The URL can be used to link to this page

2018, 11-20 Study Session AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT (with some action items) Tuesday, November 20,2018 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10210 E Sprague Avenue (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket—Lori Barlow [public comment] 2.Motion Consideration: Barker I-90 WSDOT Interlocal Agreement—Bill Helbig [public comment] 3.Motion Consideration: Barker I-90 HDR Contract—Bill Helbig [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those action items above, as 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. NON-ACTION ITEMS: DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL 4. Chelsie Taylor Fee Resolution for 2019 Discussion/Information 5.Marty Palaniuk Open Space Proposed Code Text Discussion/Information Amendment 6. Erik Lamb Marijuana Code Text Amendment Discussion/Information Transportation Use 7. Erik Lamb City Logo,Proposed Code Amendment Discussion/Information 8.Mayor Higgins Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 9. Information Only(will not be reported or discussed): a. Department Monthly Reports b. Quarterly Survey Report 10. Mayor Higgins Council Check-in Discussion/Information 11. Mark Calhoun City Manager Comments Discussion/Information 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)] ADJOURN Study Session Agenda,November 20,2018 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 20,2018 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration - 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) Docket GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Growth Management Act(GMA) RCW 36.70A; SVMC Chapters 19.30 and 17.80 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The GMA allows local jurisdictions to update Comprehensive Plans no more than once each year. The City codified this process in SVMC 17.80.140. Pursuant to state law and the SVMC,staff published notices in September advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2019 cycle through October 31,2018.The City received three privately initiated CPA's. City initiated amendments include three map amendments and four text amendments.The map amendments include the reclassification of approximately 14 acres of property from MFR to CMU, revising the Maps of Existing and Recommended Bicycle Facilities,and creating an appendix of recently adopted maps. The text amendments include adding a list of 20-year transportation projects, updating the implementation strategy list, adding annexation policies, and updates to the Transportation Element relative to bike and pedestrian goals and policies and language supporting Complete Streets. Staff discussed the CPA update process and introduced the 2019 CPA Docket at the November 13, 2018 City Council Meeting. Council may approve the docket as submitted,or modify the docket which includes removing individual items at Council's discretion. OPTIONS: Approve the proposed 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket as submitted or modified. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council discretion: Move to approve the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket as presented or modified. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:N/A STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner and Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Docket Exhibit 1 City of Spokane Valley 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket PRIVATELY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-2019-0001 Land Use Map Change parcel 45183.9059 from Ito SFR (Danny Davis) CPA-2019-0002 Land Use Map Change parcel 45234.4501 and 45234.0210 from SFR to NC ( Advent Lutheran Church and TCF Properties LLC) CPA-2019-0003 Land Use Map Change parcel 45181.0213 from SFR to MFR (Elgee) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map # Summary of Amendment CPA-2019-0007 Figure 27 Update to the existing and recommended bicycle facilities to reflect changes and amendments to the bike and pedestrian plan. CPA-2019-0008 New Appendix Create a new appendix of the most recently adopted maps. CPA-2019-0009 Land Use Map Change designation for parcels 45104.9151, 45104.9150, etal, from MF to CMU. CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS File Number Text Summary of Amendment CPA-2019-0004 Chapter 2 Updates to the implementation strategies to remove completed strategies, update timelines, and add new strategies consistent with the goals and policies. CPA-2019-0005 Chapter 5 Update the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan components of the Transportation Element and related Transportation goals and policies. Bring policy language forward to support a Complete Streets ordinance. CPA-2019-0006 Chapter 2 Annexation goal and policy additions CPA-2019-0010 New Appendix Develop a list of transportation projects for a 20-year period that is informed by existing studies and plans. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 20, 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 Rd/I-90 Westbound (WB) Interchange— WSDOT Interlocal Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: September 4, 2018 —Administrative Report on Project BACKGROUND: Improvements at the existing Barker Road/I-90 interchanges are warranted to handle current traffic volumes. The Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 has two lanes and does not meet height clearance requirements. To add additional lanes, the existing bridge will need to be lowered or a new bridge must be constructed. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is currently designing interim improvements for the eastbound interchange on the south side of the freeway. Interim improvements include a single roundabout with additional approach lanes. Similar improvements are needed for the westbound interchange. WSDOT requested that the City manage the engineering design of the westbound interchange with WSDOT paying for the costs of the engineering phase, including internal City costs. WSDOT has Connecting Washington funds which includes improvements to the 1-90 corridor from Barker Road to Harvard Road. An Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT is necessary for the City to provide the services that WSDOT is requesting. To proceed with the Engineering Services for the interchange work, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)for the westbound interchange design was advertised on June 29, 2018. HDR was selected as the most qualified firm to perform design services on the project. Staff has finalized scope of work and fee with HDR for the project and will be seeking contract approval with HDR under a separate City Council action. Staff has developed an Interlocal agreement with WSDOT identifying the work to be completed and financial conditions. WSDOT is in the process of signing the Interlocal Agreement and will be sending it back to staff. Attached is a copy of the Interlocal Agreement. OPTIONS: 1) Authorize staff to execute the Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT for the design of the project or, 2) Take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT for Engineering Services associated with the Barker Rd/ 1-90 Westbound Interchange project. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: As indicated in the Interlocal Agreement, WSDOT will remit $900,000 to the City at the beginning of the project and when the project is complete the City will return all unexpended funds as well as submit a summary report. The City would be responsible for all costs in excess of$900,000 but we do not anticipate this will be necessary. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, PE, City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation; Interlocal Agreement • T: C\ • ,__. 0„,,t,....,._ _ , . , ....,_____ , ___ _ ®- , w„.. .1.-- B . rker/I-9G \istbound.. .. _ _ WB _ _ .• _ iirt , ___ Interchang ” o r_.,______ _i „, ii _w__ ri ......, _ .____ �'`„,,r4„,„..:„.„... _•,:._,, ProjecMntroductio ate.-� lit !._ r _ 4. 1+1 i _, D _.,„....4111r."."1.'. ' Ii.„ ' -. r : ...-* ' - ' :0.11. ::11; .41111111"riH4.”:i 4,.._,, O. , arli cilt . /4, ___— ak.-- ,.... .„, ..-,r.._r '', . - • .. ; I—'-,LF e , November 2O2O1 4 tm. a _ `4.''''. ri, -r ' ' ' n 1 - '. -t `..iie.1 } Bill l H I igPE, City Engineer _. £Valle . F I November 20, 2018 Project Existing Conditions at Barker Road I-90 Westbound Interchange Signalized Intersection Level of Service is E (AM Peak Hour) Southbound Queue is 1,200 ft (AM Peak Hour) Two Lane Bridge Over I-90 Does Not Meet Height Clearance Requirements Barker Road/I-90 Westbound Interchange Interim Improvements Discussed with Council on September 4th, 2018 Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT Consultant Designs Project City Manages Engineering Phase Spokane 2 400s Valley November 20, 2018 HDR Consultant Agreement -..2„, 3 •r BOONE AVE = Interim Improvements - J Single Lane Roundabout at existing �$' interchange �m ,^ t Project Status '' .; - City Issued Request for y . o -t t=""'" °, "'°" x ' Qualifications = , a BRo,„D Y y fz s ) City Selected HDR ++ '� N r! Negotiated Scope and Fee m . „ _� ,. = ,. � a It. PPLEWMr RAV « 3 i November 20, 2018 Budget Impact WSDOT will remit $900,000 to City at the beginning of the project. At project conclusion, City will return unexpended funds. Costs exceeding $900,000 will be borne by the City. We do not anticipate this will be necessary. Spokane 4 41.000Valley November 20, 2018 Next Steps With Motion Approval - Execute WSDOT Interlocal Agreement HDR Contract Design Project — December 2018 to August 2019 WSDOT Obtains ROW — April to June 2019 WSDOT Advertises Construction Project (Contingent on Funding) — September 2019 5 Valley November 20, 2018 Questions Spokane 6 4000 Valley GCB 2995 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT This Interlocal Agreement(Agreement) is entered into 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," hereinafter to be referred to individually as the "Party" and collectively as the"Parties". Recitals A. The Local Agency is planning the design to improve congestion at the Barker Interchange north ramp terminal with interim intersection improvements hereinafter referred to as the "Project," as shown in Exhibit A. Now Therefore,pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 39.34,the Interlocal Cooperation Act and to the above recitals and Exhibit A 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: 1. Pre-Construction Provisions 1.1 The plans, specifications, and special provisions(Project Documents) are to be prepared in accordance with the current State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road,Bridge, and Municipal Construction, 2018 edition, and amendments thereto (2018 Standard Specifications), and the Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual, M 22-01, current version, unless otherwise noted. 1.2 The Local Agency agrees to complete the interim engineering design of a single lane roundabout at Barker Road and Cataldo Avenue. Upon WSDOT's acceptance,the Project Documents will be submitted to WSDOT to complete right-of-way acquisition and construction of the intersection. Design changes after WSDOT acceptance will be the sole responsibility of WSDOT. 2. WSDOT Funding Commitments and Payments 2.1 Both Parties benefit by this Project and WSDOT has agreed to participate with a one-time lump sum contribution, paid to the Local Agency following the execution of this Agreement upon receipt of an invoice generated by the Local Agency and sent to WSDOT for their contribution in the amount Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($900,000). The invoice shall be sent to Mary Jensen, Engineering Manager, Eastern Region, 2714 N. Mayfair St, Spokane WA. 99207-2050. GCB 2995 Page 1 of 5 2.2 The Local Agency agrees to pay all costs in excess of$900,000 necessary to complete the Project. 2.3 WSDOT will require the Local Agency to submit a summary report at the close of the Project detailing what was delivered. 2.4 At the completion of the Project all unused funds shall be returned to WSDOT. 3. Term 3.1 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 Local Agency obligations for payment have been met, unless otherwise terminated pursuant to Section 7. 4. Legal Relations 4.1 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. 5. Applicable Laws Venues 5.1 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. 6. Amendments 6.1 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 Parties. 7. Termination 7.1 Neither WSDOT nor the Local Agency may terminate this Agreement without the written concurrence of the other Party. GCB 2995 Page 2 of 5 7.2 Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior to termination. 8. Disputes Resolution 8.1 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 8.2 below. 8.2 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 selection of a mediation service and scheduling of the mediation proceedings. The Parties agree to participate in the 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. 9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless 9.1 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. 9.1.1 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. GCB 2995 Page 3 of 5 9.1.2 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. 9.2 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, 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. 9.2.1 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. 9.2.2 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. 9.3 This indemnification and waiver shall survive the termination of this Agreement. GCB 2995 Page 4 of 5 10. Signatures In Witness Whereof,the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Party's date signed last below. WASHINGTON STATE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 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: L. Scott Lockwood Title: Title: Assistant Attorney General Date: Date: //7 jc-7a ° r „/ GCB 2995 Page 5 of 5 r r • r r r 1 �» A 4'., r+rar^ 1 c 1 ^;,7 r Ff r + BOONE AVE • ".T." • — GCB 2995 ` EXHIBIT A • S 4 '+ _ PAGE 1 OF 1 ,, :. r M '+rrm�r IN i ti _w x a c x a a � e R A,�,� r Y1r1+ - ' fes`1 * iv ` J x�» r it *-,,, ? � r a. q^`yfl. aid ' till pWr w ,' s ms a ;77::: _P.�a�r III; u,'d'm M,96 u ,�- 1t414 Ore at"' -.:111'' 4s y 'l'— `. . Sitaip • a ',ries, Is* + k+ 5�e . . + 1 - f ul�Y ,b V . i ar w '' '46d� t. +f w. t CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 20, 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 Rd/I-90 Westbound (WB) Interchange— HDR Consultant Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: September 4, 2018 — Project Administrative Report BACKGROUND: Improvements at the existing Barker Road/I-90 interchanges are warranted to handle current traffic volumes. The Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 has two lanes and does not meet height clearance requirements. To add additional lanes, the existing bridge will need to be lowered or a new bridge must be constructed. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is currently designing interim improvements for the eastbound interchange on the south side of the freeway. Interim improvements include a single roundabout with additional approach lanes. Similar improvements are needed for the westbound interchange. WSDOT requested that the City manage the engineering design of the westbound interchange with WSDOT paying for the costs of the engineering phase, including internal City costs. WSDOT has Connecting Washington funds which includes improvements to the 1-90 corridor from Barker Road to Harvard Road. An Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT is necessary for the City to provide the services that WSDOT is requesting. City and WSDOT staff have finalized the Interlocal Agreement and staff will be seeking its approval under a separate City Council action. To proceed with the Engineering Services for the interchange work, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the westbound interchange design was advertised on June 29, 2018. HDR was selected as the most qualified firm to perform design services on the project. Staff has finalized scope of work and fee with HDR for the project. OPTIONS: 1)Authorize staff to execute the consultant design services agreement with HDR after the WSDOT Interlocal Agreement has been executed or, 2) Take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Consultant Agreement with HDR for a maximum payable amount of$373,012.27. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The WSDOT is contributing $900,000 for the project to cover all City expenses. The HDR Consultant Agreement is for $373,012.27 and will be funded from the WSDOT contribution. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, PE, City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Consultant Agreement THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as shown in the "Execution Date" box on page one (1) of this AGREEMENT, between the City of Spokane Valley hereinafter called the "AGENCY," and the "Firm / Organization Name" referenced on page one (1) of this AGREEMENT, hereinafter called the"CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires to accomplish the work referenced in "Description of Work" on page one (1) of this AGREEMENT and hereafter called the "SERVICES;" and does not have sufficient staff to meet the required commitment and therefore deems it advisable and desirable to engage the assistance of a CONSULTANT to provide the necessary SERVICES; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that they comply with the Washington State Statutes relating to professional registration, if applicable, and has signified a willingness to furnish consulting services to the AGENCY. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performance contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof,the parties hereto agree as follows: I. General Description of Work The work under this AGREEMENT shall consist of the above-described SERVICES as herein defined, and necessary to accomplish the completed work for this project. The CONSULTANT shall furnish all services, labor, and related equipment and, if applicable, sub-consultants and subcontractors necessary to conduct and complete the SERVICES as designated elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. II. General Scope of Work The Scope of Work and projected level of effort required for these SERVICES is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. The General Scope of Work was developed utilizing performance based contracting methodologies. III. General Requirements All aspects of coordination of the work of this AGREEMENT with outside agencies, groups, or individuals shall receive advance approval by the AGENCY. Necessary contacts and meetings with agencies, groups, and/or individuals shall be coordinated through the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall attend coordination, progress, and presentation meetings with the AGENCY and/or such State, Federal, Community, City, or County officials, groups or individuals as may be requested by the AGENCY. The AGENCY will provide the CONSULTANT sufficient notice prior to meetings requiring CONSULTANT participation. The minimum required hours or days' notice shall be agreed to between the AGENCY and the CONSULTANT and shown in Exhibit"A." The CONSULTANT shall prepare a monthly progress report, in a form approved by the AGENCY, which will outline in written and graphical form the various phases and the order of performance of the SERVICES in sufficient detail so that the progress of the SERVICES can easily be evaluated. The CONSULTANT,any sub-consultants, and the AGENCY shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws, rules, codes, regulations, and all AGENCY policies and directives, applicable to the work to be performed under this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 18-127 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 2 of 34 Participation for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) or Small Business Enterprises (SBE), if required, per 49 CFR Part 26, shall be shown on the heading of this AGREEMENT. If DBE firms are utilized at the commencement of this AGREEMENT, the amounts authorized to each firm and their certification number will be shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. If the Prime CONSULTANT is, a DBE certified firm they must comply with the Commercial Useful Function (CUF) regulation outlined in the AGENCY's "DBE Program Participation Plan" and perform a minimum of 30% of the total amount of this AGREEMENT. It is recommended, but not required, that non-DBE Prime CONSULTANTS perform a minimum of 30% of the total amount of thisAGREEMENT. In the absence of a mandatory UDBE, a voluntary SBE goal amount of ten percent of the Consultant Agreement is established. The Consultant shall submit a SBE Participation Plan prior to commencing work. Although the goal is voluntary,the outreach efforts to provide SBE maximum practicable opportunities are not. The CONSULTANT, on a monthly basis, shall enter the amounts paid to all firms (including Prime) involved with this AGREEMENT into the wsdot.diversitycompliance.com program. Payment information shall identify any DBE Participation.Non-minority, woman owned DBEs does not count towards UDBE goal attainment. All Reports, PS&E materials, and other data furnished to the CONSULTANT by the AGENCY shall be returned. All electronic files, prepared by the CONSULTANT, must meet the requirements as outlined in Exhibit "C — Preparation and Delivery of Electronic Engineering and other Data." All designs, drawings, specifications, documents, and other work products, including all electronic files, prepared by the CONSULTANT prior to completion or termination of this AGREEMENT are instruments of service for these SERVICES, and are the property of the AGENCY. Reuse by the AGENCY or by others, acting through or on behalf of the AGENCY of any such instruments of service, not occurring, as a part of this SERVICE, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the CONSULTANT. Any and all notices or requests required under this AGREEMENT shall be made in writing and sent to the other party by (i) certified mail, return receipt requested, or(ii) by email or facsimile,to the address set forth below: If to AGENCY: If to CONSULTANT: Name: Erica Amsden Name: Scott Marshall Agency: City of Spokane Valley Agency: HDR Engineering, Inc. Address: 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Address: 1401 East Trent Avenue, Suite 101 City: Spokane Valley City: Spokane State: WA Zip: 99206 State: WA Zip: 99202 Email: eamsden@spokanevalley.org Email: Scott.R.Marshall@hdrinc.com Phone: 509.720.5012 Phone: 509.343.8523 Facsimile: 509.720.5075 Facsimile: 509.343.8501 IV. Time for Beginning and Completion The CONSULTANT shall not begin any work under the terms of this AGREEMENT until authorized in writing by the AGENCY. All work under this AGREEMENT shall conform to the criteria agreed upon detailed in the AGREEMENT documents. These SERVICES must be completed by the date shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT titled"Completion Date." The established completion time shall not be extended because of any delays attributable to the CONSULTANT, but may be extended by the AGENCY in the event of a delay attributable to the AGENCY, or because of unavoidable delays caused by an act of GOD, governmental actions, or other conditions beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. A prior supplemental AGREEMENT issued by the AGENCY is required to extend the established completion time. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 18'127 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 3 of 34 V. Payment Provisions The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for completed SERVICES rendered under this AGREEMENT as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for SERVICES performed or SERVICES rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete SERVICES.The CONSULTANT shall conform to all applicable portions of 48 CFR Part 31 (www.ecfr.gov). A. Hourly Rates: Hourly rates are comprised of the following elements -Direct(Raw) Labor, Indirect Cost Rate, and Fixed Fee (Profit). The CONSULTANT shall be paid by the AGENCY for work done, based upon the negotiated hourly rates shown in Exhibits "D" and "E" attached hereto and by reference made part of this AGREEMENT. These negotiated hourly rates will be accepted based on a review of the CONSULTANT's direct labor rates and indirect cost rate computations and agreed upon fixed fee. The accepted negotiated rates shall be memorialized in a final written acknowledgment between the parties. Such final written acknowledgment shall be incorporated into, and become a part of, this AGREEMENT. The initially accepted negotiated rates shall be applicable from the approval date, as memorialized in a final written acknowledgment,to 180 days following the CONSULTANT's fiscal year end (FYE) date. The direct (raw) labor rates and classifications, as shown on Exhibits "D" and "E" shall be subject to renegotiations for each subsequent twelve (12) month period (180 days following FYE date to 180 days following FYE date) upon written request of the CONSULTANT or the AGENCY. The written request must be made to the other party within ninety (90) days following the CONSULTANT's FYE date. If no such written request is made, the current direct (raw) labor rates and classifications as shown on Exhibits "D" and "E"will remain in effect for the twelve (12)month period. Conversely, if a timely request is made in the manner set forth above, the parties will commence negotiations to determine the new direct (raw) labor rates and classifications that will be applicable for the twelve (12 month period. Any agreed to renegotiated rates shall be memorialized in a final written acknowledgment between the parties. Such final written acknowledgment shall be incorporated into, and become a part of, this AGREEMENT. If requested, the CONSULTANT shall provide current payroll register and classifications to aid in negotiations. If the parties cannot reach an agreement on the direct (raw) labor rates and classifications, the AGENCY shall perform an audit of the CONSULTANT's books and records to determine the CONSULTANT's actual costs. The audit findings will establish the direct (raw) labor rates and classifications that will applicable for the twelve (12) month period. The fixed fee as identified in Exhibits"D" and"E" shall represent a value to be applied throughout the life of the AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall submit annually to the AGENCY an updated indirect cost rate within 180 days of the close of its fiscal year. An approved updated indirect cost rate shall be included in the current fiscal year rate under this AGREEMENT, even if/when other components of the hourly rate are not renegotiated. These rates will be applicable for the twelve (12) month period. At the AGENCY's option, a provisional and/or conditional indirect cost rate may be negotiated. This provisional or conditional indirect rate shall remain in effect until the updated indirect cost rate is completed and approved. Indirect cost rate costs incurred during the provisional or conditional period will not be adjusted. The CONSULTANT may request an extension of the last approved indirect cost rate for the twelve (12) month period. These requests for provisional indirect cost rate and/or extension will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and if granted, will be memorialized in a final written acknowledgment. The CONSULTANT shall maintain and have accessible support data for verification of the components of the hourly rates, i.e., direct (raw) labor, indirect cost rate, and fixed fee (profit) percentage. The CONSULTANT shall bill each employee's actual classification, and actual salary plus indirect cost rate plus fixed fee. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 18-127 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 4 of 34 B. Direct Non-Salary Costs: Direct Non-Salary Costs will be reimbursed at the actual cost to the CONSULTANT.These charges may include, but are not limited to, the following items: travel, printing, long distance telephone, supplies, computer charges, and fees of sub-consultants. Air or train travel will be reimbursed only to lowest price available, unless otherwise approved by the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT shall comply with the rules and regulations regarding travel costs (excluding air,train, and rental car costs) in accordance with the WSDOT's Accounting Manual M 13-82, Chapter 10—Travel Rules and Procedures, and all revisions thereto. Air, train, and rental car costs shall be reimbursed in accordance with 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 31.205-46 "Travel Costs." The billing for Direct Non-salary Costs shall include an itemized listing of the charges directly identifiable with these SERVICES. The CONSULTANT shall maintain the original supporting documents in their office. Copies of the original supporting documents shall be supplied to the STATE upon request. All above charges must be necessary for the SERVICES provided under this AGREEMENT. C. Maximum Amount Payable: The Maximum Amount Payable by the AGENCY to the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT shall not exceed the amount shown in the heading of this AGREEMENT on page one (1.) The Maximum Amount Payable does not include payment for extra work as stipulated in section XIII, "Extra Work."No minimum amount payable is guaranteed under this AGREEMENT. D. Monthly Progress Payments: Progress payments may be claimed on a monthly basis for all costs authorized in A and B above. Detailed statements shall support the monthly billings for hours expended at the rates established in Exhibit "D," including names and classifications of all employees, and billings for all direct non-salary expenses. To provide a means of verifying the billed salary costs for the CONSULTANT's employees, the AGENCY may conduct employee interviews. These interviews may consist of recording the names, titles, salary rates, and present duties of those employees performing work on the SERVICES at the time of the interview. E. Final Payment: Final Payment of any balance due the CONSULTANT of the gross amount earned will be made promptly upon its verification by the AGENCY after the completion of the SERVICES under this AGREEMENT, contingent upon receipt of all PS&E, plans, maps, notes, reports, electronic data, and other related documents, which are required to be furnished under this AGREEMENT. Acceptance of such Final Payment by the CONSULTANT shall constitute a release of all claims for payment, which the CONSULTANT may have against the AGENCY unless such claims are specifically reserved in writing and transmitted to the AGENCY by the CONSULTANT prior to its acceptance. Said Final Payment shall not, however, be a bar to any claims that the AGENCY may have against the CONSULTANT or to any remedies the AGENCY may pursue with respect to such claims. The payment of any billing will not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and at the time of final audit all required adjustments will be made and reflected in a final payment. In the event that such final audit reveals an overpayment to the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT will refund such overpayment to the AGENCY within thirty (30) calendar days of notice of the overpayment. Such refund shall not constitute a waiver by the CONSULTANT for any claims relating to the validity of a finding by the AGENCY of overpayment. Per WSDOT's "Audit Guide for Consultants," Chapter 23 "Resolution Procedures,"the CONSULTANT has twenty (20) working days after receipt of the final Post Audit to begin the appeal process to the AGENCY for audit findings F. Inspection of Cost Records: The CONSULTANT and their sub-consultants shall keep available for inspection by representatives of the AGENCY and the United States, for a period of six(6) years after receipt of final payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this AGREEMENT and all items related to or bearing upon these records with the following exception: if any litigation, claim or audit arising out of, in connection with, or related to this AGREEMENT is initiated before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the cost records and accounts shall be retained until such litigation, claim, or audit involving the records is completed. An interim or post audit may be performed on this AGREEMENT. The audit, if any, will be performed by the State Auditor, WSDOT's Internal Audit Office and /or at the request of the AGENCY's Project Manager. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 18-127 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 5 of 34 VI. Sub-Contracting The AGENCY permits subcontracts for those items of SERVICES as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall not subcontract for the performance of any SERVICE under this AGREEMENT without prior written permission of the AGENCY. No permission for subcontracting shall create, between the AGENCY and sub-consultant, any contract or any other relationship. Compensation for this sub-consultant SERVICES shall be based on the cost factors shown on Exhibit "E" attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT. The SERVICES of the sub-consultant shall not exceed its maximum amount payable identified in each sub consultant cost estimate unless a prior written approval has been issued by the AGENCY. All reimbursable direct labor, indirect cost rate, direct non-salary costs and fixed fee costs for the sub-consultant shall be negotiated and substantiated in accordance with section V "Payment Provisions" herein and shall be memorialized in a final written acknowledgement between the parties All subcontracts shall contain all applicable provisions of this AGREEMENT, and the CONSULTANT shall require each sub-consultant or subcontractor, of any tier, to abide by the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. With respect to sub-consultant payment, the CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable sections of the STATE's Prompt Payment laws as set forth in RCW 39.04.250 and RCW 39.76.011. The CONSULTANT, sub-recipient, or sub-consultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the CONSULTANT to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this AGREEMENT, which may result in the termination of this AGREEMENT or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate. VII. Employment and Organizational Conflict of Interest The CONSULTANT warrants that they have not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant, the AGENCY shall have the right to annul this AGREEMENT without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from this AGREEMENT price or consideration or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. Any and all employees of the CONSULTANT or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required of the CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, shall be considered employees of the CONSULTANT only and not of the AGENCY, and any and all claims that may arise under any Workmen's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the CONSULTANT's employees or other persons while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall not engage, on a full- or part-time basis, or other basis, during the period of this AGREEMENT, any professional or technical personnel who are, or have been, at any time during the period of this AGREEMENT, in the employ of the United States Department of Transportation or the AGENCY, except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the public employer of such person if he/she will be working on this AGREEMENT for the CONSULTANT. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 18-127 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 6 of 34 VIII. Nondiscrimination During the performance of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees, sub-consultants, subcontractors and successors in interest, agrees to comply with the following laws and regulations: • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Public Law (42 U.S.C. Chapter 21 Subchapter V § 100-259) 2000d through 2000d-4a) • American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 • Federal-aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C. Chapter 126 § 12101 et. seq.) U.S.C. Chapter 3 § 324) • 23 CFR Part 200 • Rehabilitation Act of 1973 • 49 CFR Part 21 (29 U.S.C. Chapter 16 Subchapter V § • 49 CFR Part 26 794) • RCW 49.60.180 • Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. Chapter 76 § 6101 et. seq.) In relation to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the CONSULTANT is bound by the provisions of Exhibit "F" attached hereto and by this reference made part of this AGREEMENT, and shall include the attached Exhibit "F" in every sub-contract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. IX. Termination of Agreement The right is reserved by the AGENCY to terminate this AGREEMENT at any time with or without cause upon ten (10) days written notice to the CONSULTANT. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated by the AGENCY, other than for default on the part of the CONSULTANT, a final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT for actual hours charged at the time of termination of this AGREEMENT, plus any direct non-salary costs incurred up to the time of termination of this AGREEMENT. No payment shall be made for any SERVICES completed after ten (10) days following receipt by the CONSULTANT of the notice to terminate. If the accumulated payment made to the CONSULTANT prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the total amount that would be due when computed as set forth in paragraph two (2) of this section, then no final payment shall be due and the CONSULTANT shall immediately reimburse the AGENCY for any excess paid. If the services of the CONSULTANT are terminated by the AGENCY for default on the part of the CONSULTANT,the above formula for payment shall not apply. In the event of a termination for default,the amount to be paid to the CONSULTANT shall be determined by the AGENCY with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the CONSULTANT in performing SERVICES to the date of termination, the amount of SERVICES originally required which was satisfactorily completed to date of termination, whether that SERVICE is in a form or a type which is usable to the AGENCY at the time of termination, the cost to the AGENCY of employing another firm to complete the SERVICES required and the time which may be required to do so, and other factors which affect the value to the AGENCY of the SERVICES performed at the time of termination. Under no circumstances shall payment made under this subsection exceed the amount, which would have been made using the formula set forth in paragraph two (2) of this section. If it is determined for any reason,that the CONSULTANT was not in default or that the CONSULTANT's failure to perform is without the CONSULTANT's or its employee's fault or negligence, the termination shall be deemed to be a termination for the convenience of the AGENCY.In such an event, the CONSULTANT would be reimbursed for actual costs in accordance with the termination for other than default clauses listed previously. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 18-127 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 7 of 39 The CONSULTANT shall, within 15 days, notify the AGENCY in writing, in the event of the death of any member, partner, or officer of the CONSULTANT or the death or change of any of the CONSULTANT's supervisory and/or other key personnel assigned to the project or disaffiliation of any principally involved CONSULTANT employee. The CONSULTANT shall also notify the AGENCY, in writing, in the event of the sale or transfer of 50% or more of the beneficial ownership of the CONSULTANT within 15 days of such sale or transfer occurring. The CONSULTANT shall continue to be obligated to complete the SERVICES under the terms of this AGREEMENT unless the AGENCY chooses to terminate this AGREEMENT for convenience or chooses to renegotiate any term(s) of this AGREEMENT. If termination for convenience occurs, final payment will be made to the CONSULTANT as set forth in the second and third paragraphs of this section. Payment for any part of the SERVICES by the AGENCY shall not constitute a waiver by the AGENCY of any remedies of any type it may have against the CONSULTANT for any breach of this AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT,or for failure of the CONSULTANT to perform SERVICES required of it by the AGENCY. Forbearance of any rights under the AGREEMENT will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those rights with respect to any future act or omission by the CONSULTANT. X. Changes of Work The CONSULTANT shall make such changes and revisions in the completed work of this AGREEMENT as necessary to correct errors appearing therein, without additional compensation thereof. Should the AGENCY find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed SERVICES or parts thereof changed or revised, the CONSULTANT shall make such revisions as directed by the AGENCY. This work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as herein provided under section XIII "Extra Work." XI. Disputes Any disputed issue not resolved pursuant to the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be submitted in writing within 10 days to the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer, whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding on the parties of this AGREEMENT; provided however, that if an action is brought challenging the Director of Public Works or AGENCY Engineer's decision, that decision shall be subject to judicial review. If the parties to this AGREEMENT mutually agree, disputes concerning alleged design errors will be conducted under the procedures found in Exhibit "J". In the event that either party deem it necessary to institute legal action or proceeding to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT, this action shall be initiated in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located. The parties hereto agree that all questions shall be resolved by application of Washington law and that the parties have the right of appeal from such decisions of the Superior Court in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of Washington, situated in the county in which the AGENCY is located. XII. Legal Relations The CONSULTANT, any sub-consultants, and the AGENCY shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws, rules, codes, regulations and all AGENCY policies and directives, applicable to the work to be performed under this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify, and hold the State of Washington (STATE) and the AGENCY and their officers and employees harmless from all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the negligence of, or the breach of any obligation under this AGREEMENT by, the CONSULTANT or the CONSULTANT's agents, employees, sub consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT may be legally liable; provided that nothing herein shall require a CONSULTANT Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 18-127 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 8 of 34 to defend or indemnify the STAL'E and the AGENCY and their officers and employees against and hold harmless the STATE and the AGENCY and their officers and employees from claims, demands or suits based solely upon the negligence of, or breach of any obligation under this AGREEMENT by the STATE and the AGENCY,their agents, officers, employees, sub-consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tie , or any other persons for whom the STA1E and/or the AGENCY may be legally liable; and provided further that if the claims or suits are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the CONSULTANT or the CONSULTANT's agents, employees, sub-consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT is legally liable, and (b) the STATE and/or AGENCY, their agents, officers, employees, sub-consultants, subcontractors and or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the STATE and/or AGENCY may be legally liable, the defense and indemnity obligation shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the CONSULTANT's negligence or the negligence of the CONSULTANT's agents, employees, sub-consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT may be legally liable. This provision shall be included in any AGREEMENT between CONSULTANT and any sub-consultant, subcontractor and vendor, of any tier. The CONSULTANT shall also defend, indemnify, and hold the STATE and the AGENCY and their officers and employees harmless from all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising in whole or in part from the alleged patent or copyright infringement or other allegedly improper appropriation or use of trade secrets, patents, proprietary information, know-how, copyright rights or inventions by the CONSULTANT or the CONSULTANT's agents, employees, sub-consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT may be legally liable, in performance of the Work under this AGREEMENT or arising out of any use in connection with the AGREEMENT of methods, processes, designs, information or other items furnished or communicated to STATE and/or the AGENCY,their agents, officers and employees pursuant to the AGREEMENT; provided that this indemnity shall not apply to any alleged patent or copyright infringement or other allegedly improper appropriation or use of trade secrets, patents, proprietary information, know-how, copyright rights or inventions resulting from STAFF,and/or AGENCY's, their agents', officers and employees' failure to comply with specific written instructions regarding use provided to STATE and/or AGENCY, their agents, officers and employees by the CONSULTANT, its agents, employees, sub- consultants, subcontractors or vendors, of any tier, or any other persons for whom the CONSULTANT may be legally liable. The CONSULTANT's relation to the AGENCY shall be at all times as an independent contractor. Notwithstanding any determination by the Executive Ethics Board or other tribunal, the AGENCY may, in its sole discretion, by written notice to the CONSULTANT terminate this AGREEMENT if it is found after due notice and examination by the AGENCY that there is a violation of the Ethics in Public Service Act, Chapter 42.52 RCW; or any similar statute involving the CONSULTANT in the procurement of, or performance under, this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the CONSULTANT's own employees or its agents against the STATE and/or the AGENCY and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the CONSULTANT specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. The Parties have mutually negotiated this waiver. Unless otherwise specified in this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall be responsible for administration of construction contracts, if any, on the project. Subject to the processing of a new sole source, or an acceptable supplemental AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall provide On-Call assistance to the AGENCY during contract administration. By providing such assistance, the CONSULTANT shall assume no responsibility for proper construction techniques, job site safety, or any construction contractor's failure to perform its work in accordance with the contract documents. The CONSULTANT shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of this AGREEMENT, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 1 8-1 27 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 9 of 34 Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the STATE. B. Commercial general liability insurance written under ISO Form CG 00 01 12 04 or its equivalent with minimum limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00)per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) in the aggregate for each policy period. C. Business auto liability insurance written under ISO Form CG 00 01 10 01 or equivalent providing coverage for any"Auto" (Symbol 1) used in an amount not less than a one million dollar($1,000,000.00) combined single limit for each occurrence. Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and any Professional Liability Insurance, the STATE and AGENCY, their officers, employees, and agents will be named on all policies of CONSULTANT and any sub- consultant and/or subcontractor as an additional insured (the "AIs"), with no restrictions or limitations concerning products and completed operations coverage. This coverage shall be primary coverage and non- contributory and any coverage maintained by the AIs shall be excess over, and shall not contribute with, the additional insured coverage required hereunder. The CONSULTANT's and the sub-consultant's and/or subcontractor's insurer shall waive any and all rights of subrogation against the AIs. The CONSULTANT shall furnish the AGENCY with verification of insurance and endorsements required by this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The CONSULTANT shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen (14) days of the execution of this AGREEMENT to: Name: Chris Bainbridge Agency: City of Spokane Valley Address: 10210 E. Sprague Avenue City: Spokane Valley State: WA Zip: 99206 Email: cbainbridge@spokanevalley.org Phone: 509.720.5102 Facsimile: 509.720.5075 No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT's professional liability to the AGENCY, including that which may arise in reference to section IX "Termination of Agreement" of this AGREEMENT, shall be limited to the accumulative amount of the authorized AGREEMENT or one million dollars ($1,000,000.00), whichever is greater, unless the limit of liability is increased by the AGENCY pursuant to Exhibit H. In no case shall the CONSULTANT's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. The parties enter into this AGREEMENT for the sole benefit of the parties, and to the exclusion of any third part, and no third party beneficiary is intended or created by the execution of this AGREEMENT. The AGENCY will pay no progress payments under section V "Payment Provisions" until the CONSULTANT has fully complied with this section. This remedy is not exclusive; and the AGENCY may take such other action as is available to it under other provisions of this AGREEMENT, or otherwise in law. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 18-127 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 10 of 34 XIII. Extra Work A. The AGENCY may at any time, by written order, make changes within the general scope of this AGREEMENT in the SERVICES to be performed. B. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the estimated cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the SERVICES under this AGREEMENT, whether or not changed by the order, or otherwise affects any other terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT, the AGENCY shall make an equitable adjustment in the: (1) maximum amount payable; (2) delivery or completion schedule, or both; and (3) other affected terms and shall modify this AGREEMENT accordingly. C. The CONSULTANT must submit any"request for equitable adjustment,"hereafter referred to as "CLAIM," under this clause within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the AGENCY decides that the facts justify it, the AGENCY may receive and act upon a CLAIM submitted before final payment of this AGREEMENT. D. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the section XI "Disputes" clause. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the CONSULTANT from proceeding with the AGREEMENT as changed. E. Notwithstanding the terms and conditions of paragraphs (A.) and (B.) above, the maximum amount payable for this AGREEMENT, shall not be increased or considered to be increased except by specific written supplement to this AGREEMENT. XIV. Endorsement of Plans If applicable, the CONSULTANT shall place their endorsement on all plans, estimates, or any other engineering data furnished by them. XV. Federal Review The Federal Highway Administration shall have the right to participate in the review or examination of the SERVICES in progress. XVI. Certification of the Consultant and the Agency Attached hereto as Exhibit "G-1(a and b)" are the Certifications of the CONSULTANT and the AGENCY, Exhibit "G-2" Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters - Primary Covered Transactions, Exhibit "G-3" Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying and Exhibit "G-4" Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Exhibit "G-3" is required only in AGREEMENT's over one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) and Exhibit "G-4" is required only in AGREEMENT's over five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00.) These Exhibits must be executed by the CONSULTANT, and submitted with the master AGREEMENT, and returned to the AGENCY at the address listed in section III "General Requirements" prior to its performance of any SERVICES under this AGREEMENT. XVII. Complete Agreement This document and referenced attachments contain all covenants, stipulations, and provisions agreed upon by the parties. No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make, and the parties shall not be bound by or be liable for, any statement, representation, promise or agreement not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, or modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as a supplement to this AGREEMENT. XVIII. Execution and Acceptance This AGREEMENT may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original having identical legal effect. The CONSULTANT does hereby ratify and adopt all statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and AGREEMENT's contained in the proposal, and the supporting material submitted by the CONSULTANT, and does hereby accept this AGREEMENT and agrees to all of the terms and conditions thereof. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 1 8-1 27 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 11 of 34 XIX. Protection of Confidential Information The CONSULTANT acknowledges that some of the material and information that may come into its possession or knowledge in connection with this AGREEMENT or its performance may consist of information that is exempt from disclosure to the public or other unauthorized persons under either chapter 42.56 RCW or other local, state, or federal statutes ("State's Confidential Information"). The "State's Confidential Information" includes, but is not limited to, names, addresses, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, financial profiles credit card information, driver's license numbers, medical data, law enforcement records (or any other information identifiable to an individual), STATE and AGENCY source code or object code, STATE and AGENCY security data, non-public Specifications, STATE and AGENCY non-publicly available data, proprietary software, STATE and AGENCY security data, or information which may jeopardize any part of the project that relates to any of these types of information. The CONSULTANT agrees to hold the State's Confidential Information in strictest confidence and not to make use of the State's Confidential Information for any purpose other than the performance of this AGREEMENT, to release it only to authorized employees, sub- consultants or subcontractors requiring such information for the purposes of carrying out this AGREEMENT, and not to release, divulge, publish, transfer, sell, disclose, or otherwise make it known to any other party without the AGENCY's express written consent or as provided by law. The CONSULTANT agrees to release such information or material only to employees, sub-consultants or subcontractors who have signed a nondisclosure AGREEMENT, the terms of which have been previously approved by the AGENCY. The CONSULTANT agrees to implement physical, electronic, and managerial safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to the State's Confidential Information. Immediately upon expiration or termination of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall, at the AGENCY's option: (i) certify to the AGENCY that the CONSULTANT has destroyed all of the State's Confidential Information; or (ii) returned all of the State's Confidential Information to the AGENCY; or (iii) take whatever other steps the AGENCY requires of the CONSULTANT to protect the State's Confidential Information. As required under Executive Order 00-03, the CONSULTANT shall maintain a log documenting the following: the State's Confidential Information received in the performance of this AGREEMENT; the purpose(s) for which the State's Confidential Information was received; who received, maintained, and used the State's Confidential Information; and the final disposition of the State's Confidential Information. The CONSULTANT's records shall be subject to inspection, review, or audit upon reasonable notice from the AGENCY. The AGENCY reserves the right to monitor, audit, or investigate the use of the State's Confidential Information collected, used, or acquired by the CONSULTANT through this AGREEMENT. The monitoring, auditing, or investigating may include,but is not limited to, salting databases. Violation of this section by the CONSULTANT or its sub-consultants or subcontractors may result in termination of this AGREEMENT and demand for return of all State's Confidential Information, monetary damages, or penalties It is understood and acknowledged that the CONSULTANT may provide the AGENCY with information, which is proprietary and/or confidential during the term of this AGREEMENT. The parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of such information during the term of this AGREEMENT and afterwards. All materials containing such proprietary and/or confidential information shall be clearly identified and marked as "Confidential" and shall be returned to the disclosing party at the conclusion of the SERVICES under this AGREEMENT. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 18-127 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 12 of 34 The CONSULTANT shall provide the AGENCY with a list of all information and materials it considers confidential and/or proprietary in nature: (a) at the commencement of the term of this AGREEMENT, or (b) as soon as such confidential or proprietary material is developed. "Proprietary and/or confidential information" is not meant to include any information which, at the time of its disclosure: (i) is already known to the other party; (ii) is rightfully disclosed to one of the parties by a third party that is not acting as an agent or representative for the other party; (iii) is independently developed by or for the other party; (iv) is publicly known; or (v) is generally utilized by unaffiliated third parties engaged in the same business or businesses as the CONSULTANT. The parties also acknowledge that the AGENCY is subject to Washington State and federal public disclosure laws. As such, the AGENCY shall maintain the confidentiality of all such information marked proprietary and or confidential or otherwise exempt, unless such disclosure is required under applicable state or federal law. If a public disclosure request is made to view materials identified as "Proprietary and/or confidential information" or otherwise exempt information, the AGENCY will notify the CONSULTANT of the request and of the date that such records will be released to the requester unless the CONSULTANT obtains a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction enjoining that disclosure. If the CONSULTANT fails to obtain the court order enjoining disclosure,the AGENCY will release the requested information on the date specified. The CONSULTANT agrees to notify the sub-consultant of any AGENCY communication regarding disclosure that may include a sub-consultant's proprietary and/or confidential information. The CONSULTANT notification to the sub-consultant will include the date that such records will be released by the AGENCY to the requester and state that unless the sub-consultant obtains a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction enjoining that disclosure the AGENCY will release the requested information. If the CONSULTANT and/or sub-consultant fail to obtain a court order or other judicial relief enjoining the AGENCY by the release date, the CONSULTANT shall waive and release and shall hold harmless and indemnify the AGENCY from all claims of actual or alleged damages, liabilities, or costs associated with the AGENCY's said disclosure of sub- consultants' information. XX. Records Maintenance During the progress of the Work and SERVICES provided hereunder and for a period of not less than six (6) years from the date of final payment to the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT shall keep, retain, and maintain all "documents" pertaining to the SERVICES provided pursuant to this AGREEMENT. Copies of all "documents" pertaining to the SERVICES provided hereunder shall be made available for review at the CONSULTANT's place of business during normal working hours. If any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced, the CONSULTANT shall cooperate with AGENCY and assist in the production of all such documents. "Documents" shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings have been resolved even though such litigation, claim, or audit continues past the six (6) year retention period. For purposes of this AGREEMENT, "documents" means every writing or record of every type and description, including electronically stored information ("ESI"), that is in the possession, control, or custody of the CONSULTANT, including, without limitation, any and all correspondences, contracts, AGREEMENTs, appraisals, plans, designs, data, surveys, maps, spreadsheets, memoranda, stenographic or handwritten notes, reports, records, telegrams, schedules, diaries, notebooks, logbooks, invoices, accounting records, work sheets, charts, notes, drafts, scribblings, recordings, visual displays, photographs, minutes of meetings, tabulations, computations, summaries, inventories, and writings regarding conferences, conversations or telephone conversations, and any and all other taped, recorded, written, printed or typed matters of any kind or description; every copy of the foregoing whether or not the original is in the possession, custody, or control of the CONSULTANT, and every copy of any of the foregoing, whether or not such copy is a copy identical to an original, or whether or not such copy contains any commentary or notation whatsoever that does not appear on the original. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 1 8-1 27 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 13 of 34 For purposes of this AGREEMENT, "ESI"means any and all computer data or electronic recorded media of any kind, including "Native Files", that are stored in any medium from which it can be retrieved and examined, either directly or after translation into a reasonably useable form. ESI may include information and/or documentation stored in various software programs such as Email, Outlook, Word, Excel, Access, Publisher, PowerPoint, Adobe Acrobat, SQL databases, or any other software or electronic communication programs or databases that the CONSULTANT may use in the performance of its operations. ESI may be located on network servers, backup tapes, smart phones, thumb drives, CDs, DVDs, floppy disks, work computers, cell phones, laptops, or any other electronic device that CONSULTANT uses in the performance of its Work or SERVICES hereunder, including any personal devices used by the CONSULTANT or any sub-consultant at home. "Native files" are a subset of ESI and refer to the electronic format of the application in which such ESI is normally created, viewed, and/or modified The CONSULTANT shall include this section XX "Records Maintenance" in every subcontract it enters into in relation to this AGREEMENT and bind the sub-consultant to its terms, unless expressly agreed to otherwise in writing by the AGENCY prior to the execution of such subcontract. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year shown in the "Execution Date"box on page one (1) of this AGREEMENT. Signature Date Signature Date Any modification, change, or reformation of this AGREEMENT shall require approval as to form by the Office of the Attorney General. Local Agency A&E Professional Services Agreement Number 18-127 Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement Revised 02/28/2018 Page 14 of 34 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 20, 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: Proposed resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule for 2019. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Master Fee Schedule setting 2018 fees was established via Resolution #17-019 and was adopted by the City Council on December 12, 2017. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Although the revenue impact of City fees is included in the 2019 Budget, no previous Council action has been taken nor have discussions taken place regarding changes to the attached proposed Resolution #18-XXX. Revenues generated by the fee resolution in 2019 account for: • $2,816,600 or 6.19% of total General Fund recurring revenues of$45,496,900. • $1,890,000 or 98.95% of total Stormwater Management Fund recurring revenues of $1,910,000. BACKGROUND: Part of the annual operating budget development process involves City Departments reviewing the Master Fee Schedule that is currently in place, and determining whether changes in the fees charged and/or language used in the governing resolution should be altered. Recommended changes to the fee schedule are as follows: • The Community and Public Work Department is proposing the following changes: o Relocation of Site Plan Review and Street Vacation Application fees from the Signs section to the Other section under Schedule A— Planning. o Update the language to reference the Washington State Building Code Council (WSBCC) Surcharge in Schedule B — Building, to reference the WSBCC website for fees. o Update the Right-of-Way permit section under Schedule B — Building to align with the City's design and development standards at SVMC 22.130.100(D)(4). • The Parks and Recreation Department is proposing the addition of the following fees under CenterPlace to meet customer requests: o Additional microphones at $25.00/each. o Conference phone at $100.00/event. o Easel paper pad at $20.00/pad. o Laptop usage at $50.00/event. • Under Schedule D — Administration, add a sentence stating that credit card transaction processing fees are non-refundable. • Under Schedule E — Add an item for free business registration for out-of-City businesses with gross annual revenues equal to or less than $2,000 and remove the late fee for business registrations. These changes were part of the new code provisions adopted in 2018 due to new State registration requirements. P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for Web1201812018, 11-2011tem 4 RCA for Fee Resolution ejl comments.docx • Other minor formatting changes are suggested throughout. OPTIONS: Proceed with the proposed fee resolution and amendments to the Master Fee Schedule as presented this evening, with or without further modifications. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff recommends the proposed Resolution # 18- XXX, amending the Master Fee Schedule, be placed on the December 11, 2018, Council agenda for approval consideration. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The proposed changes are not expected to have a significant impact on 2019 revenues. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Memo from the Parks and Recreation Department that provides a detailed description and rationale for proposed fee changes. • Memo from Community and Public Works that provides a detailed description and rationale for fee changes for fees collected by the Building Division. • A strike-through/underlined copy of the proposed Resolution # 18-XXX showing recommended changes. P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for Web1201812018, 11-2011tem 4 RCA for Fee Resolution ejl comments.docx Spokane Valle 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane ValleyWA 99206 " P 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: City Council Members; Mark Calhoun, City Manager From: Michael D. Stone, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: November 2, 2018 Re: 2019 Fee Resolution Proposals The Parks and Recreation Department would like to propose some changes to the current fee resolution for 2019. These four new fee proposals all related to the rental of CenterPlace and the increasing need our guests have for these items. Currently we have no way to recoup any costs for the use of these items. Proposed Changes: - CenterPlace • Conference Phone - $100/event • Easel Paper Pad - $20/pad • Additional Microphones - $25/each (currently 1 lapel & 1 handheld are included with the sound system rental) • Laptop Usage - $50/event If you have any questions, or need additional information, please let me know. Thank you. 1 Spokane Valley 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5240 • Fax: (509)720-5075 • penriitcenterc@spokanevalley.ora Memorandum Date: 11/13/2018 To: City Council Members; Mark Calhoun, City Manager / From: Greg Baldwin, Development Services Coordinator CC: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Re: 2019 Fee Resolution Proposals The Community and Public Works Department would like to propose the following changes to the current fee resolution for 2019. All four new fee proposals are current fees that exist on the 2018 fee schedule with the exception of the Multi-Use Fee for Right-of-Way projects.The other fee changes relocate fees into other sections and clarify existing fees currently included in the 2018 Master Fee Schedule. Proposed Changes-Community and Public Works Department 1) Page 4-Movement of Site Plan Review and Street Vacation Application fees to the Other section from the Signs section of the 2018 resolution. 2) Page 5—Deletion of Washington State Building Code Council(WSBCC)Surcharge Fees listing with appropriate reference to the WSBCC website for surcharge fees and updates to those fees. This deletion will prevent future WSBCC fee changes in the future by referencing the WSBCC website. 3) Page 13 - Add language to list,"All credit card transaction fees are non-refundable."This language exists currently on the web portal for the credit card acceptance page. 4) Page 9—Multi-Use Permit for Right-of-Way permits—Clarified Permit Fee listed in SVMC, 22.130.100(d)"At the discretion of the City, a multiple-use permit may be available for licensed and bonded businesses and public utilities. The multiple-use permit fee will be established by resolution in the master fee schedule. The multiple-use permit shall expire at the end of the City fiscal year. The administrative regulations governing the multiple-use permit shall be written and approved by the City. Failure to comply with the administrative regulations shall be a violation of this code." This clarified permit has been proposed to cover the Right-of-Way Inspectors labor costs in the field to address each .25 mile within a larger right-of-way project. Public Works Management will continue to monitor ROW inspection labor costs and may propose fee changes, if determined necessary in the future. Clarified Fee Proposal—Right-of-Way Permit: Multi Use Permit—overhead $110.00 per.25 mile Multi-Use Permit—underground $650.00 per.25 mile If you have any questions,or need additional information,please let me know.Thank You for the consideration. Draft CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 18-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING RESOLUTION 17-019 AND APPROVING AN AMENDED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, it is the general policy of the City to establish fees that are reflective of the cost of services provided by the City; and WHEREAS,the City uses a resolution to establish the schedule of fees for City programs,permits and services, and periodically the fee resolution and fee schedule must be amended to incorporate new or modified services; and WHEREAS, Council desires to amend the resolution and accompanying fee schedule. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington,as follows: Section 1. The amendments needed at this time are incorporated into the attached schedules and include new fees and changes to existing fees. Section 2. Repeal. To the extent that previous fee schedules are inconsistent with those set forth herein,they are repealed in their entirety. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect January 1,2019. Approved this day of December,2018. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk L.R. Higgins,Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 1 of 14 D raft MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Fee Schedule Page No. Schedule A: Planning 3 Schedule B: Building 5 Schedule C: Parks and Recreation 10 Schedule D: Administrative 13 Schedule E: Other Fees 14 Schedule F: Police Fees 14 Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 2 of 14 Draft MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Schedule A — Planning FEE AMOUNT AMENDMENTS Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,500.00 Zoning or other code text amendment $1,500.00 APPEALS Appeal of Administrative Decision $1,050.00 Appeal of Hearing Examiner Findings $315.00 Transcript/record deposit on Appeals of Hearing Examiner Decisions $157.00 Appeal of Administrative Decision - Code Enforcement Final Decision pursuant to chapter 17.100 SVMC $500.00 unless otherwise waived pursuant to SVMC 17.110 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA) Single Dwelling(when required) $100.00 All other developments $350.00 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)Review,minimum deposit $2,200.00 Addenda of existing EIS Review $350.00 SHORELINE Substantial Development Permit $840.00 Shoreline Exemption $420.00 CRITICAL AREAS Floodplain Permit not associated with a subdivision $315.00 Floodplain Permit associated with a subdivision $315.00+$52.00 per lot OTHER PERMITS Home Occupation Permit and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) $84.00 Conditional Use Permit $840.00 Temporary Use Permit $157.00 LAND USE ACTIONS Subdivisions Preliminary plat $2,324.00+ $40.00 per lot Final Plat $1,424.00+ $10.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 Short Plats Preliminary 2 to 4 lots $1,224.00 Final plat 2 to 4 lots $924.00 Preliminary plat 5 to 9 lots $1,424.00+ $25.00 per lot Final plat 5 to 9 lots $1,224.00+ $10.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 Plat Alteration Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 3 of 14 Draft Subdivision plat $682.00 Short plat $278.00 Plat Vacation $1,474.00 Binding Site Plan Binding site plan alteration $278.00 Change of Conditions $650.00 Preliminary binding site plan $1,674.00 Creating lots within final binding site plan via Record of Survey $500.00 Final Binding Site Plan $924.00 Aggregation/Segregation Lot line adjustment $105.00 Lot line elimination $105.00 Zero lot line $105.00+$10.00 per lot SIGNS Review of permanent sign $50.00+$25.00 if public works review needed Review of temporary sign $50.00 NEW RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW $50.00 SITE PLAN REVIEW -PER DIVISION REVIEW $275.00 STREET VACATION APPLICATION $1,365.00 OTHER Administrative Exception $315.00 Variance $1,575.00 Administrative Interpretations $100.00 NEW RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW $50.00 SITE PLAN REVIEW -PER DIVISION REVIEW $275.00 STREET VACATION APPLICATION $1,365.00 Pre-application Meetings $250.00 Fee shall be deducted from land use application, building permit or commercial permit application fee when application is filed within one year of pre-application meeting. ZONING Zoning map amendments(rezone)* $1,650.00 Planned residential development plan $1,575.00+ $26.00 per lot Planned residential development modification $525.00 Zoning letter $210.00 *If rezone is combined with other action(s),cost of other action(s)is additional Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 4 of 14 Draft Schedule B — Building Fee Payment Plan review fees are collected at the time of application. Such fees may be adjusted during plan review. Overages or under payments shall be appropriately adjusted at the time of permit issuance. Plan review fees are separate from and additional to building permit fees.Permit fees and any other unpaid fees shall be collected prior to issuance of the permit. Fees for outside professional services required during the permit process shall be paid by the applicant. Examples of outside professional services include review by contract reviewers, special inspection or construction services, consultant services for special topics, surveying or other services required to determine compliance with applicable codes. Fee Refund Policy. Refunds authorized under this policy apply only to Schedule B. PLAN REVIEW FEES • Plan review fees are non-refundable once any plan review work has been started. • Paid plan review fees may be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing. • At a minimum, a$35.00 administrative fee shall be retained. • If the paid plan review fee is less than$35.00,no refund is authorized. • If the paid plan review fee is more than $35.00,the amount for refund shall be calculated at the rate of 100% of the paid plan review fee minus$35.00. PERMIT FEES • Permit fees are non-refundable once work authorized by the permit has begun. • Paid permit fees may be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing. • At a minimum, a$35.00 administrative fee will be retained when fees are refunded. • If the paid permit fee is less than$35.00,no refund is authorized. • If the paid permit fee is more than$35.00,the refund shall be calculated at the rate of 95% of the paid permit fee minus $35.00. For any application taken or permit issued in error, a full refund of fees paid shall be made. No portion of the paid fees shall be retained. FEES GENERAL Hourly Rate for City Employees $61.00 Overtime rate for City Employees (1.5 times regular rate) $92.00 Investigation fee: Work commenced without required permits Equal to permit fee Replacement of lost permit documents Hourly rate; 1 hour minimum Revisions to plans requested by the applicant or permit holder shall be charged the hourly rate with a minimum of one hour. Revised plans submitted in response to reviewer correction letters are not subject to the hourly assessment. Washington State Building Code Council Surcharge (WSBCC)—see the Washington State Building Code Council website for fees. $4.50 per permit WSBCC Surcharge (Multi Family) $'1.50 1st dwelling unit+ $2.00 each additional unit Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 5 of 14 Draft BUILDING PERMIT: Building permit fees for each project are set by the following fees. The figures below shall be used to determine the building permit fees and plans check fees based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safety Journal by the International Code Council,whichever value is greater. Valuations not listed in the Building Safety Journal: Building Type Valuation Per Square Foot Residential garages/storage buildings (wood frame) $19.00 Residential garages (masonry) $22.00 Miscellaneous residential pole buildings $19.00 Residential carports,decks,porches $15.00 Building Permit Fee Calculation Total Valuation Building Permit Fee $1.00 to $25,000.00 $69.25 for first$2,000.00+ $14.00 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $391.25 for first$25,000+ $10.10 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $643.75 for first$50,000.00+ $7.00 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $993.75 for first$100,000+ $5.60 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including $500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for first$500,000.00+ $4.75 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for first$1,000,000.00+ $3.15 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Plan Review Fee Calculation %of Building Permit Fee Plans review fee (general) 65% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies(single family less than 7,999 sq ft) 40% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies(single family 8,000 sq ft or more) 65% Plans review fee—Group U occupancies(sheds,barns,et.) 25% Initial Plan Review Fees are capped at$35,000 not including pass-through expenses for outside review as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 6 of 14 Draft OTHER BUILDING PERMITS: Over-the-Counter Service $61.00 flat fee Demolition Permit Single Family Residence $46.00 flat fee Commercial Buildings $131.00 flat fee Garage or accessory building associated with residence or commercial building $21.00 flat fee Foundation Only: 25% of building permit fee Swimming Pools,over 2 feet in depth $52.00+plumbing fees Re-roof(no plan review charge unless submitted for review) Based on Project Valuation Change of Use or Occupancy Classification Permit Hourly Towers,elevated tanks, antennas Hourly GRADING PERMIT: 100 cubic yards(cu yd)or less $21.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $21.00 for first 100 cu yd. + $7.00 each additional 100 cu yd 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $88.00 for first 1,000 cu yd+ $6.00 each additional 1,000 cu yd 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $154.00 for first 10,000 cu yd+ $15.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $386.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $15.00 each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,000 or more cubic yards $528.00 for first 200,000 cu yd+ $15.00 for each additional 200,000 cu yd GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEE: 50 cubic yards or less No Fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $12.00 101 to 1,000 $21.00 1,001 to 10,000 $27.00 10,001 to 100,000 $27.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $7.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 $104.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $6.00 for each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,001 or more $166.00 Land Clearing Only(without earth being moved) $68.00 Paving Permit(greater than 5,000 sq. ft.—new paving only) $263.00 Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 7 of 14 D raft MECHANICAL PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits shall be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees shall be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. Mechanical Permit Fees A. BASIC FEES 1. Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2. Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B. UNIT FEES(in addition to the basic fee) 1. Installation or relocation of Furnaces and suspended heaters a.up to and including 100,000 btu $13.00 b. over 100,000 btu $16.00 2. Duct work system $11.00 3. Heat pump and air conditioner a. 0 to 3 tons $13.00 b. over 3 tons to 15 tons $21.00 c. over 15 tons to 30 tons $26.00 d. over 30 tons to 50 tons $37.00. e. over 50 tons $63.00 4. Gas water heater $11.00 5. Gas piping system $1.00 per outlet 6. Gas log, fireplace,and gas insert installation $11.00 7. Appliance vents installation;relocation;replacement $10.00 each 8. Boilers,compressors, and absorption systems a. 0 to 3 hp- 100,000 btu or less $13.00 b. over 3 to 15 hp- 100,001 to 500,000 btu $21.00 c. over 15-30 hp-500,001 to 1,000,000 btu $26.00 d. over 30 ph- 1,000,001 to 1,750,000 btu $37.00 e. over 50 hp-over 1,750,000 btu $63.00 9. Air Handlers a. each unit up to 10,000 cfm,including ducts $13.00 b. each unit over 10,000 cfm $16.00 10. Evaporative Coolers (other than portable) $11.00 11. Ventilation and Exhausts a. each fan connected to a single duct $11.00 b. each ventilation system $13.00 c. each hood served by mechanical exhaust $13.00 12. Incinerators a.residential installation or relocation $21.00 b. commercial installation or relocation $23.00 13.Unlisted appliances a.under 400,000 btu $52.00 b. 400,000 btu or over $105.00 14. Hood a.Type I $52.00 b.Type II $11.00 15. LP Storage Tank $11.00 16. Wood or Pellet Stove insert $11.00 17. Wood stove system-free standing $26.00 Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 8 of 14 Draft PLUMBING PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits shall be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees shall be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application,the unit costs shall be added,but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. A. BASIC FEES 1. Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2. Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B. UNIT FEES(in addition to the basic fee) 1. Each plumbing fixture on a trap $6.00 each (includes garbage disposals,dishwashers,backflow device,drainage,hot tubs,built-in water softener,water closets,lavatories,sinks,drains,etc.) 2. Water Heater $6.00 each 3. Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor $16.00 (includes its trap and vent,except kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps.) 4. Repair or alteration of water piping,drainage or vent piping $6.00 each fixture 5. Atmospheric type vacuum breaker $6.00 each 6. Backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers $6.00 each 7. Medical gas $6.00 per outlet 8. Interceptors $6.00 each RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT: A traffic plan and traffic plan review is required if more than 50% of the width of any street is closed or if a single arterial lane is closed. A minimum plan review fee of$61.00 (hourly rate for City employees) applies to all right-of-way permits that require a traffic plan. If additional staff time is required, it shall be charged at the hourly rate. Category 1.Non-cut obstruction without clean up $73.00 2.Non-cut obstruction with clean up $110.00 3. Pavement cut obstruction,non-winter $168.00 4. Pavement cut obstruction,winter $210.00 5.Approach Permit $52.00 6. Multiple Use Permit-overhead $110.00 per .25 mile 7. Multiple Use Permit-underground $650.00 per .25 mile SIGN PERMIT: Sign permits shall be subject to assessment of planning division review fees as found in Schedule A. Sign Permits shall also be subject to the assessment of the WSBCC fee as noted in Schedule B"General"section. Signs mounted on buildings $48.00 per sign(flat fee) Sign and pole mounting $68.00 per sign(flat fee) Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 9 of 14 Draft Schedule C - Parks and Recreation ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Basic fees to be considered when applying rates Administrative Fee $32.00 Refuse Fee $52.00 AQUATICS Pool admission(age 5 and under) free Pool admission(age older than 5) $1.00 Pool punch pass (25 swims) $20.00 Weekend family discount- 1 child under 13 free with paying adult At the discretion of the City Manager, the Parks and Recreation Department may on occasion offer free admission open swim days. Swimming Lessons $35.00 Swim Team Fee $45.00 Reservation(less than 50 people) $105.00 per hour** Food fee (less than 50 people,if applicable) $25.00 Reservation(50-100 people) $131.00 per hour** Food fee (50-100 people,if applicable) $52.00 Reservation(101-150 people) $157.00 per hour** Food fee (101-150 people,if applicable) $79.00 **Minimum 2 hours ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT $10.00 CENTERPLACE Conference Center Wing Auditorium $79.00 per hour Auditorium $475.00 per day Auditorium $236.00 per half day Auditorium w/Presentation System $52.00 per hour*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $315.00 per day*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $158.00 per half day*** Auditorium Deposit $52.00 Executive Conference Room $52.00 per hour Executive Conference Room Deposit $52.00 Meeting Room (day and evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting Room $263.00 per day Large Meeting Room $75.00 per hour Large Meeting Room $225.00 per half day Large Meeting Room $450.00 per 9 hr. day Meeting Room $131.00 per half day Meeting Room Deposit $52.00 Patio Event Package $500.00 per event Portable Sound System $150.00 per event Platinum Package $500.00 per event ***Requires rental of presentation system, see next page Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 10 of 14 Draft Great Room Kitchen deposit $452.00 Multi-use/Banquet Hall $105.00 per hour Multi-use/Banquet Hall $840.00 per 9 hr session Multi-use/Banquet Hall $1,575.00 all day(6 a.m.-1 a.m.) Small Dining Area $52.00 per hour Refundable Deposit $210.00 Refundable Deposit-Weddings $500.00 Stage $21.00 per section per day Stage Removal $150.00 Table Settings(linens and tableware) $3.00 per place setting Pipe &Drape rental $100/day Chair Cover rental $3/chair per day Senior Center Wing Lounge with Dance Floor $105.00 per hour Lounge with Dance Floor $850.00 per 6 hours Refundable Lounge deposit $210.00 Refundable Lounge deposit-Weddings $500.00 Meeting room(evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting room(evening use) $131.00 per 4 hr session Meeting room(weekend use) $262.00 per day Meeting room(weekend use) $131.00 per half day Meeting room deposit $52.00 Private Dining Room $52.00 per hour Private dining room deposit $52.00 Wellness Center $105.00 per hour West Lawn and CenterPlace Rental fee $3,500.00 per day Miscellaneous Cleanup fee $52 to $315.00 per event Host/Hostess(after hours) $16.00 per hour Presentation System *** $262.00 per day (includes projector,podium,DVD/VCR sound system,camera system) Room Setup $26.00 per hour Satellite Video Conferencing $262.00 per hour Sound System $42.00 per day Additional Microphones $25.00 each Technical Support $42.00 per hour Television/VCR $79.00 per day Touch Pad Voting System $121.00 base station per day+ $16.00 per keypad per day per hour LCD Projector $25.00 per hour LCD Projector $100.00 per day Coffee Service $25.00 service Linens Only $5.00 per table Wine glass only rental $.50 per glass Children's Birthday Package $175.00 per package Conference Phone $100.00 per event Easel Paper Pad $20.00 per pad Laptop Usage $50.00 per event Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 11 of 14 Draft Business Incentive Rental Policy—The Parks&Recreation Director has the authority to reduce the room rental rate by one hr. when the rental meets the following criteria: minimum of 25 participants; utilize a classroom at CenterPlace eight or more times per calendar year; and use in-house caterer for a meal each reservation. PICNIC SHELTER RESERVATION (For groups fewer than 200 people) Browns (up to five hours) $50.00 Edgecliff(up to five hours) $84.00 Discovery Playground#1 (up to two hours) $35.00 Discovery Playground#2 (up to two hours) $35.00 Greenacres—large (up to five hours) $84.00 Mirabeau Meadows—shelter and stage (up to five hours) $84.00 Mirabeau Springs—shelter and dock(up to two hours) $250.00 Sullivan (up to five hours) $84.00 Terrace View(up to five hours) $84.00 Valley Mission(up to five hours) $84.00 EVENT RESERVATION—include shelter (For groups of 200 or more people) Events include but are not limited to activities such as car shows,tournaments,or high-risk activities. The Parks and Recreation Director shall make the final determination. General fee (up to five hours): $157.00 Non-profit applications with proof of qualifying as a 501(c)(3)entity(up to five hours): $84.00 VALLEY MISSION HORSE ARENA Rental is for Fri-Sun $105.00 per weekend EVENT PHOTOS Mirabeau Springs shelter and dock $150.00 per hour BALL FIELD RENTAL/USE $26.00 1St hour+ $15.00 each additional hour REFUNDABLE DAMAGE DEPOSIT Fewer than 200 people $75.00 Weddings, Special Events and events with 200 or more people $300.00 SPECIAL EVENTS (See Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15) Application Fee $40.00 RECREATION Recreation program fees are established at amounts to recover costs, as specified in the Parks and Recreation revenue policy. Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 12 of 14 D raft Schedule D — Administration COPY FEE Paper copies up to 11"x17" (b/w or color) $0.15 per page* Paper copies larger than 11"x17"(b/w or color) $0.87 per square foot* Scanned copies of paper records $0.10 per page * Electronics records uploaded to email,cloud-based storage, CD/DVD,or flash drive $0.05 per every 4 electronic files or attachments* Records transmitted in electronic format $0.10 per GB* Digital Storage Media Device (CD/DVD, flashdrive) Actual Cost* Envelope Actual Cost* Postage Actual Cost* Records sent to outside vendor for reproduction Actual Cost* Customized Service Charge - When the request would require the use of IT expertise to prepare data compilations or when such customized access services are not used by the agency for other business purposes,the agency may charge the actual cost.The agency must notify the requestor that it will be doing a customized service and can require a 10 percent deposit.