; 2. whether and where small cell facilities are proposed to be located on replacement utility poles, new poles, towers, and/or other structures and the type of replacement poles to be installed; 3. the conduit and/or ground -mounted equipment necessary for and intended for use in the small cell deployment, regardless of whether the additional facilities are to be constructed by the applicant or leased from an infrastructure provider, 4. any facility which is eligible for or subject to the applicable federal review time periods under an eligible facilities request or as a collocation. C. SEPA Review. Any application for a franchise which contains an element which is not exempt from SEPA review shall simultaneously submit an environmental checklist pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW and chapter 21.20 SVMC. D. Completeness. The City Manager shall review a small cell franchise application for completeness and notify the applicant within 30 days of submission whether the application is complete, provided, however, that an applicant may consent to a different completeness review period. A service provider may resubmit an application determined to be incomplete within 30 days of notice by the City Manager. Failure to resubmit an application within the 30 day period shall be deemed a withdrawal of that application. No application shall be deemed complete without the fee deposit set by the City Manager. 22.121.040 Small Cell Permit Application. A. Concurrent small cell permit application and franchise application. Rights granted under the franchise for construction, installation, and placement of small cell facilities shall be implemented through the issuance of small cell permits. The franchise application may be accompanied by one or more concurrent applications for a small cell permit to deploy small cells. B. Small cell permit application. A small cell permit application shall contain the following: 1. All small cell facility sites shall be specified. Up to 30 sites may be specified in one small cell permit application for processing. The application shall include sufficient information about each site and facility in order for the City to determine that it complies the design and location standards set forth in SVMC 22.121.060. 2. If the application includes small cell deployment in the public rights-of-way, a copy of the franchise application or reference to approved existing franchise shall be included. Approval for a small cell permit to install a small cell deployment shall be contingent upon approval of a small cell franchise or the possession of a valid small cell franchise. 3. If more than one application for a small cell permit is submitted by an applicant, they shall be considered in the order received. If multiple applications are submitted on the same date, the applicant shall indicate which application shall be considered first. 4. Any element of a deployment which qualifies as either an eligible facilities request or a collocation shall be specifically designated by the applicant and may be addressed separately by the City Manager in order to comply with the applicable processing requirements established by federal law, state law, and chapter 22.122 SVMC. 5. Any application for a small cell permit which contains an element which is not exempt from SEPA review shall simultaneously submit an environmental checklist pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW and chapter 21.20 SVMC. 6. The applicant shall submit a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury signed by an RF Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 19 of 25 DRAFT Engineer with knowledge of the proposed project affirming that the small cell deployment will be compliant with all FCC and any other applicable regulations in connection with human exposure to radio frequency emissions for every frequency at which the small cell facility and associated wireless backhaul will operate. An existing franchisee applying for a small cell permit for small cell deployment shall provide an RF certification for all facilities included in the deployment. 7. The applicant shall provide proof of FCC and other regulatory approvals required to provide the service(s) or utilize the technologies sought to be installed. 8. As applicable, the applicant shall provide written proof from any utility provider authorizing the applicant to use the utility provider's utility poles for a small cell deployment. The applicant shall also provide evidence of a professional engineer certification or other form of formal approval that the small cell deployment meets applicable structural standards for any impacted utility pole. C. Completeness; Small Cell Applications. The City Manager shall review an application for completeness and notify the applicant within 30 days of submission whether the application is complete, provided, however, that an applicant may consent to a different completeness review period. A service provider may resubmit an application determined to be incomplete within 30 days of notice by the City Manager or designee. Failure to resubmit an application in a timely manner shall be deemed a withdrawal of that application. No application shall be deemed complete without the fee deposit set by the City Manager. D. The City Manager may approve, deny or conditionally approve all or any portion of the sites proposed in the small cell permit application. 22.121.050 Small Cell Franchise and Permit Review Process. The following provisions relate to review of applications for a franchise or small cell permit for small cell deployments. A. Review of Facilities. Review of the site locations proposed by the applicant shall be governed by the provisions of 47 U.S.C. 253 and 47 U.S.C. 332 and applicable case law. Applicants for franchises and the small cell permits which implement the franchise shall be treated in a competitively neutral and non- discriminatory manner with other service providers utilizing supporting infrastructure which is functionally equivalent, that is, service providers whose facilities are similarly situated in terms of structure, placement or cumulative impacts. Franchise and small cell permit application review under chapter 22.121 SVMC shall neither prohibit nor have the effect of prohibiting the ability of an applicant to provide telecommunications services. B. Design Review and Concealment. Small cell facilities shall conform to design, location, and concealment standards and be subject to design review as set forth in SVMC 22.121.050. C. Franchise approval. Franchises shall be approved in the form of a City ordinance, and franchises may only be approved by the City Council pursuant to its standard ordinance approval process; provided however, that the City shall meet any applicable federal or state time processing requirements in reviewing and approving or denying a franchise application. D. Other conditions of approval. Approval of a franchise, small cell permit and/or other approval referenced in chapter 22.121 SVMC are conditioned on the following requirements: 1. Satisfy all applicable bulk requirements including but not limited to height, noise, light, and any other applicable zoning requirements. 2. Provide written proof of the approval of the owner of any utility pole for the installation of its Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 20 of 25 DRAFT facilities on such utility pole. Approval of a franchise does not authorize attachment to City -owned utility poles or other structures. 3. Unless specifically provided for in a franchise, obtain a lease from the City or provide proof of a lease between the City and the utility owner on whose poles the applicant is placing small cell utilities authorizing the utility owner to utilize the City's ground space for the installation of any new pole, a replacement utility pole over 60 feet or to locate any new ground based structure, base station or other attendant equipment on City right-of-way or City property; 4. Comply with applicable City approval processes for the co -location of facilities, or the installation of any new or replacement utility poles in the right-of-way; and 5. Comply with all City construction standards and state and federal codes when operating in the right-of-way and obtain a required permit to enter the right-of-way. 22.121.060 Design and Concealment Standards. Small cell facilities shall be installed using stealth or concealment technology. Stealth or concealment technology applies to all small cell facilities, including, without limitation, antennas, towers and primary equipment enclosures. For any small cell facility, stealth or concealment technology means the use of both existing and future technology through which the small cell facility is designed to resemble or blend into an object which is already present in the local environment, such as a tree, streetlight, or traffic signal. It also includes: A. For those portions of small cell facilities attached to or part of light, power, sign, or other poles: 1. For new poles, integrated within the pole unless technically infeasible. New poles shall be subject to any applicable City or industry standards; 2. For existing poles, integrated into the existing design of the pole to which it is attached, with external projections limited in size and scope to the greatest extent technically feasible, including but not limited to being as flush as possible to the pole, not projecting more than fifteen feet vertically above the pole, and having architectural compatibility with the pole; 3. External projections shall be painted a color to resemble and match the pole so that they appear to be part of the pole; 4. Shall conform to any structural standards so as not to degrade the structural engineering of the pole to which it is attached; 5. Shall not interfere with the normal use for which the pole is intended, including but not limited to blocking any light designed to be dispersed from existing lighting fixtures installed on light poles. interfering with power lines on power poles, and obscuring any portion of the applicable sign -face on signs; and 6. i. Antennae for small cell facilities shall be located inside of an antenna enclosure no more than three cubic feet in volume, or in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all of its exposed elements could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than three cubic feet. ii. In lieu of antennae and primary equipment enclosures, unified design enclosures are permitted, provided that the overall dimensions of such designs shall not exceed six cubic feet in volume. iii. Antennae and unified design enclosures shall be located at least 20 feet above the base elevation of the ground unless technically infeasible. B. Primary equipment enclosures shall be no larger than seventeen cubic feet in volume. The following associated equipment may be located outside the primary equipment enclosure and if so located, are not included in the calculation of equipment volume: electric meter, concealment, telecomm demarcation box, Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 21 of 25 DRAFT ground-based enclosures, battery back-up power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switch, and cut-off switch. Primary equipment enclosures shall be buried below ground or locked and integrated into the surroundings unless technically infeasible. This shall include incorporating the facilities into the base of the pole, integrating into existing surrounding fixtures, such as garbage containers or other power boxes, and/or use of materials and colors that blend into the surrounding setting. Ground -mounted facilities shall not be located in an improved street or sidewalk. Ground -mounted facilities shall not located in a stormwater facility, including stormwater swales. Unified design enclosures are permitted pursuant to SVMC 22.121.060(A)(6). C. For small cell facilities mounted on one or more building facades, stealth or concealment technology means use of color and materials such that the facility has architectural compatibility with the building. It shall be mounted on a wall of an existing building in a configuration as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project more than three feet above the wall on which it is mounted. Unified design enclosures are permitted pursuant to SVMC 22.121.060(A)(6). D. Advertising or display shall not be located on any small cell facility; however, the owner of the small cell facility shall place an identification plate indicating the name of the wireless service provider and a telephone number for emergency contact on the site. E. No artificial lights other than those required by FAA or other applicable authority shall be permitted. Any security lights shall be down -shielded. F. Small cell facilities that are not within the right-of-way shall meet the minimum primary structure setback requirements for the underlying zone. G. Small cell facilities shall not be permitted inside a public park, public monument or private holding located within a public park or public monument. H. Location. Small cell facilities shall not be located within 250 feet of any other small cell facility unless the applicant demonstrates that no other location can accommodate or is sufficient to meet the wireless service needs. In the event a small cell facility is required to be located within 250 feet of another existing small cell facility, the applicant shall make a good faith effort to collocate the new facility on the same pole or structure as the existing small facility in order to minimize impacts from new small cell facilities. The City may require applicants to provide evidence of efforts for collocation. An applicant may demonstrate good faith efforts to collocate by providing written evidence from the other wireless provider(s) that they are unwilling or it is technically infeasible to collocate, or from pole or structure owners that they will not allow collocation or that it is technically infeasible to allow collocation. 22.121.070 Small Cell Permit and Minor Deviations. A. The City Manager shall review applications for small cell permits for small cell deployments approved by a franchise or small cell permit. The City Manager may authorize minor deviations in the small cell permit from the dimensional design and concealment technologies referenced in the exhibits to the franchise or design standards where such deviation is necessary to allow the applicant to provide coverage and where such deviation either does not materially differ from the City's design and concealment standards or achieves equivalent or better integration. B. Deviations in the dimensions or volume of small cell facilities which do not exceed the cumulative total provided by the definition of a small cell or microcell facility in RCW 80.36.375 shall be considered a minor deviation; provided, however that they do not defeat the concealment features set by City's generally applicable design and concealment standards. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 22 of 25 DRAFT C. Small cell permits to install facilities including approval of minor deviations shall be processed within 60 days of receipt of a complete application and final approval of a franchise, whichever occurs last. 22.121.080 Significant Deviations. Any request for significant deviations from the approved small cell facilities design designated in the franchise, small cell permit or City's design standards shall be require a conditional use permit and shall be considered under the provisions of chapter 22.120 SVMC and pursuant to the timelines established in SVMC 22.122.030 and SVMC 22.122.040. A significant deviation is not a substantial change. See Appendix A of the SVMC. 22.121.090 Compliance with State Processing Limitations. Review of franchise and small cell permits shall comply with the provisions of RCW 35.99.030. Applications shall be reviewed, completeness determined and the timeframe tolled as provided in chapter 22.122 SVMC. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 23 of 25 DRAFT Chapter 22.122 SVMC Wireless Communications and Small Cell Facility Review Periods 22.122.010 Purpose. Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have, pursuant to the authority granted by 47 U.S.C. 253(c) and 47 U.S.C. 332(a), required local governments to act on wireless communication facility applications within a reasonable period of time and have established time limits for local review. The Washington State Legislature has also adopted similar limitations under the provisions of chapter 35.99 RCW. Accordingly, the City adopts the following time limits for review of applications for eligible facility requests, small cell permits, and other approvals for service providers of telecommunication services. 22.122.020 Eligible Facilities Request. A. Application Review. 1. Application. The City Manager shall prepare and make publicly available an application form which shall be limited to the information necessary for the City to consider whether an application is an eligible facilities request. The application may not require the applicant to demonstrate a need or business case for the proposed modification. 2. Type of Review. Upon receipt of an application for an eligible facilities request, the City Manager shall review such application to determine whether the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request. 3. Timeframe for Review. Within 60 days of the date on which an applicant submits a complete eligible facilities request application, the City Manager shall approve the application unless it determines that the application is not covered by this SVMC 22.122.020. 4. Tolling of the Timeframe for Review. The 60 -day review period begins to run when the complete application is filed, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement by the City Manager and the applicant or in cases where the City Manager determines that the application is incomplete. The timeframe for review of an Eligible Facilities Request is not tolled by a moratorium on the review of applications. a. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City Manager shall provide written notice to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application, specifically delineating all missing documents or information required in the application. b. The timeframe for review begins running again when the applicant makes a compliant supplemental submission in response to the City Manager's notice of incompleteness. c. Following a supplemental submission, the City Manager shall notify the applicant within 10 days if the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information. The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to the procedures identified in paragraph 4 of this section. Second or subsequent notice of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or information that was not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness. B. Determination that Application is not an Eligible Facilities Request. If the City Manager determines that the applicant's request does not qualify as an eligible facilities request, the time periods established by the applicable state or federal law and chapter 22.122 SVMC begin to run from the issuance of the City Manager's decision that the application is not an eligible facilities request. To the extent additional information is necessary, the City Manager may request such information from the applicant to evaluate the application under other provisions of this chapter 22.122 SVMC and applicable law. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 24 of 25 DRAFT C. Failure to Act. In the event the City Manager fails to approve or deny a request for an eligible facilities request within the timeframe for review (accounting for any tolling), the request shall be deemed granted. The deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the City Manager in writing after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed granted. D. Remedies. Both the applicant and the City may bring claims related to Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act to any court of competent jurisdiction. 22.122.030 Collocation. Eligible collocations shall be processed within 90 days of receipt of a complete application. The City Manager shall notify the applicant within 30 days of receipt of an application whether it is complete or if additional information is required. The term collocation shall not apply to the initial placement of a small cell facility on a utility pole or on any other base station or tower that was not constructed for the sole or primary purpose of an FCC licensed antenna and their associated facilities. 22.122.040 New Wireless Communication Facilities. New wireless communications facilities shall be processed within 150 days of receipt of a complete application. The City Manager shall notify the applicant within 30 days of receipt of an application whether it is complete or if additional information is required. Ordinance 18-007 Small Cell Regulations Page 25 of 25 FINDINGS AFD RECOMMENDATIONS OF TUE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMM1SSTON FOR CTA-201.1-01OS February 22, 2418 The f{ flowing findings are consistent with the Pf iiring Commission's decision to recoin need approval, fisc lrgrou ud C'ii v of Spokane Valley Comprehen: ive Plan and related develop -nowt regulations have been adopted and amended and updateai from time to time, with the most recent major update in. December, 2016. 2. CTA -2017-0005 is a City -initiated text amendnient to amend Title. 22 SVMC, SVIVIC 19.660.054, :3VMC 17.V.),030 and Appendix A to update wireless isicality regulations to address siting of small cell wire I C:SS racslitsc3:1 ki"ithitl the public rights-of-way (I{OW), i hr Planning Commission held a prope.rlynoticed public hearing on January 25, 2018 and February 8, :e[:lt and Conducted deliberations on February 8, 2018. 'Tho Planning Commission voted 6-0 to r: c iiim old approval as modified to City Council. Planning Commission k1ndiiigs: 1. Rcccmmencleri Delndirt i tions Die I`[: ri . ri r. r,s1112_i "est: r c.:+::r]3;]:uzd2,1 sis;+rcr',a 1,4 the Illronosed amendments as provided during the r}}L.b :c beano ilio following modifications to CTA -2017-0005: Maintain. a requirement 1;7r -;1 s partition of250 feet between 4nlsirl c I1 f'ricil.t'C."•.. ititaintairl the requireme:ii I iRd. if Ll-..: aeparatiou is not passib[c, for t:, lriake a good faith attempt to collocate facilities on. the €i'nie po.k. If collocation is not pcssiblt . rev." fAci lities within the 250 feet would he allowed. c. Maintain requirement that U1r,all cell facilities be located at least 20 (cot above grade unless technically infeasible. c1" Maintain requirement far providers to bury or integrate facilities i:rlo surroundings unless technically ii]f'si,ihIii. c. Add rc(Liircinent that applicant provide ovi4.1cnco that the small cell facility design. will not impact the structural integrity of the 41t.ility pate on a uch it is placed. F. Add allowance for " rin[Fied design enclosure" co ;limo comhincd at]te,nna and equipment enclosure of up cr, six cubic feet in volume in lieu of separate antenna and equipment g. 2._1. i_[,e such oiher minor grammatical and minor c'Orreotiosi9 recommended from public comment., 2. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. Tile proposed toxt amendment is co.nsisslout'.i'ith tli{21 l:3'i. Flincs(s): i. Goal ED -GI; Support economic opportunities and employment growth f,.ir 4tao1 i.0 k'z,+lw}; ii. Policy ED -P8: Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that suppoit Val le -y'; economic d4evelopment priorities. [ii. Policy ED -Pi 5: Pursue technology-based schitions that improve assistance to uuaules5wi. Fimthigs and Recommendz3oDq o rthe spnlunc V;iLTty F3arsrtiing Cci m i sston. C7A-2017-0405 Page 1 of iv, Coal LU. -U1: Maintain and enhance the character and s ualiry of fife in Spokane Valley. v. Goal LU -02: Provide for land uses that ate cs4erl'i..: Sp,[ a,.c Valle_' resicii5nts, en-ipL };.'[' , and visitors. vi. Gulp! (*-C1: Coordinatewith special districts, otlrer°.iurisrliciiflns, Intl thr pla'a1u set'.t4r to effectively and affordably provide facilities and services. vii. Goal U-01: Coordinate with utility providcr, to b;ditnc c-cff{.ctivei ess awl`;: env ironmen.i a[ protection, aesthetic impact, pubic afcty, and public health. viii. Prorrlot the efficient co -location of new utilities. ix. Policy U -P2: Prc uoto the deve]opnrent of citywide corn n-Htitio.:mo-t advanced technology oval [able, x. Policy 1-P : Retluir]to placement of cellular facilities, substations, and ,.rrt; u -tar :st a l.]at ni;i° that rrtirtirrlizcs adverse impacts on adjacent land uses grid trtilizcs exiRtitt ?°_2--lcttlres. xi. Policy U-136: Coordinate with utility providers to ensure that ,. irii p, icsr;rti:tg, and liras t];.4 of utility systems ogre appropriate for planned growth- xii. Policy U -P8: Encourage the construction and maintenance of utility, onar-rymic_o:i:�Yt : .ri°Ed teehnalo y infittstruotru'e that will help attract business and industry. b, The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety„ 7.'c] dare and piot_.crion date. environment. Fi iding(s): The mendnStant boars substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The amendments allow wireless telectirnmuniea[ion providers to locate their small cell deployments within she ROW whi miniraia,ing aesthetic impacts as allowed by law, Further, the normal ,l -e c,F the [t()VG i5 maintained and the no i.ia] use of otheT ut]I]tics ]s ma]Iltrtincd° 3. Cenelusion(s): a. the proposed teat ar n cn d tr] ent is consistent with the. C:it''s std optedi Cornprehettsive Man and the npp:cviIcritctial cottta[iled ittSIINIC [7,$O.150(F), h. The (rowel, hlanakcaient Act ° reiliti1°c5 that the comprehensive land use plan and development repilatiorrs , uhjcct to continuing review and evaluation by the City, Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA -2017- 0005 with modifications specified above. Apgraved bits 22 day o`February, 201S Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Deanna 1fortop, Arial] C'.:F.z iratry-tarn Findings and RixiJirtmentlahots$of;h^Spokane V:SI]eyslannln L=m;ssLor,LTA-2,017-UULls Paje2or2, *01am' .000Valley. COM.M.1010 AND PUBLIC WORRS & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOrvi M iiNDATIoN TO THE PLAN NI N1,- COMMISMON CT A-20 17-0005 .STAFF IIVPORT DATE: kinnry 2, 2018 IlEAluNG. War ANTi 1,1/CATION: January 25, 2.01X, bi2gi rifling at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Vl110, City Hall CoLitIcii Chambers, 1.0210 East Sprzw!.!E.'. A mil lc, Spokane Val Ley, W.L.Vrp.71.,....- PRorOSAL DCSC:RiPTTriN!. A city-Thitiated text RIIM1(IITIL7T11 1411.:C:::' .12 9.60,050. SVIVIC. 17.80.010 and Append iN A to updaw facilities-will-1in the public! !:ROW). APPROVAL CRITERIA: Vi 1 le.2. C4 nlip:Ctl'oellSive. S timmARV OF RFCOMMENDATION: Staff rei:on.:ricTi;k h.ppr4ro.1.1 r chi:. 17.80.030, SVMC [9.6C.050, chapi..1. 22.1.20 SVMC, chapttr 22..271 Appendix A. S TAFT CONTACT: Erik Dq11.11..!, A Itorliev ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed zinwrithiluiB LC. Y,YMC 17.80.030, SVMC 14,60,050, chapter 22.120 SVMC, chapter 22.121 SVNIC, 22,122; SVMC, and Appendix A. Exhibit 2: Presentation BACKGROUND 1AIiON A110 1. APPLIGVINON PIWCESSING: 8\avie ChapteT 17,80, Permit .E)roceing Procedures. The following table .1.1TKIlliari-.7.cs the procedural steps Iorlhe Timpomal. Process Kthlis1led Notice of Public Hearing: Date .11•:111.1...ry 5, 2018; .1mimrry 12, 20 i Sentlsfotice of Public Hearinj;,, to staff/agencies: JiiiI1r .5, 209 SEPA - Konted staff and agencies on Decembv..] 7.017 1kpiii 11:lulu cif Commerce 60 -day NoLicxiif Intent to Dec.embtr 2 2017 duiot 111 order c meet rectiii. 1aw arid 1Lls\OJTk. prciVidC'S' teCb.11010g0mil pror-osing LpdLic. 111 Specifically,ili ti icscI tic. .;o arocz-ising, CA" Llew StaffRcparL and Rec hoot ricl kt.ion CTA -2.(}17-()0O.5 model directions to place "small cell" lechnoloo in public right4-ofwa_y (ROW), and to update existing regulations to fill ly account for tlscsc changes. .f-ofr'.'frrr G: R71.0 #s,' OCIP1oIo1,7y, Historicarllv, wireless cs)ininunicati(?ns have been provided through antenna array IQL,L tit ,} I:I'i : utC property, rt}r, either attached t`d t l 1.11 e Illutl4}p..=l{:S}' or aaI Idt:!}c:si I; 1 '.:\i- li rI: structures, suc]i cis tall buiidinis c+r ',','tit„ '.c''; , [ s, ''I(}1'171,s71';,s .;i71, [lc I.zi}'.4,1"rls of I _if.) 1;2er I I. T: c pri maty array is ix f('rr.:(! '-i-I;,ti.1 .TM'. P I' 3:'d it cl.;l I`e'CI'S wireless = `a115:1115.si gin= 107 a I;:ii ! dicu. 1-1+:)'t4 L'v.:r, ;ice ono r,L.iS. fl.lr'tlit:' f1'r.;ri the Itl.cro,,7el., the ltl'iial t vts '.d1;2;.',' and !3t`i:.{}lilt - IL: - r'cPi ,l)!e. ti 'Itll [hu advent (}f smart pili _.es, there I1ai.; b.e. rt an ('\pc do' il ....vireleSS da.t:L, at1LL the 1mc]'ocetls nave, I.11nits till 1!ic of data !13e-,. cat': 1E1115E1!t. eco1s,r .11...icall ons providers have developed technology to assist ',\i111 liiL: 1r,,''Is111is i{},r ti,f (luta from the macrocell and to boost the signal 7: til,' ii iiicrtrc.cll 1.he l?:'iiii r: coverage r11.a This tech nolc} _., iv referred t(Ifiw - III ill1 C.C1l"1t:ca111{111'L),V.. It consists of5in l!et' anter,hae located ill C° Itiail'ti7ll7a. II''C: ' 1l;zl:l"t,tiL l I. It is refc:'..ed to a5 '-511'17.11 Cell' because the aintenria nirall ;:",r? t;;}ii!cl fit within a1] i1rai:naly enclr_'':'1 ,:' c}]. ".(•' Ini.:I ' 111211 1' "rc cubic feet. T'hc: c C?'Iti :t=.,-r:(:ltt4'i' 1.'i! °}l;tai l'.'7' `;11I1i:1;;1'C:ti, !‘i1Iighi p...!L`. pC!''. er li{',.e5.:t1iti. other sJrltt]Ier poles between 7ti-[il.' r:. i IEi11. file Sifted[ cells C ;Y'Lel 1h1 retrilnstn1.l!1 C7:+1' :+1 n 1I I{} Il1C inacrocc11S ll's'lc I I`7'iiic]i requires line of tiAvtit) o'.' 1111'i71101 I:1JL1. 1Ili5i'-1}36:11il' hitx1=.r5 the capacity, reliability, and speed '. teleco..in1]]LUi!C0tLJJls .'.'Ci? pz.o `1+.%c'.LI II1!'Ullsrll I}}Litt rt}+. !I•;. 'Iu' ( it` tl�'bC1171}'t:l a;?Iir(i1)riatt :ocal re2utations :tCldre. sing_ the pIrii;C:17.i!ir L'I 157.Jcru..:II:_ ir"' lit.:.•o! yles: {''' C.:JtitLn! i3t'1 Lit till tl{"I 1 e: I I'Ic `;. 1'('!'l l Ei' I+71'.. ,:I''_ ' FIC.I rtdc. Ill c1-1apcier 22. ! 20 S'vrIv1C and pi'ovic.lc 166 $l l� t}P,'i,iic I"I. Iii lir.lilaltit.li4, h _s .ci 11I•:c.r, the zone v.11ere the facility is Icr. i;t>(J, '1'iac:rt dic tic•;iwi standa_cls that prill,aisil}r invc7l',r' st. 11111k;kroilihig r.o iuiitilrlize the,t.5tlit-ic iii pactofthe til:.iii°ic=-, i :;ci(:r;lI I;i pvtivided that t,Itic could not effectively !,t`.j- asll Wireli<•s!a Ili{,liiic3 II.!'-'.:-`rll Ii7C::JI I72r'kililt1t'};'.S. Recent F•'c.([er'til law c },,111 U l t111?i11'i; `r; pro-,iclers to place cel'l.tl:. =tiff i]ii es r'ith in [I7' ]k(Pc s1 id pruvit:e.l that cities cou[d not preclude i!I n'ire!e°ys facilities. !1(".ti=1 Ls1 alI Uio changes provided for 5l oc fic timelines kw Incl:I review of permit applications, which insoJne cases is shorter than our tilrintl;.rtl processing tiinelines. With Zhu 1'2eCiltfeder'al changes, chapter 3599.RCV,' Lipp! ii:.0hie, its..1iient of'Wil'eless te]etti'JL1rnuii(>ailion facilities wiillin Ibo pul?lit 1,1.0ti,`, . It :t.1,n s cities to require 1r!_uter use perliliL facilities ;.'Itl'I"Il the puL'1ic R01\/, [1. 141 )cri.iiis 11' addition '.t the master '-_- s;erl lit, 11 lurlll:'I lil'',7'41LIt `, 111,11 'Sw' !':;lt r•.r, "''Jrili-ie slim! clot inre!'fe:'e with the ow-r1a1 Li -e of Ilii pIIh,;L 1...0A.0 and shall r]!7. i:1;erfele u'Ltli the pL1l. ]1 llertl;: call tj, aiI'.(! 'tLt'll!'.1'{' IIi71I i 'Jr Ilr;lv.d45 that ca.tuiot regulate sercic'.e. hri cid upon c.untLl'1 cif si^lir..!, used. a:_d cities 4ainn0I pr 'll.il t l,lsit_s:inr.2., ,i or vitt lis i;i ill"115 4 1;111". the Ctri,'. .-=.''tiotlti[['r. RCVv" i 5.21. trlr l}rrrki:i:i L.'Lat cities ,ll2i ' ICCILLife. lur '3111' t'171{:Il. of replacement fireless ta]ci]itie:s flyer 6r' ,_I7:`-CswI1'C] structures. ,,v1 -,en. sLI('ll 1.1;2S :Are iii ills' 'labile ROW. r.?r,o. 11. L,1[2::17! rho Cir!: Vas cnnrrcted l}' i lalyili;le ..rep! -drug placci''icil1 of 'is ti1Y}.:J!1 LCsI teC]111o.c.'i;• Il- tile City 1 f:}s,`r, In 71,.11 (l, 1 t` ('ilk' Ji1111c 1 a (':.:ilwi i ]iuin (Jirl)uIi)2'.:C^Lts cities .11 order to assist it ;;"t11 41t'b'::I(mI,'1 1'It t}I ;ip1i1'i7pri..JLt .re..ii.,.I.t!o:ts. The coil orttllnl also provided :Cli:(:;i 11:7n Lin(: with ':log;el(lpii ei-:i. of rats'' _reless franchises, In 20 17, 11,c t,.iL' hv 'v`'21i7.0r1 and MC 'IcIEto11? 15011di1]L'.pla.ce'I'<'_1it,:?f sinal] cel]teclln.clo:'�.v in the ti R(.)\'+;. 11'ic'.(''I_v lie Pei:1, 4a'4.1rki1ir.v'ttli h�l(ll,il itis -Verizon, and [~r'1t::I TeieJL:l1 on r1...‘..izot:ii;ilri ,i :irai-i I-1'<Jncllisti ,rll_:'L:I I1 the C.its' will authorize their use, of .i'c li1}t\ ft?. 1111':1 ..'iIiiie.. Additionally, [he City Ilasbevel clevelopiri its small cell de'~(:Ir.ipiiici11 Page 2 01-6 SLuI.I Report and It cx:+.11 ;th"1ra;"11i+.11' CTA -2017-0005 .f)1.#a{1 Srarrrf1 (.'1.f! 1?e eiteriio t.4 ]r. wl: , e.l t1[)i11 1111' dr J fttnall t:.d reg. I tions, City stat-conSideved farme1.0I1-. (, :arr5. State alit! fe,..t,ttra i Isla C. its' from pro}1.ibiiiltic ...fi.thir. the City's fR(_)1yV', ..[ow Disk r111111c1' dcfi,cs ''.17111.. tell technology as I-wr :dial ti'.'i1'.2IC55 Si`i'S'!Ces facilities Mat have ;in i'illtl'l,llkr 11. flll Cille:i `SLIre of 11r Iritic:. l.,ti:lrl three CLLbiC #eta. Iil',`olurl:, i:,'t:l '4.1` rii'1I11ril': C,"l LIl!Iren. enclosure of pc, I i,'I;C'."' 111; i1 cubic feet in VO[LI1D ., .; t11 y,;111t piu,2t:.; {}i CL7'.°.11?I:lCllt zilo! edl C'Lrt;1(I:: (5.1.161. t itj' CL1LJ'entl'' has riLLl rll Cl' Cal '.'91'i ^t[ f:7ti P[Ltl + :LJI"?Lt4�1' .151111 ' '1.41111111 t l)}� These ese range 11'.711! and 1ird.ltt poles to ]aro from `-;1.'.l]Stations. Theft airf' Ili;,'..!C:I'I}.,ti and trees C[1roii,!.li•Liof the ;;;:..OV,.' F111'li1'_I" _l1Clc a"C Eilfeady ;illl.l L,JI,'c t7i} ,CS i711 the .1.o L1 L1 'tir'11l71,1 1IIL.. ttl 1%.)./. J 17,,2: rhe t..Jdit.io i (}1 Sl;'.:iil c',t:11 lig,2i11L SIS 1'ilf likely to c ettt`."�i n.1i('=t:,'il .iildi}I011;11 ac'.:.tl'itiC t LIll�3titi'-. 110\,,'ever. ,I<,C; i'.. ' :v it is ;I;:,,:..t priate for the C:i:y to ImliT1!t:in 7..on 's::ict ions to ensure the .P.OW :L'n1,,illS available. fir its intended use rrnd rhAl solar Facilities dr rio: negtatii.3Iy iilll?1.a l !Iii. ;}i:1 tic health, safetk', or welfare, l ii .'.11..:, yadrat specific shite and fe(ier.l Ii.,TLLvlirl,2 a1}11i;' to processing {j1 44'IP'+u1,2ti facility permitz, 5.0 ease 01 ptrInii l71'00..:ssiri+, was1Jnportailt. 1.)1^0 Sou r?l Cell Ro ulafiotrs" Specific change:, m -e. discussed below. Appendix A: Dernitions were added related specifically Io the srn il.i tell send timeline provisions. SVMC 17 il.(l;fl' Table 17.80-1 - Permit l'ypG i r1.{[ Land. 1;sc Application was modfl- 11.n nr,;7vide that Jtltlll cel[ perm il: ant 1 ,.pt, 1 l,; rlrlirs quh_jccttothe permit recurred by federal tint1 61.ttle law and as sul;.iect to any forth in ilk'th [;. [:; ol,'o`t,' i {:I I'i'}IC:I' 22.122, ` V \'11:; 19.60.05.(1: The p nni ed use mttlriN was modified to perm.t `'smd i wel l lel"'li7', Il IL.,}Iri5 in all zones Sul? ect to the 5L1pplein '•,.'I:i 1 regulations set forth in newly proposed (:11'ij,lc:r:. 22.121 ;_I id 22.122 S\'MC. ('.hap:L1' 22. i 2 .1 SVMC: Chapter 22.120 ctlr,'t'.T.Ily t; .t:(:1"•11111,1 'IL't!ll(}Ilw ),•vit]i.n the (_ ilv'. 11 primarily tJtt{11''_. s :llacrocell ;:lir[! J"1 }J1Lvi (?li; Shill;'. 1 111' 1 !'i,,:;'ti<._t: l 1l0_11:1^;c11ts. to chapter 77 1 2':1 S 'fk'I{ !'L;1:tir7't'e small c.eH serviee..2 [runt C1'.1p:cr 22.1 20 Y.. ,.1:. ., 111'.1'" tllll':'tia17(:i'I".`- .1-pdaiL' Table 22.120-1 Tower wer Heii,111 .,itaitations t.; a:Idr..:s 11 y.' {c't•:' .. ';91e,' I; o_: t},2c;.;rl'cd in the 21.):(.... Compr-Lli..,.,ive Plan 1ipdate process to reLri:)'., ,'i;IIL'\ i,:l!L ..:,!I."; ,,1.1,[ ,:.ptiI:te zone name appr.'opH te. Newly l!.r0l,uwc,1 cI1^.littir 22.121 SVMC: A nes'~ {. ui:. '.'1 22.; 2 ';','`'.''i proposed to govern all sm.aJI cell services anc: facilities. - Iti ai;cr'rdance with ='_t.iie Itl7,, i11,y it111E'llt-1T':r11.`i 1:,, tr,,`idc Legh .-.1011. for applying li;r -`1.1.1!1wl,•ro. L.rsu permits," icice in l' 1.' i }1'IT1 i7 i' li';±,'1'_1'1, C:S. 1" I'an':71i5?5 are a.itreetaa.ent', 1:,:tbAce.:1 1.11,2IiiY I'1. provider and the Ott,. 'i':1r:n by the t..,l'- { .ii"I}_iI. I Ie)\'i'L'Ver. Ji :t1V!Il? tllern as ' ]rla:S('1" kikSt perm its, It a'J1L''r_,. thft C. .. 1.0 i'.1111'; 1 Ilw It{) 1 arid there art nor tl;lil11:1v,1 '.Ililiiy providers trying to phaci:. 1 ihn ROW. ▪ 1n addition to ,Ice lTl.:i':,1(!r use pcnT i1. requirement. the ceploy lent of sp :i fie: SIMJ11 well facilities requires to small veli 17.21Il:it. the may includ.:., 'i17 1;7 ,1 ,,,Ii, 1 cell facility locations per drill tell permit application, Snit311 c±]i "xi -16i ,i'.);7liealions rt'.Iu:i v Sites to he 1i -rutted witch a description of the facilities to ensure compliance with design standards: •;4: L{}[,v of t]'i valid franchise or evident e that it is being processed concurrently; 01;111sysalai] cell deployment are "c:oll+l+zta1ions" or"eligible facilities requests,'' I -Itch ,Iu �o.Ihjvct to the L1::ioue review periods must be identified; -A de.(::oi5;ili: i1 CR1r11 • i1 i !' 1?rlg:Meer regarding conl'1jrrni1 ' will; ,:i iplicablc FCC regulations on rrL:ti11. oneiCS used; PLL +c' 3 01;6 Staff Report and RewmIncn{laalion d' I•, -2117-0005 - Necessary environmental chock ists for SEPA; and - 1-'.viclt:ni;c of authorization from her utility providers if the snmlI cell facilities will be lc}ci�t4c1 illi the azhcr providers' [uiliLY poise or facilities. ▪ Small cull ffci litics are subject to deli r and concealment standard, These. include: - For neva poles, int el ration into the new pole unies technically infeasible. For t ix'.i l; pales" integrated ink) Inti e rsting design of 117e pr,,lc:, 5:4i.h external proiec't[r.ans limited to the ie.asi ]e, ';'l c:.,1i I,rs,je: ions are ]united icy above the .L"":Ce11na iallt1 SiZe :S Ji'ii.Lil 10 r}l:'cc CLIbLC f2E`1..n 1 i71iin• :. - External pr ojec:LAo''i ,hall he painted a color to rc.i I]ll1ie End match the pole. Small cell facilities shall noL interfere with the normal. usu of the pole and shall not interfere wilt' 'Hie normal use of the ROW. Primary enclosures shall be no larger than seventeen cubic feet. cxc:cpt for certain metering and other equipment which may he allowed on t]le .}ut iiia: r7I +. + . L nclosure. (.round based enclosures slrz,li ;)52 in.Iricd C'r lu,,'i•:e'.i: i,.ui1 inicgrrs1.d int:7.! tilt SLIrroundin tc the maximum extent liettsible, N Bill not be Located in i'.T) i'II.1r0'v_LI sirrcct orS[d ''::i1�K, 1U \1 Ilii°� not he located in a stormwaler faeil Iily, includingstorinwaler sv iI� - Advertising is not al cell t;ic i i I v ..,l id Ilk- artificial lights arc: allowed, unless required by the FAA. - Small cell facilities .arc not permitted in publiti 11. irks_ Newly proposed chapter 22.122 SVMC: A new c]idpler 22.122 S\'rv1C is proposed to provide for appropriate permit review 9irrlcHILes for certain fad Il',ie.s, • SIpet iIles the City must review and approve an'el[ II.N`.'.1:o:iIiiieNI"L't'Met"Within 60di',)io['receipt. ; c'iInplete application, Eligible facilities are defined 11;),:1.:'. i ci:C;. l lav and Appe ndi:N r1 s, r, ''reclucsr for I17. 3c1; I it:ariclll of an existing tower or bass station that does riot I Iy change the physical 4ji]1[ Il0culw of such tower or base station." - Specifies City nlust review ;arid 1 rniic,ws an eligible .o] lociir+.I" application within 90 el;zj' of receipt of a cn[iipiele aippIC.ligible c' rll c:e.li:}I :; :JIC ,I. iinLCC udder ;edera]l ppend:x A. as "motr.:li]i;4 or installation or transmission 1>,.{II',Iii1ii i l on an •&siippci1 trurtitre for rhe purpose of transmitting and 0]' rrltlii'i Il`ti .... IlCI: SI[L.Ili[J7 rot (.0IniSI,0 iCii.tiOJl iiLlrposes." • Soc i ic's Cllr = tetk wireless coiniIIIJili..a_ir'^'f.`. facilities shall bc:processed with n I f,i) ay s of reccipt of a cf!:fl IeT;: J 'pIic::.lr:.oi, As a Tlli"_.SV1,..1C 17.80. [30 rc,luire!-; [he, City to issue decisions on l pc T permits within 60 days and Type 11 and Type 111 pe]Tniis within 120 days after fully e.(rrnpletc applications are received. A, F1.Ni11INGS AND CONCLUSIONS S7'>N;C`LTIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDP4'IENT I. Compliance with Tide 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code SVMC 17"8{}" 13O(F) Municipal Code'1'e;'xt AnlcndmentApprovatl Criteria r. The City may zipprovc Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (t) 'I"hc proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Page 4 of fl Statl-Report kind tteoulrirnealdat1L511 1:TA-2017-011L)5 Staff Anil,lysirl: The. proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plalia and is consistent with [he fol Iuwlrig goals and policies: Goa! E1.)-01: Support economic oppLkrtunilies and emplo}meat growth for Spokane ►,+a99cy_ Policy J'','I)•-I- Provide and maintain an in£rtisLr1Lcturc system that supports Spirk;itic Valley's economic deVelopiL'I1111. priorities. Polio El) -P15: Pursue technology -basal solutions that improve aasssistAn c tri h LLsi nesses, Goal 1,1J-01: Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane \Tal I cv- (IDA L9J-U2; Provide for land uses that arc eswclitial to Spokane Valley residents, ,111 1�, erys, and visitors. 001 (:F 1 , • Cocir5 nate 5.v il11 other jurisdictions, and Lht private scct.or ro effectively ani.1 til-I-Lrrdalil. provide facilities and serviceK. (Jo,i1 Coordinate with balance ..c t-efrec:ivclIL. w with environmental protection, alc;sIllc.Lr4 i1rll cL, pubiic safety, and public health. Policy LI -PI _ Promote the efficient co-local!io9` new utilities._ Policy t_I-P.2; cL_ elk—. intent of Cary... icle (Om11-1iuiicaiiO11 networks using thy. n Ladvancedtecchnologyciv;aiIlihtc- 1.1-P57 Require the S Iaccn'en` of i'e1[ti i' ficl'llli,.�- Ili's{,lic l�i'4, z..1C::l3'tenr. ITl Mat minimizes adverse imp;1c:l..ti sill r3djaccnt land uses and �.nLIL✓c; cai ;lily , structuL a. Policy I. -P1 Coordinate with utility providers to ensure tliat sizing, locitiliE, and phasin. �r . ;ili . wy-1ein are appropriate thrplanned go rLirr- I'nlicy. J -F ; LncourageUx conslriieLion and maintenance ofutility, corn ntiinic.ations, and 1..411;7f-Ic;_w „oI'..:tii1 LCLrLrethat will help attract bosirress and industry. 1,2i i.i1. 111•1:posc;c amendment bears a will>storiEial relation to public heldth, sal`cly, welfare, and protection taflhc environment; 4i I., 11 .Analysis: The amendmerLl bcrirs 11!,:;1::1111 ; I cclatton to public he 11' 11 :.;arcty, 't1i'I;1 of the environment, 1. ..`:iiii.:: `:11i1;2T .1allow '.vJeiess I.:;Ic o;iii-iii i.cation pr:Dv:ders io locate Lllcir s1r,>...1 C II dcp'.0 ] 1Cnts',', i111in the ROW ':rrl[7aCts as allowed I ' ILi',', . I- :'orma[ use of ii J1Litia111•vd and rile normal. use L71 a,IIiL l' tLtll ;it s I inLirtalneC1. b. C`.{i>nctu iion(s): The pil_Tpaxsed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SV MC, 2, Winding and Conclusions Specific. to Public Comm. lents pkntlii1s: No public eornxnR,:11Ls haver been received to date, b, CauiClu:ioii(s): In itte baurwil orpuEilic comments, staff mntelces n conclusions- Vae 5 srf li S� E R rad Recommendation CTA -2017.0005 3. FnammdConclusions ecmrb AgotcyCo,m B m Findings: No agenycmmcnts received to k Conclusion(s): In the absence ofagency st±mkes c il m OVERALL CONCLUSION 'Me proposed code text amendment.ic i gqiw6hi} Comprehensive Plan policies and goalzi,. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends m» Planning Commission recommend approvolthe code exL dm lm city imd|with 7 without chaS. Page 6b !t21naltL.d wl}{,Ic slia i+.sita a' Y'YL.III11,I i " .ktiIFI 1 i�;t'� { riatticit C'lirrin11ci.: - -Cite 1t<a11 .Mllrt,trJI••r .2.1.111i 1. Vice c,11iYil'Join ison cielli t ill •1,4-:'rin8 1 . Ort11 I' r.k r'i;t'9, rrr. Coin ir.i!-;11,11.1i. III',;k . kltlieitue stand for die pledge or ril]CgLk1 I. -L". c L'Lt:tt!I Y` t 11:li15:!a I t. ,Yc n ;ors!: rc,I1 r,n.l tl,t fol I,'-:Inliers i,nd stair were present: JiirnM Joh anon Danielle KAsa n iL cr, lthaiirl, exeunt Ll 'I'irn Kelley, absent, excused Mike Pliillips Michelle lt11smLassnn Suinto Sli11hL f Matt i IMP' fuik I,nIrib, Deputy i..": t;4':1..tt�tiI. ti Lori li riow,.Senkcs: 1°IIaIaI!�. Prlanink, Planner Henn iiIlt',ra, k'.a1oineet t/1'Iy'L11, Senior Tr:11 !:,e ; nt [Isl_vr Citcr:r: 1r -fir.?. er,ior f a1 il7�crittght.7l; i i.i- itCi!I .'.I'i a 4, ?_nor l,l'FallirFi Hor10n, Scotia ry ILsr the Ctwinvi':iS'iuli NDA r:iarnmissirrner Rnr..mns en moved in accept t o January 1 1, 2018 7JgL'iitli lin pRI3i. uied. i in the moliem }i r m' fiiv .le+a'ur, .;r'c! ON,Efires1 and the tr'aotion passed It. MiN`1iTTS; Conititlmiut1L"r liltxliiusnen moved to approve filo 11—)nc .iii,,i'.t' 14, 2047 rnl°IILt.s xis presorns_d, the vrrris MI the DI01100 ivus Jive in ]'I'rlr, aro 7JJr. tfrrr, ors, i r : Csslrorl REI,O, #TS: The Ct3nh issicrni rs badrhcl rirpot Es. \r. $Lr'i'L ENISrI;A,'FIVE IMPORT] Senior Planner 144 Barlow noted I_};Irfi1:I1L. t(1.1,I.F,,,,ith.l ik,ILI ILLtn rlppr:"inted to lilts PI sn i ing Comin6 suit iu replace Mather i.iraJiiiiii a tfiic; lSafaiInr' 41..7f11 �.d 'i r; 17:oancil. L_]eeiing, She riign shared the advanced agenda with tha Ctkutulissionurs L,tn.' sliix-I,l s;rci ,;11)04sli iij soli:rC::t s_'Ii h ;};441 appear before thein: ettrtprelterrslvc flan a ttsieatdlrturtk k Jsncl ra kr:r nr,IL-IIrlutent lr t 1,:1rig tt:� Eire3..r rcquiremenl I`rrr auitnaIkctlplug bilutf to 40,000 squa r fa t•t x,IIi.^.I, ".4'rl: r15I/1,8Cd I11 LILt; 4111Sti` C" Lc the tleveiopme]1t regulatiion% 11 PUBLIC f'O ilIdErt1't Rod Higgins, Spokane Valley Mayor — Mr_ Higgtn5 thanked the C:nI11JLsi`;Sioricis I'i<1r {° job wit 11cxi,L Inst year. Ile said the had lic:ard Commissioncis felt they ]Bight Live. been Luiderwvaartced, hint las:, LISSLII't:al °Inn their milsi{Iii was very irnpnrhnr• I le x9i t the Job or the Comini icon in to semen titin for the City Council find it mikes their jobs easier. Ile uasninta:i>.tcd tIWE Iatoty the Council Iris followed thti r'e iiiritenda1inns Df the Planning Commission, which Iirt.Ilca i.s L1ruy Lira+utr none u thorough job, VI t. COMMISSION BUSINESS: FIi etinrl trF(F o1'.at Ste2etiny I lrilltl Milton reminded the Coniruinsltm LiiLLl Only CominiEsionels viho had served iiinre than oitL` ycaL' would lie eliigibio tar sa the ns Clip L;iiiiir nr taLr. Viae Chair of Iilc CaIllinlis ion. 1-iar'tut1. 1Itt ii a:rdled for nalnirantikng for IIie office of Chair.. Mr, Phillips nominated Ms, l,taNltlussen, win) accepted the iioinirtriYion, Ms. Rasmussen iimniiiat :d Mr, Johnson, be declined the nomination, 1 laving no taller nralriil1Dtirms voting by 11 :+1htiw a,6 11011SIS, fairs in favor and one n tJi sl,Mn. Ritsu,(L ierr dissenting, M';. ICasnius.'--n wrts volcd 10:1 the office of Manning CTttnmigskn Chair for 2018, Ms. Horton then riccepted rlrintirlations IN' tiro posiiiori, of Vice Chnh'. Mr. Phillips iCklrli ilar;•1t Mi . JoliiLSCa]l, YAW ttwceplk:tl lh rlcamircµtitrr, 1 iaviiig no rttlilea• 110111inatLi01,s, lag by i1 fila ,•ti y>'I IR:tintIS, fig i in favor rlliri nt against, Mr. Johnson was elected to the pusi;ic i of Vice Chair ir.I' ;?ti1I n. MR. lt;r .a,tllsserr lherr rrltiniced to letid the meting. kr. 1'Irtnniiig Commission Ttndingi ail' 1yaet I'tii' CTA -2017-0003, rt,r S`xink ink Vaney ?Annieipral Cade regarding subdivision geaer;.l l,a, wit;itrll.s. .2kalH-qt-1 t rIoninl .couIiiilsslenARirutcs 1 t,; , Manner Many JPalaulukexplained Ikle Findingsofl act thiel I ,:cn (114:,[11::d changes the Planning Collamission had voted rra1 at lhG Iruliliw lli'a: HI± ttiid then incerp;..m:ed the rttrtendiuent. to wove forward to the City Craarncii. G'orarrxafssr`ruao+'.Joiiartxara moved fat apprtillie rhenaalrrg t,'fimmilsioo Villeinage of! ,C1 flrr CM - 2017 -0003. The w k ifra rrrntrnx ii i.r fiva dpi fit 'm, Zara ogal.r 1, rrrn/furl paved aii, 1Pniilieile rinr a*ltrcet sitaildartlsUptl,rte Clufu Riisiriusien opened life public lit al 6:1.7 via. Engineer Henry A lien explained the City's Street Standards, which are the sfnrlciards that alk& ti•,= developtaent of public and private infrasiruchite. Mr. Allen explaaitud ails c1i,11 cs to OK.S;Ii• • Standards were initiated to address the Vederal Highway Adrrunistrotior's collicr_, Chapter 10,2.1 and the G'ity'aa nbfli{y to nrati.ntttin is sidewalk if the property ,,srri ,r should f6iS 1 + ui' ~o, The Street Standards ere oho being updated to eliminate City positions whie11 uq lriugur rxiM rrnd Change them to refer Ito the Ciiy Manage', who has iaitimaile uarthtarity hat aleleKate ii thr c,lirra staff members in rho City to periform. Some oft! i a oilier changes include eliminating The vlil ifllu!t; process, FAA and Myler rexird drawings, no longer requiring streets to connect in filtnine, development, frontage improvements tndy whore a project ittuetcses Ir aalrlaut. Chapter 3 ig tieing updated to allow limited traffic impact analysts for SFPA iti1U1 areas. There are e.lso proposod changes to the Spokane Valley A+l miciparl Code (SVMC) 20..81).010 and 22,]30 to remove refeeenees tr, future acquisition areas and revise SV1,1Ci 27.,130 to iasplii c e.Iimllinted positioItis- Commissioner Rilsintlsml questioned why on paagc 3-14 whIeli l'elereitecs collision tire word 'past' was being struck. Senior Traffic Eafgiueer itffy WrigLi exphiined the Ciiy provides than ct]IJdsitlti History 10 the oritsitk: engin t'ra %OM" tiu;ytwo/ to do a traffic ;ill clysis Lind the City always provides the must current information. She aka noted drat on page O-3 the word `ousts" deeds to be changed to call . on page 1-2 adopted Ise in the sentence (Wise. Chtrir Rftsrrlu at- :Iit rf 0pUri 1110 hearing up for the public la a:ommeni, Vicki Donahue, 323 S Elowdislr: Ms. IDOniltiltU Suited she l i os rtt LIN dutcrsCvllon oi-4' Ave acrid ftowdlalt Rd. 1 his is a busy intersection and there arc many accidents c..ccur there. She is also contented ented Flout the school children walking along tliese favids. She fvw15 there should be a trail[lc ociatr0l (-avit ; 4.11 llris utter$ Ci0l1, slowing people on f a\wcllsli, .4't' Ave, She also stated sheIiadreceived aletterregarding snow a:emoval. Sim Hwi'Ji';t ;.iliavelhilt then the plow curates idling atnd puts the, it right back on the sidew,11I:, Puu] Lulu r, 323 S 13ai►1ri1Ialir: v.'Taiylor n•aift this IWff3Ys,lf].I ti1t, Iltturs did not ffeC cILaaattFd out along the road, an when t1ir FIiti7W 11111Adi there 1st i4o puceo for ;he v.^aatcr to go. Ito coierinolatcd lied; i5 tut.) mLIAh trai ! un {fold (13uwdish) told, is lit.u.ti a aunty cunt -c31 t$_ ti ff'::. 1-h 5tiicl il. is lf[it. ono we have fft, it is do aciii1„tllligi Piton t, it. Seeing, no one else who wished to testify, Chair Rasmussen closed thr, fa ltl tis- hf!5ii Coninkis....tiniwr Studios Stated :ti11C. ealald sec t1'•le corninentcr'E �rnRlt 9 i 1. l'"'w'.' I;........:t V' A v .VIUC hofs .stir fill Iliu titin. Shu would like to sss'. AMMO*ry sk pIi lttz ulurl.�, °+. ;i , ,� ,t I ' !� °o o. ac 1s ovc.ynnn nvniad; Sprint]; hit wltlh all dm ailaatlnellts along it CICIV,U i ct97i 1010]sl,fi 3ffitl Iii: ilgl oect regarding iI'l' Avenue_ Cvu mission -a Philips commented 10.1 s,,ys life City is not rekpunsible fur mEarlenarnre of the sidewalks. He commented he lies a problem with n cul la lutieltig to replace the sidcwnik if it lr�tifa.ues damaged, He feels it shoplift be part 'Atha City in:riratenance program to repair the aoval ks, uspucially i i'they are inside the right-of-way or ti order easement. He felt maintenance r.I i:lulii Iae Eexpta hied better. Ilealso commented fie lies ri problem with s1lovcliiigthc sidewalks and IP IOW comer along and p1itx the mow lnwi; grill the City turlling tirotind and fining someone tl,vrc iL snow on the sidewalk, Ms. Barlow reminded Vie Col.niuiusionors the: ri:aas n for rlf „ t';11.1n1,;0 in the language in tills section i8 Flue to the i ninhmeren ier;e'1vefl from the Federal i t;,; pi,..„ ,, r tlftii,ti�traattaulp and velChait {t, Il ca]rrlil Ilrrirat the City -'a d iliiy to receive grants in the 201a,nI-I[ I%unl,rlagCOM lar6s[ms 1inu1 Mr. Allen stilted dolt whim Ihi_ Street Slnntlard,': wore iidup[tll, []wy spoke 5'. rl°.iri"J ]iIRSSI9G'Il�rr regarding the Gama of sidovvolio,, ursd tiers atria of citizens ii illtQiiiiii n: of ih'*ib limn or businesses is not Belk[ I1. to our City. 'Me City inittri.tltrcl Ilyi Jrtu I.c{;tte rim Spil,ks'.Is{ County but many other juri xliotiorns hi and around the state have the as IsC rco:.a;romt.'ir{. i x°c lrltl ben huge expense a1tc1 truly Inking sou° theeity Co have in 5iirrinhos i I1LInilii2LE o1 Commissioner Wslio11 CO1fltritiCll l}is snow shoveling Was uut in the Street Slanditalf sepzrrate ordinance Priem wv]iat was Ct1rrelltly being {:tlrilidereel. ti.. 4','+: rrl;lCl'e91 Is;,w repairing err rep]ac iawg ii sidewalk was sl!eierroiFru{l. M.. Lamb oxplilrtetl ills. +.:it). i:; relti'sr•r..ii t'.l F .r bads for its ptihliewoSrks prajcels and rc'illtitcrl l.i nocc..}tf latae[ bid_ brisi[l on tlai. du: c:i[iic'rt would only he billed for the actual work and we would huv' till luunioe for the Ivor!: performed. Calllrrila�s]inii.f Iiillllps fell Clint maintenan'e vl;Is not olemly dotfinsxd in so:c:ainrt 10.2.1. Caisailsiss[oiier• Johnson ;stated flint I1c also felt it did not clearly Celine =intermit= however fell ehmigi git,tilultt be better ha ni!tccl in c fu[urc update. Mr. Lamb otTered nrirlil,'s tothe ;oris of the ntriiIce 'property owner ;l,.e responsible for the innintcnattee of thew fi;.:Virus r desc'i-ihed below, ' Thaw euruai ISSioii to 3 a3 t•.ieed this c him goy tw1 aid satisfy their. concerns. Corrrrruiss$ooner Jcra'iri wr moved (sniff ow rhe staff d'eemin [ended c.'twinges. to trete rrlirltici al come and tine .511ca'lcctrf c Valley Sfr ecrr . I: arirlcrr'r .w a s pnoiuscrl with thefollowing rlra• urges°, Strict Statidat'ais sec art 11)_2.1 changing the :wand olrra+ ,so +r,rort'a aj' rtes ,ret rind /am .ei ruph by (OAT Ws (*3 cr'ia [ d b!}lort°' fc+ rfxe end qf i?w xenienve, . lrea l Stoonfor eb s'ecrlaaar l.3.2, /AIM Irroliet erase+rt prtlblic°/ircilitie,w ;reset level of ,aeri.ke standar* crrirl,r;7ii fir 'he (.'tra'ff ►rcherx5°11Y.' Pfirrr, ,gller 22.130 c°hang rli'v hp.p J rt m errit..e i senior t%igiiider ki Ciify 114 imager. The vote nit they ortotion ivuSJf ire ir1Alm, ween against, st, Arae oration passed. iv. Htud' Sessinn —1'r+ireiesc Small Cel] ToehttoIt gyDclr]nyrnenls Mr, Lomb gave a fat saiitatlon to explain to the Comm ;' }Birt wire_ess stmt colt lei hnoti gy, Mom wireleSS nett pilone turtle is curraattly handled by the apnles. Historically tho (lily bets c nI' f s ct]t with I1ias i uttaspol+:s wv+tlicit have been iu;:alted un private property. The City vas carr4;rrted Iry n Prtnk,llita, eoinpairy cnrnrilectod with Sprint, regarding , srnali cell sale in laic 20 f 5. y,:rl. ?O 1 G, The City Joined a consortium/ of 9111lf1MOUS cities 111 2016 to heenllie niruc wlant a1;4 hrm)ttll Celt technology Is, and how it will affect us. The con rti iw clevr,14Y1) d lr:s, lel Fr:i' i hib t�' !Ig.toments Anil "model development regnIJStic-ne for the deployment of r'utaall cc] The City haNlsewir working with Vcrircn, MCI Tolueu1ri, and Mobility regarding lire LIS! of Spd iris Vasllev tigh:s•ofWuy for small cell deployment. 