* *It is the intent of the City of Spokane Valley to recover the cost of providing public records when the total cost, including but not limited to the per-page, device, envelope, or postage costs, amounts to $1.00 or more. Copy charges above may be combined to the extent more than one type of charge applies to copies responsive to a particular request.When combining fees associated with the request,the City will determine the total cost and charge accordingly. Copy charges are assessed for each installment of records provided to the requestor.A deposit of 10%may be required on public record requests. NSF CHECK RETURN FEE $26.00 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION PROCESSING FEE 2.5% of transaction amount Applies to all City fees paid by credit card/debit card except for those fees under Schedule F—Police Fees(amount of the alarm fee is intended to cover the total cost of administering the false alarm program,including,but not limited to,payment processing fees). Credit card transaction processing fees are non-refundable. Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 13 of 14 Draft Schedule E — Other Fees BUSINESS REGISTRATION Business Registration $13.00 annual Nonprofit Registration $3.00 annual Out-of-City Business Registration with annual revenues equal to or less than $2,000(SVMC 5.05.020(D)) $0.00 Late Business Registration Fcc: (charged in addition to the business registration fee) (SVMC 5.05.050) Failure to pay the registration fee by the applicable date shall result in a late fee of 50% of the annual registration fcc. Failure to pay the annual fcc may result in non issuance of a Washington State license, as determined by the Washington State Department of Licensing. Adult Entertainment Establishment License,Live Adult Entertainment $1,575.00 Establishment License,Adult Arcade $1,575.00 Adult Arcade Device License $157.00 Manager License $157.00 Entertainer License $157.00 Late Adult Entertainment License Fee (charged in addition to the license fee) 7 to 30 calendar days past due 25% of license fee 31 to 60 calendar days past due 50% of license fee 61 and more calendar days past due 75% of license fee Appeal of Administrative Determination—Adult Entertainment License Adult Entertainment License denial, suspension or revocation pursuant to SVMC 5.10 $1,050.00 TOW OPERATOR REGISTRATION FEE $105.00 annual OVERSIZED LOAD PERMIT FEE $26.00 STORMWATER UTILITY CHARGE ON DEVELOPED PARCELS: Each single-family unit $21.00 annual All other properties each $21.00 per 3,160 sq. ft impervious surface Schedule F — Police Fees FALSE ALARM RECOVERY FEE $65 per incident Amount of the fee is intended to cover the total cost of administering the false alarm program,including, but not limited to,payment processing fees. Resolution 18-XXX Amending Fee Schedule for 2019 Page 14 of 14 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 20,2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing [' information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Admin Report — Proposed Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) - CTA-2018-0003 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150; 19.30.040; and RCW 36.70A.106 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: City Council referred the open space requirement in the mixed use zones to the Planning Commission for review. The open space requirements have been a part of the SVMC since their initial adoption in 2007. In March 2018 the Planning Commission began discussion on the open space requirements and continued dialogue on the subject through five meetings. The Planning Commission recognized the intent of the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district and chose to treat multi-family use in the MU zone differently than mixed use projects in the MU zone. Ultimately the Planning Commission sought to encourage bona fide mixed use projects in MU zones by adjusting the open space standards in the MU zones. The Planning Commission also considered that the Multi-Family Residential(MFR)zoning district permits multi-family land use and is available for multi-family projects. If adopted the amendment will have the following effect in the mixed use zoning districts: 1. Require all multi-family projects to provide open space regardless of the number dwelling units 2. Add language to identify what form mixed use must take within a development in order to be exempt from the open space requirement. 3. Specify that parking areas shall not be considered a non-residential use for the purpose of classifying a project as mixed use; 4. Eliminate the fee in lieu of open space land dedication; and 5. Add a definition for"mixed use"to the definitions. 6. Clean up and clarify some of the language. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 27, 2018 to consider the amendment. Following the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend that the proposed code text amendment be approved. On October 11, 2018, the Planning Commission approved the Findings of Fact and Recommendation to City Council with a 5-2 vote. OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed to first ordinance reading; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to place on a future agenda for an ordinance first reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A CTA-2018-0003 RCA for Administrative Report page 1 STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations B. Proposed amendment to SVMC 19.70.050 and Appendix A C. PC Meeting Minutes 3/8/2018 D. PC Meeting Minutes 3/22/2018 E. PC Meeting Minutes 4/26/2018 F. PC Meeting Minutes 6/14/2018 G. PC Meeting minutes 7/12/2018 H. PC Meeting Minutes 9/13/2018 I. PC Draft Meeting Minutes 9/27/2018 J. PC Draft Meeting Minutes 10/11/2018 K. Staff Report CTA-2018-0003 L. PowerPoint Presentation CTA-2018-0003 RCA for Administrative Report page 2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2018-0003 —Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Council adopt the amendment. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13,2016,with December 28,2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA-2018-0003 is a City-initiated text amendment to the SVMC 19.70.050 and SVMC Appendix A. The proposed amendment will require all multi-family development in mixed use zones to provide open space regardless of the number of units;eliminate a fee in lieu of land dedication provision; add"public trail" to the exemption that if the development is located within 1,300 feet of a public park or public trail open space is not required; add language to identify what form mixed use must take within a development to be exempt from the open space requirement; and stipulate that commercial parking cannot be considered a nonresidential land use in order to meet the definition of a mixed use. Additionally,the amendment will add a definition for"mixed use"in Appendix A. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on September 27, 2018. The Commissioners voted 5-2 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment using the proposed language. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F)Approval Criteria a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: Goal ED-G3: Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability; Goal LU-G3: Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed —use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity; Goal LU-G4: Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. Policy LU-P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial,industrial, and mixed use land. Policy LU-P13: Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects; Policy LU-P16: Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas; Goal P-G1: Develop, grow, and maintain a diverse and accessible park, recreation, trail, and open space system that enhances community character; Policy P-P8: Plan for access to parks,trails, and other open spaces in all neighborhoods. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0003 Page 1 of 2 b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. The amendment will require open space for all development with a residential component in the mixed use zones regardless of how many dwelling units are included in the project unless they are within 1300 feet of a public park or trail. Access to the parks,trails, and open space systems that have been created as part of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan will serve the open space needs of a majority of the mixed use lands within the City. The proposed amendment continues to require open space for those lands that are not served by those systems. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. 2. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA-2018- 0003 as proposed. Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendment CTA-2018-0002 Approved this 11th day of October,2018 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0003 Page 2 of 2 Draft Language Draft Language— Version 2 (as directed at the 7-12-2018 PC Meeting) 19.70.050 Additional standards. G. In mixed-use zoning districts,projects with multi-family residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.70.050(F) and eligible for reduction for improvements on the same basis;provided,that: 1. The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; 2. Additional oOpen space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park or public trail;mor 3.-. Open space is not required for projects where all ground floor units,or an entire floor on any level within a building will be occupied by non-residential permitted uses, and residential uses are located in the remainder of the building; or where 25%or more of the total building area will be occupied by non-residential permitted uses,with the remainder occupied by residential uses; or where residential and non-residential permitted uses are combined on a parcel,or functionally integrated as part of a complex of related structures in a development where the non-residential uses equal 25% or more of the total development building areas.A fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed for the development of public parks and open spaces to meet the needs of the residents of the mixed use zoning districts. Council will determine this assessment and review it on an annual lis. 4.No parking areas,whether commercial,private, or public, covered or non-covered, may be considered a non-residential use for the purpose of being classified as a mixed use development as defined in Appendix A. Appendix A: Definitions Mixed Use: Development with two or more different land uses combined in a single development project. Mixed-use development can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could include employment uses such as office,retail,community,or cultural facilities, along with higher density residential uses. SVMC 19.70.050 Additional Standards Draft for Discussion Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall March 8,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant, Mary Moore took roll and the hIllowittg members and staff were present: Jaines Johnson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter, Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Michelle Rasmussen .fenny Nickerson, Assistant Building Official Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Deanna 1 loxton, Secretary for the Commission Tim Kelley, was absent,was excused and entered Mary Moore,Office Assistant meeting at 6:43 pm. IL AGENDA:Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the March 8,2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES:Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the February 8,2018 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS:The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Lori Barlow, Senior. Planner, shared the appeal to of Comprehensive Plan Amendment,CPA-2018-0003, is scheduled for March 15,2018 at 9:00 a.m. The staff report has been forwarded to hearing examiner if there was an interest in reviewing it.The city of Spokane Hearing Examiner will review this case in order to avoid a conflict of interest. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session—Open Space Requirements for Residential Projects in Mixed Use Zones: Sr. Planner, Lori Barlow gave the Commission a presentation regarding the open space requirements for residential projects in mixed use zones. She explained the council requested the Planning Commission review this requirement and provide a recommendation to Council. Ms. Barlow explained the code requirements. In mixed use zones there is an open space requirement for mixed use and multifamily residential projects,with certain exceptions. This requirement has been in the code since 2007. The regulation,Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.70.050(G),is any development in a mixed used zoning district with 10 or more residential units is to provide 210 square feet per unit with specific exceptions: • If the project is less than 10 dwelling units. • If project location is within 1,300 feet from public parks or public trails. A developer may request a fee in lieu of land designation to be accessed rather than having open space. Council has the authority to determine what this assessment is and review it on an annual basis. Ms.Barlow continued with background which included: • Multifamily is only allowed in Multifamily Residential zones and mixed use zones. • The locations of Mixed use zones. • Any development of 10 or more residential units being proposed in these mixed zones would require open space to be provided. 21118"03-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 ▪ Single Family Residential does not trigger this requirement. • If a proposal is located within 1,300 feet from public parks or trails then it is not required to provide open space since access to alternative open space is close by. • Ninety percent of the City's mixed use zoned lands lie wilhin 1.300 feet of a public park or trail primarily because of the proximity to the (..`entennial frail. It is estimated over half of the Corridor Mixed t se zones lands properties lie within 1.300 feet of public parks or trails.This is primarily because the Appleway Trail runs east from University Road and once constructed will extend to liberty Lake. Commissioner Johnson confirmed projects along Flora Road between Broadway and Mission would qualify for the exemption because part of the project was within the 1,300 foot distance of a public park,then those projects are not required to provide open space. Ms.Barlow discussed when a developer could request a fee in lieu of providing open space.The SVMC infers the City Council could determine a public project in a mixed use zone could request a contribution instead of providing open space. This caused concern to this council. This regulation has never been used, it is unclear what the City would do if the exception were requested. A comparison in the neighboring jurisdictions found that Spokane and Spokane County do not require any open space for residential projects within their mixed use zones. however, Spokane County incentivizes the development to provide different amenities by offering a density increase if various amenities are provided. Liberty Lake does require open space for every project in their mixed use zones that has four or more residential units. Their minimum open space requirement is 20% of the site. They also have private open space requirements for ground level balconies or patios. Planning Commission has been directed to discuss the regulation and send a recommendation to the City Council either to leaving it as is, modify it or deleted it. Commissioner Phillips confirmed the delinition or'unit' meant dwelling unit as it is in the Appendix A of the SVMC and the regulation does not apply to single family residential projects. Commissioner Phillips stated he was concerned about what happens to the 210 square feet per unit,what is considered open space and who maintains it? Ms. Barlow responded that the open space requirement is the same as that of an apartment complex. Open space that is required to be on site is not public open space. It is open space that is private for that building. Commissioner Phillips asked does this open space have to be green or can it be asphalt? Can it be a secondary parking lot for the apartment complex or grass or a playground? Ms. Barlow explained SVMC 1.9.070,050 identifies what can and can't be used as open space,but generally it shall be accessible to all residential units and suitable for active and passive recreational purposes. Commissioner Walton confirmed the regulation allows for an extra 25% reduction if providing extra amenities. For example two swimming pools,a gazebo and a clubhouse. Commissioner Walton asked how the 210 square feet of open space of per dwelling was arrived at. Ms. Barlow responded it has been in the code since 2006 but she would try and research an answer.Commissioner Walton asked do we know how many of these are mixed use or commercial mixed use areas that are within that 1,300 square feet of public parks that have accessible sidewalks. Ms. Barlow responded when a proposal is brought in front of us for a multi-family project there would be improvements that would be required. Commissioner Walton asked if we are giving an exemption for developments within 1,300 square feet of a public park or trail and they put a sidewalk in and the sidewalk goes nowhere and doesn't link up within that 1,300 square feet to the pork dues it serve a purpose in setting people that 1/4 of a mile to that destination? Ms. Barlow responded this code only speaks to providing the requirement to provide open space on the site for the projects that are being proposed.This doesn't exempt them from providing frontage improvements that are related to their project. 'i hose are two separate issues. Commissioner Johnson asked if rooftop improvements considered open space. Ms. Barlow responded if they designed the rooftop to satisfy the intent, i1 would apply on a case by case basis. Further discussion regarding the intent for not requiring open space in mixed use zones continued. The intent behind mixed use zones is having. ',a more livable environment with pedestrian oriented environment. Commissioner Johnson, asked how would the City come up with for an appropriate fee"? Ms Barlow responded parks would identify future parks projects,develop costs and define a service area. It would 2(ijw_Il i_IY\ E'i 1!lllili'i.'coil!lil'..::iull Minute Page 3 o13 not be started with us. Deputy City .Attorney I•;ric Lamb stated R.C'W 82.02.020 also proscribes how this is handled. The city went through a citywide park planning process to establish park needs and developed a fee per dwelling basis. Commissioner Phillips confirmed if this regulation were eliminated an apartment complex proposed in a mixed use zone would not be required to provide open space. Commissioner Phillips asked what the open space requirement is in the Multifamily zone versus the mixed use zones, Ms. Barlow responded a multi rain project in the Multifamily Residential cone-must provide open space equal to 10% of gross project urea. 11he open space must be suitable liar active or passive recreation and cannot be used for pa 'kiftg, setbacks or slnrmwater, etc, If the project was 10 acres,then 1 acre would be required to be open space. I however, if a pool arid a gazebo were constructed as part of the project this requirement could be reduced to 75% of an acre. Commissioner Phillips calculated that the 10% of total area based on the density results in approximately 210 square feet per unit that is applied in the mixed use zones, Ms. Barlow stated that intent appears to be to equalize the requirement in the mixed use and multifamily zone. Ms. Barlow suggested that the Planning Commission look at whether or not the requirement is appropriate in a zone where it is not predominantly focused on providing land for residential uses. Is it appropriate to require a project to provide the same amount of open space as for a multifamily residential project in lands that are designated for residential use? The residential uses in the mixed use zones are intended to be higher density uses. Commissioner Walton wanted to know the number of applications or units that would meet the 210 square foot/10 new dwelling units or more in the mixed use areas. Ms. Barlow replied she could bring back some information regarding how many projects have used regulation. She said even though a project might be proposed in a mixed use zone, they might tall into a criteria where they don't have to provide open space,there is nothing that prevents them from providing it. If the project is large enough they would have to have sonie amenities in order to make it marketable. Chair Rasmussen asked if we don't have a process in place to assign a fee, then why we have the regulation. Mr. Lamb replied there was a significant amount of case law regarding fees in lieu of dedication in early 20110's,and he offered to provide more information. Ms. Rasmussen clarified if this requirement was removed it could also be brought back at a later date. Mr. Lamb suggested the Planning Commission could open the subject up for public comment if they so desired to gather responses from industry partners and the public at the next meeting, lie noted if the Commission then considered a code text amendment, there would be a formal public hearing involved in the process. There was consensus among the Commissioners to have public input, VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of Ilse order, IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:54 pin. The vote on the emotion was mum mums the hint an pas.wJ. 41.111.0- rrte55158 Michelle Rasmussen,Chair Date signed 4400 Deanna Horton, Secretary APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City ilall March 22. 2018 T. Chair Rratinlusse:n culio.I the meeting to order at 5:58 p,m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for 0f H I i ane . t.kg I lee Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff I',rr..tntrssen Lric Lamb. Deputy City. +I1it rtre .ir•hnson Jenny Niekersewn, ,Assistant Hui'ding Official 1 irta,rth�, l�elley Lori Marlow, Se:itior Planner ,rr:iLIIc Tia ehmille Micki llarrhois- Planner ' ur.,asu'.e Stathos Ifrti i licww Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission lw'lisf \loure. Office \ sistant r=rnhunisshoner Johnson moved to excuse f.criiin1rstiri,liee Phillips from the meeting. The vote on this l-,1i ,rl r:y r. :• : 'r! iOVinr. /I:r,. ,i' ,i i,l`I •,-ti rci I.':_tt` motion p.:rssee• 11. Anemia: Comml r Tt_rhrlSOtl nr,_e,.LI 1 ie:,2e1,_ the Mar.,:1-1 'l1i aAencia As pry`.-eritc:d, 1 r1t' t'ca�t: . Ii F+i, 7,1; if,`i. !l';'(•5 .ti f.k.. ilii 'e rr',,r', Ser (ti; ?�.. Jr lju it ri G`.i_S t'i?• III. Minutes: Commissioner Johnson moved i+' illil [li e t ': l ;hrll;'! .. :111 !; ;";Ihil ',,1:rl•L.1h OS, 2018, minutes. The vote o). rhismi.'Fh 1 ii .,! +11'l?i'' _ .l e;. iJiri7ilit: + 1L i'J,r�; ir'itic'ci, IV. COMi'4IISSIO'~. REP'ORT'S.. l:.ere were no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Ms. Lori Barlow, Senior Planner explained that the appeal for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA-2018-000 Was scheduled with the hearing Examiner on March 15, 2018 hut has been deferred to March 27, 2018 at 9:00 Vi. PUBLIC COMMLN'l: I here were no public comments. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Study Session: Review of Spokane Valley Municipal. Code (SVMC) Open Space requirements in Mimed Use Wile . Ms. Barlow stated that during the March 8,201 R meeting,the cernnmissioners requested some additional i n i tiara 1 ion pertaining to the following: • Where did the 210 square feet per unit of open space come from? Ms. Barlow c;4plairted that st,.3tT could not find any information why 210 square feet per unit was selected but they did do ar:h analysis and found that mull iFamily zones have an area per unit that fluctuates dramatically but in Mixed l._'se zones it is a fixed number per unit. Mrll.iiarnily resiLlential area is always the same but the area per unit goes up as the density goes down and in the Mixed Use, re ielentia,l, the overall area goes up as the number go I.1p and there is no density limit and the area goes dz)ywit as the number of units go down. ✓ Multifamily projects located in Mixed Use zones and how mann were proyidin ripen space? Ms. Barlow looked over the permits for the last live vein's rind was able to find that of the .21 multifamily project's, all had provided some kind of open space. Corniiilssrsrher Johnson contirrhac.cl there was no requirement hw„pen space \wilco a project was within. 1,300 Leet of a publie p•irk ur "ai trail. • The Commissioners asked for additional information on impact fees. Mr. hue Lamb, Deputy City Attorney, shared that SV 19.70.0500:W3) provides liar a lee in lien of land in the mixed-use ?orrirrg di:lriets.Mr.Lomb said RCW 102.020 provides a voluntary ogrcerstenl. Ow a payment of a fee in lieu of dedication hut it must he r'easi..,ttribly necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or it rrtust require to mediate the direct impact of the devcloptneut. 1tCW 82.02.050 -82.og,f19i) allows lid to inure generalized impact fee. A study must be cOnLItrcted.ii needs as:sessme.nt is produced and then a fee is assessed on each new development. This is an rhrclnuns process and fees Lire adopted by ordinance by the Council. These ,are the N-22-t 8 I'zoc 200 hasis for SVC 19.70.U-30 C;}i.i I Commissioner Walton confirmed there currently is no fee. 11:a dew eloper wanted to exercise this, They would need to rl;.1 iiIcIr own study rata the impacts. Commissioner ICiismussen asked if the regulation as eliminated could it he reinstated, Mr. T.arnh replied i1 would he more work to hrinc• it back. It would be a new regulation, which would stau-t at the Planning Commission if the City Council decided they vomited. to do that. tw.Ulrtllais`..: ,law: P.asiill.l: '>( tl confirmed il'the Commission rceolnmendeil to leave it as rs, the Council could ch;:n':.c: it '+,lr. Lamb confirmed the Council has had discussions about impact fees and the direction has ew.1'I ci,l,i,r t41]tly to not include them. tAinnaissioller Waltoneoillir'rrred hat iftiV\1C 1'9.?f,O5Ol.0 jl '1. a lee i c11, w,c!c 111I111i;Red the open space regt,iretnrit would he required of every development in a Mixed t.se ,'.,'lie. I he ,:'0 square feet would be the requirement for all development with more than 10 dwelling II.icin4'r11 ou1;1 be w:tiw•cul if the development was Icac;]t:cd within l:3011 square feet of a park or tr:li .. -)[It 'isle 1,voutd be no other optical. Chair Rasmussen opened the floor far public comment. Arthur Whitten, Government Affairs Director, Spokane Homeowner Builders Association: Mr. Whitten shined there is a shortaace of buildable land and people in the Skilled trades encourage the devcloptrient r]I'a variety of housing options. Ile said we should be le':krn . at ways to maximize the nunilber of units and maximize development around major transit corridors,. transit centers and commercial areas. His ilrgani/ati0n reel I,pni space requirements hinder development in a higher density, urban styles that today' market seeks. Mr. Whitten observed that the Comprehensive Plan update incorporates 1',iiLLl.l,ic el n l •lc'1'i '1 II i the pi-rip:Hai to i'ernilve this. Ic.'l;IirC.n]ent, adopting development r'chill.lticns are :AiiE2il;'1rt;1'' •. f ;1 ' ;l!I':-i's' cIt Irt;1111rllzl(e. housing options and the elimination could bring Spokane Valle:'., Spokane and Spokane t..otii ty's dcvel :lm'.cIIii regulations sonic consistency. This code would :int chance onsite parking requirements, v.--old not eliminate existing public open spaces and would ]lit preclude :1 developer from providing inn_'\LiIi c Fiarket driven amenities in nixed-use lli w'elt.'pi i iii Mr. Witten explained the Home B ildc r=. 'c:'1',l'i it the iepe'al of the open ;pace requirement and encouiAs:Q the support of the Commissioners. M . Rarlow commented this re i tri,:ll i Litt'gently in the municipal code and Council requested the Commission review iI and make ;a r'.:m1'1i11'11e1kliitiun to Ii1.idil'y, eliminate or leave it is.. Commissioner Kelley cL ntirtire d the City does not en'I cal";`., have imnacr tee--s. Commissioner Kelley also confirmed a developer could make a payment instead . f has ine :then :;Dace. Commissioner Johnson shared that prior public cinments stated concerns aHui C1.,,N i 'l and building in ]nixed-use Lancs wwoh offices, commercial and resident i,'a1, which il', i;-'.1w ,l.,c not have a lot of The current code proh :hits this. Commissioner Johnson said he would strike ::ill et S ;'n•.tlC 19.70,050, Commissioner Walton said although he could agree wills Commissioner l:."l lI'..'II. lie was concerned builders would sect.: projects in this circa to avoid sonic of these requirements, tee]i i i the openi spaces in the residential Lane's ww;slild shrink, Mr_ Walton said eliminating the !cram '-!.cal' doesn't further lie Cilirtlprerietl:e e Plan. Commissioner Kell~ stated he would support ted-:line the tee out and keeping f the open space requirement.Commissioner Stathos wwa.nis itis keep open space rcrll-lirement.Colntllissiuner KaseThinliter wants to keep green space' requirement so children have places to, play, and hesitates taking the fee away completely because c f the process of ti's illy to return it to the municipal code. Commissioner Rasmussen shared she is pro-greenspace, supports mixed-use buildings that have a different clientele who want something walkable. She said .for the sake of development of different types of affordable housing she would recommend removing the entire section. Commissioner Johnson said the lifestyle of the peopleinovin>~ into throne residential uses is different I le said many people graduate from college and move somewhere else because the Cit'. doesn't have enough poi' the youth to do, liar a good place to live car for jobs. There ate a kit of people lilt there that have different needs for convenience and al'tordahility. He believes in people pr'omotinc.hainn.e and a quality of life, not industry and it doesn't make any sense to keel]the regulation. Commissioner Kelley explained when living in Boise they had impact lees which over time he had seen them pa. :•t� ;HR. r. lw; ;2: area is screaming with development however, he supports the open spaces. Commiss!;a,er ','t'alt..:n feels we have to have a vision for what our city should look like in the future but in 11:._ :I.;;!1.1ir114, we have to look at what the current popular1,'-n rest -Teti 03-22-18 Planning COL trt]issidn iciirJut_} Page.3of3 Ms. Barlow stated there seemed io lie dil icriin4 i±prnkw;ins on mixed-use zones versus the corridor mixed zones. Ms. Barlow said the Commissioners could separate the r1.4e.O irol' lll•v zones. The subject is ['melt hroirdc:r than just if if should be required ui not and to consider all the options. iMs. Barlow reminded the members Liberty Lake requires open space and require.:, nrivale .space in elle form of balconies and patios. Commissioner Stathos said she supports keeping p.r ee.n space rcquiroin nts. Commissioner Johnson asked if Spokane and Spokane County hrawe this stipulation. Ms. Barlow explained Spokane does not require open space in their mixed use zone because in inked use zones there is ;a deign. elcine 1I which requires layer of aetivitics for a live/worlw environment. Spokane County does not require open space till'multifamily in -their mixed zones.. The City of 1.il)erty I.alse has a requirement of open space that is 'tau': of the lot size and they require a private space requirements. Commissioner Kelley enuld 3e�:idc to develop in another.jurisdiction because they will not have the restrictions there that we are discussing. Ms. Barlow responded we have developments now On Me borders of the t_ilv but in order to attract residents there has to he amenities. Ms. Barlow confirmed the Mixed Use and multifamily requirements could be treated differently in the code. iTorniiiiscicirt'nr '.lion moved to postpt.Isc further discussion of lois topic to April 12. 21)1 i. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed_ Ms. Barlow.' asked if the.e is any more information she could provide the Commissioners to help them reach a rcci.'lr'rocttdt-i i n. tt_•ltrair Rasmussen asked for options that they couId consider and what entities can be illy,lived in the inked use and the commercial use zotnes. Commissioner Starho asked lot information un sila.lrti in;t I_ut rnultifrmilw' twni mixed use and a sti Besting compromise. Ms. 13arlcrw was r'equc-i d to [c c::lrt..11 ,iiflcr communities iii Washington including,Tri-Cities.Vancouver, Yakima. and Federz;I \•\.ivreari=.ding their regulations for open space in a mixed use 2onc. ii Study Session: CT.1-201H-4Nff1, Prnpn.sed amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code rISN'\'11C)119.tS.u2rJ Animal raising and keeping. Iti1ic:. i rnnis. Planner, gave a p!'esc[11aiicmii regarding CTA-20I8-0IUd1 to revise anneal keeping :raid minimum lot sizes from one acre to .10.0110 .square feet in the VM(' Section 1i?.t5.020. The City iia x ep_:aled In 2I}E11 i and adopted the Spokane County regulations as its interim zoning code did not all ::'nal keeprnL in residential zones_ In 2004 the t_UR.-1 residential zone was adopted and the 1liinirinuim lig size wits40.001,1 square feet and allowed three large animals ler acre.. In 2007, the City rc_r)pled inti own development tegtlla110n5 and kepi the 40,000 squame feet in residential zones still all.-' w•in2.three large animals per acre.. Durirto 211 i 0 Comprehensive Plan update, the cor'respiindinnges td-+ ilii: J.•,.. lril;4itcttt regulations updated Lie minimum lot size to 43,560 square feel (one acre)and kept the three Lu doe animals per acre. This code text amendment would return the lot size for kee:piiilarge animals to 41000 square feet, and keep the same number cit animals. It would also strike e' til'i:11[ iii.' ell err,- :l ' f'c 1. .1,ens„as well. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was any. possibilityl:_:: Isti1 :1tirin. Ms. Uarl ., interjected this was simply returning the rllitrittttrlrr lot size io for keeping :r:iirn. II_: I;= Mai ,I els hish.ircally. Thisis the lot size which determines wheclicr ..... not you cart have animminl:;. 1:11 ,dill i' iiia mlisulIillir Rasmussen confirmed someone who has a 40,000 square feet lot is alloe ed 2.6 animal, •VTR. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The:e is nothing for the Good of the (ir,let.. TX. ADJOURNNTFNT: t"[ Irlirli :l;:,r l Johnson inos'ed to adjourn the mceiisl . I:.l 7:21) p.m. I Il . ti,. [i on the motion was unanimous i:. ;as':'r arid the rnotirrn passed, 4- I -/ tc Michelle Rasmussen,Chair Date signed /4-/"" 1' Mary Moore, Sa4iletary APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers City Hall April 26,2018 Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners,sta if and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kasehrnitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tiin Kelley Jenny 'Nickerson, Assistant Building Official Mike Phillips Marty Palaniuk, Planner Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretaiy for the Commission IL AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the April 26,2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the April 12, 2018 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was,seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Tori Barlow informed the Commission the City had received the decision on the appeal of the SEPA decision for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2018-0003. The Hearing Examiner had upheld the City's determination and denied the applicant's appeal. There had not been enough time for staff to prepare for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the Planning Commission packet for this meeting so staff will prepare materials for deliberations to continue on May 24,2018. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0002, A privately initiated code text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.60 and 19.65 to allow lodging in the Industrial zone. Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing for CTA-2018-0002 at 6:03 p.m. Planner Marty Palaniuk presented to the Commission an overview of the privately initiated code text amendment requesting to add hotel/motel as a supplemental use to the Industrial zone. Mr. Palaniuk explained hotel/motel is a permitted use in the Mixed Use, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Industrial Mixed Use zones. The Industrial zone allows for all types of manufacturing and industrial type uses. The amendment proposes to allow hotels/motels along principal arterials on a parcel which has frontage along a principal arterial. Mr. Palaniuk said there are three areas in the City this proposal would apply to,Broadway Avenue west of the Interstate, north of Interstate 90 along Sullivan and north of the river along Barker. Barker is not currently classified as a principal arterial,but there are pians to reclassify it in the future. These are the areas along a principal arterial which are zoned Industrial. Much of the area along Broadway would be restricted because it falls under an airport hazard overlay zone (AHO) and high intensity uses like a hotel are those which draw and concentrate people into a certain areas and are not permitted in a AH(] zone. There is a small area along Broadway which is outside of the AHO zone which would be available for this proposal. Commissioner Phillips confirmed the AHO was because of the proximity to Felts Field, but wanted to know why it didn't apply to the Spokane International Airport(SIA). Commissioner Kelley offered the hotels at SIA arc not in the crash zone,and are allowed to build where they based on their location to those zones. The applicant's proposal requests to add a 'P/C' in for permitted or conditional use permit in the supplemental language for the Industrial zone in the Permitted Use Matrix. Staff is recommending that an `S' be placed in the Permitted Use Matrix which would reference the supplemental use 2018-04-26 Planning Commission MPage 2 o15 regulations. Staff also made some suggests instead of placing the use in the Heavy Industrial section of the Use Matrix placing it in under the Lodging heading,along with some minor language changes to make sure it was in line with the way the rest of our code is written. Stall discussed requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)and most of the conditions covered by a CUP would he handled by existing regulations frim the Building Code, environmental regulations, SEPA, etc. Ms. Barlow stated although staff has made some minor changes to the language of the proposal in order to make the proposal more consistent with City code but staff did not made a recommendation on the proposal itself. lCthe Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment staff would propose accepting the ataitre' revisions: as well. The Chair opened the hearing far public testimony Steve Schmautz, Spokane WA: Mr. Schmautz stated he was the applicant for CTA-2018-0002 and principal on the project for the former (IRON site located on Sullivan Road. He stated they are working to develop the 12-acre site into a higher level use with 150,000 square feet of office space, 110,000 square feet of high cube warehouse space. The plan is to develop an extended-stay business type hotel similar to others in the area. He said has had studies done and there is a demand for this use. 1 le said the product he would be offering would have a different price point,something complimenting the area which is growing northward. What they are considering putting on their site would be less than the footprint in their amendment, catering to sales/business people who service the area, convenient, affordable, more suites,and larger spaces. Commissioner Stathos inquired regarding the campus layout, and Mr. Schmautz stated it would have a bit of everything,office, commercial,warehouse and convenience in the same place on an arterial. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners this was not a project specific, and would affect more than this proposal. Commissioner Walton commented one arguments in the application for the proposal was to reduce trip generation. He wondered how it would do this when many of the other services which hotel patrons need are outside of the industrial areas. Mr. Schmautz said he has been doing this for a while and the trips would mostly concentrate where the work was near the offices and warehousing facilities. Dwight Hume,Mead,WA: Mr. Hume said he represents the applicant for CTA-2018-0002. Mr. Hume stated he remembers when the hotel currently the Industrial Park was built. He commented the need for it was created by the tenants of the park. He believed the Industrial Park had to have a change to the code at that time to allow the hotel, because the Industrial Park needed the facility, and it wasn't allowed until the code was corrected. Corporate visitors could be coming to visit or do training for businesses right in the general area and are less populated on the weekends. He said the hotel would be a convenience to the surrounding businesses which would use it services but the clients would use other services in the area such as restaurants and shopping. He commented that the proposal was requested to be on an arterial so it would handle trip generations and ingress/egress issues. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Hume to share his background with the Commission. Mr. Hume is currently a private land use consultant, but spent many years working for Spokane County as their planning director and as a zoning adjustor, which is like a hearing examiner now. Commissioner Johnson asked. Mr. Hume how he felt about changing the proposal to require the project to have frontage on a principal arterial instead of the parcel being on a principal arterial. Commissioner Johnson said he was concerned about a structure being located deep inside a parcel where I" responders would have trouble finding it. Mr. Flume responded the street system would feed to the arterial,but that would be specific to this site. Each site would be different and need its own ingress and egress onto the arterial. He felt there are enough performance standards and development reviews to be able to discover a problem before the doors are opened. Mr.Flume also said other jurisdictions have a CUP process when siting a hotel in an industrial area. Many times the criteria for a CUP has already been met, so he does not know why people should have to go through the process. Ms. Barlow commented the way the language is written a CUP would only be necessary of the proposal was for a building footprint greater than 25,000 square feet. If they did not want to go through the CUP process, it would require the project to be designed to go vertical and protect the valuable industrial space. Mr.Hume stated he wasn't against them,he just 2018-04-26 Planning t'uninoi skin Mimacs Page 3 of 5 feels the criteria is covered in other ways. Commissioner Walton asked why the applicant did not rezone the property to Corridor Mixed Ilse with all of the allowed uses which would be allowed in the UMU zone. Mr. Hume replied the applicant is not trying to bring the CM U uses into the industrial area, they simply want to bring a hotel use into the industrial zone. There is a demand for it and they felt this would be an appropriate request. Ms. Barlow the intent of the Industrial zone is to provide For industrial uses and allow for some accessory uses. so environment is created where it thrives. The intent of the CMU zone is to allow for rises which are much less intensive. If it was rer_oned, it would be stripped of one of the amenities the property offers. It could also be argued the property was spot zoned and surrc.a niding In Operties have ncrt been given the same rights to the uses allowed in the CMU zone. The proposal brings forward the hotel as an accessory to the Industrial zone instead of stripping those uses and adding uses which might ht not be compatible with the surrounding area. Chair Rasmussen seeing no one else who wished to testi closed the public hearing at 6:50 pan. Commissioner Walton asked Commissioner Johnson about his expressed concern regarding not having a hotel which fronted on a principal arterial. Commissioner Johnson said it might be better, as Mr.Flume had stated,to have the access on a side road. The customers might be going out once or twice a day to somewhere up and down the arterial, but he feels the language should change in order to keep the project out on the arterial so first responders are not having to drive around in the Industrial Park, Commissioner Walton stated he was a bit concerned that this could amount to telling someone how to develop their property. Commissioner Phillips stated he felt having a having hotel in the industrial area was a good idea. He commented developers will build a hotel where it would be most advantageous to them and would not put it off the arterial unless they were catering to a select few clients. He is content with the language the way it is. Commissioner Kelley commented generating more trips are what we want because it means that people are coming to the City and spending money. There would revenue from the rooms, food and beverage, payroll, federal, state and local taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, lodging taxes.jobs would be created from the construction, from the new business, more suppliers in the arca would spend more money and the employees themselves there by increasing economic development. Commissioner Kelley said he was concerned about making the hotel right on the arterial because it could he a security concern if it was too easy to get to from the street. Commissioner Rasmussen said previously she traveled for work and she appreciated having the hotel next door to where she was going to work in the morning so she did not have to deal with the traffic. She said she felt this amendment would fit the needs of the of the specific business people who visit the area and she supported the amendment. She would leave it to the developers to determine where to put the structure based on their needs. Commissioner Stathos stated the area is adding conveniences for the businesses in the area. She would like to protect the industrial areas for those industrial uses but this is a need which would be beneficial to many businesses in this zone, Commissioner Kaschmitter stated she would support the amendment because she felt it would be good for business and the visitors to have the option. Commissioner Johnson also feels the change would be good for the City. He felt it would be a good addition to the industrial zone, he wanted to make sure there was sufficient protection of the industrial land. fie said he was not in favor of a CUP. He wanted to protect staff from having to make any interpretations of the code. He wants the language to be specific so there is no misunderstanding. Commissioner Walton said he agreed and specific language allows for less interpretation and would be important to him. He is concerned that allowing an expansion of a use to this zone when there are hotels in the surrounding area which are not at capacity. He wanted to make sure that the industrial land is protected. Commissioner Walton stated his concern with the CUP process and how the hotels could be allowed with little control except for the amount of square footage. Commissioner Rasmussen and Kelley talked about their experiences in being in a hotel in more industrial areas and how they found them beneficial and how the users of the hotels would benefit the area. Commissioner Kelley is in favor of allowing the hotels, but is not necessarily in favor of a larger hotel, 25,000 square yt)I 0.4-2n najm i nr commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 feel, in the area Commissioner Phillips said he was fine with a CUP fora hotel over 25,000 square lett footprint. Ms. 13arlow wanted to remind the Commission when they made a recommendation,staff had made some suggested language to the amendment to make it more consistent with the way the Municipal Code is written. Commissioner Walton said his preference would be to eliminate a hotel greater than 25,000 would not he allowed in the industrial zone, so that it would preserve the most amount of land for those purposes. if someone wanted a larger hotel, then they would need to go vertical instead of horizontal in order to increase the amount of rooms they could offer. This would eliminate the CUP process. Commissioner Walton moved to recommend approval of CTA-2018-0002 to the City Council with the proposed changes from staff, hut modifying the language in SVMC I d).C; .08(1(I3)(1) to 'cad 'A hotel/motel is allowed in the `-i" zoning district on sites with frontage on as principal arterial provided hotel/motel use has a building tOotprint of 25,000 square feet or less.' Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Kelly moved to recommend approval of CTA-2018-0002 to the City Council as revised by staff, This motion was seconded. f he vote on the motion by show c f lxrtads was,five in aim, Iwo against with l'onnni,w,simrrenr,s Johnson and it'«ltHn eli.s.venting. ii. Study Session: Open Space Requirements in Mixed Use Zones. Ms. Barlow gave a quick presentation to remind the Commission the subject for discussion of the open space requirements in the mixed use zones. She also discussed that projects in mixed use zones which had heen developed and stated all had provided some kind ut open space. She also reviewed the requirements of other jurisdictions and most have some form open space requirements. She also shared several examples of mixed use development. The code currently r'equir'es any development, multifamily or mixed use, in a mixed use zone would require open space to be provided at a rate of 210 square feet per unit for any development which has i11ore thaara 10 units. Options which could be considered are: • Separate vertical and horizontal developments • Separate Multifamily and mixed use • Separate Mixed Use zone from Corridor Mixed Use • Increase the distance from a public park or trail • increase the unit threshold • increase the amount of open space required per unit • Increase the amount of units required before the open space is required • Icave the requirements as they are currently written • Eliminate the requirements completely Commissioner Phillips confirmed the latest update to the development regulations there are no setback requirements in the mixed use zones. Commissioner Johnson confirmed Spokane does not have any open space requirements in a mixed use zone, Spokane County does not have a requirement but offers incentives if they are added to a mixed use development. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that about 90% of the areas being discussed would be except, but the rest of the areas he would not want to have some kind of open space requirements. Most of the areas are close to transit, places we want there to be vertical growth, and people who live in these places have a different lifestyle.He said he didn't think there should be a requirement in those cases. Commissioner Phillips' concern has been someone trying to build a multifamily project in the MU or CMU zone so they could get out of the open space requirement. After listening to some of the conversations, he thinks maybe this requirement would not be necessary in these zones and would make us more equal with the County and Spokane. Commissioner Walton feels that a dedicated multifamily development in these zones should have different requirements than a mixed use development. There was considerable discussion about why the City does not have mixed use development. Ms. Barlow shared a consultant for the City, at the time of the Comprehensive Plan 2018-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 015 Update.said there is not enough density in the City to di ive it ritzhi now. Discussion of how much commercial there should be required) in order to eon,iid r the project as mixed use. Commissioner Rawlmtussen said she did not want to stand in the \.,a o :in) nixed-use project which would want to build here. Commissioner Kelley said he supports no Dobai space for a vertical environment,but for multifamily, open space should he required,. At the end of the discussion the consensus was to ha L' - it t separate the mixed use development from the multifamily, to (feline what would be a n ved-use development, look at whether or not the 1,31)0 foot requirement from a park or trail would still need to be included and remove the language regarding the"fee in lieu' altogether. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Walton discussed when a motion is actually made, especially when the subject has had a bit of discussion back and forth and everyone might not be in agreement with the solution, there should be some extra discussion on the merits of the motion itself he fore taking a vote. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:36 p.m. The vote on the(notion was unanimous in favor, the motion passed. C7: - Miche le Rasmussen,Chair Date signed /Th. Deanna Horton,Secretary Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall June 14,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson,Assistant Building Official Mike Phillips Micki Harnois,Planner Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Matt Walton,absent and excused. Mary Moore, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioner Walton was excused from the June 14,2018 meeting. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the June 14,2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES:Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the May 24,2018 minutes as presented. There were two corrections noted on the meeting minutes. Commissioner Kelley did not attend the State of the City,it was Commissioner Phillips and the public hearing opened at 6:40 not 6:30. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained that the Comprehensive Plan Amendments won't be going forward to the City Council until July 17,2018. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0001, A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.65.020. Planner Micki Harnois presented to the Commission an overview of the Findings of Fact to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.65.020 changing the minimum lot area requirement from one acre to 40,000 square feet for the keeping of poultry and livestock in residential and mixed use zones.A public hearing was held on May 24,2018 and the vote to recommend approval to the City Council was five in favor,zero against. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact for CTA-2018-0001. Six in favor and none against. ii. Discussion: Open Space requirements in Mixed Use zones. Ms.Barlow stated this is a continuation of the discussions regarding the open space requirement in mixed use zones. During the April 26,2018 meeting the Planning Commission had directed staff develop draft language based on the following five guidelines referenced in the Request for Planning Commission Action: • Separating the multifamily uses from mixed use and regulated differently than a mixed use development • All multifamily uses should provide open space. • Mixed use should be defined • Non-residential uses in mixed use development should be significant enough in such a mixed use development doesn't become a loophole to eliminate the open space requirement 2018-06-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 • Eliminate "the fee in lieu"requirement Ms. Barlow said she used the current code as a foundation to draft the language requested by the Commission. Ms. Barlow explained the changes that were made to Open Space SVMC 19.70.050(G). • No changes were made to (G)(1)since it is consistent with commission's intent. • Line (G)(2) states, "Open Space is not required for development of less than 10 new dwelling units." The Commission should discuss this criteria,as staff did not clarify if the Commission wanted a change to the threshold number of dwelling units. • Item (G)(3)wwould be eliminated. It would no longer be possible for to request to pay a fee in lieu instead of providing open space. • The new(G)(3)reads: Open space is not required for a project where a residential use is combined with two or more non-residential permitted uses within a building, on a parcel, or functionally integrated as part of a complex of related structures in a development. Ms. Barlow noted that the intent of this language was to address the Commission's concern that a small business would be proposed to eliminate the open space requirement. Ms. Barlow explained the draft definition of Mixed Use was based on the intent of the Mixed Use Zoning District. Commissioner Johnson asked how a sloping grade would impact the ground floor of a non- residential use if on different levels, and if public parking would be considered a non-residential use.Jenny Nickerson,Assistant Building Official explained the IRC has specific classifications of the first floor and the basement. Ms. Barlow explained if paid public parking was established on the lot it would be considered,unless certain uses were not allowed... Commissioner Phillips confirmed that two or more non-residential uses did not mean different non- residential such as one being an office use, and one a retail use. He indicated he would rather put a limit in the language such as 25% of the building or up to 500 square feet. Commissioner Johnson suggested the language read the first floor must be non-residential or a percentage of the first floor as an option. Commissioner Kelley replied the developer makes more money on the square footage on retail,therefore retail parking would be good, and it draws retail business. Open space with the retail parking should be part of the required space. Commissioner Johnson, stated that parking shouldn't be included as open space.Ms.Barlow clarified the amount of parking will be determined and calculated based on the area attributed to the applicable use and will be determined by the parking table in the SVMC. Commissioner Johnson stated that public parking if offered, shouldn't be considered a commercial use. Commissioner Rasmussen agreed she did not want commercial parking to be considered as a use when making the mixed use determination. Commissioner Johnson suggested to define how much nonresidential use is required to be a mixed use could be 50%of the first floor or the entire first floor.Commissioner Stathos said that storage units provided for tenants would not be a separate use. If they were proposing mini storage open to the public, then the mini storage would count as one nonresidential use. Commissioner Phillips asked if the 210 square feet per unit would be eliminated if it were mixed use. It was confirmed that the draft code stipulated that open space is not required if you have less than 10 units of multifamily but in a mixed use project open space is not required. Commissioner Phillips suggested that all multifamily projects should provide open space and that the exemption for multifamily with 10 or less dwellings be removed. Commissioner Kaschmitter agreed that the 10 or less dwelling units' exemption should be removed. Commissioner Kelley suggested the code should not say where the non-residential use should be located and was concerned for security, public and safety. He suggested it should be on the ground floor or have a separate entrance for the public.Commissioner Kaschmitter suggested to qualify as a nonresidential it must be one floor or 25% of the building. Ms. Barlow replied language can read the ground floor. Commissioner Johnson agrees with Commissioner Kaschmitter that one floor should be dedicated to non-residential use or 25%of the building. 7:04 Meeting stopped for break. 7:09 Meeting called back to order. 2018-06-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 The discussion returned to whether multifamily developments with 10 or less units should be exempt from providing open space. Commissioner Stathos' opinion was to strike the language. Commissioner Johnson responded that he didn't want to give the city of Spokane any more advantage and he wanted to have the city stay as attractive as possible. Commissioner Kelly was in favor of open spaces being provided. Commissioner Kaschmitter replied it is important to have open space no matter what size development it is and the exemption language should be deleted. Commissioner Phillips replied they (all multifamily developments) should have open space and to take it out.Chair Rasmussen agreed with Commissioner Johnson that there is a population out there where who don't care if open space is provided. The vote was four in favor and two against to delete the language that exempted multifamily developments with 10 or less units from providing open space. Ms. Barlow clarified that if the exemption is removed than all multifamily,which is by definition three or more units would have to provide open space. She further clarified the following directives provided by the Commission: • One entire floor can be dedicated to nonresidential use or 25% of structure. • A development could be vertical as well as horizontal with 25% of the development being considered rather than a building. • a development of three or more residential units will need open space,and if one floor can be used for retail it can be divvied up to equal 25% of the building.. The Commission wanted wait to see the language again and to allow Commissioner Walton to give his vote. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:19 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed Mary Moore, Office Assistant Approved Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall - July 12,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson,Assistant Building Official Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Deanna l Forton, Secretary for the Commission Matt Walton Mary Moore, Office Assistant IL AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the July 12, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Kelley moved to approve the June 14, 201 8 minutes as presented. It was noted that Commissioners Phillips and Walton attended the State of the City. Commissioner Kelley noted that on page three, first paragraph, eighth line, a statement from Commissioner Rasmussen did not seem clear. The administrative staff stated they would go back and Iisten to the recording and work to clarify what was being said. The vo£c' to accept amended minutes was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT:There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Discussion:Public Comment—Open Space requirements in Mixed Use zones. Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained the Planning Commission had previously discussed this subject on March 8, March 22, April 26,and June 14, 2018. The Commission had requested the proposed language return in order to confirm everyone was in agreement with the proposed changes. After much discussion, the Commission settled on the following changes to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.70.050(G): • Any multifamily development in a mixed use zone must provide open space regardless of how many units; • The language regarding `a fee in lieu of land dedication' will be eliminated; • Commercial parking cannot be considered a nonresidential land use in order to be considered a mixed-use per the definition; • Open space would not be required if the development was located within 1,300 feet of a public park or trail; • Open space would not be required where all ground floor units, or an entire floor on any level would be occupied by non-residential permitted uses, or where 25% or more of the building was occupied by a non-residential permitted uses, or where residential and non- residential uses are combined on a site. Ms. Barlow said she would draft the language and begin the formal process for a code text amendment. The Planning Commission would still have opportunity to review, but through the public review process. 2018-07-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 oft ii. Discussion: Small Animal Keeping Regulations Ms. Barlow explained the City Council had received a comment regarding rabbit keeping. She noted that as a result of that comment management made an interpretation that the section of the code speaking to small animals was riot intended to only be allowed on lots one acre or greater,but in fact was intended to he allowed on any residential lot subject to the standards of the code. She stated staff was processing a code text amendment to clarify this regulation. The previous update to SVMC 19.65.020 changing the required lot size from `one gross acre' to the previous '40,000 square feet,' had been paused until it was determined if this change could be included. Deputy City Attorney, Eric Lamb clarified that the change to the code would likely be to SVMC 19.65.020(A)(1)(a) which references minimum lot sires for animal keeping and currently says `except as set forth in ,S'1'ALIC 19.65.()2Y4)(7) and (9), would he amended to read 'except as wi forth in SVMC 19,65.0200)(N, (7) mu!(9).' Ms. Barlow commented this meeting would serve as a study session for the amendment. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed Mary Moore, OffieeAssistant Approved Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall September 13,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff were present: Michelle Rasmussen Cary Driskell, City Attorney James Johnson Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Timothy Kelley Marty Palaniuk, Planner Danielle Kaschmitter Michelle Rasmussen, Matthew Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Mary Moore, Office Assistant Commissioner Rasmussen moved to excuse Commissioner Stathos from the meeting. The vote on this motion was six in fm,or, zero against and the motion passed. IL AGENDA:Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the September 13,2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the July 12, 2018 minutes. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson stated he attended all but three City Council meetings during the summer. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner explained that the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments were passed during the summer. The recommendations of the Planning Commission were adopted by the City Council.Ms.Barlow stated the City has begun its 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Staff will be accepting applications until October 315`,2018. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Study Session: CTA-2018-0003 A city-initiated proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.70.050(G) Open Space requirements in Mixed Use Zones. Planner Marty Palaniuk informed the Commissioners there was an error in the staff report. The staff report should state the public hearing will be held on September 27, 2018 not on September 20, 2018. Mr. Palaniuk stated the recommended language changes came from the discussions that the commissioners had in previous meetings.These changes will only apply to the Mixed-Use zone and the Corridor Mixed Use zone. The proposed changes to SVMC 19.70.050(G) are as follows: • Eliminate the open space exemption for multi-family or mixed use development of less than 10 new dwellings; • Include "public trail" when exempting the open space requirement for development located within 1300 feet of a public park; • Define what form of mixed used development is exempt from providing open space • Remove"fee in lieu of land"option. • Specify that parking areas shall not be considered as non-residential uses for the purpose of classifying the project as mixed use. • Add a definition for"mixed use" to Appendix A—Definitions which is proposed as "A development with two or more different land uses 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 combined in a single development project. Mixed-use development can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could include employment uses such as office, retail, community, or cultural facilities, along with higher density residential uses." VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:16 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. 7 Michelle Rasmussen,Chair Date signed Mary Moore, Office Assistant Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall September 27,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff were present: Michelle Rasmussen Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney James Johnson Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Timothy Kelley Marty Palaniuk,Planner Suzanne Stathos Jenny Nickerson,Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Mike Phillips Mary Moore, Office Assistant Matthew Walton II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the September 27,2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the September 13, 2018 minutes. He noted Commissioner Phillips had attended the meeting. The vote to approve the amended minutes was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson stated he attended Valleyfest over the weekend and attended the City Council meetings. He reported that at the September 25, 2018 council meeting Mayor Higgins appointed him to the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0003 A city-initiated proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.050(G) Open Space requirements in Mixed Use Zones. Commissioner Rasmussen opened the public hearing at 6:05. Planner Marty Palaniuk gave a presentation regarding a proposed amendment to SVMC 19.70.050(G) open space requirements in mixed use zones. Mr. Palaniuk stated the amendment was in the public hearing stage of the process. If the amendment is recommended at this meeting, then at the next meeting staff will return with the Planning Commission's findings of fact and recommendations to City Council. Commissioner Kelley clarified there are two mixed use zones within the City's zoning districts which allow residential development, Corridor Use zone and the Mixed Use zones. Mr. Palaniuk said in the Mixed Use zone 85% of the properties and in Corridor Mixed Use 50%, are within the 1300 square foot of a public park or trail. Mr. Palaniuk also explained the use of the words"mixed use"in the sentence referred to both of the mixed use zones, MU and CMU. Mr.Palaniuk reviewed the proposed changes to SVMC 19.70.050(G)which are as follows: • Eliminate the open space exemption for multifamily or mixed use development of less than 10 new dwellings; • Include"public trail"when exempting the open space requirement for development located within 1300 feet of a public park; • Define what form of mixed used development is exempt from providing open space; • Remove "fee in lieu of land"option; • Specify that parking areas shall not be considered as non-residential uses for the purpose of classifying the project as mixed use; • Add a definition for"mixed use" to Appendix A—Definitions, "A development with two or more different land uses combined in a single development project. Mixed-use 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 development can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could include employment uses such as office, retail, community, or cultural facilities, along with higher density residential uses." Chair Rasmussen invited the public to testify. Arthur Witten, Spokane Home Builders Association (SHBA): Mr. Whitten stated the Home Builders Association is in support of the removal of the fee in lieu regulation. He urged planning commission to reinstate the open space exemption for projects with 10 dwelling units or less. He said it builds a strong neighborhood when there are varieties of businesses and residences,whether renter or owner occupied,in mixed use zone.He said he felt the intent of that language was to allow the small-scale multifamily development to accompany these mixed use structures that are allowed in the zones. The SHBA believes the Planning Commission stepped outside of the City Council's intent when directing staff to review this provision and should keep the language. Commissioner Kelley asked if Mr.Whitten meant removing the requirement for 10 units or less in only the Mixed Use zone and not the Corridor Mixed Use zone. Mr. Witten stated he meant in both zones and it should stay in the code. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chair Rasmussen closed the public hearing at 6:22 p.m. Commission Johnson moved to accept CTA-2018-0003 with a change to reinstate the open space exemption for developments of 10 units or less. Commissioner Johnson agreed with all of Mr. Whitten's comments and added the exemption would apply to a very small percentage of the overall mixed use zoned lands. Commissioner Kelley asked if the discussion was about Corridor Mixed Use or Mixed Use zone.Commissioner Kelley stated we don't see sidewalks or any way for people to move back and forth safely from building to building. Corridor mixed or mixed use zones supplies that open space to have common areas to socialize. Commissioner Kelly did not support reinstating the open space exemption. Commissioner Phillips supported leave it as proposed and does not support reinstating the exemptions. He stated the open space requirement is only 210 square feet for each dwelling unit and the maximum area that would require dedication would be 2,100 square feet. He said that much area is equal to approximately half of his front yard. He did not feel that was too much to ask a developer. Commissioner Phillips supported the amendment as originally proposed. Commissioner Walton stated he struggled with eliminating the exemptions. He has been a proponent of eliminating this exemption. He does not believe in excessive regulations. Mr.Walton stated the purpose of the change is to support and promote true mixed-use developments and felt that the amendment, as written,does that. He did not support the motion. Commissioner Kelley asked for clarification on the motion and Chair Rasmussen said that the motion on the table was to approve the language as presented with a modification to reinstate the open space exemption for 10 dwelling units or less. Commissioner Kelley stated that those in favor of the motion are in favor of eliminating open space. Commissioner Walton said the motion is to reinstate the stricken requirement for open space for projects with 10 or less dwelling units and to reinstate the language rather than have it remain stricken. Commissioner Stathos did not have any comment. Commissioner Kaschmitter wanted to see open space required for multifamily projects. Commissioner Walton clarified the open space requirement only applies to multifamily projects and not mixed use projects. Commissioner Rasmussen shared support for both sides but feels reinstating the exemption will stimulate economic development, reduce costs, and support more affordable housing. Commissioner Kelley stated that commissioners in favor of open space should vote against the motion on the floor and those not in favor of open space should vote in favor of the motion. Commissioner Johnson stated he thought the amount of open space that would be required for a project with 10 dwelling units or less will not be a sufficiently usable area. Residents will meet their open space needs by going elsewhere. Commissioner Johnson agreed with the concept of focusing development in areas where it fits,but also wants to support infill type projects that fit. Commissioner Kelley referenced the planning goals within Washington State Growth Management Act and said not supporting the motion aligns with the Growth Management Act. Commissioner Walton restated that he supports focusing and supporting mixed-use projects in areas designated 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 for mixed use. He pointed out that the City has designated lands for multifamily development,and there is opportunity for multifamily development in those areas. The Commission should support regulations that encourage mixed-use projects in the land designated for mixed use and feels the amendment, as written, provides that support. Commissioner Johnson asked if staff had any comment.Senior Planner Lori Barlow suggested the Commissioners make a decision and move the amendment forward. Commissioner Rasmussen ask for clarification on voting on the motion and whether a subsequent motion could be brought forward. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb provided clarification on voting on the motion and stated that subsequent motions could be made and voted on. Chair Rasmussen called the vote and the motion on the floor, which would require multifamily developments of 10 units or less to provide open space. The vote on this motion was two in favor and five against with Commissioners Kelley,Kaschmitter,Phillips, Stathos, and Walton dissenting. Commissioner Walton moved to approve the amendment as presented by staff. Chair Rasmussen called for the vote with five in favor and two against, Commissioners Johnson and Rasmussen dissenting. The motion passed. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Walton congratulated Commissioner Johnson on his appointment as the City's representative on the Human Rights Commission. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:52 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed Mary Moore, Office Assistant Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall October 11,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson, absent-excused Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschmitter Timothy Kelley Michael Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Suzanne Stathos, absent—excused Mary Moore, Office Assistant Matt Walton Hearing no objections, Commissioners Johnson and Stathos were excused from the meeting. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to accept the October 11, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported staff made a presentation to the Council on October 2, 2018 regarding density and duplexes. Staff reported that in two instances the density had been exceeded,when duplexes were built following the platting process. Council stated they would like to monitor the situation and follow the County's review of their density and duplex development regulations prior to taking any action. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0003 A city-initiated proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.050(G)Open Space requirements in Mixed Use Zones. Ms. Barlow explained the findings of fact which reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding CTA-2018-0003 which is a proposed amendment to SVMC 19.70.050(G) amending the open space requirements in mixed use zones. Commissioner Walton moved to approve the findings of fact for CTA-2018-0003 as presented.Commissioner Rasmussen stated the reason she voted against the amendment as proposed was she believes there is a population which does not care about green space and the potential for development to be a little less costly were her concerns. The vote on the motion was five in favor,zero against, and the motion passed. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:12 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed 2018-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 Deanna Horton, Secretary COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING&PLANNING Spokane alley M STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2018-0003 STAFF REPORT DATE: September 6,2018 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: September 20,2018,beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendment is a City-initiated text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.70.050 and SVMC Appendix A. The proposed amendment will require any multi-family development in mixed use zones to provide open space regardless of the number of units; eliminate a fee in lieu of land dedication provision; add "public trail" to the exemption that if the development is located within 1,300 feet of a public park or public trail open space is not required; add language to identify what form mixed use must take within a development to be exempt from the open space requirement; and stipulate that commercial parking cannot be considered a nonresidential land use in order to be considered a mixed use. Additionally,the amendment will add a definition for"mixed use"in Appendix A. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to SVMC 19.70.050 and SVMC Appendix A are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT:Martin Palaniuk,Planner and Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendment Language Exhibit 2: Presentation BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to August 10,2018 Adopt Amendment SEPA—DNS Issued August 24,2018 Published Notice of Public Hearing: August 31 & September 8,2018 PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The Spokane Valley City Council referred the Mixed Use Zone open space requirements to the Planning Commission to review. City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider whether the open space requirements are necessary and whether properties in mixed use zones are disadvantaged by the requirements. These open space requirements have been a part of the SVMC since Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0003 their initial adoption in 2007. In March 2018, the Planning Commission began discussion on the open space requirements and the possible changes to the requirements. The current requirement for open space in a mixed use zone is that any development with residential units shall provide 210 square feet per unit except when the following conditions are present: • If the project is less than 10 dwelling units. • If the project location is within 1,300 feet from public parks ; or • A developer may request a fee in lieu of land designation to be accessed rather than having open space. Council has the authority to determine what this assessment is and review it on an annual basis. The Commission considered the mixed use zone open space requirements during a series of five meetings prior to developing the draft language proposed. Discussion of the requirements considered where the current 210 square feet open space requirement originated, what is the City process for collecting and administering fees in lieu of open space,whether recent projects have provided open space when it wasn't required, and the open space requirements of surrounding jurisdictions. After lengthy discussion and consideration the Planning Commission directed staff to develop language that would: 1. Eliminate the open space exemption for multi-family or mixed use development of less than 10 new dwellings; 2. Include"public trail"when eliminating the open space requirement for development located within 1300 feet of a public park; 3. Add the following language to identify what form mixed use must take within a development in order to be exempt from the open space requirement: Open space is not required for multi-family development where all ground floor units, or an entire floor will be occupied by non-residential uses,or where 25 percent or more of the total building area will be non-residential uses, or where non-residential uses are 25 percent or more of the total building area of an integrated development. 4. Specify that parking areas shall not be considered a non-residential use for the purpose of classifying a project as mixed use; 5. Eliminate the fee in lieu of open space land dedication; and 6. Add a definition for"Mixed use"to the definitions. Staff has developed the attached draft language for the open space requirements per the Planning Commission direction. Analysis: The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) adopted thirteen planning goals to guide the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations. Among the goals is the open space and recreation goal to retain open spaces,enhance recreational opportunities,conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. To further that goal, GMA requires all City's planning under the act to include a Land Use element as part of its comprehensive plan. The land use element must designate the proposed general distribution,the location, and the extent of the uses of land including open spaces. The City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive plan addresses open spaces in the Parks,Recreation and Open Space element of the comprehensive plan. Among the goals for this element is to plan for access to parks, trails, and other open spaces in all neighborhoods. The City does that through the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP). A number of studies have shown that open spaces within and in close proximity to urban centers increases livability and enhances property values. According to multiple published articles on green space and health, the mental and physical health benefits of parks and open spaces have been demonstrated to impact positively on health care. Studies have also shown that urban green spaces can offset the effect of air pollution by providing cooler,cleaner air. Open space is essential to leisure activities, organized sports and cultural endeavors. Page 2 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0003 In addition to providing for open space through the PRMP, the City provides for open space through the application of development regulations. SVMC Title 19 is the primary development regulation. Open space in single-family neighborhoods is generally provided through the application of mandatory building setbacks which create private open space areas or yards. Multi-family residential development in a Multi-family Residential (MFR)zone is treated differently than single-family development when it comes to the open space needs and setback requirements. Multi-family residential development is defined as three or more dwellings within a single structure. Multi-family development is typically vertical in nature and usually includes stacked dwellings. The yards that are created through the application of setbacks do not provide the usable open space needs required for the number of people residing in the building. Open spaces, such as recreational facilities, play areas, and swimming pools provide a health benefit to the residents,particularly children. Common areas provide an opportunity for social interaction with neighbors. To provide those open space needs multi-family development is required to dedicate 10 percent of the gross area to open space. Multi-family residential development is also a permitted use in the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)and Mixed Use (MU) zones. However,mixed use development with residential components in these zones is subject to a different open space requirement than in the MFR zone. Mixed use development is much different in form than single-family and multi-family residential development. As defined by the MRSC of Washington, mixed-use development is characterized as pedestrian-friendly development that blends two or more residential, commercial, cultural, institutional, and/or industrial uses. Mixed use development fosters integration,density, and compatibility of land uses, and creates a walkable community with uninterrupted pedestrian connections. Commercial, residential, and in some instances, light industrial fit together to help create built environments where residents can live,work, and play. By its nature,the open space needs for the residents within a mixed use development are accommodated by the development itself. Within Spokane Valley the mixed use zones are generally found along the major transit corridors. The open space standards for residential development in mixed use zones are different than the standards for residential development in the multi-family zone. Under the current regulation,any project in a mixed use zone with a multi-family component must provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. The open space requirement does not apply to developments with less than ten new dwelling units or for developments that are within 1,300 feet of a public park. In addition to those exceptions,a development may pay a fee in lieu of dedicating the required open space. Note: the fee in lieu of dedication exception has never been utilized. The proposed amendment considers that the open space needs within a mixed use development are different than in a residential development. Open space needs in mixed use developments are generally market- driven and depend on the needs and the nature of the mix of uses within the project. Private developers must respond to the needs of the consumers who will work and live in the mixed use development. The open space needs in a mixed use development can often be met through the use of public parks and open space systems located within the vicinity. This access to parks and trails can be included in the design of the mixed use project to serve the open space needs of the residents. In Spokane Valley, access to a public park or trail is nearby in the majority of the mixed use zones. Approximately 60 percent of the lands that are zoned mixed use and allow multi-family development are located within 1300 feet of a park or a trail; fifty percent of the Corridor Mixed Use(CMU)and eighty-five percent of the Mixed Use (MU) lands. Generally, the CMU lands have been designated along Sprague Avenue and the major north/south arterials such as Argonne Road and Pines Road. These arterial corridors have historically developed with commercial uses and are served by major transportation and infrastructure amenities. The MU lands are generally located along the Spokane River in the Mirabeau Park and Coyote Rock areas. Centennial Trail lies adjacent to the Spokane River and traverses from the east boundary of the City to the west boundary. Combined,Mirabeau Park and Centennial Trail are within 1300 feet of all the MU zoned property within the City with the exception of approximately 40 acres located at 8t1 Avenue and Carnahan Road. Appleway Trail is located one block south of Sprague Avenue and traverses from Page 3 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0003 University Road to the east boundary of the City. All of the CMU property located along Sprague Avenue from University Road to Hodges Road is with 1300 feet of the Appleway Trail. Access to open space is available within 1,300 feet for a majority of the lands that have been zoned for mixed use development in Spokane Valley. The proposed change to the open space requirement responds to the availability of open space through the park and trail systems,and to the differing open space needs for mixed use development. Access to existing public trails and public parks will serve to meet the open space needs of a mixed use project in the MU and CMU zones. The open space needs of a mixed use land use are different than the needs of a residential land use and eliminating the open space requirements for projects with a residential and non-residential component is appropriate in these zones. Parking areas do not meet the open space needs of mixed use developments and should not be considered a non-residential use for the sake of classifying a project as mixed use. The proposed change recognizes that the open space needs in a mixed use environment are development driven and are already adequately served by existing facilities in the mixed use zones. The amendment will properly provide for open space needs in the instances where that need is not properly served by the development or by existing open space facilities. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: Goal ED-G3: Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability; Goal LU-G3: Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed—use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity; Goal LU-G4: Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. Policy LU-P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial,industrial,and mixed use land. Policy LU-P13: Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects; Policy LU-P16: Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas; Goal P-G1: Develop, grow, and maintain a diverse and accessible park, recreation, trail,and open space system that enhances community character; Policy P-P8: Plan for access to parks, trails, and other open spaces in all neighborhoods. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The amendment will require open space Page 4 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0003 for all development with a residential component in the mixed use zones regardless of how many dwelling units are included in the project unless they are within 1300 feet of a public park or trail. Access to the parks,trails, and open space systems that have been created as part of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan will serve the open space needs of a majority of the mixed use lands within the City. The proposed amendment continues to require open space for those lands that are not served by those systems. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80.150(F). 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-2018-0003 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No substantive agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): In the absence of substantive agency comments,no concerns were noted. B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A the proposed code text amendment to change the open space requirements for mixed use development in the Mixed Use and Corridor Mixed Use zones is consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 5 of 5 so, okane ---- Valley City Co Administrative Report CTA-2018-0003 Open Space Requirements in Mixed Use Zones November 20, 2018 Background -Tr City Council referred SVMC 19.70.050(G) to Planning Commission ( PC) for review PC considered the Open Space standards during five meetings PC developed draft language PC recommended changes — CTA- 2018 -0003 CODE TEXT AM EN DM ENT PROCESS a : :..., © 04 et - 'v Study Session Administrative Repor 1-1 Z N •-' September 13, 2018 '. November 20, 2018 Om N 78 ct c Public Hearing Ordinance 1St Reading W A p=, tio September 27, 2018 �, December 4, 2018 z ; •4 : 44 'a : Findings of Fact Ordinance 2nd Reading Q,) © CA 411October 11, 2018 December 11, 2018 Pii4 EY_ iVr Ir LAI 1 A A A Today p Open S ace - Defined • Areas accessible for landscaping, leisure and recreational purposes ds IL_rz a- • Does not include , r ri,--] . _„ - • Parking, _ .., 0._ - i_ j . .. .