'file City lies developed draft frai elle o: ag[k eine[rls [snot iegnllilions ielalttl to small cell deployments, Curren[ 3 or 4G (generolion) lccllnolojy is when ii bond held device communicates with the large snoroiinie. The farther )tett get from the monopole the less reliable R1tu signal f$. Munopol 5 eitn O;lly nccc [ria } t,! els ;hail at one time, $tl'raxl I [;ell technology wow rid ho adding antennas ire the right cf-v..2ys.;esti h p g data Perini Clink]. out to the Tiger monopoles. dlskea ,cd to sCt incests; timelines for proccssing'hose ~shills cull permits, Thew .inti: rl ;w I;.4r3 i!i puree which stop cities Prions prohibitingmailcell deployment, Stop iow taItows Otic C ii y t, 1:21.;;i 12. oI mirtster PPS( pC/Mil, the City is °slog fittsto:hisc agfUelilniS his these luui.! itlt' porrrtlts, lrllowaxl site specific permits for the small cell installations in addition to the rooter IY�:.,,,1 i�.•l. ilea toles filum Industry cannot interfere with the notxnd use of the rit;[atF.infsw'rty. °tics o+ 1 ILric t� i.t,l[uc services hatred an anntcnt or kind; of signals, C.rfriiint prohibit plttcvnt,.I1'. of v. it{:lL tai li11 ;4°i thin the city. Since elle City does not awu11 any of the lighting fixtures i+l till: , ke.l7c '.'2b-', til.:• c1.nIA lritlpi€l04llavC signitm ;Igrecnrwnlrr wimp cath c:fthe puwet-prtavicliA tits use I91",it l;e;:i4itiTy. Tltc City j!... expct=liat II arrrtall t rill Ice ba nit amerino of no MIND than three cubic feet In valor h,::,rd 1'.1c+, :ralil 1.1{.I1t box '.Viiuld lila; nn larger than 54Veiiteen Pubic rect. Mr. I..4? stile for the small cull deployment to look like. The City : o .r t°F;tire's rip.: 2i11t-L 1-I I I'Ilil ntrr: r,rnirr,i^ roll yWirri ri!F I`igi 4 ot'4 Lfli zoning loc'�1i<I11, illipLrse some design slilrldards 1t.liclt m1t11i Inc11J{1c ntealkli 511.ouding requirement;.511d IDI1dscupin,I,Sforrm714c frtcilitles, Mr. Lamb x;:il',ir"e c1 the }1lvposed atnendments; • AgiimlidiN. A, ;;Edd L'ulitte[I spt ifl -tdIy Iu srtiitll cel] dcplisyri1urls uric] i]ir ncn' tin Yr.;Ilrli puovislr'tLs. + G'MI 17.R13,030 ttL1tl I.; ail, !anal) t cI1 portal's orLx a Typo 1 pc. milt and slu II Ifc prcoc scd SIIcl1, ': c apt s uiirc! wise: ►+cgtlrreil by fcdcmf aiul state law. • SViwic 19.60.050 =ad ilia pormittcd use imtr-hc to allow small cell deployments iii oil Subject to the supplemental rcgulatfa11s proposed in new chapters SVMC 22, l21 and 22,122 • SVM'I(C 22.1 7.(1 rtI rso ve tiny relfcrekrcts 11) snrll.11 call sltrvaws • S' '1{' :?a,1 1 tle'.'r chapter providing Ir,r 1pli7r.1 t tlsc j�411ltills, cicfbyr icclt 0.011 I'liL'lli4iC 4 ilt? I ,}'` Lt[. Ti?c_ 1 C!' Il t ''civjls'.:.It ikts and small celr do,iigii 11YILl cunc;l:u1,1ILm i! st.int;lot'trs. • S / eiC 22.in Ilv'1': proyid1IL8 lulu aa' L.4;ati'LI i r rule] r:t;1IIL1Js.";'.i-Sll�l' ,I{,:111t,.L'I'L *Cij plL responsible it f'Ils_ �r� t'r,: [i¢, 5i1'.ti I.'I!I1II�_�'?I. P,ir. Lri4t1; rt:ti:il 1t i'::}111.1 be' handlet, is ;is it 1t wit:, luwur PIA 137 f i'jl ;)t', 'I: °hi. Ilr_.I`I• ,I -t': I 1".'uSI otb5itThe °, asked if Ipr_';.:1.:r,? ]) 1+_4]4Idi'l't1 to t'{,•1„l1': Ca:l >!I}•' •iii ' 11r;1i ('SII°. have loprr,'.rathr1tib'{ililypaliacc !hey CAD jarf.lr!ll'CF::i4WF1L;li:Li. v'c4'l1i4ttt'1ul:iit�r 1 eil c sl'.lila?1::n:. `Cinrii]i i;1SIErS L" Ii aticl CoaaGirllls I �k':tYtitrl�'; G"pis ;IC':•+lit tl;,� o1 having kut`it% i=11L7i1'lllelsl ill tllc' 1 1'.i',S-1>1'-m'.1:s'S, • LIOSDtogelllerfacllltic u111:1 'mu] kJ be lou:i',Iae.', • Y'',t;.e,' 44' !-ro waft: liatld land fnt;llitie:i. W]Li.i( i'iould the }1`eltii:lic. dr. to 1 _ t,LayI1uLSS, 11.11611i1 ES IILSiI. 45CU1111±- ■ thielititi would dEllIrgi -1;1; w'riria},. • rudiatlnn frnrn tl"+ ' I; II':is 614''.'7 i'.'..LI off 11952:S'.1l.,tku,s,tI :I.L11L'll.ill:k`+. • the pli3lti;'.'tu d a: iutjtld vkillr tun ' .ie Irsin,::IL1 w. ill :riot. like. I\ir. Lir id) Amu.' iI t':I ! ::JAI ie I11®±iri iir, FI 1l , ii I ;'_t Cs:I s Js .'lug°ls±:°aLt 'wag scheduled for .r11nuttry 25, 2{118. 1( I,G "CM41i41j7 111. 15o1,1,.:,. I y aiI1:I 17415 ,I,1+=."''1' I13' i?If' ;rlol+I IC. did!}LY1.1. Villi. GOOD 01' THF. ORDER: iT rllni.i. `;i,.:I:%rS coli~rifiminted Cllnlinisgloncr RJISoltt1S5¢L1 n11 her uppointputat to the office of C11:.ir innd wi.il:tid leer Inch. IX. ADJ4lURNMIi NTt Cor411,ii!:t;i•:lner .1ca11ILsol1 0 -laved to adjourn Idle meeting at x:12 p.m, The vote vrl the nlufrrarr mos lifillanhOIUris' 1'0011'01, a'hEr xIUl'LU1f ravel Cm. 4� J N1'1,11o11c, ttisiuuN Lct1, CI1�jr uAite signed .� )4k)L' Deanna Hanoi!, Seciete + APPROVED AjEiintR' i Simko tie Valley Pt8IL1IiThF7 ':€ipllilYlydl!!r1 Connell ]IJIl?il Ol,4 City 1I sli Clio Ir. itinsontse,1Gi1Eniithe meeting toorder atPr:(l},*Iai i161[il'C'- '.I1.Cstoo{I for JI,[ ILTt'+.li;l .71 :Illi 1:1!?u„ u4:hirli�i Deanna Hur rpn lock ;17II ;Ind. the FPlldsw111r; 1;i;'I'Iilc:i';i kind sinfr1}~i'rt~ 1I1t1IL„ 1.-d Limn Pill( 1limb, D4piiky City Allt iti y i),ral]L:l,s l ,l_; J=1r1_Jl-'1 1.crri 13/414.01, K, iii L`. Nal 111{11 Fiii1 Pk MY 1-1i.Ier ^ A[le!], .L11;'L:r 1,'Cil.la k'i4i11ipss �.,Ti :ihcIic f ricL1:1J's. u' \', t;Itt," Ii: if lrl�.L I !tpr!L>t1. wt:. ., .:I.li I.i�s II,t s-.'�Lll:llissitJn Ti, Aint7+47 C'clo16hind tic: ,!'.'ISII`,'{Ili JLL.I',';il t;} ll t'[, li'.: !;iitll[LL}' 2f.. 2011.; ',L'_Lidit ].;s preser.i(f L vote' .,�; f1r,° !:1.!+i r; hL': 5 v4'_ • :it 1�i I'ra;'- _:^1'"ei Ce tai�F.Cf :"tdhr I/ r) ,'ii7�i1• , l [+,'. ?' : �. III, !11N .11 Mill 'lies to npprr't•c. W. CO_aII 2!SSIO'ti REPORTA: I'3:'fliu .dr:i.rlisisi IscLs had Ina 1tiJ'':iILs, V. .LiE111/1INk'91CCAI1VJ; A1IT,IS1ishntive f,ir..cr, ,itilil:dt d '.ttll';ti r ssiainin 1'Ifil'W I'i' Lets, MS. HciL . ii ;HT: Itti hi of ti'.,' t•; lir LI)le. to IE;1rrl t it I1rLr,:Lass 11. ti's F i r511r;alai !' 'I iE1114A:' r,t II. J II, °';I:i +:yl {Ip'14't.tis'a ell L.IL% J lhi Lii . VI. PUBLIC' ( {J11IRII.N.'T.'; L;71;,111LSIi, 1<t. C0111KISSInN IIITSMIFS9; Planning Coini11.w:li4Yl, oftenet tor C'.I'A•2I11.741Ii i.1,Prupin,edrtpatl.:rf;'.Iti IJlL' 3ji,flLlilli' VoilL ' Street 1201? LlibIdl' .11ldi t11e SpnkrriIle Vt,llc' NIlalridl]pni C'ildB. I fioi'iP,'I' ET .ns�t° �s.ilr.;1 c7tip°,I;iilia k,} IIIc f'11IL11nissiohl 111x: Fiodi,n,.'4 drrlfMi i1 bused can reroii1ll 'oiled f''1.i111i' 11%,• i.",,rrlliIi I-urlll;li"tsi•)n had 'oad 011 LSI the 11u1,Li; I1fiar1rig1 J1Ihdi L1h4Il i'' !:1rf r i;':il Lill ' II1 ' .ntounlinent to I6t4Lvt p;Y';lrcl iu lhl iv'it Cn!u1t iI, �,'o17i1!!J;'.tilf :1L'1' , r.: tr!S{Frt moved 10 [Xjpi'fi1'r ilia• PT?:;7Ji't71; f-r,1J1MF,iSI !J7 1['lFr:1;7J' .'i i , h'iw. • fo 7A - )Qi 7. in,. . IrL: ' rafc° rp1 elle 11Fditism tiI"U;': °St'1-'C"18 dl'; 4..1'0r.. ; oro.If T if' Fir?1trc•+J prai'd',;rl, ii. i'nhlie hearing, CTA •7,{]117,71105, A propane(' Lrr1L4dLL{LrLell I hu faptai,:nle 1'.slli it 1Uiinieilta'i Cady (SV C) TItiil 2 2,, 1{a,6(i,1170. SiVL%7C_ 17.h11.0311 iLiaLJ l'LI1IsL:rillix A (0 update wireless frlciiily regiiiitiivria fu II':dLtrt"ss sii1 J' ,rF 4iiiirll r:t91 ♦,tr'a, k.s7.4 I'>LL I1 tie2; t ;illso the public riellls-i I. way. LYelluly City +1ILO11'.e). kik i.;urlb fe,L.' ;- trim:6:1L1 (i0LI lu the Commission tep.r-.li;lf, ;I,= vim -lens SIl1;lI1 t 11 !,.:1.)noiegy. Mr. I:7, til', t`k111fiil1 Ise '.'r ;i ld try to atis). C. $4r11 I,1i11-1ILUt#'ere1VpierelllativCstient some ofllteearfii,:YSinthe 2SI f7id. 11• 1 !', 4 !4:..Ic,!u11_d .1a t�retl as ati:l;-iI l i ] i111swer seine eftlle tittesiloit5 the Cijn11i1Ii ioi1,.'I;,11;"I. I,:mi;. s ellae l.rsl ihle Counnistisnier IIQId their dlhlesiioJls until atter his p iese l{rrllor7 in (aider 1:or ta'e J1'9 lD r,c: start or Il1c teenrdl, k -la then witllitlnetl mutl4 flab' Irtr.11) irttLadl1ed liy 1114 bU.g111.6110pOICS c;:lied 11ac.roc.el!s. Thein farther roomy from the irracxncell ri device gena the weaker the signal gots. SmiiIL 1l t!upiny r;lent i moving smaller nnkeoune to fpaWar and OIgI1I polos width rlri alrondly 104111 11 iii I16i litre are coiled; micracells, :r'1 „k' lI liLa: iIL °1L,. ilk Chiming Commission should consider when . viPwilpl31111] proposal," rr:gulyltk irtY ;Jr17 rl,^lr tlrn ft. ItLi°gc Miro big uI vnr]lidi fucil'iii IocLiLr cl in Lira Cily'o rights-of-way. Some of C,rr palet, 11gin. hellos, power otherMoe:turres u:1 Iln+k;runl,rl, sigtrs, end {ayes. The Lotlsider Unlit,oil INOlgtit,acstlictic impacts design slander& witifor sL,:ldtitAtururldlug, -C.11 e.'iltorttin't.1119 Ii' 'i5 explairmi.1 tIr propo-7,711-0!•.....)11.1111.•110.: ▪ Appendi.....: adcl.M.2. lo F7T111 LLIJ1.1piuynounis mid I1 new tuldiriy. 611 ,-oi,;111,,-4111),,,iiitik.5 !No proc.,...s,,ed tn. tahel.wis.e P...11los141si..Awkw. lc..60.050 amori,l'il.4 111E. [....:11.111Nd Lost.. 111;11,11,% 1.1 Eillow deployments in all to the Ruppl.....wilk.11 IpLL.I n'MAY ulmplLrs. VMC 22. 21 4ind 22,122. • El V polc 4101"5111y1IIIVIOS %very. )0111 cINLIOL:' noLl oi.y SPObli • SViVIC J3 611';:1r!i Efr101 :pkuyiliunr, 11 provii:t°!,firr;;1.14 use perm.; Is, which tne,Cfiy1135 d uteri »! ri!.ii wilt be our Ira Fin itgreement which is approved by the City C:Y:Lncil. rniilIrrel! iicpJoympcnt ft1- mall CC11 ratliitte for Lip to 30 sties kit 011U time and ff t. requirements for each plATOEICIMUM have f diIscNrcernent with, Ihe. Cit., ...1a;11 ih providet I hey are Lie small cell on. This also lays out any tiesign nal weal m cut standatd5, :=ry: r. -v. ilmost be. Integrant into the pole. For existing poles: integration into the 11 nu poolble. It i5 b,eka,g papposeti the atitenfat Aol O.N1.01.1{1 11101:elOan tett from Cie 10p 01 1I1 pole, and limit oti it) three cubit! L. The ei.pii0J1LcOl Oli Ci111311)1 Man 17 cob] fuel, LItilets !Jo Nasibto, Ih qI.iprneiiL 1.111.131.1::w. 0IL.dill i°1e grotaidot 1:11.f.6.111eti Into the surroundings. Cannot be located on An improved ::ria..21water Theilittes. They WV RCA allowed in public parks. ▪ MI:AC 22.122 i n new ehripter providing For mondined neonli review times aq statl in ;L1 tijF‘s?dertill I-v.2:11160ns, If the City tiiih to meet the timing requimori2ats then L11,2 puma( 1; 1,10:nn.....1 prtiM1vd, :Vit. Lomb s;lici Lit' would tryarn1 answer some of the quesitons which came fvi oo re tecludwil he would t1t.t to the provideis wishing to te.so • C.4)1dd there be a requited distance limit hetween new siteg7 The legni offi,T fort iliiq rt.d bni there W4IS some question as to whether this would not be rompett h2catts.e it would benefit whomever came into to the area first SrnhII I,i7.071!,,,7 limi141..1, SOO-1MM feet. 'Arcing an additional sNeing requiv.?Illero. 0.r.1111 LTE!:11?ifliniriqetifl tic! piId1ng their service. Coiikl !here be 11 requirement for co -location on one pole? From a legal stand 000ld p preetien1 stu mlonint. the poles UV not very hiv Find there is a sweet spot in 17M Whi101hr OlIcell mods tulliudiltd,, Ville utility pi ovicler ewn ;Allows more than one nr.A..ide.2 15ole, w1)11111 sonic will lint Allow, 111„) said lie noted mos', .L.11!"d'l deitSiiL1 nai ret.v.%i ri .i.0- /CCE1t1011. COLIld tele hP17.: requirement as to how iligh the notenne. I71qV 1...:owclorr(ISQ 1414:1.11LO 1j ott.A:e feels it would be a qualified yes- Unless it beEnri jiii.c Uui techanlnLy. 111o2. pSLO(.111.liAt 20 fuel would be 41 good .11.7` higher thin this, rsid it roam Interfertng iii affie and pc(10.9trians, • ti rue lie a requirement to bury the ground based foci iitieS::"•71:2.3. It would lie llowever, there. could be limitations to this. There could. hf. bet-weeu the. sit -remit and. 71';;: rigla-of-way, they can't be located in the sidewMk. iies hard that based on the in the Pne.ifie Northwerd11 ean cause ISSLRII with iii LLII. pr1l.mIP the in the ▪ Crin we 1 cLIFc the. small cellstt transmit to the macroccils cells umuls-imInting by tibits, hime..vei this tvoolta Lr. trying to reiulatz the teetinolory would • Tic ft...Ny..110y ; n' ivrn.l ly PC id[iiws, and the ides lire required to comply wi • 1Ie had 01.1 .ev1nay c. cri 51101 CCU! 61110. .7rn 5Vif F:f]vjrf, r". • rr: 11.11€!ndy lii a1nN011 rii.l riici, b t.ein'l [Aix rill 010 'D!I.s 1'1-15 t't 11id1 _+_=aii'.ili, :,:.1r Minutcs PaiEa aa5 t 1..:1147 ,_411;!1I`.'.11L zr,:,:•ls{•"#I whiir.h WCLU 1e,L''civr:Ll just today from tlitii. rat llic ILA., .1 nn.V ;",1r'.,il!1ii:. 'rho legal L?f11Le IYiis not ilatl a c118tic to review Yf:' wl• i;;11'1111!111:;. 'Lire b„ 1:!,2. 1_ca!1r1!',Is laial' ninnahers ill 1.110 anetiting. !.fr!iISSE11openedthepribIli �1.ert, lot°I llri'wiv, Lyne Curr.";LL11iarl firr VC!!LIMIL \Virelessi Mr, Arrow .trilc7.I itis+ lu i 111 ie~t;L1lrIiiF1} of fu.:;LLiaP. r+',.:'. die. 20 toot height ;lois nue with than", l lowester, hie said brat t11'-.0„v do not 1 ctLarl: 11_111,! Lt1: L_r1.11Aa!1L: log of ctlililinaa:.ia1- 1.11 sad if they L:OLald place rho audios 01L the they pi..i .1' It. ;1': i .lp ;1r.; rLr,t !allow ll]eii in place lite unliu 411 the. pallia!, :-0o it lalst'ei':i 10 bIr ata 1lti° f'1 e.:1i; 11 1_uIe. Issues with undergrolindlr1q illy mgartIuneot ▪ Water ba•:is !roc. iI'.Ls vault, 1f the radio gels we1, !hen it hill Thee. is [kw ntirt'1t 1r_uistiarV urL thr Pacific Northwest rind the vault ti I1L get wet. • The vault traps gases which art ti""salefor'the workers to broattio. * Conslructohility. Jk is :a siguid't4:aant fool prion !br an uncles °r,.1mi] '.?f1!" plus Ito:: 0511.A requlreniE4IN mak it h rgur, e Service re. kio9rilily When wsicr gots halo 1114 vatilik, Lhen the aStdk �si s. ill.. !cropw w01.!; not. reculit.incl!Ilsepia [too reiiiiirehlerits, Wimp h,- it tivi1 1'1 i c. V 1]k, he trvino 1n Iris :dim; 750 10 1,0[1(1 CO:1 la +lar{. [Frail have :L 25111 foul iklry,5':.NL t,1: 1 e. ;111 i, :'.atrenti the lost Iaave to (Wank liaiie. irylno to find silent L}Ia:y von dim 1cfv'1w1r i'r,. tis+ ':: util t i11so ncl }t rrtt,:ti,z isl :]i',- 00-1000100 requirrmetat, a4vlsto will not aliow co-Ioiestlir'ri °}i,}',s:=,', r. A1' 11 1,2400S ti ,C.1, 11 °pi 11, SILL it !here would he the equipment boxes 1111 located :mod one 15:riy pier l ;i a Irotes would ill"i4t- Conilnissioner )(Hanson aisked \vital produced tate gases and 'whtaltthey were. Mr. Arrow 1iid LLr 1 know Atli. said l,r would Ilaivu to noel aLaL, J rihtis . i} aaxked ttlt+uul Lhw radio which is user! sites. 'The radio is the IN r,ir s:f 1]u:, 7.11211 cell site, t:'r: ealr'ol:,r:i:,rr'1 Kelley cunfiranctlids 'mod rlatlrintlingOno lrupulatiun.;!! d rr1x;;L:r;titlalSWOUI€1tieCcaiirliii t11 r` 1�'I LLIL I ..r° ritnkl co11;t rites, Mr. Meow awllsli shy tlYLia consilriip 'is.`11 w-„AI dr Eva: it ns.\viral, no more 1,.`�i1r!L", yt,u Rravc, lice, more small cells you will need. to two different Carrli.r prole, Cotnanissiouer Kelley asked haw large ail 4utderground vault wot Id he. Mr. Arrow said they would need to have enough space for 1 tecliniciaitto Ix mile to get ut] the 115'2 ° £nou]id foie e_gltilirneril, instead ofcolivim; a mall !ecce sized box dialog above grotLild. Commissioner Shitho5 1VLiatll Ll lel Luny if itis: instillation of the. sniDll call "ire; 1�rriiij io1:.t;111L:a1 !ni p4.1i31. ,.ciitcl brairlt41Lyu115t1iI1 I`y power. NIP, Arrow said lie c i tri pintnpr-,ir IN III At :7,r-iii water wuclld Ila aY problem for "'lova grolw:ti ocpli};rrtenl, and Mr. Ani .v ;Lid It is ii 7,11i•.1111L` Ir site on t]1( Cquiprtment!Ind thin radi❑,ittat 11Q 1*i.pi dry. i ,']L.rr3i4 i t;r r .T.11tott corliir led the provider, at 90 aasl Ver an, v.'ilial like lir i€e!,11 of! Hie same ro-e at least I5 feet In the lilt or to llstafirate IL into the Mast of 111L: trr:1 01L the pole, filen it ]trust lie located within slit feet ni'the hole the ante n1' = k ira -k'1!.:'s 3!I11.1 l.'. V.-.UL.tl! prefer to 1.1se whatever Wilily pole is ouiLilabkc. !I'there Is no po!e, (I4';1 I,ri;l,:.t.L i f1 ii 1t_ ratll�l9 light polo sl;antlaral, CurornIsNloner L°43Ll111Te]ed :ltuSI ui 1.11, clrp]Ly;rlerta, t.ate:L3 ! 11'ir:i idi_t1 Honcho.. But cillos do as well, it Glepelitta tail 4ti'1Ytis- 111{.!1.10.1. CCA1711I ::inrterPI}illips staled 111 91 concern with Il riving another lalllily lo 1710rye 'iiiLIM :L ile.vekrl,stl F.{1 improve 11 piece of Property: Mr. P1i'IIL is risked ;how providers handl( conic rari;it ier< who a1L1'Iv1t-1tt1. Lid itl.liltes. Mr. Arrow saki in Those siIini1Laiis they prc}tusea sh1...ecan isiernn liar r;rrl nl' Li leak 1:,'_: sic ruin) des=igns whish 4;in bo uncal to kelp in diose tiesghborlioods. Mr. 1)161ilrs [:.1n aL'':Lirwtl our community (loos nut jC:i 1bC nairrle umuwil of waled. Lt;i he L.rel on the coast. Mi. Arra>•w snit! Click radio is very svnsitivc 10 walgr and orajansarion. 411",-1 1iL asks ilial Lh}Cot :!Tirq n t to reaid ilia comments submitted by Verizon. C011Y111ISil:rirc'I' 4tL 111nai asked wtllrsut a°ca114L1c Irnrt.t11Y c:t:ltatL.oiia9: 11i lou;l 11t. \'c:rirc,1. 1:1rr;lit 1:1114.1''.;1".1:{t 1.11r'1i iS' 1r'."2s 1;td]iitt{Y] tlLLill a b:Lby monitor. Mr. Arrow Auld 111iS_ ]I:'vaia'_ti 1h'illrkl' FCC f :t',I1,1,1r°7.:1,1114 i' i-ioii d for the raw that I1tai pct; might bd' X111 B' 1)1,-25 Haim I u a _,uI4411')S I l'n r5 iI i Ltl'3 i'=0.:• -1..1 17 1'.'r'i1Nl[!li!1 r4's, i :a r iinliSitulii! I,;;al ":S 1=r; '_Cr 111nLCILtCiI [1I] thu radU. i]IL rnfd +'I'.i, I[,1'1:, I I! 1•.' I161'; r111it ti Y.141 WI1.5 LIILIkiiijj iJU7 inictownve. 1 r.:INIIeIL ?S{JrIK� ):rhuscln inked if line of site Would he en issite. Mr. Arrow w vs^a5 rel plc to answer iho „t .stniturh,Mobllitle,Coeur d'Aterm 1E1;Mr, Birkcwoiksfar iobltftleand stated they are orc. {if t11c ft, l i[rfFaslruCtlnc prodders in ilio country, 'Working In all 30 stales. Currently theT, nr' '.V?1,a 11'.x' t'; rih prGll[ as a pravlder. ML', Burke stated hu felt It i%utiltI Lew i['It't!! t[,rLL to have it ub.- [ r ruselLt providers like hint who services caiellts: Mobiltic s jiri11111..::I; 7c011;(ISLS w1111 A vista Lul:": (. -!u4Fryl.i.Llk Mr, Burke provhI the Conunissinol with pictures nf1',, c;Iuii7rntiiir on all Avrista link'. I L said les oinlb1 r lin everything needed to run the egtli;ii .rr i^7 it. tie said Iit look:; for wlllw:ti Illi needing replacement. lie would replace the pole, ma till: cnnistrr r_•1] lop 1,411{1 t','hre:Ii 11L NC992ii reel full. Mr. Burke said the 1ibtelula l5 within. !-r:.(' oridelinL.a and the si;u!LLi IL1]t Llrikimweiti., 110 E k.I Moro 15 tl da:dia:aleJ.l power tir t;'. tIL 4:,!LIi_;1L:=.' ;raid it dors 1]9I [�+!E;I'.J171 I}[liw"Isr t[] It1 tL3n.sm1111t. rv1Lallnl1111t_15 CouI I handle plt4lr11; calk; 7a!1L1 now averyoitu ., ;'I] _' ]L iLtl ruutlia, twltehmg TV unit t thhe cal !minim l9 L1 ii! a]Ii�I,+:. t.; i.r9ntilllor ;1;1'. r1;,iiL over itlr' ;1J:I', `LI I•, Ii smuill Iw}1Ia 11111111 pugilism la to IL'uYlipmt data. t1ob11it ' 1'v= bail( palos. lot Spokane', and aro ,ull % to IISsiII1 Mum on sIr e1 LJg'_Lts soon, tic i:; t'.ori:l;lig ;'.Citi L2i.+ cit'' of Spokane to ithstill them nu cltgt owned &keel i6 v.; mr,.; ':1i !�aliLiv s,a]LLIrI Ille to seg Spokane Valley become crrllnected :Iy. rr,' ,..r4 is ree.7lri::ICI;1! the 1,1 I I Iu. In t]n I 1p;Lt 4tltlk', Ihis isthe Wllj' t#1H]l;.r Ci I'lq $vj1 V inly butter sliggust{cutting the review Ij]i front `-o .31:0 tv:r[balllt.i', 1;Ilt'i jr111I1$OIi asked what the optimum spL1clog would ix. Ile iuiCI J.:; !:i14.=!l't have an oy,LIaim n ;}] 14 4!Iy nut tllc.y lank where. peapin ark; having the arlos1 ;an!t' ;rLL Li tLL„IL},t' 841.1 il'1g their data JCIv'vi: lIc L:Llrr.:Jllly kinking litsires airing Pines Road, r1 Olt rr.;ti• lt7a:'s+';,s'c .'tauisoe2 or d kills from. etch oi[tun t_'omtrtissiooer1R-a5mnssenasked whatthe !text fora' rafterllrrialogy1'1'411,11+L°.1;411 +f;. Mr.I;Ios1 stilted the more the l:ov5umers want the 1er`hnoln y, wrint more data, rho, I';1.:}' t�'rl; rli it; ir. Thri.. t•;ill 1'i' lrldt ' S.'.Ml�'r'v they will be needed rot -coverage. Jwir. Arrow crlm]rr1+°Is .i 1' :';r'' rIt:Lt n rnnfer°elscr [] the [hall trsaka is ri± higher than it i5 in the LIF. :6'I' I r'f'l trl.iy 7ti i'{pd15iiii er” rl� 1.7 LilLIcaSr51.8 hot 11111011111e in machine eflrr11711JnialtiOnn" Phones tr+Ikklr'--' 1'+ 1:,'r::, 1L' IIILI!'s+; Locke's., t : rc.r. 'rlrr]lllitg the lights and furnaces, driverless gars. Irl c',;li-w::<; ti -:L ''i :III; �',,r:N11' L[p t,r. [ riva:n: Con insissloI cl ttv.51iiitsita asked Wires I' A) orislhlllty it 1i to repair Claiiiii!j.e.I soon would It gel 1i:- 1, Mr. Arrokvcffll.11tnuik°allili i.rfLL1lNIi,eJIItInaLllir]I_Iiia'Il;;tlitki+l,uIrlgutrt1"uir+:[JriJ;llt away. TM`it i i It!tnLL]gi.aP than apprt,priaeta J uveri1illi! tivutryrswiiut [ C I,1U ilLira eft;cri. �[Ijrjlili55_ila, I tat hus confirmed the equipment bellig Lased was not proprietary. Caeh provider uscR for (hem.. She yts+get.the lna>•k of;ILL fvlot)GlLL:i; system and wonders wily the other °•'Itiers e'mi't 1L5e the sa1oc equip:netit- 'nr.'rlrai Walton enrlfirlru*.c1 pcoasty who 'l: i[I I bs...:".€slaw ac =_r r;]r.a+: Ilcll't, commented `flip' Wm -airs are. for L:ntls o;,+1 L. 11 yo l t5'Lm' Li4 I,g ,l i'1 70 115L" tllC I�et; I cl riola}gy: it will 1 QULL Somtp/ aerie. =..117'rl',11StiIP;tl'-l' fJN9711L15!iill G.iiiII]'nicd that the pawl den. w lI t O Supp I1'I!]„.'vll.lt''i"8 i t ;IP1a s'w;:: !i� !.;h 4e it'r'.: 1.11121 ;Li LI! ihey will. tai install lag equlp1nert on Mill be able to hsPltil, h.. a� r,Ill lr it=J;11':r�. Ir°;!'"air: !+rr if tt]is L;view was part of flus permitting process. MI". Land] 31ot 1 lli t ltd"' did ;lot I'+%L'',`. eo). 1`:un+cntly, k]LiL n r,quiremalt of LL ceitlfietitlal'It could v'L iJL]]r: Into File process, ML` .,r4°+'.v L+.0?e'! flay submit a stnrcttar]al :1lac1y4i fur Ovary polo they II...Atli.] if 11 is tt srualt cell site .^11' L}!1.5'IL..753i..'. Mr.- Lamb stated. idol aridity providers lac 'lewdly 1 . tii..;l;:cl her' Fruth:. Lv: 4::lI;hS7:-�L'.IIu, jk1�. litoke sik'tLlCentu1',yLlltk itLju.ilesi iu 11Ota: toikilpI Lr.[r:; l)'..}„ 1'L`r,11i:. 1I!v}' .il?ia l';.a", 1lLL. a1°":•.tutlr,iitFl: (111I'c Il LW equipment, Mr. l titub wanted to remind the Commission i.atder Vedeiu1 law. traI1slnission ty'J-c- We can ask for sep;trsalion hosed on naniltctic COM', 711 I!s bIit :11=' {},p 11c,sl¢ll rn1ir,=rrI:. alae regulations need to consider some of the pr<]viclars whr. 1n.4'. :iat ill}lr Le 111 +Lmt 211 F:''r equipment on the pone. We cannot regolrith the tichnoingy, so we 4;Inr:...It 1..%)!:.II.11.0 L11�11 ;iiI; irwc',°sd:'; usu the tilin]e kiiltl orIlecauloingy another J]rovid'er is !P,4illg- 111 Sri.} WFr i'. 4V' a1 ir'tl tot erth. 3 'J1 III i1I. f. iiIty. The pachig iequirement is dtfMre ench the 277.1) itifqi ii1S1 Sfig'::2:.-.S6011, in the proposed reprai..t kr. 1111 IinIr pov..'zr it neecis to. be 'nub e (1154111;i1 brl en htCIIISMI.'111:i it !"11:1 11E11. 1riid'0:1111.%!IVO!... 01411111gRiorice uskod. 11 it NY85fasih1c t ;i- F. 1...1vc.h: LIcIIlli Lc-located. Mr. TArell %yDultl Writ to look into that and i v.iIl h7 ryviders. commissioner Waltan u . pcJi b] OJ rctj 11 j p 11 IU Lii tha ri4il.-01:-wily if li iteeds to be moved lir Ii .1)1 v.trzur3d. [Nh, 4411.1.114.1 have to into. the opilswor. commissioner if lir?. ILliy would 11,70/:: 1r 1LiviI,CI !ate of. sight. !Lou technology 1,vi-t9 kliffy,seti and it viTsLJ1 n line of sight. Mt. oal 1.110111PN ir:".1:1:71Mlion. Ce.1-4111^,:irriwi C ;1 Ly, it I hc piiviJor ale he hid IZSpinfRible 10 move their eqii.piiiL:oc to hark Iiiu it.s. bk. Burko corriimoted ii It !Leta (20-90 day's li jrd.ico find 111.101.11ef SOiLaiOn, .171•A:rd )2f/Ci/Ig l'efirilary 8, 7018. T/r ii fil(PC S6'1;01 'I; A4.1, (11i.LI.1'nbilk. Mr. i431' Lind h.'!".11"Cling Recu.-th A'r!. Opt° I'. lLJLfy i — 1.)rtiepi Spatc The p...isipone this study 3essiott In ri rx" VIII for rib.! gum.' of riu.1 IX. ito..)veti L Lv‘ly.avr) ,,1 //FL, /0.1(1.,:iNirna fiR2 01+01712/ Mic[icIii RaSMUSSeil, Chzir Dalirfil:41 Donatua Ho) ten, Secretary •i•nri, '11j Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hail February 8, 2018 i. Vice (:hair Johnson calk:d the meeting to order at :07 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audietic stood for the pleLlge of allegiance_ Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members. and staff were present: LL .larrlos .roll lison Uzanicllc J t chrrl iner Tire Kelley Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen, absent cxcrlscd Srr7anne Stathos Matt Waltori Cary Driske11, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney i.or'i Barlow, Senior Planner Karen Kcndall, Planner Micki f larnois, Planner Marty la:rlaniuk, Planner Deanna 1 iorton, Secre%i-v Commission moved to inFL-meeting, The vote on ll'tLV • ix in /d: -AY—, ,z4'iO again_stirnff the 7'7:;;1?.Id; A.GF:-7}; : Commissioner Wrdton rrioverl to n.eeept rl 1•ebrual5, `.; , ':.018 agenda as 1,resented. the yore On the !)?iJrlrJli u'fdJ r)J JUMP, zero C(garnSi (IJE'- MINUTES! Vii! CCommissiu cr Walton moved to approve tl'rc T;=':1 ray 1 l _ 2018 minutes as presscnlcd_ Thai :r; 1:7.' ;7;1",,,Tor, jd„ �i:.}�'','� ..... t., }Efil;'',YI` `•15111 IN altar, movtd to °.I''prove the Jt._'.11{,: '. 'iy 14 , ',I; .:t4:h i''w Eil" : z .1'... l'Fe.' .m' . .;., ;f?r;a?;a -,vas six ..10'4'01; Z'ro IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: ilc' r_:.iIa,Jrd.sir iters had 1141 reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE IU 1'i.)tff; lil::r. las rt4r_I{Lrainistratit•e report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There -was no public comment_ VII. COM11'II SION:13T 1NCSS: I Confirmed Public 'fieariu ; J 4 017-20(1,53—Aproposed amendment Iu Spokane Valley mInlicilio_tf' (5 TI 'ii1 22 C-19.GU.05 , SVW.' 1.7.80.030 and Appendix A to uptilite wire a '- blit r regulations to taciaress siting orstraall cell wireless facilities within tiie P rd I l i c rights-ert _ _ )LI;,_I V City Attorney' k Lamb s'4 ed the Commission continued the hr:ar'ing from January 25, 2018. M r. M ..i m) answered sorrinf the gliestinns raised at that meeting: Can the• City I :mire a specific distmce between ric.n.v poles? Mr. Lamb said this ways fe asibtc The iq Stry'suggestecl this 4:rr,Id prove' ,.]r4 1}Ierllatic the ni�or � pcoplc who entered r the L ii-I:et, 1,'Fe industry said the distance requirement t.::4.H.Jki make it difficult to find a I1+.:,u1011 wv'ifith worked with the technology, + Can the City require the to co -locate? '511. legally theCir.,: ccu]ci require '.o-locaticvl Ir:kv.c\c.r some of the u[ lit> alloy., it. I le noted s0il.u: work il' !hon.! I! IrwC than ':',..r ;'r',', i..1rr on Lift. .-11TeL' pole ▪ frill the Cit:, i`4 Yjl 1r5' .1 ITIinia'lllr>} height tr!1" LLiLI11'.il:'.:lll said to Mc. extent [hii i{ :10c—'r interfere v...ith the t'0lilt'J1':J11 . A ;l`. 'I.IIi: Il'eL li 4:30 Icel. Y+011[11 HoI pose a prolslenl, but a ['kiwi, 112vel_ ,.lova 60-80 0 teci may t':aus : d st:c: ;I:: l 2 tCC.h20lo 1 standpoint. • Clan Clic City require the ground hr+sc. J ioiIil ics to he buried? Mr. Ltii:lb slril.cri 14.,aliv the City could require it, although iher'e !3 practical considerbolt-.. Th t lS]liStry provided a significant number of Cojnnients regarding how ds:ltimee:T;iI to the, equipment u11grourldiiig can be, 2o1a-o2-og Prioilig commission Minutm Pii.g7 of 5 • c he (zip,: tr! iILI1It ti.oni the I ed I to [Iic macro cell •••••ia fiber'? N.tr I the the. IL.T..11rol4gy. ny requiring !inc.., would be rcguldiittp their tedinology. Ions ,...egarcli lig Fad iation loviLqs, 1.3ipe dth, possible impacts on people. kir_ Lamb SU J under federai law we entinot regulaite based on type of siVal, which would be regulating the technology_ T le said these items arc.. regulaied by the Federal Communication Corn in iss ion i FCC) and as long LiS the equipment meets FCC criteria the City cannot regulate them. a 'Yhe Commission requested crime statistics on trround based theilities. Mr. Lamb said aucording to the industry comments these J1.111 u [10 UM have an impact on evime. • Could the City tax wirels M. Lamb said the Cily already has a tax on telephoneiwur- i-Te said cities can do [tits Lipka- fed...:1-11 law', however we cannot lel Lira, • COLLId te City recuire z.i.ibrnit U etwillecring certification of the pole 111.1L:ttire.s.? 1Ani h ci the City 1-Tc said this relates to the public st5 rei ,. nf.a2i 1 tie placec in the o: the City does not have any pole standards,. (he utility ecimpanies do. [he providers. .would already be supplying this information ri-] the utility providers so il. wool d rlol hint. to ask fo—rFa_c-opy of i wth Itis typlication. • 1iu iE.c.,sponsible for the cost of retocation 2] polcs wit1 i112 1 cc 11 facilities on them? 1 ::;Ifil:Cd the cost of reloeation k he i.e!.,ponsibliiD. of the party making I I 1.c: n241 leSt Relocation costs are 11o,: I.41011:-..illility of the utility Company if 11 i capir:.,.11 project. ILoiilioireos i ai c. the responsibility of the clevelOper when it is a private developirmit, • is; lino of site a. probtem.'? Mr TaT said aceordingto testimony at the last tnccting, line of site ...Yds not an i,S1..10. Trie said in Spokane Valley (110 tOpograp!iyis not pose a problem because or rho nature of the. malley.—The City not have issues siiii tai to downtown Seatie with all thi2 hilELl and bit ildi ngs. 'industry has 3'epresQuLtaLivas who can provide more clarilivatiou, Mr. Lamb said sta4nci the Commission receivcd cominents at the last meeting from the I id, Bir' oro ide. 1 le has ro.iewed and offered comments on some of 11:1 e topics which were brought:tip, • '1'he induscry rewicsicii. to have the undergrouncling Facilities requirement. removed. Mr. cg211r the. City .L.:an require i. How..c.vcr, there are considerations to (he size Ile1ES.. 'a .1 ;val. location,. as pic-hlres supplied by the vendor- — • '1 removing the requircmen( CAM ti011 oi a nt Lfl imum d neo: LaKth said [i ft does riot gee an issue with those tegstirein..2111-;. The 7 ...mould hinder the last. comport:, into the market. .1 he expressed coJ.....ern someone's house may have 3, 1 or 5 poles pliwer.1 IL aiu 2 OtTcrcct n front of city hall there is a pole on llie edge of Citv I :all zmoiiicr 20-3u feet 'ciWity • -; I IC iticittry requested shormiing permit processing time from 60 to 30 days. Mr_ i ,amb said 60 cays is requ I II idii state and federal law. The C.'ity's permit processing time is much shorter th:a; that: however he rceororuct ids keeping (10 days. • T M;1iiI. requested the City oliov., omit ed camouflage design. Mr.. Lamb said ilijs .would h facility that LLOS. F.i1 i l'oe antenna and control equipmept ill 011c et IL.losure. 1-Mobile Eii!-...1,..,Q.ested a unit which i.vould not that! six clibk. feet. This is smalkr til ..sive rhati the size of the ariti.2.1111U ;,1111:1 control box %together. Mr. Lumb said ili i%) as a reasonable request: a id the Commission could consider this, ever staff si:igested a name change lirn it ,o0fusiort • 'Hie industry yeti tJLIl allowing small cell fact l i u ciiy parks, Mr. 1 said given 11K: prcximi1ylhe I ly i here is no need For a facility in the park. ile iicel to clean up the overhead in is parks. Tt would be inappropyLne to al small cell facilities within lite boilltdarte.9 of the park. 2018-02-08 Planning CQnitrFi sit n Mir111te,4 Page 3 of5 The industry requested increasing Lhe eciriutI JI Srrlissions structure from 50 to 60 feel. Mr. Lamb stated this rented t : the large macro-poies and he r>`eOnlilwcnde4l not making tris changge- • The industry requested increasing thc a1] v ahIe deviation before an action is viewed as ti substantial change, Mr, Larnh said this is the amount of deviation allowed bete re a C,nnrlitional Use Permit is required. He said i]:e (_:its rcgulai.ions are relatively flexible and open, he wcaulcl not recommend this change. Commissioner Johnson and PhiIli.ps e).. presscrl concerns r°e. idiiig the requirerncut for private developer paying to move ofthe when ti.c:c: ; ;: °:"r°, 11... development. Commissioner Johnson shared his fear that line of' wi1.: ,:."t'. l t,;. I:i :'i"I"''n when a new building is crreeteil. Mr. Lamb said it is the responsibility the c:.; Fier s t,•" determine if t]i it equipment was aisle to column n icate. Vice -chair Johnson asked for public comment Jcrel .�irn Urdu: ('oil:suiting for Verizon: Mr. Aro w;tiL1 he 4k't,s addressing a couple of questions which iltosc. lac s itc;c3 ihcre are naturally t ccurring gases in ar:i'IlldergruLILLd vault. The equipment (Lehi li(Ll I11 1] u vault does not emit :Ln`:` kind of gas. He: corrrlIICili_ti 110w damaged the equipment heccives if it is required to be 1.}I!Ii1'rl. Ile requests the Citi' eiintinaLC CI11S r(:quirtiiricisl. .,c.i7idT?Ii,'*.4'itmer 87[00] i -,•r Y±dL[a1cabi et 1'fe."1:0?7 ri4"f'.5'., Mr- Aro said he ".did vc the specifications Vvith Iu]n, Mr. An", .aicl i1 WOO Id he thc resronsibiIity (Ai the carrier for making sure that rile cor1111111nicatis,rl with their o\vn ,cilities, c_'ca+lra yr.k,sin+;r:'r .{„l,�r•: ,r; c(Juf: Pied 70.1=01t ?+'yJ±I:i`.4 pi""f)K:/ and that extensive rlrfiarcr,re, as STTOWf VL?I'tzon's caused by putting the eept pT ncrrat arrarl :+'gf•c,urrr.J Steven Burke, Mobilitie, Coeur d'Alene. ne. TTI: Mr. Burke Skid lie felt the legal cIel;t,l irnc:L11 •:;;,1 done to good job ;:It.}7 the regulations and he Ivarited Lo enC%C}L91-i4}-e II'Iti T'1rl _ r :-,incnrssio.` 1� forward. them to the City Council. .I -f~” wt ic.c1 Mohilit.ic has a e.":l ;P:ae".: _Lrl.e::JLt1 and e,vr1",Tul equipment in one unit. He said dime will_he difficult stating [hat rl" i ,',tl t,l;,l 4 :"'11ryi,ink require i {jIIijiiricnl tci he ten feet off the ground. 74], iii,i'1 ,' i:,ic; ',\i1[.; L. ,=Ii 11 '..,.. '-.'. ._orrip,a'1': would move their own equipment. City Attorney Caiy iwli,l'ifled licA..c J* 15r1ingt.i,r .;,..tate .statutes rez.uliLt;''� who pays to move a 416194y 11Ly1� :crated in the right-o-`,tid}H , e said under I ?L liiiiii.. wl 111e {,iii' is doing a capital project and utility pole needs to be moved, i he cosi i .:• 111.1iry company. 1 L is beim:, moved for the public:: ii.i.:Ial, The 1Itlll Trade fission (l.I 1 L- i ;1..+ ":Tip 1wL:l! i; If L}II I!.li1i1:>.• rates which �.li1y Ir}r these :Moves. lite tJ'1C ddc..'rminI it that tl::: i:.:':s4hi. iLeE314111 he .rCC`Llewt pays I -Ur the gnitaveinent. If it is a private development, tllerl the dei t o r pays. Cohiplissioner \\ {i[ttli tail c:(l 11t} lri; iw sites each of 'the carriers preserll were looking to deploy, Sfc:vc.n Burke for F.1cibi Iitie stated they had six, Mr. Aro :i<rl. i Verizon 'was Looking at three at this tiI11e. Commissioner Surlily.}s confirmed [lie...%(piipIT1LrT1 would be labeled for safety as required Dennis Crapo, Spukan& Valley: Mr. Crap stated he wanted the Cornmission to be aware of the unintended ('4}11s,NL,Crices of Lallsiwing 9l1or6 poles in the right-of-v.ay. He said it would set. a precedence. and could keep someone from bLirig ,able to develop a property_ 110 one else who wished ed to tes't+lit Vice -Chair Johnson clo.s :1 the public hearing ng at 6: 54 pan. Mr. Ltirr b suggested. the Commission begin with the proposed a mc:ndlll"_i rs ...vhich were presented at the January 25 meeting. "Then move to the- proposed changes to thrll. prs;p,7:.sill: • the 20 foot minimum height requirement, • the facilities must be buried in the ground Unless technically ilifetIsil?le„ 201g-02-08 Pinning Commission Minutcs Page 4 of 5 ▪ not located within a (:(.: (currently bracketed with 250 in this, holding spot) of olher small cell 7:FiCiric-sU e the applicant dcinottiratcs that no other location can accommodate or k sutlicien 11101X1 fli Wiitle;SS service need_s, g t the prov;:ier cannot mix: 1..he d nee: then they must make kin alletript to co- -wthy it is not poEsiblu. M. 1.1n -in aidtattl-L ec.ulit seta are required !.o ;•• the whieh [1.-.1 th. 7ill„ffqiii1eL...1 PrOperty, bat ;:!! will' that pi i.,.a(e 010:1.:2.• Thu Commission began deliati,J.12s of the issuCs which had !leen p.:).•:-.sc:!Ited for change (0 the Comr-,ii::Tiers agreed to add Ei 250-fo(:, i)etween h i t uud demonstratc at this distanee_ can chlan:2,..- it. I :le to ac!d 1:....T...,iretrient for co-loeation, ir 7,1 „,fi .:It all fepsible. "Itic requiri..1!1 .11 21:l -foot miiiimon1 and agreed to this 'Theii ILL_ I'd iiICtT1Cfl t tuldergri..y.siding the eir,illrol equirT!erit. ....li!...1_11....-,.,...11;.]);:.ComunisiFicriers:agreed, to aiddiug tint; 1 rcquiinin:2 transn-Ussion by :11.Der would itof. he added, bcc...9.1.;:c re:..-2ti1 ate the tectinolog,y, Coiriii 1 i cs a.A.rced to adding the requir.":„...11;IiL certification 10] 11 IC 111 (Fom.rnissioner Johnson frit pitrc....A.4 with a _c.fl. looT eNempl li•om new pc:les. (..!onimissioner Phillips rce.k.i.he c.a 'Tier shol;_c! '_:ti ].is, Lamb -.Aid rvirii practical standpoint he was suR: it. C.,...orriini..,,s(k)nor Walton confirmed 1.'nciv. iS DO public of a new utility polL:. fvfr, T ,ainb 2.,.;1<cd the (.....onruissi,::! 111,2 mei i he from 6{} -days. The (._:.r.rmin.is:Jiou.Q2.:•,4irreed to the (1 i.2.1e line. C.c...!"]m,c:siorieF ;.1!_tecl to [ow for a L',011)bl1C:([ ci)1211::611re v1i ic.h rnight be a bit the. for t:p.•i i1iii ij ilone. The Commissioners agreer tI ii.v did not sniai I IiI:ii. ILILS. I ',he Ciin-rmissioners agreed n01. t!lc: h .L:11 !I'll it'dil011:2 -:11] CLOCLACEL; C::11irriissi.oners agreed to no Lamb said oh should rnake a motion to approve the clanpres.cnted ori ,1aii 25 along with were discussed 1.c.1111! up211,;IL: with the co-1....-,(Ttion requirentcnt.a :iii -feet, retain the orr ground Yau.1(s. addition of a structural engineer Lelti iLL1iO1i with orii Fled camoutlage fac.i I it -y with a differeta p;i1-1 cri- lose changes. 1..1o11611 fuoveLi (o'reconn.i?ci,i'd k.1 Citv r r.proposed aviendment -with Ihe c!'iaisges -which 'had I.Je7.7210, L'ity Aitol7tey. The voic on 'I'M,' inotioR zepo and the im:;.!.,y Senior Planrieti,ori '411.2 cilanging ag.......u.dt!. to Triiyo2 '.11.2 Com prchen7jve Ilan study session ahead of The t41.1.11 clne 1.0 the nunlher of. people i11 attenclan.ue who were interested in the iopics. YrtitnissIC1Ei glivC consensus to proceed_ ii. Study Scion 21)11] Curnpirehensive. Plan a/nem:line/Its: Ms. Barlow oreseritt.,..!, an overview of (.7..om7r,.:5herr..7-.....e Plan pro.:-:tH, .lL•1,2 orignia[ty rour thr....t- City after the doekei L'iitheed ;inicnclivicnts :ity hold off makiii il. dL 1 !) their p' al. ir..•.r Planner?, I r larnois (..%0 500- rteast o1 Pines rad on zIi e of ,lipproximaLrly two fron) Sing;_t !es.i4.ientia1 and k -.i 0:ar. ion arid ; I i; — by 1,1 and south Lrid Corcidor Mixed 11,.: 71_,:LAV:Ltd For this axiericfdyient. 21118-02-08 Pr' ruiirt. C'orninissinn minutes Page 5 of 5 Jv1s, 1-larnoi* r{ lniii Ic':I the Csimr.Yissioners that CP.A-7 r) .-rY{Y(:'^ I•i! i withdrawn. by the property 1.1,Vi I 112.1"_. PJ; niter +tE{r'(y P i]; iuulc'_.rfi:_ainal t.:PA-:J? 8-0003 :'s It1c' {t.'c' <{1 I L144'il` IY ' d Sands Roads, The request •..Ll Cl'.aili?c the Slug[ 1'i3177J1 t.l(;ylipl'I;;li;lii I'll:l Ii -2 Corridor Mix.ed 1_:'' (( desii,.natiori located acrus: id t)ishnlart 15,1i• r+l.111.1, Ile said t`Ic: lot aricr a sl:bdivision ol. tli;° pr{periy in 2010, w itch divided the properry lw ;in the sow]] skit' or the original final lot, This lot was created as a LIr1airi i L' i:E{`vl'Ir'rl1 which ':'•as beett dedicated to til{: (:.ill. '1 he j`:'i?I1C1't' is surrCrt?17dCd on three r'lolllll residential and the f".'.,llro%{r.l LJ2i4:1,s to .tki, north. The p.onerty lju:r.Ir:j'. (. IIL.':s1L'I' �.1'L:ti'n, i`o loeatvt in a rlkloiph'.,n7, has :.1 I_ [}t' 1- jl'�kifri. }l. biologist has repc:'rrecl the: site. .CHrlmiss U:ler \L:'ti.toll ask i;c. it Itis property would have been allowed 1.Lr I1 i4icicci irt11c rl c;iIYr. eeasementhard i..I :`c:.:1 r; oirL of it Mr, Palaniuk started he would IJiivc to defer to cngineeI r_.s,'..i. [vh. 1';iliinii�lc elated the Commissioners already laud nil comment which was provided Llp. Iv' lime or 11I:li.1 the aci;eL Any comments received slats.; iiicti had Peen provided to the Conunis ic.Ytic;r., that. c. c-ning_ -- ry1r. 13:11 anfLik discussed CP.A-2018-0004 is located iI the c.orncs` rr r ± I' Avenue arc1 University Road. i lli request is t( CIY2:iL e the [l s'ILin I1I.Y{Sli '','+.til'' SIriL..IC Family Residential :1;7'.1 R-7. . I;ir;ITYI' Ll? Neighborhood CU:.7i7 :!oii11, lac L': ?I.,inL'.] il;_' wul',JeC ;:.aire1 abutted another l'r;lfx.:rly owned h ° the same prvp :: ['WI .:r. which ki::, cIYc,ngc:J to Neighborhood Couarne ial during the 2016 �.`sides_v sir ]e C]117�!]'�(i�:li'y..., l' 13�i�'II ril��:JfL:C'. �'1•I. �'tt.l:l^I�Yl4 st.r.] t17? }7'T{;�13�'rIY �4'diS Sisllrrtls�tadcd Or'I'Ot}7Cl` ;" T tciriiily. I I 4;�c is h..-;.-.1c-red by 1J7i1Erw I'- 1t.,.a;1 wflic:: i -i a tnin..r arterial. ]'ilii=Palauituk said the t.,:471T1uIL Ii?lit;'S 1yao. tally comments stall ha. v4: Planner Karen Kendall was beginning her discussion of CF -A-20 18-i,C"' 5_ '. hen. Comrlissi mer I'i ii ll.ipS recused himself regarding this ainendriiint, and left the col_u_ci] chambers. amendments are both correcting wrapping cruors. The property for CPA -201-000:s i iocaied at the confer of Prop -;ss and I orkcr Road: The parcels are split a and Single tinnily Residential. The amendment is to d sigNitc: 1111' mirth 'aid cast edge of ogle parcel as Neighborhood Commercial and another along the _BP.A ti.1?,crncliL. LoinFiissioJler Stathos commented the area could not handle any 11.1oio I.ra [lis 11'11 was developed,_ Kendall explained the change proposcd li}r (:PA -2011-00(J6. The property is located on .Trent Avenue apprt'xiivat .1'‘.)11Lt a-nd nnu hair mite east of Sullivan_ The parcel is clevelupcd and there is a stormwater s',kt lv {lc: i IIS,,. 1.s 1-L.".f: to be rezoned. The parcel is split toncd with I he 1.5 feet Oil the east side of 11me runcva fir; iL:°+I _;1 Sisig.ly Family Residential while the mot is Itnllistrial Mixed Use. The .proposed change is tO..7QllC the easterl,? r.!de 1Jsc_ The n .K1 Sl4.la k the ?YJf;lic, hcari11.g, which is scheduled for February 22, 2018_ iii. Study ,Session, Open Siar,11 Feipiirements in MixedUs.c zones. The Commission ag,rced 10 pomporietlre discussion of open space regaiireinents to another rtrccting. 'lI1. G001) OF -1HE ORTIFR° Them was no irg fr the good of the: order, IX. AIM 0t1-ItNNI N'T°- Colnrmm issloner Walton muted to adjourn tJic meeting at 815 p.m. The vole oh the +lrrafr(,re rim ,tr1:.7Oimmis 111 fin'OY, IJ7t! 111C0S1O11 passed, A1`rclielle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed Deanna Holton, Sect -00y Spokane Val ley. Mobilite Comments Re: Planning Commission CTA 2017-0005 Draft lf3/1s- MOB1LME COMMENTS- HIGHLrGOE0 IN gig DRAFT APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS HadlotTV broadcasting studio; Facilities serving the broadcast media. See "Communicelion facilities, use category." Repeater facility: A facility for the noncommercial recctWlion and retransmission o- radio signals. See "Communication facilities, use category.' RF E aineer A person who h tfte opinion of Ilse C+ ftlariacer, has appropriate educe iorl trai i orad ex a vs in wi'elr:s co mptu mcation services. radso Frequencies, and FOCd olher ai icab e move r C c r,t l rE.nu la tions to provide the pwecessanr oertih stion s re imd Qursuanl to cha'o?er 22:'fi ' Vr.1C. TelecornmuntcatIons, The transmission, between or among paints spezifled by the user, of audio andior visual information arx1 data of the user's citooslrig, without change in the forma or content of the information as sent and received. • Alternative mounting struct.irc ,A water Foyer, menrnade tree, clock tower, church steeple, hell tower, utility pole, fight standard, f-eestandinJ sign, tiagpoe. or sirnilar structure designed to support and camouflage or conceal the presenoe of telecommunications antennas, • Antenna: Any-exte�;of �tirr, r tis deSf;;nsd for;l' te;: honic r„j iia, data, Internet - other ci rn r:unications 1 Og1- !-re:Se Jir;q ;- n,Vcr r iwlfig radio fre�islr ricY jgnals, ludire, but not I i<d to n4.r101ent epoch+ d_10 a tom; bolt, light standar t, poke. i)ui:Ong or other raciu:a for t1e u-poSe of p,co di no wireless se ices. Niles cff gntenrtas rH Iuri,c • till in reChpriaerdenne" reu' i'oas nsnslls lad CI -d gree. radia. G t arj, =1! enC S teals In Ad:* aritennl' .S.811o sir w+irerrtional en nnatliatis ur to 5 eetlr.1iel■1iL an iaL7' 1tore than si t ricbesiii%idiarnet a; and - A "diPg6tiorV or panel Buten rip' receives aJ3O..,ransrxi lis radia f enquench signal§ In e st:eri°:c: irectior :.iptt?rn Of iesUhart3B0 degree-A-strwetr Pdevise to colic&ja-ramie_ t stay veafe agraetic waves, kr udir g d rest] nnas,-so4Fasp,sr s;-w,firetless•sable ead-sateake Reotieraat-aRtisonoc., cub s5 Mips, but not indludnig sflell11 riew&dosFellatiel-lIOf -lose cf radica car tele+Jisief , • antenna Neta p he vatic - di-ta ce mea- -d from avera ■ - building etevati ■ to the Mc:hest. poLnt of ttie antenna. Or If or r09'100 or o1rler structure- fi 1T tfri,too of the roof or structure to the tt`ohest point of the antenna. For reptacearstrnt structures antenna ie••h i rr1 s x-• i .mtf,5 o - =xisti r s w ura to a hl±hes,t Dint of the antenna or new aucture j hichavei Is.greraterr- 1 CTA 201.7-0DOs Draft J/Wa - MOBILITIE COMMENTS -HIGHLIGHTED IN Mg • Approved small cell 4ciltty: A v smell 091I Wilily that has recOved all required pc 7nits. • Array: An arrangement of antennas and their supporting structure_ Base S : fon: A structure o e. ui.mewl at e. ed location tha : hies FCGiicen =d qr Authorized wireless pom rnut hcatiot«s between user equipment and a communications network The term does rro e_ ncompass a Viwer as defined hereiru gr any eouton' aril associated with LigAer. Base Station Includes, without IimiteLion, E ui merit associated with "reless communications services as well gnhicensed Wifeless services and fr O wireless senticesigoh as microwave - Radio lfanscervers, antennas, coaxial or Ipeprialic cable reoula and bacKur power pun plies, and comparable equip-reg..reoa'rdless Cif teefanoloo:cet con rinuration (includirrc Distributed AltrIfilha Svstaru `DAS'i and small-cell net r sI Anv sUUGture stilet than e trn/6 ire .cat the rime Iticle;eyarrt ai OlicatiOr1 is Bled iii l e Git sus M • its or ouses e ! u i+ "s hide : ed above t at Frac beer: reviewed and an roved u a Fs...Ili:aij sir. ir sit no ."OC.ess. o :.rider anal State or focal m r__ ar . cuts, , - en if the built for the sole or 'nm5 +'.airy' .f *ravidi ?�.,li - su 'ort. The term does not Incl,ide an strud tha14 a lire {fife relevare ak lication is filed • vial the CO, dues riotgiJlaoH or Lugar`:+ 4ou3rifiO attave. • Collocation: Tn ,gintn4 ri instellat�fifirsniS$Itequipment On at eligv Ipoort structure fe puroo $ f transl eaIQr ivinr iadio frestuenov slan=ts for contmu nicato pu 'ses. r'nrrl+n dloFs-fte r-by-rEff-#i:-dee—e, asFGOprovider_ ' • ConclalYent f4ti tologr = TTansrniSsl. j olesianed to look lik scene feature other Orin a wireless �r or • stationinirtilzes th': v e `u+acl Dien r7lc�nr.a iii" use or nonrsL t've -• f• a. re Nate GAI+rs andtor a oonceaiment can * Dish: A parabolic or bowl shaped device that receives aridfor transmits signals in a specific directional pattern. - EIA -222: Electronics Indus tries Association Standard 222, 'Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and'Ailtennas Support Structures_" • Electric transmission: A self-supporting struc(ure In excess of III feet in height designed to support high voltage efectrlc lines. This does not Include Il utility tx distribution poles (with or without transformers) designed to provide electric service to Individual customers_ • Eligible Facilities Reikuest: An re e for rnodifhcati n tan existiris' tower r . se feat dirnorrsiorts. S tSitt'h tower or . base ste ipn, invohi ri is - Ctll,cation of new lransgrlssiori eguiPITIo 2 CTA 2Q37-0005 Draft 113/18 — MOBIl911E COMMENTS — HIGHLIGHteD rN - Redlkpv1 of transmissiarrr equipment, or Re IncemaUttransricil ▪ be SLI . • , rt s - re;. An $,r, : of base sta i a as define±, 1 .ls section provided that it iii at the lime ttie relevant efipticalion is filed with the City, hoouses_gf supports in antenna, w c a ce1l or srq l call deoloymeait_ • Equipment structure., A fecih1' shglbar cabinet_pr vault used to house and proteid nic or oth essaolate l mein nec?ssary for pro Ging wireless communications si inets. 'Assoc° ed : u ui *meg' ma ude for exat • le. 21.1r conditiarsing, backuo tower supplies anderncrcency ueftetetofs. • Exiatirrg: A cert t ,ted time +, base st.ltons ,,{ sL �d it has been reviewed and ppr rayed under # a ,licabl• onina or Minia Lh+} ar undo a other slate or local r-+utato vew process .rovid'edthat - awe "asg ,t.been reviewed and as b(i1I .but was lawfully reviewgd because t s not to a z+ 1 - r are -.A constructed, is existing for nu rp❑ses ofct d o- + 22A 22 SON R Guyed, tower: Any telecammanications tower supported in whole or in part by cabtes an:llored to the ground. • Height: The distance moasu red from grade to me highest point of any and all. components of the structure, including antennas, hazard fighting, and other appurtenances, if any. • Microcells: Fjas tr,e. nme'noanin+ 3S set fo h,. -I Ft 4i .,313.375, as now adopted or tiereerft ensk a Monopole: A sell! -sup; nrting lecommLi lit tions towerM-itch c insists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the ra ti di arrdfor atl9Ctied to a foundation, Eitherst,+Gtrd i!RRr esed.t 1.11pertsrriafl .L1.0islit.esol, 1�iiCtu :, exc1 'i? b Lldin. t,titl 'peas, and water reservoirs Exp -limes of `atrter.s?tpport s ' *` µroc Zrii fiide flagpoles and ball field Ciotti standards * Panel; An an tonna isrtit i recei s sndIor transmits signals in a directional pattern. • Prior a a rOvaI. ertiflca *r sol a...ver s r rn the Cit = h. '21n the iryi ial installation of e _yo- ciFr 'Niro ` carne small call f,-li'es on a ba n station c tower., • j • as't[ival ri? k=tso Incl t. e subses + 1 a. novels rom the City authorzirio have res tad in the exis , a stale of the srjJ her arid location of eouiI men( s ructures. structures a ■ = Gills i. ant. ca Lions to the acilrty lrrcludi antennas ail, :hna s ttutni3 l, 4,1111 i u ation o the n ▪ Self-supporting lattice tom r: A tetecammunicatiaris tower that consists of an open network of motel braces, usualy triangular or square in cross-sectIon. a Service: The offering of telecommunications fora fee directly to the public, or tc such classes of users as to be effec:lvely available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used. • - rvice .. : 1 H-5the sa ie meanie' a sat forth n f 35.93.01Q(fi) zunw adapted or hereafter amended Servi rovtder shall i elude tt case I r IT...structure 3 CIA 2017-0405 Draft 113118- Momuf1IE COMMENTS - HIGH LTG Faro IN I. companies that rovide teleWrnmunIt [iOrr& services Or equipment to enable the deployment of personaI wireless services + Small cell and small cell del:Arnolenl: Have the sa a eanin es set forth in R_Q a - 5.375 as n yr eduptesl or hereafter rime • Stealth: A telecommunications antenna that is effectively camouflaged or concealed tram view. • Substalittai cttanae: A mod.ib tion substantial1ychanrteslhe ohyslc t div nsions of 811 eli lih1 support structure if it sheets any of the folio g cdtefie: Far Ii ie s other than tawers in the ubric ri ht f a It increas s the trelcfht or the tower by more than 10% r by the i• of one addit nal• enker«r asset? v,� h separation tr rui the nearest xisti efwtenna nal, to exceed twenty fes, whictever is Greater, for nihei eIs i a;..a . off 'VuctUrp I creases tate ftelatit of the structure by mre than 1 rmore th .feel ichever is grgater, ff� - For lowers other than towers in he o ri• t k Iii °" . as addirt+ an a..ur'lerrance tit], the bOrl o the tows' I :. nu k .w f., `3I e ed•e .f the Rowlir were than twenty fe :or snore th6rite of Ilse lomat' Vnucture al t9L levet of the apou•torr sur Lv;rlciivrcr i-, treater;: or other eligible supero istmot.rres, it Involves add ir q r el urlir agGeSp jre body -of the structure that would projrude from the vdue of the. s.!tiucture hY:fOrtaf than six feet For any eligi �� jj( ` , tI LILIUie Ill l v st l..• of more than Ma standar u of n two, en i rr~r ji' ca, it fr r # to nolody Involved, but not to exceed f ifeabinets,..rnr. for tower. ire rhr_publt -tlohts-o -waY and base sta[ions„ 1U 1 s cia of an-°. - w e6u + t cabinets on tarrturrd lF jt ii~ reriopr i tin4-9a,}ricabi'dto. associated with lihes[nactured eine latiort'T?(••Ciitid j GCs tet are more than 10% larger in Ire ditit or .s;k io1uTr19;v.ne .her.ro'i bll `associated tah the strLuCtµro; 'r° • entmi[s any ek[i tioif &.4ep1$ mens outside the current slte; • It;"kb s t= -t the' + • r e -Irrht t ele tints of the eligible support structure; DT - It does riot coma[vy Cofrd itrons asst i ted ryttlt the alliin approval of thio conorvctirr +fr niothri an oche El ■ihlesu+ +o s uctufeorbbse station e• 1• ent, +rix r -i1 ..y s - :t. this limitation does not a• al b err modification that 9 j,t ani 1 a manner that would not exceed the thresholds id'enii 't above. • Telecommunications antenna: An antenna used to provide a telecommunications service. This excludes lightning rods, private mobile radio systems, amateur radio antennas less than 35 feet in height in residential dish -lots and 50 feet in height In nonresidential districts, and whip antennas less than four inches (10 cm) in diameter and less than 10 feet In height • Te • nnunlca. • r aeri(ILe; i lie 6a me me nin as se h in RCVti+ 35.09-O101171h.. now edDpittqpr hereafter amended 4 CTA 2017-0005 vra[t 1,13/1.a — /VOMIrTE COM MENT5— FII0E LlGHTEO IN MI • Tower: Anv s1Vuctur9 bui:t for Lhe Sqi$ a licensed tar out' ■ rhzed entenn - and tht -lr associat are pqnstructed foril1ess cum o- nvote •IC-dcast and r rimerse of Su fl CC- F d fixes wireles d facilities ncludirl. Str4J 1 ural ' tower" ohall not indudg.R.3rd than CO, a tranctjl a cora Smell ti permit.A�rg-rx h r ry0 4g rily-Le--or,ippuct-one-tales ammunications anteF aao- Does nekool e -h am eratar-or nd-tu Fe- tewe • 7ransmission,. iUIpmerlI; _Equipment flat tacilhtekes G iss licensed pr authorized wireless r7om mu r l . do SIM - radio transc:eiverp. Entennas, civgia1 or fiber -o ali p:fm' Cr;SU e m hoax] uh rnent asso seryLtdg, icersIncIjbutnotlir to .rivate well as unlicensed wirelesp services and ackha3ul, din + but not r ited to :end r0quier and backup ppm 100.1 comma i -tions *- e cast.. ;Ind ut c safe se OS ireless services.such as rrlicrowabe • Utility hole: A Jrtticture design d a3nd us ally for the 8u4?it cf e'.ecdrlca. wires telephq[is wires, tefeu _ an .; Me tra 'rls, .p .bin. for sh• ,parkin€ areas, or pedestrian palhs- . ul;lp aF er a;-M.omRi direct ca al di ntei rra of.lFnd-r-irs.al-s;!ra -ia. rite more than-F,ix in c a• 1 . ■ Wireless: Halving t"iirefeePlivlres, operating by Means of transmitted a 3leetromasgnebc waves. Tower, ham operator: A sU Jo.re less Man 75 feet In height above grade used far two- way communication For• Nobby Or emergency service purposes by private individuals. Soo 'Communication realities.: use Category " CIA 2017-CO45 Draft OM- M4111L111E COMMER75- 1IGHLIGIITED IN MI DRAFT SVMC 19.5U.O6U UserCaNgory Type Camminhtblloo Facllhtisa RI R2 Ft R4 Irk 1 kl.JC CMU Radio/TV broadcasting siudlq 0 NC C RG Repeater radial+ P P P P P POS P W P P Smai, cell deoIownortl. s TelEttlmmUrllc6Uon wiieIe antenna array Teleccmrn nri.a6dn wireless support lower TaAier, ham ope •plor S S 5 9 G C 0 s 5 h1 12 P P chasm PVM 5 Chap.or 22.120 SVMC C C s 5 S Chapaer 21120 SVMC: 5 5 S 59,44,11 Off;} CTA 20174X75 Drat 1/3/1$ - MOBIL TIE COMMENT$ - HIGHLIGHTED IN= DRAFT Chapter 22,120 MVAC 22.120.010 Purpose and !Merit. These standards were developed to protect the public health. safety, and welfare, and minimize visual impacts on residential areas, while furthering the development of wireless co mmuniCatlon servic .s, These standards were designed to comply with the. Telecommunication Act of 109E. The provisions ofncha r 22.120 are -lot intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or io.tlave the effect of prohibiting wireless communication services, to 'ter 22.1 -1V er all ,irs noMmuniea1n se rulces h r i -an sate' :11 •;:,s ..are re . ul- ad . ursua: chapter 22.121.5Y i1 C- 22.120,020 Permits and exemptions. Where a transmission tower or antenna support structure is located in is zoning district which allows such, use as a peoi fitted USE aclivitti, administrative review, and a building permit, strati be required, sub}mct to the proj&.Vs consistency with the developnlert standards set forth in SVMC 22.120.0.10. In instances Where the use is not allowed as a permitted use ec city, a_ onditional use perm;t and bLJ Idin9 permit shall be required in addition to a demon li, l ivrt.ol. consistency win) ell required development staridares, Exemption: Wireless id—to utilized for temporary emergency communications In the event of o d:sasterti axernpt {rnm the provisaorls of this section and shall be permitted in all zones. 22, 120.030liequ1re-d.opplicfIon aufa�rtels:`. All applications for wirele*S pritenna arrays and wireless communication support towers shall inclUde the follcnwfng. :... A. A letter signed by the app nt stating that all applicable requirements of the FCC, the FAA, and any required s tion easements have been satisfied. P. A scaled site plan dearly Indicating the location, type and height of the proposed tower, antennas, on-siteland uses and zoning. adjacent land uses and zoning, adjacent roadways, proposed means of access, setbacks from property lines, elevation drawings of the proposed tower. the equipment structure. fencing, buffering end the type of stealth technology which will be utilized. The full, detailed site plan shall not be required if the antenna is to be mounted on en existing structure, C. The applicant shall ttave pe rfornied and provided a photographic simulation of the proposed facility from all affected properties and public rights-of-way. 7 CTA 2017-0005 Draft 1/3/1S -MO ILmECOMFMNf5 HLGHLIGHTED. IN b. The applicant shall provide copies of any environmental documents required by the Stale Environmental Policy Act ISEPA). E. The applicant shall have demonstrated effort to co•lacate ort an existing support towel. or olf}er structure, New sLpport towers shall not be permitted within one mile of an existing supper! tower unless it is demonstrated that no existing support tower ar other stauoture can accommodate the proposed antenna array. The City reserves the right to retain a g;Jail fied consultant, at the applicant's expense. to review the supporting documentation for accuracy. F. Evidence to demonstrate Ma'. no existing support to rerkir other structure can accommodate the proposed ant-enna array may c❑riefal.,01the following; 1. No existing support towers or other4raJttalres ere located within the geographic areas required to meet theapplicant's engineering requirements. 2. Existing support lowers or pfkler structures ere not of sufficient height to meet lie applicant's engineerng requirements. 3, Existing support towers or outer structures do not have sufficient structural etrerlglfr tb.support the appliCsn9bs proposed anterlris array and related equipment. 4. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause elecErornagnetic Interference with the antenna on the exislingg support towers or other structures, or the antenna on the existing sorppvrt towers or other structures would cause interference with applicant's proposed antenna. G. The applicant of a nee. tower shall provide a signed statement stating the appli_:ant has provided notice to all other area wireless service providers of its application tc encourage the co -location of additional antennas on the structure. I -L A signed steteanetrt fToirm the owner andfor landlord to remove the facility or obtain an,other.p mit for the facility w llrlra six months of when the facility is no longer operating as part of Eiwiretess cornununicatioh system a°uthorized end licensed by the FCC. I, Proof that all fhe necessary repelty or easements have been secured to assure for the proper constrtaction, continued maintenance, and general safety of the properies adjoining he wireless comrtiurication facility. 22.120.040 Design standards. The support tower, antenna array, and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment shall be installed rising stealth technology. Stealth tecfno`ogy applies to all personal wireless service facilities, Including, without limitation, antennas, towers and equipment structures, For any facility, stealth technology means the use of both existing and future technology through which at personal wireless service facility is designed to resemble an °bled which is already present in the local environment, such as a tree, streetlight, or traffic signal, It also includes - 8 CTA 2017-0005 draft la/x8- MOGILrrIE CON1MEr{r5 - HIGHLIGHTED IN= A For personal wireless service support towers, 1, If within existing trees, 'stealth technology' means: a. The tower is to be painted a dark color; b. Is made of Vvo d or metal; and c- A greenbelt easement is required to ensure permanent retention of the surrounding trees. 2, Stealth technology For towers in a more open setting means that trey must have a backdrop (tor example, but not limited to, trees,, a hillside, or a structure) an at least two sides, be a COrripatiblle..color with the backdrop, be rnade of compatible materials with the back.d fbP, and that architectural or landscape screening be provided for the i Uiier two sides, If existing trees are the backdrop, then a greenbelt ealOrneri# is required to ensure permanent retention of the su rrounds lg (race. 3. Antennas shall ba integrated into the design of Ony personal wireless service tower to wT o1i May are attached, External projections from i.ha tower shell be limited to the [neatest extent technically teaslble. 4. For rooftop antennas or antennas mounted ori other struc#uress7 a For omni-dimr tional antennas 15 feet or Tess above the roof. stealth technology rneans`use of a color compatible with the roof, strucAu-e or background; b. For other an'leniia , stealth technolaogy means use of cornpelibie colors arid a rchitectdral screening or other techniques approved by the B. For antennas mounted on one or more Wilding facades, stealfn technology means use of calor and materials suer that the facility has architectural compatibility with lho building. ft shall be mounted or. a wall of an alanine building in a canflguration es flush Ito the wall as techlyiclly pbsslble and shall not project above the wall on Which it `s mount'!. C. For equipment structures, stealth technology means locating within a building, or if on top of a building, with ambit: cturalty'rompalible screening_ An underground location, or abovo grourid with a solid (thou and landscaping, is also considered stealth technology. D. Aduerlising or display shall not be located on any support tower Of antenna array. however, the offer of the antenna array shall place an kdentiification plate indicating the Warne of the wireless service provider and a telephone number for emergency contact on the site. E No artifidal lights other thar those required by FM or other applicable authority shall be perrrltted, All security Tights shall be down -shielded, and installed to be consistent with Chapter 22-60 SVMC. 9 CTA 2017-0005 Ura ft 1/3/1.13- mo s1 L TIE COMMENTS - H IG IHLIGHTED IN; F. The facility shall be enclosed by a site -obscuring secures fence not less then SIX feet in height with a locking gate, Ne barbed wire or razor wire shall be permitted. G. The support tower foundations. equipment shelters. cabinets or other on -the -ground ancillary equipment shall be hulled below ground or screened with a site -obscuring secured fence not less than sixfeet high. The requirement for a site -obscuring fence may be waived provided the apollcent has secured all on -the -ground ancillary equipment in a locked cabinet Designed to be compatible with and blend Into the setting, and the means of ac ass for the support tower is located a minimum of 12 feet above the ground. H. All support structure(s) for w reless comrfrurriCatlop. antennas shall have their means of access Located a ml nlrnurn a- eight feet above i:bund unless the requirement for a fence has been waived. I -The support tower shall meet the rninirrtuirwptimery structure setback requirements for the underlying zone. J. Support towers shall not be permitted Inside a public park, public monument or private holding located within a putatic park or public mon LIME nt K. The height of the support tower ak ante a Array above grade shall not exceed the maximum height Identified in Table 20.20-1 Wow. The height of a support tower shall Include antenna, base 'pad, and other a'ppurtertances and shall be measured from the • finished grade of the parcel. Table 22.1120-1 — Tower Height Urn Rations Tone Antenna Array Support Tower R-1, Single -Family Residential Estate 210 feet above the zoning re]ght limitation or 19 feet e-bave existing structure :6Cr feet R-2, Single -Family Residential Suburban R-3, Single -Family Residential tfrban R -h, S4FlJIc Fluty Resktantial Urban MF 4. Mal tifami1g Residenlialedl.6m Wen Siii+ l eOdent-at MF 2- lig ,' Reelele-at4 Mixed Usenear-{MIG) 60 feet Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) 10 CTA 2017 -MOS Draft 1I371B • MOBIL TRE COMMENTS - 111G I I LtG HTED IN Table 22.'120-1—Tower Height Limitations Antenna Array Zona CHyCente C) Oifiee-R Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 20 feet above the zoning height (imitation or Ito feet above exi'stIng structure niun y C m i 4-Q4 Regional Commercial (RC) Light industrial I1ed Ldse (iM ti -1) 1-Ioavy Industrial (1-2) Support Tower 20 feet above the zoning 20 feet higher than the height limitation or 20 feet maximum height allowed in the above exisllag structure lean or &0 feet +htc ewer is fess' "An additional 20 feet in height for each additional antenna array co -located on the. support tower, up to a rnaxlmum tower height of 100 feat, including the height of E 11 antennas. 22,120.050 Landscaping, Refer to Chapter 22.70wmC `or fandspaping rktitir+ernan(S appiicabfa to the underiyin zoning district. 11 • Formaalte® Table CTA 2017-13005 Draft 1/3/18- maaru-ri E COMM ENTS-H16HL1SHTED 111 DRAFT Chapter 22121 SV MC - Srna11 Ceil Deployment ;2121.0.10 Oyerview. Jn order to manaoe Its figt}t-0f + In a flirgghtful rit8Huatr, which balances the need to Eltzw rm ate new a d evolvl • t_chnolo les h he rese ariOn of the natural and aesthetic environment of the City while •• •l in+ w .,ie re.uif•.it:nts of state nd federal 1- t e Cit r do ■ts that• .121 SVMC • .;+ += I.. malt all sfia1i cell and rn411 techr►o o Servl reviders who, seely .t25 uhirize the public right -of -wear for small cell deplowrieryt in order 1-0 pro'. wireles . rrnunicalion, eta lrensmis€iQr10f other : - d cervi - s o the cltaz • ns of he Ci '' 1f receive a vntid franchise ! provide 11-48 specific se}yjce.seeklrn to utilize the .i hell deploy.nelt Entities with francfjfses who wig to utlfize rnaIL cell : ❑ rneit j,- r•. : 1 e or ekp T3rJ Ikreir existing servlces shall utilize e .rooessas s t ',Will 11 A - tos 2.121 SVMC aid implomentino small cell vi -ti of spec €iti` insiallatic-ns. Nothin. a ter 22.:. S 1M-v'ses or d*l f}es the ricthts and abtioalgns of an exis1nSl franchise. B. The te=rn 'small mica cells acid s arlooted or 1 -Tea +r,- ..:.10 rnen: s *1 1 4.MMIL- = .Tw OV de kb rna'nl of srnalt cp:ll facilities fined b RCVV ;9.3 .376 as nu gym; pks which fegLlire SERA SEPA re'rit cell de lo ant .errnitti .g establiske under cheers '2 120, A Sural! Ce De • I+iia7� ++hts o a S all cell d o'nVmr nts h the Rublic bahts- of-wa - 1 r n1 +• ,i poi + r -n 1' lo a vetid franc..hisr w'rith the Glty, and 521 Ir roinplience wltfi all fader end lv_c l small cell _ormiitino requirements. small Ce11_pep'.pynrent outside of Bights-of-VUai Sinal! cell deplgynents outsktit21 the s u . c r'+hts-of- : hall oft ri ade In + m r fiance a ll f , . era1 sta -, ■ •! small cell permitting feOulferrl- tis. 2-121.4 rarrchtss Haat on. A Franchise ApRll tion. Ser. ice providers that desire to doplov small mAisleplcnnmet§ 12 GTA 2,917.Wab Draft 1/3/15- MOfIJTIE COMMENTS - HIGHLIGHTED !NM In L uti ibhis-of-way -hall a.DI f• a franchise farm and submit a fee deposi? commensurate with the estimated administletiye casts:of n❑ ori application fore tragi rise- Servimiiroviders seeking to ulllkze City lghls- af-wav foF small cell deployments shall se clry rLeograP iic boundarie r the small cell rfeplayrn€nt des -bed in the a is tion And r.v!{e detailed chemetics • visual rendetir Q 111 -ie proposed lacibties to be utilized. Pha$jd dewelotsrnen_l,is, permitted and 21 Iicanf coma ed +s.eclf al le. -t Itie initial Srtlatl cell deploymarit in its 8pp1fC?jion- �1� t: Ise a ton po$itinalion of, Fa iiities. ;I -..Iiia is f+r franchi _ s= -king to utili .egrail oel6 deployment shall ii:ovide [ie hollowing informaticxt R iin� franchisees that seek to utli a amalt cell dc ■ F t e.lio -F +and assns e 'slin ira is°e may of :mal! .c:c., 11:4-11n" rovide it r or nation deplwrnent- or small l 1ICE1. -.lall eci frail -'13 licatio whether and where small cell fecIR' iire.p p0_s,nd to be 1,*1.90 on existing LAM), i pales; 2. wiieher and where Oall , i fa ilitie5 re prop sed to be jpcaied on replacement unity Motes pew pole, to+ ef,.andkor plher slruchtres and the IYpa o re lade n .olesto .e' stalled a. the .,1. 1 _ i •rGuntigr�tri d �tiupted aPt nr tekserw for and intended for oyrilen$ re rate wrr r to e additional facilities ar. to be .icanl a leased froi i1 'nfras[rucl�;ifeprovider, 13219 far 112(.544:1:.6C1 j.6ot to the 8 lira to fedaral EW iime rials a eli Ible s iei.Alos1 or as c 4:c 14o 1ipr1. C. Sf 0'ftevlew. + tW avol; cob or. fora fran4tise which ntelns an efejilertit which is not exemptilwri SEPA rrmultanews1v submit an eri t1rorirnenia checklist pursuant fo:; anter 432 •CiA,' Sri h_uiter 24.20 SVMC. 0. Cornplelenr;ss- The City Mai ghah review .t3 snirli cell frac hise application lar oampleteness nnd_ n:rtifr ti rrplicartt syithln 30 days of submissionwhether the a+.italic is corn lac •-11 Ins dad h4 4 ver that : applicant may c,oasent to a c Ifla:ent completeness revii w 6.,•• 6,1+ service praviiidel-tmilned to be iricam■fete within n days of nglice the City,M$na0er, Fgllure to resu m l an -cation wi i, the 34 da 1€'riod shall b t =emed a wi j + rawal of that application. No application shall be deemed crsjn stele without he fee deposit sit by Ure City lolsirager. 22.i21.040 Srnall Cell Farmil Application. A. nt sinal I emit a • 'on and franchise a • 13 CT/ 2017-40(15 ()raft 1/3{18 -1'4a L TLE COMMENTS-11IGHLUG4rrEd i i€this grantedenderthefro orconsttuc installation,andylacement of small cell - ' ies shal r■ eme , e • a the issu Dca of small call pan -nits - et rnore concurrent aabflliSFt;ans lie franrhlse tion ma 1._ hied b for a small ceLjerm[t tqdgplov small calm. B. amalf oeli permit ap I lication. A scull call permit appligation shall contain the follow 1. All small cell f acilitY srtes sh 11 b9 specified. 1)1 to 3U sites. e s eci fi in one 6maIf 11 permit a ll ❑u for plod The a - Minh shell yrrcloie surficI 1l information about each site and facility In order To; thl t to determine That It complies he desi n sta arils set fo n SVMC 22,11 [�60,r 2. if The application inr des small cellklabli5ymant"§rk.the pubIsc (lofts-01-vgakr. a cop]twof the franchise application txr. aferene►. a5 approyei' itIsting franctilse sl Sit be Included. _Ppvat fors s cell e� install a sntarriteII deployiggigl shall be cooling-enl upon approval of a small cell rst ctaistx ar the t ossesS Qlpf a valid small cell franchise. 3, Umpire than one appl fOiykora smoltfm5tj submitted -bike an applicant, they shell PS considered VI he o+ , -i'ed- If mui .1e ar.licatio _ :re s.Jbmilted_o Il -15 carne date, the applicant shall h io&i± , r.. oon side rg,t rat. 4.ri I e.c.. kyLriaJ 1 nr;ri;h.qu I;fiab as:_eittier an eligible fac.11ties reams( 4r a colloAlliOin sh F[ be s ecIfi2I clesie�ritted try the applicant and may x ressed separaE=$.. b [he'-, Man t:In order lo comply with the aufictibte processino reoulremerat established by elOral law, state law, and chapter. 22-122 SVMC. f;y applitaliol fora small cell lath which elinins an element Milch is ngt examPA r.. w ha itnulten si suhmil an environrnenjal checklist pursuant Wchariter 43 24 ' iCW 610 c tester 21,20 VMC E. The do nt sha11f, flail a sworn decteraliarb ur ler nenn11V or perlufp §igne€i b, an RF E r,gi, e ;l ith of tha iroe •sed •T•ti n :ffirmin± that h- small cell deployment will be':;;,5.1 s w` r all FCC a ' an other a+r.irable reru" dons In cennec[iony-'I h iJRl r9' t,P�i�L(� io rat * e. Lien e 1Oa7S for v it uen at xvfl;t 17 he Small ce11far 11 and as ted wwiral "ss backha;il wit operate. Ari a isrf n� franchisee; plyiir r rr a sm-11 cell erm- ' small ce 1 d ° uta ((tent shall r ❑v'de an RF c of cation for all acilities inc. ed to the { :.{ +a ii ent. The a L -au 0 1 yr rovide Iican -_ s all (Nice ro 5 bru .root .f CCnd other regulatgry approvals Iize the tech ,■ pores Sought to k Installed. 14 CTA 2017-0005 Draft Ilaps— NIOBIUM COMMENTS —111,GFILIG1-1TED IN Ng 11 AS applicable, Cie atitlicant :1 mvide wt . it, all an j rrcvider auftrOrto the apdonl to use the utillit Omloyin•rerit. Corn kite ess• Small Cell Aibtlica 0 s The Ci ria er s aH review an Bp:tailors for completeness and notify the appliczni, within al) days of submission whethaT the application iscomplete„ pr • eg.j4..-ipy ever, that as applicant may consent LP a different corriplotanass review period. A service provider niay rest.p.,..1 lication determined la beincom vp, .12111.dvs of nojce b he Clv Mraerr dad, n Failure ID lamed ilhdrawal of that resubmit an application in a timely manner shall P pollcation, No, sipplicalligarned comale - 'ut the fee deopsik sel bv the City fska pager. D The Cil a er niy 2rove, den• croveaIItir gy parlior of the sites proposed in the sok& ieII permil 22,1,a45a Small Cell Franchise and kinty,I. Re vievw process. , . Tie foil °wino provisions relatpio.oview 0fappl inlij•DS for a Irani se 64.-iinirallsel I -permit forsrit A Review of Facilities, Reyiew of tile sitalocati:;;ris Pro.polet) by theappt• ,fllall oveme1 UE' shr v i V I . of U.SIO 2534hd 4.•' 1.! 5 c2 arid a plicable catp law. 1 tek •-•lioarits lirfro .OPMEM - 11 t i Its wil.ch int menl the fOrachiSe Stialj be treated ln a .04Milrlarirrirrlif8 i 0, I . tit 5,, man, Lr with o 1.. service providers plilizin! en), irlint In p.lacture 1V sfuncti ma 1 that is a ce providers wild e faAgk.' ,are 'airal rl si ;7E1 .4 errns 0 structure, pLapernent _2r cur:::114k1"a s. rattcribi _.,,r .. ,n - I FIX ter aLtlicailo review under chapter , 22 • thOr,neither!' itiOh101 LIM. .1,1.11 - effect of prehlbilirip the &lib of sn Apacept to lai'ovide•1410pon1 rrIt.thicatio nsP A : fOces. ID Desion Reviih-, ard Corictialrieri small cell,fadIie5 shall wrvilo cliEtkign, acid Doricealmentsl,p-Idardsariddt subjerct10 deslon review as set trt5h in SVM D 22.121.050 • ..... C, Franchise 1300yal, Frarz.,hises $h211 be approved ki the fprm of a Clhisrdinance .. and frani i es ma Aii1 4 i roved by the GIN CQ pili oursuaht, t6 Its siandard FOV • = • hoieve ja he Cit - kali meet P a i n or d and a franchise apPlipaliOn. 11 Other condLtions of provaL ppfIa1corAa franchise, small cell perm4 ador ermvel nineed ?1 SVMC are conditiQin re 4: uirements: 1 Salisf k :tuffto :ntsinclu IahL andn 0_ her a blE,qypf?repuLremenLs 15 I 11. F 1 0 t 1• 4 hel LP CiAx.017-acoSMan 1f3/18 MosILrrlt COMMENTS - HIGHLIGFiTEOINMI Insta at 2. Provide ii.itten proof Qf ae approval of thc.. owner of env u5lity pole fpr the o of Its teolai.i-.s +n such uii rage-. A..+a'+. a r e ranchise doeg not authorize o eni to CI gall ed unlit. 1• es o er structures 3, Unless_ioecfncalyt tura utilize k + `s . rru + ='.. ►= For the to pole over S' Net or to locate aryl attendant aiclu[urxient a n City rla'n.-car-v vided for in a franchise, obtain a lease frpjn the City to la ion of en • •le ere -cement utility new round be structure. base station or o#her lav ar Cit proiDerh O.: 4. Com+i 'a aalicable Cl or .the Inst'on of eri re !eminent uIf};t a3rda end 1 roces r the co-locatigri of facilities, 5. Comply with all City situations#= +.■ te arid federal hen operating jg, the rloht-of-wv and obtain a re i ermit to ` r the ri • 2,1?1-it80 Design and Concealment Standards, Small cell facilities shalt be installed stealt ;or racralmant Leda.'4o St€ 'th or Banc ealment lerhno1 as lig s` ici el, • mall cel/ Hies, w lout lint:talon antennas, Iowa's and orirr><ary luip`'1. ht r m ural ; :.car any sire: cell fac i., stealth orconsgelmerfttechnplogyrtiesresthc+ exisfiii1RndfLotureter aolcagythrough } Ich the small cell Ia Iity Is de4gncd L,eseftrbi r bfenil je10 an oblect whtch rS.2Ireadv preserlt_}p the localAn.ylrinent. such as a tew4Watili4ht, or traffic signal. It also 1 4pdes:• et. Far those porlions of small XII rfacllikes6t1El J1ed to or part Qf light, now.'er, > nor other pa'e,s_ •Fir new pc.les., trsl,xcrated MINit the -'t to unless technscally infeasible- New oles•_;,xr. 1 be sub'et t ' , .n ' "I'ceble c Itjk•lar-industry standar . ',fir exkstjrlg pots, lnlegr rd into the existing desion of Ilia pole to which it is altaohed, tnexlerrral p cti ri tirili`Ed in size and scope to the greatest extent el t't ll fe ..0ie .a .,= 1 not Tilted to being as flysh as possible to the Dote, not proiectlrig tnortithen rifles,r el vertically above (he I and hawin rc l4ectural eompatlbLIII ' wither le' x mal . a f_ that they apt3tif- to e- t. \j . Shat confo al 6 ani slruc a I - aridard. s +t to dera - 'te structural en • Ineeri f the oleo it is et#ach 5. Shall natrterfare with the a1 usefor Ich theble.,,,_p_Eigagicied Ltnclu but not r ` - d to blocky ± = u I + ht from li h1 ■ c►les interferinwith bower Iittati on power galas and obscurin4 env r drkipn of the ,a II le sten-face on gigns; and 6. Antennae ■ r small cell lutes shall . - + . = d inside of elEltQfitelnna enc1Q5u1re rag] raMo than three cubIc,feet In volume, qr bb the case of an,,,jntenna that has arx nosed elements. the antenna and all or Ili exposed elernerrkg, could fat withl51n imaginary enCto ra aIr no more tki aa1 #t_a wbfc feet ..* - h of fed a calor to resemble and Matt the mole So 16 CTfS 2017-000s or a ft f 3 f 18 T M0eIL IlE COMMENTS - H1G I4LIC,HTEt rry 8. Primary equipment enclosures shall toe fra_farger ilial sayenteen cutacieet In vdurne. Me following X s§ociated ent m b crated of t -da the trrirnary eguiament ericiOSOpLarrd if so logged, are not Included In the calcination or, aguipment ie: electric meter, concealment, telecomm dernarcallon box, grg,nd•based enclosures, br 4ter r back- . +ower s feKns. r ro . rdine. ulna' en ■aver transfir awitch. and cutroff witch. Primary. equipment. erclasures shall be buried below "ground.or J.oched and integrated into the eurroundlnq.s to the maxlmunl 1 gent feasible, "This small ircdude incorporating the facilities into the base of he pole, integrating into exiStl y §urroLndirtg fixtures, such BS. 4arba le containers or other power troxes, argtar use of FIaterials ai d colors that blend Into the §urrogndinq senina. Gran +oarged ilacdljee shall not be located In en improved street or sidewalk. larva per pled foci I ties shall not toted in a siorrnwateJ facllltV, inoludino store /W.2s swaies C. For s ,Il cell facitilia eunted o more b 'Irl. fa es stealth .r con ; -'merit to i' 1'• near' =e df y*. "end materials .8C,Iik.that the facility has rdiitectural eo .atlbllit i r e bvildini=; shah be nl'purrted OW:a.waft of an existing bulldirrgj� a carbfigrdiVlen as flush kiltawe 1 sus .t Cbn, ossihir "a• shall not > rojed ore an tier= } - et abo _ . I on vwhictj `is rho Oil : s41mai.Ca? I [aril ly. h[1a4ev f, IM0W1101- of the small cell facility shall pia tification plate indicatingjhe name of_the wireless servkre prnvi eer and stOlerrt rie rluipl r.for &nema,iry contact on Ina site. g No artificial Ilghl [52?`1er tt1 ase re f Afk ti t Ther appl c�Ib1 aLithorily shall be permitted. Any `ly liol i .4shall be di ll+ i stklelded. mt es Ian Ftrucluiy aCk4guirerne G. Sad'.•rw 1I-cilihe9. r' Zt private lib 22-121.070 S locat-d w t in the rtt1 I,rIowa s17a11 fa cr tht` tljZfe. zone. the minimum primary t no" be• errniltod inside a pubis_ark u nurnent r LR a uhFl6 *ark OT tlErFurqent. Cell Pend Mllror Deviations. k The CIty agar sl 1l' review apalicaLOfls for $rrratl cell permits Iat small oil gqp merits an• e`' S b inch se or - i '4 cell rrni The City Manager ma' autho - e minor de .. 0.P. An U3- ; pall cell s -r I, ro the dirpen,s artel design and concealment Itachnotooleit referenced in iri4 er�hIIblts to the fiartL ise er deem standard,§ where such deviation-- -cess.a o -1i% aa+ Ii 3- o Mrovi;• ;,.vera +e and he such devigon does not_ materially differ horn the CO's, design end concealment standards. B. Deviations in the dirtiensions or volume of small reit facilitie whichh do notexceed the simulative totril protirid$d by the def-Frliticn of a small cell or rn1crocell facility h RC.:1 80.38.375 shall be cronbred a minor deuiatiOn: [arQv d. hnwevet they do not defeat the •nee Irnent = ures se. Ci 's e II a,.1'O2 . -si, n and LTA 2017.00O5 Draft 1/dJ11e -W MO®ILITIE COMMENTS — HEN LIGATED IN - cpnceeirnent standards. C. Sinal i cell paint's tg jp$tpll fac I Ues Inctjding approval 4f minor deviations shall be processed claw of r€ oeiP of a coin lefe aplEcatl nal s I of o franchise. whichever occurs gas' 22.121180 Significant Deviations, Any rawest tot si lnitcant deviatiori£r }ream the Atrprov9d small call !acilities dem designated in the franchises 11 celhiehriiistaridards shall be resuire a cp_nditiona1 use permit and shall ,09 considered Unde.4 rGllrl sof cha ler 2.12U SVII1C Bract pursuant to the I relines asl b isheC 22.122,Q39 and EVMq j22.o4Q. A Si nitrcant devi ,titin is not a sub.. =:~ i ii 'ttiarrge. .see Amen* A of the SVMC„ 22.521 d. + Cont . Hance with Stage P ., elh, L I Itatians. Reyiew o rrnchise austral bell permits shall COM+@ th the *r+ on of 99030. Arrollcations aha ILLe reviewed. corn areas #et r fined and t timeframe 1n11e�i.� s provided In mater' 22,122 SVMC.`' 18 CIA 701.1-0005 ar o rt 1/3/18 - mond. TIE CI3M M E NTS - kI a H L1G HTP!] SP! DRAFT Chapter 22.122 SVMC— Wireless Communications and Small Cell Faclltty Review Periods. 22,122.010 Purpose. cp:-raress and the Feder @ cu¢nmurilc.3tLQns Commission have. r rl uant to the authority rantedloreaugj local novemmerit5 to an 'Wireless pprrlmunldsti2 aclii *Ito -4.3. . inns withi r ESb rind o -u = nd have established time limits fo o. -I r'e rle he :7.1 1 on SO islature i also Adopted similar limitations under a ,rov'ston i;* er 5.90 RCWU, cl' City adopts the toliprip n tim limits for review arspliratini- for e&ia+t facility requests, all milts • an. d other approvals If r 'icer�rovld „ „_of eca tel+munsca'�unAerVICes- 2i22.020 EI @tate Facllltte Re ueet. p, pliatiorr Review - J. Apptii ion. T1ie Cit Manan - shall sr• *- - and mak = ' bli I available prr application form labia steal, be it ted to the j ■ stun j =sa for e City to consider whether ther an a> plicatio T is an etieatior1 may_r14t tggd, ret e , pi 'cant to dentionstra a need + business c se for the . nraposed modificati?n. -. Type of Review. Llnon receipt of ars a?rrToli; lion for an eticrible faGitiiies request the . i MarlElaer shall evi such aonlrcation to determine'bather the e..tleali.' .ualifies =s: n ell+s.1; facilities r resL 3 Tirnefrerne for Review. WithirLaCI days of the dale OR which an abulic rl bruits a ca nista eliQi4tisi radii les f :wuest aoolica#i n the ity Mansoer shal��ppr the a ti tiorI uT s It deteInes that the application is_no cawed d b+r this S! M 22.122.0211 d, Totllrro of the Tdneffame for Review. The SO-dav review period ctioji2 run when] the complete af#pl'scoiiorr S Paled and r1Ta++ be tolled 13y mutual ,greement b p ■ Cit Me . + er and y.li cant or 1 cases tare the Ctty Manaoe r determines #feat the ap.plication is lnr rnptete. The tirnefrern for reviewf Eli ibf . les e Is not to tad b a rnu r< 1 rium on I e eview of ..' 1 ticatims a To to . s tlrnefra = for Inez] rt nes tn- ti Mann , r shall moitsde written notice to the aa , olfc 1a ...;hln 30 d yts of receipt 15f Ii a aprovaaLL r iEcalt elineati r 'II is w.a. is or ink rmatlora re ufr. d In the ap@I tlan. 1: I0 CTA 201741005 Draft S/ i.& - MOe1t!TIE COMMENTS—r4GtILIGHP D IN NI The iriz makes a cornrxNertl sur}dternenlall ubmisslon kri response to the City Mana;m( nolle of jncompletenlss c. FoLowin0 2 sup emental submi soon me i Manager s1]eIInotify !ha applicant within 10 days ff the slip, jemental submission clicilicit urovIde t, e inf4tT�latiorr identified in tyre ilrighal notice detirxjna Missing Information. The timefraIrre is tolled in the case of eQonI or subsequent notices.pursuar.t to the proceduresid kti!ied are ra4o1 this sec-eoonda uent na i of rico le Hess may n s, * r Issin. + + ren s 0 I 'in —ion that wajPa1 dellneat.dln the original notice of • erne for r iris ill till e,a In the a loan incompleteness. C. ti Iletermina191an that A at r r E I is ii 1 an dele rmine jnat Me a 1 cant's re u itis time .eriod- established x the a SVMC begin to run from the issuance Is r-ol $n eli.ibtrr fa 'lilies re, oust. To t sod Worm koibie Facilities Request jf the City Maria_g91 does not uafify EIS an eligible facilities reguet licab e s ate or eder, law and chapter 22.122 of the City Manager's decision title/ the a01:11:01 the ode!' -■ditional ireormalion Is neciessanii, the ro thea + ■ i =nt to evalu eTthe applications Lite ta..v, ._ Marta m uride r other p acs iisions of this, r; to 22.12 C F aiiure to ct [n Ilhe a ant the City f�lanager fsilsyto ar prove or deny .a �gu est fo ear etici bila irneframe for tovlew (accounting (Or any tollirlvi, Ihs aeguest shall be deemed gran _.rt The deem -d .rant does I. become a Wive until the anoIicant notifies the City Manager in +rritin5t eftff the i e+tr period has px iv red coounlirl an Io11ih • i : t thea io i has be gaerr`ed granted. f ems �€1i Itte ap ■I•rant and t of the Spectrtrrn. Act to ant coot ofvan-oaten( jsdi cunni. 2.122,034 tie iocatlo Cit rna Orin + ai s relate■, 9 Section C-4( (a) gIigible coUgcatoons snail be processed Within 90 da>_s of receipt of a cornple*e appli'on The tr' Mannsxe' hE 11 ncrtifi the pppIicant within 34 days or raceiat of an a..lice -•n whether 1 i- corn'lete + if addition.1 infarrnation Is reziireo. Th2 term Ilocaklon than not a 4141 a he initial la a enl of a sma cell facility an a ubli.v pole or hat W. "rI CO s roc. = 1 0 the wale or primary an arty other base ose of - FCC locen antenna a d leirasso 'a ac Blies. 22 122 040New YYireiea a Crmuni a - rt FacIlltle New wireless communications facilities shall by processed WGthin 150 dove t of Complete a rolIcaligft.er sh The City t4iag al l n k thea Il I - Ir 30 of receipt or an japlication whether 11 Is cmqiete of 11 Bddilior1sl Infoimatio is reorrirpd 20 CTA 2017.Q00.5 Draft 1I3{18 — b+1L19ILIIIE COMMENTS—HEGHLIGHTED tN11111 DRAFT Chapter 17.80 117.80.030 Assignment of development application classification. A. Assignment by Table- Land use and deveopment applications shall be cassihed pursuant to Table 17.80-1 below. Table 17-80.1 - Permit Type and Land Use Application Typo Land Use and Development Application Accesso1y dwelling uniSs SVMC Cr s- RQrerence 10.4.0 'Administrative determinations by city manager or designee or building official Administrative excep-ian Administrative Interpretation Multiple 19-140 17.50 010 Boundary line Lidjuctments and eliminations Building permits not subject to SEPA Floodplain developrncnt Grading permits Home business permit 20-00 21-20-040 21.30 Shoreline letter of a mpbon 24.50 19.65-1180 21.50 Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan 20.60.040 ;Right-of-way permits 22.1 30-100 Site plan review Small cell permit 19-'a 30 Ternporary use permit 22,121: 22.122 19.150 Time extensions for preliminary subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan Alterations -- preliminary and fioial subdivisions, short subdivisions, binding site plans 20.314.060 20.50 Type 11 Binding site plan-prelhair~ary and linal 20 50 Binding site pten - change of conditions SEPA threshold determination 20-50 21.20,060 Shoreline conditional use permit 21.01 21 ETA 2017-0005 graft 1{3{18—'ylosiu TIE COMMENTS —H1GHLIGHTED1N 1111 B. Assignment by City Manager or Designee" to nd use and development applicat ons not defined in Table 17.80-1 shall be assighed a type based on the most closely related application type by the Cilie manager or designee, unless exempt under SVMC 17,80 0 Q. Wherr more than qn a prudedure maybe appropriate, the process providing rhe gre eSt oppoitttnity for public noliceshall b6 followed. C. ShWiline tetters of eXerrtptian, shoreline Substantial development permits, sho-eline conditio`rti Luse parrrlite, st'naraline it ii tnces, and shoreline nonconforming use or structure review shall be praoessed pilq`suant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.60 SVMC,'Object to any 1a ditinnal or modified procedures provided In Chapter 21.50;3VMC,. Shoreline Fiegulalions,. including submittals, completeness review, notices, hearings, and deasiots. D. , mall cell .r i� ,;:'I : s omroun;c.tron facilities s : I be ■ Messed ', r ant to the procedures set lei in chapter 1L,B0 SVMC a tempt as niav otharkise be required s?ursuant to rode ral and slate_taw, tni;ludinct_but trot limited o 47 U.S.C, 155 a i ectiant t io f $1 of the Middle C L; s Tax Relief end Job CreatiortAit of 2012} aril �haoter 35.89 RC . C11e1 ter 22. V22 SVMC specifies agr�licabfe tithe p2teds for review and .rocessin! F1 aI'ibief: II a e■uests co ■-tia+`Is sm. cat .ermits a +' new wirefes.$ oprrttnunlc4on FaGifit+ . BE, Except as provided In Table 17,80-1, change of conditions for permits shall t:e processed Ihe aaine was the original permit type. 22 Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review 21"50 Shoreline substantial development permit 21.50 Shoreline variance 21.511 Shortsubdivialon— preliminary end final 20.30, 20,40 Preliminary short subdivision, binding cite plan—change of conditions 2030 Wireless communication facilities 22"120 Type 111 Condillonai use permits .10.160 Planned residential developments 19"50 Plat vacation 20.70 O20 Preliminary subdivision —change of conditions 70.150 Subdivisions — preliminary 20,30 Variance 19"170 Zoning map amendments (site?speci iic rezones) 19,30.0 50 _ Type IV Annual GampretlenOre plan amendments (text aodlor map) 17.80-140 Area -wide zoning map amendments 17.60,140 levetoprnent Cade text amendments 17,80,150 B. Assignment by City Manager or Designee" to nd use and development applicat ons not defined in Table 17.80-1 shall be assighed a type based on the most closely related application type by the Cilie manager or designee, unless exempt under SVMC 17,80 0 Q. Wherr more than qn a prudedure maybe appropriate, the process providing rhe gre eSt oppoitttnity for public noliceshall b6 followed. C. ShWiline tetters of eXerrtptian, shoreline Substantial development permits, sho-eline conditio`rti Luse parrrlite, st'naraline it ii tnces, and shoreline nonconforming use or structure review shall be praoessed pilq`suant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.60 SVMC,'Object to any 1a ditinnal or modified procedures provided In Chapter 21.50;3VMC,. Shoreline Fiegulalions,. including submittals, completeness review, notices, hearings, and deasiots. D. , mall cell .r i� ,;:'I : s omroun;c.tron facilities s : I be ■ Messed ', r ant to the procedures set lei in chapter 1L,B0 SVMC a tempt as niav otharkise be required s?ursuant to rode ral and slate_taw, tni;ludinct_but trot limited o 47 U.S.C, 155 a i ectiant t io f $1 of the Middle C L; s Tax Relief end Job CreatiortAit of 2012} aril �haoter 35.89 RC . C11e1 ter 22. V22 SVMC specifies agr�licabfe tithe p2teds for review and .rocessin! F1 aI'ibief: II a e■uests co ■-tia+`Is sm. cat .ermits a +' new wirefes.$ oprrttnunlc4on FaGifit+ . BE, Except as provided In Table 17,80-1, change of conditions for permits shall t:e processed Ihe aaine was the original permit type. 22 Sp"b7cane jUalley. Verizon Comments Re: Planning Commission Erik Lamb From: Sent: To: Cc: Suvj ct: Attachments; HI Erik - Kim Allen <kirriallen@wir&esspolicy.com Tuesday. January 23, 2018 1013 AM Erik Lamb Ju[ei Campos (pcamposC lynxcr nsulting_arcgi, 'Joel Aro' Ciaru©lynxcnnsultino.orcg); 'Haley Giver'; Cary Driskell; Vaga, Lelal7 1 I; Barrett, Donna B Re: Spokane Valley --Verizon Comment Letter for Planning Commission tonight Fent Sheet-_Wireless_TrerYds_Sep'f7I1).pdf; RF exposure.Ixlf; Why Vaulted Equipment Is Not Feasiblel1].docx I have prepared some responses to your questions from the Commission In blue br'low. I also attach some resource materials for you and the Commission_ I will look forward to meeting you in person on Thursday. First, they indicated o desire to limit wireless providers to having too many poles within o close proximity to one another, which could create clatter and block the right-of-way. They indicated a desire to limit the distonce between pole sites and to require collocation if possible when two sites have to be right next to each other, The rano of small cell radios is approximately between 500 to 1000 feet, depending on terrain, adjacent objects f like trees and buildings), and the strength and site of the radios. This is typically the spacing of Verizan's small cell facilities. While there is some flexibility in which pole to select, the 250 foot separation requirement proposed in the cocle could present problems In areas with terrain challenges, few existing poles and/or large vegetation. The optimal height for placement of small cel antennas is between 25-35 feet. Radios are typically placed below the antennas, but above 15 feet in height to prevent public access, Collocation of two carriers on a single pole would be difficult because most utility and Tight pales are between 25-45 feet In height and there would be separation required between the carriers' antennas, It would be extremely difficult to accommodate two carriers, who each need their antennas in that optimal 25-35 foot height. However, because each carrier's network is configured differently from the others, it is unlikely that a small cell would need to be placed directly next to an existing small cell, The 500-1GGO foot range allows some limited flexibility in location of a small cell node. Verizon site acquisition consultants are instructed to select the least intrusive pole in the search area and to try to avoid selecting a pole directly in front of windows or views, 1 Additionally, they indicoted a desire to have a minimum height for the facilities so G5 to limit impact on people an the ground. The small cell facilities have radiofrequency emissions at levels that are equivalent to many devices found in the average home, such as wireless routers and baby monitors. Questions regarding the technical aspects of the radio frequencies used. Federal law prohibits municipalities from regulating the choice of transmission technology. The FCC has preempted local regulations in this area. See New York SMSA Ltd, Partnershi v, Towra v Clearkstown 6 3 F,Supp.2d 715 (5.D.N,Y. 2009) Radiation levels from those frequencies and the other supporting devices (such as power sources) and possible impact on people. Small cell facilities are fully compliant with the FCC limits for radiofrequency emissions and proof of compliance can be required by local jurisdictions. Whether there was any federal lirnit on the amount of data that may be allocated to Spokane Valley. There are no federal limits ori data that may be provided to a given community. Cr)rne statistics with the small cell sites. Verizon is unaware of any issues Involving crime at small cell sites. The equipment is small and out of reach of passersby on the ground. 2 l 'r ►v Kimberly Allen Senior Vice President, land Use Entitlements and Strategic Planning wireless Policy Group LLC Box 34628, 05604 St aitic WA 98124 425-623-26D6 Ot*':e ki m . a l Ien)vrirc l res S po', i cy, C() IT1 This (message any attachments to it may contain PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT INFORMATION AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT exclusively for intended recipients. Pease DO NOT FORWARD OR DISTRIBUTE to anyone else. If you receive this message in error, please contact Kinn Allen at 425-62B-2666 or kini.alItm@wirelesspo(icy,com From: Erik Lamb ‹elamb snokarrevaiIev.0rg> Date: Tuesday, January 1.6, 2018 at 9:53 AM To: Kim Allen‹tiro,allen@wirelessoallv,com> Cc: Victoria Chenauit <victoria.chena4rltalairelesscotrnsel.ram>, " ulei Campos (IcarnIosfr'!...r,:;cC su't,iir.4.Ir ; ' ‹jcampos{"]a lynxoonsultinr~"c , "'Joel Aro' sorZ. Ivrixrnfsult;n ,Qra4'. '!-.;a! _,y Gauer' ‹Iigever@}1vnxransuitinf,org:, Cary Driske;l :'Cbriskell spolcanevalley.orp Subject: RE; Spokane Valley--Veriza n Comment Letter ;or Pernrir1g Commission tonight HI Kim and Jule[, l wanted to let you know that we hada pr:niuctive meeting with the Plarxrii'f t� ;`r17i .,ir, , 'DO hursday, They did have some fallow -up questions and I wanted to let you know these may come up a „ t I-. ;';.59c hearing. I've included the questions hetow. First, they indicated a desire to limit wireless providers to having too many poles writhln a. close proximity to one another, which could create clutter and block the right-of-way. They indicated a desire to limit the distance between pole sites and to require collocation if passu '.= two sites have to Lie right not to each ether. Additionally, they indicated a desire to have a min(murn height 'or ti'"fi iv.-).1111PE.. so as to limit impact on people on the ground. We are Looking at the legal issues with both su; ustin, r,s, hot there is some vaLic11l ' to having the providers work with each other if situ are in very close. pro.xin-, ofy to ee cis ctl c.r end to require a minimum heiEht so :s riot to impact normal use of the ROW. Secondly, there were questions regarding tine technical aspects of the radio frequencies used, radiation levels from those frequencies and the other supporting devices (such as power sources) and possihlr imt;.tact on people, and whether there was any federal limit on the ..rrnount of date that may be allocated to Spokane Valle . L indicated l dict not believe there Was any limit on data, but I did not have any of the other technical Information. I did let therm know that representatives would likely be at the public hearing and so they could ask those questions Eli: that time. Further, I will convey to them that we really do not regulate any of the transmission or transmission technul:rgy. Finally, a Commissioner asked about cri•;,e statistics with the small cell sites_ 1 wondered if you had any information I could provide or that you could airing to the public hearing, 3 t I ank vole tnu i I look. fcwi rd to seei rg you On the 2Srh. E•6k F,;k. Lamb 1 f'rpu y City ft.t(erncy 1021C' F:. Spraaje!. !wanly; 1S'p:�l4.a=ie>1 Votley, WA 90706 (b0q) 72a L.)S3 I ramb s r*,nnewa!I_r. l ti l:y email and any attachments may be subject to discl;,y a ri pursuant to Washington Strit n'e Public Record Act, cha,ptor 42.513 RCM. ;ruatirla;ttio'ity hlotl} Thna'Ion contatocc.' In Phis email and any a3cc:vinponying rItt ctlrncnl(s) Is intended only for the use of the Intended r 1p;rnt and may bo corrfider:ti.iI and/of IDT-NlIEgei. If any.rr.Ddei ofthlscommunication 18 not the Int,anded recipient, unouthorlaod use, d1sclosurc or c.ol,ytng is strictly pr^h:bitedr arid may be uniewrol. If you have received tills communication In error, please immediately notify the sunder by roturn email, and dbLete ttu3 originaI message and al', ropiesfrern yam system. Thank you. From: Kim Allen jmailto;kirtt.ailen (Owlreie sspoiioy,cOrnl Sent: January RI, 20181:31 Prvl To: Erik Lamb ‹elambEospok rrevalle .orrt> Cc: Victoria Ci-icnatilt <victoria.+'jte41ault v,+frelesscaunsel.com> Subject: Spoka.rie VaSlcy—Verizon Coniment fetter for ['Lanni erg Commiss:Or7 tonight h? l Erik - Victoria Chenault forwarded your errsasl with a link to tonIght'S materials. Vcrizon's comments RIC ,1t ':teed and we would appraclate it if yaw could forward the letter -to the PiannIn Commissioners. I also shared the link vrith AT&T. As you will seg, Verizon has no requested c},ar3gcs to this coda. It is entirely workab;c and we appreciate the efficient pracs.7 that will make it easy to deploy small cells in your rorremunity. The only strgEeston we have is a request to rethb" the spall cell prohibition in public parks. I see that provision is ails() present for macro facilities that are much larger and neige rlsu ally in:rash: e. Small cells can provide benefits to park users and have a ver ± er.inimal visual impact when attachad to existing poles and right standards. Vprizor wit: no: have a r pre sent ativc. at the meeting tonight due to short notice. We would appreciate being added to the ciztrjbutir,rr list for this itern going forward, as v: would typically send someone to the next meetings to ailswer questions. Th1714 you for your assistance Kimberly ACIen Senior Pr.;.;lri4ert, Land Use ts and Strategic Planning, Wireless Pok-? Group LLC Box 3462Ji, #75604 Sewattlie WA. 98124 425-618-26,56 Office kirtr.aI1ary(crwlrelesst:.c1 cy,coee7 4 This message and tiny attachments to it may contain PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT INFORMATION AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT exclusively for intended recipients. Please DO NOT FORWARD OR DiSTR1 sLITE to anyone else. if you receive this rncssage in error, please contact Kim Allen at 425-628-2556 or kirn,allen :v irele$spolicv.corri verizonv( Wire.s'f TreA4113, 20-7 In 2015, the overage srnarlphone in North America consumed 3.7 GB of data per month, and this is expected to increase to 22 GB per month by 2021. (Ericsson Mobility RE port, June 2016) Around 52 percent of American households are now wireless only for voice service. (GDC's 2016 Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July -December) For Millennlals (those born between 1982 and 2004), the number Increases to over two-thirds who live in mobile -only households. That number i$ another significant jump up km 10.5% in 2006 arid 31.6% in 2011. (FCC, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Merkel Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless., Nineteenti Report, DA 16-1061 (Sep. 23, 2016) More than 7Q% of ail adul--s aged 25-34 and of adults renting their harries were living in wireless -only households, (National Health Interview Survey, Wireless Substitutior: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health lrteraiew Survey, July -December 2016) In 2016, wireless data traffic reached yet another record high, In all, traffic totaled 1372 trillion MBs --the equivalent of 1.58 million years of streaming HD video - an increase of 4,07 trillion megabytes over 2015. Over the past two years, data use has increased 238 percent, (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 8 Based on estimates from the U.S. Cellular Monthly Data Usage Estimate tool, available at https'ffwwv .uscellular.comldataf data-estimator,html) 2015 mobile data use is 35 times the volume of traffic in 2010. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017) There are now more wireless devices then Americans, with about 1.2 devices for every person in the country. That makes the wireless platform nearly ubiquitous: 95 percent of U.S, adults own a cellphone. Compare that :o the 78 percent of Americans who own a computer. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & pew Research Center, "Mobile Fact Sheet" (Jan. 12, 2017), available at htipoliwww,pewintemet.orgIfect- heetimobilef Wireless -powered smart city solutions could produce $160 billion in benefits aux savings from lower energy use, reduced traffic congestion, and decreased fuel costs. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Accenture, smart Cities: How 56 Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities (January 2017) available el littps:Jf waves,accerrture,comfus-enfinsight-smart-cities,) Connected devices coulc create $305 billion in annual savings for the healthcare industry. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Daviel H. Roman and Kyle D Conlee, The Digital Revolution Comes to US Healthcare: Technology, lncentives Align to Shake Up the Status Quo, Goldman Sachs Equity Report, Internet of Things Volume 5 (June 29, 2015) available at http:// rnassdigitalhealth,orgi digital -revolution -canes -us -healthcare. Self -driving cars could sa,re 21,700 lives and $447 billion per year. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Daniel J. Fagnan`. ;i,4 Kra Kcokelman, °Preparinu a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barrdes and Fo".icy Rerjorrimendal.ors fo: Capitalizing on Sell'-Driven Vehicles,' Eno Center for Transportat,on (2013), available at https:fr'ti:r..,.w. anotrans.o.141 ll-mateli8l!preparIng- a-Walion-for-autonomous-vehicles-oppo,girlitles-barren-and-poy-recdrnme'r7d ;roar?; The nurrlbl:r of Ia :Vices worldwide 4+,rll conservatively surpass 20 billion by °he year 2020. (2) ane thi . increase in colneOvity stands ID add roughly $2.7 triliior t;) U.S. `_) by 2030, (2017 CTIA V'ire1es4 Snapshot, May 2017 & Dr. Michael Mandel, Progresa,ve Policy Incttuto, Long "faro; U.S. PGodUctiVI;y Gr'Dwih and Mobile Broadband: The Road Ahead (March 2016) ava+lt ble at 1ittp iv, w. rogressi+repoiicy,ar0hwp-coptenti'uploarisl20161O31201h.0-Mandel_Lung- tcmG-US-I rocitictivityr-uro5 h-and-hylobill -Broadband he-foal-Ahead,pdf) 202',, fide° will ;;count for arcund 70% of inab';!e data traffic. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Prnss Income ko,rels, a significant ma joriiy of Americans now Bove srnartplrores, wTh x;44 percent of people FIT ain.p. loss :0':2'=1:000 a year and 93 percent of people yarning more thart $75,000 a year owning s'nce 2011, the n.,.rnbK of In.1 .'duals making under $30,000 pe.- year who own a 'las gown by 42 percent. f :it1 =W Wf~elcss Snapshot, May 2017 Si. Few Research Fact sheer (Jan, 12, 20 7), ''. '.ItJ'eathft;;a'r`4v,rAi�.pevrinterrret.ora?fact- meet+molnalet) jusover half-50Z `.• percent—of Arrr.ifioan hcusei-tcAs only ;lame a i'noNl$ voice conn :lian.1 For t'.i' number In.:!-E-ans to over r,"d:-thl=ds whc. II'ary In tyke:Dile-only households, That Dui-ober to Irc.rr. - l.v.,o in 22c06 and 31,6% 2C.111, (2017 C: lA V' Iroloss Snapshot, May 2017 and �''�.Y+Sysis of Competitive hMlarket Cor diIians with Respect to Mobile V'4ireless. iain'v Gc=,,I I F e,r�:,r,, DDA. 16-1061 (Sep, 23, 20101, si-ri rh`,0-12 acicr.;rlorl, percent orf 1B-2O yra: uldls having o smariphorle, to»Mowed E',' erccill. `-1u. ' '"l? 7L Joel..,', of .50-64 year d,ds. WIIh respect to race, smar1phone c: Writ`, ''i' ..'loin ' 72 c c rit of Afrinn4iniencarts, 75 percent of r.,FL ,1J 77 p Writ of whitey n the U.S.n...:t srr',artphonc1:, (2017 CTIA Vtil.`ctf ss Snapshot, May 201 r 4 Pew Research Center, °hfeude Fact Sheet" (Jan. 12, 2017), available at .',gifactsheati oEl.er T have increased 5rnartp torte TV/video viewlnc 85% in 4 years. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Teen usage of cellular data for srnartphone video has grown 1279 in 15 months, (Ericsson Mobility illnrie 2016) 76% of 911 Ca% originate from (t 1brlal Highway Traffic Admin! ! tic: 1, Feoru fry, 201(3) .'tore than 75% of prospective.. prefeTstrong cellular connections ;Roofkte rias, Rune 20 ;5) 35% of Amerians reach for their smartpirone first in the rilorning (CTIA, July 2015) 2 Machin-t+-rnac.hine cc;•nnecticns are projected to rise from a6 miIion in 2013 to 263 million in 2018. (Ciscar MINI Mobile forecast Highlights 2013-201E1, at 'United Stags - 2018 Forecaat Highlights and 201 Year ireIReView) By 202C, more thrnn 34 billion lnternet-connected davites will be ins€ailed globally — t t t`n more than. tiievices for every human on earth, (Business insider, May 20, 201 5 RF Exposure Near the Antenna Occupational exposure limit within —2 feet of the antennas. Untrained workers cannot enter this envelope without proper RF safety training. General population exposure limit within -.5 feet of the antenna horizontally. Safe within this envelope for -0 0 minutes and still remain within er- Max. ground level exposure from any node is 0.021 m jem or .1 % of the FCC general public exposure limit Why Vaulted Equipment Is Not 1.7 1-tsibie Safetyt Tlus is the rralln reason not to vault as at poses a significant sali'e.ty hazard to technicians, contractors and utility crews. - Gas 1"r porn build up inside tlre va:a11t despite. the ventilation. syscems installed especially wh it, !hose systems kill, 1f a tech enters an vr.aa}l before the air is purged, it could result in serioa,s =resrm to :3rltacic death. Verizon Wireless will not pl;:c . pe toni:1cl in this position, l ;e a :ei. tocx poop."e to he onsite. One tech ii_- the vault acid tb.e other is tui above ground attendant maintaining co21Lxiunie atiof wi i r., -ie tech making sure a hazard does not expose the tech. to i rj !fly. Due to the increased ri-k, OSHA r.e luir,szs a:<'1.:litinnf7 and more, stringent policy, procedure and g,aarclehnes, Coustructian: Approximately four times more. G4J_a,e i; required to vaalli than. installing a.bovc ground. o Need to accotrltuockte alivigiiig out and placement of back/S.11 as well as zlihoring the excavation, site. o May pose an =:a uc '.;.':tai atili vt -ance setback requirements. o No access around the vault .;.:sing disruption to pedestrians (sidewalk) and traffic (lane closares). o Rcquires a flatbed trailer trail. a large crane with outriggers which have the potential of interfering with r,a,,, er lines. Soil Cuuctiti nn —Extensive due diligen e is requiTecl to test the the cquiprnent .arrad, .rground to include and noi. bc liax;iteci tn' • Expansive Soil — Sor. will "swell" in volume v/h.eri wet and s r ri nk when dried causing the vault to heave, setae and 5)-1 ft. ▪ Sexili,ic1ucfactian—.Aphenomenon whereby re1,y ca saturated or partially saturated sail substantially loses srrctrgth an:i siifiness in 1T:s;us- se to an applied stress, usually earthquake slltj :xc or other sa:clden chane in stress condition, causing it to Ctieh...we like a liquid. o Hazardous Waste, — Sol. that was pre s'io1.1,'y contaminated. by toxins requiring cleanup before work can cat-Ainue or caau.siix , taro situ to be completely abatndoned. W.in•� w4cirr..Lk can prohibit thci Lg. d more intensive proces,:,i that i .kcs more time to complete, 1n marl,/ , rbr n case, 1t is not piactic..- due to space constraints. Service Reliability: - Vaulting increases the chance for service disruption. - High risk of flooding and overheating damaging tare equipment. It increases the distance betwcctk the radios and the antennas resulting in path loss in the coaxial cable. This in turn reclaices the range of the antennas. other: It is a major expense, to build and keep maintained. Photos of Vault e: WPGWIRELESS POLICY GROUP Li C January 11, 20 I R Via Email cio Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney e1 arnkispokarteval ley .org Spokane Valley Planning Commission Heather Graham .Tames Johnson Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Chair Graham and Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the draft wireless code before you. Verizon appreciates the city's careful and deliberate approach to revising the wireless code to accommodate small cell technology. Verizon generally supports the proposed code and appreciates how well it addresses the industry's concerns. It is important to get it right in adopting regulations for wireless facilities in a community that is growing as dynamically as Spokane Walley. We are in a period of tremendous growth in wireless data use. To put it simply, more people are using more wireless devices to do more things in more places than ever before. ■ In 2016, mobile data use was 35 times the volume oftraffic in 2010, • In 2015, the average smart phone used 3.7GB of data each month. That is expected to increase nearly 6 fold by 2021, when average use PQ Bax 34620.