„--,. .. . _ • Required landscaping, :_ , - • -- • Drainage easements : = y } - • Setback areas - YYd } _h • Border easements - ; � me - 1 • • i ,-. s J " t : ._ks, , Ttie;'--.,1 ?!'ll - ' . , ,,. , , ,.. , , .. — F .•„4.fir z . ... n � sem_ Vis. gitersw. _ , s .,_ _____ ..f.E.,_=c i , „....i ,.,!„ f r, ..1s§ kc i[lcn c s,/ 1 l . nO1 A M di Mixed Use Development � , OA it ir01111 1103,4 ifillwroes,----` 0,: 11111 '110". - 1 Til ■L • Mixed use development physically and �•, IP • iii' p p Y Y ,�oid" � •. functionally integrates a mix of uses • Uses can include residential ' 0 1 0 IP Vertical Mixed-Use Typical Block commercial, cultural, institutional • Can be vertically or horizontally mixed Rthentlal Lkve - Kark _ 4111 F VIIMINI, ippro0014111. ii 1.. tillik 11111*,011k• J rai Vit\ ... Ait v ,,:ilIV, :' 1 \ - "I' 116:10:11wk 7 • Horizontal Mixed-Use Typical Block - . � - , Mixed Use Examples - Spokane i. _ #.- v.. --te -��. ��__041 .4.••• --r R • "' _ tea , ��'� , � ,, Kendall Yards .. , __ _ ,,_. _ ,.. ......,4-. :ri.4._- 1 gx i .. \ - 0 It ,,..,.:., „. ..:.,_,,, ,_,, It ... „Jo • _ ,' - .:Iiiil- .;--';,4,-,...1,'Fri I I; -.'. ,- ..1 ' 1 . 4.'11 coil 1 : -III'--!'' ''''.71!!_v,i'-'-'Ll.""*Iri..,afr.%!.'r:174., -,,!!., ! 11 lit, * .. -i 1 t •„i .�� 11 '41.■ R ! !:!!!!ilai" Mil-o nittri iii 3 _ �. . 1 The Mathi lda Current Open Space Standard Use - Zone Standard Multi-family MFR 10 percent of the gross area Multi-family CMU / MU 210 square feet per dwelling unit Mixed Use CMU / MU 210 square feet per dwelling unit Current Regulation SVMC 19 .70. 050 ( G ) Establishes "Open Space" standards Applies to projects with a residential component in mixed use zones (CMU & MU) Exempts multi-family projects with less than 10 dwelling units Does not require open space for projects within 1300 feet of a public park Allows a "fee in lieu of land dedication" (has never been used) L..� v E Wellesley,w Zones w -- - L± __- 1--------- regulation • appli r _ r - 1E 11 � Euclitl _ Euclik Euclid • 1 Eur Men Manaflad Knox 1 ■ 1 . Mixedrission a Mission _ Mission c • Its fj'4 d Use MU 1 • qF = 7,Broadway °� oadway $mad ay ' lfi ri .. A'''te I� and Rd �- M1 = i q 4th . : i 11 • Ki 2 . Corridor �..�. _ � 16th L` 7fith 1:th Mixed Use vr.,1 .4R 2411, — S-IS (CM U ) t 11. , 32rx_j_. ImIj t 7.__i Alii w .. Legend zoning = cmu ......,. „....— 1 Exceptions to the 1 open space requirement a .. 0 "4. ` Euclid d Buck . =7...... I W ......A0eli. Wcllesla 111 _ iiir AMwnsTiel, Kir. - .ir li =uclld LL Ey•SS. Euclid ir Jr .-'460111141 A. 0M and CMU e--...• E •• i zoned sites g' i:. PM -M C '4 411% 71'. ''34'".°.1161Rir-4.01/4r r ,r for Ar dr or ....-- that lie • - � .-L L41 within 1300' L..) 16th MENNIMIof public Pit4 ��' 2.th 825th 24th Legend parks and r"'iiip 4.... 1 - felr . ■ �f// Parks 1300ff buffer : = Parks trails 1 . Appleway Trail I 44th 1 - Centennial Trail I Zoning y... Niti i CM- GmUi0 Proposed Amendment - Overview SVMC Title 19 .70.050 ( G ) SVMC 19.70.050 (G) Additional Standards Requires 210 sq. ft. of open space for all Multi-Family projects Defines what form of mixed used development is exempt Removes "fee in lieu of land". D Specifies parking uses may not be considered non-residential uses v Minor language clean up Appendix A - Definitions D Add a definition for "mixed use". Pro osed O en Space Exemption for p p Mixed Use Development ,_„,_ __ _ m&•Iimmimmi, iiii Mixed Use Building at Spictguar ,nd '-rry u = �., Open space is not required for _� i projects where non-residential uses make up '' 111 _ • all ground floor units, or pr .e • an entire floor on any level `' _ l ' _.. _. and residential uses are located ' ' A. "° v 1 - i� miles , in the remainder of the building; _ i ,' _ �.' - - Ground Floor Retail Pro osed O en Space Exemption for p p Mixed Use Development Al e Open space is not required .. - i for projects where non- 4{ , ��:�{ ', K `aI residential uses make up E '} g�� Office L. ni. • 25% or more of the total building area 1 with the remainder occupied Office ,i :. tee'*6 20"10/4! by residential uses I..1,616 .SIL 14_x1 _ - l 9 Pro osed O en Space Exemption for p p Mixed Use Development _iv ir---i• _ immini Open space is not required pitou. 'f ' _ $ £f _,:• _ . .� *,--__.=:.COLLEGE AVENUE -- ,- ap. _ for projects where non- �D F' NaALL r residential uses � g �' u `° • equal 25%o or more of the - ' :11.1. . 10116 -1--- E q y total development -_ `� `' "�' buildingareas _ .g%liar ---lb -17 ' :F .. ,__ _ . , _ l 'i When functionally integrated — 11 as part of a complex or ` � IEd51NGCEh,iER , € .. _ - U N I I N I M I I• 0 related structures in a ,r . 1 a X12.': _ Kendall Yards development • p „,,p, p.„. 15 QUESTIONS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 20, 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: Proposed Marijuana Regulation Amendment GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85; SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted comprehensive marijuana regulations in 2016. On November 6, 2018, Council agreed to have staff bring an administrative report forward to discuss amending the existing regulations to allow licensed marijuana transportation uses within the City. BACKGROUND: In 2016, the City Council adopted comprehensive marijuana regulations governing all licensed and registered marijuana use within the City which are set forth in chapter 19.85 SVMC. As part of those regulations, the City Council determined to allow licensed marijuana production, marijuana processing, and the existing three marijuana retailers within certain zones of the City and subject to a number of other requirements. Understanding that in the future, there could be additional rule changes by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) or other types of marijuana uses authorized by the State Legislature, City Council adopted a prohibition on all other licensed and registered marijuana uses in the City. This prohibition is set forth in SVMC 19.85.040. Thus, the prohibition acts as a proactive measure to allow measured review of new uses prior to them being allowed, rather than having to rely on a reactive approach such as through a moratorium. One use that is prohibited under SVMC 19.85.040 is licensed marijuana transportation. The State Legislature permits common carriers to receive a license from the WSLCB to operate a marijuana transportation business to "physically transport or deliver, as authorized under this chapter, marijuana, useable marijuana, marijuana concentrates, immature plants or clones, marijuana seeds, and marijuana-infused products between licensed marijuana businesses located within the state." RCW 69.50.382. Thus, transportation is only allowed between licensed producers, processors, and retailers and home delivery is not allowed. See WAC 314- 55-310(1). A marijuana transportation license requires that the license holder have a physical location as the primary business location, that all vehicles for the business be permitted by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission as common carriers, that the license holder carry certain insurance, and that the license holder maintain detailed records of the marijuana items being transported, including clear documentation of the chain of custody for each delivery. WAC 314-55-310(2-4). Only the licensee or employees of the licensee who are at least 21 years old may transport any product. Id. Marijuana must be in sealed containers in a locked storage unit within the vehicle. Live plants may be transported. Id. The WSLCB rules do not specify whether marijuana product may be stored at the physical location. However, since the transportation license only allows transportation, presumably no storage onsite may occur. To allow licensed marijuana transportation, the City Council will need to adopt a code text amendment to chapter 19.85 SVMC. This requires consideration by the Planning Commission through the standard code text amendment process. For comparison purposes, the City currently allows marijuana production and processing in the industrial zone outright and in the regional commercial zone with strict limits to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. Further, the City requires that marijuana production and processing uses be at least 1,000 feet from a number of specified uses, including vacant school property, vacant library property, and City-owned property (except for right-of-way and stormwater facilities). Marijuana retail sales are allowed in the mixed use, corridor mixed use, and regional commercial zones with a number of restrictions, including buffer requirements. Staff has not conducted a comprehensive review of where licensed marijuana transportation may be appropriate, but could see something similar, such as allowing it outright in the industrial zone and in the regional commercial zone with requirements such as that vehicles with any marijuana inside be stored indoors in order to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. Staff is seeking consensus from City Council on whether to have the Planning Commission consider recommending proceeding with a code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transportation, or to leave the prohibition in place. OPTIONS: Consensus to either move a code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transportation forward to the Planning Commission, or to leave the existing prohibition in place; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council discretion: Consensus to (1) move a code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transportation forward to the Planning Commission; or (2) to leave the existing prohibition in place. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 20, 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: Proposed Amendments to chapter 1.06 SVMC — City Logo GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 1.06 SVMC PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted chapter 1.06 SVMC in 2006. It was amended in 2007 and has not been amended since. BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted an official logo pursuant to SVMC 1.06.020. SVMC 1.06.030 provides detailed use limitations on who may use of the official City logo. It specifically allows certain entities to use it, including Greater Spokane Incorporated, the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, and in conjunction with Valleyfest. Further, the logo may be used for "other specific events that benefit the City of Spokane Valley community." Finally, the logo may only be used in conformance with the City of Spokane Valley Logo Style and Standards Guide, which was adopted pursuant to Resolution No. 06-012 in 2006. The Style and Standards Guide contains very specific requirements for the logo, including the specific color, shape, and size, as well as required shadowing. It limits and prohibits any deviations from the specific approved logo styles. Finally, use of the logo by any other entity requires permission granted from the Mayor (or designee) in consultation with the City Manager or designee. However, there is no criteria regarding when approval may or shall be granted. In addition to the official City logo, there is a logo for CenterPlace and an economic development logo that is used for economic development purposes. The guides for use of these logos are contained separately from the official City logo and there is no consistency in administration of the use of such logos. Since the development and adoption of the official City logo, the City has faced continual challenges in using and allowing the use of the logo for a number of purposes. For instance, the official logo has a shadow under the river, which cannot be shown when the logo is used on certain types of materials, such as the use above the Council dais. Further, the lack of criteria for allowing other entities to use the logo has limited its use within the community, even for events that the City might otherwise support. Thus, staff have undertaken a comprehensive review of chapter 1.06 SVMC and developed revisions to provide for all of the logos—City logo, CenterPlace logo, and Economic Development logo, in a single location, to provide specific criteria to govern the use by the City and any other entity, and to allow more flexibility in minor deviations where necessary, such as when required due to the type of materials being used or to match surrounding styles (such as black and white). The revisions provide the following changes: - Allow for adoption of official logos by resolution. This allows greater flexibility in setting the official logos. - As set forth in concurrent resolution, provides for adoption of the official City logo, CenterPlace logo, and Economic Development logo. - Remove guaranteed uses by specific entities. Rather than guarantee use through the code, use will be approved administratively where the use fits the appropriate criteria. Use may be approved on an ongoing basis until revoked, or on a case-by-case basis. - Sets criteria for use, including whether the use is by an entity that provides services to the City, whether use is for economic development purposes, whether use benefits a single entity for commercial purposes, and whether the use is for community purposes where the City provides support or services. - Allows the media specific use for news purposes only. - Prohibits use for election purposes or illegal purposes. - Provides that the City Manager or designee gives the administrative approval for use rather than the Mayor, which is consistent with the City's legal construction as a Council-Manager code city. - Allows City to condition any use of the logo. - As approved through a concurrent resolution, provides style and standard guides for use of the various logos. In use of the official City logo, the standards provide for minor deviations. - Provides specific penalties for violations, including damages and injunctive relief. OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed with an ordinance first reading at a future council meeting and approval consideration of the Resolution updating the logos; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed with an ordinance first reading at a future council meeting, and approval consideration of the Resolution updating the City logos. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: Draft proposed changes to chapter 1.06 SVMC Draft proposed resolution adopting City logos Draft style and standards for use of City logos Chapter 1.06 CITY LOGO Sections: 1.06.010 Legislative findings. 1.06.020 Definition. 1.06.025 Adoption. 1.06.030 �uthorizedOfficial use. 1.06.035 Imitative or deceptively similar use. 1.06.040 Permission for use.Penalty for violation. 1.06.050 Standards for use. 1.06.060 Penalty for ViolationPcrmission for usc. 1.06.010 Legislative findings. The eCity eCouncil finds that the logo(s) of the City of Spokane Valley isare a symbol of the authority of the City and ii-s-are a valuable asset of its population. It is the intent of the Ceity Ceouncil to ensure that only appropriate uses are made of the eCity's logo(s). 1.06.020 Definition. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definition in this section applies throughout this chapter. "City logo" or "logo" means one or more a-logo adopted for the use of the City pursuant to action by the City Council as described herein. that logo recorded under State of Washington Trademark No. 31689, with "City of Spokane Valley" and depicting a mountain and Siokarie 4,000Vll river, as illustrated below: 1.06.025 Adoption. The City Council, by resolution, may adopt a logo or logos as the City's official logo(s) and the style and standards for use of such logo(s). Authorized use of such-logo(s) shall be governed pursuant to chapter 1.06 SVMC and applicable resolutions. The City may trademark any official logo(s) and enforce such trademark as allowed by law. 1.06.030 Official uscAuthorized Use. A. Official logo(s)may be used for any official City business by the City without prior approval. Except as otherwise provided herein, the City's logo(s) shall not be used on or in connection with any use, advertising, or promotion for any product, business, organization, or service, whether for profit or non-profit. 1. The City's logo(s) may be used as authorized by the City Manager, or as part of a contract approval by the City Council. In determining to authorize the use of the City's logo(s) for use other than official City business, the following criteria shall be considered: a. Whether the use is by an entity that provides services on behalf of the City pursuant to a contract with the City in conjunction with those services; b. Whether the use is for a public purpose, such as by another governmental entity; c. Whether the use is for purposes that specifically assist in the economic development efforts of the City, such as use by a local or regional chamber of commerce; d. Whether the use benefits a single entity for its commercial purposes. The more the use provides singular benefits, the less it will weigh in favor of granting use; and/or e. Whether the use is for community events in which the City may provide support or services. 2. The City's logo(s) may be used without prior approval by the news media, where the reproduction of the City logo is incident to the publication, communication, or broadcast of news information about the City. B. The logo(s) shall not be used or be authorized to be used: (1) in support or opposition to any election issue or campaign related thereto except for official positional statements as authorized by law; or(2) for illegal activities. A. The following uses have been explicitly and expressly approved without the need for further City consent: 1. Use of logo on any official City of Spokane Valley document, including but not limited to stationery, letterhead, report and report covers, envelopes, memorandums, faxes, employee and elected officials' business cards, name tags, and name plates; 2. Use of logo on student advisory council (SAC) stationery and items of recognition; 3. Use of logo by Greater Spokane, Inc., for their marketing materials, on their website, and in their printed materials that are used in recruitment, expansion and retention efforts for marketing for business attraction and development; /1. Use of logo by the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce for City of Spokane Valley promotion of the mayor's State of the City Address; and for the City's general promotion through the Chamber's map; 5. Use of logo by those officially involved with and for the planning,promoting and decorating connected with the Mayor's Ball, including but not limited to event wine glasses, napkins, tickets, invitations, and other promotional materials and decorations for the ball; 6. Use of logo by an entity approved by the city manager for apparel purchased by City employees and elected officials,provided those purchases are transacted while those employees and elected officials are still serving in their City capacities; and 7. Use of logo by those officially involved with and for the planning of Vallcyfest and accompanying parade, including but not limited to event decorations,promotional materials, advertisements,posters, and temporary signs. B. The logo may, with City approval, be used for other specific events that benefit the City of Spokane Valley community and are not prohibited by subsection C of this section. C. Approved use of the City logo shall also be in accordance with the City of Spokane Valley Logo Style and Standards Guide, which shall be approved by separate resolution. D. The City logo shall not be used on or in connection with any advertising or promotion for any product, business, organization, service, or article, whether offered for sale for profit or offered without charge, without the express consent of the city,pursuant to SVMC 1.06.050. The logo shall not be used in connection with any election issue, or campaign related thereto. E1.06.035 Imitative or deceptively similar use. It is a violation of this chapter to use any symbol that imitates the logo or that is deceptively similar in appearance of the logo, or in any manner that would be an improper use of the logo itself. F. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the reproduction of the City logo for illustrative purposes by the news media if the reproduction by the news media is incidental to the publication or the broadcast. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a characterization of the City logo from being used in political cartoons. 1.06.010 Penalty for violation. Any person who violates this chapter shall be subject to any and all remedies available to the City under the law, including but not limited to a suit for damages and/or injunctive relief. 1.06.0 ,0 Permission for use. Any request for use of the City's logo(s) shall be submitted in writing to the eCity eClerk (or designee) in advance of the date needed. The mayor(or designee), in consultation with the cCity Mmanager (or designee), or if part of a contract approval, City Council, shall decide whether the requested use shall be approved by the City. The Ceity Celerk (or designee) shall send written response to the requestor within three business days of the decision by the mayor City. 1.06.050 Standards for use. Any use of the City's logo(s) shall be consistent with and meet all style and use standards adopted by the City through approved resolutions. The City may impose reasonable conditions upon the use of the City's logo(s)to ensure that the use of the logo(s)is consistent with the approval criteria in SVMC 1.60.030. 1.06.0460 Penalty for violation. Any person who violates this chapter shall be subject to any and all remedies available to the City under the law, including but not limited to a suit for damages and/or injunctive relief. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 18-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, REPEALING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 06-012, AND ADOPTING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL LOGOS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.06 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, SETTING FORTH STYLE AND OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR USE,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code 1.06.030(c) which provides the City Council may adopt the City's official logos by resolution; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2008, the City Council adopted Spokane Valley Resolution 08-001, adopting a five-year anniversary City logo; and WHEREAS,the City Council desires to adopt the logos herein as the City's official logos; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to set forth style and other standards governing the use of such logos. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington,as follows: Section 1. Adoption of a Logos. The City Council hereby adopts the logos set forth in Exhibit A as the City's official logos. Section 2. Adoption of Standards of Use. The City Council hereby adopts the standards set forth in Exhibits B-1,B-2,and B-3 as the standards governing use of the City's logos. The City Manager and his or her designee is hereby authorized to approve minor deviations from such standards as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 3. Repeal. Resolution No. 06-012 is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Spokane Valley,Washington,this day of ,2018. City of Spokane Valley ATTEST: L.R. Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution No. 18-009 Adopting City Logos Page 1 of 3 DRAFT Exhibit"A" A. Official Standard City Logo. The official Standard City Logo shall be the logo with "City of Spokane Valley," and depicting a mountain and a river,substantially as illustrated below: Spokane Valley® The official City Logo may be represented with or without the shadow lines under the river and/or mountain. B. City Economic Development Logo. The City's Economic Development Logo shall be the logo in the form substantially as illustrated below: LT4IPFA SPOKANE VALLEY - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - C. City CenterPlace Logo. The City's CenterPlace Logo shall be the logo in the form substantially as illustrated below: CENr ;1� I I CSE® - REGIONAL EVENT CENTER D. Standards for use. Use of the City's logo(s) shall comply with the branding guidelines and standards set forth as Exhibit B-1,Exhibit B-2, and Exhibit B-3. E. Minor Deviations from Standards. The City Manager and his or her designee is hereby authorized to approve minor deviations from the approved standards. The City Manager or designee shall consider the following when determining whether to approve minor deviations: 1. The intended use of the logo, and whether the use is for City or other public purposes, for use by an entity that contracts with the City; and 2. Whether the deviation modifies the primary character and nature of the logo. For example,it may be appropriate to allow minor deviations such as removal of shadows,but not significant changes,such as changing a blue or green color to pink or purple; and 3. Whether the deviation is necessary due to the nature of the intended use or medium being used. For example, approval of removal of shadows to allow the use on metal plating may be appropriate, while significant changes to color on standard printing paper would not appropriate. Resolution No. 18-009 Adopting City Logos Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Any person requesting such deviations shall make a request in writing to the City Clerk. The City Manager or designee shall render a decision on the deviation in writing in a timely manner. Resolution No. 18-009 Adopting City Logos Page 3 of 3 Exhibit B-1 City Logo Usage Standards and Guidelines Introduction The City of Spokane Valley logo system is designed to ultimately be utilized across multiple city departments.The logos, fonts and brand colors serve as a foundation for all departments and events that creates a strong connection for people within the City, region and the country. While individual departments will always have their own names, their association with the City of Spokane Valley brand contributes to the belief that the City is working collaboratively for the greater good. Brand Inspiration The City of Spokane Valley logo was designed to highlight the mountain and the river to reinforce the community's connection to the natural landscape. Brand Guidelines With every brand name comes a brand image. This manual provides the basics of the City of Spokane Valley brand family to help maintain the brand integrity and graphic standards for both internal and external use. With proper and consistent use, brand elements such as logos and fonts help to build awareness and recognition by distinguishing the community from competitors. This is why it is so crucial that each brand element is used consistently and appropriately in all communications. The logos are intended for use on print ads, literature, broadcast applications, business papers (letterhead) and promotional materials. Logo Design and Styles This logo is the cornerstone of the City of Spokane Valley brand family. While it should be used for city purposes, it is also the lead/primary logo that should be used as the default logo in the event that multiple departments are referenced. Consistent application of the logo according to the following specifications is essential. Use these approved guidelines exclusively. Always use the approved, master art for the logo — never recreate it yourself. The City of Spokane Valley logo consists of the mountain and river image surrounding the City of Spokane Valley text. It is not to be altered in any manner except as authorized pursuant to City Council or City Manager or designee approval. Spol�ane Valley® Color Usage "Spokane Valley Blue:" ► Pantone Reflex Blue ciT� off 1111.1\1161mik CMYK= (C) 98.04(M) 93.33 (Y) 6.67 (K) .39 Spokane RGB= (R)47 (G) 58 (B) 142 alley "Spokane Valley Green:" Pantone Green #347 CMYK=(C) 92.94(M) 7.06 (Y)95.69 (K) 1.18 RGB= (R) 0 (G) 158 (B) 80 "Spokane Valley Black:" Pantone Black Image may be reproduced in grayscale or black and white. Spokane .000 Valley Avoid: 1T IIEI I Ni Sal( :ne 4000 - 1. Reproducing the image against textured or visually active backgrounds. 2. Reproducing the logo's colors to be reversed to light color's on dark backgrounds. Space around the logo is key to creating focus. The logo must always have sufficient "room to breathe" — thereby enabling it to be the focal point on all communications. Situations may arise where surrounding the logo with generous amounts of clear space may not be feasible. When positioning the logo near text and/or image heavy applications, always maintain — at the very least — a minimum area of protection space of 1/6 of the height of the logo size. A Spokane .Valley Spokane .000Valley$ Minimum Logo Size The logo should have a prominent, substantial presence wherever it is used. It should never compete for visual attention with adjacent graphic elements. Always scale the City of Spokane Valley logo elements together as a unit to ensure that the approved proportions and relationship between these elements is always maintained. Minimum size is 7/8" high. What to Avoid It is important to maintain branding standards when using the City of Spokane Valley logo.The following are a few examples of things to avoid when using the logo: 1. Do not stretch or squeeze the logo 2. Do not use other colors other than the one's provided in the guidelines 3. Do not use the logo as a headline or with additional copy 4. Do not angle the logo 5. Do not use different fonts 6. Do not add elements to the logo 7. Do not add special effects to the logo Exhibit B-2 SPOKANEVALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY BRAND GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION To provide a unified front across all marketing efforts, the City of Spokane Valley logo system is designed to ultimately be utilized across multiple City departments. The logos, fonts and brand colors serve as a foundation for all departments and events that creates a strong connection for people within the city, region and the country. While individual departments will always have their own names, their association with the City of Spokane Valley brand contributes to the belief that the City is working collaboratively for the greater good. 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY BRAND BRAND INSPIRATION GUIDELINES The City of Spokane Valley logo was designed to With every brand name comes a brand image. highlight the S and the V of the City's name in a This manual provides the basics of the City of way that reinforces the community's connection Spokane Valley brand family to help maintain the to the natural landscape. The modern but brand integrity and graphic standards for both straightforward design is highly versatile and can internal and external use. be used both on its own and also across multiple City departments. With proper and consistent use, brand elements such as logos and fonts help to build awareness and recognition by distinguishing the community from competitors. This is why it is so crucial that each brand element is used consistently and appropriately in all communications. The logos are intended for use on print ads, literature, broadcast applications, business papers (letterhead) and promotional materials. 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY LOGO DESIGN This logo is the cornerstone of the City of Spokane Valley brand family. While it should be used for S P 0 K A N E V A I. E Y economic development purposes, it is also the lead/ primary logo that should be used as the default logo in the event that multiple departments are referenced. Consistent application of the logo according to the following specifications is essential. Use these approved guidelines exclusively. Always use the approved, master art for the logo — never recreate it yourself. 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY LOGO STYLES USING THE LOGO ICON ALONE From time to time, the desire may rise to use icon elements from the logos independently of the accompanying words. These instances should be considered extreme exceptions rather than a standard exception. The logo (the icon and identifying copy) should be viewed as a complete piece of the brand rather than individual elements. If you believe you have one of these extreme exceptions, consult with the City of Spokane Valley staff to submit your request. 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY USING THE LOGO WITH DEPARTMENT MODIFIERS A need may arise to add a department name or descriptor to the S P 0 K A N E logo. In these cases, the modifier should always be secondary to the main City of Spokane Valley logo. Examples of how this type7A VALLEY of modifier works with the main logo are shown here. — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT — L, A SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY FORUM 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COLOR USAGE COLOR BLACK WHITE C7ASPOKANE SPOKANE SPOKANE VALLEY UAVALLEY C7AVALLEY VASPOLKLAEYNE Please note that when the color logo is used on a dark background, VALLEY is the lighter green, but when used black box is used for visual purposes in this document on a white background, VALLEY is the darker green when applying a logo on a solid color background 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COLORS PRIMARY COLORS Always use the specific primary colors for the logo elements. Each color has four different color spaces: PANTONE, CMYK, RGB and HEX. Each color space is intended for specific printing or web applications. PANTONE 7489C PANTONE 639C PANTONE 364C CMYK is most commonly used by laser and ink-jet C:61/M:13/Y:91/K:0 C:100/M:20/Y:10/K:0 C:74/M:32/Y:100/K:19 R:98/G:159/B:63 R:0/G:129/B:190 R:58/G:101/B:31 type printers. #629f3f #0081be #3a651f ACCENT COLOR PANTONE 716C C:4/M:64/Y:100/K:0 R:237/G:120/B:0 #ed7800 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY MINIMUM AREA OF PROTECTION Space around the logo is key to creating focus. The logo must always have sufficient "room to breathe" — thereby enabling it to be the focal point on allIthAT7A41 SPOKANE V A L L E Y:::::::::n:ise where surrounding the logo with generous amounts of clear space may not be feasible. When positioning the logo near text and/or image heavy applications, always maintain — at the very least — a minimum area of protection space. Since the size of the logo will vary, we recommend using the "S" in Spokane Vally, as shown on the right. 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY MINIMUM LOGO SIZE The logos should have a prominent, substantial presence HORIZONTAL: 1.5" wherever they are used. They should never compete for I I visual attention with adjacent graphic elements. SPOKANE Always scale the City of Spokane Valley logo elements CyA V AP � � E Y together as a unit to ensure that the approved proportions and relationship between these elements is always maintained. These examples illustrate minimum sizes so you may visualize a point of reference regarding size. While enlarging the logo is not limited to a maximum size, the logo must not drop below the minimum standard shown. 10 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY TYPOGRAPHY LOGO FONT SPOKANE ALLEYBEBASNEUE ABCDEFOHIiKLMN0PORSTUVWXYZ These font families provideC7A 0123456189-&*#?!/+(.,:;) a system that can be applied to a broad typographic S P O K A N E spectrum from collateral materials, newsletters and VALLEY FRANKLIN GOTHIC MEDIUM signs, to web page design ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz and advertising typography. — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT — 1 0123456789-&*#?!/+(.,:;) SUGGESTED WEB FONTS SUGGESTED BRAND FONTS ROBOTO MEDIUM FRANKLIN GOTHIC MEDIUM ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 0123456789-&*#?!/+(.,:;) 0123456789-&*#?!/+(.,:;) ROBOTO CONDENSED REGULAR FRANKLIN GOTHIC BOOK CONDENSED ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 0123456789-&*#?!/+(.,:;) 0123456789-&*#?!/+(.,:;) ROBOTO CONDENSED BOLD FRANKLIN GOTHIC DEMI CONDENSED ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz a bcdefgh ij kl m no pq rstuvwxyz 0123456789-&*#?!/+(.,:;) 0123456789-&*#?!/+(.,:;) 11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY WHAT TO AVOID 1. 07A SPOKANE 2. SPOKANE VALLEY VALLEY I Nt 4• %Vt� i It is important to maintain branding standards 3• C7A VASPOLKLAEYNE V W‘.‘•when using the City of Spokane Valley logo. The THE BEST PLACE TO... ` following are a few examples of things to avoid when using the logo: 1. DON'T stretch or squeeze the logo. 5• ir SPOKANE6• SPOKANE2. DON'T use any other colors other than thoseC7A , VALLEY specified on page 7. VALLEY 3. DON'T use the logo as a headline or with additional copy. 4. DON'T angle the logo. SPDKANE E 7• A SPOKANE \�� VALLEY 5. DON'T change logo by using different fonts. vs AP L LA EN Y 6. DON'T add elements to the logo, V -, z ,c.„, ItSIANE 7. DON'T add special effects to the logo. w 8. DON'T use a color block behind the white logo �; 12 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY IDENTITY PACKAGE ��A uniKiEE Business Card SC7AP.O.K.A.1!E �„ ,, E,o E.Y Joe Schmoe .00919211000 Business Cards and stationery are an ideal Ce,509;5555 �� „ fax,50919211008 format to quickly convey the City of Spokane Valley brand while providing contact details. The Where Tradition Meets Ambition back of the business cards and the flap of the envelopes show an example of a logo exception by using the logo as a pattern within a dark green field. The identity package features all of the approved logo colors. pa/9io',(all�ueryotlrwwv. SOOT IZfi(W 5)*Tl 000['[Z616061:auWtl 60266 tlMCOLA 11177A SPOKANE A �oE�EEuY �(5O9)921-1006 �o�o�atl Letterhead Envelope 13 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Exhibit B-3 CEN 'r ucE® REGIONAL EVENT CENTER CENTERPLACE REGIONAL EVENT CENTER LOGO USE GUIDELINES The CenterPlace Regional Event Center logo is the graphic representation of the facilities identity. It is an officially licensed trademark protected by copyright law. The logo is intended for use exclusively on City documents and property, by CenterPlace Regional Event Center employees in the course of performing their duties, or for city-sponsored events, information and activities. Use of the CenterPlace Regional Event Center logo outside the organization for events, information and activities is available only by advance approval CenterPlace Regional Event Center and is subject to certain limitations. • The CenterPlace Regional Event Center logo must not be used in connection with any election or campaign. • The logo must not be used for any purpose that is contrary to Washington State law. • The appearance of the logo must be in accordance with the CenterPlace Regional Event Center Logo Style and Standards Guide. See Spokane Valley Ordinance Requests for permission to use CenterPlace Regional Event Center logo must be submitted in writing in advance of the date needed. Written response will be provided to the requestor within three (3)business days of the decision. • Please provide the following information with your request: • Name of organization/entity requesting permission. • Address, City, State, Zip. • Name and title of authorized individual making the request. • Daytime Telephone number. • Fax number and/or Email address. • Dates for which authorization is requested. • Deadline for receipt of authorization (please allow a minimum of 3 business days). • A description of the event/activity for which logo usage is requested. • Attach a mockup of the intended use. (Digital artwork is available in jpg and FHI0 formats.) Please submit request to: CenterPlace Regional Event Center 2426 N. Discovery Place Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Email: centerplace@spokanevalley.org (509) 688-0300 FAX: (509) 688-0188 0 CENIJiiLACE REGIONAL EVENT CENTER Logo Specifications The CenterPlace logo is a registered image for visibility, awareness and positive recognition of the City of Spokane Valley's CenterPlace Regional Event Center. It is important that these specifications are followed stricktly, as the quality of all reproduction and use of the logo reflects on the professional image of CenterPlace. The CenterPlace logo is a single unit, ie it is comprised of the name, the pine cone icon, and the "REGIONAL EVENT CENTER" wording. When used alone, these must not be separated/cropped out. If the full logo is present in a document, then the pine cone icon may be used alone as a textural/graphic element, with prior approval. Logo Isolation Space --- A minimum 1/4"Free Space clear CEN LACE®LCE area on all sides what would be an imaginary rectangle around the logo, must be maintained with nothing intruding. `'Rd,0.* REGIONAL EVENT CENTER Color Specifications Logo works best on a lighter background On Coated Stock: Brown: Pantone 464C Dark Teal: Pantone 3435C On Uncoated Stock: Brown: Pantone 154U Dark Teal: Pantone 349U 4 Color Process Build: Brown: C=36 M=62 Y=96 K=32 Dark Teal: C=89 M=45 Y=94 K=53 RGB Values: Brown: R=127 G=84 B=36 Dark Teal: R=5 G=67 B=36 Black & White Use Grayscale logos are provided for use in just B/W reproduction --- Logo should not be used in any single spot color, ie all orange. Not Allowed Never skew, distort or slant the logo, nor change its layout to make it more horizontal. Never substitute any colors in the logo. Never substitute any fonts in the logo, nor adjust the name or tagline relative sizes. Do not use the former, unregistered version of the logo. Never use low quality scans of the logo. DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of November 15,2018; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council& Staff From: City Clerk,by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings Nov 27,2018—Meeting Cancelled—Thanksgiving Holiday Dec 4,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Nov 261 ACTION ITEMS: 1. First Reading Ordinance, Open Space Code Text Amendment—Marty Palaniuk (15 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Washington Cities Insurance Authority(WCIA)Briefing—Cary Driskell; from WCIA (45 minutes) 3. Ridgemont Neighborhood: 22nd Avenue—Bill Helbig,Ray Wright, Chief Werner (30 minutes) 4. Sullivan Bridge Project Completion Update—Gloria Mantz,Erica Amsden (15 minutes) 5. Barker Road Grade Separation Project Update—Gloria Mantz (10 minutes) 6. Pines Road Grade Separation Project Update—Gloria Mantz (10 minutes) 7. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 130 mins] Dec 11,2018, 4-5 pm Tentative Special Meeting with 4th District Legislators Dec 11,2018,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Dec 41 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Open Space Code Text Amendment—Marty Palaniuk (10 minutes) 3. First Reading Ordinance 18-025 amending City Logo Provision—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 4. Proposed Fee Resolution for 2019—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations for 2019—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 6. Motion Consideration: Aging&Long Term of Eastern Wa. Interlocal—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 mins] Dec 18,2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Idue Tue Dec 111 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 18-025 amending City Logo Provision—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 2. Resolution 18-009 Amending City Logo Style and Standards Guide—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 3. Resolution 18-010 Amending Governance Manual—Chris Bainbridge (10 minutes) Public Comment Opportunity NON-ACTION ITEMS: 4. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 5. Info Item: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 35 mins] No Meeting: Tuesday,December 25, 2018 January 2,2019, Study Session 6:00 pm (Jan 1 is a holiday, so this will be a `regular' mtg) due Wed Dec 19 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Jan 8,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Wed Jan 21 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Mayoral Appointments: Planning Commissioners—Mayor Higgins (10 minutes) 3.Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee—Mayor Higgins (10 minutes) 4.Mayoral Appointments: Councilmembers to Committees—Mayor Higgins (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 mins] Draft Advance Agenda 11/15/2018 10:09:35 AM Page 1 of 2 Jan 15,2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 8] 1. Advance Agenda Jan 22,2019,Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 151 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Police Dept Quarterly Report—Chief Werner (10 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Reports Jan 29,2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 22] 1. Advance Agenda Feb 5,2019,Study Session 6:00 pm [due Tue Jan 29] 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Feb 12,2019,Formal Meetin2 Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 51 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) City Action Days, Olympia Feb 13-14 Feb 19,2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 12] 1. Advance Agenda Feb 26,2019,Formal Meetin2 Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 191 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Police Dept Quarterly Report—Chief Werner (10 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Reports March 5,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 26] 1. Advance Agenda *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Animal Control Regulations (SVMC 7.30) St. Illumination(ownership,cost,location) Camping in RVs St. O&M Pavement Preservation Donation Recognition Studded Snow Tires Electrical Inspections TPA Health District Re SV Stats Utility Facilities in ROW Land Use Notice Requirements Legislative Delegation Meeting Legislative Remote Testimony(Chambers) Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt Naming City Facilities Protocol Neighborhood Restoration Program Park Lighting Park Regulations Ordinance Amendments Police Dept. Quarterly Rpt(April,July, Oct, Jan) Sign Ordinance Draft Advance Agenda 11/15/2018 10:09:35 AM Page 2 of 2 Scirvc*'kan e Administrative 400.