- #15644 Seale, WA 96124 kirrr,aller Mrelesspolicy,Oorn Arnw.wirele spolicmom t 425.626,2666 f 206,219.6717 January 11, 201g Page 2 is expected to be about Z2GB per month. . u. it isn't just our phones. IvvIachrne-[ -Machine connections are proj e 2.ted to increase from 365v1 in 2013 to 2. J 1 in 2018. That is a 7- foid iki.rease is just 5 years. This 2,rowth is haplpening because. the ways that WO use cur wneiess data are changin; . Our phones are. not just phones anymore. "[hey are the remote controls 16r t ur.Iives. And it isn't just Facebclolc, and streaming video. lvtore and more people are using wireless data to stay connected from m atiy location. • Devices that have ti n.'er been wireless before arc \.vizeicss nowt' and require cxpandin;71li c.apaLi[y in the existing network to function �c liahly. Some exarh.471; s ;re smart lights, smart cameras, and smart watches, smart traffic signis, smart tr tsltenrts, smart refrigerators, and smart horn c. heating, Rcliabie and robust wi :•; ass services etre essential to effective telecommuting which reduces traffic congestion and improves duality of life. People use wireless service to stay connected with friends and family locally, nationally, arid around the world, Home automation is allowing people to contol lights, appliances, and securit , systems remotely. Smart Communities solutions are improving ,.ff:9\° and alloying our cities to operate more efficiently. • Wireless data is important for public health and safety, 76% of 9l calls originate from cell phones, and it is now common for first responders to use wireless data networks from devices in their vehicles and on their person when responding to a crisis. • Wide ranges of medical devices are connected to wireless networks, helping doctors to more effectively treat their patients. Devices include smart heart monitors and smart insulin pumps. • 52% of American households are wireless only for voice service. More tlian 70% of all adults aged 25-34, and QC adults renting January 11, 2018 Page,3 their home.s, are living in wireless -only households. People are using mobile devices more than ever before, and that trend is expected to continue.' With such a pressing need for additional capacity, the city's small cell code will facilitate deployment of this much-needed infrastructure. ilcrizon supports the code as proposed, The only suggestion world be to reconsider the prohibition against siting small cells in public parks, set forth in 22.121.060(G) an p. 17 of the draft code. This, restriction appears to echo the prohibition on siting tower's in public panes. However, Verizon would note that small cell facilitic°.s are much smaller than macro facilities and are useful to boost data and user Gapacit v where there are lots of people gathered for sporyi] g events, concerts and other similar activities where people are using their phones to share photos and video. Public parks often host flreve'typos cif` e,,retrts, The very reduced visual impact makes small cells a good solution for existing lighting or utility poles already present in many public parks_ Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to continuing to work with the city to develop a code that preserves the look and feel of your community, while providing an efficient and workable process to deliver the service your residents, visitors and businesses have come to expect. Kim Alien, Wireless Policy Group, LLC, Representative for Verizon Wireless Linc. The attached fact sheet contains the sources of the data points listed here. verizorvi W .rte Tre44.44 5 wit-444,er .O1-, In 2015, the average smartphone in North America consumed 3.7 GB of dela per month, and this is expected to increase to 22 GB per month by 2021. (Ericsson Mobility Report. June 2016) Around 52 percent of American households are now wireless only for voice service. (CRC's 2016 WirelessSubstitution! Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July -December) For Millennials (those born between 1982 and 2004), the number increases to over two-thirds who live in mobile -only fiousehotds. Thal number is another significant jump up from 10.5% in 2006 and 31.6% in 2011. (FCC, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Markel Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Nineteenth 'Report, DA 16--1081 (Sep. 23, 2016) More than 70% of all adults aged 25-34 and of adults renting their hones were living in wireless -only households. (National Health interview Survay, "Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health lrrterview Survey, July -December 2016.) In 2016, wireless data traffic reached yet another record high, In all, trafft totaled 13,72 trillion MBs --the equivalent of 1.58 million years of streaming HD video • an increase of 4.07 trillion megabytes over 2015. Over the past two years, data use has increased 238 percent. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Based on estimates from the U.S. Cellular Monthly Data Usage Estimate tool, available at https,Nww .us liular.corn dotal data-esti mator,hlmI) 2015 mobile date use is 35 limes the volume of traffic in 2010. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017) There are now :more wire"ess devices than Americans, with about 1.2 devices for every person in the country. That makes the v6reless platform nearly ubiquitous: 95 percent of U,S, adults own a cellphone. Compare that to the 78 percent of Americans who own a Yomputer, (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Pew Research Center, Mobile Fr3ci Sheet' (Jan. 12, 2017), available at http:Awvirw.pewinlemet.ergifact-Streetimobilef) Wireless -powered smart city solutions could produce 150 billion in benefrts and savings from lower energy use, reduced trafficcongestion, and decreased fuel costs. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Accenture, Smart Cities: How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities (January 2017) available al htlps:I1 www,accenture,corn us-enrinsight-smari-cities.) Connected devices could create $305 billion In annual savings for the healthcare industry. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & David H. Roman and Kyle D. Conlee, The Digital Revolution Comes to US Healthcare: Technology, Incentives Align to Shake Up the Status Quo, Goldman Sachs Equity Report, Internet of Things Volume 5 (June 29, 2015) available at http:// rnassdigitalhealth.orQ/ digital -revolution -comes -us -healthcare. Self -driving cars could save 21,700 lives end $447 billion per year_ (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Daniel J, Fagnant and Kra Kockelrnan, °Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations for Capitalizing on Self -Driven Vehicles,` Eno Center for Transportation (2013), available at https: w vw, enotrans,orgfell-materialfpreparing- a-nation-for-autonomous-vehicles•opportunities-barriers-and-policy-recomrrendationsr The number of 1QT devices worldwide will conservatively surpass 20 billion by the year 2020, (2) and this increase in connectivity stands to add roughly $2,7 trillion to U.S. GDP by 2030. {2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Dr. Michael Mandel, Progressive Pcticy Institute, Long Term U.S. Productivity Growth and Mobile Broadband: The Road Ahead (March 2016) available at http:itimem.progressivepolicy.org1wp-eonteftrupl0adsJ2016d03)2016.03-Mandel_l-orlg- term-US-Productivity-Growth-and-Mobile-S road band he -Road -Ahead -pd f. In 2021, video will account fDr around 70% of mobile data traffic. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Across income levels, a sigr ifcanl majority of Americans now have smartphones, with 64 percent of people making less than $30,000 a year and 93 percent of people earning more than $75,000 a year owning smartphenes.9 And since 2011, the number of individuals making under $30,000 per year who own a srnartphone has grown by 42 percent. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 20117 & Pew Research Center, "Mobile Fact Sheet (Jan. 12, 2017), available al hItp:,/hww.pewin:ernei,orgIfact-sheetdmobiler) Today, just over half ---50,8 percont —of American households only have a mobile voice connection.'' For Miilennials, the number Increases to over two-thirds who live in rnobile-or=ly households. That number is up from 10.5°I° in 2006 and 31.6% in 2011. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & FCC, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Nineteenth Report, DA 16-1061 (Sep. 23, 2016)) MilLennials Lead smartphone. adoption, with 92 percent of 18-20. year olds having a smartptione, followed by 88 percent of 30-49 year obis, and 74 percent of 50.64 year olds, With respect to race, smartphone ownership arks across the board, with approximately 72 percent of African-Americans, 75 percent of Hispanics, and 77 percent of whites In the U.S. having smartphones. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Pew Research Center, "Mobile Fact Sheet" (Jany, 12, 2017), available at http,ahwmw.pewiniemet.org;fact-sheetfrnabilel) Teens have increased smartphane TVlvideo viewing 85% in 4 years. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Teen usage of cellular data for smartphone video has grown 127% in 15 months, (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) 76% of 911 calls originate from a cell phone (National Flighway Traffic Administration, February, 2016) More than 75% of prospective home buyers prefer strong cellular connections (RootMetrics,,June 2015) 35% of Americans reach for their srnertphhone first In the morning (CTIA„ July 2015) Machine -to -machine connections are projected to rise from 35 million in 2013 to 203 million in 201 B. (Ciao, VN( Mobile Forecast Highlights 2013-2018, at `United States — 2018 Forecast High1igh[s and 2013 Year In Review) By 2020, more than 34 billion internet connected devices will be instailed g[obally that's more than' 4 devices for every human on earth. (Business Insider, May 20, 2016) 5 w GflO'J s. P0-1CY I Lf 1 January 25, 2018 Via Email c/o Erik Lomb, Deputy City, Attorney k elamb spokanevalIf y.org Spokane Valley Planning Commission Heather Graham Janes Johnson. Tian Kelley Mike Phillips Michelle leasmussen Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Chan` Graham and Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the rc-vised draft wireless code Ihrefore you. Vcrizon appreciates the city`s careful and deliberate approach to revising the wireless code to accommodate small cell technology. Whiff Verizon generally supports the proposed code, there are a few late revisions we would like to address. 22.12/ .060 A. Antennae shall be located at least 20 feet above the brise elevation of the growrrtd unless technically infeasible, No objection. ■ 22.121.0013 Primary equipment enclosures shall bs buried below gond or locked awl integrated into the surroundings finless technically infeasible. in the Pacific Northwest, the rainy weather makes for damp, and often waterlogged vaults and equipment, which is damaging to electronic equipment, particularly for radios. Safety: This is the main reason not to vault as it poses ;a significant safety hazard to technicians, contractors and utility crews. PG ax 34628-075604 eatll, WA 98.124 kim.allea wirelesspoky.com virtu. irelesspdcy,c4rn t 425,628.2666 1206,219.6717 January 25, 2018 Page 2 Gas vapors build rola inside the. vault despite the ventilation systems install s] especially when those systctrls fail. If i tech enters a vault before the air is purged, it could result in serious harm to include death. Verizon Wireless will not place personnel. in this position., Requires two people to he onsite. One tech in the vault and the other as an above ground attendant maintaining communication with the tech snaking sure a hazard docs not expose the tech to injury. Dut. to the increased risk, ° ilA requires addition] and more stringent policy, procedure and guidelines. Construction: Approximately four times more space is required to vault than installing iihovc ground.. o Need to accommodate digging out and plaooin nt of back#i] i as well as shoring the exca 'aLiotr site.. o M©y pose ars issue with uti lity clearance setback requirements. o No access around the viatih causing disruption to pedestrians (sidewalk). and traffic (lane closures).. c. Requires ., fla(bc.d trailer truck aid a large eranc w]th oLlitig er5 which have the p•iterltial of interfering with. pacr lines. Sc]i Conditioi1— Extensive cl;te diligence is required to test the soil prior to vaulting the c't uipment and r ,roi_:nc, to include and not be Rip o Buxpa:: ivc Soil — Sell will "swell" in valiant w -Jen wok t wiilen d iti.L CaJsitlg the vault tit heavo, stale shift.. o Soil Liquefaction—_ phenomenon m.11e:eN-r s, S:,i„L,rated or partially saturrlLcc1 soil substantially ,,,,s~s strength i.o_f 4tif.i'rir.ss in response to an .a.,op.'ed srre35, usually earino .. akc slir [ ii lr ,4,tti '.: ddrin change in stre,s9 i;C`ndir,ion, causing it lo behave c llaaerr l4 tl .Waste— Soft_ t rit was prcv....p.. i . by o:,.,ns requiri : - Lt —:roup before work can curti1V..,.....?.c fob:: comp:t ly a] todoned, Hitting bedrock can prohibit the dig. Js a toil .r and more intensive process that takes more. titin to complete, - In man -urban of ses, it is not practical due to space constraints. Ser ice Reliability= Vaultin i:t::r4:t{:4es the chance for service disruption. High risk of flooding ; and overheating damaging the equipment. it increases t!, L' ° tr.noc between the radios and thc antennas resulting in path foss in tibe cca:.i it 1_L.1-rle. This in turn reducer} the range of the antennas. Verizon request* that the undergratindin.g requirement be removed. January 25, 2018 f ag 4'. 3 22,171. 060 1 Location, Snia11 frwafrties shall not bo located .r'rr, fr, 12501 feet of any other s'mri.0 cofacliay ±;r�r'e.s-� thv appliccrtit clemons?r'ate,s inn/. ,,..; Oihr.r ?C1catio7i owl accommodate pr i3' ,57..i1 :..tient. (1) meet til. '-'4.14-.1@'i .serace ! ne61.1. !i the a:'VMe Ci Caval) ffr[','Iity is reafir.'! ? Il; +?' i;'() ''1f ::r.' "''ttltti 25L�' feet of anot.hot fTdSr1-1gSfIil cell,fuCf1t , �G(}�tv_i7t agood faith L;,"i.-r to C'[JilCJC{rlte the new facility on the same pole. Ud ...1.m, (;.rFt:' smah r.:'!?i }' tri order tc PFinimize hnpactsvfrfm'? fc.b1' The. City may P6gUire a pliCantS lv pr'cvrde evidence of e06.,-fs f .;;':,tis l uri:ran. An applicant may demonstrate goodfaith efiL'�'F,% (o cCJikR.,�j'.` ".J p.'-oviaing sritiu t evidence from the r , other wirelesspl'01Hds. r(a) that they arc] tri, 1'.:.:;ii? or 11 !.t' technically fn easibl'o LL'1 collocate, nr from pok or sit'tti;tur'{' r?,i r1E'1`r 1 ..'ii they will ?1 71 allow • Loco OYd cw that it fs technically inJA si ale to allcw Many pole owners are also restricting eolloctatic n by only a1 [L wing one carrier per pole. Regardless of the collocators, poles would still na 'xi ;o conform to NEC, or NESC code and pass structural for all instaaliaii .ns. 1.1 -_at (lox.; become for complicated with additional c;olloc'ato: s. It will be virtaW sum[... cases, but not in others. 'There are alre.,ady many practical consttai is that narrow our peic eholees. ;ali[ity providers have pole types that we eannot [Dew upon. The i tilliy and NESC code clearances requirements also lirnit the of collocaling more than one carrier an ti single pole, Our RF engineers fire. 1onking.for available poLr. iL= z; w''_ t' small footprint 1:hr..och node.. Tat aii, tLlal distance 4:x11[ ?'ail ' haascd on scvera[ tactoi , lD,LL ':" C l'l ll ':.. ' Sl.. I'- '=''.I ::i .. tr have a cascading effect on orh .7' ru) e5. The separation requitement c'..uI.r pecccrved F;5 c.lisfir[ninato?y, by favoring those who enter the xr_arlcct first and bur:icnir1 rte carriers who deploy later in any. given area, the. number of virhic and be greatly reduced. The primly issues with small. cells is that the antenna range k short and - variable, The range of a small. cell depcnc:w on the frequencies being used srnd the power of the radios and tntennf . That range t} pii;t.[iy v ±.ria s from 400 ft. to l ,000 ft. It is unlikely that eacE+ carriers target rune will be lie same rm. any ; iitgl ' deployment arca, Nodes too clDJ�. will creaiein'texfcrcncL;, Nodes too farapac[ Yr.to.'e capacity gaps. In ;idditinn, the places where we neem capacity uro different becaarrse the locations and ranges of ci it macro sites arc different. Them will be sonic s1t iatikns where collocations could make sense, but it will need to be evaluatc.case by wai n. Many pole owners are also restricting collocation by only allowing ono. i:hrrierr per pole. Regardless of the oollocators, poles would still need to conform to.: ,C; or NESC code and pas structural for all installations. That does become for cornpl icated with additional coIlocators. There are already many practical constraints that naw our pcia: choices, The utility providers have pole types that we cannot loc ala, opoo. ilie utility and NESC code clearances requirements also limit the viability ofcollocotingmore than one January 25, 2418 Page 4 carrier on a single pole.. Finally, the. proposal language could be percelved to discriminate against carriers who d :ploy later, by narrowly limiting t}lc available poles, Verizon suggests that this section be removed and that the code simply suite the city's 'Inference that small cells Dot be dcpl+i} celo i adjacent poles. !dank you, la!' the. opportunity i& eon -it -nem and'4'l. conArardto co_otinuinl to work With the city, Sincerely, Kim Alen, 'Wireless Tolley Group, LLC, Representative J.or Verizon 'i'ircicss Elle, Photos of Vault Dam a S�i> j�alley T-Moblle Comments Re: Planning Commission DavisWright I■! 1 re acne LLP January 25, 2018 Suite 2300 777 19I1th Avenue hiE De lewuc. WA A0G1-5149 Linda Whilt Alklns (125)646.6115 tel 425) 646=6199 dux Iindastk1 dw4-nwn Spokane Valley Planning Commission Spokane Valley City Hall 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, \VA 99206 Re: CTA -2017 -0005 -Wireless Telecommunications Arncncintent — T-Mohile Comltients for Public Hearing Comtel fission Members: On behalf of T -Mobile, we are submitting these written comments on the proposed Wireless Communications Facilities code amendments for your consideration at this evening's public hearing. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these proposed changes which address the siting of small cells. Small cells are a particular type of wireless facility installation that are intended primarily to address network capacity needs and management of network truffle, , particularly in dense urban areas. Unlike the traditional macro cell (tower) wireless facility which is designed to provide primary coverage to a defined geographical arca, small cells are designed to work with macro sites to manage heavy wireless traffic in dense areas in circler to provide optimal riot work functionality and to ensure that wireless customers have access to the high quality and reliable wireless service they have come to expect. In order to eesure that all wireless communications users have access to an optimal network, it is particularly important that regulations for permitting small cell deployment be flexible enough to accommodate a range of small cell locations and aesthetic solutions, and to allow for technological evolution- Each wireless carrier has small cell designs that are customized according to the carrier's network frequency and design and its anticipated capacity needs. Further, all carriers' technologies are continually evolving, Thus small coil regulations should avoid inadvertently forcing carriers to choose specific technologies or equipment, effectively discriminating among carrier technologies in violation of federal neutrality requirements. Federal telecommunications law requires that local governments manage the use of the public right of way for telecommunications purposes on a cottnetitively neutral and 4841.16414427w.1 0048172.4011795 AnchOrdogrt. I Fww WI* 1I Lsalll1a eIe e I f 6L7rd 1St rrplk'l Lesiloge,ns I SerfRanc`{A Wm/gram-1, 0,C Wtv',,d.'.tean January 25, 2018 Page 2 nondiscriminatory basis. 47 (NC. C. §253. Federal. law fUrther prcthil3its regulations that unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivai n!. services. 471 SC §332(c)(7)(13)(I). In addition to }roliii ti.,g diserimination, Fc lcrnil law also precrript, municipalities from dictating t, witefe•ss provider' s clac}iee of teelino]nE1' zdnc� cl4uirt77et;t, ,367 New York SMA LP v. Town 0!CIarkTrowna, 61217.3(197 (2d Cii, 2010), With these principles in mind, we recommend the changes outhrtc(1 it} the artached redline of the draft ordinance. In particular, v.'e urge the Commission to modify the. ordinance to expressly recognize aunified camouflage desiba as an acceptable. criitiott for small cell design. T - Mobile Fins developed this design to in,_`.,r sorate loth the antennas and associated equipment into a si°:E.ie enclosure cal'approximatc:h7 three cub:[:. f:'.4 in order to standardize and mini i7..e the aestlletic7 impel of small cull i',ista.Iat,otis_ ire incl _;.ie p1..::lographs and more detailed information concerning this unified design v -.mala our cc,r,in nts. Pot addition:] detail regarding our oommenrs, pY4ase see the attached redlined ordinance, and the attached photographs a! N1nbiJe's t!nixiw L'anionttagc small cell design. Thank you again for this opportunity to GUT., rnent carr the draft wireless faultless ordinance. Very truly yours Davis Wright Trernairie• U 1' Linda White Atkins ce: T -Mobile 4M(-4641-4427v_i 0,54$t72-QX79.5 T -Mobile has been working with our vendors to create an enclosure that holds all of our technology. These pictures depict our updated design, We believe it is important to create uniformity and a sleek design that blends with infrastructure. k PLA nfro L J1 44-1n4 C.6 PR 1- r •-Mobile- NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT T • •Mobile• January25, 2018 Re. T-Mablte Small Celt Shroud Size City of Spoknne Vatley: Ina purpose of this letter Is to provide more details about the size of T-hte,bila's small oe!I shrDLtl. This shroud Is destined to enclose both the small cell antennas and the primary equipment associated with the antennas. Thus, the rough exterior dimensions all this Shroud Pr x 12' x 12.31 are well beim the volumetric thsasholds established under Washington State lay. RCN 80.36.375(2)(d), With this shroud design the antennas ere at the very front of the shroud (farthest away from the side where the shroud would attach to a polo), The antennas have a slim profile and are attached in front of the radios. The antennas only occupy about 20% of the farm factor. The remainder of the shrard contains primary equipment- Under the definition of a "small cell facility" in the Y!lashington State statutes, the antenna enclosure (whether real or imaginary) end the primary equipment enclosure are subject to separate size htmltntinns. See Id. The statutory antenna enclosure size limlLotion is 3 cubic feet, while the primary equipment s ze limitation Is 17 cubic feet. 141. The total volume of the 7 -Mobile shroud complies with these limits based on the proportion devoted to antennas (roughly 4.6 cubic feet) .and the proportion devoted to primary equipment (roughly 2.4 cubic feeI).l In addition, although the shroud appears to be an even rectangular prism, there are various indentations around the box. These Indentions aro part of the desiiiln sod mean the actual volume Is smaller than the volume calculated using the rough exterior dimensions. 11 you have any questions, please tee free to contact Marfa Emig in our local Seattle Market, al 425-39$-7614 el. Marie.Emlq?n Ulohile.oarrr, s As caulemplated unda :he statuio, the antro e rtIcsuro can be alum ar "magi rani. .10.1 7-000,0-7515....1 00413172-01.13795 5a��arr^L't�l? T-Mabii42corri.m.:1t.1/22/.E (1,A 2017-4005 Draft 07/18 DRAFT APPENDIX A R DEFINITIONS Radio/TV broadcasting studio: Facilities serving the broadcast media, See "Communication fatalities. use category." Reporter facility: A Facility for the noncommercial reception and retransmission of radio signals See 'Communication facilities, use category,' RF Enginee=r: A person iA#►ter-it-oolanlon-v#-the-C'v Manacie arAria1ej education, erleno 'n v�ri(eIess- c mmimipatian services radia are uerlcies rocs FGC rend ctl7e icable oc\,lernmental recrulat ons to pro de the necessary certifi kionfs) required pursuant to Clraptur; 2,121 SVC. Telecommunications: The transmission, between or among pofrtts specified by the user, of audio and/or visual nfcrmation and data of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the Information as vent and received. Alternative mounting structure, A water tower, manmade tree, clock tower, church steeple, bell tower, utility pole, light standard, freestanding sign, flagpole, or airniLar structure designed to suppxt and camouflage or conceal the presence of telecommunications antennas, Antenna: Any exterir ! aovaratu°; destoned for telephonic, rsd.o data, Internal or other communications through the sending and/or receiving of radiofrequency slonals includi a but not hniited to, ec,utrarnent attached to a tower. polo, li ht standard, AMY - ;role, buiidino or otl•icr struclure for the burpose of oravidin:i wireless sgrvices. Types of antennas include: Jai 'onrrri directional antenna' reoeLv es and transmits radio frequency sir reals in a 560-:tecree radial pattern, - A `whip nter1 a• Is an °mini -direction -a! antenr ha! is up to 15 feel in h jaht and no more Iha7 sly inchr 5 in diameter; and - A "direttici lac 1717 )coal antenna' receives an tray smils radio fre.uenc sinnels Ina SQeifiCCtirewti r- al pattern of less than :9 6C defes-A.EtiuottgeoIevi kC�i-;.-a llE#E C17t�i�¢ielopilsienraHi}iFk.kav€-EJ8C4f4r1agjf;tGr W.^-4+eS gr�clud;no die 1,etr•at- l lel eed s ea Efi.e r ^. pyil_drastixteagafi - 44-as-whi s, t .a?. R2 1Aillk+t1iV-Ea £' t£ acute-stationo-or-none mr"erciol-ante'+nos install; icne for1wme true of-fo o of ICIcvieion, • Antenna kit chill: The Ye-ticat distance measured froin average building Elevation to the hlrghest paint of the Eintertirra or if ren a•rooftop or rachet SLrgrit j „frotm the top of the roof or structure tlibLELtikhest nclrtt of the antenna. For replaremeril struotares, - hel.tit Is Treasured front the to of the existing. structure to the hiest oinl rat the antenna or new structure, whichever js oreater. 1 I 462R-2.473-685134.3 001817Z•907795 Onmrraot ILMI: rretammtrd medah+eg tht Fhraan to vaiJeve an. DEfettdi* AMdtrd. torniritak.tu+ninp,rt'ro+irrl,db? { fenha,tted: rrgwkrrt_. j5.2okane Val InY T' -Md ile narume-its. i/22}14 CTA 2017- X1Q5 Draft 1/17/113 • Approved small cell, faciI W: Anv small cell facltlty that has received all re iu1reet permits. • Array: An an-angement of antennas and their supporting structure - Base Station: A ntructure or eoraiprnerLat a fixed location that a abies FCC-ldcerised or authorized wireless commuFicatlo s be en user -•ui. erxtand a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as definedherein nor any a dpmen! associated with a tower. Base Station InclkEdes w thojt 1i i tion: - Equi merit as. •"ialad with tivire ess *Mit 'cation ices as ww{lias unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless Services span as microwave backhoul- - R - i a transceivers antenna Iles and comoara wer su conn ration network. i1 coaxlat or f bar -o Distribute• d A tenr a Svs!ems (•[AS'} and small . tic cable e. a rdIess o aa,1 u1br ai d bactcuP nolo IU^8 - Any structure other than a tower lha at the time the relevant iu IIc.allo in filed with tuses es>,uipjnent desCrihed above libel has been eviewed god raved oder the a 'ica`ale toning or 5t6)11 process or under another Sale ar.lecal fetaulaXory revi��wa ,racryss ever lfthe structure was riot built for the sole or olrnary pupose of providing that support. The errndoes of include env struvture ih s' �t the time the relevant ao lralicalis filed with be City- does not Signori or house equiprnenl described above, • Collocation:Tlie 1 auntic+or'nstallatioa or ransralssiv , •ul, Clan o an eligible nu rt strr.rGture for_the purpose: of transmitting andfor receivine F Flo trete r?a sdgnoisfor cornmunicatiala purooses.AI:ngli-tolecom+rtiunle t: i nc,4 i os -ed Prue-e-thWJEr otne.t laz-famfl nl. itkns pl*V1tIer. • Corrceatment tettinolotty: Transmission facilities da slimed to rook like sante feature other than a wireless tower or base station or which minimizes the v'istaal impae't of an anten a b use of nnrrre1 ive a trials ei.r+state colors andror a concealment riiste'ri 1111 • Dish: A parabolicor bowl shaped device that receives andior transmits signals in a specific directional pattern. • EIA -222: Electronics Industries Association Standard 222, "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antennas Support Structures." i Electric transmission: A elfr supporting structure in excess of 5Ci feet in height designed to support high voltage electric lures. This does not include local utility or distribution poles (with or tiyi'thout transformers) designed to provide electric seruloe to individual custnri r . • Eti.'rtrle Facititia-- Re nest: An ru ue t for modification of a exisli ower it base sl, tin,r shot does not substantially chance the pliwslc:at Efirnerrilpns pr such kowe r Dace station. invoivtno: - Colloc,-rtton of new Ironsmission eou':omerot. 2 AM -7473-685.8v COC1172.0 C4i'hment tLA3 : Ada •Of.rwimun' ,Spaione V,tixlev, T.Mcklle enrr,mEras, 112211$ CrA 2017-OOos I ra ft 1/17/9.a - Removal of transmission equipment: or - Reh10ccn-ient of transmission eu IDrrwentn Eligible support structure: Anv lower or base station as defined In this section provided that it lsRt the time tlle_r varlt apolicalion is filed with the G!tp, 1OU3Es [gig u.srorts are ante na 'cro cell o • srnal cell de Flo ent. • EgraiLan>lent slrLrcture: A *acilitv, sheltercabinet electronic or other as crated e uloment ecessa cornmunIca ions sl conditioni acltu nal& • ssoclaterf e ower 5 uo vault user' to house and Ptu1ecil. i inlent- Ole ies and emeooerlcv e air • Exlstiri u A conslruated tower or lase Ialian Is exist' 'f It has been ravieiwed end aoLfrcved under the a ,t'cabte zu irm or satin rcGess o under gni ttyer s1 -le or local regulatory review,ozocess, provided that.+ lower that has not been reviewed and reviewed because it was in a zoned are en It was u t but w as [8 WfulLY corrstn c,.�71. i "6 lino for i;ttrposes of chal5"ter 22.122 SWAG. • Guyed, tower: Any te'ecornmurtiratiorls tourer supported In whole or in part by cables anchored to the ground. a Height,: The distance measured from grade to the highest paint of al iy and all components of the structure, Including antennas, hazard lighting, and other appurtenances, if any. • Mierocells: Has the some meaning} as set bah h in RQ/A' 80.38.275, as now adopted or hereafter a-rnendeci. • Monopole: A self-supporting telecommunications tower, which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the ground andfor attached to a foundation. • Gather subpart structure: A stru,.'ure used lo suowrt small cell facilities or egjipn ent sir Jctures, exr It ciin' euildin s ulilit +ole an water reservoirs. Ekeinu;es cif "other support structure • include (lei:moles arid ball field fight standards • Panel; An antenna whichuecelves and/or transmits signals in a directional pattern. • Prior a' rr+ nal: Certifica, On of aw oval s frrarn tine Cit aulhorizirt_ the initial carrier's small ceff fa ilitieson a base static Cily�car tower. e subseu8nk aor+r�vai{s) fro m the autha e Lifted 1 the exlstin■ . ate of the s all L.. installation of a a,;pecific wireless Prior apclrou f ma/ also indudelh_ odiFrcations o he initial 19 al -tion tical nava includ;'n but n cal 1 facill ted to the nu r and location of e ulprlrerit St11Ctures antennas antenna SOO ructureS eutal amen' • Serif -supporting lattice tower; A telecommunications tower that consists of an open network of metal braces, usually triangular or square in cross-section. ▪ Service: The offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used- • Service provider: Has the Came niearaina as set forth in R W 35- 9.J11C(6) as now adopted or hereafter amended. Seri * +vider shall Ind o•. + . = n6as11.1161re 3 437$-2/73-685Ev.3 D048172 -00071s !rkanPWil t, -Mo bile corn rmvnss,1/2V1g Q-A 2017-0005 Draft 1/1.7/1 coftlpanies t 18t prc�r?�de teleconxniunications services or egolgrnent_to_Hri. b1e the deployment 0 perso;rat wire ess services. • Small coil and ma I call 1e 10 i ant: Have the same ntieani ias set fo h In RC Sl].3G.375 es now adapted or hereattr:r amended. ■ Stealth: A telecommunications antenna that Is effectively camouflaged or Cancealed from view. Substantial chin e: A ntiad"sfrcetion, slrt}slar?loll c -ri. es the teal dime signs of an alioible support struchre df it rnee[s rry ❑f Ih� feIIovvina tlxeria: - For towers other than towersITL the Mu •Gi ri+hts-0f It lncrea ar the Icv.Yer lati' more :hen 10% or 1 with separation from 11re nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, wfaic.hever Is . r Ater for ath eligible sl]pl ort structures, it Increases fhe Iteitlt1t of the structure by Tore than 'LD% or more than ten feet, ~whichever Is greater; Fos lowr'rs otlie then towers in the,public rights of-vraw, it inyolaes adding a,B aoouitenannce to the body of the Iowet that would protrude horn the edclg of lh tower more than twenty feel, or more ttxarLthe width of the tower strucluire et the of tele appurtenance.. wh cheger Is greatar frar €�tl ar ell ib_11 ort aures, it 1ryotu'es adding an aoptirtenanoe to ttro hod of Lhe structure That would pre+crude from Ilse edee of the structure by more than six feet, For dr Y elicrlble support structure, It involves i,ist,aliatiorp oI more than 13 -le spa and num 1 -r of new e u •rnent cabinets for the hnot rove! • ed. but not to exceed foul cabinets_ or, for lowers In tha publ I c rl,ghtslof-waw and .pass St tions it i 'vo veliristallelion of any new egsiprrlent cabinets on the around it there are no pr existintr around cabinets associated with thj tructure, or else Involves Installation of orounrIcahanets lhet aro more than 101ep lamer in beiaht or nuerall volume than a otlder round cabinets associate h the structure; 11 errtai s n ,exceveti. nor de. 1s3 ht outside fhr cdlrren site. - It would defeat the coirceorment elements of the etiolnio support strrreluuuei,or the ar he het tit of one additional a na air - Il does of cora *1 with candilions assodated -th the sibnr as ■ • al mod i1ction of the el 1. a bl a su' • ructure or ba; ; Ion equ43rneril ouided however, that this limitation does not ?only t4 anY modification th04 Is nnp•cnrn Iiant only Ina manner that would riot x sed the thresholds identified t'beve. a Toloccmmunicatlons antenna: An antenna used lo provide a telecommr nicatians service. This excludes lightning rods, private mobile radio systems, amateur radio antennas less than 35 Feet In freight in residential districts and 50 feet in height In nonresidential districts, anc whip antennas less than four inches (10 cm) In diameter and less than 10 feet in height, • Till commu rlitnfl on service: Ha the carne i e ;+r',rr cis get foil!) in - C.1.%1 35,99 eft o(7). as now ado r r hereafter amended. crnstru•° nr 4 a zo-24173 6r1SN19Qas172-DCC?$ Formaried; [Eye dight spo reT-Mobilecorn mPc;s,ili2/16 CTA 2017-oaa5 Draft 1/17}18 ■ Tower: Arty structure built For the sole or rune a ose of su i an FCC - lice dor authorized antennas and their ssedated facilities Inciud n stnictures that are con;,Nrtic d far wi• less ; but not rlrn, ed to, private broadcast, and public sa!eht services, iasi as unt. need wirelesses r and Ixes!u,+sreless services such as rnicrowa a ckhaut a socia e r - A "towel` ahall.J .ot include a r lace erttIuGAit o as sutAroria a lease ih tae co, a 11-ariLhise ora Small 0e11 Permlt.A-erelf-s t+ra r '^` i+e—FR E ha'n 20 fo - b 91: x116414 .iii, t ufdport one tx rr'aora Ieieee a gaR r, �a not includo-xis-aperator aFP 4' rh n upp.,rt I • Transmit sic n r=Sna cion toi any FC - licensed or authorized wireless communication service, {nckudin2 but not limited to, (actin Ira nsceiVers, antennas coaxial or fiber-optic cable. and tegtrler and backup ix5wer St f D V, The° term includes eauFpnlentiassoclales kith vuireleas amenrtnicaticns services incrudino- but not hmjled to rivate roadcasl and ub is Wel sewi s as well as uriliGen ed wireless seryls and fixed wireless services such as microwave bacichaul. it.Jnified Camouflage Design- Gonvealmerit of antennas and eguippe,t wiAAtin a_s Hale enlosrttr+el . _ _ Mitt ole• A structure.de -a+nevi and used aril for the s rt of el l wires, telephone wire, television cable, trafficstarjls; or Milting for streets, oafkinq area& or pedestrian �a niiP"fil paths. •' T7lR� J1.e-4rav'r�t,'P d. mor -fn -an GI i-nr-ha5+rF4aFFretec- Wireless: Having no wire or wires, operating by means of transmitted electromagnetic waves, Tower, ham operator; A structure Ness than 76 Net in height above grade used for two- way t* anarnunicatian for hobby or emergency service purposes by private individuals. wSee "Communication f ,P114ti s : Lit . use category.' 5 r e,rh-2473-6858'f.3 00.48.172.00D.7.5 Cantu [mak Nod 1 to+mment[LIM: imoe#gd 1 lCum mat NM' iglaciated 1. r�arrmat dr rrghlig1ut 1 •Cair m.nt[LATJ.wannewdekiNiai Pei erre Va11eyLLMabile corn mrrats, 1127J1R CTA 2017-0005 draft 1/17/18 !DRAFT SVMC 19D6O.O50 Um:40alegaryType. R1 P2 F3 R4 MF1 MF2 MUC CMU GO 0 NC C 'RC P108 11 12 Communication Facilities Red:wTJ broadcasting utradio P P P P P P' Repeater facl ay PPPP P P PPPP P P fi S S =s 22 121 'SAKI itteP.rz,Ytripr-1 TelecommunitiOn wireless antenna i 2rray 5 S 8 8 S S S S C C S S 5 S Chapter 22.120 SVMC TaleCorraivniCaion avreless suppurI. tore C C C S S C C 5 S S S 8 Chaptaar 22.120 SVMC "rawer, barn opeidtor S S S S 5 5 5 S C C S S S E S SVMC 19-40-11O10) G 1 G R2 E -2473-6S E EN.3 011,41177.1 0795 I, rjrC.:1!1 L',V °'.i T-!'v:ah i [°:1om its; 1!1211, LTA 2017-0)05 orart 1/17/1$ DRAFT Chapter 22.120 SVhic 22.120.010 Purpose and Intent. These standards were developed to protect the public health, safety, and we°fare, and minimize visual impacts on residential areas, whine furthering the development of wireless communication services, Those standards were designed to comply with the Telecommunication Act of 1990- The provrsicrts of tii:!&-seGlieavh9pter 22.120 are not intended to and shall riot be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prc habiting wireless communication services. Chaolor 22.120 shat! cover 21! 4vioelr.: communication services alhvr tI parr Mniall cell seNices which 2'o requlated F'•irsu3'rt to chaptef 22 121 SVhiC. 22.120,020 Permits and exemptions. Where a transmission tower or antenna support structure is located in a zoning district which allows such use as a permitted use activity, administrative review. enc a building permit, shall be required. subject to the project's consistency with the development standards set forth in SVMC 22,120,040. In Instances where the use is not allowed as a permitted use activity, a conditional use permit and building permit shall be required in addition to a derr7onstratiorr of consistency wkth all required development standards. Exemption; Wireless radio Ltilized for temporary emergency communications h the event of a disaster is exempt from the provisions of this section and shall be permitted in all zones. 22.120.030 Required application subrnittals.. All applications for viireless-antenna arrays and wireless communication support towers shall include the following: A, A totter s-sgned by the applicant staling that all applicable requirements of the FCC, the FM, and any required avigation easements have been satisfied. B. A scaled site pian clearly Indicating the location, type and height of the proposed tower, antennas, oto -site land wises and zoning, adjacent land uses and zoning, adjacent roadways, proposed means or access. setbacks from proporty lines, elevation drawings of the proposed tower, the equipment structure, ferocing, buffering and the type of stealth technology which w iI be utilized. The full, detailed site plan shall not be required if the antenna is to be mounted on en existing Structure. C. The appiioant shall have performed and priurdad a photographic simulation of the proposed facility from all affected properties and public rIglits•of-way- 7 eisas.24/3-6,6CPa,18i7x-0000..2. SooOne Valleyr, iNlob11g 2rnpentl. 1/22/1A CTA 2j)17-oaas Draft 1/17/15 D. The applicant shall provide copies or any environmental documents recruited by the State Environmental Policy Act (SE1l'A). E. The applicant shalt have demonstrated effort to coo -locate on an existing support tower or other Structure. New support towers shall not be permitted within one mile of an existing support toWer unless it [s demonstrated that no existing support tower or either structure can acc❑mrnodate the proposed antenna array- The City reserves Itte right to retain a qualified consultant, al the applicant's expense, to review the supporting documentation for accuracy. F. Evidence to demonstrate that no existing support tower or other structure can accommodate the proposed antenna array may consist of the following: 1- No existing support towers or other structures are located within, the geographic areas required to bleat the applicant's engineering requirements. 2- Existing support towers or other structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. 3- Existing support towers or other structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna array and related equipment 4. The applican: s prcpased antenna would cause e'ectramagnetic Interference wit-' the antenna on the existing support towers or other structures, or the antenna on the existing support towers or other structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna. G. The applicant of new tower snail provide a signed statement stating the applicant has provided notice to all elher area wireless service providers of Its application to encourage the co-local]on cif additional antennas on the structure. 11. A signed statement from the owner andfor landlord to remove the facility or obtain another permit for the facility within six months of when the facility IB no longer operating as part of a wireless communication system authorized and licensed by the FCC. L Proof that all the necessary property or easements have been secured to assure for the proper construction; continued maintenance, and general safety of the properties adjoining the wireless communication focality, 22.720,040 Design standards.. The support tower, antenna array, and supporting electrLCal and mechanical egtilpnlent shall be installed using stealth technology- Stealth technology applies to all personal wireless service facilities. including, without [imitation, antennas, towers and equipment structures, For any facility. stealth technology means the use of boat existirg and future technology through which a personal wireless service fac2flty is designed to resenit le an object which is already present in the kcal environment, such as a tree, streetlight, or traffic signal. It also includes: s 1 Asla•2473-6o-`SV-3re411z-Oi•7755 ,a/alone Val!ey, T b'r,biI cow mtnts, 1/22018 CTA 2017-OOO5 Draft 1/17/1B A. For personal wireless ser -vice support towers: 1. If within existing trees, "stealth technology" means: a The tower is to be painted a dark color; b. Is made of wood or metal: and c, A greenbelt easement is required to ensure permanent recentian of the surrounding trees. 2. Stealth technology for towers in 2 more open setting means that they must have a backdrop (for exarnpte, but not limited to, trees, a hillside, or a structure) on at least two sides, be a compatible color with the backdrop, be made of compatible materials with the backdrop, and that ::srchitrctural car landscape screening be provided 'for the other two sides, if existing troes are the backdrop, then a greenbelt easement Is required to ensure permanent retention of the surrounding frees. 3, Antennas shell be integrated Into the design of any personal wireless seniice tower to which they are attached. External projections tram the tower shall be limited to the greatest extent technically feasible.. 4. For rooftop antennas or antennas mounted on other structures: a. For omni -directional antennas 15 feet or less above the roof, stealth technology means use of a color compatible with the roof, structure or background; b, For other antennas, stealth technology means use of compatible calors end architectural screening or other techniques approved by the City. B. For antennas mounted on one or more building facades, stealth technology means use of dolor and materials such that the facility has architectural cornpatibllitd with the building. It shall be mounted en a wall o; an existing building in a configuration as flush to the wall as technically posslbfe and shall not. project above the wall on which it is mounted, C. For equipment structures, stealth technology means locating within a brtllding, or if on top of a buhlding, with architecturally compatible screening. An undsrgroL nd location, or above ground with a solid fence and landscaping, is also considered stealth technology- f . Advertising or display aha11 not be located on any support lower Or antenna array; however, the owner of the antenna array shalt place on Identification plate Indicating the name of the wireless service provider and a telephone number for emergency contact en the site. E. No artificial tights other t:ian those required by FAA or other applicable authority shell be permitted. At1 security Iighls shalt be down -shielded, and installed to be consistent With Chapter 22.50 SVIVIc. 9 1 4E28.2473.5ELEv.3 EQ4 172.000745 EUkane VaIIi y, T-Mnhile cornmefti,.10211 E CIA 2017.0005 Draft i/17/18 F. The facility shall be enclosed by a. site -obscuring secured fence not less than six feet In height with a locking gate. No barbed wire or razor Wire shall be permitted. G. The support tower foundations, equipment shelters, cabinets or other on -the -ground ancillary equiprirbi`1t shall be burled below ground or =maned with a site obsiGurIng secured fence not less than six feet high- The. requirement for s site-obscurlrg fence may be ti -waived provided the applicant has secured all on -the -ground ancillary equipment in a locked cabinet designed to be compatible with and blend Into the setting, and the means of access for the support tower is located a minimum of 12 feet above the ground. All support structure(s) for wireless cornrnunhCatiarl antennas shall have fir gleans of access located a minimum of eight feet above the ground unless the requirement for a fence has been waived. I. The support tower shall meet the minimum primary structure setback requirements for the underiyirkg zone. J. Support towers shat) not be permitted inside a public. park_ public monument or private holding located within a puibllc park or public monument. K. The height of the support tower or antenna array above grade shall not exceed the maximum height identified In Table 22.120-1 below- The height of a support tower shall include antenna, base ped, and other appurtenances and shall be measured from the finished grade of the parcel. Table 22.120-1 — Tower Height Limitations Zone Antenna Array Support Tower R-1, Single -Family Residential Estate R-2, Single-Fam1ly Residential SubUrbari R-3, Single -Family Residential Ur§pp 20 feet above the zoning 14-4-T-Sirigle—Farn4 height limitation or 16 feet 60 feet ! _r iderAi 'a Y above existing structure MFR4, Multifamily ResidenVale korl-Qensi,=/ Rcoidcntial liF 2 r.eiiy `T Ree -Ido nti 24 Mixed Use Cer'leF (MUG) 20 feet above the zoning &Ct feet Corridar Mixed Use (CMU) height IimLtatIon or 16 feet 10 4828-1473-Ga58v-3 0174&1T looc 795 1kpnkaneT•Molbilecommerkt5, 1/21116 CTA 2017.0005 draft 1/17/18 Table 22.120-1 — Tower Height Limitaltiona Zone Antenna Array Support Tower a r( ) Neighborhood Commercial (N C) above existing structure Regionai Cornrnerdal (RC) Light Industrial Mixed Use (1M0-1-) He wy Industrial (L4) 20 feet above the zoning height limitation or 20 feet above existing structure 20 feet higher than the maximum height a lowed in the zone or 80 feet whichever Is less' "An additional 20 feet In height for each additional antenna array co -located un the support tower, up to a maximum tower height of 100 feet, including the height of ail antennas. 22,120.050 Landscaping. Refer to Chapter 22.70 SVMC for landscaping requirements applicable in the underlying zoning district. 11 1 028.2473-5415ay..3=*177•CX Formatted "rabic 5.pakane Vs11ev,T-Mobile commelIS,1(22f18 CIA 2017-0005 Draft 1/17/as DRAFT Chapter 22.121 SVMC — Smal I Cell Deployment 22.121.010 Overview, In order to man - ■,e its ri.ht-of-ww In a thou fitful r -nner which balances the need to accommodate new and evolving technoloraies earth❑reservatlori of the natural anti aes hetic enrlronrnent of the City while comptyina with lhn reouirements of slate and ederal lawthe Ci -da.ts cha.ter 22-121 SVMC for Ii = de lo men Hall cell and microoet to hrio"oqy, Service providers who seek to ytilize the public. right•of-waw for small cell .e.lc. ment iri order to .rovide wireless comrrrurkrca'.lon, data traa mi sloe crr other related services to the citizens of the City shall receive a valid franchise to provide the soeoific reprice, seeking to utilize the small cell deployment, , Entities wit -t franchises rr o wish to utilize a steal; cell de lo merit to U■or- de. or ex and their existing services shall utilize the ►recesses set forth In chapter 22,121 SVMC and iniFlementin small cell permits to deploy their technolooy and obtain design approval of soeci4ic installations. . Within in r ter 22.'421 VMG revises or dirriinlshes the rights and cbliaations of an existing franchise. B. The lerrn `small .0411 deploy'ment' shall Include the deployment of small c tl facilities, micron cells and small cell rielWorks ass those terms are defined by 13,CW EL1.36-375 as Pow adopted pr hereafter .amended. Small cell c]eoioyrnent elements width require SEPA rexrie+rw rnav utilize thhese processes only in conjunction with SEPA review. 22,1.21.016 Admfrr1stratiotti. The City naaer is charged wi"h administration of small Dell deployment perrnitttng and other £r$ s cammun1ca .n revi .roc es establishe i •er chin. err 22 G 22-121, grid 22.122 SV1MC- 22.121;020 Smell et1 De Irsme rrts. Srna11 Ce 1 C7e.Io ants i rig rts-ot-wav tsFfall only be made pursuant (1i to a valid franchise with Ira ^C iv, and (2) incornyliencewthall federal slate and local small oelI aerrnittin. re.uire -Pts. hits -of - a Sn all cell de lo men s n he .ublc 6, S -1i Cell De:#11, pen outside of i is-of-Wa Srna deli deployments outside of to r utri4r, riohls of w shall only be rade in oomo fiance ail federal stake. aridLaca1 small cell pet-10t1ng reQuirernents. 22,121,.031) Franchise Appiiication. 12 1 4628-2473- 1,121d 724OrlW 5notans%/Allel',T-' abwletorwtrI ry5.1 04.118 CTA 2017.0405 Draft 1117/16 A rarchise Asp+lica ion. Se ice deli!oyrrt nts In public Eights-or-wa ' sha'I a** ■r a french' _ u In the CI 's franchise application form and submit a fee deposit commenstarpte with Iha estlrnated E ntlnisiratlyf casts of r r ssinp on DI for tranchlse. Service r eiders sacking tc Olio City di:lilts-of-way for small cell de sto me is shall . s -c: eci r- •hic boundaries for the srnal! [ell deblo.yrriebt described in the application and provide detailed schematics and vis; ' renderings of the proposed facilities to be utilized. Phased development is nerriiled and an applicant Is encouraged to specify at least the wna11 cell deptoyrnent in its apolicatlon. B. Designation of facilities. All applicants far fraichtses xrekinct to Litili2e small cell devlo rent shall-rovide the rollpwin. inrormatio ExIstinn fra'ichlSees fret seals to utilize a small ice!', deplurnent to expand. assist r' lernen', an existinfr___!;,2LLsoa provide tha information as a part pf a smell coil perrnit application for small cell deployniDF+t- Tete app"icant shall specify. In the franchise apPlicatiett 1. whether and where small cell Willies are proposed to be Icated on existin rrtillt}' poles. 2. whether and Ill' ere small cell facilities we proposed to be located or7 replacerr1ent ti#IIity pcfes. snow plates. towers, aridtrr other structures and the Wile of replacement poles to be i+rstalled� 3. the conduiterect' ground -mounted oauirrnerit neck:ssary for andintended for use In tha small cell deolnymE t ret7acctless of vhether the additional facilities are to he constructed by lhE aonlicant or leased from an infrestruoLsre provider 4. any facility Which is eligible for or subject to t`ie applicable fedora review time periods under ars eligible facilities request or as a collocation. ravi d that desire to deploy small cel! CEPA Review. An a npl exempt from SEPA review shall simulta ous1 submit an environm checi;list pursuant to clia+xter 4;3..21C RCVV and chapter 21,?0 SVMC- D. Completwr ss. The Cilv.Manager sfiali review a small call franchise application for corMipletensss aracl npkii the applicant within 30 days of submission whether the apoticalion Iscorncrietg proyid oyilaow,'ever- that an a vast mwY consent to a different corn ieteness eri0Id. A serv[ a provider pr resubmit an 8 lioelk determi,rred to be Incon+ ate within 30 dans of notice a Clt Maria .Er. Failure to resubmit an a plication wi;hln the 30 day perin.J shall be deemed a withdrawal of that application. No applisalwior shall be deenredcornolete w• put the fee deposit set by the City rolariacter. ticalion for a can±Ise wWlifch cJnlains ai et enl which is at 22.121.040 Small Cell peErni l An! lcation. A. Concurae rt s.mali cell n?rmit a+alio tion and frEi chile R, lrcetir,n. Ri nig s =rated under the franchise for r,c,rrstruction. Installation- and placement of srr+all pell facilities shall he implemented through the issuance of small cell permits The francfiiet 40.Z$-2473-585tv,3QC4172•a0o?y5 I i5pakane4' l y, T-maLtle wi uments. 1727f1SS crA z01.7-NOS Mart 1(13/18 applicator rrbav be accorrmanied by one or More concorrent anr3licaticp s for,a Mall cell peFrlif to deploy' small cells. 13. Small gall permit aorilicatiorL A ; nnsil twit It a ica iar1i shall o=1t$1n irr fol owiria- 1. All small cell (a;:ili;y cafes shaft ire soecified, Up to, 30 sites may kre specified in one small cell ttierniit pplicatiern for processing,_ The application shall Include sufficient Inram7aticn abn'l earl site and facility in order for the Dilly to de:Le-Mine that it complies the [lesion prid location standards set forth In SVlC)!2,121.&00. 2. tf the aoolicakian Includes small cell de t to. ,+me*at fn the pubfio ri' 61t3 0, Awa . a copy of the franchise application or reference to approved existing (ranch se shat) be included. Approval far a >5rnall cell Install a sl SII desl Tient shall be contingent ucrorl aparova1 of a sni II tell tranjrise or Ihe.Tassession of 2 valid snlalt cell cell franchise, 3. if ntcrre than one a„pal catirn forsmallsrnall reit permit is subrr;itked by an appiicant, they shall be considered III the order received if multiple lyupli (ions are submitted an the same date, the ,acid cent shall, indicate which application shall b considered first. 