\Tallcy 3rd Quarter 2018 Contract Administration: • Completed and Presented to SCRAPS Advisory Board analysis of Regional Model • Processed 2018 Justice Assistance Grant application—award received • Reviewed 2017 law enforcement contract costs reconciliation • Reviewed final CAD/RMS invoice • Evaluated Pre-Trial Services Interlocal Agreement • Processed police emphasis patrol grant with Washington Traffic Safety Commission • Evaluated and processed request to temporarily change classification of DUI officer and accept state grant to pay for difference • Evaluated and verified change to solid waste disposal rates • Evaluated 2018 Sheriff's Office budget amendment • Evaluated 2019 Sheriff's Office supplemental request Human Resources: Filled or Filled or Recruitment Recruiting Recruitment Recruiting PT Recreation Assistant—Host Recruiting PT Attorney Recruiting Asst. Engineer—Stormwater/CIP Recruiting Planner Recruiting Senior Engineer-CIP Filled On-Call Snow Plow Operators Recruiting Engineering Technician I Filled Public Information Officer Filled IT Specialist Filled Construction Inspector Filled Asst. Building Official Recruiting Special Projects: • Collective Bargaining • "Winter Warm-Up" Wellness Campaign City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 Page Title 1 Cover Sheet 2 Pre-Application Meetings Requested 3 Online Applications Received 4 Construction Applications Received 5 Land Use Applications Received 6 Construction Permits Issued 7 Land Use Applications Approved 8 Development Inspections Performed 9 Code Enforcement 10 Revenue 11 Building Permit Valuations Printed 11/06/2018 07:26 Page 1 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 Pre-Application Meetings Requested A Pre-Application Meeting is a service provided to help our customers identify the code requirements related to their project proposal. Community& Public Works Department scheduled a total of 15 Pre-Application Meetings in October 2018. 20 . 42114,14 is i 10 0 . H 1 Ill 1 Ili0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Land Use Pre-Application ® Commercial Pre-App Meeting Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial Pre-App 8 6 14 9 2 6 8 10 7 12 0 0 Land Use Pre-Application Meeting 8 9 4 2 10 7 3 0 0 go Monthly Totals 16 15 1 ^ 0 r. Annual Total To-Date: 144 Printed 11/06/2018 07:26 Page 2 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 Online Applications Received Community& Public Works Department received a total of 279 Online Applications in October 2018. 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Trade Permit ,'";1 Right of Way Permit Pre-Application Meeting Request Demolition Permit Sign Permit Reroof Permit 444 Other Online Applications = Approach Permit Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Approach Permit 0 0 3 5 1 2 2 2 3 2 0 0 Demolition Permit 3 2 6 1 0 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 Other Online Applications 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pre-Application Meeting Request 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reroof Permit 12 12 21 29 37 40 33 51 30 21 0 0 Right of Way Permit 85 56 80 99 79 40 58 76 58 76 0 0 Sign Permit 1 3 1 0 4 6 8 10 1 9 0 0 Trade Permit 124 115 124 121 131 151 140 141 124 167 0 0 Monthly Totals 225 188 236 255 252 241 241 280 219 279 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 2,416 Printed 11/06/2018 07:26 Page 3 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 Construction Applications Received Community& Public Works Department received a total of 560 Construction Applications in October 2018. 800 600 o 01 400 200 II 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New Commercial -TI Residential-New = Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New 38 6 4 28 6 19 8 19 9 6 0 0 Commercial-TI 17 5 12 11 14 21 13 12 10 13 0 0 Residential-New 17 18 11 23 22 15 9 48 40 26 0 0 Commercial-Trade 13 12 8 13 8 9 38 20 9 14 0 0 Residential-Trade 51 62 37 58 40 36 29 88 85 59 0 0 Residential-Accessory 4 8 17 22 33 24 12 10 17 19 0 0 Demolition *6 *5 *10 *5 3 *3 4 3 *11 *6 0 0 Sign *8 *7 *8 5 *13 *14 *14 *19 *3 *11 0 0 Other Construction Permits *268 *264 *314 *349 *365 *329 *326 *390 *307 *380 0 0 Monthly Totals 422 387 421 514 504 470 453 609 491 534 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 4,805 *Includes Online Applications. Printed 11/06/2018 07:27 Page 4 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 Land Use Applications Received Community& Public Works Department received a total of 69 Land Use Applications in October 2018. 100 ii,,,. 50 1, III Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ..r-i Boundary Line Adjustment ® Binding Site Plan Preliminary State Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting Act(SEPA) (It VII Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation = Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment 4 2 6 0 6 7 4 3 4 6 0 0 Short Plat Preliminary 3 1 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 0 0 Long Plat Preliminary 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Binding Site Plan Preliminary 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Final Platting 1 4 0 1 4 2 2 6 1 1 0 0 Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) 1 3 2 1 2 0 2 3 4 3 0 0 Administrative 0 0 0 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits 64 45 52 42 53 56 45 44 41 51 0 0 VI o a m Monthly Totals 76 57 _ mo 60iiro Annual Total To-Date: 632 Printed 11/06/2018 07:27 Page 5 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 Construction Permits Issued Community& Public Works Department issued a total of 513 Construction Permits in October 2018. 600 �. 400 40 d ill i'lIrl 200 MIERIMMIESSEMEMERESSIIMMOW Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial -New Commercial-TI Residential-New - Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New 37 2 5 7 8 6 13 23 11 11 0 0 Commercial-TI 12 8 9 10 12 26 5 8 6 11 0 0 Residential-New 20 10 22 13 17 18 6 23 31 28 0 0 Commercial-Trade 10 10 8 12 9 12 36 14 6 12 0 0 Residential-Trade 58 50 53 47 41 44 21 46 78 64 0 0 Residential-Accessory 3 5 12 23 31 27 11 9 15 16 0 0 Demolition 4 4 7 5 2 2 4 1 9 6 0 0 Sign 9 4 10 5 8 11 9 20 3 9 0 0 Other Construction Permits 255 256 303 311 361 308 309 361 302 350 0 0 Monthly Totals 408 349 429 433 489 454 414 505 461 507 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 4,449 Printed 11/06/2018 07:27 Page 6 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 Land Use Applications Approved Community& Public Works Department approved a total of 48 Land Use Applications in October 2018. 80 60 40 At- 1111111 20 illl NI o 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec i Boundary Line Adjustment Binding Site Plan Preliminary State Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting Act(SEPA) a „! Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits 2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 5 1 0 0 Short Plat Preliminary 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 Long Plat Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Binding Site Plan Preliminary 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Platting 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Administrative 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits 61 33 55 29 56 46 49 39 39 42 0 0 Monthly Totals 64 40 61 Nir 111 Annual Total To-Date: 497 Printed 11/06/2018 07:27 Page 7 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 Development Inspections Performed Community& Public Works Department performed a total of 1505 Development Inspections in October 2018. Development Inspections include building, planning, engineering and ROW inspections. 2,500 2,000 1,500 - - 1,000 ---- r 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016 2017 2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2018 1,053 1,023 1,558 1,480 1,775 2,001 1,607 1,673 1,465 1,472 0 0 15,107 2017 967 777 1,356 1,351 1,726 1,680 1,374 1,760 1,460 1,627 1,379 1,114 16,57 2016 764 958 1,332 1,390 1,443 1,574 1,309 1,468 1,554 1,529 1,509 1,076 w ' Printed 11/06/2018 07:27 Page 8 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Officers responded to 56 citizen requests in the month of October. They are listed by type below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. 100 1111 1 111 I 111 5a II I III I hl I 11 t �II1 IIIIII a Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I= CE-Stop Work Order Environmental General Nuisance ® Property Complaint, Non-Violation Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CE-Stop Work Order 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Complaint,Non-Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 General 1 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Nuisance 23 32 32 45 45 32 41 40 24 29 0 0 Property 75 11 11 19 19 17 33 29 29 27 0 0 Monthly Totals 99 45 44 66 67 49 74 71 54 56 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 625 Printed 11/06/2018 07:27 Page 9 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 Revenue Community& Public Works Department Revenue totaled $272,071 in October 2018. 400,000 300,000 NV/A\\-- 200,000 ,,,, 100,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec + 2018 2017 - Five-Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2018 $193,214 $127,869 $224,540 $223,783 $235,713 $163,706 $261,083 $364,042 $254,117 $272,071 $0 $0 2,320,138 Trend $141,336 $114,162 $200,027 $177,670 $255,932 $239,522 $168,601 $161,655 $158,931 $175,053 $136,687 $114,587 $2,044,164 2017 $185,045 $153,153 $153,939 $237,444 $318,163 $274,897 $156,278 $144,167 $159,789 $202,869 $250,078 $173,009 $2,408,831 2016 $213,319 $191,658 $383,912 $196,705 $371,319 $243,029 $128,848 $271,684 $252,268 $207,849 $150,902 $133,482 $2,744,975 2015 $74,775 $108,328 $161,174 $187,199 $123,918 $117,453 $162,551 $162,864 $99,587 $181,791 $99,627 $102,195 $1,581,462 2014 $74,628 $66,134 $198,571 $160,508 $282,086 $152,637 $117,776 $127,540 $153,838 $149,197 $84,442 $97,689 $1,665,046 2013 $158,912 $51,536 $102,538 $106,496 $184,176 $409,592 $277,553 $102,021 $129,174 $133,561 $98,386 $66,559 $1,820,504 Printed 11/06/2018 07:27 Page 10 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2018 - 10/31/2018 Building Permit Valuation Community& Public Works Department Building Permit Valuation totaled $21,998,200 in October 2018. 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -•-- 2018 2017 .- Five-Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2018 $12.86M $6.72M $27.60M $7.87M $9.53M $26.26M $29.25M $25.38M $20.67M $21.88M $0.00M $0.00M Trend $12.68M $12.32M $16.83M $15.22M $27.19M $22.32M $12.24M $14.94M $13.57M $11.13M $18.31M $7.24M 2017 $23.82M $18.37M $6.98M $31.20M $35.66M $35.64M $9.78M $9.05M $8.88M $10.14M $67.10M $16.78M 2016 $7.97M $28.14M $55.63M $10.10M $36.76M $19.11M $7.07M $41.60M $33.68M $9.13M $7.76M $5.52M 2015 $2.93M $10.71M $8.07M $18.60M $6.73M $7.53M $5.05M $8.06M $5.15M $14.42M $5.86M $5.08M 2014 $3.18M $2.45M $9.90M $8.92M $34.58M $7.44M $6.37M $9.47M $12.01M $7.74M $3.60M $6.30M 2013 $25.49M $1.92M $3.59M $7.30M $22.22M $41.88M $32.91M $6.52M $8.11M $14.22M $7.25M $2.54M Printed 11/06/2018 07:27 Page 11 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 10/01/18 — 10/31/18 MAINTENANCE Agreements for Services Adopted and In Operation * Budget estimates ** Does not include October Contract Name Contractor Contract Total %of Contract Amount Expended Expended Street Maintenance Poe Asphalt I $1,561,663.00 $1,070,912.94 68.58% El Street Sweeping AAA Sweeping I $490,200.00 $420,098.40 85.70% Ill Storm Drain Cleaning AAA Sweeping I $202,587.50 $145,543.39 71.84% El Snow- On Call Operators Multiple (3) 1 $215,000.00 $50,705.72 23.58% Landscaping Senske I $62,256.92 $33,842.65 54.36% El Weed Spraying Spokane Pro Carel $20,124.20 $17,248.25 85.71% Ill Emergency Traffic Control Senske $10,000.00 $4,534.75 45.35% si Litter and Weed Control Geiger Work Crew $70,000.00 $53,871.30 76.96% si State Highway Maintenance WSDOT di $265,000.00 $132,126.97 49.86% El Traffic Signals, Signs, Striping Spokane County I $670,000.00 $530,177.19 79.13% Ill Dead Animal Control Mike Pederson I $20,000.00 $10,375.00 51.88% si Citizen Requests for Public Works'" lac ober 2011 Request Submitted In Progress Resolved Broken Sprinkler IMI 1 0 1 CPW Projects 3 0 3 Dead Animal Removal Ai 11 0 11 General Street Maint AM 19 5 14 Graffiti on City Property1 0 2 Gravel Shouldering 1 0 1 Hazard on Street 7 0 7 Illegal Dumping - object 8 0 8 Vegetation /Weeds 11 1 10 Report a Pothole A 6 0 6 Street Sweeping ai. 4 0 4 SOLID WASTE 1 0 1 STORMWATER illiM 14 5 9 TRAFU � ' 29 0 29 Signini 11 0 11 Totals 1 STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for October 2018: • AAA Sweeping - Monthly arterial maintenance sweeping. Fall residential sweep began on October 22nd • AAA Sweeping Vactor Contract— Cleaning drywells and swale inlets throughout the City • Poe Asphalt —Asphalt patching on Broadway, Sprague, Woodruff, Jackson, Flora and Vista. Asphalt overlay on Ella Road. Completed 12 stormwater projects throughout the City. • Pothole patching. • Geiger Work Crew— Dryland grass mowing, tree trimming, litter pickup. 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/ STORMWATER UTILITY The following is a summary of City Stormwater Utility activities for October 2018: • Developing Stormwater Assessment and Recommendation reports for 2019 and 2020 Capital Improvement projects. Four reports completed in September. • Continue initial meetings, correspondence and planning with Department of Ecology concerning stormwater grant projects. • Participated in Eastern Washington Stormwater Group discussion, assessment, review and comment on the Draft 2019 reissuance of the NPDES permit. • Begin updating MS4 mapping to separate NPDES and UIC regulated facilities. • Participated in effectiveness study effort as part of NPDES permit requirements. • Participated in public education effort as part of NPDES permit requirements. • Continued annual management and/or participation of the following service contracts o Senske—swale maintenance o AAA Sweeping— Fall Sweep o AAA Sweeping—Storm Drain Cleaning • Continued working on the following tasks: o Responded to stormwater related issues, 10 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) September-18 Total Requests Logged Since 2009: 395 2018 Completed Projects: 0 Completed Projects 2009-2017: 203 Locations not warranting work: 106 Total Project Backlog: 86 Remaining Projects Assigned for 2018-2020 Small Works: 48 2 Maintenance: 26 Large Capital: 11 Unfunded Projects Large Capital: 6 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING The following is a summary of Development Engineering activities for October 2018: • Assisted Building and Planning Division with preparation of design requirements for (12) Commercial and (4) 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. • Reviewed civil plans for the following projects: o TAPA Business Park— Phase 2 o Great Northern Storage o Ponderosa East 2nd Addition — 22 lots o Montgomery Park Building o Olive & Pines Apartments o Abraham Storage Units o Klein Subdivision — 14 lots o Broadway Apartments o TAPA Storage Facility— Phase 2 o Raugust Mini Storage o Schimmels Short Plat—9 lots o Kaiser Aluminum Drying Bed o Banner Plaza o Cataldo Community Residential o Bowdish Road Floodplain o Carnahan Road Floodplain o Broadway 2 Apartments o Camp Cataldo Short Plat—8 lots • 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. 3 CAPITAL PROJECTS �F 5o 'r Public Works Projects " 4000 1441 kMonthly Summary-Design &Construction �G October-2018 Estimated Total Project Proposed Bid Open %Complete Design&Construction Projects Funding Construction Project # Ad Date Date PE I CN Completion Cost Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker FHWA-STP(U) 04/13/18 05/04/18 100 90 11/15/18 $ 4,333,334 0143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation FHWA-STP(U) TBD TBD 35 0 12/31/22 $ 2,827,702 0249 Sullivan&Wellesley Intersection Improv FHWA-STP(U) 05/03/19 05/24/19 35 0 12/31/19 $ 1,370,000 0259 North Sullivan ITS Project FHWA-CMAQ TBD TBD 99 0 12/31/19 $ 914,209 0265 Wellesley Sidewalk Project FHWA-CMAQ TBD TBD 75 0 12/31/18 $ 447,000 0267 Mission SW-Bowdish to Union TIB-SP TBD TBD 15 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 98 12/31/18 $ 1,977,273 0252 Argonne Resurfacing:Broadway to Mission FHWA-STP(U) 10/05/18 10/26/18 100 0 07/01/19 $ 843,151 0254 Mission-McDonald to Evergreen COSV 06/29/18 07/13/18 100 90 12/31/18 $ 946,167 Traffic Projects 0263 Citywide Signal Backplates HSIP N/A N/A 100 98 12/31/18 $ 124,862 Parks Projects 0268 Appleway Trail-Evergreen to Sullivan FHWA-STP(U) TBD TBD 5 0 12/31/21 $ 2,395,000 Design Total Project %Complete # Design Only Projects Funding Complete Project Date PE Cost Street Projects 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement COSV 12/31/18 5 $ 51,619 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF&Trent COSV TBD 15 $ 1,710,000 0247 8th&Carnahan Intersection Improvements TBD 0 $ 762,025 0273 Barker/I-90 Interchange TBD 2 $ 1,000,000 0275 Barker Rd Widening-River to Euclid COSV 12/31/20 0 $ 220,000 0276 Barker Rd Widening-Euclid to Garland COSV 12/31/20 0 $ 135,000 0277 Barker Rd Widening-Garland to Trent COSV 12/31/20 0 $ 90,000 0278 Wilbur Sidewalk-Boone to Broadway CDBG 04/30/19 3 $ 399,471 0279 Knox Ave Sidewalk:Hutchinson to Sargent 04/30/19 0 $ 339,245 0281 Highland Estates Connector 12/31/19 0 $ 200,000 Street Preservation Projects 0256 University Rd Pres-24th to Dish man Mica COSV 12/01/18 90 $ 48,000 0257 University Rd Pres-16th to 24th COSV 12/01/18 90 $ 53,000 0269 Evergreen-Mission Connector to Indiana FHWA-STP(U) TBD 14 $ 660,000 0285 Indiana Ave Pres-Evergreen to Sullivan COSV TBD 0 $ 70,400 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 $ - 4 TRAFFIC Argonne-Mullan Coordination Project Traffic is working with a consulting engineer and WSDOT to develop a traffic signal timing plan for the Argonne-Mullan Corridor. This project is slated to be complete by year end. Assisted CIP Street projects are in construction and Traffic staff reviews traffic control plans in the field as problems and concerns arise due to changing traffic patterns. CIP and traffic staff continue to work to get the construction completed with as little impact to the public. Traffic Model Update The City's traffic model has not been updated since before December, 2016. With such healthy development occurring in Spokane Valley, the City's traffic modeling is becoming obsolete. Traffic staff is working with a consultant to input developer provided information so that the modeling reflects as best as practical the traffic on our City streets. We plan to have this effort complete by the end of November. PLANNING AND GRANTS Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) CDBG issued a request for proposals for the 2019 program year. On October 23, 2018, City Council directed the City Manager to submit project applications for three sidewalk improvement projects: Ella Road — Alki to Broadway, Conklin Road — Appleway Trail to Riceland Lane, and Farr Road — 6th Avenue to 8th Avenue. Ella Road was listed as the highest priority project. Applications were submitted prior to the November 9, 2018 deadline and on January, 2019, Spokane County will have a public meeting where they will make their allocation recommendations. Grant Applications for the Pines Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program The program is for highway-rail grade crossing improvement projects and the City is eligible for funding for the preliminary engineering (PE) phase of the project. In June and July, 2018, the City submitted funding applications to the Federal Rail Administration's (FRA) CRISI Program for fiscal years (FY) 17 and 18, respectively. The City submitted a total PE phase request of$1,246,500 with a City-match of $1,246,500 (50% match), for a total PE phase cost of $2,493,000. Awards are anticipated to be announced in fall 2018 for FY 17 and Spring 2019 for FY 18. Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Call for Projects In June, 2018, TIB announced its annual call for projects. On July 24, 2018, City Council authorized the City Manager to submit applications for three projects: Project Name Program Total Cost Grant Request (%) City Match (%) 1. University Rd—16th to Dishman Mica UAP $3,125,000 $1,875,000(60%) $1,250,000(40%) 2. Sprague& Barker Intersection Improv. UAP $1,600,000 $1,280,000(80%) $320,000(20%) 3. Adams Rd from 16th to 23rd SP $508,000 $406,400(80%) $101,600(20%) TOTAL $5,233,000 $3,561,400 $1,671,600 5 Project applications were mailed to TIB's office on August 15, 2018 and award announcements are scheduled for November 16, 2018. Additional Grant Information Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Applications to SRTC were submitted on May 10, 2018. Overall, there were 49 total project applications submitted from 11 different agencies requesting nearly $100 Million. The total dollars available for award is $26.2 million. At the SRTC board meeting on November 8, 2018, the Board partially funded four of the City's submitted projects. The table below includes the City's submitted project applications and their awarded funding. City Project Name Total Award Funding Comments Priority# Request Amount Source 1 Pines/BNSF GSP(RW Only) $3,795,000 $1,890,000 STBG 50%award 2 Barker—Spokane River to Trent $6,331,800 $2,050,000 STBG Phase 1 fully funded Award equal to PE+ 3 Sprague& Barker Intersection $1,159,979 $349,000 CMAQ ROW costs 4 Pines& Mission Intersection $1,211,000 $509,000 CMAQ Phase 1 fully funded 5 Mullan Road $1,211,000 $0 STBG N/A 6 Argonne Reconstruction $2,508,500 $0 STBG N/A 7 Park Road (RW Only) $268,150 $0 STBG N/A 8 Wilbur Road Sidewalk $557,060 $0 STBG-SA N/A TOTAL $17,042,489 $4,798,000 2019-2024 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The six-year TIP for 2019— 2024 was adopted in June of 2018. State law requires the TIP to include all local road projects using REET funds, as well as regionally significant and federally funded transportation projects. Federally funded and regionally significant projects will be adopted into the four-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Staff is currently preparing the January 2019 amendment to the current STIP as adopted in October 2018. Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Chapters 2 and 5 Transportation Elements Amendments to the Transportation sections of the Comprehensive Plan are currently in development. These amendments include policy and strategy changes to reflect the Planned Action Ordinance projects in and around the Centennial Business Park as well as to support continued safety improvements for multimodal access to Spokane Valley streets. Analysis in October identified high-priority transit areas and reviewed sidewalk and bikeway infrastructure within 1/4 mile to 2 miles of high-frequency transit stops. Further review identified overlap with short-distance vehicle trips, high densities of jobs and homes, areas with significant traffic congestion, and areas with high crash frequencies and severities. High-priority, near-term projects were identified within these focus areas. Public involvement in October included outreach at the Spokane Valley Senior Center, Spokane Valley Youth Voice, the Valley Transit Center, the Spokane Valley Mall, Walmart and the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, as well as an online survey distributed through social media, a press release, and the City's website. 6 Planning Studies The ongoing South Barker Corridor Study reviews current and forecasted conditions along the Barker Corridor from Mission Avenue south to 8th Avenue, focusing in particular on the north and south interchanges at 1-90. In October,the consultant team initiated assessment of long-term traffic impacts and recommendations through year 2040. The consultant will present results of the long- term analysis to staff in November. Study completion is scheduled for December 2018. In October, meetings with water district representatives continued as part of an effort to gather utility information for mapping and project coordination purposes. Specifically, this review seeks to align water district projects with capital projects scheduled in the City's six-year TIP or scheduled roadway maintenance. Pavement Management Update Contract for the Evaluation of Pavement Management Program Staff has entered into an agreement for professional services with Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) to provide a full evaluation of the existing pavement management program and provide recommendations that will most efficiently serve the City. The scope of work is scheduled to occur between August 2018 and January 2019. 2019 Pavement Preservation Projects Preservation projects are funded by Fund 311 and generally do not receive outside funding support. Project selection considers available funding, pavement condition, street classification, eligibility and availability of grant funding, and long term plans such as the comprehensive plan and six-year transportation improvement plan. The preliminary project list that will be funded by Fund 311 is shown below. Some projects are funded by awarded grants and the City will provide matching funds via Fund 311; whereas other projects will be completely funded by Fund 311. Project Name Limits from Limits to Comment Argonne Broadway Mission Awarded Grant-13.5%City Match Evergreen Mission Connector Indiana Awarded Grant-13.5%City Match University 16th Ave. Dishman-Mica Budgeted—Potential TIB Grant—40%City Match Mullan Broadway Mission PE Only—Leverage design for future grant applications Mission University Union Pavement preservation +TIB Sidewalk Grant Argonne Valleyway Broadway Complete a gap between preservation projects Broadway Havana Fancher Pavement preservation near regional facility(fairgrounds) Indiana Evergreen Sullivan Pavement preservation near regional facility(mall) Additionally, the City has entered into a contract with Budinger & Associates to conduct pavement strength evaluations for the above listed projects. Evaluations will result in an ideal pavement overlay thickness and/or recommendations for road reconstruction. Contract work will be completed through November and December. 7 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Spokane Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5000 •Fax: (509)720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org Zw Memorandum To: Mark Calhoun, City Manager From: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Date: November 14, 2018 Re: Finance Department Activity Report—October 2018 Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of October 2018 and included herein is an updated 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the end October. 2017 Yearend Process The 2017 books were closed during April and the annual financial report was submitted in May. The State Auditor's Office completed fieldwork for the audit of fiscal year 2017. The State Auditor's Office issued an unmodified opinion on the audit of the financial statements for the fiscal year 2017 and the Federal single audit on August 29, 2018. We expect the accountability audit and related exit conference to be completed in November. 2018 Budget Amendment As we have progressed through 2018 the need for a number of budget amendments has arisen largely as a result of capital projects. Council review will take place at the following meetings: • October 2 Admin Report • October 23 Public Hearing • October 23 First reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2018 Budget • November 13 Second reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2018 Budget 2019 Budget Development The 2019 Budget development process began in the Finance Department in early March and on April 5th we sent detailed budget requests to all departments to complete by mid-May. By the time the budget is scheduled to be adopted on November 131h, the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss the budget on seven occasions including three public hearings. • June 12 Council budget workshop • August 21 Admin report on 2019 revenues and expenditures • September 11 Public hearing #1 on the 2019 revenues and expenditures • September 25 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2019 Budget • October 9 Public hearing #2 on 2019 Budget • October 23 First reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2019 Budget • November 13 Public hearing #3 on the 2019 Budget • November 13 Second reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2019 Budget P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201812018 10 31.docx Page 1 2019 Property Tax Levy A significant part of the budget development process includes the annual levy of property taxes, which in 2018 are expected to account for approximately 26.5% of recurring General Fund revenues. Council discussions specifically related to this topic will take place at the following meetings: • September 11 Public hearing on 2019 revenues including property taxes • September 18 Admin Report on proposed ordinance levying 2019 property taxes • October 9 First reading of ordinance levying 2019 property taxes and confirming tax levy • October 23 Second reading of ordinance levying 2019 property taxes and confirming tax levy Outside Agency Funding in the 2018 Budget The City has historically provided funding for local organizations involved in either social services or economic development activities and the preliminary 2019 Budget currently has $243,000 collectively available for this, with $61,000 being set aside for contracted economic development. The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows: • July 13 Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers • August 10 Agency requests are due at City Hall • September 18 Economic development and social service agency presentations to Council • October 23 Council makes final determination of awards Lodging Tax The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows: • August 31 Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers • October 5 Grant applications due at City Hall • October 18 Grant applicant presentations to lodging tax advisory committee. • November 6 Admin report to Council on results of lodging tax advisory committee meeting • December 11 City Council motion consideration: Award lodging tax for 2019 Fee Resolution As a part of preparing the annual budget, City Departments are asked to review the Master Fee Schedule that is currently in place and determine whether changes in fees charged and/or language used in the governing resolution should be altered. This leads to an annual update to the fee resolution that sets fees for the following year. The calendar leading to the adoption of the resolution setting 2019 fees is as follows: • November 20 Admin report on proposed changes to the fee resolution. • December 11 Council adoption of the fee resolution Budget to Actual Comparison Report A report reflecting 2018 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2018 Budget was adopted is located on pages 6 through 17. Because we attempt to provide this information in a timely manner, this report is prepared from records that are not formally closed by the Finance Department at month end or reconciled to bank records. Although it is realistic to expect the figures will change over subsequent weeks, I believe the report is materially accurate. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201812018 10 31.docx Page 2 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 2017 Annual Financial Report. • Columns of information include: o The 2018 Budget as adopted o October 2018 activity o Cumulative 2018 activity through October 2018 o Budget remaining in terms of dollars o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 6): Recurring revenues collections are currently at 76.19% of the amount budgeted with 83.33% of the year elapsed. • Property taxes 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 2018 are $6,778,253 or 57.46% of the amount budgeted. • Sales tax collections represent only nine months of collections thus far because taxes collected in October are not remitted to the City by the State until the latter part of November. Collections are currently at$16,792,792 or 80.42% of the amount budgeted. • Gambling taxes are at$271,397 or 71.23% of the amount budgeted. Gambling taxes are paid quarterly with third quarter payments due by October 31st. • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter. So far in 2018 we have received $638,648 or 52.78% of 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. Through October we've received remittances totaling $1,829,599 or 86.73% of 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. Through October we've received remittances through the month of September with receipts of$740,789 or 56.12% of the amount budgeted. • Community and Public Works service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as right of way permits. Revenues are currently at$2,346,046 or 139.31% of the amount budgeted. • Recreation program revenues are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in-season), and CenterPlace. Currently, revenues total $609,036 or 96.17% of the amount budgeted. Recurring expenditures are currently at$31,380,318 or 76.73% of the amount budgeted with 83.33% of the year elapsed. Departments experience seasonal fluctuations in activity so they don't necessarily expend their budget in twelve equal monthly installments. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201812018 10 31.docx Page 3 Investments (page 18) Investments at October 31 total $58,871,787 and are composed of $53,859,892 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,011,895 in bank CDs. Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 19) Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through October and total $18,983,871 including general, criminal justice, and public safety taxes. This figure is $1,385,301 or 7.87% greater than the same 9-month period in 2017. Economic Indicators (pages 20—22) 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 20) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 21) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 20 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$1,227,531 or 7.89%. • 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 21 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 $16,840 or 3.54%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2017 of$615,980, exceeding the previous high set in 2016 of$596,374. Page 22 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$372,730 or 16.27%. The increase is primarily due to an unusually high amount being collected for May 2018. • 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 23) 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. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201812018 10 31.docx Page 4 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. Street Fund Revenue Sources (pages 24 and 25) The last two charts reflect a history for the two primary sources of revenue in Street Fund #101. These include: • Page 24 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 $37,934 or 2.48%. 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 25 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 $91,373 or 6.40%. 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. 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 2018 Budget was adopted with a revenue estimate of $1,900,000. We will watch actual receipts closely as the year progresses. 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. Three audits have been completed, and the City has received payments totaling $398,865 which is comprised of recovered revenue plus interest and penalty fees. Per the contract with the consultant, the City paid $99,716 or 25% of the amount recovered. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201812018 10 31.docx Page 5 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget #001 -GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax 11,796,100 125,272 6,778,253 (5,017,847) 57.46% Sales Tax 20,881,900 2,019,198 16,792,792 (4,089,108) 80.42% Sales Tax-Public Safety 967,800 93,984 788,115 (179,685) 81.43% Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 1,738,000 167,490 1,402,964 (335,036) 80.72% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 381,000 76,869 271,397 (109,603) 71.23% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,210,000 11,567 638,648 (571,352) 52.78% State Shared Revenues 2,109,600 220,505 1,829,599 (280,001) 86.73% Fines,Forfeitures and Penalties 1,319,900 78,834 740,789 (579,111) 56.12% Community and Public Works 1,684,100 354,932 2,346,046 661,946 139.31% Recreation Program Revenues 633,300 53,577 609,036 (24,264) 96.17% Miscellaneous Department Revenue 1,000 0 20,301 19,301 2030.12% Miscellaneous&Investment Interest 201,800 60,588 503,344 301,544 249.43% Transfer-in -#101 (street admin) 39,700 3,308 33,083 (6,617) 83.33% 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 11,167 (2,233) 83.33% Total Recurring Revenues 43,007,600 3,267,240 32,765,535 (10,242,065) 76.19% Expenditures City Council 548,494 26,210 342,374 206,120 62.42% City Manager 956,245 65,277 705,948 250,297 73.83% City Attorney 601,752 42,111 437,117 164,635 72.64% Public Safety 25,464,251 2,038,276 19,975,370 5,488,881 78.44% Deputy City Manager 450,663 30,748 368,880 81,783 81.85% Finance/IT 1,339,064 106,898 1,079,240 259,824 80.60% Human Resources 275,387 22,916 227,700 47,687 82.68% City Hall Operations and Maintenance 306,043 37,778 199,302 106,741 65.12% Community&Public Works-Engineering 1,662,775 113,659 1,088,345 574,430 65.45% Community&Public Works-Econ Dev 970,642 85,026 736,773 233,869 75.91% Community&Public Works-Bldg&Planning 2,175,849 152,808 1,571,425 604,424 72.22% Parks&Rec-Administration 301,083 27,889 234,100 66,983 77.75% Parks&Rec-Maintenance 893,700 84,559 662,520 231,180 74.13% Parks&Rec-Recreation 260,574 14,061 175,707 84,867 67.43% Parks&Rec-Aquatics 492,900 27,153 450,885 42,015 91.48% Parks&Rec-Senior Center 98,229 8,231 77,178 21,051 78.57% Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 910,468 65,249 675,322 235,146 74.17% General Government 1,261,610 86,453 764,924 496,686 60.63% Transfers out-#204(16 LTGO bond debt service) 399,350 33,279 332,792 66,558 83.33% Transfers out-#309(park capital projects) 160,000 13,333 133,333 26,667 83.33% Transfers out-#311 (Pavement Preservation) 962,700 80,225 802,250 160,450 83.33% Transfers out-#501 36,600 3,050 30,500 6,100 83.33% Transfers out-#502(insurance premium) 370,000 30,833 308,333 61,667 83.33% Total Recurring Expenditures 40,898,379 3,196,023 31,380,318 9,518,061 76.73% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 2,109,221 71,218 1,385,217 (724,004) Page 6 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget #001 -GENERAL FUND-continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Transfers in-#106(Repymt of Solid Waste) 40,425 3,369 33,688 (6,738) 83.33% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 40,425 3,369 33,688 (6,738) 83.33% Expenditures General Government-IT capital replacements 115,000 0 23,877 91,123 20.76% City Attorney(part-time attorney furniture) 4,809 0 4,809 0 100.00% Public Safety(full facility generator) 100,000 22,372 22,372 77,628 22.37% Deputy City Manager(Q-Alert software) 11,700 0 11,700 0 100.00% Community&Public Works(Retail Recruitment) 50,000 0 23,000 27,000 46.00% Parks&Rec(Flooring in Great Room&Dining Room 50,000 50,918 50,918 (918) 101.84% Parks&Rec(CP reseal two bathroom floors) 3,000 0 0 3,000 0.00% Generator for City Hall 200,000 0 0 200,000 0.00% Transfers out-#122(replenish reserve) 490,000 0 490,000 0 100.00% Transfers out-#309(CP outdoor venue Phase 1) 200,000 0 0 200,000 0.00% Transfers out-#309(Browns Park lighting&path) 200,000 0 0 200,000 0.00% Transfers out-#312 3,795,429 0 3,795,429 0 100.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 5,219,938 73,290 4,422,105 797,833 84.72% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (5,179,513) (69,921) (4,388,417) 791,096 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (3,070,292) 1,297 (3,003,200) 67,092 Beginning fund balance 33,664,222 33,664,222 Ending fund balance 30,593,930 30,661,022 Page 7 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 -STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Telephone Utility Tax 1,900,000 141,290 1,239,874 (660,126) 65.26% Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 2,052,400 180,114 1,559,213 (493,187) 75.97% Multimodal Transportation 133,800 0 100,149 (33,651) 74.85% Right-of-Way Maintenance Fee 70,000 7,598 14,727 (55,273) 21.04% Investment Interest 6,000 1,541 12,817 6,817 213.61% Miscellaneous Revenue 10,000 0 22,265 12,265 222.65% Total Recurring Revenues 4,172,200 330,544 2,949,044 (1,223,156) 70.68% Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 771,019 59,053 623,513 147,506 80.87% Supplies 112,500 15,843 85,873 26,627 76.33% Services&Charges 2,141,751 364,494 1,562,870 578,881 72.97% Snow Operations 504,800 10,482 428,894 75,906 84.96% Intergovernmental Payments 851,000 99,548 477,235 373,765 56.08% Interfund Transfers-out-#001 39,700 3,308 33,083 6,617 83.33% Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (non-plow vehicle re 21,250 1,771 17,708 3,542 83.33% Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (plow replace.) 77,929 6,494 64,941 12,988 83.33% Interfund Transfers-out-#311 (pavement preserva 67,342 5,612 56,118 11,224 83.33% Total Recurring Expenditures 4,587,291 566,604 3,350,235 1,237,056 73.03% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures (415,091) (236,060) (401,191) 13,900 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant proceeds 0 0 0 0 0.00% Insurance proceeds(traffic signal cabinet) 0 0 11,712 11,712 0.00% Utility tax recovery 0 0 96,260 96,260 0.00% Interest&penalties on utility taxes 0 0 160,253 160,253 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 268,225 268,225 0.00% Expenditures Traffic Control Devices-Repair&Maintenance 15,000 0 27,730 (12,730) 184.87% 8th&Carnahan Intersection Improvements 0 2,720 2,720 (2,720) 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 15,000 2,720 30,450 (15,450) 203.00% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (15,000) (2,720) 237,775 252,775 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (430,091) (238,780) (163,416) 266,675 Beginning fund balance 1,067,294 1,067,294 Ending fund balance 637,203 903,878 Page 8 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #103-PATHS&TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 8,700 760 6,576 (2,124) 75.59% Investment Interest 0 5 368 368 0.00% Total revenues 8,700 765 6,944 (1,756) 79.82% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers out-#309(Appleway Trail-Sullivan to Cc 50,000 0 50,000 0 100.00% Total expenditures 50,000 0 50,000 0 100.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (41,300) 765 (43,056) (1,756) Beginning fund balance 46,324 46,324 Ending fund balance 5,024 3,268 #104-TOURISM FACILITIES HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel Tax 377,000 50,570 316,488 (60,512) 83.95% Investment Interest 1,500 2,480 16,338 14,838 1089.22% Interfund Transfer-in-#105 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 378,500 53,050 332,827 (45,673) 87.93% Expenditures Capital Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 378,500 53,050 332,827 (45,673) Beginning fund balance 1,228,595 1,228,595 Ending fund balance 1,607,095 1,561,422 #105-HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 580,000 79,661 491,918 (88,082) 84.81% Investment Interest 1,000 896 4,401 3,401 440.08% Total revenues 581,000 80,558 496,319 (84,681) 85.42% Expenditures Interfund Transfers-#001 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Tourism Promotion 572,000 27,338 153,946 418,054 26.91% Total expenditures 602,000 27,338 153,946 448,054 25.57% Revenues over(under)expenditures (21,000) 53,219 342,373 (532,736) Beginning fund balance 221,867 221,867 Ending fund balance 200,867 564,240 #106-SOLID WASTE Revenues Solid Waste Administrative Fees 225,000 35,299 147,867 77,133 65.72% Solid Waste Road Wear Fee 0 87,065 733,122 (733,122) 0.00% Investment Interest 0 1,627 6,356 (6,356) 0.00% Grant Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 225,000 123,991 887,344 (662,344) 394.38% Expenditures Interfund Transfers-#001 40,425 3,369 33,688 6,738 83.33% Education&Contract Administration 184,575 841 20,406 164,169 11.06% Total expenditures 225,000 4,210 54,093 170,907 24.04% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 119,781 833,251 (833,251) Beginning fund balance 190,682 190,682 Ending fund balance 190,682 1,023,933 Page 9 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #107-PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG Contribution 79,000 0 41,656 37,344 52.73% Investment Interest 0 98 610 (610) 0.00% Total revenues 79,000 98 42,266 36,734 53.50% Expenditures PEG Reimbursement-CMTV 40,200 0 38,956 1,244 96.90% Capital Outlay 31,000 469 8,111 22,889 26.16% Total expenditures 71,200 469 47,066 24,134 66.10% Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,800 (371) (4,800) 12,600 Beginning fund balance 54,837 54,837 Ending fund balance 62,637 50,037 #120-CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 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 #121 -SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 Ending fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 #122-WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 3,500 790 2,951 (549) 84.31% Interfund Transfer-in-#001 490,000 0 490,000 0 100.00% Grant Reimbursement for Windstorm Cleanup 0 0 0 0 0.00% Subtotal revenues 493,500 790 492,951 (549) 99.89% Expenditures Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Total expenditures 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (6,500) 790 492,951 (500,549) Beginning fund balance 7,717 7,717 Ending fund balance 1,217 500,668 Page 10 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204-DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 414,050 0 92,025 (322,025) 22.23% Interfund Transfer-in-#001 399,350 33,279 332,792 (66,558) 83.33% Interfund Transfer-in-#301 82,000 6,833 68,333 (13,667) 83.33% Interfund Transfer-in-#302 82,000 6,833 68,333 (13,667) 83.33% Total revenues 977,400 46,946 561,483 (415,917) 57.45% Expenditures Debt Service Payments-CenterPlace 414,050 0 92,025 322,025 22.23% Debt Service Payments-Roads 164,000 0 14,500 149,500 8.84% Debt Service Payments-'16 LTGO Bond 399,350 0 122,175 277,175 30.59% Total expenditures 977,400 0 228,700 748,700 23.40% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 46,946 332,783 (1,164,617) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 332,783 Page 11 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 -CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 -Taxes 800,000 212,557 1,414,618 614,618 176.83% Investment Interest 7,500 4,662 32,502 25,002 433.36% Total revenues 807,500 217,219 1,447,120 639,620 179.21% Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#204 82,000 6,833 68,333 13,667 83.33% Interfund Transfer-out-#303 1,048,852 0 569,382 479,470 54.29% Interfund Transfer-out-#311 (pavement presery 685,329 0 0 685,329 0.00% Total expenditures 1,816,181 6,833 637,715 1,178,466 35.11% Revenues over(under)expenditures (1,008,681) 210,386 809,405 (538,846) Beginning fund balance 2,125,374 2,125,374 Ending fund balance 1,116,693 2,934,779 #302-SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2-Taxes 800,000 212,557 1,414,618 614,618 176.83% Investment Interest 8,000 6,132 42,807 34,807 535.08% Total revenues 808,000 218,690 1,457,425 649,425 180.37% Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#204 82,000 6,833 68,333 13,667 83.33% Interfund Transfer-out-#303 1,003,544 0 537,029 466,515 53.51% Interfund Transfer-out-#311 (pavement presery 685,329 0 0 685,329 0.00% Total expenditures 1,770,873 6,833 605,363 1,165,510 34.18% Revenues over(under)expenditures (962,873) 211,856 852,062 (516,085) Beginning fund balance 3,008,424 3,008,424 Ending fund balance 2,045,551 3,860,486 Page 12 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 8,919,182 123 5,282,255 (3,636,927) 59.22% Developer Contribution 65,212 0 0 (65,212) 0.00% Transfer-in-#301 1,048,852 0 569,382 (479,470) 54.29% Transfer-in-#302 1,003,544 0 537,029 (466,515) 53.51% Transfer-in-#312 115,000 0 (1,251,465) (1,366,465) -1088.23% Investment Interest 0 0 214 214 0.00% Total revenues 11,151,790 123 5,137,415 (6,014,375) 46.07% Expenditures 123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker 3,625,716 371,197 2,004,194 1,621,522 55.28% 141 Sullivan&Euclid PCC 0 0 14,722 (14,722) 0.00% 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 2,250,000 94,920 1,943,983 306,017 86.40% 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 0 0 898 (898) 0.00% 166 Pines Rd.(SR27)&Grace Ave.Int.Safety 402,710 107,703 560,118 (157,408) 139.09% 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 (PE Start 2014) 378,172 42,707 391,333 (13,161) 103.48% 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 35,700 0 0 35,700 0.00% 221 McDonald Rd Diet(16th to Mission) 1,000 0 0 1,000 0.00% 222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates 17,000 1,313 14,414 2,586 84.79% 239 Bowdish Rd&12th Ave.Sidewalk 5,000 0 0 5,000 0.00% 247 8th&Carnahan Intersection Improvements 0 1,070 423,811 (423,811) 0.00% 249 Sullivan&Wellesley Intersection 268,000 1,171 51,150 216,850 19.09% 250 9th Ave Sidewalk 2,000 0 0 2,000 0.00% 251 Euclid Ave Reconstruction Project 5,000 90 244,718 (239,718) 4894.37% 258 32nd Ave Sidewalk-SR27 to Evergreen 407,870 221,060 258,551 149,319 63.39% 259 North Sullivan ITS Project 808,723 0 58,625 750,098 7.25% 263 Citywide Signal Backplates 24,526 1,313 95,924 (71,398) 391.11% 264 8th Ave Sidewalk-Dicky to Thierman 458,958 91 355,465 103,493 77.45% 265 Wellesley Sidewalk Project 647,665 1,003 19,730 627,935 3.05% 267 Mission SW-Bowdish to Union 60,250 11,488 27,569 32,681 45.76% 273 Barker/I-90 Interchange 0 790 4,649 (4,649) 0.00% 275 Barker Rd Widening-River to Euclid 0 2,285 2,499 (2,499) 0.00% 276 Barker Rd Widening-Euclid to Garland 0 2,611 3,075 (3,075) 0.00% 277 Barker Rd Widening-Garland to Trent 0 2,655 2,857 (2,857) 0.00% 278 Wilbur Sidewalk-Boone to Broadway 0 914 1,209 (1,209) 0.00% 279 Know Ave Sidewalk: Hutchinson to Sargent 0 130 292 (292) 0.00% 281 Highland Estates Connector 0 18,027 18,378 (18,378) 0.00% Barker Road Corridor 106,500 0 0 106,500 0.00% Coleman Sidewalk 25,000 0 0 25,000 0.00% Argonne Reconstruction-Indiana to Montgomen 512,000 0 0 512,000 0.00% Indiana Bus Stops&Crosswalks 110,000 0 0 110,000 0.00% Contingency 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0.00% Total expenditures 11,151,790 882,536 6,498,164 4,653,626 58.27% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 (882,414) (1,360,749) (10,668,001) Beginning fund balance 66,692 66,692 Ending fund balance 66,692 (1,294,057) 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\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #309-PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 1,693,200 97,000 1,561,530 (131,670) 92.22% Interfund Transfer-in-#001 560,000 13,333 133,333 (426,667) 23.81% Transfers in-#103(Appleway Trail) 50,000 0 50,000 0 100.00% Transfers in-#312(Appleway Trail) 324,100 0 569 (323,531) 0.18% Investment Interest 0 0 183 183 0.00% Total revenues 2,627,300 110,333 1,745,614 (881,686) 66.44% Expenditures 227 Appleway Trail-Pines to Evergreen 0 65 14,860 (14,860) 0.00% 237 Appleway Trail-Sullivan to Corbin 2,086,300 24,243 2,100,559 (14,259) 100.68% 268 Appleway Trail-Evergreen to Sullivan 164,000 173 4,385 159,615 2.67% 270 CenterPlace outdoor venue-Phase I 200,000 177 206,896 (6,896) 103.45% 271 Browns Park lighting and pathway 200,000 0 21,884 178,116 10.94% 274 Park Signs Ph III(Sullivan, Park Rd,Balfour) 24,000 13,108 13,837 10,163 57.65% 280 Appleway Trail Amenities: Univ.-Pines 0 6,564 6,564 (6,564) 0.00% 282 Browns Park Sand Volleyball Courts 0 9,739 9,739 (9,739) 0.00% 283 Electrical Upgrade-Mirabeau Point Park 0 7,693 7,693 (7,693) 0.00% Total expenditures 2,674,300 61,763 2,386,418 287,882 89.24% Revenues over(under)expenditures (47,000) 48,570 (640,803) (1,169,568) Beginning fund balance 126,202 126,202 Ending fund balance 79,202 (514,601) #310-CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest 5,900 1,356 9,926 4,026 168.24% Total revenues 5,900 1,356 9,926 4,026 168.24% Expenditures Transfers out 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 5,900 1,356 9,926 4,026 Beginning fund balance 843,688 843,688 Ending fund balance 849,588 853,614 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. #311 -PAVEMENT PRESERVATION FUND Revenues Interfund Transfers in-#001 962,700 80,225 802,250 (160,450) 83.33% Interfund Transfers in-#101 67,342 5,612 56,118 (11,224) 83.33% Interfund Transfers in-#301 685,329 0 0 (685,329) 0.00% Interfund Transfers in-#302 685,329 0 0 (685,329) 0.00% Grant Proceeds 2,572,500 0 1,386,772 (1,185,728) 53.91% Investment Interest 0 5,690 43,235 43,235 0.00% Total revenues 4,973,200 91,527 2,288,375 (2,684,825) 46.01% Expenditures Pre-Project GeoTech Services 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00% Pavement Preservation 4,008,600 0 116,019 3,892,581 2.89% 226 Appleway Resurfacing,Park to Dishman Mica 0 0 341 (341) 0.00% 240 Saltese Road Preservation 0 0 33 (33) 0.00% 248 Sprague Street Pres-Sullivan to Corbin 0 12,213 1,289,344 (1,289,344) 0.00% 252 Argonne Resurfacing: Broadway to Indiana 0 827 52,665 (52,665) 0.00% 253 Mission-Pines to McDonald 0 0 36 (36) 0.00% 254 Mission-McDonald to Evergreen 0 560,050 592,980 (592,980) 0.00% 269 Evergreen-Mission Connector to Indiana 0 2,657 4,034 (4,034) 0.00% 272 Euclid Ave Preservation Project 0 11,042 28,994 (28,994) 0.00% Total expenditures 4,058,600 586,790 2,084,446 1,974,154 51.36% Revenues over(under)expenditures 914,600 (495,262) 203,929 (4,658,979) Beginning fund balance 3,362,503 3,362,503 Ending fund balance 4,277,103 3,566,432 Page 14 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #312-CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 3,795,429 0 3,795,429 0 100.00% Transfers in-#313 74,960 0 0 (74,960) 0.00% Investment Interest 16,000 15,166 79,210 63,210 495.06% Total revenues 3,886,389 15,166 3,874,639 (11,750) 99.70% Expenditures 215 City Hall Construction Project 0 0 5,383 (5,383) 0.00% Transfersout-#303 115,000 0 (1,251,465) 1,366,465 -1088.23% Transfers out-#309 324,100 0 569 323,531 0.18% Total expenditures 439,100 0 (1,245,513) 1,684,613 -283.65% Revenues over(under)expenditures 3,447,289 15,166 5,120,152 (1,696,364) Beginning fund balance 4,427,286 4,427,286 Ending fund balance 7,874,575 9,547,438 #313-CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 139 995 995 0.00% Total revenues 0 139 995 995 0.00% Expenditures Capital Outlay-City Hall 0 0 14,856 (14,856) 0.00% Transfers out-#312 74,960 0 0 74,960 0.00% Total expenditures 74,960 0 14,856 60,104 19.82% Revenues over(under)expenditures (74,960) 139 (13,862) (59,109) Beginning fund balance 101,076 101,076 Ending fund balance 26,116 87,214 #314-RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FUND Grant Proceeds 1,919,921 0 335,241 (1,584,680) 17.46% Investment Interest 0 1,801 12,148 12,148 0.00% Total revenues 1,919,921 1,801 347,388 (1,572,533) 18.09% Expenditures 143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation 1,919,921 154,645 406,119 1,513,802 21.15% 223 Pines Rd Underpass 1,000,000 2,236 30,017 969,983 3.00% Total expenditures 2,919,921 156,882 436,136 2,483,785 14.94% Revenues over(under)expenditures (1,000,000) (155,081) (88,747) (4,056,318) Beginning fund balance 1,068,803 1,068,803 Ending fund balance 68,803 980,056 Page 15 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402-STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,870,000 18,698 1,142,276 (727,724) 61.08% Investment Interest 7,500 3,329 28,250 20,750 376.67% Total Recurring Revenues 1,877,500 22,027 1,170,527 (706,973) 62.34% Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 557,157 32,704 339,847 217,310 61.00% Supplies 14,800 4,068 9,886 4,914 66.80% Services&Charges 1,140,982 56,216 766,774 374,208 67.20% Intergovernmental Payments 35,000 0 53,877 (18,877) 153.93% Vehicle Rentals-#501 12,750 0 0 12,750 0.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#001 13,400 1,117 11,167 2,233 83.33% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,774,089 94,105 1,181,551 592,538 66.60% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 103,411 (72,078) (11,024) (114,435) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 65,000 0 88,016 23,016 135.41% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 65,000 0 88,016 23,016 135.41% Expenditures Capital-various projects 450,000 0 0 450,000 0.00% 193 Effectiveness Study 15,000 0 0 15,000 0.00% 248 Sprague Street Pres-Sullivan to Corbin 0 672 204,851 (204,851) 0.00% 258 32nd Ave Sidewalk-SR27 to Evergreen 0 55,852 55,852 (55,852) 0.00% 264 8th Ave Sidewalk-Dicky to Thierman 0 0 83,803 (83,803) 0.00% Watershed Studies 60,000 0 0 60,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 525,000 56,524 344,506 180,494 65.62% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (460,000) (56,524) (256,489) 203,511 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (356,589) (128,602) (267,513) 89,076 Beginning working capital 1,973,424 1,973,424 Ending working capital 1,616,835 1,705,911 Note: Work performed in the Stormwater Fund for preservation projects is for storm water improvements that were bid with the pavement preservation work. #403-AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 460,000 0 253,990 (206,010) 55.22% Grant Proceeds 0 0 500,958 500,958 0.00% Investment Interest 0 2,487 20,068 20,068 0.00% Total revenues 460,000 2,487 775,016 315,016 168.48% Expenditures Capital-various projects 400,000 160,564 567,864 (167,864) 141.97% Total expenditures 400,000 160,564 567,864 (167,864) 141.97% Revenues over(under)expenditures 60,000 (158,077) 207,152 482,880 Beginning working capital 1,413,073 1,413,073 Ending working capital 1,473,073 1,620,225 Page 16 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2018 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 83.33% For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 2018 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 -ER&R FUND Revenues Interfund vehicle lease-#001 30,000 2,500 25,000 (5,000) 83.33% Interfund vehicle lease-#101 21,250 1,771 17,708 (3,542) 83.33% Interfund vehicle lease-#101 (plow replace) 77,929 6,494 64,941 (12,988) 83.33% Interfund vehicle lease-#402 12,750 1,063 10,625 (2,125) 83.33% Transfer in-#001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 3,050 30,500 (6,100) 83.33% Investment Interest 4,000 1,995 13,690 9,690 342.25% Total revenues 182,529 16,872 162,464 (20,065) 89.01% Expenditures Small tools and minor equipment 20,000 0 0 20,000 0.00% Fleet maintenance 0 905 3,533 (3,533) 0.00% Total expenditures 20,000 905 3,533 16,467 17.67% Revenues over(under)expenditures 162,529 15,967 158,931 (36,532) Beginning working capital 1,096,283 1,096,283 Ending working capital 1,258,812 1,255,214 #502-RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 323 900 900 0.00% Interfund Transfer-#001 370,000 30,833 308,333 (61,667) 83.33% Total revenues 370,000 31,157 309,233 (60,767) 83.58% Expenditures Auto&Property Insurance 370,000 0 345,769 24,231 93.45% Unemployment Claims 0 114 4,262 (4,262) 0.00% Total expenditures 370,000 114 350,031 19,969 94.60% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 31,042 (40,798) (80,735) Beginning working capital 244,261 244,261 Ending working capital 244,261 203,463 SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 79,098,354 4,636,247 57,650,779 Per Revenue Status Report 79,098,354 4,636,247 57,650,779 Difference - - - Total of Expenditures for all Funds 81,141,022 5,884,503 53,581,983 Per Expenditure Status Report 81,141,022 5,884,503 53,581,983 Total Capital expenditures(included in total expenditures) 22,050,785 1,981,798 12,581,927 Page 17 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 11/13/2018 Investment Report For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 UMPQUA UMPQUA Total LGIP" CD#9731 CD#0689 Investments Beginning $ 56,528,069.49 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,011,894.91 $ 60,146,128.50 Deposits 2,828,090.70 0.00 0.00 2,828,090.70 Withdrawls (5,600,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (5,600,000.00) Interest 103,731.81 0.00 0.00 103,731.81 Ending $ 53,859,892.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,011,894.91 $ 58,871,786.91 matures: 6/28/2019 11/15/2018 rate: 2.30% 1.50% Earnings Balance Current Period Year to date Budget 001 General Fund $ 27,141,835.46 $ 53,214.07 434,492.88 $ 136,000.00 101 Street Fund 800,178.86 1,541.11 12,816.67 6,000.00 103 Trails&Paths 2,695.83 5.19 367.82 0.00 104 Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel 1,287,832.51 2,480.31 16,338.37 1,500.00 105 Hotel/Motel 465,375.41 896.29 4,400.81 1,000.00 106 Solid Waste Fund 844,919.48 1,627.28 6,355.63 0.00 107 PEG Fund 50,814.93 97.87 609.73 0.00 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,500,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 122 Winter Weather Reserve 410,330.62 790.28 2,950.92 3,500.00 301 Capital Projects 2,420,553.50 4,661.88 32,501.71 7,500.00 302 Special Capital Projects 3,184,060.23 6,132.36 42,806.74 8,000.00 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 0.00 0.00 213.54 0.00 309 Parks Capital Project 0.00 0.00 182.54 0.00 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 704,045.78 1,355.96 9,926.14 5,900.00 311 Pavement Preservation 2,954,617.78 5,690.47 43,234.61 0.00 312 Capital Reserve Fund 7,874,556.43 15,166.05 79,209.54 16,000.00 313 City Hall Construction Fund 71,933.13 138.54 994.53 0.00 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects 935,053.15 1,800.87 12,147.71 0.00 402 Stormwater Management 1,728,426.23 3,328.87 28,250.30 7,500.00 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 1,291,102.56 2,486.61 20,067.90 0.00 501 Equipment Rental &Replacement 1,035,641.99 1,994.60 13,690.07 4,000.00 502 Risk Management 167,813.03 323.20 900.18 0.00 $ 58,871,786.91 $ 103,731.81 $ 762,458.34 $ 196,900.00 "Local Government Investment Pool Page 18 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2018\2018 10 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 11/13/2018 Sales Tax Receipts For the Ten-Month Period Ended October 31,2018 Month Difference Received 2017 2018 $ February 2,250,071.29 2,353,128.35 103,057.06 4.58% March 1,553,546.20 1,744,900.00 191,353.80 12.32% April 1,567,402.86 1,757,754.18 190,351.32 12.14% May 1,962,909.06 2,173,916.87 211,007.81 10.75% June 1,765,547.51 1,991,560.58 226,013.07 12.80% July 1,980,537.73 2,115,585.73 135,048.00 6.82% August 2,191,814.27 2,328,306.22 136,491.95 6.23% September 2,119,588.28 2,238,047.38 118,459.10 5.59% October 2,207,153.00 2,280,671.98 73,518.98 3.33% 17,598,570.20 18,983,871.29 1,385,301.09 7.87% November 2,151,642.69 December 2,000,238.81 January 2,086,747.36 23,837,199.06 18,983,871.29 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 19 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Sales Tax\2018\sales tax collections 2018.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA \ 11/14/2018 Sales Tax Collections- September For the years 2009 through 2018 2018 to 2017 Difference 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014 I 2015 I 2016 I 2017 I 2018 $ % January 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 1,536,252 166,512 12.16% 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 1,564,282 174,638 12.57% 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 1,926,551 188,618 10.85% 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 1,762,119 198,000 12.66% 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 1,871,077 119,141 6.80% 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 2,053,961 118,933 6.15% 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 1,980,940 103,041 5.49% 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 2,019,198 72,509 3.72% Collected to date 10,785,859 10,547,724 11,093,339 11,396,075 12,378,141 13,035,730 13,661,219 14,746,887 15,565,261 16,792,792 1,227,531 7.89% 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 16,792,792 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 (4,089,108) 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 September 60.39% 73.20% 78.07% 80.20% 81.17% 76.73% 77.50% 79.80% 78.41% 80.42% %of actual total collected through September 75.70% 74.82% 74.70% 73.87% 74.62% 74.75% 75.02% 74.15% 73.81% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September September 18,000,000 16,000,000 _ _ _ a September 14,000,000 ■August 12,000,000 -:, � ■July 10,000,000 July=m M. _n......M 8,000,000 �� •May iiiiial 6,000,000 I. ■April 4,000,000 M-M •March 2,000,000 ■ •February 0 ■ ■January 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Page 20 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax\2018\105 hotel motel tax 2018.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 11/14/2018 Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through- September Actual for the years 2009 through 2018 ' !`d 2018 to 2017 Mll Difference 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014 I 2015 I 2016 I 2017 I 2018 $ % January 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 28,878 2,083 7.77% March 25,272 24,232 24,611 25,655 27,739 29,384 32,998 34,330 31,601 31,906 305 0.97% April 36,254 39,463 38,230 52,130 40,979 48,246 50,455 52,551 52,242 57,664 5,422 10.38% May 32,589 34,683 33,791 37,478 40,560 41,123 44,283 50,230 50,112 51,777 1,665 3.32% June 40,415 39,935 41,403 43,971 47,850 52,618 56,975 55,060 60,637 62,048 1,411 2.33% July 43,950 47,385 49,312 52,819 56,157 61,514 61,809 65,007 69,337 71,865 2,528 3.65% August 50,147 54,923 57,452 57,229 63,816 70,384 72,697 73,700 76,972 79,368 2,396 3.11% September 50,818 59,419 58,908 64,299 70,794 76,100 74,051 70,305 80,173 79,661 (512) (0.64%) Total Collections 326,008 346,166 348,712 376,572 398,056 430,807 447,471 460,843 475,079 491,919 16,840 3.54% 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 423,978 448,545 457,603 490,004 518,672 549,267 581,237 596,374 615,980 491,919 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 (88,081) 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 September 63.67% 91.10% 72.65% 87.57% 81.24% 81.28% 81.36% 79.46% 81.91% 84.81% %of actual total collected through September 76.89% 77.18% 76.20% 76.85% 76.75% 78.43% 76.99% 77.27% 77.13% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September September 600,000 500,000 September •August 400,000 ■July ■ ■JuneMay 300,000 ■ ■ •■ 200,000 ■April •March 100,000 .-. ■ ■ •February ■January 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Page 21 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\REET\2018\301 and 302 REET for 2018.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 11/14/2018 1st and 2nd 1/4% REET Collections through September Actual for the years 2009 through 2018 $ 2018 to 2017 Difference 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014 I 2015 I 2016 I 2017 I 2018 $ % January 55,281 59,887 64,128 46,359 56,898 61,192 96,141 104,446 153,661 239,437 85,776 55.82% February 45,181 64,122 36,443 56,115 155,226 67,049 103,508 83,583 124,514 146,892 22,378 17.97% March 73,307 86,204 95,880 71,730 72,172 81,724 165,868 220,637 282,724 310,562 27,838 9.85% April 81,156 99,507 79,681 86,537 90,377 105,448 236,521 205,654 169,060 218,842 49,782 29.45% May 77,464 109,625 124,692 111,627 116,165 198,870 165,748 192,806 202,734 646,397 443,663 218.84% June 105,021 105,680 81,579 124,976 139,112 106,676 347,421 284,897 248,768 277,424 28,656 11.52% July 122,530 84,834 79,629 101,049 128,921 208,199 217,375 248,899 449,654 302,941 (146,713) (32.63%) August 115,830 72,630 129,472 106,517 117,150 172,536 202,525 231,200 472,420 261,626 (210,794) (44.62%) September 93,862 75,812 68,020 63,517 174,070 152,323 179,849 178,046 187,348 259,492 72,144 38.51% Collected to date 769,631 758,302 759,525 768,426 1,050,091 1,154,016 1,714,956 1,750,170 2,290,883 2,663,613 372,730 16.27% October 113,961 93,256 61,396 238,095 117,806 123,505 128,833 253,038 207,895 0 November 133,265 72,021 74,753 104,886 78,324 172,227 129,870 186,434 229,800 0 December 71,366 38,725 65,077 74,300 75,429 117,682 157,919 164,180 278,995 0 Total distributed by Spokane County 1,088,222 962,304 960,751 1,185,707 1,321,650 1,567,429 2,131,578 2,353,822 3,007,573 2,663,613 Budget estimate 2,000,000 1,380,000 780,000 875,000 975,000 1,100,000 1,400,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,600,000 Actual over(under)budget (911,778) (417,696) 180,751 310,707 346,650 467,429 731,578 353,822 1,007,573 1,063,613 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 September 38.48% 54.95% 97.37% 87.82% 107.70% 104.91% 122.50% 87.51% 114.54% 166.48% %of actual total collected through September 70.72% 78.80% 79.06% 64.81% 79.45% 73.62% 80.45% 74.35% 76.17% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September September 3,000,000 2,500,000 _ September ■August 2,000,000 •July •June 1,500,000 •May 1,000,000 --- --�-$ •April ■March 500,000 ■February - . ■January 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Page 22 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Debt Capacity\2018\debt capacity 2018.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 1/26/2018 Debt Capacity 2017 Assessed Value for 2018 Property Taxes 8,634,114,798 Maximum Outstanding Remaining Debt as of Debt ok Capacity 12/31/2017 Capacity Utilized Voted(UTGO) 1.00% of assessed value 86,341,148 0 86,341,148 0.00% Nonvoted (LTGO) 1.50% of assessed value 129,511,722 12,790,000 116,721,722 9.88% Voted park 2.50% of assessed value 215,852,870 0 215,852,870 0.00% Voted utility 2.50% of assessed value 215,852,870 0 215,852,870 0.00% 647,558,610 12,790,000 634,768,610 1.98% 2014 LTGO Bonds Road& LTGO Bonds Period Street 2016 LTGO Grand Ending CenterPlace Improvements Total Bonds Total 12/1/2014 225,000 135,000 360,000 0 360,000 Bonds 12/1/2015 175,000 125,000 300,000 0 300,000 Repaid 12/1/2016 185,000 130,000 315,000 75,000 390,000 12/1/2017 190,000 130,000 320,000 150,000 470,000 775,000 520,000 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 23 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\MVFT\2018\motor vehicle fuel tax collections 2018.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 11/14/2018 Motor Fuel(Gas)Tax Collections- Septemberillik.. For the years 2009 through 2018 2018 to 2017 Difference 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014 I 2015 I 2016 I 2017 I 2018 $ % January 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 155,832 145,869 146,353 135,208 145,998 148,118 145,455 163,037 164,807 175,936 11,129 6.75% March 146,264 140,486 141,849 144,297 135,695 131,247 140,999 145,537 138,205 139,826 1,621 1.17% April 161,117 161,721 165,019 153,546 156,529 156,269 157,994 167,304 168,000 168,796 796 0.47% May 156,109 158,119 154,700 144,670 151,595 156,850 156,259 171,829 174,211 193,986 19,775 11.35% June 173,954 168,146 158,351 159,827 167,479 161,965 164,872 157,737 174,838 144,308 (30,530) (17.46%) July 169,756 164,221 165,398 160,565 155,348 157,805 168,205 177,427 177,019 194,267 17,248 9.74% August 179,012 176,869 153,361 164,050 173,983 172,308 186,277 177,567 195,780 205,438 9,658 4.93% September 175,965 175,067 173,820 171,651 195,397 173,299 174,505 194,640 184,342 180,874 (3,468) (1.88%) Collected to date 1,451,313 1,451,796 1,413,643 1,393,421 1,428,169 1,410,767 1,447,164 1,518,996 1,527,856 1,565,790 37,934 2.48% 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 1,565,790 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) (495,310) 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 September 70.80% 76.41% 75.39% 73.11% 76.42% 75.59% 77.48% 75.44% 74.57% 75.97% %of actual total collected through September 75.33% 75.30% 76.10% 75.44% 76.45% 75.10% 74.45% 75.41% 74.87% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September September 1,800,000 1,600,000 September 1,400,000 - a August 1,200,000 ■July 1,000,000 ■June M-M 800,000Sta ■May II 600,000 • ■April 400,000 ■March 200,000 �� •February 0 , ■January 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Page 24 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Telephone Tax\2018\telephone utility tax collections 2018.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 11/14/2018 Telephone Utility Tax Collections- September For the years 2009 through 2018ill 2018 to 2017 Difference 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014 I 2015 I 2016 I 2017 I 2018 $ % January 128,354 234,622 241,357 193,818 217,478 210,777 177,948 182,167 162,734 130,196 (32,538) (19.99%) February 282,773 266,041 230,366 261,074 216,552 205,953 212,845 173,971 163,300 164,060 760 0.47% March 230,721 264,175 245,539 234,113 223,884 208,206 174,738 177,209 162,536 158,416 (4,120) (2.53%) April 275,775 254,984 238,561 229,565 214,618 206,038 214,431 171,770 157,285 146,519 (10,766) (6.84%) May 242,115 255,056 236,985 227,469 129,270 210,010 187,856 174,512 161,506 149,434 (12,072) (7.47%) June 239,334 251,880 239,013 234,542 293,668 210,289 187,412 170,450 156,023 150,780 (5,243) (3.36%) July 269,631 250,593 244,191 226,118 213,078 205,651 190,984 174,405 157,502 147,281 (10,221) (6.49%) August 260,408 246,261 349,669 228,789 211,929 205,645 185,172 171,909 150,644 148,158 (2,486) (1.65%) September 249,380 240,111 241,476 227,042 210,602 199,193 183,351 170,476 155,977 141,290 (14,687) (9.42%) Collected to date 2,178,491 2,263,723 2,267,157 2,062,530 1,931,079 1,861,762 1,714,737 1,566,869 1,427,507 1,336,134 (91,373) (6.40%) 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 368,775 236,065 236,449 221,883 213,097 202,077 183,472 168,832 161,115 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 1,892,905 1,336,134 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) (107,095) (563,866) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 122.18% 106.65% 99.37% 91.18% 88.37% 89.49% 88.00% 88.43% 94.65% n/a %change in annual total collected n/a (2.24%) (0.17%) (8.24%) (6.32%) (3.97%) (8.28%) (8.32%) (8.52%) n/a %of budget collected through September 87.14% 80.85% 75.57% 68.75% 66.59% 67.70% 66.85% 66.96% 71.38% 70.32% %of actual total collected through September 71.32% 75.81% 76.05% 75.40% 75.35% 75.65% 75.97% 75.72% 75.41% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September 2,500,000 September September •August 2,000,000 ■ ■ ■July ■June 1,500,000 ■ ■May 1,000,000 ■April ■ ■ ■March ■February 500,000 ■January 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Page 25 �,T,�F „„„ PARKS AND RECREATION 0 -s.!,..441.-.;�f S4-- b � r. Spokane '! . , THIRD QUARTER REPORTS ., ' ,, Valley JULY-SEPTEMBER 2018 _', ADMINISTRATION AND PARKS: • Contracts worked on in the third quarter include: o Amendment #2 to the Agreement for Parks Maintenance to include maintenance on the Pines to Evergreen and Sullivan to Corbin sections of the Appleway Trail. o Amendment #2 to the Agreement for the CenterPlace West Lawn—Phase 1 Project to extend the time of completion due to electrical components on back order. o Agreement for Services for the Summer Day Camp Transportation for all field trips. o Agreement for Professional Services for Sculpture Placement Planning and Design for the "Heart of the Valley”art piece. o Construction Agreement for the CenterPlace Great Room Flooring Replacement Project. o Construction Agreement for the Electrical Upgrade for Mirabeau Point Park Project. • Summer is typically the busiest season with the parks themselves, and this year was even more so. We worked closely with Senske and their crews managing and maintaining the parks, troubleshooting issues, managing shelter and ball field reservations, and handling questions and issues with the public. We've had around 360 shelter reservations alone up through September, which is the most we have ever had at this point in the season. • Each year in September, the Valleyfest community event is an important focus for our entire Parks and Recreation staff. Mirabeau Point Park and CenterPlace certainly are well used that weekend as excellent venues for families and visitors to enjoy the many activities. • Staff spent considerable time working with the Public Works Department to close out the Sullivan to Corbin section of the Appleway Trail. This included the re-spraying and re-seeding of the entire section. • Staff continued to work with Bernardo Wills on the plans and specifications for the Park Amenities Project on the University to Pines section of the Appleway Trail. This project is scheduled to go to bid in November and constructed in 2019. • The design for new park signs was completed and the signs were ordered and received. The new signs are for Balfour Park, Sullivan Park, Castle Park, Park Road Pool, Appleway Trail and Myrna Park. Signs will be installed this fall. • Staff began working with Legal on the updating of park rules and regulations. After an initial discussion with City Council, staff is back working through various issues. • Staff completed working with Eagle Scout candidate Travis Hicks on his eagle project to construct identifying markers for our geologic features throughout Mirabeau Point Park. These new markers along with our walking trails brochure will allow the public to better understand our geologic history. • Staff has been working with Anytime Towing with the placement of signage at all parks and CenterPlace. Anytime Towing is under contract to the City to provide towing services for abandoned vehicles. • Staff worked with Landscape Architect Jon Mueller on the design and placement of the"Heart of the Valley"sculpture. Ultimately, the City 101 _ I Council made the decision to store this piece for future placement. r' rem—VW --ii - illiT - : 4 ■I r, ej - A., *. s s 'A;' 1,( I . y , 4. • j� r , _ 1` z ' A e i r tg- . . ra . 1 CENTERPLACE: • Staff booked 257 CenterPlace reservations during the third I I c ^CE �' quarter of 2018. CenterPlace has 457 events booked for 2019 which is 23% higher than 2018, or over three times higher than 2017. ��; f .nft ,' • Staff assisted with another successful Valleyfest, and we are ,rh: ' '� Y - heavily involved with all events taking place on CenterPlace �� -4P it grounds. This year, the hot air balloons didn't make an - � appearance. The car show had over 175 cars and raised over II I` li $1,700 to go directly toward enriching the lives of children in our community. The StepUp for Downs Syndrome Walk had a record \ fi t attendance with over 400 entries. New this year was a swing �, dance competition which was held in the Great Room and was r�,otto • '. extremely popular. Also new this year was a NASA Exhibition __ ' complete with a former Astronaut. The kids had the opportunity id to try on a helmet and glove which were used in space. • -..` -- • Staff participated in Tammy Schneider's Northwest's Premier Bridal Festival at the Convention Center on September 22, which ull was the same day of Valleyfest. Due to our participation for _ several years, we have an excellent location which generated a ._______ of interest in our venue. We ordered special linens and staff � �` "T - , c made the floral arrangements to make our booth stand out and „ --- � _ _ attendees were taking pictures of our booth. Ili ''' -'4\11-- • Oktoberfest was held for the second year at CenterPlace, the last /s-.- •µ weekend of September. This three-day festival celebrating ► German-themed cheer, dancing, eating, and singing was brought6 to us by Tom and Karen Stebbins of the JAKT Foundation. There were indoor and outdoor entertainment stages, beer gardens, games, and even wiener dog races. We look forward ° to the future growth of this event here at CenterPlace. II , 7 , � n • CenterPlace worked with Bozzi Media to bring a new event to ° . ,/rv.,, r _ i' the improved West Lawn event venue. The event was labeled - .° = as"Hot Summer Nights"and was held on Friday, July 27. „ s i •` 'w Previously, Hot Summer Nights was held at Arbor Crest. The r° " ` 50's-themed party featured bands, vendors, food trucks and a IP Is: 0. _-- costume contest. It was a huge success with over 1000 people attending the one-day event. _, irwt, ' The Great Room floor was replaced. r -/f�►�,� �--did k The original flooring material was in -.00..` _*_ ". 1 bad condition. The new flooring is _ Ell °j °"""i °r vinyl planks which look like wood ��1� ��w� II �11�11 ��II 1 t i . flooring. The planks are glued to the .�� • �� '°' floor so they are easy to replace if . ., one is damaged. The flooring is also made of a thicker material, so it helps absorb sound and creates BEFORE AFTER better acoustics in the room. 2 RECREATION AND AQUATICS: • The City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Dept. partnered with the Spokane Parks Foundation, Make a * " . „;' Splash in a Kids Life, to offer one free afternoon open swim session weekly at all three Spokane Valley Pools! x Amit Due to this sponsorship, 4,024 community members ,d„,d,a,,:v,'` Mifilifill1111 . were able to swim for free this season! • A total of 26,766 open swim visitors utilized Valley Mission, Terrace View, and Park Road Pools this season. Swim lessons were near capacity at 1,438 lessons. .. • The Free Summer Park Program is a seven-week Prr program at Terrace View, Valley Mission and Edgecliff . 41110 -1' Parks. Free breakfasts and lunches were provided to all ;; �� i ' children under 18 by East Valley School District Meal ,Qv4-4 ;, ' Program. This year, 2,552 visited these free summer ° , park programs. This is up over 200 participants from i- •,, ,, last year! • The Summer Day Camp was a great place to be this summer with 543 campers (ages 6-11 years old), seven energetic Day Camp Counselors, and five amazing Counselors in Training, all in our 10-week program. 11111 Each week campers go on exciting field trips, go r swimming, and visit local parks. • Our second and third free outdoor movies were coordinated, promoted and staffed. "The Lego Batman Movie”was presented at Mirabeau Meadows in July. In August, community members enjoyed lounging on the natural amphitheater at Valley Mission Park while watching "Despicable Me 3.” We are able to present these movies due in part to our sponsors, Waste Management and WSECU. Over 700 people attended �1 these outdoor events. - ., • In August, 29 dogs (and their owners) endured the rain gym, -°�. and smoky skies to participate in our annual "Paws in the '\ " u , 4 Pool"event at Valley Mission Pool. We appreciate Cheney Vet Clinic for helping to sponsor and attend this event. • Eleven high school volunteers from East Valley, University, and West Valley High Schools helped to make , the Valleyfest Pancake Breakfast a — success. These volunteers worked City of Spokane Valley with the CenterPlace in-house Parka&Recreation Guide ,jor caterer to serve over 200 • ii I breakfasts! • The new Fall &Winter Recreation it ffi Guide was created and distributed to the public the first week of : . September. This guide includes r' i !, valuable information about our _ y Registration starts % department, park information, subio 2018 and fall recreation activities for all ages. 3 SENIOR CENTER: • The Institute for Extended Learning/ r�f )"',,N.s, � �' i Community Colleges of Spokane ACT 2 .. _ �: a emnie, �`.i ' -" 1! art classes were on break for July and ', . 11 August, and those are the quietest months, here at the center. We're A ,'.i.", � Ilk if always happyto see September, with 1 more activities happening, classes ' . resuming, and people participating. • ACT 2 Art classes are on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 1! and Aerobics is on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. p. _ , A g>: • The Senior Center Association renewed their license -..,, : r , with the State Gambling Commission. This is needed ' : f `g . ®i for the Bingo activity. • The most attended activities in July were billiards, '` table tennis, and aerobics with Community Colleges of -- Spokane ACT 2. • A free 30-minute Tai Chi class is being offered and averages around 15 people every Monday from 11-11:30 a.m. "tli ilk I • Member age groups include: 50-59 yrs old=18; 60-69 yrs _ ',` - -- old=122; 70-79 yrs old=232; 80-89 yrs old=142; 90-99 yrs �;W = jTM old=25, and 100 yrs old=1. The average age of attendees °'' ' is 75.3. You must be 50 years or older to join the Senior :Wed ,. Center; however, there are many participants that are not registered members. • The Association hosted Walgreens to provide free flu shots in our Wellness Center. There were 20+ people who stopped in to receive a flu shot. • This quarter's potluck was attended by 20 people on September 21. • Aging and Long Term Care continues to come to the Senior Center to help people with open enrollment and general questions about Medicare and what plan is suitable for each individual. This is a free service and no sales are involved. • Trips to the Northern Quest Casino are popular. Their bus provides transportation to and from the casino. This is the fourth Thursday of each month. Numbers That Count... July August September Total Attendance (does not include walk-ins or phone calls 2,162 2,311 2,226 4 Mark k Werxrer- Ozzie Ifirezov ch Chief ofPolicc Sheriff Spokane Valley Police Department Accredited Since 2011 y�y6RV T Services provided in partnership with +'Ne C % the Spokane County Sheriff's Office and the Community, Alhilli ',/ Dedicated to Your Safety. TO: Mark Calhoun, City Manager FROM: Mark Werner, Chief of Police DATE: November 14, 2018 RE: Monthly Report October 2018 In August 2016, we switched from UCR to NIBRS classification, which means we went from reporting based on a hierarchy to reporting all the crimes for each incident. Consequently, comparing crime statistics before August 2016 to crime statistics after that timeframe is not recommended using the data provided in the attached charts and graphs. ADMINISTRATIVE: The month of October started with the commissioning of six new deputies into the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. Chief Werner along with other command staff attended the ceremony. Chief Werner attended a luncheon at the Red Lion in early October titled Transitions — People Who Care. The event was hosted by Lutheran Social Services, headed by Erin Williams. Other command staff from the Sheriff's Office also attended. Chief Werner attended fourth quarter in-service training in early October. Early October brought the monthly SpoCom Governing Board meeting, Spokane Regional Law and Justice Council meeting as well as the Executive Core Team Meeting for New World/Tyler Technologies,which Chief Werner attended. Mid-October is the Annual Law Enforcement and Scope Awards Banquet, attended by Chief Werner and others from the Spokane Valley Police Department. See below for more information on those awards. The quarterly Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force Board Meeting was held in mid-October, which Chief Werner and other Spokane County Sheriff's Office command staff attended. Page 1 SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): In the month of October, S.C.O.P.E. participated in: • Coffee with a COP at MacDonald's/ • East Valley Coalition Take Back Drugs Sprague and University Event • Neighborhood Restoration Planning • Halloween Night S.C.O.P.E. Meeting with Spokane Valley Neighborhood Patrols • S.C.O.P.E. Volunteer Appreciation • Moving Forward S.C.O.P.E. Regional Banquet Meetings • Spokane County Sheriff Crime • East Valley Community Coalition Prevention Conference Meeting-Underage Drinking/Drug • Valley 206 Apts. Neighborhood Watch Prevention Meeting • GSSAC Coalition Meeting • S.C.O.P.E. Basic Training— 10 new • Operation Family ID Volunteers October 2018 Volunteers Hours per Station *Includes estimated volunteer service hours that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover both Spokane Valley and the unincorporated portion of the county. Location #Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 8 141.5 72.5 214 East Valley* 28 261 317 578 Edgecliff 9 212 27 239 Trentwood 5 121.5 80 201.5 University 24 458.5 113.5 572 West Valley* 22 412 86 498 TOTALS 96 1606.5 696 2302.5 Volunteer Value ($30.46 per hour) $70,134.15 for October 2018 SCOPE members assist the Spokane Valley Police Department each month by placing speed radar boards throughout Spokane Valley in conjunction with the Traffic Unit,in an effort to reduce speed in locations that have been identified by law enforcement or brought to their attention by the community as having excessive speeding vehicles. For the month of October, the speed radar board was placed at 24 locations (11 by trailer out of Scope Main; 13 with Gun/Radar Reader Boards)(2 by Scope East,5 by Scope North,2 by University Scope,and 4 by Medical Lake Scope), capturing 814 hours of coverage. S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 20 on-scene hours (including travel time) in October,responding to crime scenes,motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control; 13 hours were for incidents in Spokane Valley. There were 3 special events in October, none of which were in Spokane Valley. Total volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training,stand-by,response and special events is 1,255;total for 2018 is 12,194. (Starting January 2018, a change was made in how actual hours of`stand-by'time is calculated. Due to the shortage of staff necessary to cover up to 62 shifts of 24 hours per day per month, a simple formula as used in the past, no longer reflects the actual time spent on stand-by. We now count each month the actual time members sign up for duty minus the time actually spent on-scene.) Page 2 Abandoned Vehicles Aug Sep Oct Tagged for Impounding 56 26 67 Cited/Towed 8 3 9 Hulks Processed 17 _ 33 10 Total Vehicles Processed 165 _ 131 176 Yearly Total of Vehicles Processed 976 1107 1283 SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of #of Hrs. # of # of # of Non- Vol. Disabled Warnings Disabled Infractions Issued Infractions Issued Issued January 0 0 0 0 0 February 0 0 0 0 0 March 1 3.5 1 3 0 April 1 3 0 2 0 May 1 3.5 1 0 0 June 0 0 0 0 0 July 0 0 0 0 0 August 0 0 0 0 0 September 2 4 1 4 0 October 0 0 0 0 0 YTD Total 5 14 3 9 0 # of # of Hrs. # of # of # of Non- Vol. Disabled Warnings Disabled Infractions Issued Infractions Issued Spokane County Issued January 1 11.5 1 11 0 February 3 24 7 13 0 March 3 34.5 11 16 0 April 2 21.5 2 5 0 May 3 28.5 4 20 0 June 10 2 8 0 0 July 4 28.5 6 13 0 August 4 31 1 14 0 September 2 17 0 10 0 October 5 50 4 24 0 YTD Total 37 248.5 44 126 0 Page 3 OPERATIONS: Civil Dispute Escalates into Assault and Burglary Charges, SWAT Team Serves Search Warrant - Spokane Valley Deputies, investigating a burglary and assault, requested the assistance of the SWAT Team to help safely serve a search warrant at a residence on N. Burns. SWAT was requested due to the well-known history of the residence and several subjects who live and/or frequent the location. In early October, at approximately 7:20 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a reported assault which had occurred approximately 30 minutes earlier at a residence located in the 900 block of N. Burns. The victim stated she has lived in a motorhome on the property for the past few years. She was standing outside of her motorhome when the homeowner came out, said he was going to pull the motorhome off the property, and began hooking a cable up to it. The victim told him to stop, but he continued. She went inside and applied the brake of the motorhome to stop the homeowner from pulling it with his truck. He followed her inside without permission and an argument ensued. During the argument, she told the suspect to leave. He pushed her before exiting and continued to hook up the cable. She reapplied the brake as two females from the residence began to assault her, one punching her in the head and face while the other reached in through the door to hold her feet, preventing her escape. After the assault, all three suspects went back into the house. The victim was provided medical attention at the scene and later transported to an area hospital for additional treatment for her injuries. The victim and additional subjects contacted at the location stated they had not observed the three suspects leave the location and were last known to be inside the residence. Attempts to contact the suspects were unsuccessful. Not knowing if the suspects were hiding inside, a search warrant for the residence was sought and the SWAT Team responded to safely execute the search warrant. After entering and searching the residence, the suspects were not located. The suspects face potential charges of Burglary 1st Degree and Assault 4th Degree. The investigation is continuing. Eluding Suspect's Attempt to Bluff His Way Past Deputy Unsuccessful; Charged with Three New Felonies, a Felony Warrant and Two Misdemeanors - A suspect, and convicted felon, attempted to elude a Spokane Valley Deputy in a vehicle on a late Saturday night. After he fled from the vehicle, he attempted to mislead a deputy on the perimeter, but was unsuccessful. He was booked into jail for three new felony charges to include Eluding, Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver, Unlawful Imprisonment and a felony warrant. In early October, at approximately 11:45 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputy Michael Sullivan observed a small four-door vehicle, occupied by two people, traveling south on Pines from Broadway at a high rate of speed. The vehicle turned west on Alki without using a turn signal and continued driving at speeds in excess of the posted speed limit. Deputy Sullivan got behind the vehicle and activated his emergency lights to conduct a traffic stop. Instead of stopping, the 23-year-old male driver did not stop as