4. Any element of a deolovme.nt whiJs wattles as enter an eligible facilities request ora collocation shan be s1]e: i sal j designated by the applicant and may be -Idres.sacl separates to the City Manager In order to comply with the applicable p ocQssinq recuirements established !]Y federal lake, state lawti'- and ch ter 22,122 SVMC. Arw a lication for a smell cel1_perrrliiwhich contains an, element which Is not exern area, EPA revierJ shall simultaneously submit an environmental checklist pursuant to ctlaoter 43.2IC RCN end chapter 21,20 AC. 6. The applicant shall submit a swam declaration under penalty of oeriuri signed by an RF Enpneer with know ed a of the rte ased ro'ect of irrrir that tie small cell clIployment •rill be torn3lant with all FCC and an other ars licable reiulatiois Err connection with human exh'osure to radio treguen,cy emissions for every Frequency at which the small cele facility arid associated ai.iiretess backhaul w1I`• operate. An existing franchisee a +l in for a spiait cell errnit or small oeii de lo ment shall p-ovielrs an RF con ficatian for all 1aci'+ities ncluded In the deplaymenl. 7. The qp,, ,licant snail provide proof of FCC and other tequiatc+y aeorovals rer aired to prgvlde the serwicals or utilkze the teo]lnolo ins soy 'rrt lc be 'nskallecl. E#, As apoltable, ih applioant shall provide tergittsrrs an lizjitkr pr + authorizing the applicant to use the krtilit irowider's LrtI1It oles for g = gall cell eplo meat. 14 4826 -?473-6358v.9 (V40172 -1X-0795 Formatted; iii3l iOt 5pokar Varlesr 7 Ma`aiI rainf,tent5 3f has CTA 2017-0065 Dram 1/17/18 C. Completeness; Small Call A' 11 :ions. The Gil ana•er review an application for compleiw-e§s and notify the applicant within 34 days of submission why -r h• i..licaEo _ •tete..rovided however that a a.+lican! =e consent A service 'roa'der ma @submit an apprication determined to b€ incomplete within 30 dews of noCiae b the City Maniaaer or designee. Failure to rasub nit fin aoplicatton in a timerunanner shaft€ deemed a withdrawal of that 2trxplic tio r,. No application shall be deemed torr Zeta without the fee deposit s51 by the City MarnP4er. D. The City Manager may approve, deny or condlionallw aimove all or any rortior of the sites proposed In the small cellpermit appiiraltan. iffe cnt worn review 22.121.050 Small Gail Franchise and Porrrall Review process, The yin.rowisions ,data; to revle, c a..licatio s a franchise all cell permit for small cell deployments. A Review of Facilities. Review pt the siteiacatioTas pia ,used bw 1he aapnlicant shall be governed bw tl�e_Rvls{ons dt7 Lt_S-C. 253 a • 4 U.S.C, 33 and a..Lica+, pass Caws_ Applicants for franchises and the small cell shall be treated in a ceras - service providers Utitizin i5, service .rcwiders •se facilities ate smiler &iar.fed to terms •f structure placement or cumulative Impacts, Franct-,Ise and small cellperrn1t ap 'Icarian review Linder chapter 22.121 $V1i0 shall neither . rohlbli nor have the effect of 'ro ribitin. the abiti o -n a. dean' to Fronde letecommunications services. rs nfra structure Bivalent, that Ei Design. Realew and Concealment. Small cat facilities shall conform lo design, teat .n and conceal a'standards and b r-ub'ect iia des review as se fo in rarmelteds Hl9hRghr. SVMC 22,' 1.150- C. Franchise ..royal. Franchises shall be a.. roved in the form of a Cit ordinance and franchises may only be approved by the City Council pursuant to its standard ordinance approval process;. provided however, that the City shalt meet arts applicable federal or slate time pear Ssinq requirements in revi wimp and approving or denvinti franchise application. D. Other pored. ions o ■•novel_ approval referenced in chap_Ler 22.121 reouirerlue°rlts_ a oval of 2 5V C nchl se s are CO al di ell .errnit ar,d4 other ed on the rlk 'n, 1, Satisfy all explicablehulk re uirernants Including but not limited to height, noise. ti ht. and a other a. icalat. o i •. re•uiremer 2. P ovide wriite of of the ao •ro ala the owner of a - utility pole fir .the, 15 48 2°A-247 3-15.ai5t3,r. 001$17 x -0Q0785 1 501ani Va1!ev 7-FAb1reQ±Lt"�ts,1f22J1 i CTA 2i117-Of105 draft 1/17/18 installation of ills facjiities nit stir dildo pole. ,Aaprciyal of a franchise does nal guthorize attachment City -awned utiI y poles or other structures. 15- Unless s9ec 1-1, provtdecl for In a franrtdse, lob laln a lease from the Cit ' do lie 1, a Cit s ,rim For the installs,ion or an ire ,1e a reElarerncn utiiil e an new around aased stwctu e base station or other e Over 6a feel attendant ezgbrhent on Cit is t -of -way or CT/ pro, 4, Goni.I will a■.licabie Cit aoval .messes OF the co-kic?iton oR (acilities, or the installation many new or replacement utility pales In the r~cth).-pf•Nav,. and 5. Comply with' all City construction staiidarda and stole and kE jerah codes when operating in Che right-of-y1a and obtain - resuired ierrnil to e ter the i'1tht-a`-, aye 2.121,060 Design and Concealment Standards. Small cell facilities shall be nslalled using stealth or concealment teoiGnoloq{. Stealth or concealanent technolaq applies to all small cell facilities. lncludirr[I. IIrnitatirkn, nas_ towers a • . is a eau'. ent enclosures. Fier any small cell f?citity, stealth means the use a both exit tin and future 1echnologw throu lch the small cell facilit is des'! non ID resemble or blend into an ab'act which is atreadv present In the Racal environntent, such as a tree streeIlic,hl, ar traffic signal. 11 also InctAgc A For those porlio+i ..af small dell facilities rittached to or part of'loll, power. slon or gather poles_ 1. Far new rnent technol ales shall be les laateoraled within ho .ole orifi' technicatt Infeasible_ New ubact toan a•.A 1afeCit nrl;must standards' 2. r rsxistl:tn.poles, jnteurated Irito the exislina design of the vale to whicli.lt is ttadied, with exte , . i .",r6 -cifo i ited lrt size d - ■.. a 10 t}te a !eSI extent technically feasible. lncludinq but not limited to beinq as flush as l;-ossible to the pole, not pralectirwi'Torre than fifteen feet vertically above the gale, end having architectural compatibility w}th the pole. 3. External prp[eclions shall be painted a color to resemble and match the pole so that thea oeasr to be part of the tole; 4, shall conform to any stru turaidI standards so as not to do trade the struotta enoineerlrl9 of the pale to which It is attached, 5. Shahlpot Interfere with the r rmal use tor pylnich the pole ie intended, including but not limited to b'od'ing any light'front light pa s. Interfering with power lines on dowel poles, and obscuring. any portion of tire. appLcable cion -face ori glens- and _ tennae fcx sn>Ia1I cell facilities shall be located Inside of an antenna enclosure no more than Thrice cubic feet In volume, or In the case of an antenna that has exposed elerpenjs, the erdertrta_and all of Its exp9 ani elements could]' within an irnaq;ha enclosure of n4 more than three cubic feel. nlfied uf1age designs are permitted r rowrided t11af itke jpveratI dimensions of such designs shall rtct exceed six la 4.628-2471.68S8w.3 904172-003795 Comment [racy. Clarify th4 di6Cien. FAUN pl�likY pinks mined and G➢s+'il,d klyi. numbly e?ecuftu+l 4.11114 such .s Milk,. k7m41J 1. puvemad hy9h■ flieriseineernenke: th,riattachmentis Euck1 a vt{it yikb utnipiid, replacement roil pr 4F required For s tr,M1y ii1 Ir, t a r it ■ ndlo r n directed 6r khn 4U% provider. etlirliMitinklLAkl]iSVL nkutr'desiredto6e & i i rse d nrern Nesting nen deg Munn installed on' Sppt.,ine Val:cy, LMobllra corrilylent$. it lih1A CTA 2t717•C005 Draft 1/17/18 cubic feel in votwr}el Antennae shall be located at least 20 feet above the base elevation of the ground unless technie llu In#easit74e. B. Prima eau'endosule shall be ti artier thsn seven e5n cubic In volurr a The following associated c:lignien; may be located oulslde the p irtiaryt equipment encIcSLIre and if so Iocatediare not included in the cn!orll ion al a rs rrlFni volume gjectric niter, concealment. telecomm demarcation box_ ground-based enclosures, battery back-tio power systems, wounding equipment, power transfer switch, arid cut-off syeltc'h. Primary equipment enclosures shall be Pulled blow oravnd Dr Locked and integrated ifltiko the surroundings uqless, Iechnica1Iy InfeasIblHa xlmt.y- �ti�� This shall inchoate incorporating the facilities into to base of the 09 i lFeorr54slrq ll�ta eri3tinCl surrounding fixtures.. sirc;h as herbage cantainers� q other power I�nxes- andlor ase of mete -nets reg d:.colors that blend Into the surrounding, setkinp. G7.ound•mounted facilites shall not be located in an Improved street or sidewakk. Ground•rnounte l facilities shall nrSt. Icrceled lrl stnmir rater faciti-rl, Inducting stzrmweter swales.. Jniflec oalnoiifla'q l rJrslons are permitted p rrsusrit060 ;A [Bp C. For small cell, facilities tnov,rited on one a; ttiorr~ building facades stealth_ or concealment technology rriear,s use of co r asod rrlaterj Is such lat the faci`it5. has arcl-itectural con atihitit >,aith the buijdir^tq. ll shalt be mounted on a wall o- an existing hu:Idine In a coeifiCruwatiprr as flush to the well as technically possible and shat) not proiect more tela three feet above the wale on ja.rnaunled bilfied camouflage design= bre Detrnittecl autst, alt to .2 2.i f?4j.Lb - a. Aduertlsina ar dis, Shalt net 17e b ated Pr) any small cell facility., ivwever, the owner of the small cell. facility shall place en Identification plate indic;etinn the norm of the wifeless service provide; {a;1d a telephone number for emergency contact on tic site E, EJa artificial ljohts other than those required by FAA or ether applicable eAcuity shall be ermitled Any security liahta shall tie down -shielded. F. '; mail cell fa Cities that •re not wit in the ri ht af-wa shall meet the minimum prmar . structure setback requirements for the undorI in,� zone, 0. s.Rrill ^e!J Jiacili,ies shah q t e-afitmlttcd insidientimonl of Fivale--ha. '4F - _ e imasialJ H. Location. &nail cell facilities snail riot be located within 12501 feet of any other small cell fadiiity unless the applicant demansttales th " no otli_r lc gran Lan aucuillinglate or Is sufficient to; meet the wireless service neede Irl II,a evr}I1t small tl fa iGli„ ecllllteri Iia be located within 260 feet. of another rv.xls"I'q ^_,snail calf fardlrty,The q„poilcanl snail rrake, d Ellia.d t®g9it rattcatt to, colIor.Carc la new incilrsj cm Ilhe sAinr tante or ittrLlc.taar.r trie existing ng smell ttculits` iii carder t9 e Imp2c15 fairiu Ii w srrr€rli 0411 17 1 ds2a-2173-6$5 v.aoo fi72- 7S5 {{Min./ant f LFM'MG] I Insert Its,: i Formatted, Hylirgnt { Formatted: HIglrll IM Cunato rut IL1411JIIrwrtteiL Comment flAlak Mart tEd [comment 11A53I raenft:t,YiinnanlIminabn SI,I in, FIrISSIClS 5m.) Deny Fi7,6Iwd bnpraaed co pun ■rnd spwarge In areas of high fiatwarrs USE; p4'Ls aind 1:,Wlilicmanurner9ts Will Iclulne Shlsten110 lrgy L(.1540 pnrve w`releIFNrelu users. 9 p64a b'aIr -Mobs Emmy t5. ] /2211E UP 2417-1X005 Draft 1/17/18 1Ita City may require aIol:.an1s lo_provide evidence of effoiis for 0:41 atlan II iicant m3°denlorislrate googjaith 0011= t4 collozate ktyr provir nq. wrIft'-n eviden:4 Inarn the otno• \NITales5 pinvi larfsl that ltiei are unwllliit GI it is IeCkl.ealhe itreabliglrr IG eollaale r horn le or st u Lee owners tai e will rr�t ,fl. !location or 11731 it i� 1e. hrl1 Ily infeasit]le to alis*.v Call[7C FI n 22.121.070 Small Coll Por It and Minor Deviations. A. The City Manager shall review applications for small cell permits far small cell deIc_p_ym,E,t1 b n fro ch se or small rJ1l�aern�i# Thi? Cily Mangier out l riz- minor cl ewlatlons in the -m Il cel 1 ernii from the dimensional deslon and concealment technologies referencojln the emitsto the fytrtchise or design standards where such deviation is necessary to abIc e a licant i rovide ccavere e and where such deviation does not materially differ from the City's desio'r and concealment standards or ar.hieyee eouivalent or title; inteagratioai. - - fit. Deviations in the dimensions or volume of 6rnnil cell facilities wiich do not exceed the cumulative tofaI provided b the definition of a small cell or micaocell facility irLRCVV 60.35.375 shall be considered a m1ogr deviation; provided, however that they do not defeat th cancealmen features sel C' "s se erail a Siwabledes'+n and n;.ealrnent sta_rards- C. Small cell permijs to install facilitiestncludin ap grove! or minor deviations shall be processed within 'ED clays Of recelptaf a Complete application grid final apPrnv for franchise, w'hichever ccqurs. last. 22,121.480 Slord OrontDeviations, Any request for 89grsifrcarr. deviations frcatr the approved small cell facilities .desizyn desF e- din the f chise small c=II aermit o; Cil,` ' slat standards shell #?e raauire a, conditional use permit anJ shall be considered under the orovielons of chapter 22.120 SVMC and pursuant to the lirrteiines established in SVMC 22,122.030 and SVMC 22.122,040- A significant cevlatian ie not a substantia change. See _pperIciixA or the SVfv1 C, 22,12I.O 0 amaliance 4+11 State Processing Llmltatiorrs. Review of franchise and sITlatl cell t s shall co .1 'with Ovisions of FCV'I 35-99,430. fipplica#ions sha',I be reviewed, completeness determined and the timefrema tolled as provided inchapter -122 SV1 C. 18 1426 -?47.6851v-3 00461)2• 000795 "vent [uti14]rirmnteat 1 Spas npVaI1 Y,T-I1'tcbilernmm n1.:. CTA 2417.4005 Draft 1117/18 DRAFT Chapter 22,122 SVMC—tiliireles5 Communications and Small Cell Facil`ty Review Periods, 22.122..010. Purpose. Crogress and the Federal Com0nunications Commission ITave. pursuant to lie authrarily granted by 47 LI S C. 253tc) and 47 U.S.C. 332(aL rgguired local governments to ac1 on wirel F,s communication, facility aPpIk ations within a reasonable period of time and have established time limits far local review. Tina Wastiinotor, State, G.ecaislatu•e has 21sp aclopfad s3intlar finita inns under the rl�p1'j bps aFchaplr~r 35.99 RCW. fkcc:ordinnkl. the Cily adopts the following time limits for review eaf apalicttions for eligible (aciltyf requests, small cell _per -nits, 2nd other approvals for serv'ir.e otaVidels of telecommunication sorvit es 22.122020 EGlOble Faciliit.es Reque«sk, A. M plica,„ ioru Review. 1. AppliDalion. the City Manager shall prepare and make publish available pn application form which shall be limited to tie nformatiorb i cessa for 'ti 0 consbder carie her ns Iic lion Is aii eliulble facilities revuesl The adolica1tvnl m not reu!re the applicant to rQmo strote a aired or business case for the ro Dried modification. Type of Review Upon reuelU`. of an a Ilya re.u- . he Cit Manaoer shall revte'.V applicatiion qualifies as an etia�lble taallities 3. Timeframe for Review. Within submits a complete eligible facilities rectu' the aa'Itrcalion ,i. less it & 1 al the arnll tion for an eliiaibsc r u il.h such an Bratton to €Iet ine whether tlw 1uest. SLl dJ of the data on which an applican' est app'ic cion; the Cit h't�r]at�er Loll approve cation is Gr 1 CS not covered by This pVhv1C 22,122.020. 5. ToIIV q of the Timefrarn for Review, The 60 -da review arlod bealns to run wtteri iihe ooilicolrete application is Filed rd mav� be tailed only Wy rntaktoal -s reernenl lav the c leader and the a�ilpbc2rtt.ercases wham the City C larlap cfeterrrlirtes that (ht anolbcalion inccrnplete. The timefrarrie for rcvow of an Elielofe Facilities Reouest is not tolled_ a moratorium on the review of apphcatio,t . a, To, toll the i elrame fcf Vicon .Ieterress. the Cit Marla rr shall of zeceipt of t17$ aPelication, *rovide written notice s:peciflcallw delineating all missing documents of IITrfomTation required in the aoalrtattotn. to the a Irani hin 30 da 19 1 3 o0d5172-0 7 5 N sookalLyTillei, T.I4Aobre. t mrients, 117 i E CIA 2U17-flO145 Draft V17f18 b. The timatrae lar review begins Rrnrling again whe3n.tFe aDplacant makes. a complm compliant. su• •t t l subniis to n es nse io the Ci , in er's notice of incornpioleness. c Following a suppiamental suhrnission, the C_itylaratier shall notlf the au 'leant wi nth 0 da s f lie = • ■lernental ubrnisEion did not .rwvide._ he Information identified in the original notice delineating missino Friormation, The I mefrarrte: is Idled in the case of seocand or subsequent notices purstrartt Ito the prr edures iderG ified irr + r h 4 of this section. Sec ntr or subsequent Mtice of into rTT�letenees nn y not &p1< i • rrttssin. docurnerit 0 lriformatia that was not delineated in the original n+ 1i of Incompleteness. E7. Determination t at licatiori is not n Eli ILiI FaciGities Re cost. 9r the C. na ter dete ir�rres that IhR a,gplicant's request does not qualify as an eyliaihie facilities ,dues the ti •ee .eriocls est_ h1'shed h t a .lic.able sta e or federal law?rut chapter. 22.122 SVMC begin to rein from_ Ale Issuantasf the City Manager's deci$ion that the cation is na an ell Fbla faatitles re vest To the lextent aktitional information Is nedess ry, the Ci.l? Manager may request such information from the appliugnt to evaluat€� fire aoplicatipn under other,„provisions of this chapter 22-122 SVMC and sooFicable law. C, Failure to Act in the event the Cit M-na.er fails to a•+roue or den a reouest for an eligible facilities request within the tirnefrarrle for review t ocountln i For any totlincix. e.uest sTia( be deeme' +ranted. The ti erned rant do =s , of become effective unlllihe aortlicant-niptifies the Gifu Manager in writing alter the rciviewperiocf has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the.annlir<•ation has been dee'nedram„ rated, L . Remedies, Both the a pt,tjn1 and the City may bring da'inis related to_Section 0409(a]. of the Spectrum Act to any court of competent jurisdiction, 22.122.130 Collocation, It+ible coiloca ons shall be licati n. a Git Mann er she notif the a ▪ p lication whe her it is con tete or if additional Information is required. The term collocation shall not aooltr 'ia the Inttral pia rrrent of a smaq cell facility on a utility pole or n an other base station ar fewer thrat as not constructed for the so'e or prirnerV purpose of an FCC licensed a lenna and the'r associated fecilities- rocessed within ¶ 0 da s of recd +•t of a conn+ ete cant Al Inda sofrace' .tofan 22.122,040 N4 relessComrnunloa "o Facilltles. New Wireress corn lege a r'ece'ipt of nil r0 u lttions facilities shall be .rocessFd within 150 da of recei.t of tii�n, Trt Ch Mane er ebelr notifv the applicant with* 30 days of bather it is orn,tete or It add'st+anal information is required 24 1 4Z17-sa P 12-O 7 5 y kan 7-Moblte nits 1 22118 LTA 2017-DE105 Draft 1/l7/1s DRAFT Chapter 17.80 17,00.030 Assignment of diEevolopntent application classification. A. Assignment by Table. Land use and devoiopment applications shawl be classified pursuant to Table 17.00-1 below' Table 17.80-1 — Permit Typo and Land Use Application Type Land Use and DEveloprnent Application Type I Type II Accessary dwelling units SV MC Cross - Reference 19.40 Administrative deterrnlnatiam by city manager or designee Multiple or building official Administrative exception Administrative interpretation 1 9,1 40 17.50, 010 L3oundary line adjustments and eliminations 20.80 Building permits rot subject to SEPA 21, 20.040 Fioodplaln develcprnent Grading permits 21.30 24.50 Home business permit 19.65,150 Shoreline letter of exemption 21.50 Record of survey to establish Tots within a binding site plan 20,&}_040 22.130.100 Right -of -Way perrriits Site plan review 19,130 Small cell permit Temporary use pemlit 22.,121- 22.122 19.180 Time extensions for preliminary subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site pian A4teratiarts — preliminary and final subdivisions, short subdivisions, binding site plans Binding site pian—preliminary and final Binding site plan—change of conditions 20,30.0150 20.50 20.50 20.50 SEPA threshold determination 21,20,0& Shoreline conditional use permit 21 48.28.24?i704-0O 795 21,50 15vpkai o Valley, T -Mobile comintai$. 10211$ CIA 2017-0445 Draft 1/17/18 Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review Shoreline substantial development permit 21.50 21.50 Shoreline variance Short subdivision — preliminary and final Preliminary short srrbdivisinn, binding site plan change of conditions Type 111 Type 1V Wireless vemmunicaUor facilities Conditional use permits Planned residential developmen's Plat vacation 21.54 24,30, 20.40 20.30 22.120 19.150 Preliminary subdivision — change of conditions Subdivisions — preliminary 10.50 20,70.020 20,50 20.30 Variance 19-170 Zoning map amendments (site-specific: rezones) 19,30,030 Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments (text andlor map) Area -wide zoning map amendments Development Code text amendments 17.80.140 17,80.140 17.80.150 8. Assignment by City Manager or Designee. Land use and development applications not defined in Table if.7.13L0 shall be assigned a type based ors the most closely related application type by the city manager or designee, unless exempt under SVN.0 17.80.040. When more than one procedure may be appropriate, t?}e process providing the greatest opportenlly for public notice shall be followed. C. Shoreline letters of exerrplion, shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use per MRS, shoreline variances, and shoreline nonconforming use or structure review shall be pressed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.80 SWAG, subject to any additional or modified procedures provided in Chapter 21.50 SVl11C, Shoreline Regulations, including submittals, completeness review, notices, hearings, and decisions. Small Dell rm`ts anci.v. e s raananur1lcaation tacII t es shall be ro}cesse[i ursuaar !o the,procedures set forth In c .- r er 17.80 SVMC exce t as ma .therwlse be reri re_d pursuant to federal and stale law, includini but not limited to 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) {S.ecji❑n 0409{a1 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Ad of 20' ri and cb ap,ar 55.09 RCW. Chapter 22.122 SVMC specifics applicable tirpeperiuds for I'eview LR,d_pLpuessinni of elio ble facilities reouesls, collocati❑ns_ small colt permits.. Aird new yvlreless coma irlipatian facilities, QE. Except as provided In Table 17.80-1. change of conditions for permits shall be processed the same as the original permit type. 22 1 ae213-z413•ta@58v DoaeX72.0M/ 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2018 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Ordinance 18-008 — MClmetro — Telecommunications facilities. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040; RCW 35A.11.020; chapter 35.99 RCW, proposed Ordinance 18-007 regarding small cell regulations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report March 20, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City was recently approached by MClmetro, as well as other telecommunication companies, regarding new facilities necessary to bring small cell technology to the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Staff then began negotiating the terms of a franchise ordinance agreement with representatives of MClmetro. We used the normal franchise agreement as the template, based on a number of telecommunication franchises previously approved by the Council. Staff and MClmetro have agreed on the proposed terms, which are before the Council in proposed Ordinance 18-008. OPTIONS: (1) motion authorization to move to a second reading; (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we advance proposed Ordinance 18-008 regarding granting a telecommunications franchise to MClmetro to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 18-008 — MClmetro telecommunications franchise. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES Corp. d/b/a VERIZON ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service;" and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body, nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective;" and WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "City Manager" means the City Manager or designee. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging, excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility. "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 1 of 14 DRAFT "maintenance, maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "overbuilding" shall mean adding additional fiber capacity to an existing conduit housing fiber optic cable. "overlashing" shall mean the act of lashing new fiber optic cable to an existing aerial fiber optic cable. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit by the permitting authority. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights-of-way. "product" shall refer to the item, thing or use provided by the Grantee. "public property" shall mean any real estate or any facility owned by the City. "relocation" shall mean any required move or relocation of an existing installation or equipment owned by Grantee whereby such move or relocation is necessitated by installation, improvement, renovation or repair of another entity's facilities in the rights- of-way, including Grantor's facilities. "right-of-way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above, and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City. "streets" or "highways" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, road, alley or highway, within the City used or intended to be used by the general public, to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean any of the plant, equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, and other facilities necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services, including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables, communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to remove the same from this definition. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter as "City" or "the City"), hereby grants unto MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services (hereinafter "Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 10 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below the public rights-of-way and public places located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). This Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 2 of 14 DRAFT franchise does not permit Grantee to use such facilities to provide cable services as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(ff). Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any, between the parties. Section 4. City Use. The following provisions shall apply regarding City use. A) City may request that Grantee provide one or more strands (two pair) of dark fiber for City to use solely for City government administration purposes. Upon receipt of such request, City and Grantee shall meet as soon as practicable to determine whether Grantee has dark fiber available in the locations requested by City, and if Grantee has dark fiber available, City and Grantee will engage in good faith discussions to develop mutually agreeable terms for provision of such dark fiber. B) Consistent with and subject to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way, the City Manager may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost, necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal, non-commercial purposes. 1) The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. 2) This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. 3) Grantee shall notify the City Manager at least 14 days' prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non -Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights-of-way. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights-of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non -Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of Grantee, unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the City Manager's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 and Grantee has not Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 3 of 14 DRAFT experienced a force majeure or event beyond its control, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes, wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, Grantee shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations, laws and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan, to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro -rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. Grantee shall, within 30 days' of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency 24-hour on-call personnel, and the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to immediately respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property, and Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 12. One -Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee is responsible for becoming familiar with, and understanding, the provisions of Washington's One -Call statutes. Grantee shall comply with the Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 4 of 14 DRAFT terms and conditions set forth in the One -Call statutes. Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities for Others. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, Grantee, upon at least 14 days' written notice from the City, shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided, that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities, as determined by the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may require more than 14 days' notice to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take all necessary actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, adjacent public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare; and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent caused by Grantee. Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind, whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 5 of 14 DRAFT legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee, whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then -existing telecommunications facilities, the City shall: A) At least 60 days' prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; and B) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project. C) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications, Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 (2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section. The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated or maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee, then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Grantee shall not be responsible for delay damages if Grantee's delay is the result of a force majeure or event beyond Grantee's control. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 6 of 14 DRAFT unreasonably withheld. The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre -removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility; (b) the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c) the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights-of-way; or (d) the abandoned facility has collapsed, broke, or otherwise failed. Grantee may, upon written approval by the City, delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b) or (d) above applies. When (b) or (d) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of-way as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City, at no cost to the City: A) A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types, number of fibers or cables, electronic equipment, and service lines to individual subscribers. Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System ("GIS") program. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually. B) In connection with the construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City, upon the City's reasonable request, copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. C) Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually D) In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section, the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. E) Public Disclosure Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Disclosure Act codified in chapter 42.56 RCW. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 7 of 14 DRAFT thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non -disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non- disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/ information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then -adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities consistent with applicable federal and Washington state law. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the City Manager that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any telecommunications facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and this franchise, the Municipal Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. Any relocation of telecommunications facilities resulting from a street vacation shall require a minimum of 180 days' notice as provided in section 37. In the event of a street vacation, the City shall include in the vacation ordinance a reserved easement for the continued location of Grantee's facilities. Section 27. Indemnification. A) Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 8 of 14 DRAFT 1) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; 2) By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; 3) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights -of -ways or other public property; 4) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control, pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; 5) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right- of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise; or 6) Based upon radio frequency emissions or radiation emitted from Grantee's equipment located upon the facility, regardless of whether Grantee's equipment complies with applicable federal statutes and/or FCC regulations related thereto. B) Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. C) Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. D) In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees, the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. E) Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 9 of 14 DRAFT or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. F) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City -owned property from activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. G) The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its agents, representatives or employees. Grantee's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A) Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned, non -owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and B) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under Grantee's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured -State or Political Subdivisions -Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 10 of 14 DRAFT A) Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. B) Grantee's insurance carrier or Grantee shall provide 30 days' prior written notice to the City of insurance cancellation. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed $25,000, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets, or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given Grantee by the City under the provisions of this franchise, and an adequate opportunity to cure the violation or non-compliance has been given in writing to Grantee, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City from any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee, by merger, sale, consolidation or otherwise. Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, Grantee shall accept the Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 11 of 14 DRAFT franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 -day period, absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated by the City. Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified, in writing: The City: Grantee: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Attn: Franchise Manager 600 Hidden Ridge Irving, TX 75038 With Copies to: Verizon 1320 North Courthouse Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22201 Attn: General Counsel, Network & Technology Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 39. Non -Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 12 of 14 DRAFT exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance, nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2018. ATTEST: L. R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 13 of 14 DRAFT Accepted by MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services: By: Robert J. Mcgee Executive Director The Grantee, MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. d/b/a Verizon Access Transmission Services, for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. STATE OF TEXAS ) ) ss COUNTY OF DALLAS ) Before me, , on this day personally appeared Robert F. Mcgee, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and known to me to be the Executive Director of MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp., a Delaware Corporation, and acknowledged to me that he executed the said instrument for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, on behalf of said Corporation. Given under my hand and seal of office this day of , 2018. Notary Public Printed Name: My Commission Expires: [SEAL] Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Access Transmission Services Corp. Telecom. Franchise Page 14 of 14 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2018 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Ordinance 18-009 — Verizon Wireless — Telecommunications facilities. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040; RCW 35A.11.020; chapter 35.99 RCW, proposed Ordinance 18-007 regarding small cell regulations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report March 20, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City was recently approached by Verizon Wireless, as well as other telecommunication companies, regarding new facilities necessary to bring small cell technology to the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Staff then began negotiating the terms of a franchise ordinance agreement with representatives of Verizon Wireless. We used the normal franchise agreement as the template, based on a number of telecommunication franchises previously approved by the Council. Staff and Verizon Wireless have agreed on the proposed terms, which are before the Council in proposed Ordinance 18-009. OPTIONS: (1) motion authorization to move to a second reading; (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we advance proposed Ordinance 18-009 regarding granting a telecommunications franchise to Verizon Wireless to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 18-009 — Verizon Wireless telecommunications franchise. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW) LLC d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service;" and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body, nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective;" and WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "City Manager" means the City Manager or designee. "Common costs" shall include necessary costs not specifically attributable to the undergrounding of any particular facility, such as costs for common trenching and utility vaults. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging, excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility. "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 1 of 16 DRAFT "Fair share" shall be determined for a project on the basis of the number of conduits of Grantee's facilities being undergrounded in comparison to the total number of conduits of all other utility facilities being undergrounded. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). "maintenance, maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities with new facilities that are substantially identical to those being replaced or repaired, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit by the permitting authority. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights-of-way. "product" shall refer to the item, thing, or use provided by the Grantee. "relocation" shall mean any required move or relocation of an existing installation or equipment owned by Grantee whereby such move or relocation is necessitated by installation, improvement, renovation, or repair of another entity's facilities in the rights- of-way, including Grantor's facilities. "rights-of-way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above, and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City. "streets" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, road, alley, or highway, within the City used or intended to be used by the general public, to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean, collectively or individually, any and all equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, receivers, equipment boxes, backup power supplies, power transfer switches, cut-off switches, electric meters, coaxial cables, fiber optic cables, telcom demarcation boxes and related materials and other facilities necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services, including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables, communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to remove the same from this definition. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter as "City" or "the City"), hereby grants unto Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless (hereinafter "Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 10 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, repair, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 2 of 16 DRAFT facilities to place telecommunications facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along, or below the public rights-of-way located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). This franchise does not include the right to install or maintain facilities on, over, or above that portion of the rights-of-way utilized for vehicular travel and parking. This franchise does not convey any right to Grantee to install its facilities on, under, over, or across any facility or structure owned by a third -party without such written approval of the third -party. No substantive expansions, additions to or modifications (excluding modifications necessitated by replacement or repair) or relocation of any of the facilities shall be allowed without first having received prior authorization from the City through an amendment to this franchise, or pursuant to a permit issued by the City. Placement of all telecommunication facilities in the rights-of-way shall be pursuant to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, including applicable zoning requirements. Grantee shall be permitted to install, operate, maintain, upgrade, remove, replace, repair and/or restore its telecommunications facilities within the rights- of-way in order to provide telecommunication services to its customers. A) Grantee shall be permitted to erect or replace poles within the rights-of-way only as permitted and pursuant to applicable Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("City Code") sections. Grantee shall be responsible for providing an alternate site analysis together with Grantee's initial request for approvals. Such report shall be paid for by Grantee, and may be prepared either by a third party consultant/engineer agreed to by the Parties. B) The maximum height of any structure placed within the rights-of-way shall be 90 feet. C) Any cabinet, cabling, or other accessory equipment which can be placed underground shall be undergrounded as provided in Section 14. Other cabling or electrical equipment shall either be placed within the supporting pole or structure, or concealed from view in accordance with applicable sections from the City Code. D) Any above -ground electrical equipment placed upon a utility pole or structure shall be operated in a manner which permits it to be deactivated during maintenance, construction, or reconstruction of other utility equipment located on the utility pole or structure. Any above -ground telecommunications facilities, including any electrical facilities necessary to the operation of the telecommunications facilities, shall be co -located with the facilities of another utility provider whenever commercially reasonable. E) To the extent that such facilities are personal wireless services, Grantee and the City will subsequently enter into a site-specific agreement, including the payment of a site specific charge, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.21.860, in a form to be mutually agreed upon. F) The facilities shall not be used for cable internet services or Cable Services as those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. § 522(6). G) Grantee shall have the right, without prior City approval, to offer or provide capacity or bandwidth to its customers consistent with this franchise provided: (a) Grantee retains exclusive control over its telecommunications system, facilities, and services, and remains responsible for constructing, installing, and maintaining its facilities pursuant to the terms and conditions of this franchise; Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 3 of 16 DRAFT (b) Grantee may not grant rights to any customer or lessee that are materially greater than any rights franchisee has pursuant to this franchise; (c) Such customer or lessee or Grantee shall not be construed to be a third -party beneficiary under this franchise; and (d) No such customer or lessee may use Grantee's telecommunications system or services for any purpose not authorized by this franchise, nor to sell or offer for sale any service to the citizens of the City without all required federal approvals Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any, between the parties. Section 4. City Use. To the extent applicable to Grantee's use of the rights-of-way, the following provisions shall apply regarding City use. A) Grantee agrees to reserve to the City the right to access four dark fiber strands (two pair) along the route identified in Exhibit A, as adopted or amended, within the boundaries of the City, for sole and exclusive municipal, non-commercial use or designation (the "City Reserved Fibers"). City agrees that it shall not use the City Reserved Fibers as a public utility provider of telecommunications business service to the public. B) The City has the right to access by connection to the City Reserved Fibers at existing Grantee splice points or reasonably established access points within the City limits; provided that all splicing shall be the sole responsibility of Grantee, except cost, pursuant to Section 4(D), below. The City shall provide at least 30 days' written notice of intent to access the City Reserved Fibers. Upon any access or use of the City Reserved Fibers, City shall pay Grantee a recurring monthly charge of $20.00 per fiber pair per mile in use by the City (the "City Fiber Rate") unless otherwise specifically agreed by both the parties in writing and shall negotiate and enter into a "Fiber License Agreement" which shall govern the terms and conditions for use of the City Reserved Fibers, except cost, which is set forth herein. Said recurring monthly charge shall not be imposed until such time as the fiber is put into use by the City. C) In the event the City Reserved Fibers are the last fibers remaining in Grantee's fiber bundle, then the following shall apply: 1) If the City is using the fibers, then the rate the City shall pay Grantee will change from the City Fiber Rate to Grantee's standard commercial rate. 2) If the City is not using the fibers, the City shall have the option of abandoning the City Reserved Fibers in lieu of paying Grantee's standard commercial rate. If Grantee installs additional fiber capacity, the City's right to use four dark fiber strands as set forth in subsections 1 and 2, immediately above, shall again be in effect. D) All access, interconnection and maintenance to and on the City Reserved Fibers shall be performed by Grantee. The City shall pay all costs associated with such work to the City Reserved Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 4 of 16 DRAFT Fibers. The City Reserved Fibers shall have a term that matches the duration of this franchise Ordinance. E) Pursuant to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way, the City Manager may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost, necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal, non-commercial purposes. 1) The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. 2) This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. 3) Grantee shall notify the City Manager at least 14 days' prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of a summary of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non -Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights-of-way, so long as any subsequent franchise or permit does not unreasonably interfere with Grantee's use of the right-of- way. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights- of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non -Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of Grantee, unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the City Manager's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to unreasonably interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes, wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or unreasonably interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, Grantee Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 5 of 16 DRAFT shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations, laws, and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns, or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns, or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan, to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro -rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. Grantee shall, within 30 days' of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency 24-hour on-call personnel, and the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to immediately respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property, and Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 12. One -Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee shall comply with Washington's One - Call statutes. Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. If the City does not require the undergrounding of Grantee's facilities at the time of a permit application, the City may, at any time in the future, require the conversion of Grantee's aerial facilities to underground installation at Grantee's expense at such time as the City requires all other utilities, except electrical utilities, with aerial facilities in the area to convert them to underground installation. Unless otherwise permitted by the City, Grantee shall underground its facilities in all new developments and subdivisions where other utilities are to be constructed underground, and any development or subdivision where utilities are currently underground. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 6 of 16 DRAFT Section 14 shall not apply to facilities that are required to remain above ground in order to be functional; provided, however, all other facilities and equipment capable of being installed underground shall be undergrounded by Grantee. In the event the City requires the undergrounding of the aerial utilities in any area of the City, Grantee shall underground its aerial facilities concurrently with and in the area of the other affected utilities. The location of any relocated and underground utilities shall be approved by the City. Where other utilities are present and involved in the undergrounding project, Grantee shall only be required to pay its fair share of common costs borne by all utilities, in addition to the costs specifically attributable to the undergrounding of Grantee's own facilities. Grantee shall be entitled to reasonable access to open utility trenches, provided that such access does not interfere with the City's placement of utilities or increase the City's costs. Grantee shall pay the City the City's actual additional cost to the City resulting from providing Grantee access to an open trench, including without limitation the pro rata share of the costs of access to an open trench and any costs associated with the delay of the completion of a public works project. Nothing in Section 14 shall be construed as requiring the City to pay any costs of undergrounding any of Grantee's facilities, except as may otherwise be required by Washington State law. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, upon at least 14 days' written notice from the City, Grantee shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided, that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities, as determined by the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may require more than 14 days' notice by the third party to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take reasonable actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, adjacent public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare; and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent the emergency condition was caused by Grantee's use of the right-of-way. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 7 of 16 DRAFT Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind, whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee, whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then -existing telecommunications facilities, the City shall: A) At least 60 days' prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation, and Grantor will make reasonable efforts to provide at least 90 days' advance notice; and B) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project. C) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications, Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 (2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section or may terminate the site-specific agreement associated with the affected installation. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 8 of 16 DRAFT The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated, or maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee, then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. A. Underground facilities: The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre -removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility; (b) the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c) the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights- of-way; or (d) the abandoned facility has collapsed, broke, or otherwise failed. Grantee may, upon written approval by the City, delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b) or (d) above applies. When (b) or (d) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of- way as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. B. Aboveground facilities: Grantee shall remove any facilities which have not been used to provide telecommunications services for a period of at least 180 days. C. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City, at no cost to the City: A) A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types, number of fibers or cables, electronic equipment, and service lines to individual subscribers. Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System ("GIS") program. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually. B) In connection with the construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City, upon the City's reasonable request, copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 9 of 16 DRAFT of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. C) Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually D) In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section, the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. E) Public Record Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Record Act codified in chapter 42.56 RCW. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non -disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non- disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/ information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then -adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the City that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety, or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public, including but not limited to the currently adopted Spokane Regional Pavement Cut Policy. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 10 of 16 DRAFT any telecommunications facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and this franchise, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. In the event of a street vacation, the City shall include in the vacation ordinance a reserved easement for the continued location of Grantee's facilities. Section 27. Indemnification. A) Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: 1) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; 2) By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; 3) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights -of -ways or other public property; 4) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control, pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; 5) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right- of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise; or B) Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 11 of 16 DRAFT C) Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. D) In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees, the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. E) Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. F) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City -owned property from activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. G) The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its agents, representatives or employees. Grantee's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A) Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned, non -owned, Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 12 of 16 DRAFT hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and B) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under Grantee's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured -State or Political Subdivisions -Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: A) Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. B) Grantee's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled, except after 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the City. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed $25,000, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets, or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. In the event the City draws on the surety for purposes set forth in this franchise such that the remaining value of the surety falls below $10,000, the City may request that the surety be renewed to the full value of $25,000 as a condition of doing any additional work in the rights-of-way. Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 13 of 16 DRAFT Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, then the City shall notify Grantee in writing, stating with reasonable specificity the nature of the alleged default. Grantee shall cure any alleged default within 30 days after receipt of the notice. If Grantee fails to cure the default within such 30 -day period, and the City and Grantee do not otherwise reach an agreement with regard to such default, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City from any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee, by merger, sale, consolidation or otherwise. Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, Grantee shall accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 -day period, absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by a subsequent ordinance passed expressly for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated. Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified, in writing: The City: City of Spokane Valley Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 14 of 16 DRAFT Grantee: Attn: City Clerk 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless 180 Washington Valley Road Bedminster, New Jersey 07921 Attention: Network Real Estate Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 39. Non -Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance, nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2018. ATTEST: L. R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 15 of 16 DRAFT Accepted by Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless: By: Name and official capacity The Grantee, Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has signed this day of _ , 2018. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 2018. Notary Public in and for the State of residing in My commission expires Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Wireless Franchise Page 16 of 16 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2018 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Ordinance 18-010 — Mobilitie — Telecommunications facilities. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040; RCW 35A.11.020; chapter 35.99 RCW, proposed Ordinance 18-007 regarding small cell regulations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report March 20, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City was recently approached by Mobilitie, as well as other telecommunication companies, regarding new facilities necessary to bring small cell technology to the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Staff then began negotiating the terms of a franchise ordinance agreement with representatives of Mobilitie. We used the normal franchise agreement as the template, based on a number of telecommunication franchises previously approved by the Council. Staff and Mobilitie have agreed on the proposed terms, which are before the Council in proposed Ordinance 18-010. OPTIONS: (1) motion authorization to move to a second reading; (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we advance proposed Ordinance 18-010 regarding granting a telecommunications franchise to Mobilitie to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 18-010 — Mobilitie telecommunications franchise. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO MOBILITIE, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service;" and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body, nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective;" and WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the grant of the franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "City Manager" means the City Manager or designee. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging, excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility the telecommunications facilities. "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 1 of 15 DRAFT "maintenance, maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities with new facilities that are substantially identical to those being replaced or repaired, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "overbuilding" shall mean adding additional fiber capacity to an existing conduit housing fiber optic cable. "overlashing" shall mean the act of lashing new fiber optic cable to an existing aerial fiber optic cable. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit by the permitting authority. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights-of-way. "product" shall refer to the item, thing, or use provided by the Grantee. "relocation" shall mean any required move or relocation of an existing installation or equipment owned by Grantee whereby such move or relocation is necessitated by installation, improvement, renovation, or repair of another entity's facilities in the rights- of-way, including Grantor's facilities. "right-of-way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above, and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City. "streets" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, road, alley, or highway, within the City used or intended to be used by the general public, to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean any of the plant, equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, radios, transmitters, and other facilities necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services, including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables, communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, control boxes, power sources, meters, and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to remove the same from this definition. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter as "City" or "the City"), hereby grants unto Mobilitie, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company (hereinafter "Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 10 years beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along, or below the public rights- of-way located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 2 of 15 DRAFT This franchise does not permit Grantee to use such facilities to provide cable services as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(ff). This franchise does not include the right to install or maintain telecommunications facilities on, over, or above that portion of the rights-of-way utilized for vehicular travel and parking. This franchise does not convey any right to Grantee to install its telecommunications facilities on, under, over, or across any facility or structure owned by a third -party without such written approval of the third -party. No substantive expansions, additions to or modifications or relocation of any of the telecommunications facilities shall be allowed without first having received prior authorization from the City through an amendment to this franchise or an applicable permit. Placement of all telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall comply with the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, including applicable zoning requirements. Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any, between the parties. Section 4. City Use. To the extent applicable to this franchise, and only as it relates to fiber facilities owned by Grantee, the following provisions shall apply regarding City use. A) Grantee agrees to reserve to the City the right to access four dark fiber strands (two pair) along the route identified in Exhibit A as adopted or amended, within the boundaries of the City, for sole and exclusive municipal, non-commercial use or designation (the "City Reserved Fibers"). City agrees that it shall not use the City Reserved Fibers as a public utility provider of telecommunications business service to the public. B) The City has the right to access by connection to the City Reserved Fibers at existing Grantee splice points or reasonably established access points within the City limits; provided that all splicing shall be the sole responsibility of Grantee, except cost, pursuant to Section 4(D), below. The City shall provide at least 30 days' written notice of intent to access the City Reserved Fibers. Upon any access or use of the City Reserved Fibers, City shall pay Grantee a recurring monthly charge of $20.00 per fiber pair per mile in use by the City (the "City Fiber Rate") unless otherwise specifically agreed by both the parties in writing and shall negotiate and enter into a "Fiber License Agreement" which shall govern the terms and conditions for use of the City Reserved Fibers, except cost, which is set forth herein. Said recurring monthly charge shall not be imposed until such time as the fiber is put into use by the City. C) In the event the City Reserved Fibers are the last fibers remaining in Grantee's fiber bundle, then the following shall apply: 1) If the City is using the fibers, then the rate the City shall pay Grantee will change from the City Fiber Rate to Grantee's standard commercial rate. 2) If the City is not using the fibers, the City shall have the option of abandoning the City Reserved Fibers in lieu of paying Grantee's standard commercial rate. If Grantee installs additional fiber capacity, the City's right to use four dark fiber strands as set forth in subsections 1 and 2, immediately above, shall again be in effect. D) All access, interconnection and maintenance to and on the City Reserved Fibers shall be performed by Grantee. The City shall pay all costs associated with such work to the City Reserved Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 3 of 15 DRAFT Fibers. The City Reserved Fibers shall have a term that matches the duration of this franchise Ordinance. E) Pursuant to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way, the City Manager may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost, necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal, non-commercial purposes. 1) The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. 2) This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. 3) Grantee shall notify the City Manager at least 14 days' prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of a summary of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non -Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights-of-way. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights-of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non -Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of Grantee, unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the City Manager's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes, wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, Grantee shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager. Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 4 of 15 DRAFT Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations, laws, and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns, or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns, or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan, to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro -rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. A. Level One Contact: In the event of an emergency or disconnect notice, the City may contact Grantee's Network Operations Center, as follows: Network Operations Center Phone: (877) 244-7889 Email: mnoc@mobilitie.com B. Level Two Contact: In the event Grantee's network operations center cannot be reached, or the network operations center staff cannot address the emergency situation, the City may contact: Gail Allen, Manager, Network Operations Phone: (702) 777-4508 Email: GAllen@mobilitie.com Or Nam Kang, Sr. Director, Network Operations Phone: (312) 638-5409 Email: nam@mobilitie.com C. Level Three Contact: In the event the emergency situation calls for a coordinated effort between the City's and Grantee's management team, the City may contact: Scott Holt, VP, Network Operations Phone: (206) 510-4658 Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 5 of 15 DRAFT Email: scott.holt@mobilitie.com After being notified of an emergency as provided above, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to promptly respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property, and Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its actual, out-of-pocket costs and expenses for such actions. Section 12. One -Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee shall comply with Washington's One - Call statutes. Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities for Others. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, Grantee shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided that the City shall give notice to Grantee of the need to move any such facility immediately following the City's decision to grant permission to such third party to use such right-of-way, but not less than 14 days prior to the date that the City requires Grantee to move its telecommunication facilities; and provided further that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities, as determined by the City in its reasonable discretion. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may require more than 14 days' notice to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such telecommunications facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take all necessary actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time, provided such time is reasonable to complete such action. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, adjacent public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare; and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all actual, out-of-pocket costs and expenses thereof to the extent caused by Grantee. Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 6 of 15 DRAFT Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind, whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional, but only to the extent of such failure by Grantee. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused by Grantee, whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then -existing telecommunications facilities, the City shall: A) At least 60 days' prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; B) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project; and C) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications, Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 (2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines in its reasonable discretion that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section. Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 7 of 15 DRAFT The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated or maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee, then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. A. Underground facilities: Grantee shall remove any telecommunications facilities which have not been used to provide telecommunications services for a period of at least 90 days when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility; (b) the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c) the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights-of-way; or (d) the abandoned facility has collapsed, broke, or otherwise failed 180 days. Grantee may, upon written approval by the City, delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b) or (d) above applies. When (b) or (d) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of- way as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. B. Aboveground facilities: Grantee shall remove any facilities which have not been used to provide telecommunications services for a period of at least 180 days. C. The expense of the removal and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the telecommunications facilities or by the removal process shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned telecommunications facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned telecommunications facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for the actual, out-of-pocket costs of such removal and restoration, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City, at no cost to the City: A) A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types, number of fibers, cables, or control boxes, electronic equipment, meters, power sources, and service lines to individual subscribers. Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System ("GIS") program. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually. Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 8 of 15 DRAFT B) In connection with the construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City, upon the City's reasonable request, copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. C) Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. D) In addition to the requirements of subsection (A) of Section 21, the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. E) Public Record Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Record Act codified in chapter 42.56 RCW. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non -disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non- disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/ information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. To the extent applicable to this franchise, in the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then -adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the City that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety, or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 9 of 15 DRAFT maintenance of any telecommunications facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and this franchise, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. In the event of a street vacation, the City shall include in the vacation ordinance a reserved easement for the continued location of Grantee's facilities. Section 27. Indemnification. A) Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever to the extent relating to or arising out of Grantee's acts or omissions under this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages to the extent caused solely by the negligence or misconduct of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: 1) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; 2) By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; 3) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights -of -ways or other public property; 4) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control, pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; 5) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right- of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise; or 6) Based upon radio frequency emissions or radiation emitted from Grantee's equipment located upon the facility, regardless of whether Grantee's equipment complies with applicable federal statutes and/or FCC regulations related thereto. B) Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in this franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 10 of 15 DRAFT franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. C) Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. D) In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's actual, out- of-pocket costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees, the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. E) Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that this franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. F) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City -owned property from activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. G) The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its agents, representatives or employees. Grantee's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 11 of 15 DRAFT A) Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned, non -owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and B) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under Grantee's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured -State or Political Subdivisions -Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage, provided that Grantee may satisfy the coverage limits required under this Section 28(B) through a combination of primary and umbrella or excess liability coverage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: A) Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. B) Grantee's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled, except after 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the City. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed $25,000, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets, or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 12 of 15 DRAFT City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. In the event the City draws on the surety for purposes set forth in this franchise such that the remaining value of the surety falls below $10,000, the City may request that the surety be renewed to the full value of $25,000 as a condition of doing any additional work in the rights-of-way. Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with at least 15 days' notice given Grantee by the City under the provisions of this franchise, and an adequate opportunity of at least 15 days to cure the violation or non-compliance has been given in writing to Grantee, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply with the provisions of this franchise. Grantee may terminate this Agreement by giving at least 30 days' written notice. Company shall not be subject to any penalty or fee for terminating this Agreement prior to the end of the term of the Agreement. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City from any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee, or any person, firm, or corporation that shall control, be under the control of, or be under common control with Grantee, or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee, by merger, sale, consolidation or otherwise. Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, Grantee shall accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 -day period, absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by a subsequent ordinance passed expressly for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 13 of 15 DRAFT Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being further renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated. Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise (except with respect to notices given to Grantee in the event of emergency, in which case the notice information and procedure provided in Section 11 shall apply) may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified, in writing: The City: Grantee: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 MOBILITIE, LLC Attn: Legal Department 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 legal@mobilitie.com (877) 999-7070 With a copy to: MOBILITIE, LLC Attn: Asset Management 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 WestAssetMgmt@mobilitie.com (877) 999-7070 Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 39. Non -Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance, nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2018. Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 14 of 15 DRAFT L. R. Higgins, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Accepted by Mobilitie, LLC: By: Name and official capacity The Grantee, Mobilitie, LLC, for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has signed this day of _ 2018. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 2018. Notary Public in and for the State of residing in My commission expires Ordinance 18-010 Granting Utility Franchise - Mobilitie Page 15 of 15 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: Sprague Avenue Street Preservation Project — Sullivan to Corbin GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • June 28, 2016: Council passed Resolution 16-009, adopting the 2017-2022 Six Year TIP, which included this project. • February 7, 2017: Admin report for amending the 2017 TIP • May 23, 2017: Council passed Resolution 17-011, adopting the 2018-2023 Six Year TIP, which included this project. • February 20, 2018: Admin Report discussing the project. BACKGROUND: The Pavement Management Program identified the segment of Sprague Avenue between Sullivan Road and Corbin Road as a priority project. This road segment shows numerous areas of pavement distress such as cracking and potholes. This project will grind and inlay 2.5 inches of hot mix asphalt; update some pedestrian ramps, make stormwater improvements, and complete signal modifications at the Flora Road intersection. The project was designed in house and advertised on March 2, 2018. Two bids were received and opened on March 16, 2018. The lowest responsible bidder was Inland Asphalt Company with a bid of $1,458,803,00. The Engineer's estimate was $1,659,359.00. Poe Asphalt submitted a bid of $1,618,074.55. OPTIONS: Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Sprague Avenue Street Preservation Project — Sullivan to Corbin, CIP 0248 to Inland Asphalt Company in the amount of $1,458,803.00 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total project budget is $1,977,273 including $1,531,050 from an STP grant, $238,950 from Fund 311 and $207,273 from Fund 402. There are sufficient funds to cover the cost for this project. STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, PE, Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation BID TABULATION Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin Project CIP No. 0248 WSDOT p Item J! Sched A - Spokane Val ley Units Quantity Engineers Estimate Unit Price Total Cost Inland Asphalt Co. Unit Price Total Cost Poe Asphalt Paving Unit Price Total Cost 0002 100 MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 570,000.00 570,000.00 581,000.00 581,000.00 $76,800.00 576,800.00 101 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING L.S. 1 525,000.00 525,000.00 $21,750.00 521,750.00 527,300.00 $27,300.00 7736 102 SPCC PLAN L.S._ 1 $650.00 $650.00 51,620.00 51,620.00 $563.00 5563.00 103 EROSION CONTROL L.S. 1 510,000-00 510,000.00 510,480.00 510,480.00 511,250.00 $11,250.00 6971 104 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 1 $140,000.00 5140,000.00 5125,500.00 5125,500.00 $219,500.00 5219,500.00 6993 105 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN HR. 6720 54,00 526,680.00 52.10 514,112.00 55.65 537,968.00 106 PUBLIC LIAISION REPRESENTATIVE L.S. 1 $20,000.00 520,000.00 514,400.00 514,400.00 532,850.00 532,850.00 7728 107 MINOR CHANGE CALC LF -IN 1 3690 520,000.00 50.50 520,000.00 51,845.00 520,000.00 5035 520,000.00 51,291,50 520,000.00 50.30 $20,000.00_ 51,107.00 108 SAWCUT ASPHALT PAVEMENT 0120 109 REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT S.Y. 250 $22.00 55,500.00 $5.25 51,312.50 514.10 53,525.00 0110 110 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB L.F. 740 55.00 53,700.00 512.60 $9,324.00 $7.60 55,624.00 0100 111 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK / DRIVEWAY APPROACH S.Y. 390 525.00 59,750.00 512.60 54,914.00 517.75 56,922.50 112 REMOVE 24 IN. WIDE ISLAND L.F. 700 $10.00 $7,000.00 56.30 54,410.00 $7.90 55,530.00 113 REMOVE JUNCTION BOX EACH 3 5250.00 5750.00 5210.00 $630.00 5225.00 $675.00 114 REMOVE FENCE L.E. 55 $15.00 5825.00 521.00 51,155.00 512.65 569575 115 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 2 IN. DEPTH 5.Y. 10 510.00 $100.00 $106.00 51,060.00 540.55 5405.50 116 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 4 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 25 $12.00 5300.00 $30.00 $750.00 $32.45 5811.25 117 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 8 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 250 516.00 $4,000.00 $30.00 $7,500.00 $46.25 511,562.50 118 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, 21/2114. DEPTH S.Y. 53500 $2.60 $139,100.00 $1.68 589,880.00 51.45 $77,575.00 119 HMA CL. 1/2" PG 70-28 0.21 FT. DEPTH S.Y. 53500 511.25 5601,875.00 59.47 5506,645.00 59.10 5486,850.00 120 HMA CL. 1/2" PG 70-28 0.50 FT. DEPTH S.Y. 230 560.00 513,800.00 547.00 510,810.00 562.05 $14,271.50 121 HMA CL 1/2" PG 70-28 MISCELLANEOUS AREAS S.Y. 20 570.00 51,400.00 5100.00 52,000.00 $187.00 $3,740.00 122 JOINT ADHESIVE L.F. 7800 $1.00 57,800.00 $0.79 $6,162.00 $0.80 56,240.00 5830 123 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 51.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 5835 124 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 51.00 $1.00 $1.00 51.00 $1.00 51.00 6700 125 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER L.F. 700 532.00 $22,400.00 537.70 $26,390.00 $52.45 536,715.00 6707 126 CEMENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB L.F. 300 520.00 56,000.00 526.20 $7,860.00 538.25 $11,475.00 7055 127 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5.Y. 180 $50.00 59,000.00 547.20 58,496.00 $78.80 514,184.00 7058 128 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL A EACH 12 51,800.00 521,600.00 52,306.00 527,672.00 51,910.00 $22,920.00 129 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE CUSTOM PARALLEL A EACH 1 51,800.00 51,800.00 52,100.00 $2,100.00 51,460.00 51,460.00 130 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE CUSTOM PERPENDICULAR A EACH 1 51,800.00 51,800.00 52,100.00 52,100.00 51,460.00 51,460.00 7058 131. CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE SINGLE DIRECTION A EACH 1 52,400.00 52,400.00 52,100.00 52,100.00 52,030.00 52,030.00 132 ADA FEATURES SURVEYING L.S. 1 56,000.00 56,000.00 53,700.00 53,700.00 59,570.00 $9,570.00 133 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC ISLAND 24 IN. WIDE L.F. 700 $35.00 524,500.00 558.00 540,600.00 529.25 520,475.00 7045 134 MONUMENT CASE AND COVER EACH 1 5600.00 5600.00 5472.00 $472.00 5532.00 5532.00 135 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 23 51,000.00 523,000.00 5605.00 513,915.00 5887.00 $20,401-00 136 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE EACH 38 5750.00 528,500.00 5400.00 $15,200.00 5633.00 524,054.00 137 ADJUST EXISTING GAS VALVE EACH 5 5750.00 53,750.00 5400.00 52,000.00 5709.00 53,545.00 138 ADJUST EXISTING UTILITY VAULT EACH 6 $1,000.00 56,000.00 5700.00 54,200.00 5867.00 55,322.00 139 ADJUST EXISTING CATCH BASIN OR DRYWELL EACH 14 51,000.00 $14,000.00 $600.00 58,400.00 51,180.00 516,520.00 6555 140 SOD INSTALLATION 5.Y. 65 535.00 52,275.00 $30.00 51,950.00 531.50 52,047.50 141 TOPSOIL, TYPE C S.Y. 25 530.00 5750.00 5142.00 53,550.00 539.40 5985.00 142 SEEDING, FERTILIZING AND MULCHING S.Y. 90 520.00 51,800.00 552.40 54,716.00 556.30 $5,067.00 Federal Debarment Checked uDBE Confirmation from WSDOT 143 LANDSCAPING ROCK SALVAGE SV 7 565.00 5455.00 5210.00 $1,470.00 $28.15 5197,05 144 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISION EACH 5 5900.00 $4,500.00 51,887.00 59,435.00 $563.00 52,815.00 145 DELINEATOR AND CORE HOLE EACH 3 5175.00 5525.00 5105.00 5315.00 5134.00 5402.00 146 BULLNOSE MARKER EACH 3 5500.00 51,500.00 5602.00 $1,806.00 5766.00 52,298.00_ 52,480.00 147 JUNCTION 60X, TYPE 2 EACH 2 51,000.00 52,000.00 51,150.00 52,300.00 51,240.00 148 JUNCTION BOX, TYPE 8 EACH 1 52,250.00 52,250.00 52,250.00 52,250.00 52,420.00 $2,420.00 149 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM MODIFICATION L.S. 1 570,000.00 570,000.00 547,690.00 547,690.00 551,200.00 551,200.00 3890 150 PERMANENT SIGNING L.S. 1 53,000.00 53,000.00 5950.00 5950.00 51,180.00 51,180.00 151 PLASTIC UNE - TYPE CI L.F. 38250 52.00 $76,500.00 $1.30 549,725.00 $1.35 551,637.50 152 PLASTIC WIDE LANE LINE - TYPE C1 L.F. 670 57.50 55,025.00 $4.75 53,182.50 55.15 53,450.50 6859 153 PLASTIC STOP LINE L.F. 360 $16.75 56,030.00 512.00 54,320.00 513.05 $4,698.00 6857 154 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE S.F. 2000 $9.00 518,000.00 56.80 513,600.00 57.40 514,800.00 6833 155 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW EACH 42 $280.00 511,760.00 5112.00 54,704.00 5121.00 55,082.00 156 PLASTIC LINE - TYPE 8 L.F. 85 $8.00 5680.00 53.90 5331.50 54.20 $357.00 0190 157 REMOVING PLASTIC LINE L. F. 80 515.00 51,200.00 57.25 5580.00 $7.80 5624.00 Total Schad A - 51,489,877.00 51,254,788.00 51,394,171.55 Sched B - 0002 200 MOBILIZATION L5. 1 516,000.00 516,000.00 525,000.00 525,000.00 543,800.00 $43,800.00 7728 201 MINOR CHANGE CALC 1 $5,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 202 TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM L.5. 1 5550.00 5550.00 $890.00 5890.00 52,790.00 $2,790.00_ 203 SAWCUTASPHALT PAVEMENT LF -IN 3500 50.50 51,750.00 50.32 $1,120.00 $0.30 51,050.00' 204 STORMWATER PATCH REMOVAL S.Y. 440 522.00 59,680.00 515.70 56,908.00 511.90 $5,236.00 0110 205 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB L.F. 280 55.00 51,400.00 $12.60 53,528.00 $7.60 52,128.00 0100 206 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK / DRIVEWAY APPROACH S.Y. 140 525.00 $3,500.00 $12.60 $1,764.00 $15.75 $2,205.00 207 REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN EACH 4 5300.00 51,200.00 5470.00 $1,880.00 $602.00 52,408.00 208 ABANDON EXISTING DRYWELL EACH 5 51,000.00 $5,000.00 $470.00 52,350.00 51,170.00 $5,850.00 209 REMOVE STORM DRAIN PIPE L.F. 70 510.00 $700.00 $8.50 5595.00 519.00 $1,330.00 210 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 2 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 10 510.00 $100.00 560.00 5600.00 $40.55 5405.50 211 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 8 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 440 $16.00 57,040.00 $20.00 58,800.00 59.25 $4,070.00 212 HMA CL 1/2" PG 70-28 0.50 FT. DEPTH, PATCH S.Y. 440 560.00 $26,400.00 $47.00 $20,680.00 526.45 $11,638.00 5830 213 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 $1.00 $1.00 5835 214 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 51.00 51.00 $1.00 $1.00 51.00 51.00 3773 215 DUCTILE IRON STORM SEWER PIPE 10 IN. DIA. LF. 200 555.00 511,000.00 $68.00 $13,600.00 5102.00 $20,400.00 216 CONNECTION TO EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE EACH 1 5450.00 5450.00 5315.00 $315.00 51,140.00 51,140.00 217 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 1 EACH 1 51,800.00 $1,800.00 53,668.00 53,668.00 5253.00 5253.00 218 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 EACH 10 52,000.00 520,000.00 52,935.00 529,350.00 $2,660.00 526,600.00 219 CURB 1NLETTOP, TYPE 1 EACH 7 51,500.00 510,500.00 53,145.00 522,015.00 $2,530.00 517,710,00 220 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL TYPE A WITH SOLID COVER EACH 5 53,000.00 515,000.00 53,353.00 516,765.00 55,320.00 526,600.00 221 SPILL CONTROL SEPARATOR EACH 9 5500.00 $4,500.00 5367.00 53,303.00 5570.00 55,130.00 222 CONNECTION TO EXISTING DRYWELL EACH 4 $750.00 53,000.00 5288.00 51,152.00 5272.00 51,088.00 6701 223 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB L.F. 70 527.00 51,890.00 538.00 52,660.00 $31.50 52,205.00 6700 224 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER L.F. 210 $32.00 56,720.00 538.00 $7,980.00 $52.45 511,014.50 7055 225 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK S.V. 120 550.00 $6,000.00 547.00 55,640.00 578.80 59,456.00 7059 226 CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAYAPPROACH 5,Y. 45 $70.00 53,150.00 558-00 52,610.00 5146.00 56,570.00 227 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB WALL L.F. 25 $45.00 51,125.00 568.00 51,700.00 584.40 52,110.00 6555 228 500 INSTALLATION 5.Y. 35 $35.00 51,225.00 595.00 53,325.00 539.40 51,379.00 229 TOPSOIL, TYPE C 5.Y. 10 $30.00 $300.00 5141.50 51,415.00 5152.00 51,520.00 230 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISION EACH 5 $900.00 54,500.00 51,880.00 59,400.00 5563.00 $2,815.00 Total Schad B . $169,482.00 5204,015.00 $223,903.00 TOTAL (All schedules) $1,659,359.00 51,458,803.00 $1,618,074.55 Federal Debarment Checked uDBE Confirmation from WSDOT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 3/27/18 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: CIP 0201, ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) Infill — Phase 1 Project GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority 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. • January 16, 2018 — Council directed staff to request additional funds from SRTC and increase City contribution to the project by an additional $50,000 from Fund 301. BACKGROUND: The project installs Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) fiber optic lines in existing conduit along: University Rd between 4th and 16th; Sprague Avenue between 1-90 and Fancher; Fancher Rd between Sprague and Broadway; and Broadway Avenue between Fancher and Park to connect to the WSDOT 1-90 fiber trunk line. The project was first bid on August 19, 2016. Two bidders, Colvico and Power City Electric, submitted bids. The $365,810.49 low bid submitted by Power City Electric was $107,150.11 above the Engineer's Estimate and would have resulted in a $106,000 budget overage. The main sources of the overage were the high costs for a jack and bore installed casing under the Union Pacific Railroad crossing on Fancher Rd and the cost of temporary traffic control. The City rejected all bids and hired a Geotechnical consultant who recommended installing the casing using air rotary drills. After many months delay, the railroad did not approve this construction technique. Staff redesigned the crossing using horizontal directional drilling procedures. Although this alternative is cheaper than the original jack and bore technique, the resulting delay and engineering design and ROW costs have more than offset any savings. In January 2018, staff requested additional grant funding from SRTC and WSDOT and was able to secure an additional $100,000 in funding (Interlocal Agreement GCB 2937) from WSDOT because the project provides redundancy to the 1-90 ITS system. The project was advertised on February 23, 2018 and bids were opened on March 16, 2018. Again Power City Electric and Colvico submitted bids. The low bid of $378,216.28 submitted by Power City Electric exceeds both the construction budget of $364,540 and the Engineer's Estimate of $346,150. Although the 2018 bid unit cost for directional boring is lower and the lump sum cost for temporary traffic control is lower than the 2016 bid, other bid items such as construction surveying and fiber optic cable and ethernet switches doubled. An additional $35,482 is necessary to award the contract, reimburse the state for grant administration and provide a 5% construction contingency. OPTIONS: Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the ITS Infill, Phase 1 Project, CIP 0201 to Power City Electric, Inc., in the amount of $378,216.28 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The current project funding is $500,402. The City has been awarded $383,341 in grants. An additional $35,482 is needed for the project in order to award the Contract, reimburse the state for grant administration costs and establish a construction contingency of 5% ($18,911). The additional funds will come from Fund 301, Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). The current and proposed project funding is: Current Project Funding CMAQ $283,341 WSDOT $100,000 City Fund 301 $117,061 Total $500,402 Proposed Project Funding CMAQ $283,341 WSDOT $100,000 City Fund 301 $152,543 Total $535,884 STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, PE, Engineering Manager Craig Aldworth,PE, Project Engineer ATTACHMENTS: ITS Infill — Phase 1 (CIP 0201) 3/16/18 Bid Tabulation WSDOT Interlocal Agreement GCB 2937 BID TABULATION 175 Infill - Phase CIP No. 0201, Fed Project No.: CM -1223(003) Bid Opening Friday, 10:00 AM 03/16/18 Sjiokan'�� 1. Valley Item It Units quantity Engineers Estimate Power City Electric, Inc. Colvico, Inc. Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Base Bid Schedule A - Work within City ROW -Tax Rule 171 510.00 $120.00 520.00 $240.00 5209.00 52,508.00 106 SPCC PLAN LS 1 LS 91,000.00 LS 5750.00 LS $750.00 101 EROSION CONTROL L5 1 IS 51,000.00 L5 53,500.00 LS $3,450.00 102 MINOR CHANGE EST 1 515,000.00 515,000.00 515,000.00 515,000.00 515,000.00 $15,000.00 103 MOBILIZATION LS 1 1.5 531,000.00 L5 528,000.00 LS 529,600.00 104 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING LS 1 LS 53,000.00 L5 58,000.00 LS 59,000.00 105 RECORD DRAWINGS LS 1 LS $2,300.00 L5 $5,000.00 L5 55,000.00 106 POTHOLE EA 4 5750.00 $3,000.00 01,000.00 54,000.00 51,000.00 54,000.00 107 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL L5 1 LS 545,000.00 I5 543,000.00 L5 544,000.00 108 SPOTTERS HR 8 555.00 5440.00 570.00 5560.00 555.00 5440.00 109 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGNS HR 288 55.00 51,440.00 59.00 52,592,00 511.00 53,168.00 110 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB LF. 56 $10.00 5560.00 524.00 $1,344.00 $71.50 54,004.00 111 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY APPROACH S.Y. 70 $22.00 $1,540.00 $26.00 51,820.00 $19800 513,860.00 112 SAWCUT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT L.F.I. 2424 $1.00 52,424.00 52.00 54,848.00 51.50 53,635.00 113 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT S.Y. 149 $10.00 51,490.00 535.00 $5,215.00 518.00 52,682.00 114 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 4 IN. DEPTH 5.Y. 8 $25.00 5200.00 550.00 $400.00 5960.00 57,680.00 115 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 8IN. DEPTH 5.7. 101 550.00 55,050.00 580.00 58,080.00 58250 58,332.50 116 HMA CL 1/2 PG 70-28, 0.5 FT DEPTH, PATCH 5.Y. 115 5120.00 513,800.00 584.00 59,660.00 $88.00 510,120.00 117 HMA CL 1/2 PG 70-28, MISCELLANEOUS AREAS S.Y. 8 5150.00 51,200.00 $161.00 $1,288.00 5148.50 51,183.00 118 JOINT ADHESIVE L.F. 190 54.00 5760.00 511.00 52,090.00 $9.50 51,805.00 119 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB L.F. 5 530.00 $150.00 5120.00 5600.00 5110.00 5550.00 120 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER L.F. 56 530.00 51,680.00 $60.00 53,360.00 555.00 03,080.00 121 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK S.Y. 45 550.00 $2,250.00 5125.00 55,625.00 5115.50 55,197.50 122 CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APPROACH S.Y. 25 575.00 51,875.00 5150.00 $3,750.00 5137.50 $3,437.50 123 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISION EA 1 5500.00 5500.00 51,000.00 51,000.00 52,75000 52,750.00 124 500 INSTALLATION S.Y. 11 $40.00 5440.00 515.00 5165.00 593.00 51,023.00 125 TOPSOIL, TYPE C 5.Y. 84 510.00 $840.00 $20.00 51,680.00 $44.00 53,696.00 126 SEEDING, FERTILIZING AND MULCHING 5.7. 75 510.00 5750.00 520.00 51,500.00 511.00 5825.00 127 FIBER OPTIC PATCH PANEL (12 PORT) EA 6 51,000.00 $6,000.00 5720.00 $4,320.00 5900.00 55,400.00 128 FIBER OPTIC PATCH PANEL (96 PORT) EA 1 54,500.00 54,500.00 51,200.00 01,200.00 53,850.00 53,850.00 129 FIBER OPTIC SPLICE CLOSURE EA 6 52,200.00 513,200.00 51,475.00 58,850.00 51,210.00 57,260.00 130 ETHERNET SWITCH EA 6 $1,000.00 56,000.00 53,500.00 521,000.00 51,395.00 58,370.00 131 SFP MODULE (GIGABIT) EA 11 5400.00 54,400.00 5500.00 $5,500.00 5540.00 55,940.00 132 FIBER OPTIC CABLE (48SMFO) L.F. 15850 03.00 541,550.00 53.75 551,937.50 55.75 $79,637.50 133 FIBER OPTIC CABLE (12 SMFO) L.F. 880 $3.00 52,640.00 53.00 52,640.00 56.60 05,808.00 134 CAT6 ETHERNET CABLE L.F. 50 52.00 5100.00 $2.50 5125.00 51.50 575.00 135 CONDUIT, 21N, DIAM. L.F. 375 520.00 57,500.00 522.00 $8,250.00 517.00 56,375.00 136 CONDUIT PIPE HDPE 21N. DIAM. L.F. 475 520.00 59,500.00 $2.50 51,187,50 53.00 51,423.00 137 DIRECTIONAL BORING L.F. 475 5135.00 564,125.00 5124.00 058,900.00 $118.00 $56,050.00 138 PULL BOX EA 2 53,500.00 $7,000.00 53,300.00 $6,600.00 54,325.00 58,650.00 139 RELOCATE PULL BOX EA 2 53,000.00 $6,000.00 52,800.00 55,600.00 53,200.00 56,400.00 140 PLASTIC WIDE UTNE LINE L.F. 74 510.00 5740.00 515.00 $1,110.00 511.00 5814.00 141 PERMANENT SIGNING L.5. 1 LS 5500.00 LS 5500.00 L5 $440.00 Total Sched A - 5312,444.00 $340,547.00 $384,769.00 Base Bid Schedule B - Work on State & Private Land Tax Rule 170 Y ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 200 TOPSOIL, TYPE C 5.Y. 12 510.00 $120.00 520.00 $240.00 5209.00 52,508.00 201 SEEDING, FERTILIZING AND MULCHING S.Y. 12 510.00 $120.00 520.00 $240.00 511.00 5132.00 202 FIBER OPTIC PATCH PANEL (12 PORT) EA 1 51,000.00 51,000.00 5720.00 5720.00 5825.00 0825.00 203 FIBER OPTIC PATCH PANEL (96 PORT) EA 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,200.00 51,200.00 $3,850.00 53,850.00 204 FIBER OPTIC SPLICE CLOSURE EA 1 52,200.00 52,200.00 $3,600.00 53,600.00 51,210.00 51,210.00 205 HUB ETHERNET SWITCH EA 1 52,600.00 52,600.00 $4,950.00 54,950.00 52,900.00 52,900.00 206 SFP MODULE (GIGABIT) EA 5 $400.00 52,000.00 5500.00 52,500.00 $500.00 52,500.00 207 FIBER OPTIC CABLE (48 SMFO) LF. 3230 53.00 59,690.00 53.75 512,112.50 55.25 516,957.50 208 FIBER OPTIC CABLE 0.2 SMFO) L.F. 50 $3.00 5150.00 53.00 5150.00 516.50 $825.00 209 CONDUIT PIPE 2 IN. DIAM. L.F. 255 520.00 55,100.00 522.00 $5,610.00 411.50 53,952.50 210 PULL BOX (STANDARD DUTY LID) EA 1 53,500.00 53,500.00 53,30000 53,300.00 54,100.00 54,100.00 Total Sched B - 530,980.00 534,622.50 539,760.00 8.8% Tax 52,726.24 53,046.78 53,498.88 Sch BTotal $33,706.24 • 537,669.28 $43,258.88 TOTAL (All schedules) Total Sch A + Sch B $346,150.24 • $378,236.28 $428,027.88 4\N. ALD WASy70 G Pte,. J;,,,,ci /Y 'r 27578 1 9FG/STEPEOAC? O /ON AI - Bid Proposal Checklist Proposal Form Contractor's Administrative Information Bidder Qualification statement 81d Deoos t Farm Bid Deposit Surety Form Representations and Certifications Non Coilus,on Declaration local Agency Certification Wage Cert X Y ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 ✓ J ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 ✓ GCB 2937 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Spokane Valley Contract No 18-042 This INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (Agreement) is made and entered into this day of March, 2018 by and between the City of Spokane Valley, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "LOCAL AGENCY," and Washington State Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "WSDOT," pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. WHEREAS, the LOCAL AGENCY is planning the construction or improvements of their Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) (Exhibit A) in the location of I-90/Sprague I/C Vicinity. This ITS fiber infill will serve State Highways and the Spokane area network, hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT," and WHEREAS, WSDOT has agreed to contribute $100,000.00 towards the construction of the PROJECT as shown in Exhibit B, and NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the above recitals that are incorporated herein as if fully set forth below and in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performances contained in or attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this Agreement, it is mutually agreed as follows: IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. WSDOT FUNDING COMMITMENTS AND PAYMENT 1.1 Both parties benefit by this PROJECT and WSDOT has agreed to participate, in the amount of One Hundred Thousand and No/100s Dollars ($100,000.00). 1.2 LOCAL AGENCY agrees to pay all costs in excess of $100,000.00 necessary to complete the PROJECT. 1.3 WSDOT has agreed that this contribution shall be a one-time, lump sum payment and paid by the execution of this Agreement. An invoice will be generated and sent to WSDOT for their contribution of One Hundred Thousand and No/100s Dollars ($100,000.00). 1.4 WSDOT will require the LOCAL AGENCY to submit a summary report at the close of the PROJECT detailing what was delivered. 2. TERM 2.1 Unless otherwise provided herein, the term of this Agreement shall commence as of the date this Agreement is fully executed and shall continue until the PROJECT is completed and all WSDOT obligations for payment have been met, unless otherwise terminated pursuant to Section 7. GCB 2657 Page 1 of 5 3. LEGAL RELATIONS 3.1 It is understood that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture, agent -principal relationship or partnership is formed as result of this Agreement. No employees or agents of one party or any of its contractors or subcontractors shall be deemed, or represent themselves to be, employees or agents of the other party. 4. APPLICABLE LAWS, VENUES 4.1 In the event either party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that any such action or proceedings shall be brought in Thurston County Superior Court in the State of Washington. Further, the parties agree that each will be solely responsible for payment of its own attorney's fees, witness fees, and costs. 4.2 In the event that either party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the parties agree that any such action or proceedings shall be brought in Thurston County Superior Court in the State of Washington. Further, the parties agree that each will be solely responsible for payment of its own attorney's fees, witness fees, and costs. The LOCAL AGENCY agrees that it shall accept personal service of process by Certified U.S. Mail or overnight mail delivery directed to the LOCAL AGENCY. If service cannot be completed in this manner, the LOCAL AGENCY designates the Secretary of State of Washington as agent for the purpose of personal service of process. 5. AMENDMENTS 5.1 This Agreement may be amended or modified only by the mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments or modifications shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by persons authorized to bind each of the arties. 6. TERMINATION 6.1 Neither WSDOT nor the LOCAL AGENCY may terminate this Agreement without the written concurrence of the other party. 6.2 Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. 7. DISPUTES RESOLUTION 7.1 The parties agree that any and all disputes, claims and controversies arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be submitted to a mediator selected by both parties for mediation pursuant to Section 7.2 below. 7.2 MEDIATION. Either party may commence mediation by providing the other party with a written request for mediation, setting forth the matter in dispute and the relief requested. The parties agree to cooperate with one another in the selecting of a mediation service and scheduling of the mediation proceedings. The parties agree to participate in the GCB 2657 Page 2 of 5 mediation in good faith. If the parties do not agree on a mediation service to conduct the mediation, the mediation shall be conducted in accordance with the Construction Industry Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association. All offers, promises, conduct and statements, whether written or oral, made in the course of mediation are confidential, privileged, and/or inadmissible for any purpose in any litigation or arbitration of the dispute; provided, that evidence that is otherwise admissible or discoverable shall not be rendered inadmissible or non -discoverable as a result of its use in mediation. 8. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS 8.1 The LOCAL AGENCY agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless WSDOT, including its officers, employees, and agents, from any and all claims, demands, losses, and/or liabilities to or by third parties arising from, resulting from, or connected with, acts or omissions performed or to be performed under this Agreement by the LOCAL AGENCY, its agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers of any tier, including acts or omissions of LOCAL AGENCY's invitees and licensees, to the fullest extent permitted by law and subject to the limitations provided below. 8.1.1 The LOCAL AGENCY's duty to defend and indemnify WSDOT, including its officers, employees, and agents, shall not apply to liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of WSDOT, including its officers, employees, and agents. The LOCAL AGENCY's duty to defend and indemnify WSDOT, including its officers, employees, and agents, for liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of (a) WSDOT, including its officers, employees, and agents, and (b) the LOCAL AGENCY, its employees, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers of any tier, and invitees and licensees, shall apply only to the extent of negligence of the LOCAL AGENCY, its agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers of any tier, invitees and licensees. 8.1.2 The LOCAL AGENCY specifically and expressly and by mutual agreement waives any immunity that it may be granted under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW. Further, the indemnification obligation under this Agreement shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable to or for any third party under workers' compensation acts, disability benefits acts, or other employee benefits acts; provided, the LOCAL AGENCY's waiver of immunity by the provisions of this Section extends only to claims against the LOCAL AGENCY by WSDOT, and does not include, or extend to, any claims by the LOCAL AGENCY's employees directly against the LOCAL AGENCY. 8.1.3 This indemnification and waiver shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 8.2 WSDOT agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the LOCAL AGENCY, including its officers, employees, and agents, from any and all claims, demands, losses, and/or liabilities to or by third parties arising from, resulting from, or connected with, GCB 2657 Page 3 of 5 acts or omissions performed or to be performed under this Agreement by WSDOT, its agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers of any tier, including acts or omissions of WSDOT's invitees and licensees, to the fullest extent permitted by law and subject to the limitations provided below. 8.2.1 WSDOT's duty to defend and indemnify the LOCAL AGENCY, including its officers, employees, and agents, shall not apply to liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of the LOCAL AGENCY, including its officers, employees, and agents. WSDOT's duty to defend and indemnify the LOCAL AGENCY, including its officers, employees, and agents, for liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of (a) the LOCAL AGENCY, including its officers, employees, and agents, and (b) WSDOT, its employees, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers of any tier, and invitees and licensees, shall apply only to the extent of negligence of WSDOT, its agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers of any tier, invitees and licensees. 8.2.2 WSDOT specifically and expressly and by mutual agreement waives any immunity that it may be granted under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW. Further, the indemnification obligation under this Agreement shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable to or for any third party under workers' compensation acts, disability benefits acts, or other employee benefits acts; provided, WSDOT's waiver of immunity by the provisions of this Section extends only to claims against WSDOT by the LOCAL AGENCY, and does not include, or extend to, any claims by WSDOT's employees directly against WSDOT. 8.2.3 This indemnification and waiver shall survive the termination of this Agreement. The rest of this page left blank intentionally. GCB 2657 Page 4 of 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the party's date signed last below. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: By: Printed: Printed: Mike Gribner, P.E. Title: Title: Regional Administrator Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM By: By: Printed: Printed: Title: Title: Assistant Attorney General Date: Date: GCB 2657 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2018 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 8th & Carnahan Right -of -Way Acquisition Remediation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual Advanced Six -Year plans for coordinated transportation program expenditures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • December 5, 2017 — Administrative Report, ROW Acquisition Requirements • March 20, 2018 — Administrative Report, 8th & Carnahan Right -of -Way Acquisition Remediation BACKGROUND: The Uniform Relocation Act (URA) - 49 CFR Part 24 is a federal law that establishes minimum standards for projects when acquiring real estate property or displacing persons from their homes, businesses, or farms. The URA applies to the acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of real estate property for federal or federally funded projects, even if there are no federal funds in a right-of-way phase of a project. On December 5, 2017, Staff discussed the URA minimum requirements with Council. The alignment of the 8th & Carnahan intersection needs to be rectified which requires acquisition of right-of-way. In November 2016, the City executed a purchase and sale agreement for the acquisition of a parcel located at 707 S Carnahan in anticipation of this project for $185,000. The real estate transaction closed in January 2017. The acquisition did not follow the federal process which requires that the seller be reimbursed for expenses resulting from relocation such as closing fees and moving fees. The seller is also entitled to receive payments for the added costs of purchasing comparable replacement housing. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) advised the City to remediate the acquisition if the City plans to pursue federal funds for the intersection project. A Remediation Plan for this acquisition was submitted and approved by WSDOT. To date, the City has reimbursed the seller $2,400 for moving costs and $6,098.99 for closing costs. As presented at the March 20, 2018, Council Meeting, the seller has found a replacement house and is entitled for $53,900 for the price differential between the house purchased by the City and the replacement house. The seller is also entitled to incidental costs related to the purchase of the replacement home, the incidentals are estimated to be $2,861.46 but could vary up to $2,000. The acquisition and total remediation payments remaining total $250,260.45 (assuming $2,861.46 incidental costs) which exceeds the City Manager authority. OPTIONS: Issue payment for the price differential and incidental costs or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to issue final payment in an amount not to exceed $60,000 for the price differential and incidental costs. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not to exceed $60,000 from Fund 312. STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: None CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: Potential Grant Opportunities Potential Transportation Grants — Call for Projects: • Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) federal funds for Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG), Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) and Surface Transportation Block Grant — Set Aside (STBG-SA). • City Safety Program (CSP) • Pedestrian & Bicycle Program (PBP) and Safe Routes to School (SRTS) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Report on 2018 Potential Grant Opportunities, March 13, 2018; Approved motion to apply for Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board funds for the Argonne Road and Barker Road Corridor improvement projects, March 13, 2018; Passed Resolution 17-011 - Adoption of the 2018-2023 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), May 23, 2017; Approved motion to apply for Surface Transportation Preservation (STP) funds for the Argonne Road — Indiana to Montgomery Concrete Reconstruction Project, March 25, 2014. BACKGROUND: SRTC FUNDING PROGRAMS On March 9, 2018, SRTC released a call for projects allocating federal transportation dollars for the STBG, CMAQ, and STBG-SA funding programs. Applications for all funding programs are due May 11, 2018. STBG funds are the most flexible source of federal funds used for nearly all project types: construction, reconstruction, preservation, safety, multimodal projects, or planning projects. The STBG program makes available $16 million for the Spokane region for the years 2020-2023. CMAQ funds are typically applied to transportation projects or programs that improve air quality and ultimately contribute to the maintenance of the national air quality standards in the Spokane region. CMAQ funding can be used for projects that reduce carbon monoxide (CO) and coarse particulate matter (PM10) emissions. Available funds from the CMAQ program total $10 million for the years 2021-2023. STBG-SA funds on- and off-road facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians and other enhancements to surface transportation. Eligible projects include sidewalk and bicycle facilities, traffic calming projects, or multimodal projects. Available funds from the STBG-SA program total $2 million for the years 2021-2023. Page 1 of 4 CSP FUNDING PROGRAM On January 8, 2018, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) issued a Call for Projects focusing on engineering countermeasures and strategies that help reduce fatal and serious injury crashes through the City Safety Program (CSP). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds the CSP and administers the program to the states under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The CSP will award $25 million statewide as part of the 2018 Call for Projects. The minimum match is 10% across all three phases of the project; preliminary engineering (PE), right-of-way (RW) and construction (CN). If a project commits to obligating the CN phase by April 30, 2021, then the 10% match is waived for the CN phase. To focus current funding efforts, staff prioritized CSP -eligible elements taken from the projects identified in Table 1. Staff intends to submit a parallel application for these eligible elements. If the eligible elements are awarded funds, those dollars will reduce the overall project need from SRTC, making more funds available for the City at the regional level. • Citywide Signal Backplates: Order and install retro-reflectorized borders on traffic signal back -plates to increase traffic control visibility and visual cues for drivers at night. • Citywide Signpost Reflector Strips: Order and install retro-reflectorized strips on traffic signposts to improve visibility and visual cues for drivers at night. • Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements: Eligible elements: curbing, concrete medians and traffic control. • Barker Road Corridor: Eligible elements: 10 -foot asphalt shared -use pathway. • Pines and Mission Intersection Improvements: Eligible elements: turn lanes, striping and signal adjustment. PBP & SRTS FUNDING PROGRAMS On January 15, 2018, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) issued a Call for Projects for the PBP and SRTS that aim to improve safety and increase the number of people walking or bicycling. Both programs utilize the City's 5 -year pedestrian and bicycle crash history, as recorded and provided by WSDOT. The PBP will award $18.4 million statewide and the SRTS will award $19.2 million as part of the 2018 Call for Projects. There is no minimum match required by applicants but preference will be given to projects with matching funds. Both funding programs share the same application. SRTS applications are due April 27, 2018 and PBP applications are due May 11, 2018. To focus current funding efforts, staff prioritized PBP/SRTS eligible elements taken from the projects identified in Table 1. Staff intends to submit a parallel application for these eligible elements. If the eligible elements are awarded funds, those dollars will reduce the overall project need from SRTC. • Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements: Eligible elements: sidewalks, pedestrian ramps and crossings, and traffic control. • Barker Road Corridor: Eligible elements: 10 -foot asphalt shared -use pathway. • Wilbur Road: Boone to Maxwell Eligible elements: 75% of project is on a designated Safe Routes to School. Page 2 of 4 PRIORITZED PROJECT LIST Four projects have been added to the proposed project list in Table 1 since Staffs administrative report to Council on March 13, 2018, on potential grant opportunities for 2018. During the March 13 administrative report, Council requested Staff to consider if specific phases of Pines/BNSF Grade Separation Project would be eligible for funding. After review, Staff concluded that the PE phase scheduled for 2018-2019 does not align with the 2020-2023 STBG funding window. However, the project's RW phase does align with this Call for Projects and has been added to Table 1. Also during the March 13 administrative report, Council inquired about the implementation of vertical reflective striping on the posts of stop signs or speed limit signs. This reflective strip is a low cost countermeasure that the City has incorporated in past capital projects. A preliminary count of eligible stop and speed limit signs was conducted and the project was added to Table 1 as an eligible application for the City Safety Program. There are approximately 600 signs on CSP safety -designated Priority 1 or 2 routes in the City. At the March 13 administrative report to Council, our project list included seven SRTC projects. Based on SRTC feedback, Staff now proposes ten projects for SRTC consideration plus two CSP specific projects. In addition to Pines/BNSF and reflective signpost striping, the following projects were added for SRTC consideration: • MuIlan Road Preservation — This is a preservation project on MuIlan from Broadway to Indiana. Generally, an asphalt grind and overlay with ITS conduit and the upgrading of all pedestrian facilities to meet ADA requirements. • Park Road Reconstruction (RW Phase Only) — This reconstruction and widening project provides a three -lane arterial section with bike lanes and adjacent sidewalk. The PE phase was funded in 2010 and this proposal initiates the RW phase. See Table 1 for the complete project list. OPTIONS: 1) Approve the list of recommended projects for SRTC, CSP, PBP, and SRTS grant applications as presented, 2) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager or designee to apply for SRTC, CSP, PBP, and SRTS grants as listed in Table 1. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Table 1 identifies the full City -match requirement should all projects be awarded. For the funding years 2020-2023, the City -match amount totals $2,418,675. • SRTC funds require a minimum City -match of 13.5%. • CSP funds require a minimum match of 10%. If a project is able to obligate CN funds by April 30, 2021, the 10% match for the CN phase is waived and is funded at 100%. For estimation purposes, City -match calculations included the 10% match for the CN phase. • PBP and SRTS programs do not require a City match. STAFF CONTACTS: Adam Jackson — Planning & Grants Engineer Colin Quinn -Hurst — Sr. Transportation Planner Mike Basinger — Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: Table 1 — Projects List PowerPoint Presentation Page 3 of 4 TABLE 1. Projects List' # Project Total Cost Secured Funds Funding Request Fund Source City Match (13.5%) Comment 1 Pines/BNSF GSP (RW Only) $3,000,000 $0 $2,595,000 STBG $405,000 City funded PE phase in 2018-19 2 Barker — Euclid to GarlandSTBG-SA $2,500,000 $106,500 $1,730,000 STBG $270,000 + $500,000 FMSIB. CSP/PBP Apps 3 Barker — River to EuclidSTBG-SA $3,800,000 $0 $2,629,600 STBG $410 400 + $760,000 FMSIB. CSP/PBP Apps 4 Barker — Garland to Trent $2,100,000 $0 $1,453,200 STBG STBG-SA $226,800 +$420,000 FMSIB. CSP/PBP Apps 5 Sprague & Barker Intersection $1,600,000 $140,220 $1,384,000 CMAQ $216,000 CSP/PBP/SRTS Apps 6 Pines & Mission Intersection $1,400,000 $0 $1,211,000 CMAQ $189,000 CSP Apps 7 Mullan Road $1,150,000 $0 $994,750 STBG $155,250 8 Argonne Reconstruction$1,348,500 $5,800,000 $0 $2,900,000 STBG $391,500 20% FMSIB + Need 9 Park Road (RW Only) $310,000 $0 $268,150 All $41,850 2010 PE funded by SRTC. 10 Wilbur Road Sidewalk $645,000* $0 $557,925 STBG-SA $87,075 *SRTS may fund up to 75% ($483,750) 11 Citywide Signal Backplates $180,000 $0 $162,000 CSP $18,000* *Indicates a 10% match, not 13.5% 12 Citywide Sign Post Reflectors $78,000 $0 $70,200 CSP $7,800* *Indicates a 10% match, not 13.5% TOTAL $22,563,000 $15,955,825 $2,418,675 'Note that estimated project costs are planning -level preliminary estimates and may change as more information becomes available and the grant applications are finalized. Page 4 of 4 Potential Grant Opportunities iiiikrie\' Valley Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) STBG - Set Aside (STBG-SA) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) City Safety Program (CSP) Pedestrian & Bicycle Program (PBP) Safe Routes to School (SRTS) March 27, 2018 Adam Jackson, P.E., Planning & Grants Engineer Colin Quinn -Hurst, Sr. Transportation Planner Economic Development Division SRTC Program Details Funding Window Eligible $ Est. City Award STBG 2020-2023 $16 Mil $3-6 Mil Total STBG - Set Aside 2021-2023 $ 2 Mil <$1 Mil Total CMAQ 2021-2023 $10 Mil <$3 Mil Total Pre -Application eligibility worksheets are due April 6th Applications are due May lith Preliminary award list announced in July, 2018 Project awards announced in August, 2018 1PO(Nl tFG ONA ItdlSPEITLTIcII [O1.110HI 2018 CSP Funding • $25 Million available — 2/3 for Spot Location projects — 1/3 for Systemic projects • 10% City match required — 90% funding from CSP for preliminary engineering (PE) and right-of-way (RW) phases. — 100% funding from CSP for construction (CN) phase if CN funds are authorized by April 30, 2021. • Applications Due April 16 • Project Awards Fall 2018 Highway Safety Improvement Program Data Dnven Decisions flAIF 0.1.11N, TUN 1-1,FIGHT BILlTY N,IESIC INVESTMENT BOARD rr.;313f-13.-, 3 2018 PBP & SRTS Funding LOCal Fcda•a1 &Id V71 1.0jad 1.411.4 4,4.111.• 21 • .11,1411 ...11.011.1.- '51 VAILIX INVISTAAird 130410 • • 41.4.4...1••••••• ▪ "mak I ..• • < a .... •441.41.1,44-14• "4,14, ITV 4.6.1 Pth •••••••••• .11 •11, e*, yak at tin 5/ ".04• ro.4...••• 1.4;0;2 TI• laMwa.• 4.44114. -.4 14.- re.114...• r." • 1.1.4.1., ..1{..-11 ea' f. • .41.1.1•... sq.: etaa.,....ora • 6.1 ,11,441.44.4414, RIO 1 nrta4*, • N. • 411.1k 11WWashington State Department of Transportation Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Expected Funding Amount • Applications Due • Final Project Awards Safe Routes to School Program Expected Funding Amount • Applications Due • Final Project Awards $18.4 M May 11 June 2019 $19.2 M April 27 June 2019 4 2018 Recommended Projects (12 Total) Pines GSP (RW Phase Only) Argonne Concrete Reconstruction Park Road (RW Phase Only) MuIlan Road Preservation Wilbur Road Sidewalk Project r■•.••..f0 160 E Sprague Ave Trent Ave E MansfieldAve Ef90Fw, E1 OFwyEa9op 11 ■ ■ ■ ■• _ e � E 1 g0 Fwy E f 90 F ESthAve ,4 •Au••..1. i* ■ n . ( ~41 E 32nd Barker Road Corridor (3 separate phases) Pines & Mission Intersection Improvement Sprague & Barker Intersection Improvement f Citywide Signal Backplates Project Citywide Signpost Reflectors Project Pines/BNSF GSP (RW Only) STBG Funding Request: $2,595,000 City Match: $405,000 (13.5%) Project Scope: Purchase Right -of -Way for the project, as required by the engineering design that is scheduled to be completed during 2018 and 2019. Funding may come from STBG and/or CMAQ. Fund Source Amount % Comments SRTC Request $ 2,595,000 86.5% City $ 405,000 13.5% Other - - Total $ 3,000,000 100% 2018-2023 TIP #6 Barker Road Corridor - 3 Projects STBG Funding Request: $5,812,800 City Match: $907,200 (13.5%) Project Scope: Widen existing two-lane road to a three -lane arterial with a 10' shared -use path; partner with Spokane County for sewer installation. Actual project limits will stop at the southern extent of proposed grade separation. Fund Source Amount % Comments STBG Request $ 5,812,800 69% FMSIB Request $ 1,680,000 20% 20% FMSIB Partnership City $ 907,200 11% STBG match 13.5% Other - - CSP/PBP Total $ 8,400,000 100% 2018-2023 TIP #20, 25 Sprague & Barker Intersection CMAQ Funding Request: $1,384,000 City Match: $216,000 (13.5%) Project Scope: Intersection capacity improvements (signal or roundabout) with consideration to WSDOT proposed improvements at the Barker/I-90 interchange. Fund Source Amount % Comments CMAQ Request $ 1,384,000 86.5% 2021-2023 Funds City $ 216,000 13.5% Other - - CSP/PBP/SRTS Total $ 1,600,000 100% 2018-2023 TIP #1 8 Pines & Mission Improvement CMAQ Funding Request: $1,211,000 (All Phases) City Match (CMAQ ONLY): $189,000 (13.5%) Project Scope: Phase 1: Reconfigure signal operation to provide westbound Mission with left turn, through, and right turn lanes; and Phase 2 to add Pines southbound right turn lane onto Mission, add Mission eastbound duel left turn lanes on to Pines. Fund Source Amount % Comments CMAQ Request $ 1,211,000 86.5% 2021-2023 Funds City Match $ 189,000 13.5% Other - - Developer/CSP Total $ 1,400,000 100% 2018-2023 TIP #27 Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 33,000 (Pines) & 9,000 (Mission) Mullan Road Preservation STBG Funding Request: $994,750 City Match: $155,250 (13.5%) Project Scope: From Broadway to Indiana, provide an asphalt grind and inlay to upgrade the average pavement condition index rating of 40 to 98. Project also provides ITS conduit for future fiber installation to improve signal phasing along the corridor. Fund Source Amount % Comments STBG Request $ 994,750 86.5% 2021-2023 Funds City $ 155,250 13.5% Other - - CSP/PBP/SRTS Total $ 1,150,000 100% 10 Argonne Reconstruction STBG Funding Request: $2,900,000 City Match: $391,500 (13.5%) Project Scope: Remove and Replace (R&R) seven lanes of asphalt with reinforced concrete pavement. Signal modifications and turning improvements proposed at Montgomery intersection. All sidewalk curb ramps and street crossings will be updated to comply with current regulations as applicable. Fund Source Amount % Comments STBG Request $ 2,900,000 50% FMSIB Request $ 1,160,000 20% 20% FMSIB Partnership City $ 391,500 7% STBG match 13.5% Other $ 1,348,500 23% Total $ 5,800,000 100% !lc eye cc York Ave z E MondgemeryAve E Monte. Lepend S'= _ r z E MontgomeryA E Shannon AveE Z S a a z o EI00� 87 OFF $Ramp Ramp F\9° a E1 �19p�2 ENora z Z 04) MI O.y»Y. -.‘°.E2.3.,7 Rare p E MissionA 2018-2023 TIP # 11 Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 36,000 Park Road Widening and Reconst. (RW Only) STBG Funding Request: $268,150 City Match: $41,850 (13.5%) Project Scope: Purchase RW based on existing 90% engineering design drawings. Extends from the intersection of Broadway to just south of Indiana. PE Phase of the project was originally funded by SRTC in 2009 via STBG funds. Fund Source Amount % Comments STBG Request $ 268,150 86.5% City $ 41,850 13.5% Other - - Total $ 310,000 100% E Sha ,va . r LOOM d al MLJ Lir UL He 2018-2023 TIP #15 12 Wilbur Road Sidewalk STBG-SA Funding Request: $557,925 (All Phases City Match (STBG-SA Only): $87,075 (13.5%) Project Scope: From Boone to Mission, provide new 6' adjacent sidewalk, curb and gutter, existing stormwater upgrades, and limited asphalt widening to one side of the road. Fund Source Amount % Comments STBG-SA Request $ 557,925 86.5% 2021-2023 Funds City Match $ 87,075 13.5% Other - - PBP/SRTS Total $ 645,000 100% Safe Routes to School Citywide Signal Backplates (CSP) CSP Funding Request: $162,000 City Match: $18,000 (10%) Project Scope: Order and install retro-reflectorized borders to traffic signal backplates to increase traffic control visibility and visual cues for drivers at night. Project assumes 15 intersections at $12,000 each. Locations to be determined. Fund Source Amount % Comments CSP Request $ 162,000 90% City Match $ 18,000 10% Match for CN phase waived if funds authorized by 04/30/2021 Other - - Total $ 180,000 100% t c<C . i.'!I" IIJ C.. to .. NC d SSN s E 190 FIN), E 190 FA, Cel E32ndA 14 Citywide Signpost Reflectors (CSP) CSP Funding Request: $70,200 City Match: $7,800 (10%) Project Scope: Order and install retro-reflectorized vertical strips to mount on sign posts to improve sign visibility. Typically applied to stop signs, speed limit signs, or yellow warning signs. Project estimate assumes 600 signposts. Locations to be determined. Fund Source Amount % Comments CSP Request $ 70,200 90% City Match $ 7,800 10% Match for CN phase waived if funds authorized by 04/30/2021 Other - - Total $ 78,000 100% 15 Project Funding Summary # Project Total Cost Secured Funds Funding Request Fund Source City Match (13.5%) Comment 1 Pines/BNSF GSP (RW Only) $3,000,000 $0 $2,595,000 STBG $405,000 City -funded PE phase in 2018-19 2 Barker — Euclid to Garland $2,500,000 $106,500 $1,730,000 STBG STBG-SA $270,000 + $500,000 FMSIB. CSP/PBP Apps 3 Barker— River to Euclid $3,800,000 $0 $2,629,600 STBG STBG-SA $410,400 +$760,000 FMSIB. CSP/PBP Apps 4$2,100,000,453,200 Barker — Garland to TrentSTBG-SA $0 $1 STBG $226800 , + $420,000 FMSIB. CSP/PBP Apps 5 Sprague & Barker Intersection $1,600,000 $140,220 $1,384,000 CMAQ $216,000 CSP/PBP/SRTS Apps 6 Pines & Mission Intersection $1,400,000 $0 $1,211,000 CMAQ $189,000 CSP Apps 7 Mullan Road $1,150,000 $0 $994,750 STBG $155,250 TIB 8 Argonne Reconstruction $5,800,000 $0 $2,900,000 STBG $391,500 20% FMSIB + $1,348,500 Need 9 Park Road (RW Only) $310,000 $0 $268,150 STBG $41,850 2010 PE funded by SRTC. 10 Wilbur Road Sidewalk $645,000* $0 $557,925 STBG-SA $87,075 *SRTS ($401 may fund up to 75% ($401,250) 11 Citywide Signal Backplates $180,000 $0 $162,000 CSP $18,000* *Indicates a 10% match, not 13.5% 12 Citywide Signpost Reflectors $78,000 $0 $70,200 CSP $7,800* *Indicates a 10% match, not 13.5% TOTAL $22,563,000 $15,955,825 $2,418,675 Questions? SRTC 5i0ttti16 iEr2tOIRL IIIANS1 3111lIOlt COUNCIL U .S Department of Tra sporlol cir Federal Highway Administration Highway Safety Improvement Program Data Oriven Decisions Washington State V/ Department of Transportation 17 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 27, 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: Barker Road/BSNF Grade Separation Project (Barker Road GSP) Alternative Selection GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual Advanced Six -Year plans for coordinated transportation program expenditures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • May 7, 2013 — Administrative Report, Bridging the Valley • June 23, 2015 — Passed Resolution No. 17-011 adopting the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which included both the Barker Road and the Pines Road Grade Separation Projects (GSP) • April 5, 2016 — Admin Report for use of federal earmark funds • November 8, 2016 — Information Report on the status of the Barker GSP • November 15, 2016 — Administrative Report on the Barker GSP status • November 22, 2016 — Informational RCA • December 6, 2016 — Administrative Report • December 20, 2016 — Administrative Report • January 10, 2017 — Motion failed to contract with DEA for project design services • February 21, 2017 — Administrative Report • February 28, 2017 — Passed Resolution 17-006, amending the 2017 TIP • May 23, 2017 — Passed Resolution No. 17-011 adopting the 2018-2023 Six -Year TIP, which included the Grade Separation Project • August 22, 2017 — Passed motion to enter into a contract with DEA for the project's Phase 1 design • October 24, 2017 — Administrative Report to discuss alternatives • January 30, 2018 — Administrative Report to discuss alternatives with Council consensus to move the project forward with Alternative 5 • March 2, 2018 — Administrative Report to discuss alternatives • March 13, 2018 — Administrative Report to discuss history and alternatives • March 16, 2018 — Administrative Report for Council and Chamber of Commerce BACKGROUND: The City previously received a federal earmark grant of $719,921 and a $1.5M state legislative appropriation for the Barker Road GSP. These grant funds can be used for the design, right -of way and construction phases of the project. The City has also received a grant from the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Fund (FMSIB) for up to 20 percent of total project cost, not to exceed $10M, which can be used in the construction phase only. In October 2017, the City applied for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant. The City applied for the National Significant Freight and Highway Projects (INFRA) program in November 2017. In December 2017, the City was notified that it has been awarded $6.0M from the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP). This award requires the state legislature to appropriate the funds in the 2019-2020 biennium. The City must advertise bids no later than September of 2020 to qualify for the NHFP funds. On March 6, 2018, the City received preliminary confirmation that it has been awarded $9,020,149 from the TIGER 2017 program. A diamond interchange was originally proposed for the Barker GSP by SRTC's 2004 Bridging the Valley Evaluation and Study. The high cost of this concept, estimated at $36 million in 2016, made it difficult to obtain support from our regional funding partners. The current cost estimate for the interchange project is $41 million in 2018 dollars and $45 million in 2020 dollars. Staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for engineering design services for the Barker Road GSP in 2016 using the diamond interchange concept design. A consultant was selected and a scope of work was developed to design the facility. On January 10, 2017, Council did not pass the motion to award the contract to the Consultant. Since then, other Barker GSP alignments and configurations have been identified that will cost less to implement than the originally proposed diamond interchange. Throughout 2017, City staff worked closely with the Washington State Department of Transportation to develop alternatives to the interchange design in order to implement a practical solution for the intersection. An RFQ was issued for planning and design of the Barker Road GSP in March 2017. David Evans & Associates (DEA) was selected as the most highly qualified firm. Council passed a motion on August 22, 2017 to move forward with the project design in two phases, and awarded the contract to DEA. In the first phase of the project, the Consultant analyzed and compared six alternatives in terms of cost, right-of-way needs, impacts to existing properties, constructability, safety, and other pertinent project elements, so the City could select the preferred alternative. The evaluation resulted in Alternative 5 being a fiscally responsible and attainable project solution. In the second phase, slated to begin in April 2018, the Consultant will complete the preliminary engineering design of the selected alternative. OPTIONS: Staff is recommending the selection of Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative to move forward. Council can concur with staff or select another option for moving forward. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize City Staff to utilize Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative in moving the Barker Road Grade Separation Project forward. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $19 Million STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Bill Helbig, City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Presentation ad / BNSF Railroad Grade Separation Project at State Route 290 Spokane Valley native Selection March 27, 2018 John Hohman, PE, Deputy City Manager Bill Helbig, PE, City Engineer Project Description March 27, 2018 The Barker Road/BNSF Railroad Grade Separation Project replaces an existing at -grade crossing with an overpass of the railroad tracks and improves the intersection of Barker Road with State Route 290 (Trent Avenue). 2 Project Location March 27, 2018 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation Project Pines Rd!BNSF Grade Separation Project Flora Rd At -Grade Closure S` `"okane P .0.10Va11ey Local & Regional Benefits March 27, 2018 Improves Safety Eliminates At -Grade Railroad Crossing Improves Failing Level of Service Improves Emergency Access Reduces Train Noise Adds Non -Motorized Facilities Promotes Economic Development Activities Allows Industrial Growth of Area 4 Traffic and Crash Data Existing Trains per Day Vehicle ADT at Crossing Existing Level of Service Proposed Level of Service Daily Train Whistles Acres of Undeveloped Land Total Vehicle Accidents Since 2012 Injury Accidents Since 2012 Property Damage Accidents Since 2012 Crash Risk (fatalities/year) 56 5,500 F A 112 575 17 4 13 0.047 Spokane .0,0s Valley Original Diamond Interchange Proposal March 27, 2018 Original Concept from SRTC's Bridging the Valley (2004) Revisited as Part of City's 2017 Alternative Evaluation Not the Most Cost - Effective Option Traffic Analysis does not Warrant the Use of Diamond Interchange Opinion of Probable Cost: Approximately $45.3 Million (Assumes 2020 Construction) 5 SLY DESIGN fAl'ul-iEs • Barker Rd overpas of RNSF end Trent AVe - 511:1PgRalks anC bicycle lanes on Barker Ptd - interchange rarrips tieNoeien Barker Rd ancl Trent Ave - cksw iOrelle-siey Ave bridge weer r,otA Are and emSf cf FlpraRg1721,13r a$-rade.nressing to Elle N VITA GRANDE DR A IfY E W.511 -EY AVE r HAIL Exi5ling Futra - Future sidiri GENERAL LEGEND Future bilige Future No S.,;pIe Future retaining wall Design Considerations March 27, 2018 Original Bridging the Valley (BTV) Concept Assumed BNSF and Union Pacific (UP) Collated in same Track Right -of -Way Six Railroad Tracks in the BTV Concept UP and BNSF Decided not to Collate Tracks in the same Right -of -Way BNSF Plans to Install Second Track in 2019-2020 Bridge Span will be Coordinated with BNSF to Account for Future Needs Spokane .000 Valley 2017 Alternatives Evaluation March 27, 2018 Phase 1 — Alternatives Evaluation Identify & Compare Several Scenarios All Scenarios Considered the Possible Impacts of Vehicle & Pedestrian Safety, Right -of -Way Needs, Traffic Modeling & Total Project Costs Roadway Alignment Overpass vs Underpass Signal vs Roundabout 7 Evaluate Different Roadway Alignments Affecting Barker Road, SR -290, and Wellesley Avenue Evaluate Grade Separation Alternatives for Barker Road & BNSF Railroad Tracks Intersection Control & Traffic Safety Analyses S` ikane P �� Valley 2017 Alternatives Evaluation March 27, 2018 Alternative 1 $27.3M Alternative 2 $19.8M Alternative 3 $24.2M Alternative 4 $11.4M Alternative 6 $22.0M 8 Alternative 5 $19.0M Project Costs Assume 2020 Construction Preferred Alternative —Alternative 5 March 27, 2018 January 2018 Basis of Design (WSDOT Requirement) 3 -Leg Roundabout Does NOT Preclude Connection to North Estimated Total Cost: $19.0 Million (2020 Construction) IF 0 200 SCOLE IN FEET ,00 HIGH EST LLC HIGH -EST. LLG HIGH EST LLC EOPANSF HART S HART ENTERPRISES. LLC, JLVV COMMERCIAL LLC LEGEND JOVI LLC PROPERTIES LLC S uk Ic ballcr DATE' OCTOBER 2017 TPTttf,:. t a Y BARKER RD / BNSF GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 5 PRELIMINARY I NOTE •"01550CIAT ES .c. FD� DAVID E Public Outreach March 27, 2018 7 Council Meetings — Bridging the ValleyConcept 9 Council Meetings — Alternative Designs including Roundabouts 8 Formal Public Presentations to Outside Groups & Agencies Presentation of Alternatives 1 Formal Public Meeting — Over 120 in Attendance Most Favor the Project — Alternative 1 or 5 Highland Estates Concerned with Impacts to Del Rey Drive Numerous Meetings with Local Business & Agencies Police & Fire Departments School Districts Spokane 10 Local Businesses & Property Owners .000 Valley Project Funding March 27, 2018 2018 Estimated Total Project Cost: Secured Funds: Federal Earmark WA State FMSIB (20%) WA State Legislative Appropriation (Must Spend by 06/19) National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) (Obligate CN by 09/20) BNSF Contribution (Estimated) TIGER 2017 (Obligate by 09/20 & Spend by 09/25) City Funds Budgeted 11 Total Secured Funds * Funds with Critical Timeframes (Shown in Red) ** FMSIB Award — 20% of Total Cost, $10M Limit, Construction Only $ 19,000,000 $ 720,000 $ 3,800,000 $ 1,500,000 * $ 6,000,000 * $ 300,000 $ 9,020,149 * $ 3,630,000 ** $ 24,970,149 Spokane .0.10Valley Summary March 27, 2018 12 Bridging the Valley Interchange Concept not a Practical Solution Coordinated Planning Efforts with WSDOT, Stakeholders, Public Full Suite of Alternatives Developed & Evaluated Identified a Fiscally Responsible and Attainable Project Solution Ensures Adequate Infrastructure for all Anticipated Growth Existing and Future Permitting Depends on the City Moving Quickly with a Solution Alternative 5 — Validated by Recent Grant Awards Totaling over $15 million S`P Okane _ Valley Next Steps March 27, 2018 Complete Conceptual Work (Early 2018) Alternatives Evaluation Report Receive Basis of Design approval from WSDOT Seek Council Approval for Phase 2 Consultant Contract — April 3rd Design Documents Right -Of -Way Services Construction Documents Complete Phase 2 Elements (2018 — 2020) Phase 3 Construction (2020 — 2021) Project Closeout (2022) 13 Spokane .000 Valley Questions? March 27, 2018 DATE. OCTOBER BOW LEGEND = x, t NOTE BARKER RD ! BNSF GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 5 BY, RP&1 PRELIMINARY 14 Spokane .000 Valley DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of March 21, 2018; 9:50 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings April 3, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Mar 271 ACTION ITEM: 1. Motion Consideration: Barker BNSF Grade Separation Design Contract — Bill Helbig NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Airport Update — Larry Krauter 3. 32' Avenue Sidewalk — Bill Helbig 4. GSI Contract — Mike Basinger, Chaz Bates 5. Outside Agency, Allocation History/Discussion — Chelsie Taylor 6. Street O&M Pavement Preservation & Street Construction — Adam Jackson, Mike Basinger 7. Advance Agenda [*estimated meeting: 1 April 10, 2018, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due T 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-008 MClmetro Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-009 Verizon Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 18-010 Mobilitie Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell 5. Motion Consideration: 32nd Avenue Sidewalk — Gloria Mantz, Rob Lochmiller 6. Admin Rpt: License Agreement Ptn Dora, Felts Field — Cary Driskell 7. Advance Agenda April 17, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: 8h Ave. Sidewalk, Thierman to Dickey- Erica Amsden, Gloria Mantz NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Waste Management Transition Report — Erik Lamb, Tami Yager 3. Quarterly Police Department Report — Chief Werner 4. Broadway/Argonne/Mullan Concrete Intersection — Gloria Mantz, Rob Lochmiller 5. Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection Design Alternatives — Gloria Mantz 6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (20 minutes) (60 minutes) (5 minutes) 50 mins] ue Apri13] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 mins] Idue Tue April 10] (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 75 mins] April 24, 2018, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 17] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Brdway/Argonne/Mullan Con. Int. Bid Award — G. Mantz, R.Lochmiller (10 min) 3. Motion Consideration: Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection Design Selection — Gloria Mantz (10 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: License Agreement Ptn. Dora, Felts Field — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Economic Analysis of Tourism Related Venues & Events — Chelsie Taylor (45 minutes) 6. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 7. Info Item: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 85 mins] May 1, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Spokane Regional Health District Opioid Epidemic — Dr. Lutz 2. Advance Agenda [due Tue April 24] (25 minutes) (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 3/22/2018 9:51:58 AM Page 1 of 2 Mav 8, 2018, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. Proclamations: Lemonade Day, May 19, 2018; Lupus Awareness Month 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Advance Agenda May 15, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda Mav 22, 2018, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Advance Agenda 3. Info Item: Department Reports May 29, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda June 5, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Retail Recruitment Plan — Chaz Bates 2. Advance Agenda June 12, 2018, Special Meetin2, Budget Workshop (8:30 a.m. — 3:30 p.m.) *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Animal Control Regulations (SVMC 7.30) BNSF 2nd Rail Camping in RVs Citizen Recognition (city keys) City Hall Generator Donation Recognition Duplex/Single Family Dwellings Definition Governance Manual ITS/SRTMC Discussion Legislative Remote Testimony (Chambers) Naming City Facilities Protocol Neighborhood Restoration Program Police Dept. Quarterly Rpt (April, July, Oct, Jan) Police Precinct Lease Renewal (Nov '18) Sign Ordinance Street Illumination (ownership, cost, location) Tobacco 21 Resolution Transportation & Infrastructure SV Youth Voices Utility Facilities in ROW 2018 Budget Amendment [due Tue Mav 11 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Mav 81 (5 minutes) [due Tue Mav 151 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue May 221 1due Tue May 291 (20 minutes) 1due Tue June 51 Draft Advance Agenda 3/22/2018 9:51:58 AM Page 2 of 2 Spokane �.�Valley Memorandum FINANCE DEPARTMENT Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org To: Mark Calhoun, City Manager From: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Date: March 20, 2018 Re: Finance Department Activity Report — February 2018 Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of February 2018 and included herein is an updated 2017 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the end of December. For the next couple of months we'll focus our financial analysis on 2017 rather than 2018 because how 2017 wraps up will largely guide our decision making process as we progress towards the 2019 Budget development process. 2017 Yearend Process In February we have continued to work on closing the books for 2017, and we hope to have this process complete by the end of March. This process typically continues through March because we continue to receive additional information pertaining to 2017 for both revenues and expenditures (particularly construction related activity). Following the closing of the books, we will begin the process of preparing our annual financial report which will be finished by the end of May. We hope to have the State Auditor's Office on site by early June to begin the audit of 2017. Budget to Actual Comparison Report A report reflecting 2017 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2017 Budget was adopted is located on pages 5 through 18. It's important to keep in mind that the figures included are preliminary and we anticipate they will continue to change as a result of the fact that we continue to receive invoices related to 2017 expenditure activity as well as some additional revenues. We will follow up with final 2017 figures once the books are closed. We've included the following information in the report: • Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and by type in all other funds. • A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, Street O&M Fund and Stormwater Fund. • The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund balance figures are those that are reflected in our 2016 Annual Financial Report. • Columns of information include: o The 2017 Budget as adopted o December 2017 activity o Cumulative 2017 activity through December 2017 o Budget remaining in terms of dollars o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201812018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3.docx Page 1 A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 5): Recurring revenues collections are currently at 106.01% of the amount budgeted with 100.00% of the year elapsed. • Property tax are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on April 30 and October 31 and are then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with lesser amounts typically remitted in June and December. Property taxes received thus far in 2017 are $11,613,056 or 99.99% of the amount budgeted. In January we received one final payment related to 2017 collections that is reflected herein. • Sales tax collections finished the year at $21,089,134 which was $1,237,034 or 6.23% greater than the amount budgeted. • Gambling taxes are at $388,059 which is $46,559 or 13.63% greater than the amount budgeted. Gambling taxes are paid quarterly with fourth quarter payments due by January 31St. At this point we have received and booked most of the 2017 revenues and accrued an estimate for amounts yet to be collected. • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter. In 2017 we have received $1,276,209 which is $76,209 or 6.35% greater than the amount budgeted. • State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a calendar quarter. These have collectively finished the year at $2,383,510 which is $278,910 or 13.25% greater than the amount budgeted. • Fines and forfeitures revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine and false alarm fees. These have finished the year at $890,830 which is $470,170 or 34.55% less than the amount budgeted. • Community Development service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as right of way permits. Revenues finished the year at $2,219,900 which is $770,600 or 53.17% greater than the amount budgeted. The amount collected is far in excess of the amount of the budget expectation primarily due to several large construction projects in the City that were permitted during 2017. • Recreation program fees are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in -season), and CenterPlace. The year ended with revenues totaling $711,489 which is $70,589 or 11.01% greater than the amount budgeted. Recurring expenditures are currently at $35,212,873 or 87.67% of the amount budgeted with 100.00% of the year elapsed. Once all invoices related to 2017 activity are received and booked, we anticipate a higher percentage of the budget will be consumed. Investments (page 19) Investments at December 31 total $54,289,616 and are composed of $49,254,686 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,034,930 in bank CDs. Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 20) Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through December and total $23,837,199 including general, criminal justice, and public safety taxes. This figure is $1,396,548 or 6.22% greater than the same twelve-month period in 2016. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201812018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3.docx Page 2 Economic Indicators (pages 21 — 23) The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 21) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 23) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 21 provides a 10 -year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) with monthly detail beginning January 2009. • Compared with calendar year 2017, 2018 collections have increased by $86,139 or 4.32%. • Tax receipts reached an all-time high in 2017 at $21,089,134, besting the previous record year of 2016 when $19,887,049 was collected. Sales tax receipts in 2017 exceeded $20 million for the first time since the City's incorporation. Page 22 provides a 10 -year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2009. • Compared with calendar year 2017, 2018 collections have increased by $1,542 or 5.67%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2017 of $615,980, exceeding the previous high set in 2016 of $596,374. Page 23 provides a 10 -year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2009. • Compared with calendar year 2017, 2018 collections have increased by $85,776 or 55.82%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2017 of $3,007,573, exceeding the previous high set in 2007 of $2,589,681. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 24) This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. • The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value for property taxes which for 2018 is $8,634,114,798. Following the December 1, 2017 debt service payments, the City has $12,790,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 9.88% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.98% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. Of this amount: o $4,875,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $865,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. o $7,050,000 remains on bonds issued for construction of the new City Hall. The bonds are to be repaid with General Fund revenues. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201812018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3.docx Page 3 Street Fund Revenue Sources (pages 25 and 26) The last two charts reflect a history for the two primary sources of revenue in Street Fund #101. These include: • Page 25 provides a 10 -year history of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2009. o Compared with calendar year 2017, 2018 collections have increased by $11,705 or 7.77%. o Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at just approximately $2.1 million, and subsequently decreased to a range of approximately $1,857,000 to $2,000,000 in the years 2011 through 2017. • Page 26 provides a 10 -year history of Telephone Utility Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2009. o Compared with 2017, 2018 collections have decreased by $24,639 or 15.14%. Unlike tax revenues collected by the State and remitted monthly, these taxes are paid to the City directly by the service provider. Consequently there is not a "clean cutoff' in terms of when a vendor pays the tax. Tax revenues currently reported for December include those that were received through January 31St o Tax receipts peaked in 2009 at $3,054,473 and have decreased each year since due to what we suspect is the reduction in land lines by individual households. o The 2017 Budgeted revenues were amended down by $200,000 to $2,000,000, and actual receipts came in at approximately $1.9 million. o The City has hired a consultant to perform an audit of providers who pay the telephone utility tax. The audit will assess whether providers are accurately remitting all taxes owed to the City, and the consultant will be paid on a contingent basis out of revenues recovered from the telephone providers. Two audits have been completed, with one more expected to be completed in 2018. The City thus far has received payments in the amount of $185,194 which is comprised of recovered revenue plus interest and penalty fees. Per the contract with the consultant, the City paid $46,299 or 25% of the amount recovered. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201812018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3.docx Page 4 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports \2018\201 8 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 #001 - GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Property Tax 11,614,500 577,163 11,613,056 (1,444) 99.99% Sales Tax 19,852,100 3,625,806 21,089,134 1,237,034 106.23% Sales Tax - Public Safety 919,000 165,334 983,025 64,025 106.97% Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 1,669,000 295,846 1,765,040 96,040 105.75% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 341,500 97,631 388,059 46,559 113.63% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,200,000 300,069 1,276,209 76,209 106.35% State Shared Revenues 2,104,600 610,610 2,383,510 278,910 113.25% Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 1,361,000 129,837 890,830 (470,170) 65.45% Community Development 1,449,300 119,899 2,219,900 770,600 153.17% Recreation Program Fees 640,900 29,607 711,489 70,589 111.01% Miscellaneous Department Revenue 94,000 13,727 141,162 47,162 150.17% Miscellaneous & Investment Interest 133,500 97,569 440,568 307,068 330.01 % Transfer -in - #101 (street admin) 39,700 3,308 39,700 0 100.00% Transfer -in - #105 (h/m tax -CP advertising) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Transfer -in - #402 (storm admin) 13,400 1,117 13,400 0 100.00% Total Recurring Revenues 41,462,500 6,067,523 43,955,081 2,492,581 106.01% Expenditures City Council 542,872 37,452 408,119 134,753 75.18% City Manager 724,435 51,786 610,157 114,278 84.23% Legal 515,994 46,161 479,148 36,846 92.86% Public Safety 24,950,372 1,558,476 22,037,301 2,913,071 88.32% Deputy City Manager 752,277 64,643 691,438 60,839 91.91% Finance / IT 1,282,460 106,059 1,231,814 50,646 96.05% Human Resources 262,417 20,998 252,543 9,874 96.24% Public Works 921,632 88,197 758,949 162,683 82.35% City Hall Operations and Maintenance 303,918 83,807 94,957 208,961 31.24% Community Development - Administration 228,462 6,292 89,921 138,541 39.36% Community Development - Econ Dev 692,832 116,353 671,955 20,877 96.99% Community Development - Dev Svc 1,433,384 108,739 1,122,520 310,864 78.31% Community Development - Building 1,481,734 93,803 1,181,302 300,432 79.72% Parks & Rec - Administration 296,764 24,391 288,184 8,580 97.11% Parks & Rec - Maintenance 861,350 129,262 846,733 14,617 98.30% Parks & Rec - Recreation 246,295 10,028 163,317 82,978 66.31 % Parks & Rec - Aquatics 497,350 48,541 471,815 25,535 94.87% Parks & Rec - Senior Center 95,916 7,507 90,275 5,641 94.12% Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 901,958 114,983 866,719 35,239 96.09% General Government 1,240,850 220,376 958,557 282,293 77.25% Transfers out - #204 ('16 LTGO bond debt service) 430,630 33,113 397,350 33,280 92.27% Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 160,000 13,333 160,000 0 100.00% Transfers out - #311 (Pavement Preservation) 953,200 79,433 953,200 0 100.00% Transfers out - #501 36,600 3,050 36,600 0 100.00% Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 350,000 29,167 350,000 0 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 40,163,702 3,095,951 35,212,873 4,950,829 87.67% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 1,298,798 2,971,572 8,742,209 7,443,411 Page 5 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 #001 - GENERAL FUND - continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Transfers in - #106 (Repymt of Solid Waste) 40,425 3,369 40,425 0 100.00% Transfers in - #310 (Lease in excess of bond pymt) 498,500 48,875 498,500 0 100.00% Transfer -in - #501 77,000 77,000 77,000 0 100.00% FEMA Grant Proceeds 0 0 22,869 22,869 0.00% Grant Proceeds - Dept of Commerce 114,200 0 114,200 0 100.00% Miscellaneous (donation) 35,000 0 34,723 (277) 99.21 % Total Nonrecurring Revenues 765,125 129,244 787,717 22,592 102.95% Expenditures General Government - IT capital replacements 177,000 20,501 137,837 39,163 77.87% City Hall lease payment (2017 final year) 513,100 0 438,565 74,535 85.47% Police Department - CAD/RMS 145,000 24,852 131,018 13,982 90.36% Community & Econ Dev (retail recruitment) 50,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 60.00% Com & Econ Dev (NE Industrial Area PAO) 114,200 0 114,200 0 100.00% Parks & Rec (Browns Park water lines) 30,000 0 12,230 17,770 40.77% Parks & Rec (pool drain pipe & gutter line repairs) 12,000 0 0 12,000 0.00% Parks & Rec (replace Great Room audio/visual) 345,000 307,534 307,733 37,267 89.20% Parks & Rec (parks equipment- donation) 35,000 28,322 28,322 6,678 80.92% Parks & Rec (replace carpet at CenterPlace) 24,750 0 16,061 8,689 64.89% Transfers out - #122 258,000 0 258,000 0 100.00% Transfers out - #312 3,003,929 0 3,003,929 0 100.00% Transfers out - #314 (Pines Underpass design) 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 0 100.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 5,907,979 411,209 5,677,894 230,085 96.11 % Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (5,142,854) (281,965) (4,890,178) 252,676 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (3,844,056) 2,689,607 3,852,031 7,696,087 Beginning fund balance 29,073,972 29,073,972 Ending fund balance 25,229,916 32,926,003 Page 6 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports \2018\201 8 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 - STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Telephone Utility Tax 2,000,000 154,973 1,735,555 (264,445) 86.78% Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax 2,040,300 347,645 2,032,175 (8,126) 99.60% Multimodal Transportation 98,868 33,722 98,994 126 100.13% Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee 50,000 0 71,112 21,112 142.22% Investment Interest 4,000 1,533 7,843 3,843 196.07% Miscellaneous Revenue 10,000 0 0 (10,000) 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 4,203,168 537,873 3,945,678 (257,490) 93.87% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 754,872 92,659 811,402 (56,530) 107.49% Supplies 105,000 6,190 98,747 6,253 94.04% Services & Charges 2,168,151 328,355 2,075,239 92,912 95.71% Snow Operations 468,000 (164,110) 636,835 (168,835) 136.08% Intergovernmental Payments 795,000 157,572 758,327 36,673 95.39% Interfund Transfers -out - #001 39,700 3,308 39,700 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers -out - #501 (non -plow vehicle reg 23,250 8,432 23,250 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers -out - #501 (plow replace.) 77,929 0 77,929 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers -out - #31 1 (pavement preserve 67,342 5,612 67,342 0 100.00% Signal Detection Replacement Program 40,000 0 49,702 (9,702) 124.25% Total Recurring Expenditures 4,539,244 438,018 4,638,472 (99,228) 102.19% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures (336,076) 99,854 (692,794) (356,718) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grants 0 0 1,341 1,341 0.00% Insurance proceeds (traffic signal cabinet) 0 1,743 85,074 85,074 0.00% Utility tax recovery 0 41,984 89,485 89,485 0.00% Interest & penalties on utility taxes 0 23,883 49,412 49,412 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 67,611 225,312 225,312 0.00% Expenditures Durable striping at Trent & Argonne 75,000 0 0 75,000 0.00% Spare traffic signal equipment 30,000 610 15,579 14,421 51.93% Battery backups for intersections 15,000 0 0 15,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 120,000 610 15,579 104,421 12.98% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (120,000) 67,000 209,733 329,733 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (456,076) 166,854 (483,061) Beginning fund balance 1,318,504 1,318,504 Ending fund balance 862,428 835,443 Page 7 (26,985) P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued #103 - PATHS & TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Capital Outlay Total expenditures Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget 8,600 1,466 8,571 (29) 99.66% 0 87 370 370 0.00% 8,600 1,553 8,941 341 103.96% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 8,600 1,553 8,941 341 Beginning fund balance 37,384 37,384 Ending fund balance 45,984 46,324 #104 - TOURISM FACILITIES HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel Tax 377,000 54,776 400,509 23,509 106.24% Investment Interest 0 1,813 6,854 6,854 0.00% Interfund Transfer -in - #105 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 100.00% Total revenues 627,000 Expenditures Capital Expenditures 0 Total expenditures 306,588 657,363 30,363 104.84% 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 627,000 306,588 657,363 30,363 Beginning fund balance 571,232 571,232 Ending fund balance 1,198,232 1,228,595 #105 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest 580,000 84,270 615,981 35,981 106.20% 500 937 3,549 3,049 709.76% Total revenues 580,500 85,207 619,529 39,029 106.72% Expenditures Interfund Transfers - #001 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Interfund Transfers - #104 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 100.00% Tourism Promotion 354,000 137,267 351,674 2,326 99.34% Total expenditures 634,000 387,267 601,674 32,326 94.90% Revenues over (under) expenditures (53,500) (302,060) 17,855 Beginning fund balance 219,790 219,790 Ending fund balance 166,290 237,645 Page 8 6,704 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports \2018\201 8 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget #106 - SOLID WASTE Revenues Sunshine Administrative Fee 125,000 96,250 237,550 (112,550) 190.04% Investment Interest 0 495 1,335 (1,335) 0.00% Grant Proceeds 26,800 0 59,389 (32,589) 221.60% Total revenues 151,800 96,745 298,274 (146,474) 196.49% Expenditures Interfund Transfers - #001 40,425 3,369 40,425 0 100.00% Education & Contract Administration 111,375 4,562 81,288 30,087 72.99% Total expenditures 151,800 7,930 121,713 30,087 80.18% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 88,814 176,560 (176,560) Beginning fund balance 79,122 79,122 Ending fund balance 79,122 255,682 #107 - PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG Contribution Investment Interest 80,000 17,093 76,471 3,529 95.59% 0 141 1,676 (1,676) 0.00% Total revenues 80,000 17,234 78,147 1,853 97.68% Expenditures PEG COSV Broadcast Capital Outlay 12,500 0 209 12,291 1.68% New City Hall Council Chambers 250,000 26,198 263,441 (13,441) 105.38% Total expenditures 262,500 26,198 263,650 (1,150) 100.44% Revenues over (under) expenditures (182,500) (8,964) (185,504) 3,004 Beginning fund balance 240,341 240,341 Ending fund balance 57,841 54,837 #120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 Page 9 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget #121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 21,900 0 16,575 (5,325) 75.68% Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues Expenditures Operations Total expenditures 21,900 0 16,575 (5,325) 75.68% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 21,900 0 16,575 (5,325) Beginning fund balance 5,483,425 5,483,425 Ending fund balance 5,505,325 5,500,000 #122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 600 958 3,712 3,112 618.68% Interfund Transfer -in - #001 258,000 0 258,000 0 100.00% Grant Reimbursement for Windstorm Cleanup 0 0 3,170 3,170 0.00% Subtotal revenues 258,600 958 264,882 6,282 102.43% Expenditures Snow removal expenses 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 100.00% Total expenditures 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 100.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures (241,400) (499,042) (235,118) Beginning fund balance 242,835 242,835 Ending fund balance 1,435 7,717 Page 10 6,282 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204 - DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District Interfund Transfer -in - #001 Interfund Transfer -in - #301 Interfund Transfer -in - #302 Total revenues Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget 379,750 0 379,750 0 100.00% 430,630 33,113 397,350 (33,280) 92.27% 103,511 6,619 79,426 (24,085) 76.73% 103,510 6,619 79,425 (24,085) 76.73% 1,017,401 46,350 935,951 (81,450) 91.99% Expenditures Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace 382,867 0 379,750 3,117 99.19% Debt Service Payments - Roads 162,900 0 162,900 0 100.00% Debt Service Payments -'16 LTGO Bond 397,350 0 397,350 0 100.00% Total expenditures 943,117 0 940,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures 74,284 46,350 (4,049) Beginning fund balance 4,049 4,049 Ending fund balance 78,333 0 Page 11 3,117 99.67% (84,567) P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports \2018\201 8 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues RE ET 1 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget 1,000,000 254,398 1,503,787 503,787 150.38% 1,700 5,408 21,599 19,899 1270.54% 1,001,700 259,806 1,525,386 523,686 152.28% Expenditures Interfund Transfer -out - #204 103,511 6,619 79,426 24,085 76.73% Interfund Transfer -out - #303 437,002 2,025 196,325 240,677 44.93% Interfund Transfer -out -#311 (pavementpreserva 660,479 0 0 660,479 0.00% Interfund Transfer -out -#314 50,000 1,483 19,165 30,835 38.33% Total expenditures 1,250,992 10,126 294,916 956,076 23.57% Revenues over (under) expenditures (249,292) 249,680 1,230,470 (432,390) Beginning fund balance 1,746,393 1,746,393 Ending fund balance 1,497,101 2,976,862 #302 - SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues RE ET 2 - Taxes Investment Interest 1,000,000 254,398 1,503,787 503,787 150.38% 1,700 6,259 25,594 23,894 1505.54% Total revenues 1,001,700 260,657 1,529,381 527,681 152.68% Expenditures Interfund Transfer -out - #204 103,510 6,619 79,425 24,085 76.73% Interfund Transfer -out -#303 1,173,230 (13,323) 309,062 864,168 26.34% Interfund Transfer -out - #311 (pavement preserve 660,479 0 0 660,479 0.00% Total expenditures 1,937,219 (6,704) 388,487 1,548,732 20.05% Revenues over (under) expenditures (935,519) 267,361 1,140,894 (1,021,051) Beginning fund balance 2,300,560 2,300,560 Ending fund balance 1,365,041 3,441,454 Page 12 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 4,286,300 473,373 3,566,629 (719,671) 83.21% Developer Contribution 970,966 0 62,244 (908,722) 6.41 % Transfer -in - #301 437,002 2,025 196,325 (240,677) 44.93% Transfer -in - #302 1,173,230 (13,323) 309,062 (864,168) 26.34% Transfer -in - #312 8th & Carnahan Intersct 238,320 0 217,145 (21,175) 91.11% Transfer -in - #312 Euclid Ave Reconst 1,773,671 0 834,971 (938,700) 47.08% Transfer -in - #312 Sullivan Rd W Bridge 450,000 14,491 (114,582) (564,582) -25.46% Total revenues 9,329,489 476,566 5,071,794 (4,257,695) 54.36% Expenditures 123 Mission Ave -Flora to Barker 500,000 47,060 250,119 249,881 50.02% 141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 2,150,000 5,348 1,512,193 637,807 70.33% 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 193,000 2,703 3,702 189,298 1.92% 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 1,063,370 72,346 722,384 340,986 67.93% 166 Pines Rd. (SR27) & Grace Ave. Int. Safety 333,224 10,359 60,574 272,650 18.18% 167 Citywide Safety Improvements 5,000 0 3,055 1,945 61.10% 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 (PE Start 2014) 300,000 0 7,006 292,994 2.34% 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 40,097 0 0 40,097 0.00% 207 Indiana & Evergreen Transit Access Imp 5,000 0 0 5,000 0.00% 211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley 0 0 (17,811) 17,811 0.00% 221 McDonald Rd Diet (16th to Mission) 5,000 0 675 4,325 13.50% 222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates 36,000 37,970 38,355 (2,355) 106.54% 229 32nd Ave Preservation 2,500 0 0 2,500 0.00% 234 Seth Woodard Sidewalk Improvements 5,000 0 0 5,000 0.00% 238 Pines RD Mirabeau Parkway Intersection 5,000 0 (21) 5,021 -0.41% 239 Bowdish Rd & 12th Ave. Sidewalk 471,342 0 389,898 81,444 82.72% 247 8th & Carnahan Intersection Improvments 45,320 0 218,299 (172,979) 481.68% 249 Sullivan & Wellesley Intersection 198,000 418 15,112 182,888 7.63% 250 9th Ave Sidewalk 1,750,000 0 181,053 1,568,947 10.35% 251 Euclid Ave Reconstruction Project 1,111,150 682,025 2,595,521 (1,484,371) 233.59% 258 32nd Ave Sidewalk-SR27 to Evergreen 0 10,360 32,157 (32,157) 0.00% 259 North Sullivan ITS Project 110,486 33,208 96,567 13,919 87.40% 263 Citywide Signal Backplates 0 0 143 (143) 0.00% 264 8th Ave Sidewalk - Dicky to Theirman 0 10,423 11,606 (11,606) 0.00% 265 Wellesley Sidewalk Project 0 12,433 20,727 (20,727) 0.00% Contingency 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0.00% Total expenditures 9,329,489 924,652 6,141,314 3,188,175 65.83% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (448,086) (1,069,520) (7,445,869) Beginning fund balance 75,566 75,566 Ending fund balance 75,566 (993,954) Note: Work performed in the Street Capital Projects Fund for preservation projects is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that were bid with the pavement preservation work. Page 13 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports \2018\201 8 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget #309 - PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 1,863,267 4,638 1,657,548 (205,719) 88.96% Interfund Transfer -in - #001 160,000 13,333 160,000 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer -in - #312 (Appleway Trail) 298,215 0 246,559 (51,656) 82.68% Investment Interest 800 75 215 (585) 26.92% Total revenues 2,322,282 18,047 2,064,322 (257,960) 88.89% Expenditures 227 Appleway Trail - Pines to Evergreen 1,927,557 3,161 1,816,928 110,629 94.26% 237 Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin 236,225 16,600 129,986 106,239 55.03% 242 Browns Park Splashpad 500 10,744 11,222 (10,722) 2244.30% 261 Edgecliff Park Splashpad 125,000 0 122,577 2,423 98.06% Total expenditures 2,289,282 30,506 2,080,712 208,570 90.89% Revenues over (under) expenditures 33,000 (12,459) (16,390) (466,530) Beginning fund balance 111,714 111,714 Ending fund balance 144,714 95,324 #310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest 7,500 1,695 9,029 1,529 120.39% Total revenues 7,500 1,695 9,029 1,529 120.39% Expenditures Transfers out - #001 (Lease pymt in excess of bond) 498,500 48,875 498,500 0 100.00% Total expenditures 498,500 48,875 498,500 0 100.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures (491,000) (47,180) (489,471) 1,529 Beginning fund balance 1,333,159 1,333,159 Ending fund balance 842,159 843,688 Note: The fund balance includes $839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839,285.10. Page 14 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget #311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION FUND Revenues Interfund Transfers in- #001 953,200 79,433 953,200 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in- #101 67,342 5,612 67,342 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in- #301 660,479 0 0 (660,479) 0.00% Interfund Transfers in- #302 660,479 0 0 (660,479) 0.00% Grant Proceeds 340,800 1,998 84,711 (256,089) 24.86% Investment Interest 0 3,759 20,536 20,536 0.00% Total revenues 2,682,300 90,801 1,125,789 (1,556,511) 41.97% Expenditures Pre -Project GeoTech Services 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00% Pavement Preservation 3,000,000 0 0 3,000,000 0.00% 211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley 0 0 (43,720) 43,720 0.00% 221 McDonald Road Diet 0 0 3,087 (3,087) 0.00% 226 Appleway Resurfacing Park to Dishman 0 0 172 (172) 0.00% 229 32nd Ave Preservation Project 0 0 43 (43) 0.00% 235 NB Sullivan Rd Pres (Spo Rvr-Flora Pit) 0 0 8,894 (8,894) 0.00% 239 Bowdish Rd & 12th Ave. Sidewalk 0 0 23,669 (23,669) 0.00% 240 Saltese Road Preservation 0 14,596 865,886 (865,886) 0.00% 248 Sprague Street Pres - Sullivan to Corbin 0 18,538 88,327 (88,327) 0.00% 252 Argonne Resurfacing: Broadway to Indiana 0 7,673 31,897 (31,897) 0.00% 253 Mission - Pines to McDonald 0 2,778 493,478 (493,478) 0.00% 254 Mission - McDonald to Evergreen 0 0 23,674 (23,674) 0.00% 255 Indiana Street Preservation 0 0 513,562 (513,562) 0.00% 256 University Rd Pres -24th to Dishman 0 0 29,666 (29,666) 0.00% 257 University Rd Pres -16th to 24th 0 0 11,574 (11,574) 0.00% Total expenditures 3,050,000 43,585 2,050,210 999,790 67.22% Revenues over (under) expenditures (367,700) 47,216 (924,421) (2,556,301) Beginning fund balance 2,953,564 2,953,564 Ending fund balance 2,585,864 2,029,143 #312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 Investment Interest 3,003,929 0 3,003,929 0 100.00% 1,000 11,694 52,170 51,170 5216.96% Total revenues 3,004,929 11,694 3,056,099 51,170 101.70% Expenditures 215 City Hall Sculpture Siting 38,526 0 41,376 (2,850) 107.40% Transfers out - #303 2,461,991 14,491 937,533 1,524,458 38.08% Transfers out - #309 298,215 0 246,559 51,656 82.68% Transfers out - #314 483,000 0 0 483,000 0.00% Total expenditures 3,281,732 14,491 1,225,468 Revenues over (under) expenditures (276,803) (2,796) 1,830,630 Beginning fund balance 4,310,362 4,310,362 Ending fund balance 4,033,559 6,140,993 Page 15 2,056,264 (2,005,094) 37.34% P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued #313 - CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION FUND Revenues Investment Interest Total revenues Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget 27,000 1,156 18,894 8,106 69.98% 27,000 1,156 18,894 8,106 69.98% Expenditures Capital Outlay - City Hall 6,100,101 23,785 6,065,879 34,222 99.44% Total expenditures 6,100,101 23,785 6,065,879 34,222 99.44% Revenues over (under) expenditures (6,073,101) (22,629) (6,046,985) (26,116) Beginning fund balance 6,148,061 6,148,061 Ending fund balance 74,960 101,076 #314 - RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FUND Revenues Interfund Transfers in - #001 (Pines underpass des 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in - #301 (Barker overpass desi 50,000 1,483 19,165 30,835 38.33% Interfund Transfers in - #312 483,000 0 0 483,000 0.00% Grant Proceeds 300,000 0 87,611 212,389 29.20% Investment Interest 0 979 4,072 (4,072) 0.00% Total revenues 2,033,000 2,462 1,310,847 722,153 64.48% Expenditures 143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation 500,000 86,297 199,552 300,448 39.91% 223 Pines Rd Underpass 483,000 50,651 617,484 (134,484) 127.84% Total expenditures 983,000 136,947 817,036 165,964 83.12% Revenues over (under) expenditures 1,050,000 (134,486) 493,811 556,189 Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 1,050,000 493,811 Page 16 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 - STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees Investment Interest Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget 1,860,000 107,107 1,895,033 35,033 101.88% 2,500 4,672 20,564 18,064 822.57% Total Recurring Revenues 1,862,500 111,780 1,915,597 53,097 102.85% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 551,321 47,157 465,102 86,219 84.36% Supplies 15,425 2,225 11,065 4,360 71.73% Services & Charges 1,111,076 124,267 999,701 111,375 89.98% Intergovernmental Payments 50,000 32,661 32,661 17,339 65.32% Vehicle Rentals - #501 12,750 1,063 12,750 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers -out - #001 13,400 1,117 13,400 0 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,753,972 Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 108,528 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 208,490 1,534,678 219,294 87.50% (96,710) 380,919 272,391 210,000 - 370,207 160,207 176.29% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 210,000 Expenditures Capital - various projects 450,000 193 Effectiveness Study 210,000 211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley 0 239 Bowdish Rd & 12th Ave. Sidewalkd 0 240 Saltese Road Preservation Project 0 250 9th Ave Sidewalk - Raymond to University 0 Watershed Studies 50,000 370,207 160,207 176.29% 112,342 198,074 251,927 44.02% 196,480 13,520 93.56% (13,504) 13,504 0.00% 65,372 (65,372) 0.00% 72,918 (72,918) 0.00% 1,188 (1,188) 0.00% - 50,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 710,000 112,342 520,528 Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (500,000) (112,342) (150,320) 349,680 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (391,472) (209,052) 230,599 622,071 Beginning working capital 1,761,416 1,761,416 Ending working capital 1,369,944 1,992,015 189,472 73.31% Note: Work performed in the Stormwater Fund for preservation projects is for stormwater improvements that were bid with the pavement preservation work. #403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 460,000 0 452,110 (7,890) 98.28% Grant Proceeds 0 0 58,722 58,722 0.00% Investment Interest 0 2,684 10,238 10,238 0.00% Total revenues 460,000 Expenditures Capital - various projects 530,000 Total expenditures 2,684 521,070 61,070 113.28% 0 58,722 471,278 11.08% 530,000 0 58,722 471,278 11.08% Revenues over (under) expenditures (70,000) 2,684 462,348 Beginning working capital 950,725 950,725 Ending working capital 880,725 1,413,073 Page 17 (410,209) P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Budget Year Elapsed = 2017 100.00% 2017 Budget Actual Actual through Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget #501 - ER&R FUND Revenues Interfund vehicle lease - #001 32,500 2,708 32,500 0 100.00% Interfund vehicle lease -#101 23,250 1,938 23,250 0 100.00% Interfund vehicle lease (plow replace) 77,929 6,494 77,929 0 100.00% Interfund vehicle lease -#402 12,750 1,063 12,750 0 100.00% Transfer in - #001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 3,050 36,600 0 100.00% Investment Interest 2,000 2,200 9,651 7,651 482.56% Total revenues 185,029 17,452 192,680 7,651 104.14% Expenditures Small tools and minor equipment 6,400 0 6,898 (498) 107.78% Snow Plow Replacement 122,400 0 110,309 12,091 90.12% Snow Plow Blades 28,000 0 39,142 (11,142) 139.79% Interfund Transfers -out - #001 77,000 77,000 77,000 0 100.00% Total expenditures 233,800 77,000 233,349 451 99.81 % Revenues over (under) expenditures (48,771) (59,548) (40,668) 7,200 Beginning working capital 1,136,951 1,136,951 Ending working capital 1,088,180 1,096,283 #502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer - #001 0 422 1,107 1,107 0.00% 350,000 29,167 350,000 0 100.00% Total revenues 350,000 Expenditures Auto & Property Insurance Unemployment Claims Miscellaneous Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital 29,589 351,107 1,107 100.32% 350,000 0 311,467 38,533 88.99% 0 7,105 29,067 (29,067) 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 350,000 7,105 340,534 9,466 97.30% 0 233,688 233,688 22,484 10,574 233,688 244,261 (8,359) SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 73,654,023 8,641,274 70,855,652 Per Revenue Status Report 73,654,023 8,641,274 70,855,652 Difference - - - Total of Expenditures for all Funds Per Expenditure Status Report 85,520,429 85,520,429 6,498,383 6,498,383 70,222,189 70,222,189 Total Capital expenditures (included in total expenditures) 24,037,298 1,679,834 18,674,819 Page 18 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Investment Report For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 3/15/2018 LGI P" BB CD UMPQUA CD Total Investments Beginning $ 51,621,209.64 $ 3,013,269.07 $ 2,005,002.70 $ 57,933,562.68 Deposits 2,677,725.13 0.00 0.00 2,677,725.13 Withdrawls (5,100,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (5,100,000.00) Interest 115,413.47 9,766.29 6,892.21 132,071.97 Jan'18 Accrued Interest Receivable (59,662.66) 0.00 0.00 (59,662.66) Ending $ 49,254,685.58 $ 3,023,035.36 $ 2,011,894.91 $ 54,289,615.85 001 General Fund 101 Street Fund 103 Trails & Paths 104 Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel 105 Hotel/Motel 106 Solid Waste Fund 107 PEG Fund 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 Winter Weather Reserve 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 301 Capital Projects 302 Special Capital Projects 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Project 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 311 Pavement Preservation 312 Capital Reserve Fund 313 City Hall Construction Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 Stormwater Management 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 Risk Management "Local Government Investment Pool matures: 6/28/2018 11/15/2018 rate: 1.30 1.50% Balance Earnings Current Period Year to date Budget $ 28,745,916.32 $ 85,105.59 654, 283.64 1,533.12 37,025.03 86.76 773, 654.34 1,812.82 399,667.18 936.50 211,165.56 494.81 60, 042.79 140.69 0.00 0.00 5, 500, 000.00 0.00 408,986.46 958.34 0.00 0.00 2,308,162.15 5,408.48 2,671,115.39 6,258.95 0.00 0.00 31, 997.22 74.98 723, 507.22 1,695.32 1,604,015.38 3,758.53 4, 990, 787.16 11, 694.40 493, 341.44 1,156.00 417,697.71 978.75 1,994,013.45 4,672.37 1,145,429.83 2,683.97 938,693.81 2,199.55 180,113.77 422.04 309,825.94 $ 73,000.00 7,842.76 4,000.00 369.52 0.00 6,854.05 0.00 3,548.81 500.00 1,334.94 0.00 1,675.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 16, 574.93 21, 900.00 3,712.10 600.00 0.00 0.00 21, 599.12 1,700.00 25, 594.17 1,700.00 0.00 0.00 215.35 800.00 9,029.12 7,500.00 20, 536.14 0.00 52,169.62 1,000.00 18, 894.22 27, 000.00 4,072.02 0.00 20,564.14 2,500.00 10,238.03 0.00 9,651.16 2,000.00 1,107.34 0.00 $ 54,289,615.85 $ 132,071.97 $ 545,409.05 $ 144,200.00 Page 19 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 02 28 - 2017 12 PRELIMINARY No 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Receipts For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2017 Month Received 2016 2017 3/15/2018 Difference February 2,109,906.28 2,250,071.29 140,165.01 6.64% March 1,488,699.93 1,553,546.20 64,846.27 4.36% April 1,555,221.97 1,567,402.86 12,180.89 0.78% May 1,852,586.82 1,962,909.06 110,322.24 5.96% June 1,768,797.14 1,765,547.51 (3,249.63) (0.18%) July 1,848,301.11 1,980,537.73 132,236.62 7.15% August 2,013,841.16 2,191,814.27 177,973.11 8.84% September 1,963,131.36 2,119,588.28 156,456.92 7.97% October 2,044,241.64 2,207,153.00 162,911.36 7.97% November 2,058,260.31 2,151,642.69 93,382.38 4.54% December 1,862,239.72 2,000,238.81 137,999.09 7.41% January 1,875,424.10 2,086,747.36 211,323.26 11.27% 22,440,651.54 23,837,199.06 1,396,547.52 6.22% 22,440,651.54 23,837,199.06 Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.8%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.8% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: - State of Washington 6.50% - City of Spokane Valley 0.85% - Spokane County 0.15% - Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% * - Criminal Justice 0.10% - Public Safety 0.10% * 2.30% local tax - Juvenile Jail 0.10% * - Mental Health 0.10% * - Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * - Spokane Transit Authority 0.70% * 8.80% Indicates voter approved sales taxes In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 20 I NIMMEI CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Collections - For the years 2009 through 2018 January Collected to date P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Sales Tax\2018\sales tax collections 2018 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1 2017 1 2018 1,484,350 1,491,059 1,460,548 1,589,887 1,671,269 1,677,887 1,732,299 1,863,225 1,992,273 2,078,412 2/26/2018 2018 to 2017 Difference ok 86,139 4.32% 1,484,350 1,491,059 1,460,548 1,589,887 1,671,269 1,677,887 1,732,299 1,863,225 1,992,273 2,078,412 86,139 4.32% February 1,098,575 963,749 990,157 1,009,389 1,133,347 1,170,640 1,197,323 1,316,682 1,369,740 0 March 1,068,811 1,018,468 1,015,762 1,067,733 1,148,486 1,201,991 1,235,252 1,378,300 1,389,644 0 April 1,134,552 1,184,137 1,284,180 1,277,621 1,358,834 1,448,539 1,462,096 1,640,913 1,737,933 0 May 1,098,054 1,102, 523 1,187, 737 1,174, 962 1,320,449 1,400,956 1,373,710 1,566,178 1,564,119 0 June 1,151,772 1,123,907 1,248,218 1,290,976 1,389,802 1,462,558 1,693,461 1,641,642 1,751,936 0 July 1,309,401 1,260,873 1,332,834 1,302,706 1,424,243 1,545,052 1,718,428 1,776,653 1,935,028 0 August 1,212,531 1,211,450 1,279,500 1,299,678 1,465,563 1,575,371 1,684,700 1,746,371 1,877,899 0 September 1,227,813 1,191,558 1,294,403 1,383,123 1,466,148 1,552,736 1,563,950 1,816,923 1,946,689 0 October 1,236,493 1,269,505 1,291,217 1,358,533 1,439,321 1,594,503 1,618,821 1,822,998 1,898,067 0 November 1,155,647 1,139,058 1,217,933 1,349,580 1,362,021 1,426,254 1,487,624 1,652,181 1,768,817 0 December 1,070,245 1,141,012 1,247,920 1,323,189 1,408,134 1,383,596 1,441,904 1,664,983 1,856,989 0 Total Collections 14,248,244 14,097,299 14,850,409 15,427,377 16,587,617 17,440,083 18,209,568 19,887,049 21,089,134 2,078,412 Budget Estimate 17,860,000 14,410,000 14,210,000 14,210,000 15,250,000 16,990,000 17,628,400 18,480,500 19,852,100 20,881,900 Actual over (under) budg (3,611,756) (312,701) 640,409 1,217,377 1,337,617 450,083 581,168 1,406,549 1,237,034 (18,803,488) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 79.78% 97.83% 104.51 % 108.57% 108.77% 102.65% 103.30% 107.61 % 106.23% n/a % change in annual total collected (11.84%) (1.06%) 5.34% 3.89% 7.52% 5.14% 4.41% 9.21% 6.04% n/a % of budget collected through January 8.31% 10.35% 10.28% 11.19% 10.96% 9.88% 9.83% 10.08% 10.04% 9.95% % of actual total collected through January 10.42% 10.58% 9.84% 10.31% 10.08% 9.62% 9.51% 9.37% 9.45% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of January 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 January 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 •January Page 21 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - January Actual for the years 2009 through 2018 January Total Collections P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax\2018\105 hotel motel tax 2018 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1 2017 1 2018 23,280 22,707 22,212 21,442 24,185 25,425 27,092 31,887 27,210 28,752 2/26/2018 2018 to 2017 Difference 1,542 5.67% 23,280 22,707 22,212 21,442 24,185 25,425 27,092 31,887 27,210 28,752 1,542 5.67% February 23,284 23,417 22,792 21,549 25,975 26,014 27,111 27,773 26,795 0 March 25,272 24,232 24,611 25,655 27,739 29,384 32,998 34,330 31,601 0 April 36,254 39,463 38,230 52,130 40,979 48,246 50,455 52,551 52,242 0 May 32,589 34,683 33,791 37,478 40,560 41,123 44,283 50,230 50,112 0 June 40,415 39,935 41,403 43,971 47,850 52,618 56,975 55,060 60,637 0 July 43,950 47,385 49,312 52,819 56,157 61,514 61,809 65,007 69,337 0 August 50,147 54,923 57,452 57,229 63,816 70,384 72,697 73,700 76,972 0 September 50,818 59,419 58,908 64,299 70,794 76,100 74,051 70,305 80,173 0 October 36,784 41,272 39,028 43,699 43,836 45,604 49,880 55,660 56,631 0 November 34,055 34,330 37,339 39,301 42,542 39,600 42,376 46,393 47,090 0 December 27,131 26,777 32,523 30,432 34,238 33,256 41,510 33,478 37,180 0 Total Collections 423,978 448,545 457,603 490,004 518,672 549,267 581,237 596,374 615,980 28,752 Budget Estimate 512,000 380,000 480,000 430,000 490,000 530,000 550,000 580,000 580,000 580,000 Actual over (under) budg (88,022) 68,545 (22,397) 60,004 28,672 19,267 31,237 16,374 35,980 (551,248) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 82.81% 118.04% 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% 103.64% 105.68% 102.82% 106.20% n/a % change in annual total collected (9.23%) 5.79% 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% 5.82% 2.60% 3.29% n/a % of budget collected through January 4.55% 5.98% 4.63% 4.99% 4.94% 4.80% 4.93% 5.50% 4.69% 4.96% % of actual total collected through January 5.49% 5.06% 4.85% 4.38% 4.66% 4.63% 4.66% 5.35% 4.42% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of January 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 January 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 ■ January Page 22 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 1st and 2nd 1/4% REET Collections through January Actual for the years 2009 through 2018 January Collected to date P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\REET\2018\301 and 302 REET for 2018 2009 1 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 2017 1 2018 55,281 59,887 64,128 46,359 56,898 61,192 96,141 104,446 153,661 239,437 55,281 59,887 64,128 46,359 56,898 61,192 96,141 104,446 153,661 239,437 February 45,181 64,122 36,443 56,115 155,226 67,049 103,508 83,583 124,514 March 73,307 86,204 95,880 71,730 72,172 81,724 165,868 220,637 282,724 April 81,156 99,507 79,681 86,537 90,377 105,448 236,521 205,654 169,060 May 77,464 109,625 124,692 111,627 116,165 198,870 165,748 192,806 202,734 June 105,021 105,680 81,579 124,976 139,112 106,676 347,421 284,897 248,768 July 122,530 84,834 79,629 101,049 128,921 208,199 217,375 248,899 449,654 August 115,830 72,630 129,472 106,517 117,150 172,536 202,525 231,200 472,420 September 93,862 75,812 68,020 63,517 174,070 152,323 179,849 178,046 187,348 October 113,961 93,256 61,396 238,095 117,806 123,505 128,833 253,038 207,895 November 133,265 72,021 74,753 104,886 78,324 172,227 129,870 186,434 229,800 December 71,366 38,725 65,077 74,300 75,429 117,682 157,919 164,180 278,995 Total distributed by Spokane County Budget estimate Actual over (under) budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,088,222 2,000,000 (911,778) 962,304 1,380,000 (417,696) 960,751 780,000 180,751 1,185,707 875,000 310,707 1,321,650 975,000 346,650 1,567,429 1,100,000 467,429 2,131,578 1,400,000 731,578 2,353,822 2,000,000 353,822 3,007,573 2,000,000 1,007,573 239,437 1,600,000 (1,360,563) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 54.41% 69.73% 123.17% 135.51% 135.55% 142.49% 152.26% 117.69% 150.38% n/a % change in annual total collected (45.23%) (11.57%) (0.16%) 23.41% 11.47% 18.60% 35.99% 10.43% 27.77% n/a % of budget collected through January 2.76% 4.34% 8.22% 5.30% 5.84% 5.56% 6.87% 5.22% 7.68% 14.96% % of actual total collected through January 5.08% 6.22% 6.67% 3.91% 4.31% 3.90% 4.51% 4.44% 5.11% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of January 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 January 2/26/2018 2018 to 2017 Difference 85,776 55.82% 85,776 55.82% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 • January Page 23 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Debt Capacity\2018\debt capacity 2018 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Debt Capacity 2017 Assessed Value for 2018 Property Taxes 8,634,114,798 Voted (UTGO) Nonvoted (LTGO) Voted park Voted utility 1.00% of assessed value 1.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value Maximum Outstanding Remaining Debt as of Debt ok Capacity 12/31/2017 Capacity Utilized 86,341,148 129,511,722 215,852,870 215,852,870 647, 558, 610 0 86,341,148 12,790,000 116,721,722 0 215,852,870 0 215,852,870 12,790,000 634,768,610 0.00% 9.88% 0.00% 0.00% 1.98% 2014 LTGO Bonds 12/1/2014 Bonds 12/1/2015 Repaid 12/1/2016 12/1/2017 225,000 175,000 185,000 190,000 135,000 125,000 130,000 130,000 360,000 300,000 315,000 320,000 0 0 75,000 150,000 360,000 300,000 390,000 470,000 775,000 520,000 1,295,000 \ 225,000 1,520,000 12/1/2018 230,000 135,000 365,000 155,000 520,000 12/1/2019 255,000 140,000 395,000 160,000 555,000 12/1/2020 290,000 140,000 430,000 165,000 595,000 12/1/2021 320,000 145,000 465,000 170,000 635,000 12/1/2022 350,000 150,000 500,000 175,000 675,000 12/1/2023 390,000 155,000 545,000 180,000 725,000 12/1/2024 430,000 0 430,000 185,000 615,000 12/1/2025 465,000 0 465,000 95,000 660,000 12/1/2026 505,000 0 505,000 00,000 705,000 12/1/2027 395,000 0 395,000 2 5,000 600,000 12/1/2028 300,000 0 300,000 2 5,000 515,000 12/1/2029 245,000 0 245,000 220,000 465,000 12/1/2030 225,000 0 225,000 225,000 450,000 Bonds 12/1/2031 180,000 0 180,000 235,000 415,000 Remaining 12/1/2032 130,000 0 130,000 240,000 370,000 12/1/2033 165,000 0 165,000 250,000 415,000 12/1/2034 0 0 0 260,000 260,000 12/1/2035 0 0 0 270,000 270,000 12/1/2036 0 0 0 280,000 280,000 12/1/2037 0 0 0 290,000 290,000 12/1/2038 0 0 0 305,00 305,000 12/1/2039 0 0 0 315,00 315,000 12/1/2040 0 0 0 330,000 330,000 12/1/2041 0 0 0 340,000 340,000 12/1/2042 0 0 0 355,000 355,000 12/1/2043 0 0 0 365,000 365,000 12/1/2044 0 0 0 375,000 375,000 12/1/2045 0 0 0 390,000 390,000 4,875,000 865,000 5,740,000 7,050,000 12,790,000 5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 7,275,000 14,310,000 Page 24 1/26/2018 Road & LTGO Bonds Period Street 2016 LTGO Grand Ending CenterPlace Improvements Total Bonds Total 12/1/2014 Bonds 12/1/2015 Repaid 12/1/2016 12/1/2017 225,000 175,000 185,000 190,000 135,000 125,000 130,000 130,000 360,000 300,000 315,000 320,000 0 0 75,000 150,000 360,000 300,000 390,000 470,000 775,000 520,000 1,295,000 \ 225,000 1,520,000 12/1/2018 230,000 135,000 365,000 155,000 520,000 12/1/2019 255,000 140,000 395,000 160,000 555,000 12/1/2020 290,000 140,000 430,000 165,000 595,000 12/1/2021 320,000 145,000 465,000 170,000 635,000 12/1/2022 350,000 150,000 500,000 175,000 675,000 12/1/2023 390,000 155,000 545,000 180,000 725,000 12/1/2024 430,000 0 430,000 185,000 615,000 12/1/2025 465,000 0 465,000 95,000 660,000 12/1/2026 505,000 0 505,000 00,000 705,000 12/1/2027 395,000 0 395,000 2 5,000 600,000 12/1/2028 300,000 0 300,000 2 5,000 515,000 12/1/2029 245,000 0 245,000 220,000 465,000 12/1/2030 225,000 0 225,000 225,000 450,000 Bonds 12/1/2031 180,000 0 180,000 235,000 415,000 Remaining 12/1/2032 130,000 0 130,000 240,000 370,000 12/1/2033 165,000 0 165,000 250,000 415,000 12/1/2034 0 0 0 260,000 260,000 12/1/2035 0 0 0 270,000 270,000 12/1/2036 0 0 0 280,000 280,000 12/1/2037 0 0 0 290,000 290,000 12/1/2038 0 0 0 305,00 305,000 12/1/2039 0 0 0 315,00 315,000 12/1/2040 0 0 0 330,000 330,000 12/1/2041 0 0 0 340,000 340,000 12/1/2042 0 0 0 355,000 355,000 12/1/2043 0 0 0 365,000 365,000 12/1/2044 0 0 0 375,000 375,000 12/1/2045 0 0 0 390,000 390,000 4,875,000 865,000 5,740,000 7,050,000 12,790,000 5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 7,275,000 14,310,000 Page 24 1/26/2018 1 1 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue \MVFT\2018\motor vehicle fuel tax collections 2018 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Collections - January For the years 2009 through 2018 January Collected to date 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1 2017 1 2018 133,304 161,298 154,792 159,607 146,145 152,906 152,598 163,918 150,654 162,359 2/26/2018 2018 to 2017 Difference ok 11,705 7.77% 133,304 161,298 154,792 159,607 146,145 152,906 152,598 163,918 150,654 162,359 11,705 7.77% February 155,832 145,869 146,353 135,208 145,998 148,118 145,455 163,037 164,807 0 March 146,264 140,486 141,849 144,297 135,695 131,247 140,999 145,537 138,205 0 April 161,117 161,721 165,019 153,546 156,529 156,269 157,994 167,304 168,000 0 May 156,109 158,119 154,700 144,670 151,595 156,850 156,259 171,829 174,211 0 June 173,954 168,146 158,351 159,827 167,479 161,965 164,872 157,737 174,838 0 July 169,756 164,221 165,398 160,565 155,348 157,805 168,205 177,427 177,019 0 August 179,012 176,869 153,361 164,050 173,983 172,308 186,277 177,567 195,780 0 September 175,965 175,067 173,820 171,651 195,397 173,299 174,505 194,640 184,342 0 October 163,644 164,475 158,889 153,022 133,441 160,539 161,520 166,369 163,780 0 November 167,340 168,477 160,461 162,324 164,303 165,871 181,771 176,178 194,814 0 December 144,376 143,257 124,714 138,223 142,140 141,298 153,338 152,787 154,298 0 Total Collections 1,926,673 1,928,005 1,857,707 1,846,990 1,868,053 1,878,475 1,943,793 2,014,330 2,040,748 162,359 Budget Estimate 2,050,000 1,900,000 1,875,000 1,905,800 1,868,900 1,866,400 1,867,700 2,013,400 2,048,900 2,061,100 Actual over (under) budg (123,327) 28,005 (17,293) (58,810) (847) 12,075 76,093 930 (8,152) (1,898,741) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 93.98% 101.47% 99.08% 96.91 % 99.95% 100.65% 104.07% 100.05% 99.60% n/a % change in annual total collected (3.45%) 0.07% (3.65%) (0.58%) 1.14% 0.56% 3.48% 3.63% 1.31% n/a % of budget collected through January 6.50% 8.49% 8.26% 8.37% 7.82% 8.19% 8.17% 8.14% 7.35% 7.88% % of actual total collected through January 6.92% 8.37% 8.33% 8.64% 7.82% 8.14% 7.85% 8.14% 7.38% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of January 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 January 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 •January Page 25 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Telephone Utility Tax Collections - January For the years 2009 through 2018 January Collected to date P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Telephone Tax\2018\telephone utility tax collections 2018 2009 1 2010 1 2011 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1 2017 1 2018 128,354 234,622 241,357 193,818 217,478 210,777 177,948 182,167 162,734 138,095 3/15/2018 2018 to 2017 Difference (24,639) (15.14%) 128,354 234,622 241,357 193,818 217,478 210,777 177,948 182,167 162,734 138,095 (24,639) (15.14%) February 282,773 266,041 230,366 261,074 216,552 205,953 212,845 173,971 163,300 0 March 230,721 264,175 245,539 234,113 223,884 208,206 174,738 177,209 162,536 0 April 275,775 254,984 238,561 229,565 214,618 206,038 214,431 171,770 157,285 0 May 242,115 255,056 236,985 227,469 129,270 210,010 187,856 174,512 145,673 0 June 239,334 251,880 239,013 234,542 293,668 210,289 187,412 170,450 156,023 0 July 269,631 250,593 244,191 226,118 213,078 205,651 190,984 174,405 157,502 0 August 260,408 246,261 349,669 228,789 211,929 205,645 185,172 171,909 150,644 0 September 249,380 240,111 241,476 227,042 210,602 199,193 183,351 170,476 155,977 0 October 252,388 238,500 237,111 225,735 205,559 183,767 183,739 166,784 153,075 0 November 254,819 247,848 240,246 225,319 212,947 213,454 175,235 166,823 151,208 0 December 368,775 236,065 236,449 221,883 213,097 202,077 183,472 168,832 149,451 0 Total Collections 3,054,473 2,986,136 2,980,963 2,735,467 2,562,682 2,461,060 2,257,183 2,069,308 1,865,408 138,095 Budget Estimate 2,500,000 2,800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,900,000 2,750,000 2,565,100 2,340,000 2,000,000 1,900,000 Actual over (under) budg 554,473 186,136 (19,037) (264,533) (337,318) (288,940) (307,917) (270,692) (134,592) (1,761,905) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 122.18% 106.65% 99.37% 91.18% 88.37% 89.49% 88.00% 88.43% 93.27% n/a % change in annual total collected n/a (2.24%) (0.17%) (8.24%) (6.32%) (3.97%) (8.28%) (8.32%) (9.85%) n/a % of budget collected through January 5.13% 8.38% 8.05% 6.46% 7.50% 7.66% 6.94% 7.78% 8.14% 7.27% % of actual total collected through January 4.20% 7.86% 8.10% 7.09% 8.49% 8.56% 7.88% 8.80% 8.72% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of January 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 January 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 • January Page 26 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 02/01/18 — 02/28/18 MAINTENANCE Agreements for Services Adopted and In Operation * Budget estimates ** Does not include February Contract Name Contractor Contract Amount Total % of Contract Expended Expended Street Maintenance Street Sweeping Storm Drain Cleaning Snow Removal Landscaping Weed Spraying Emergency Traffic Control Litter and Weed Control State Highway Maintenance Traffic Signals, Signs, Striping Dead Animal Control Poe Asphalt AAA Sweeping AAA Sweeping Multiple (3) Senske Spokane Pro Care Senske Geiger Work Crew WSDOT Spokane County Mike Pederson $1,366,663.00 $490,200.00 $189,990.00 $215,000.00 $62,256.92 $20,124.20 $10,000.00 $70,000.00 $265,000.00 $632,000.00 $20,000.00 $4,425.52 $0.00 $0.00 $35,654.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,515.70 $18,654.20 $0.00 $2,300.00 0.32% 0.00% 0.00% 16.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.31% 7.04% 0.00% 11.50% IIMEMEIMI Request Submitted In Progress Waiting 30+da s Resolved C.A.R.E.S. Dead Animal Removal 1 Illegal Dumping Landscaping ROW Report a Pothole Roadway Hazard Solid Waste - Complaints Storm Drainage / Erosion! Street Sweeping Sign & Signal Requests Traffic Deicing - Priority 4 Snow Comments Snow Plowing P1-3 Snow Plowing P4 Totals 1 7 3 3 4 5 1 6 2 10 15 6 3 4 4 74 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 7 3 2 4 4 1 3 2 10 15 6 3 4 4 69 February 2018 Snow and Ice Operations Date Mag (Gallons) Iceslicer (Tons) Snowfall Pre -Treat Deicing Plowing 02/01/18 100 0.5 X X 02/02/18 Trace 02/03/18 0.0 02/04/18 0.0 02/05/18 0.0 02/06/18 0.0 02/07/18 0.0 02/08/18 0.0 02/09/18 0.0 02/10/18 0.0 02/11/18 0.0 02/12/18 0.0 02/13/18 4900 0.0 X X 02/14/18 5300 73.00 7.3 X X X 02/15/18 250 21.00 0.0 X X 02/16/18 3800 0.8 X 02/17/18 5200 39.00 1.9 X X 02/18/18 2200 45.00 0.2 X X 02/19/18 0.0 02/20/18 Trace 02/21/18 10.00 Trace 02/22/18 4500 19.00 Trace 02/23/18 1750 36.00 0.0 X X 02/24/18 6400 40.00 0.9 X X X 02/25/18 4.00 0.0 X X X 02/26/18 10.00 0.0 02/27/18 950 0.1 X X 02/28/18 800 0.0 X Totals 36,150 297.00 12.00 Season Totals 133,950 1,355.00 44.40 STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for February 2018: • Poe Asphalt, JH Landscape - Provided drivers for snow plow operations. Guardrail repair. • Pothole patching. • Geiger Work Crew - Tree trimming, litter pickup and sidewalk snow removal. WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/spokane/spokane river basin.htm, http://www.spokanecounty.org/utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ 2 STORMWATER UTILITY The following is a summary of City Stormwater Utility activities for February 2018: • Continued attending steering committee meetings for Ecology's update of the Stormwater Manual for Eastern Washington, which could have implications to update the Spokane Regional Manual. • Continued working on the following tasks: o Prepared 2018 Storm Drain Cleaning contract for advertisement. o Provided stormwater recommendation packets for CIP projects. o Preparation of Annual Report for NPDES permit. o Assisted in preparation of Hydraulic Reports for various CIP projects. o Updated stormwater GIS layers. o Responded to snowmelt/rain events, 6 sites. o Stormwater action requests for small works and maintenance projects 2018. Current status to date is shown below: Stormwater Project Requests (Incl. Public and In -Staff Requests) Feb -18 Total Requests Logged Since 2009: 326 2018 Completed Projects: Completed Projects 2009-2017: Locations not warranting work: 0 195 52 Total Project Backlog: 79 Remaining Projects Assigned for 2018-2020 Small Works: Maintenance: Large Capital: 41 28 10 Unfunded Projects Large Capital: 6 3 CAPITAL PROJECTS IFi11Iiiane 'alley Public Works Projects Monthly Summary - Design & Construction February -2018 Project# Design &Construction Projects Funding Proposed Ad Date Bid Open Date % Complete Estimated Construction Completion Total Project Cost PE 1 CN Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave - Flora to Barker FHWA - STP(U) 04/20/18 05/11/18 99 0 11/15/18 $ 4,333,334 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC FHWA-STP(U) 03/03/17 03/24/17 100 97 12/31/17 $ 2,404,838 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan TIB - UAP 03/23/18 04/13/18 100 0 12/31/18 $ 2,526,301 0166 Pines Rd. (SR27) &Grace Ave. Int Safety HSIP 03/30/18 04/20/18 100 0 11/01/18 $ 878,865 0249 Sullivan & Wellesley Intersection Improv FHWA - STP(U) 05/03/19 05/24/19 18 0 12/31/19 $ 1,370,000 0251 Euclid Avenue Reconstruction Project COSV 03/10/17 03/31/17 100 0 12/31/17 $ 3,041,206 0258 32nd Ave Sidewalk-SR27 to Evergreen TIB - SP 03/23/18 04/06/18 90 0 09/28/18 $ 571,384 0264 8th Ave Sidewalk- Dicky to Theirman CDBG 03/23/18 04/06/18 50 0 12/31/18 $ 594,333 0265 Wellesley Sidewalk Project SRTS TBD TBD 20 0 12/31/18 $ 447,000 0267 Mission SW - Bowdish to Union TIB - SP TBD TBD 0 0 12/31/19 $ 486,000 Street Preservation Projects 0248 Sprague Street Pres - Sullivan to Corbin FHWA - STP(U) 02/23/18 03/16/18 100 0 12/31/18 $ 1,977,273 0252 Argonne Resurfacing: Broadway to Indiana FHWA - STP(U) 05/11/18 06/01/18 50 0 10/31/18 $ 640,000 Traffic Projects 0201 ITS Infill Project - Phase 1 FHWA - CMAQ 02/23/18 03/16/18 100 0 10/31/18 $ 500,402 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Back Plates HSIP N/A N/A 100 28 03/01/19 $ 81,000 0259 North Sullivan ITS Project FHWA - CMAQ 05/11/18 06/01/18 90 0 $ 914,209 0263 Citywide Signal Backplates HSIP N/A N/A 100 20 12/31/18 $ 124,862 Parks Projects 0227 Appleway S.U.P. - Pines to Evergreen FHWA-STP(U) 11/11/16 12/09/16 100 98 10/31/17 $ 2,134,057 0237 Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin COSV 11/10/17 12/08/17 100 0 12/31/18 $ 2,130,000 Project # Design Only Projects Funding Design Complete Date % Complete Total Project Cost PE Street Projects 0143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation FHWA-STP(U) 12/31/19 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement COSV 12/31/18 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF & Trent COSV TBD 0247 8th & Carnahan Intersection Improvements COSV TBD 5 5 9 0 $ 2,827,702 $ 51,619 $ 1,710,000 $ 250,000 Street Preservation Projects 0254 Mission - McDonald to Evergreen COSV 03/31/18 80 $ 67,000 0256 University Rd Pres -24th to Dishman Mica COSV 12/01/18 90 $ 48,000 0257 University Rd Pres -16th to 24th COSV 12/01/18 90 $ 53,000 Stormwater Projects 0198 Sprague, Park to University LID Dept of Ecology 03/01/20 30 $ 20,000 0199 Havana -Yale Diversion Dept of Ecology 10/31/18 35 $ 20,000 0200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion Dept of Ecology 10/31/18 35 $ 20,000 0262 Stormwater Capacity Grant Dept of Ecology TBD 0 $ - DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING 4 The following is a summary of Development Engineering activities for February 2018: • Assisted Building and Planning Division with preparation of design requirements for multiple Commercial and Land Use Pre -Application meetings. • Prepared multiple Recommended Conditions of Approvals for preliminary plats and Dedication Languages for final plats. Reviewed multiple final plats and submittal packages to record final plats. • Reviewed civil plans and drainage reports for Engineered Grading Permits associated with commercial and land use projects. Coordinated with private Engineers and Developers. • Met with City Council to discuss proposed changes to the City's Street Standards. • Met with citizens and developers in Permit Center to answer inquiries and discuss design requirements for potential commercial and land use projects. • Conducted preconstruction meetings, performed site visits, prepared punch lists, reviewed surety estimates, and reviewed and approved construction certification packages to finalize final plats and to issue commercial building certificates of occupancy. • Conducted Development Engineering Forum with civil and geotechnical engineers to review requirements for materials testing, construction inspection, and project certification per the City's Street Standards. TRAFFIC Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA's) Staff worked with Planning staff to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed 2018 CPA's. There are a total of seven proposed amendments and of these four were initiated by the public and three by the City. A study session with the Planning Commission was held on February 2, 2018 and a Public Hearing held on February 22, 2018. Traffic testified before the Planning Commission to discuss traffic impacts to the City's transportation system as a result of the upzoning of several City parcels. Assisted CIP Street projects are in full design mode and Traffic continues to assist CIP in generating plans and specifications for their street projects. PLANNING AND GRANTS Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) CDBG issued a request for proposals for the 2018 program year. Project applications for two sidewalk improvement projects were submitted: Wilbur Road, Boone to Broadway (west side) and Knox Avenue, Hutchinson to Sargent (south side). Due to funding availability, Spokane County recommended that both sidewalk projects receive funding. Upcoming Grant Programs for 2018 Staff is evaluating its TIP, along with various other planning documents, to identify potential projects that are eligible for the various grant funds. Information regarding these funds and their 5 eligible projects will be discussed with City Council in February and March 2018. The following is a brief description of funds: Washington State Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) issued the following call for projects: 1. Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Program Applications Due: March 30th Funds Available: $10 Million for 2019-2021 and $15 Million for 2021-2023 Program Purpose: Improve the movement of freight and/or mitigate the movement of freight through local communities. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) issued the following calls for projects: 2. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) — City Safety Program (CSP) Applications Due: April 16th Funds Available: $25 Million shared by two programs (2/3 for Systemic, 1/3 for Spot) Program Purpose: Reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on City streets using engineering improvements/countermeasures. 3. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Applications Due: April 27th Funds Available: $19,150,000 Program Purpose: Increase the number of children walking and biking to school safely. 4. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program (PBP) Applications Due: May 11th Funds Available: $18,380,000 Program Purpose: Reduce collisions with pedestrian and bicyclist and increase the number of people who choose to walk and bike for transportation. Another call for projects will be made available through Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) in March 2018 and will include Surface Treatment Block Grant (STBG), Surface Treatment Block Grant — Set Aside (STBG-Set Aside), and Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ). More information to follow. Amendment to the 2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) From January to October each year, the City has a recurring opportunity to update the previously adopted Six-year Transportation Improvement Program. A February 2018 amendment identifies additional projects and updates to existing projects for the 2018 TIP. Additions include Right -of - Way for the Barker Grade Separation project and 2017 projects extending into 2018. Adoption is anticipated in March 2018. Draft 2019-2024 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) RCW 35.77.010 requires local jurisdictions to prepare and adopt a revised and extended comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years. The Washington State 6 Department of Transportation requires adoption of this plan by June 30th of each year. A draft list of updated and new projects planned for 2019 to 2024 is under review. Ongoing projects from the previous document roll over into the new program. A draft document goes before City Council as an Administrative Report in late April, with adoption planned for June 2018. Pavement Management Update Staff has consulted with IMS Infrastructure Management Services to conduct its biennial survey of the City's street network. The network survey was conducted in September and October of 2017 and December 2017 marked the first review of IMS's data collection results. This survey helps to identify the current and projected roadway network conditions, identifies network needs and evaluates network priorities. Network condition is rated on a scale from 0- 100 (0=worst, 100=best) and assigned a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score and a Backlog score. Overall, the City's network has a PCI of 71 and a backlog of 6%. Backlog is defined as the accumulation of "failed" road segments within the City network that are waiting to be repaired. Backlog is quantified as the percentage of the overall road network that is falling below a minimum PCI level. Staff is currently in the process of evaluating various levels of service (i.e. PCI and backlog levels) and the associated costs for each. Once complete, this information will be made available for review and discussion. 7