required. Deputy Sullivan activated his siren, but the suspect continued, driving at speeds estimated at 40-50 mph in the residential area. With no pedestrian or vehicle traffic in the area, Deputy Sullivan advised dispatch he was in pursuit of the vehicle. The male suspect continued to disobey traffic signs,speed limits and multiple traffic laws as he attempted to evade the deputy. Deputy Sullivan lost sight of the vehicle in the area of Broadway and University a short time later while multiple patrol units flooded the area to assist. Soon after, a citizen reported seeing two people flee on foot from a four-door vehicle, which was just parked near the intersection of Cataldo and Van Matter. Deputy Travis West responded to the Page 4 area and located the vehicle as reported. Believing this was the vehicle that fled, deputies quickly setup a perimeter and K9 announcements were made. Deputy Sullivan arrived and confirmed it was the vehicle the suspect was driving. At about the same time, Deputy Samuel Turner observed. a shadow of a person cross a fence near Pierce and Broadway as he held his position on the perimeter. In the area of Broadway and Bowdish,Deputy Lorenz Mina,also part of the perimeter, observed an adult female walking in his direction. Just behind the female, Deputy Kullman advised he and his partner K9 Khan had been tracking toward the female's location. Deputy Mina detained the female and learned she had been a passenger in the vehicle. Approximately 10 minutes later, Deputy Turner observed a male, later identified as the male suspect, emerge from between two houses near his location. The suspect said, "Hey, a guy just ran from my yard though the church parking lot! He was hiding under my deck!" and continued walking eastbound, attempting to pass Deputy Turner's location. Deputy Turner observed the suspect was sweating profusely despite the cool, 50 degree temperatures and his clothes were dirty and still had department store stickers on them. Surmising the male appeared to possibly be the suspect attempting to mislead him instead of a homeowner who was just awoken in the middle of the night, Deputy Turner advised the male he was not free to leave. When Deputy Turner asked for his physical address,the male stated"Oh,it's my buddy's house,I don't know the address." The male suspect verbally identified himself with a false name. While checking this name via his radio, he was advised deputies at the suspect's vehicle located paperwork with a similar name. The male suspect was detained and during a frisk for weapons, Deputy Turner located a set of keys in the suspect's pants pocket. Deputy Turner asked to empty the contents of the suspect's pockets and he said, "Well (expletive) it! Ya, I'm going to jail anyways!" The set of keys matched the manufacture of the suspect vehicle and were later determined to be the keys for the vehicle. The suspect was advised of his rights. During a complete search, a driver's license confirming his identity was located in addition to 10 smaller blue baggies, each containing a small amount of a black tar-like substance Deputy Turner recognized as heroin. A field test of the substance showed a presumptive positive result for heroin. While in the back of Deputy Turner's patrol car, the suspect bragged about eluding Deputy Sullivan. Deputy Turner reminded him he was in custody and just admitted to driving the vehicle and the male said, "(Expletive) you! Ya, I did it! Maybe next time I'll have a gun and shoot all ya'll (expletive)!" A cheek of the suspect's name revealed a felony Washington State Department of Corrections warrant (original charge-Conspiracy for Possession of a Controlled Substance-Dangerous Drugs) and that his driver's license was suspended. Deputies also learned the male suspect was a four-time convicted felon and had multiple misdemeanor convictions. The detained female was interviewed and she stated she told the suspect to stop several times and wanted to get out of the vehicle during the pursuit, but the suspect refused. She was not charged with a crime and was released. The suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Attempting to Elude Law Enforcement, Possession of a Controlled Substance (Heroin) with Intent to Deliver, Unlawful Imprisonment, Providing False/Misleading Statements and Driving While Suspended 3rd Degree. Traffic Stop Leads to the Seizure of 1.5 Pounds of Meth, 2 Ounces of Heroin, Several Pills and a MP 40 Submachine Gun-A traffic stop conducted by Spokane Valley Deputy Garrett Spencer led to the subsequent arrest of both occupants and eventually, this substantial seizure. With the assistance of Spokane Valley Investigative Unit (SVIU) Detectives, this investigation resulted in the arrest of three suspects and the seizure of a large amount of Methamphetamine,Heroin,Pills and a MP 40 Submachine Gun. In early October,just prior to 5:00 a.m., Spokane Valley Deputy Spencer observed a malfunctioning brake light on a van while traveling west on Sprague near Pines. While stopped at the traffic light at Bowdish, the 36- Page 5 year-old male driver of the van remained stopped for 10-20 seconds after the light turned green. Deputy Spencer activated his emergency lights to conduct a traffic stop and the suspect turned north on Bowdish, pulled into a parking lot and stopped. During the traffic stop, the male suspect was found to have a suspended driver's license and was arrested. The suspect's 28-year- old female passenger and owner of the vehicle was questioned for not wearing her seatbelt and later arrested for Possession of a Controlled Substance-Methamphetamine. As this investigation continued, SVIU Detectives were called to the scene to assist. Investigators learned a second 28- year-old female, a four-time convicted felon, was staying in a room at the Home Towne Studios and Suites, 12803 E. Sprague. A check of that female's name revealed an active Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) felony warrant. With additional information gained during the investigation, SVIU Detective Jeff Thurman requested and was granted a search warrant for the room where this female suspect was staying. Deputies and SVIU Detectives executed the search warrant,contacting the female suspect and a seven-time convicted felon,a 38-year-old male,inside the room. In total, 1.5 pounds of Methamphetamine,2 ounces of Heroin, several prescription pills and a MP 40 Submachine Gun were recovered. Two vehicles at the location associated with this male and female at the hotel were also seized. After being advised of his rights, this male suspect stated he and the female suspect aren't big drug dealers, they are just selling a little to make ends meet. He said a guy gave him the MP 40 the night before, but he didn't think it functioned. He knows, as a convicted felon,he's not allowed to possess firearms so he planned to keep the MP 40 as an antique. Investigators examined the potentially fully automatic weapon and, although in poor shape, believe it would still cycle and fire. Three of the four suspects were transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail. The fourth suspect faces charges of Driving while Suspended and Possession of a Controlled Substance-Methamphetamine. The male from the hotel was charged with four counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver (Methamphetamine/Heroin/Alprazolam/Xanax),Unlawful Possession of a Firearm 2nd Degree and Possession of a Dangerous Weapon. The female suspect from the hotel was charged with four counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver(Methamphetamine/Heroin/ Alprazolam/Xanax) in addition to her Washington State DOC warrant. The female suspect from the vehicle was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance-Methamphetamine. This investigation is ongoing and additional charges and/or arrests are possible. Robbery Suspect Flees from Valley Mall Macy's - Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives worked to identify the suspect who stole merchandise from Macy's and physically threw a loss prevention employee to the ground when she attempted to stop him. In mid-October, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies responded to a call of a shoplifting/robbery at Macy's located at 14740 E. Indiana in Spokane Valley. The loss prevention employee stated she observed the male conceal merchandise while he was in the store. When he attempted to leave the store without paying for the items,the loss prevention employee confronted the suspect, identified herself and told him to stop as he began to exit the store. He grabbed her by the arms and threw her to the ground inside the foyer. The suspect fled from the store and dropped the stolen items as he ran away. The suspect appeared to be alone and was not observed with any vehicle. It is believed he was on foot or may have had a bicycle in the area. He was described as a black male, in his late 30's, approximately 6'02" and 180 pounds. He was last seen wearing a gray Nike hoodie and dark colored athletic pants. After receiving several tips from the public, Major Crimes Detective Scott Bonney tentatively identified the 45-year-old suspect. In late October, Detective Bonney located the male suspect in Airway Heights and immediately recognized him as the suspect in the Macy's surveillance videos. The suspect was arrested and Page 6 booked into the Spokane County Jail for Robbery Ist Degree. We would like to thank everyone for their tips and continued support, which is essential as we work together to identify and arrest suspects who commit crimes in our community. K9 Khan has Busy Night Locating Suspects Attempting to Hide - At two separate locations, Spokane Valley Deputy Tyler Kullman and his partner K9 Khan assisted Spokane Valley Deputies and Spokane Police Officers locate suspects who decided to hide despite warnings a K9 would be used to find them. Both suspects were arrested after their attempts proved unsuccessful and they were located by K9 Khan. In mid-October,the first incident occurred at approximately 11:30 p.m., when Spokane Valley Deputies were called to a reported burglary in progress at a business located in the 6600 block of E. Broadway. The property owner reported he was informed of a suspicious vehicle parked at the closed business. Deputy Michael Keys arrived at the location and observed a vehicle parked at the back of the business and very close to the security fence that surrounded the entire property. He also noted the barbed wire,which ran across the top of the fence, appeared to be stretched and sagging in the area of the parked vehicle. The property owner arrived at the scene and identified the vehicle as one owned by a former employee who had been terminated, a 56-year-old male. He stated the business was closed, no one had permission to be inside, and he requested to have the business checked by deputies. Several PA announcements were made advising anyone inside they were under arrest, a K9 would be used to find them if they did not surrender, and the K9 could bite them when they were found. All of the multiple announcements went unanswered. Deputy Keys, Deputy Kullman, and his partner K9 Khan, began searching the property. A short time later, K9 Khan alerted on a stack of tires, knocking them over and made contact with the male suspect/former employee who was hiding inside. The suspect was taken into custody without further incident. The suspect was provided medical attention at the scene prior to being transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Burglary 2"d Degree. The second capture occurred just after 4:00 a.m. later that morning,when Deputy Kullman and K9 Khan were requested to assist Spokane Police Department(SPD) Officers locate a suspect with several warrants for his arrest. When Deputy Kullman deployed K9 Khan at the location in the city, K9 Khan began searching the area eventually making his way to a makeshift wall with a door and old headboards stacked against it. K9 Khan alerted and started barking/jumping at the door and knocking the headboards over, allowing him to gain access to the door. K9 Khan entered the space and made contact with the suspect who began to follow commands and was taken into custody without further incident. Later, the suspect told Deputy Kullman he heard the K9 announcements, but decided to take his chances that K9 Khan wouldn't find him,instead of surrendering and going to jail for sure. The male suspect was provided medical attention prior to be transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for his multiple warrants. Man Arrested for Threatening/Harassment of 911 Operator - Spokane Valley Deputies arrested a male suspect after he made repeated calls to 911, where he was highly agitated and abusive, stating he was dangerous, becoming a terrorist and made threats to kill the 911 operator as well as harm others at the 911 (Combined Communications Building-CCB) Center and their families. In mid-October, this incident began when the 27-year-old male suspect called 911 and refused to provide information or answer questions as he cursed and yelled about suing the government and mental health entities. During the calls, the male suspect said he would find the "third-party dispatch" center and hurt them for not helping him. When the 911 operator attempted to confirm his location, which was determined to be at a business on N. Page 7 Sullivan,the suspect threatened he would find the operator,come for her,and he would kill her. He also said a lot of people in dispatch will lose their families;he mentioned the Freeman High School shooting,becoming a terrorist, and he was dangerous and going to hurt someone. Deputy Michael Vicini contacted the 911 operator by phone and was told she was extremely concerned and felt this threat was credible because she often frequents the business the suspect was calling from. In addition,with the suspect's volatility over the phone, she believes he is capable of hurting her and carrying out his threat to kill her. A check of the suspect's name showed several law enforcement contacts for apparent mental health-related issues and trespassing. Deputies arrived at the business and located the suspect seated inside, still talking on the phone to 911. He agreed to exit the business and speak with the deputies. He became increasingly agitated while he explained he was just trying to report criminal activity. He appeared unfocused, talking about Uber, being hacked, and private investigators following him and others. When asked about the threats he made, the suspect said,"It wasn't credible." He continued to ask for a"white collar crime detective"because he wasn't being helped, while he continued to insist big corporations were out to get him, which caused him to lose his house and car. The suspect placed over 20 separate calls to 911 where he made these statements and threats. Deputies arrested the male suspect and booked him into the Spokane County Jail for felony Harassment. He was released on his own recognizance the following day after his court appearance. Man Arrested for Threats and Shooting into the Floor of House - Spokane Valley Deputies arrested a male suspect after he fired a weapon into the floor of his home and threatened to kill three people. The suspect was charged with three counts of felony Harassment and one count of Assault 1St Degree. In mid-October at approximately 9:55 p.m., Spokane County Sheriff's Deputies responded to reports of shots being fired in the area of the 2900 block of N. Joel Road. Approximately 15 minutes later, Deputy Paul Ouimette, who was not responding to the call, was flagged down by three people in a vehicle near Sprague and Sargent. Two of the occupants stated they were inside a house on Joel Road when the 48-year-old male suspect became angry, shot a handgun into the floor of a bedroom near one of the victim's feet and threatened to kill him, his mother and his girlfriend. The victim explained his mother was safe and was not at the residence at the time of the incident. The victim explained the suspect, his stepfather, was sitting on the couch when he arrived at the home with his girlfriend. The male suspect became agitated and started calling the victim names and blamed him for the suspect's marital problems while the victim and his girlfriend sat on the bed playing video games. The suspect then apologized to them both and pulled a small handgun from his pocket, firing two times into the floor next to his stepson's feet and said he was going to kill them and his mother. The male suspect then fired again into the floor; he had them both walk out on the patio of the residence. During this time, both victims, afraid for their lives and intimidated, were told to fire the weapon, which they did several times. As the suspect went to put the firearm away,both victims fled the residence and soon after flagged Deputy Ouimette down to report the incident. The deputies at the residence on Joel had a perimeter setup and attempted to make contact with the suspect without success. The SWAT Team was responding while PA announcements were made advising the suspect, or anyone else inside, to exit the residence with their hands visible. At approximately 11:00 p.m., the suspect exited the front door and was taken into custody without further incident. The SWAT Team's response was cancelled and Major Crimes Detectives were called to the scene to obtain a search warrant for the residence and continue the investigation. Thankfully,no one was injured during this incident. The Page 8 male suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for 3 counts of felony Harassment and Assault 1st Degree. Major Crimes Detective Search for Bank Robbery Suspects - Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives are searching for two suspects who robbed the Walls Fargo Bank located inside Safeway at 14020 E. Sprague. The male and female suspect were last seen fleeing the area, west on Sprague, in a white Chrysler Town and Country minivan. In late October, at approximately 9:00 am., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a silent holdup alarm at the Wells Fargo Bank located inside Safeway at 14020 E. Sprague Ave., in Spokane Valley. Major Crimes Detectives were also called to the scene to continue the investigation. The initial information received from witnesses states an adult male (approximately 6'02") and an adult female (approximately 5'06") entered the bank. The male suspect handed the teller a note demanding money and displayed a firearm in his waistband. After the male received the money,the male and female fled from the bank on foot. They were last seen fleeing west on Sprague in what is described as a white Chrysler Town and Country minivan.The investigation is continuing. ** These suspects are considered armed and dangerous. Do not approach and call 911 immediately. ** Anyone with information regarding this armed robbery or can help identify the male or female suspects in these photos is urged to call Detective Kirk Keyser at 509-477-6611,reference#10152811. There is also a $1000 reward for information on these suspects. Persons with information regarding the suspect's whereabouts should call the Crime Stoppers Tip Line at 1-800-222-TIPS, or by going to www.p3tips.com. Tipsters do not have to give their name to collect the cash fugitive reward. Congratulations 2018 Sheriff's Office Award Recipients - These Sheriff's Office Employees and Outstanding Citizens have risen above and beyond expectations and we are extremely honored to recognize their exceptional work.Please help us say"Thank You"for their dedication, sacrifice and hard work. Great Job All and Thank you!! Each and every day,ALL of our deputies and staff proudly serve you, the citizens of Spokane County and do so with dedication, honor and professionalism. These awards are overseen by the Law Enforcement Awards Committee comprised of several employees throughout the Sheriffs Office. They receive many nominations during the year and the committee carefully considers each nomination and decides who should be the recipients. The "Sheriffs Star" Award recipients are chosen by Sheriff Knezovich for their outstanding job performance, dedication and professionalism. Outstanding Citizen Award Chauncy K. Welliver - In recognition of his extraordinary actions on April 14, 2018, without thought to his own personal safety, he stepped in and assisted a female who was being assaulted. His actions prevented further injury to the individual until deputies arrived on scene and arrested the suspect. We are honored to have him as a contributing member of our community. John M. Roach - In recognition of his extraordinary actions on September 20, 2018, lie stopped at the scene of an injury collision, which involved a victim with a severed leg. He took quick action, applied a tourniquet, which stopped the severe blood loss and saved the victim's life. In Page 9 addition,he was instrumental in making a positive identification on the suspect who fled the scene, as well as, directed traffic, which limited vehicle delays and potentially prevented additional collisions. We are honored to have him as a contributing member of our community. Annual Unit Merit Award Sergeant Patrick Bloomer Detective Kenneth Scott Detective Mark Renz Detective Sean Walter Detective Shannon McCrillis Staff Assistant Kelly Matthews Detective Jerad Kiehn SCOPE Volunteer Jim Johansen Detective Jeff Thurman SCOPE Volunteer Bill Edwards Detective Roger Knight SCOPE Volunteer Linda Nilson Detective John Oliphant In recognition of the Spokane Valley Investigative Unit's (SVIU)tireless and relentless pursuit in holding criminals accountable for their crimes, your teamwork and professional competence are examples of what the Sheriffs Office strives to exhibit. The positive impact that this unit has had on the community cannot be overstated. This unit is yet another example of the caliber of individuals who are part of our law enforcement family. Medal of Merit Detective Jeff Thurman In recognition of his exceptional job performance in the Spokane Valley Investigative Unit over the last year, his positive impact on the community and hard work exemplifies the high standards of the Spokane County Sheriffs Office. His professionalism, dedication, tenacity and thoroughness has made him a valued member of our team. It is an honor to claim him as part of our law enforcement family. Life-Saving Award Deputy Brad Humphrey - On January 14, 2018, he made a big difference in the life of a man who was attempting to commit suicide. He took the time to notice the car was not "normal" and investigated. He was further able to alert the proper authorities to get this individual the assistance he needed to work through his problems in a more productive and appropriate manner. His caring, compassion and training benefits our agency and our community. It is an honor to have him as a member of our law enforcement family. Deputy Chad Ruff - On July 1, 2018, he was called to a residence where there had been an attempted suicide. The male had ingested a large number of opioids. He retrieved the "Overdose Reversal Kit" from his patrol car and administered the Naloxone nasal spray. Spokane County Fire District 9 arrived and took over the medical care of the individual who was now alert and in route to the hospital. We are proud to claim him as a valued member of our law enforcement family. Deputy Natalie Woolard- On July 10, 2018, she answered a call regarding a deceased individual in a basement. The individual still had a very faint pulse and was taking shallow breaths. She suspected an opioid overdose, requested a medic response, got her "Overdose Reversal Kit," and Page 10 proceeded to administer the Naloxone nasal spray. The male regained consciousness, asked what happened and stated what he had taken. Valley Fire and AMR arrived and took over medical care of the individual. We are proud to have her as a member of our law enforcement family. Deputy Paul Quimette - On June 18, 2018, he responded to a call regarding a suicidal male. Showing compassion and going the extra mile, he decided to search the rock cliffs near the boat access to Medical Lake, and found the individual. He was able to reason with him and he received the help he needed due to Deputy Ouimette's actions. It is an honor to claim him as a valued member of our law enforcement family. Deputy Griffin Criswell, Deputy Michael Keys, and Deputy Derek McNall - On September 8, 2018, they answered a welfare check call. A male had sustained a cut to his aim from a broken window and was bleeding profusely. Using a belt and two tourniquets they were able to stop the bleeding until the Fire Department and AMR arrived and took over. Due to their quick and efficient actions, this individual survived this traumatic ordeal. It is an honor to claim all of you as valued members of our law enforcement family. Sheriff's Star Award Detective Jeff Thurman - In recognition of his extraordinary work ethic and leadership, which distinguishes him among his peers as a SVIU Detective, Air Support Chief TFO, Lead EVOC Instructor and IADLEST Pit Instructor,Detective Thurman embodies the tenacity,professionalism and dedication the Sheriffs Star represents. We thank him for being a valued member of our law enforcement family! - ` � a Ar - _ _ * a L C K LOCK OBSERVE CARS SHOULD KEEP GARAGE ITEMS IN AND REPORT NEVER RUN DOORS CLOSED YOUR TRUNK UNATTENDED Page 11 Spokane County Sheriff's Office -4, G°U 7 ., r Regional Intelligence Group O +Q. ., ,> "�' - M Spokane Valley Districts ;' ` . IBR Classification: Burglary RIG 9 120 loo • 46 1* ao 60 ( —0-2015 —2016 —ii,-2017 L0 Calendar 2018 20 0 > > x J >.. w >' 1-- ac cc ce a cc cc U ac d z J en w w w w D m to m m ¢ a 0 0 2 2 z m 2 Dw 1-- w w < m R H l.7 3 U w a 0 O w w w z 0 iri Year Month Count 2015 201.6 2017 Calendar 2018 January 84, 72 55 51 February 66 73 53 26 March 71 78 42 33 April 68 87 49 36 May 69 73 47 34 June 86 93 59 28 July 103 89 51 44 August 86 103 56 51 September 94 91 78 38 October 105 71 37 48 November 80 92 32 December 81 63 33 Grand Total 993 985 592 389 * IBR Offense:Burglary/Breaking&Entering 220 Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Officelc°Unrr),�� Regional Intelligence Group o 11. tfr, � ...„.., Spokane Valley Districts i 's[ IBR Classification: Murder NonNeg Manslaughter t IG 9 2.5 I 2 . \ , 1.5 1 —4-2015 —0-2016 1 • IN • • 0 —lir 2017 Calendar 2018 0.5 0 1 I r r x -j r w r F cc cc s a ce nc U _ Q Z v1 w w W w d Q M CO CO CO m Q Q w 2 o 2 2 z ce 2 7 w I- w w Q m Q r- u > u w a O o w u.. w z p h Year Month Count 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 1 February March 1 April May June 1 July 1 1_ August 1 September October 2 November 1 1 1 December 1 Grand Total 5 4 2 1 *IBR Offense:Murder/Non-Negligent Manslaughter 09A Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may riot be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56A20 Spokane County Sheriffs Office ,, c°unrrj Regional Intelligence Group I?r ...'�' e.,„ ,Spokane Valley Districts I zF, IBR Classification: Identity Theft 1?IG 35 , I 30 25 20 1 —0-2015 15 . --F-2016 L 40 -- zo17 10 Calendar 2018 5 IIII 0 } y 2 J )- W .- 1– OC K K 2' p[ (C U cc a Z J ul W W W W D CO CO m CO D a Q j U 2 o 5 2 z ce 2 z w 1- w w < ® < F U > U w a 0 O w LL W 0 in Year Month Count 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 9 20 February 1 24 16 March 22 13 April 16 22 May 32 21 June 19 17 July 23 14 August 9 13 14 September 7 17 12 October 7 15 20 November 10 19 December 8 25 Grand Total 42 234 169 *IBR Offense: Identity Theft 26F Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 4256.420 Spokane County Sheriffs Office cou ,- Regional Intelligence Group �,31-1 �_ i Spokane Valley Districts ','., IBR Classification: Fraud 1IGI 9 80 70 60 , 50 011.11°44 1 . 1 40 —11—2015 —II-2016 30 X2017 44.1( Calendar 2018 20 I - _....46.JO 1 1 10 0 y } g > Y H cc = cc cc ex e[ u ¢ w 4 z _I vi w w w w 4 4 2 D D m m m m M. > 4 4 as 2 o 2 2 z ce 2 D w h w w Q ca 4 F- u > U w a O p w LL w Z d N Year Month Count 2015 2016 20.17 Calendar 2018 January 12 23 26 69 February 18 17 36 46 March 20 21 37 59 April 18 15 43 55 May 24 8 53 67 June 14 19 57 65 July 17 26 61 65 August 28 15 53 62 September 24 16 66 49 October 34 41 64 61 November 18 38 54 December 25 30 43 Grand Total 252 269 593 598 * IBR Offense: Fraud-Credit Card/ATM 26B, Fraud-False Pretenses/Swindling/Con Games 26A,& Fraud-Impersonation 26C Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56,420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office couN-0-„ r Regional Intelligence Group �� ,,. ,' - [0, Spokane Valley Districts a..-ii, IBR Classification: DUI R/G 9 45 i 40 l 35 I /1\t 30I 17c>7 2541111k 2( � �—2015 ......-- \—/ 20 F A -.-2016 I 15 I 1Y1 —A-2017 Calendar 2018 10 I 5 0 r r 2 r w r F cc w nc oc e[ ce U - 4 2 en w w w w Q Q ^ D m m m m 0 0 Q Q to 2 0 2 ce 0 w F w w q m Q I- U } U w a 0 O w w w z o Year Month Count 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 30 30 22 21 February 22, 30 26 18 March 25 31 33 39 April 28 22 18 13 May 27 27 19 33 June 29 31 28 23 July 31 19 26 15 August 31 18 24 28 September 18 20 19 37 October 25 19 24 33 November 20 28 18 December 13 27, 20 Grand Total 299 302 277 260' * IBR Offense:DUI 90D Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office 4 couNrJ�r y Regional Intelligence Group [", .. Cl) f =` -- `q " JN, Spokane Valley Districts ;°cv{ IBR Classification: Drugs f'IC 9 74 60 . \ 50 40 —0-2015 30 41111111111L -1—2016 —A-2017 i 2:0 f- Calendar 2018 10 Il l —M — , l � 0 m r x > w •>. F-- ce w ce ee ire s u 7 Q z __i L w w w w a a D D m m m m 7 a ¢ W 2 0 2 7 cc 2 n w F— w Li, ¢ ca < r U > u w - O o w Li_ w 7 O til Year Month Count 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 2 5 19 42 February 3 30 38 March 2 2 30 64 April 4 1 37 56 May 1 5 23 34 June 2 2 20 56 July 3 1 21 56 August 4 16 26 43 September 5 28 25 33 October 3 20 24 51 November 1 20 39 December 3 27 25 Grand Total 30 130 319 473 * IBR Offense: Drug Equipment Violations 350& Drugs/Narcotics Violations 35A Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office L }UN�4 Regional Intelligence Group p . yrj_ rt Spokane Valley Districts ' . t' - ' , IBR Classification: Theft From Motor Vehicle I?IG 9 200 180 160 140 I 120 1 . 100 I 1 —ft—2015 —rte 2016 80 _— \\,..................e......./A1 —I-2017 60 Calendar 2018 40 I 20 I 0 a- a- _ _t a- w a- 1— cc z ac cc cc cc U cc ¢ 2 - Ui w w w w < < cc D m m CO m 2 cc 2 m w F- w w d m a F- u > u - Lu a O o w LL wz 0 tog Year Month Count 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 134 101 99 76 February 124 76 104 32 March 96 72 94 79 April 62 134 131 62 May 84 108 78 69 June 68 177 107 66 July 85 139 97 107 August 92 131 70 87 September 109 103 118 85 October 111 124 70 103 November 91 153 54 December 110 119 70 Grand Total 1166 1437 1092 766 * IBR Offense:Theft From Motor Vehicle 23F Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office ,,counrr) , Regional Intelligence Group oa I �' ca 4` rt - A '„ F. , Spokane Valley Districts i - 3..;5‘1',/ IBR Classification: Motor Vehicle Theft I?1ci 9 120 100 l BC C1441,111111P -41-2015 I —11—2016 14101/4,, --2017 40 f4. \ 1 Calendar 2018 1 0 1 1 >- > X _I > w Y H cc DC De ac a cc U < Z --i yr w w w w < < x = m m m m m D Q 4 0 2 O 2 2 z a 2 = w r w w Q w Q d 0 ? w w w o p Z Year Month Count 2015 2016. 2017 Calendar 2018 January 62 112 44 36 February 64 53 38 24 March 53 66 44 28 April 53 75 42 27 May 71 59 27 24 June 58 80 28 24 July 73 73 41 39 August 60 39 36 18 September 78 35 43 26 October 65 51, 40 31 November 59 33 34 December 78 39 28 Grand Total 774 715 445 277 * IBR Offense: Motor Vehicle Theft 240 Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56,420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office „,oauNt};s> Regional Intelligence Group o s55 } ,), ' Spokane Valley Districts 1' `'-'F IBR Classification: Robbery 1`IG 9 16 14 12 41/4\1/1 10 g I ;--410-2015 —m-2016 6 1., —&-2017 ///t.4\-7\ 4 / Calendar 2018 2 1 1 i 11 ,,v i 0 >- >- = --, w ) I— a cc cc cc cf cc u cc < 2 w en w w w w m m m m co z K 2 m H. w w Q m Q w F u 7 u w d 0 o w LL Lu Z p N Year Month Count 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 11 3 3 6 February 9 7 6 2 March 12 8 7 5 April 6 3 3 6 May 6 8 2 8 June 5 5 1 3 July 8 5 4 7 August 7 3 1 6 September 15 2 4 6 October 7 10 4 5 November 3 10 3 December 11 3 1 Grand Total 100 67 39 54 * IBR Offense: Robbery 120 Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 COMM'". Spokane County Sheriff's Office �, � t Regional Intelligence Group ' rig} ''' Spokane Valley Districts r '- kI. ' \ IBR Classification: Assault kiG 9 180 I 160 I 140 —.14.1 Ur- 120 100 I IV: - - , — 2015 80 4111.IIIIbhH --za 2016 —a-2017 60 Calendar 2018 40 1 20 I0 - )- = — - w Y t cc cc ac cc cc cc Ly K Q Z -_, 0 w w w w D D m m co m Z cf 5 a w F-" w w CO < I- U > u a 0 0 w LL wz n in Year Month Count 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 157 131 96 96 February 141 140 95 65 March 138 145 78 112 April 131 142 90 95 May 151 143 93 86 June 140 115 93 104 July 143 122 95 112 August 136 63 73 84 September 130 81 92 76 October 148 99 87 82 November 124 97 84 December 127 88 84 Grand Total 1666 1366 1060 9121 * IBR Offense:Aggravated Assault 13A&Simple Assault 138 Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 4256.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office ,�,CO-fir ..r} Regional Intelligence roup �� , �.. ,, ,,,,,,, Spokane Valley Districts .0 € IBR Classification: Theft it'IG 9 300 2501111116' \ 400-140, 4111111.11101111111 - 1011Figibil -4111111r ''‘‘10,,. ....Pe- 44,14, , zoa iso —i-201.5 —NI—2016 —I—2017 too Calendar 2018 50 i 0 I >- >- = J >- w >- I-- ce o-` d` K ce ce U K Q Z w vi w w w w Q Q c' d 22 m 0 D m m m m z ce 2 D w 1 w w a m < F- U > u w o 0 o w U- w Z 0 V) Year Month Count 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 233 240 205 238 February 240 208 199 166 March 258 215 214 208 April 239 232 203 203 May 226 193 235 230 June 239 263 251 225 July 259 242' 236 236 August 264 203 222 212 September 247 222 213 194 October 227 232 237 233 November 193 244 219 - December 278 225 198 Grand Total 2903 2719 2632 2145 * 188 Offense:Theft-All Other 23H,Theft-Pocket-Picking 23A,Theft- Purse-Snatching 23B,Theft-Shoplifting 23C,Theft From Building 23D, Theft From Coin-Operated Machine 23E, &Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 23G Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office cOUN-0. Regional Intelligence Group g Iti ` Spokane Valley Districts _Ail $ .",F: IBR Classification: Rape 1?iG 9 18 16 14 i 12 10 I i --2015 8 ,,,,,,,ist _._2015 I —Ai-2017 6 Calendar 2018 -...1 4 1 A 2 0 y y = _ } w F- oe ac cc cc a cc u Q Z --I VI w w w w CO m m m z ce 2 = w H w w Q as Q H U ? u w a d p w LL wZ o vi Year Month Count 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 7 7 8 17 February 10 7 2 3 March 6 9 3 8 April 10 8 7 5 May 9 12 9 9 June 5 9 1 8 July 5 4 6 5 August 13 2 5 4 September 3 4 2 3 October 14 5 6 2 November 9 6 December 8 4 3 Grand Total 99 77 52 64. *16R Offense: Rape-Forcible 11A Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriffs Office 'COUN`�';5t Regional Intelligence Group o Spokane Valley Districts i ` ': Nf IBR Classification: Counterfeiting Forgery i`rc 9 30 25 I i ill 20 ,� A\I -, 1 - 15 74i !J X2015 YY —II.—2016 1: 11 ' AP' !l) .4V �—2017 Calendar 2018 JOir 5 0 r r S Jr w r F cc ic cc a pc iic U _ q z _, vi w w w w a a oC D n m CO m cQ z cc 2 Dw F- w L6'4 m 4 F U 7 U -, w a © p w LL w Z O U1 Year Month Count 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 18 14 9 18 ,February 18 13 11 10 March 11 25 20 24 April 7 6 20 22 May 9 9 26 21 June 9 15, 15 15 July 12 11 21 14 August 12 7 14 17 September 8 11 20 14 October 12 7 18 11 November 6 15 9 December 19 12_ 9 Grand Total 141 145 192 166 *IBR Offense: Counterfeiting/Forgery 250 Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office ..:, •COUtvr1-r Regional Intelligence Group ofr l' Spokane Valley Districts 1,x<,F IBR Classification: Destruction Damage Vandalism r`'iG n 250 I 200 150 1400„! ior 4111\01.....,AlprAllakil" or . I Aro, Ilk,- ! iimullsofr__..„- 41 1 2015 r' — --2016 100 ,-" —i-2017 Calendar 2018 50 0 y } S J } W >- t– cc cc cc cc m K u 4 a zJ {n W w W W co m m CO D O Q Q 0 O 2 2 z 2 • w w w < CO Q F U U > U sal 0. 0 O w LL Luz p N Year Month Count 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 162 133 159 146 February 130 111 148 95 March 127 148 136 121 April 126 151 173 127 May 130 134 139 142 June 130 176 143 140 July 125 154 178 141 August 141 160 149 132 September 130 118 160 155 October 156 165 119 164 November 129 196 131 December 163 161 105 Grand Total 1649 1807 1740 1363 IBR Offense: Destruction/Damage/Vandalism 290 Produced: 11/14/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Customer Service Survey Quarterly Report Spokane .00 all y Third Quarter In an effort to better serve our citizens and customers, the City has instituted a customer service survey for City Hall. Surveys were made available to those who have visited City Hall as well as those who have applied for a permit in person or online. Methods utilized for sending out surveys: 1. Electronic surveys sent to email addresses collected from City Hall sign-in sheet and permit applications. 2. Paper surveys mailed to permit applicants. 3. Paper surveys handed out at City Hall front counter. Please note: 1. The number of permits issued does not directly relate to the number of surveys sent out. This is because a number of contractors and service companies pull multiple permits on a regular basis, and for those contractors it was determined to only send one survey per contractor or company. However, quarterly, the contractors will be sent a survey to continue to assess their experience over time. 2. Spokane Valley Fire Department issues the SVFD (sprinkler system) permits so the contractors pulling these permits were not sent surveys. In addition, ROW (right-of-way) permits were not included since they are primarily pulled by utility companies. 3. Mailed paper surveys were sent with a self-addressed, stamped envelope for return. Results Total Number of Surveys sent out and returned Paper Surveys Electronic Surveys Totals Number sent out 179 643 822 Number returned 18 63 81 Return percentage 10.06% 9.8% 9.85% Returned as undeliverable by the USPS 17 Survey Responses Reason for visit The number of survey responses does General Information 14 not correlate to the number of visit Meeting 4 reasons since some respondents choose Code Enforcement 4 multiple reasons for their visit. Commercial Permit 11 Residential Permit 27 Land Use/Planning 4 Development Engineering 1 Other 10 Page 1 of 6 Excellent Fair Poor The total number of survey Reception staff was friendly and courteous 67 2 0 responses received does not correspond with the numbers in Staff were available to assist me 67 2 0 this chart since respondents did Staff were helpful, knowledgeable, and professional 66 3 0 not always select only one Staff provided clear information 64 4 1 response choice or choose to Resources were available to address my needs 66 1 2 only answer a few questions. I am satisfied with the service provided 64 2 2 Customer Comments: What did you like about the service provided? 1. Anything? Everything. 2. I contacted City Hall for a building permit for a new roof. Staff was knowledgeable and friendly. I also had to check on a business license and they were helpful too. Thanks! 3. Quick and professional. 4. Quick. 5. Friendly and helpful and nice facility! 6. Very friendly. 7. Staff was friendly, professional and knowledgeable. 8. Helpful and fast, no waiting. 9. Extremely friendly and helpful staff. Permit specialist was fantastic! 10. I got what I came for. 11. Staff provided assistance in my application for roof replacement on rental house. Very helpful in informing me of procedure, what I needed to do. 12. I prefer to manage things online instead of by voicemail. 13. I was angry but staff was most helpful. 14. Courteous & understanding; willingness to resolve my issue. 15. Friendliness. 16. Quick & Easy. 17. Provided printed codes and info. 18. The service was professional and cheerful. 19. Gave me information I needed. 20. Very friendly and great customer service. 21. Everyone was so nice. 22. Very easy application and permit issuance online. Only a few minutes for me and I am slow. 23. They put me with the right people to help me. 24. Friendly staff made my visit very enjoyable and 'they got the ball rolling' and told me what I had to do next (Visit Fire Dept) which I have done. 25. Very responsive personnel. 26. Met my needs and were open to suggestions. Page 2 of 6 27. Quick & clear. 28. Friendly and helped make the process a lot easier! 29. Staff was courteous, helpful, and provided the information I needed to obtain the permit. 30. Everyone was very kind and professional and knowledgeable with the information that I needed. 31. Fast courteous professional. 32. They were available and knowledgeable. 33. Very friendly and helpful staff. 34. It was prompt and friendly. 35. Efficient and quick. Very little wait time. Always have been great to work with. 36. I didn't have to wait long. 37. The planner that helped me was extremely polite, friendly, professional and amazingly knowledgeable. 38. Nice people. 39. Your staff is professional and friendly. Sarah Farr assisted me with some outside agency funding request for my Veteran Care charity- www.heididuty.com. 40. The had all the information printed with copies. 41. Lady at the front desk very helpful and polite. 42. Friendly and knowledgeable staff. 43. Mr. Woodard and Mr. Calhoun took the time to speak with us and tell us all about city hall! We were so impressed with their knowledge and kindness. 44. Staff was courteous and willing to help. 45. Everybody was extremely friendly and helpful. 46. Nice staff. 47. Timely. 48. They were friendly, courteous and addressed my questions. 49. The lady whom I dealt with(Jenny Nickerson) was so friendly and helpful. 50. Very friendly and willing to help. 51. Lisa and Greg were very helpful and courteous. 52. It was quick and efficient. 53. Bob was awesome! Very helpful 54. Quick. 55. Very conscientious staff. 56. Experienced professionals (Ken Van Dyke). How can we improve our service? Customer Comments Staff Response 1 Cheaper fees (lol) 2 Cookies/coffee 3 Please correct our address. Address was pulled from permit application. 4 Give your staff a thank you for me! 5 Tough to do! Page 3 of 6 6 Use our current address when contacting! Address was pulled from permit application. 7 Email follow up with customer: We apologize for the inspection appointment which was missed during the week of 9/10-14/2018. We were happy to hear that our inspection staff was quick to respond to your inspection request made by phone. I will work with our data inspection system to insure this error does not occur in the future. It appears that one of two necessary date boxes were completed with the date for the appointment. We will work to eliminate this double entry for future One of my online inspection requests didn't get inspections. Thank You for notifying us of scheduled. Fortunately, the inspector was able to the missed inspection. We appreciate your schedule me that day anyway. business and satisfaction. 8 Email to customer: *Customer stated in other suggestions that staff was great. Thank You for your positive comments on the customer survey concerning your visit to the Spokane Valley Permit Center. We appreciate your cooperation and immediate action taken to trim your vegetation in the North-east corner of your property. I have included the website address to the sections of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code which applied to your case. These Sections are 22.70.020(j)and 22.70.030- https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Spok aneValley/. Please let me know if I can be of Never marginalize tax paying citizens. any assistance in the future. 9 N/A 10 Keep it up. 11 The person who I worked with was on her phone Email sent to customer: texting when I walked up to her desk. She did not Cell Phone Policy No. 300.310 from see me. I waited nearly a full minute until Personnel Policy will be discussed with somebody else walked by said hello to me I employees at the Permit Center All Staff responded back hello, and her head popped up. Meeting. Thank You for the response to the Then she told me how easy it was to pull a Customer Service Survey. We were sorry to hear of the incident but will work with staff permit. There are things I didn't understand and to prevent future events from occurring at she said well we think it's easy. Then after my the Permit Center Front Counter. attempting to take notes on what she was saying she remembered that there was a list on the back of the sheet she had given me but they Page 4 of 6 check off list of items to do for my permit. I did not like this experience. 12 N/A 13 The lobby could be slightly more furnished. A few additional places to sit would add warmth to the space. 14 Can't improve on perfection. 15 Nothing that I know of,you are doing Great! 16 N/A 17 Doing great. 18 Honestly can't think of anything. 19 I think you're doing just fine! 20 Just maintain the good service. 21 No suggestions. 22 Follow-up on earlier case concerning inspection staff returning messages. Project is nearing final, contact was requested to phone G. Baldwin for follow-up on earlier Inspectors could actually return my call, been issues with commercial inspection staff waiting 2 days and no returned call. returning phone calls. 23 Keep doing what you are doing! 24 I thought the whole process went well. Nothing about it needs improvement at this time. 25 Can't. 26 None that I can think of. 27 I think the service at City Hall is wonderful. 28 None at this time. 29 So far it was great. 30 Hire more people like Karen. 31 I see no room for improvement. 32 Unknown. 33 Service was acceptable as is. 34 Unsure. Ask more questions about why I am there so you can determine if it is something needed. Trying to talk to public works about storm water solutions and 35 advantages of using precast concrete. 36 No way, everyone was very helpful. 37 N/A Page 5 of 6 38 It was excellent. No additional suggestions. 39 Continue the current service level. 40 No suggestions at this time. 41 Can't think of anything. Any other suggestions? 1. Coffee and doughnuts while waiting (lol). 2. If what you are getting the permit, is a stick house or a manufacture home. 3. No. 4. Keep it up! 5. Staff was great. 6. Not at this time. 7. No. 8. No. 9. No. 10. You're doing fine. 11. No. 12. No. 13. No. 14. N/A. 15. No. 16. Nice website. 17. No thank you. 18. No. 19. Keep it up! 20. None. 21. No. 22. N/A 23. No. 24. No. Page 6 of 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 20, 2018 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately 30 minutes to discuss pending litigation and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell ATTACHMENTS: