The URL can be used to link to this page

2020, 01-21 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, January 21, 2020 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 PROCLAMATION: Community Risk Reduction Week ACTION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) — Adam Jackson - [public comment] 2. Proposed Resolution 20-002 Amending 2019 TIP — Adam Jackson [no public comment] 3. Motion Consideration: Memorandum of Understanding with Spokane County for Shared Grant Application to INFRA — Adam Jackson [public comment] 4. Motion Consideration: Valleyfest Contract — Cary Driskell [public comment] NON -ACTION ITEMS: DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL 5. Mike Basinger; and GSI Public Affairs Director Cara Coon 6. Dr. Patrick Jones, EWU 7. Lori Barlow 8. Mike Stone 9. Cary Driskell 10. Mayor Wick 11. Mayor Wick 12. Mark Calhoun ADJOURN Point 09% Campaign for Economic Development Funding Insights about the City of Spokane Valley from Spokane Trends Code Text Amendment 2019-0003 Signage Regulations CenterPlace Facility Rentals Enabling Ordinance Regarding Senate House Bill 1406, Sales & Use Tax Funds Advance Agenda Council Check in City Manager Comments Discussion/Information Discussion/Infoiivation Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Study Session Agenda January 21, 2020 Page 1 of 1 S�kiii Val ley WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, It rocCamation City of'pokaue Wa5kingtou Community )aebucttou Week Every 24 seconds a fire department in the United States responds to a fire somewhere in the nation; a fire occurs in a structure at the rate of one every 63 seconds; a home fire occurs every 88 seconds; and in 2017, 77% of all fire deaths occurred in the home; and The fire service strives to reduce the impact of anticipated man-made and natural disasters and hazardous events that have the potential to cause loss of life and damage to property, community infrastructure, and the environment; and Community Risk Reduction is a data -informed process to identify and prioritize local risks, followed by integrated and strategic investment of resources to reduce their occurrence and impact; and The value of community support from local, state, and national partners to address community risks is recognized to meet the demands on members of the fire service; and The goal of Community Risk Reduction is to reduce the occurrence and impact of emergency events for community members and emergency responders through deliberate action in the areas of the five E's of Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Emergency response, and Economic incentive; and Most fire -related and many medical calls for service are preventable, with the five E's performed as part of an integrated Community Risk Reduction program; and Monday, January 20, 2020, was Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and is nationally recognized as a National Day of Service and an opportunity for communities to reduce the risk in their community through a series of educational and other programs. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the week of January 20, 2020, be designated as Community Risk Reduction Week for the City of Spokane Valley, and I urge Spokane Valley citizens to learn about this grassroots initiative of fire service professionals across the nation to raise awareness of the importance of Community Risk Reduction in the fire service community, and an opportunity to make communities safer. Dated this 21st day of January, 2020. Ben Wick, Mayor CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 21, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Proposed 2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment #1 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: January 7, 2020, administrative report to Council discussing the proposed amendment. July 2, 2019, City Council authorized the City Manager to apply for Transportation Improvement Board program funds for the Argonne/Montgomery Intersection Improvement and Park Road sidewalk projects. June 4, 2019, City Council adopted 2020 TIP by Resolution 19-008. March 27, 2018, City Council authorized the City Manager to apply to Spokane Regional Transportation Council program funds for the Argonne Road Corridor Concrete Reconstruction Project between Montgomery Avenue and Indiana Avenue. BACKGROUND: The projects and costs listed in the adopted TIP are based upon available information at the time of adoption. This amendment includes updates for anticipated 2020 expenses for several previously adopted projects. In addition, the City received grant awards from TIB, necessitating the addition of new projects into the 2020 TIP. These new projects include: • Argonne/Montgomery Intersection Improvement Project; and, • Park Road Sidewalk Improvement Project. The TIP is required to be financially constrained. The TIP may exceed financial expectations, however, it does reflect the City's short-term transportation needs and provides a prioritized path forward. Since the City uses Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) monies as matching funds for state and federal grants, this amendment to the TIP is necessary to meet the state law that requires REET funds to only be used on projects that have been identified in an adopted plan. Based on this information, it is recommended that the 2020 TIP be amended to include these projects. OPTIONS: Conduct Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct Public Hearing BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are sufficient funds available to meet the local match requirements for these projects. Further, the City will not initiate a new project without the necessary secured City funds. STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, Planning & Grants Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 20-002 with accompanying 2020 TIP Amendment #1 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 20-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE 2020 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on June 5, 2019, the Spokane Valley City Council approved Resolution 19-008, which adopted the 2020-2025 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), with such program acting as a guide for the coordinated development of the City's transportation system; and WHEREAS, changes in certain funding sources and project schedules have occurred; and WHEREAS, the attached Amended 2020 TIP incorporates said changes for year 2020; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the 2020 TIP are consistent with Spokane Valley's adopted Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the attached Amended 2020 TIP for the City of Spokane Valley for the purpose of guiding the design, development and construction of local and regional transportation improvements for the year 2020. Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this 21st day of January, 2020. City of Spokane Valley Ben Wick, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 20-002 Amending 2020 TIP City of Spokane Valley Department of Community & Public Works Adopted 2020 Transportation Improvement Program (Adopted by Resolution 19-008 on 06-04-19) Proj.# Project Primary City Total 2020 From To Source Amount Project Costs 1/14/2020 1 0268 Appleway Trail Evergreen Sullivan CMAQ $ 6,000 $ 45,000 2 0276 Backer Rd Reconstruction Euclid Garland City $ 46,000 $ 46,000 3 0269 Evergreen Rd Resurfacing Mission Indiana STP(U) $ 2,000 $ 12,000 4 0295 Garland Ave Construction Flora Barker DEV $ 30,000 $ 60,000 5 0279 Knox Ave Sidewalk Hutchinson Sargent CDBG $ 1,000 $ 6,000 6 0273 Barker Rd Westbound Interchange (PE only) Boone 1-90 WSDOT $ - $ 18,000 7 0287 University Rd Preservation 16th Dishman Mica TIB $ 10,000 $ 50,000 8 0252 Argonne Rd Preservation Broadway Mission STP $ 5,000 $ 15,000 9 0284 Argonne Rd Preservation Valleyway Broadway City $ 6,000 $ 6,000 10 0267 Mission Ave Sidewalk and Street Preservation University Union TIB $ 8,000 $ 41,000 11 0265 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk McDonald Evergreen SRTS $ 1,000 $ 8,000 12 0278 Wilbur Rd Sidewalk Project Broadway Boone CDBG $ 1,000 $ 6,000 13 0290 2019 Local Access Streets (Mid ilome) 34th/Loretta/37th Bates/Fox City $ 31,000 $ 31,000 14 0297 Valleyway Ave Preservation Marguerite Mullen City $ 2,000 $ 2,000 14 0297 Farr Rd Preservation Appleway 8th City $ 2,000 $ 2,000 14 0297 Woodruff Rd 9th 10th City $ 2,000 $ 2,000 15 0259 North Sullivan ITS -2018 Carryover 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 96,000 $ 709,000 16 0143 Barker Rd / BNSF Grade Separation (PE/RW only) Barker © BNSF RR Fed/Other $ - $ 1,392,000 17 0223 Pines (SR27)BNSF Grade Separation Pines (SR27) Pines (SR27) BNSF RR $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 18 0249 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Project Sullivan © Wellesley CMAQ $ 76,000 $ 653,000 19 0291 Adams Rd Sidewalk 16th 22nd TIB $ 87,000 $ 436,000 20 0303 Conklin Road Sidewalk Appleway Trail Riceland Lane CDBG $ 8,000 $ 75,000 21 0302 Ella Road Sidewalk Broadway Alki CDBG $ 38,000 $ 347,000 22 0286 Broadway Rd Preservation Havana Faucher City $ 431,000 $ 2,156,000 23 0285 Indiana Ave Preservation Evergreen Sullivan City $ 382,000 $ 1,872,000 24 8th Ave Preservation (PE only) Sullivan Progress City $ 5,000 $ 642,000 25 Street Preservation Projects -Annual N/A N/A City $ - $ 26 Local Access Street Improvement Projects -Annual N/A N/A City $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 27 Citywide Safety Projects - Biennial N/A N/A HSIP $ - $ 28 0301 Park 8, Mission Intersection Improvement (PE Only) Mission Park City $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 29 Sullivan Road Bridge Deck Resurfacing Sullivan Rd © UPRR NB Other Fed $ 9,000 $ 68,000 30 Evergreen Road Preservation (PE Only) Sprague Mission City $ 14,000 $ 72,000 31 Appleway Blvd Stormwater Improvements University Farr Other State $ 36,000 $ 142,000 32 0300 Pines/Mission Intersection Improvement Pines (SR27) Mission CMAQ $ 11,000 $ 80,000 33 0294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels Citywide Citywide HSIP $ - $ 71,000 34 0293 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates Phase 3 Citywide Citywide HSIP $ - $ 163,000 35 0275 Barker Rd Reconstruction (PE only) Spokane River Euclid City $ 318,000 $ 318,000 36 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement (PE only) Sprague Sprague City $ 140,000 $ 191,000 37 Mission Ave. Preservation Mullen University City $ 35,000 $ 35,000 ADOPTED TOTAL $ 6,289,000 $ 14,222,000 City of Spokane Valley Department of Community & Public Works Amended 2020 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 20-002 (01-21-2020) Primary City Total 2020 Proj. # Unchanged Projects From To Source Amount Project Costs 3 0269 Evergreen Rd Resurfacing Mission Indiana STP(U) $ 2,000 $ 12,000 10 0267 Mission Ave Sidewalk and Street Preservation University Union TIB $ 8,000 $ 41,000 18 0249 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Project Sullivan © Wellesley CMAQ $ 76,000 $ 653,000 19 0291 Adams Rd Sidewalk 16th 22nd TIB $ 87,000 $ 436,000 25 Street Preservation Projects -Annual N/A N/A City $ - $ 26 Local Access Street Improvement Projects -Annual N/A N/A City $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 27 Citywide Safety Projects - Biennial N/A N/A HSIP $ - $ - 29 Sullivan Road Bridge Deck Resurfacing Sullivan Rd © UPRR NB Other Fed $ 9,000 $ 68,000 33 0294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels Citywide Citywide HSIP $ - $ 71,000 34 0293 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates Phase 3 Citywide Citywide HSIP $ - $ 163,000 37 Mission Ave. Preservation (PE Only) Mullah University City $ 35,000 $ 35,000 Subtotal $ 1,717,000 $ 2,979,000 Primary City Total 2020 Proj. # Updated Projects From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0268 Appleway Trail Evergreen Sullivan CMAQ $ 229,500 $ 1,700,000 2 0276 Barker Rd Reconstruction Euclid Garland City $ 350,000 $ 350,000 4 0295 Garland Ave Construction Flora Barker DEV $ 750,000 $ 1,500,000 6 0273 Barker Rd Westbound Interchange (PE only) Boone 1-90 WSDOT $ - $ 250,000 7 0287 University Rd Preservation 16th Dishman Mica TIB $ 8,000 $ 20,000 15 0259 North Sullivan ITS -2018 Carryover 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 182,000 $ 810,000 16 0143 Barker Rd / BNSF Grade Separation (PE/RW only) Barker © BNSF RR Fed/Other $ 230,000 $ 3,030,000 17 0223 Pines (SR27)BNSF Grade Separation Pines (SR27) Pines (SR27) CRISI/STP(U) $ 1,500,000 $ 4,000,000 20 0303 Conklin Road Sidewalk Appleway Trail Riceland Lane CDBG $ 61,000 $ 124,000 21 0302 Ella Road Sidewalk Broadway Alki CDBG $ 40,000 $ 372,000 22 0286 Broadway Rd Preservation (PE Only) Havana Faucher City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 23 0285 Indiana Ave Preservation Evergreen Sullivan City $ 1,872,000 $ 1,872,000 24 8th Ave Preservation (PE only) Sullivan Progress City $ 5,000 $ 15,000 28 0301 Park 8, Mission Intersection Improvement (PE Only) Park © Mission City $ 41,000 $ 41,000 30 Evergreen Road Preservation (PE Only) Sprague Mission City $ 20,000 $ 20,000 31 Appleway Blvd Stormwater Improvements (PE Only) University Farr Other State $ 35,000 $ 80,000 32 0300 Pines/Mission Intersection Improvement Pines (SR27) Mission CMAQ $ 70,000 $ 516,000 35 0275 Barker Rd Reconstruction Spokane River Euclid STBG/FMSIB $ 500,000 $ 4,000,000 36 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement (PE only) Sprague Sprague City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Subtotal $ 5,993,500 $ 18,800,000 Primary City Total 2020 Proj. # Removed Projects From To Source Amount Project Costs 5 0279 Knox Ave Sidewalk Hutchinson Sargent CDBG $ --000 $ 4430 8 0252 Argonne Rd Preservation Broadway Mission STP $ 3400 $ 13400 9 0284 Argonne Rd Preservation Valleyway Broadway City $ -0400 $ 4430 11 0265 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk McDonald Evergreen SRTS $ a400 $ 43430 12 0278 Wilbur Rd Sidewalk Project Broadway Boone CDBG $ -0400 $ 4430 13 0290 2019 Local Access Streets (Mid ilome) 34th/Loretta/37th Bates/Fox City $ -77500 $ 84400 14 0297 Valleyway Ave Preservation Marguerite Mullen City $ -2430 $ 2430 14 0297 Farr Rd Preservation Appleway 8th City $ 13400 $ 2430 14 0297 Woodruff Rd 9th 10th City $ -2400 $ 2430 Subtotal S - $ Primary City Total 2020 Proj. # Added Projects From To Source Amount Project Costs 38a South Sullivan Road Preservation Sprague 8th City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 38b South Sullivan Road Preservation 8th 16th City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 38c South Sullivan Road Preservation 16th 5. City Limit City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 42 0299 Argonne Road Concrete Pavement Reconstruction Indiana Montgomery City $ 400,000 $ 2,500,000 46 0292 Mullen Road Preservation Broadway Mission City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 49 Flora Road Reconstruction Euclid Garland City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 53a Park Road Sidewalk (sub -project of #53) Mission Sharp TIB $ 10,000 $ 50,000 26a Barker Road Homes (PE Only - 2020 Local Streets) E of Barker N of Sp. River City $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Subtotal $ 720,000 $ 2,860,000 AMENDED TOTAL $8,430,500 $24,639,000 Projects one emerrms identified in the rfP me to to considered estimates only the may change dnetoa January 2020 Amendment P \Public Works \ TIP \2020-2025 TIP\2. Amendments\ January Amendment\ January 2020 Amendment dreomstances. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 21, 2020 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 20-002 Amending 2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: January 21, 2020 Public Hearing on proposed amended 2020 TIP January 7, 2020, administrative report to Council discussing the proposed amendment. July 2, 2019, City Council authorized the City Manager to apply for Transportation Improvement Board program funds for the Argonne/Montgomery Intersection Improvement and Park Road sidewalk projects. June 4, 2019, City Council adopted 2020 TIP by Resolution 19-008. March 27, 2018, City Council authorized the City Manager to apply to Spokane Regional Transportation Council program funds for the Argonne Road Corridor Concrete Reconstruction Project between Montgomery Avenue and Indiana Avenue. BACKGROUND: The projects and costs listed in the adopted TIP are based upon available information at the time of adoption. This amendment includes updates for anticipated 2020 expenses for several previously adopted projects. In addition, the City received grant awards from TIB, necessitating the addition of new projects into the 2020 TIP. These new projects include: • Argonne/Montgomery Intersection Improvement Project; and, • Park Road Sidewalk Improvement Project. The TIP is required to be financially constrained. The TIP may exceed financial expectations, however, it does reflect the City's short-term transportation needs and provides a prioritized path forward. Since the City uses Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) monies as matching funds for state and federal grants, this amendment to the TIP is necessary to meet the state law that requires REET funds to only be used on projects that have been identified in an adopted plan. Based on this information, it is recommended that the 2020 TIP be amended to include these projects. Attached is a summary of the proposed changes and a draft resolution. OPTIONS: 1) Adopt the proposed Amended 2020 TIP with or without additional changes; or 2) take further action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 20-002, amending the 2020 TIP. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are sufficient funds available to meet the local match requirements for these projects. Further, the City will not initiate a new project without the necessary secured City funds. STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, Planning & Grants Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 20-002 with accompanying 2020 TIP Amendment #1 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 20-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE 2020 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on June 5, 2019, the Spokane Valley City Council approved Resolution 19-008, which adopted the 2020-2025 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), with such program acting as a guide for the coordinated development of the City's transportation system; and WHEREAS, changes in certain funding sources and project schedules have occurred; and WHEREAS, the attached Amended 2020 TIP incorporates said changes for year 2020; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the 2020 TIP are consistent with Spokane Valley's adopted Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the attached Amended 2020 TIP for the City of Spokane Valley for the purpose of guiding the design, development and construction of local and regional transportation improvements for the year 2020. Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this 21st day of January, 2020. City of Spokane Valley Ben Wick, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 20-002 Amending 2020 TIP City of Spokane Valley Department of Community & Public Works Adopted 2020 Transportation Improvement Program (Adopted by Resolution 19-008 on 06-04-19) Proj.# Project Primary City Total 2020 From To Source Amount Project Costs 1/14/2020 1 0268 Appleway Trail Evergreen Sullivan CMAQ $ 6,000 $ 45,000 2 0276 Backer Rd Reconstruction Euclid Garland City $ 46,000 $ 46,000 3 0269 Evergreen Rd Resurfacing Mission Indiana STP(U) $ 2,000 $ 12,000 4 0295 Garland Ave Construction Flora Barker DEV $ 30,000 $ 60,000 5 0279 Knox Ave Sidewalk Hutchinson Sargent CDBG $ 1,000 $ 6,000 6 0273 Barker Rd Westbound Interchange (PE only) Boone 1-90 WSDOT $ - $ 18,000 7 0287 University Rd Preservation 16th Dishman Mica TIB $ 10,000 $ 50,000 8 0252 Argonne Rd Preservation Broadway Mission STP $ 5,000 $ 15,000 9 0284 Argonne Rd Preservation Valleyway Broadway City $ 6,000 $ 6,000 10 0267 Mission Ave Sidewalk and Street Preservation University Union TIB $ 8,000 $ 41,000 11 0265 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk McDonald Evergreen SRTS $ 1,000 $ 8,000 12 0278 Wilbur Rd Sidewalk Project Broadway Boone CDBG $ 1,000 $ 6,000 13 0290 2019 Local Access Streets (Mid ilome) 34th/Loretta/37th Bates/Fox City $ 31,000 $ 31,000 14 0297 Valleyway Ave Preservation Marguerite Mullen City $ 2,000 $ 2,000 14 0297 Farr Rd Preservation Appleway 8th City $ 2,000 $ 2,000 14 0297 Woodruff Rd 9th 10th City $ 2,000 $ 2,000 15 0259 North Sullivan ITS -2018 Carryover 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 96,000 $ 709,000 16 0143 Barker Rd / BNSF Grade Separation (PE/RW only) Barker © BNSF RR Fed/Other $ - $ 1,392,000 17 0223 Pines (SR27)BNSF Grade Separation Pines (SR27) Pines (SR27) BNSF RR $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 18 0249 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Project Sullivan © Wellesley CMAQ $ 76,000 $ 653,000 19 0291 Adams Rd Sidewalk 16th 22nd TIB $ 87,000 $ 436,000 20 0303 Conklin Road Sidewalk Appleway Trail Riceland Lane CDBG $ 8,000 $ 75,000 21 0302 Ella Road Sidewalk Broadway Alki CDBG $ 38,000 $ 347,000 22 0286 Broadway Rd Preservation Havana Faucher City $ 431,000 $ 2,156,000 23 0285 Indiana Ave Preservation Evergreen Sullivan City $ 382,000 $ 1,872,000 24 8th Ave Preservation (PE only) Sullivan Progress City $ 5,000 $ 642,000 25 Street Preservation Projects -Annual N/A N/A City $ - $ 26 Local Access Street Improvement Projects -Annual N/A N/A City $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 27 Citywide Safety Projects - Biennial N/A N/A HSIP $ - $ 28 0301 Park 8, Mission Intersection Improvement (PE Only) Mission Park City $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 29 Sullivan Road Bridge Deck Resurfacing Sullivan Rd © UPRR NB Other Fed $ 9,000 $ 68,000 30 Evergreen Road Preservation (PE Only) Sprague Mission City $ 14,000 $ 72,000 31 Appleway Blvd Stormwater Improvements University Farr Other State $ 36,000 $ 142,000 32 0300 Pines/Mission Intersection Improvement Pines (SR27) Mission CMAQ $ 11,000 $ 80,000 33 0294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels Citywide Citywide HSIP $ - $ 71,000 34 0293 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates Phase 3 Citywide Citywide HSIP $ - $ 163,000 35 0275 Barker Rd Reconstruction (PE only) Spokane River Euclid City $ 318,000 $ 318,000 36 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement (PE only) Sprague Sprague City $ 140,000 $ 191,000 37 Mission Ave. Preservation Mullen University City $ 35,000 $ 35,000 ADOPTED TOTAL $ 6,289,000 $ 14,222,000 City of Spokane Valley Department of Community & Public Works Amended 2020 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 20-002 (01-21-2020) Primary City Total 2020 Proj. # Unchanged Projects From To Source Amount Project Costs 3 0269 Evergreen Rd Resurfacing Mission Indiana STP(U) $ 2,000 $ 12,000 10 0267 Mission Ave Sidewalk and Street Preservation University Union TIB $ 8,000 $ 41,000 18 0249 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Project Sullivan © Wellesley CMAQ $ 76,000 $ 653,000 19 0291 Adams Rd Sidewalk 16th 22nd TIB $ 87,000 $ 436,000 25 Street Preservation Projects -Annual N/A N/A City $ - $ 26 Local Access Street Improvement Projects -Annual N/A N/A City $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 27 Citywide Safety Projects - Biennial N/A N/A HSIP $ - $ - 29 Sullivan Road Bridge Deck Resurfacing Sullivan Rd © UPRR NB Other Fed $ 9,000 $ 68,000 33 0294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels Citywide Citywide HSIP $ - $ 71,000 34 0293 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates Phase 3 Citywide Citywide HSIP $ - $ 163,000 37 Mission Ave. Preservation (PE Only) Mullah University City $ 35,000 $ 35,000 Subtotal $ 1,717,000 $ 2,979,000 Primary City Total 2020 Proj. # Updated Projects From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0268 Appleway Trail Evergreen Sullivan CMAQ $ 229,500 $ 1,700,000 2 0276 Barker Rd Reconstruction Euclid Garland City $ 350,000 $ 350,000 4 0295 Garland Ave Construction Flora Barker DEV $ 750,000 $ 1,500,000 6 0273 Barker Rd Westbound Interchange (PE only) Boone 1-90 WSDOT $ - $ 250,000 7 0287 University Rd Preservation 16th Dishman Mica TIB $ 8,000 $ 20,000 15 0259 North Sullivan ITS -2018 Carryover 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 182,000 $ 810,000 16 0143 Barker Rd / BNSF Grade Separation (PE/RW only) Barker © BNSF RR Fed/Other $ 230,000 $ 3,030,000 17 0223 Pines (SR27)BNSF Grade Separation Pines (SR27) Pines (SR27) CRISI/STP(U) $ 1,500,000 $ 4,000,000 20 0303 Conklin Road Sidewalk Appleway Trail Riceland Lane CDBG $ 61,000 $ 124,000 21 0302 Ella Road Sidewalk Broadway Alki CDBG $ 40,000 $ 372,000 22 0286 Broadway Rd Preservation (PE Only) Havana Faucher City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 23 0285 Indiana Ave Preservation Evergreen Sullivan City $ 1,872,000 $ 1,872,000 24 8th Ave Preservation (PE only) Sullivan Progress City $ 5,000 $ 15,000 28 0301 Park 8, Mission Intersection Improvement (PE Only) Park © Mission City $ 41,000 $ 41,000 30 Evergreen Road Preservation (PE Only) Sprague Mission City $ 20,000 $ 20,000 31 Appleway Blvd Stormwater Improvements (PE Only) University Farr Other State $ 35,000 $ 80,000 32 0300 Pines/Mission Intersection Improvement Pines (SR27) Mission CMAQ $ 70,000 $ 516,000 35 0275 Barker Rd Reconstruction Spokane River Euclid STBG/FMSIB $ 500,000 $ 4,000,000 36 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement (PE only) Sprague Sprague City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Subtotal $ 5,993,500 $ 18,800,000 Primary City Total 2020 Proj. # Removed Projects From To Source Amount Project Costs 5 0279 Knox Ave Sidewalk Hutchinson Sargent CDBG $ --000 $ 4430 8 0252 Argonne Rd Preservation Broadway Mission STP $ 3400 $ 13400 9 0284 Argonne Rd Preservation Valleyway Broadway City $ -0400 $ 4430 11 0265 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk McDonald Evergreen SRTS $ a400 $ 43430 12 0278 Wilbur Rd Sidewalk Project Broadway Boone CDBG $ -0400 $ 4430 13 0290 2019 Local Access Streets (Mid ilome) 34th/Loretta/37th Bates/Fox City $ -77500 $ 84400 14 0297 Valleyway Ave Preservation Marguerite Mullen City $ -2430 $ 2430 14 0297 Farr Rd Preservation Appleway 8th City $ 13400 $ 2430 14 0297 Woodruff Rd 9th 10th City $ -2400 $ 2430 Subtotal S - $ Primary City Total 2020 Proj. # Added Projects From To Source Amount Project Costs 38a South Sullivan Road Preservation Sprague 8th City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 38b South Sullivan Road Preservation 8th 16th City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 38c South Sullivan Road Preservation 16th 5. City Limit City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 42 0299 Argonne Road Concrete Pavement Reconstruction Indiana Montgomery City $ 400,000 $ 2,500,000 46 0292 Mullen Road Preservation Broadway Mission City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 49 Flora Road Reconstruction Euclid Garland City $ 50,000 $ 50,000 53a Park Road Sidewalk (sub -project of #53) Mission Sharp TIB $ 10,000 $ 50,000 26a Barker Road Homes (PE Only - 2020 Local Streets) E of Barker N of Sp. River City $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Subtotal $ 720,000 $ 2,860,000 AMENDED TOTAL $8,430,500 $24,639,000 Projects one emerrms identified in the rfP me to to considered estimates only the may change dnetoa January 2020 Amendment P \Public Works \ TIP \2020-2025 TIP\2. Amendments\ January Amendment\ January 2020 Amendment dreomstances. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 21, 2020 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 — Memorandum of Understanding with Spokane County for a shared grant application to INFRA FY 20 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010: Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • January 29, 2019: Staff discussed with City Council potential project applications for INFRA FY 19, including the Pines Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project and a joint application with Spokane County for Sullivan Road and Bigelow Gulch/Forker Road Corridor of Projects. Based on staff's recommendation, there was Council consensus to not apply to the current INFRA call for projects, but to continue developing the Pines Road/BNSF GSP's preliminary engineering and right-of-way phases in 2019, and for staff to continue to work to develop a partnership with Spokane County for a future application for the Bigelow Gulch and North Sullivan Corridor Project. BACKGROUND: On January 13, 2020, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued a call for projects for the INFRA FY 20 discretionary grant program. INFRA FY 20 makes available approximately $900 million for a variety of transportation related projects. At least 25% of funds will go towards projects in rural areas, as designated by the US Census Bureau. Projects are to be classified as "Large" or "Small" projects, with minimum awards in the amount of $25 million and $5 million, respectively. Ten percent of INFRA funds were reserved for "Small" projects. Based on the anticipated joint -application project costs, it is expected that the joint City/County application would qualify as a "small" project. INFRA funds are limited to 60% of a project's total cost, and the total federal funding percentage for a project cannot exceed 80%. Priority is given to projects that minimize the need for federal funding. Staff recommends submitting a shared INFRA application for the Sullivan Road and Bigelow Gulch/Forker Road Improvement Projects. The joint application would capture the remaining costs of the County's Bigelow-Gulch/Forker Road project and the City's North Sullivan corridor improvements. North Sullivan corridor improvements include the reconstruction of the Sullivan Road/SR 290 interchange, including the Sullivan Road bridge over SR 290, the widening of Sullivan between Wellesley and SR 290, various intersection improvements including left turn lanes, addition of non -motorized pathways for pedestrians and bicyclists, and continuous lighting improvements along the corridor. The County's portion of the project is estimated to cost $15-20 million and the City's portion is estimated to cost $35 million, totaling $50-$55 million. Estimates are high-level and will require a detailed review prior to submitting any formal funding requests to the INFRA program. To identify the City's match for this funding request, there are a few assumptions to be made: • Assume a $35 million City -share of the total funding request, a 60% INFRA award provides $21 million • Assume the maximum 20% of other federal funds are awarded, equal to $7 million • The City would be required to obtain another 20% of non-federal funds for its share of the project, this could include state and local funds in the amount of $7 million. o Potential non-federal funds could include Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB), Legislative Direct Appropriation (LDA), private contributions, or city funds. In order to apply, the City will enter into an agreement with a consultant for the preparation of the INFRA application. The City would then be reimbursed by Spokane County for its proportionate share of the consultant contract cost. The proportionate share will be based on the total INFRA funding request amount and how much of that total request belongs to the County's projects. The City would manage the consultant contract and be the lead applicant for the INFRA application. OPTIONS: 1) Proceed with the motion as recommended by staff, or 2) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County for the Preparation and Submittal of a Joint Application to the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant program for the Sullivan Road and Bigelow Gulch/Forker Road Improvement Projects. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The Consultant contract for INFRA application preparation is approximately $80,000. It is estimated the Spokane County would be responsible for approximately 30% of this cost, or $24,000. The City would be responsible for approximately 70% of this cost, or $56,000, which will be accommodated in the existing 2020 budget. The actual cost share between the City and County will be based on the proportionate share of the overall request provided in the INFRA application. STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, PE — Planning & Grants Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY FOR THE PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL OF A JOINT APPLICATION TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR REBUILDING AMERICA (INFRA) GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (the City) intends to prepare and submit a joint application (the Project) with Spokane County for federal funds to the United States Department of Transportation's INFRA program for funding related to Spokane County's Bigelow Gulch/Forker Road Corridor project and the City's Sullivan Road Corridor project; and WHEREAS, the Project will require the City and Spokane County to provide supporting documentation related to the Project necessary for a hired, third -party consultant to prepare and submit a final application document to the INFRA program; and WHEREAS, the City and Spokane County agree that a joint application will elevate the Project's competitiveness in the INFRA program and will benefit the ratepayers, taxpayers, and the travelling public; and WHEREAS, the City and Spokane County desire to enter into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish the mutually agreed terms to accomplish the tasks set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Spokane County do hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1— RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY 1.1 The City will coordinate with Spokane County regarding the selection of a mutually acceptable consultant from the City's consultant roster. Consultant will be contracted to complete the tasks necessary for a complete INFRA application submittal and the total scope and total fee of said contract will be mutually agreed upon by both the City and Spokane County. 1.2 The City will manage the consultant contract required for the completed INFRA application. 1.3 The City, upon awarding a contract for the Project, shall have full control over the resultant contract and shall be the administrator for the Project. The City shall assign a Project Engineer to be the "responsible person" who shall represent the City's interest during construction of the Proj ect. 1.4 The City shall be responsible only for those elements specific to the City's proportional share of the Project, unless specifically agreed upon by both parties. 1.5 The City shall coordinate any modifications or changes to the Spokane County work with Spokane County prior to implementation. Page 1 of 3 DRAFT 1.6 The City shall make payments to the consultant in accordance with the consultant's contract terms, so that work may proceed according to schedule. ARTICLE 2 — RESPONSIBILITIES OF SPOKANE COUNTY 2.1 Spokane County will coordinate with the City to select a mutually acceptable third -party consultant for the completion of the INFRA application submittal including, but not limited to, the consultant contract scope and fee. 2.2 Spokane County shall provide any and all necessary information requested by the City or its contracted consultant that is required for a complete and accurate INFRA application submittal. 2.3 Spokane County shall support, review, request changes when necessary, and approve the Project documents associated with Spokane County's proportional share of the Project as prepared by the City or its contracted consultant. 2.4 Spokane County shall be responsible only for those elements specific to the County's proportional share of the Project, unless specifically agreed upon by both parties. 2.5 Spokane County shall designate a responsible person who shall represent Spokane County's interest during the Project, and shall coordinate with the Project Engineer regarding any modifications or changes needed by Spokane County as required for Spokane County's proportional share of the work. 2.6 Spokane County shall notify the Project Engineer of any work that will exceed the Spokane County's proportional share of the total contract scope and fee, prior to performing the work that would incur the excess cost. ARTICLE 3 — ALLOCATION OF COSTS 3.1 This MOU, once fully executed, shall establish a commitment by Spokane County to reimburse the City for the following costs: a. Spokane County's proportional share of the consultant contract's total fee, which is a final amount to be determined upon completion of the INFRA federal funding request amount. Payment will be calculated based on the County's share of the total INFRA funding request. Example: If the total funding request to INFRA is $100 and the City's portion of the funding request is $40 dollars and the County's portion is $60, then the City will pay 40% of the consultant contract fee and the County will pay 60% of the consultant contract fee. b. (other applicable items). 3.2. The City shall prepare monthly invoices for the Project, including each monthly invoice issued by the consultant to the City showing total Project costs, and Spokane County shall pay the City for their proportional share identified on the City invoice within 40 days of receipt of such invoice. Page 2 of 3 DRAFT ARTICLE 4 — DURATION OF AGREEMENT 4.1 This MOU shall be in full force and effect upon execution and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2021. Either Party may terminate this MOU for material breach after providing the other Party with at least 10 days' prior notice and an opportunity to cure the breach. In the event of termination, both Parties shall be responsible to pay the Consultant for all work previously authorized and satisfactorily performed prior to the termination date at the agreed upon proportional share of the total contract amount between the City and the Consultant. The Parties have executed this Agreement this day of , 2020. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY: Mark Calhoun, City Manager By: Its: Authorized Representative ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 21, 2020 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: Valleyfest Agreement. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Prior Council actions include financial contributions toward the operation of Valleyfest each year since the City first incorporated in 2003; Administrative report January 14, 2020. BACKGROUND: As the Council knows, the Valleyfest celebration has been an important part of the cultural history of the City since before incorporation. Each year since incorporation in 2003, the City has supported Valleyfest in various ways, including providing financial contributions through lodging tax funds and through outside agency funding, significant staff support, use of City facilities beyond what is paid for through the special event permit, and by providing traffic control and extra policing for the event. Valleyfest is comprised of the main event at Mirabeau Meadows/CenterPlace, the Hearts of Gold Parade on Sprague Avenue the Friday of Valleyfest, and Cycle Celebration the last Sunday in July. The City has several other long-term relationships with other groups for use of City facilities, and has over the past several years made an effort to negotiate contracts with all such groups with the goal of clearly identifying the full scope and nature of the relationship, including the various aspects of what each party will provide under the respective agreements. Examples of other entities with which the City has negotiated such agreements include the Senior Association (CenterPlace), the Radio Controlled Car Club of Spokane (Sullivan Park), the Western Dance Association (Sullivan Park), Splashdown (Valley Mission), and the Arts Council. Valleyfest represents the last of these agreements. The City's goal in starting the negotiations was to achieve a status quo agreement that simply recognized the existing relationship without attempting to change what occurs. The negotiations have been courteous, and staff believes the language you have before you accurately reflects how things have operated for a number of years. The highlights of what each party brings to the arrangement are contained in sections 3 and 4. Staff will be happy to answer any questions Council has regarding the draft Agreement. OPTIONS: (1) Approve the proposed Valleyfest Agreement; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Valleyfest Agreement. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This agreement is not expected to have any financial impact. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director; Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Draft Valleyfest Agreement. DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND VALLEYFEST This Agreement (Agreement) is made and entered into by and between the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, as "City" acting through the City Manager, and Valleyfest, whose address is P.O. Box 368, Spokane Valley, WA 99037. WHEREAS, Valleyfest is a not -for -profit 501(c)(3) organization formed in 1990 for the stated mission of producing "community driven, safe, family oriented, visually dramatic festivals. Valleyfest exposes the talent that enrich the Spokane Valley region and celebrates the visual and performing arts, education, science, and recreation so the entire community can experience them." and WHEREAS, the City has provided funds and in -kind services to Valleyfest since the City's incorporation in 2003 in the interest of helping Valleyfest become and stay successful in providing the annual events. These funds have included revenues from the general fund and from the lodging tax fund; and WHEREAS, the City has traditionally allowed Valleyfest use of CenterPlace Regional Events Center (CenterPlace) for the purpose of conducting various aspects of the annual Valleyfest event, a practice the parties would like to continue into the future. For purposes of this Agreement Valleyfest week shall mean the Wednesday immediately prior to events, and run through the following Monday (six days); and WHEREAS, Valleyfest added an additional event in 2013 to its annual lineup, Cycle Celebration, which occurs the last Sunday of July each year, which begins and ends at CenterPlace/Mirabeau Meadows. Cycle Celebration includes optional bicycle ride lengths of 10, 25, or 50 miles; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to have a common understanding of the mutual benefits and expectations that have traditionally occurred in their long-term relationship, which is anticipated to form the framework moving into the future. In consideration of the following terms, conditions and covenants, the parties agree: 1. Purpose. This Agreement is intended to establish the terms under which the City and Valleyfest will work together for the purpose of providing certain City resources for Valleyfest so that Valleyfest may continue to accomplish its mission and purpose for the enjoyment and benefit of the general public. 2. Effective Date and Duration. This Agreement shall be in effect from the date of execution through December 31, 2023. The parties may mutually agree in writing to execute one extension of four years, which would expire December 31, 2027. 3. Obligations of the City. The City shall have the following obligations with regard to this Agreement: a. make all of CenterPlace available for use to set up for events beginning 8:00 a.m. on Friday of Valleyfest week, and all use of CenterPlace shall be concluded by 6:00 p.m. on Sunday of Valleyfest week. This includes the areas commonly referred to as the West Lawn, the North Meadow, and Mirabeau Springs; b. make portions of Mirabeau Meadows and Myrna Park available for the Spokane Valley Cycle Celebration; and make one room available at CenterPlace for participant packet pick-up the day 2020 Agreement — Valleyfest Page 1 of 5 DRAFT before each annual Cycle Celebration event; c. work in conjunction with the City's Police Depaitnient to provide security and traffic control (including costs) for the Valleyfest Parade on Friday night of Valleyfest week, which historically has included use of SCOPE; d. provide for extra garbage removal at the City's cost from CenterPlace, Mirabeau Meadows, the West Lawn, the North Meadow, and Mirabeau Springs of Valleyfest week; e. access and use of, pursuant to a special event permit, of Mirabeau Meadows beginning at 7:00 am on Wednesday of Valleyfest week for purposes of setting up, with all teardown and clean up completed and Mirabeau Meadows fully vacated by 10:00 pm on Monday of Valleyfest week; f. provide for extra servicing of the restrooms at Mirabeau Meadows on Saturday and Sunday of Valleyfest week; g. provide security and traffic control through the City's Police Department for the vicinity around Mirabeau Meadows for the main Valleyfest event and Cycle Celebration; h. use of electrical outlets at Mirabeau Meadows, the West Lawn, and the North Meadow; i. use of Parks and Recreation staff for minor incidental tasks, subject to the sole discretion and control of the Parks and Recreation Director; j. provide a meeting room at no cost on an as -needed and space available basis for the purpose of planning for Valleyfest and Cycle Celebration; k. provide a meeting room at no cost on a space -available basis for the purpose of conducting a fundraising event for Valleyfest and Cycle Celebration. Any food and drink cost would be borne by Valleyfest; and 1. allow Valleyfest to use the official City logo in promotional materials. 4. Obligations of Valleyfest. Valleyfest shall have the following obligations with regard to this Agreement: a. work with City staff to plan events as they relate to use of City facilities on an as -needed basis; b. recognize where appropriate that the City is a primary sponsor of Valleyfest; c. limit the number of car show vehicles to be displayed on the West Lawn or North Meadow to a maximum of 200; and d. provide an annual event that creates community identity for people of all ages. 5. Indemnification/Hold Harmless. a. Valleyfest Indemnification/Hold Harmless. Valleyfest shall, at its sole expense, defend, indemnify and hold harmless, City and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, attorney's fees and costs of litigation, expenses, injuries, and damages of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of the wrongful or negligent acts, errors 2020 Agreement — Valleyfest Page 2 of 5 DRAFT or omissions in the services provided by Valleyfest and Valleyfest's agents, to the fullest extent permitted by law, subject only to the limitations provided below. Valleyfest's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City shall not apply to liability for damages arising out of such services caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of City or City's agents or employees. Valleyfest's duty to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless against liability for damages arising out of such services caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents or employees, and (b) Valleyfest or Valleyfest's agents shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Valleyfest or Valleyfest's agents. Valleyfest's duty to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless shall include, as to all claims, demands, losses and liability to which it applies, City's personnel -related costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and the reasonable value of any services rendered by the office of the City Attorney, outside consultant costs, court costs, fees for collection, and all other claim -related expenses. Valleyfest specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be granted it under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW. These indemnification obligations 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 benefit acts, or other employee benefits acts. Provided, that Valleyfest's waiver of immunity under this provision extends only to claims against Valleyfest by City, and does not include, or extend to, any claims by Valleyfest's employees directly against Valleyfest. Valleyfest hereby certifies that this indemnification provision was mutually negotiated. b. City Indemnification/Hold Harmless. The City shall, at its sole expense, defend, indemnify and hold harmless, Valleyfest and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, attorney's fees and costs of litigation, expenses, injuries, and damages of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of the wrongful or negligent acts, errors or omissions in the services provided by City and City' agents, to the fullest extent permitted by law, subject only to the limitations provided below. The City's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Valleyfest shall not apply to liability for damages arising out of such services caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of Valleyfest or Valleyfest 's agents or employees. The City's duty to defend, indemnify and hold Valleyfest harmless against liability for damages arising out of such services caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) Valleyfest or Valleyfest's agents or employees, and (b) City or City's agents shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of City or City's agents. The City's duty to defend, indemnify and hold Valleyfest harmless shall include, as to all claims, demands, losses and liability to which it applies, Valleyfest's personnel -related costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and the reasonable value of any services rendered by the office of the Valleyfest Attorney, outside consultant costs, court costs, fees for collection, and all other claim -related expenses. The City specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be granted it under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW. These indemnification obligations shall 2020 Agreement — Valleyfest Page 3 of 5 DRAFT 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 benefit acts, or other employee benefits acts. Provided, that the City's waiver of immunity under this provision extends only to claims against the City by Valleyfest, and does not include, or extend to, any claims by the City's employees directly against City. The City hereby certifies that this indemnification provision was mutually negotiated. 6. Insurance. Unless waived by the City in writing, Valleyfest shall provide a Certificate of Insurance to the City with the following minimum coverages/limits: a. Employer's Liability or Washington Employer's Stop Gap liability with a limit of no less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence (including disease). b. Commercial or Comprehensive General Liability with a limit of no less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 in the annual aggregate for bodily injury, property damage and personal injury including premises and operations, products and completed operations and contractual liability. The City of Spokane Valley shall be named as an additional insured. c. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for automobile liability, professional liability and commercial general liability insurance: 1. Valleyfest's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by City shall be in excess of Valleyfest's insurance and shall not contribute to it. 2. Valleyfest shall fax or send electronically in .pdf format a copy of insurer's cancellation notice within two business days of receipt by Valleyfest. d. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. e. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Agreement, Valleyfest shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates to the City Clerk at the time Valleyfest returns the signed Agreement. The certificate shall specify all of the parties who are additional insureds, and will include applicable policy endorsements, and the deduction or retention level. Insuring companies or entities are subject to City acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies shall be provided to City. Valleyfest shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self - insured retentions, and/or self-insurance. 7. Damage. Valleyfest shall reimburse the City for all damages to City property and improvements as a result of the acts, errors or omissions of Valleyfest, its agents or event patrons. Valleyfest shall leave the premises in substantially at least as good a condition as when Valleyfest was first given permission to use the premises. Valleyfest shall have the right, upon termination of this Agreement, to remove all of its materials and equipment. 8. Posting of Signs. Valleyfest shall not post, exhibit, or allow to be posted or exhibited any signs, advertisements, show bills, or other items of any description, including any existing signs, on the Premises or any other property owned by the City except upon the written approval of the City Manager or Parks and Recreation Director. 2020 Agreement — Valleyfest Page 4 of 5 DRAFT 9. Minimum Support Personnel. Valleyfest agrees to employ at its sole cost, expense and liability, such minimum security, admission, and support personnel as deemed necessary by the City Manager or Parks and Recreation Director to ensure the safety of the event patrons and the Premises. 10. Copyright/Trademark. Valleyfest warrants, on its own behalf and on the behalf of any performer or any other person permitted by Valleyfest upon the Premises, that all material presented, heard or shown has been duly licensed or authorized by the owners of any copyright or trademark. Valleyfest acknowledges sole responsibility for payment of any royalty fees and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, their agents and employees for all claims and attorney fees that arise through a trademark or copyright dispute. 11. Concessions. Any requirements relating to concessions shall be addressed in a special events permit issued by the City. This Agreement is made this day of , 2020. Mark Calhoun, City Manager Attest: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Valleyfest By: Its: 2020 Agreement — Valleyfest Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: Janaury 21, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Greater Spokane Incorporated (GSI) Point 09 campaign GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Not applicable PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: GSI, the regional economic development agency, is engaging in an effort to increase economic development funds available to Spokane County by reintroducing Senate Bill 5899 in the upcoming session of the Washington state Legislature. New for the 2020 session is the companion House Bill 3455. GSI's Point 09 campaign, refers to the maximum 0.09% sales -and -use tax that would be rebated back to Spokane County. House Bill 3455 proposes to expand the current state law to rebate a portion of sales -and -use tax back to the originating border county for economic development purposes. The current law only allows for rural counties to receive the rebate. This results in 32 of Washington's 39 counties being eligible for the program. If the proposed bill is approved, Spokane County and Clark County would also be eligible for the program. Under the proposed statute, Spokane County could receive up to $11 million annually for regional economic development initiatives. If the effort is successful, a governing body would be created to allocate the funds. Counties currently receiving funding from the program typically spend two-thirds of the funds on economic development -related infrastructure and one-third on marketing. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: Point 09 campaign presentation Point09 Mobilization & Activation Cara Coon VP Communications & Public Affairs It is time to mobilize and activate! GRE►TER SPOK►NE Campaign i • Point 09 is a campaign to expand and secure economic development funding for rural and border counties in Washington state with SB 5899 • Supporting SB 5899 is an investment in healthy local economies across the state for a stronger future for Washington Statute • RCW 82.14.370: Sales and use tax for public facilities in rural counties • Funding mechanism for rural counties since 1997 • Rural counties are eligible to retain a percentage of their locally collected sales and use tax for economic development • Current rate is .09% • 32 of 39 counties are currently designated "rural" 2 Impact across the state 3 WASHINGTON COUNTIES THAT BENEFIT • 39 total counties in Washington • 34 counties will benefit from this funding • 32 counties currently designated as "rural" • 15 border counties, 13 of which are designated "rural" • 2 counties currently designated "rural" will no longer meet those standards, but will retain benefit as border counties Current beneficiary as "rural" county Border counties not also designated as "rural" L -'' i P,...."I, ,OE y I 1" 1 f 1 • , 1 J 1 11 .+ 1 -�' 1, 1;: Current beneficiary as "rural, county, but will no longer be "rural" at expiration Will qualify for benefit AMENDS THE EXISTING STATUTE BY: 1. Adding "border counties" Aligning the rate to .09% for all eligible counties 3 Aligning the expiration date for all eligible counties 1 s 4 Where does the money go? This is a regional benefit: • Once successful, money flows to County. • County and stakeholders to create governance and operational model for Spokane based on best -practices. • This program is more than 20 years old • We are gleaning input from the experts. • Don't have to recreate the wheel. • All entities involved in economic development/job creation can be benefactors. GREM'Erc � SPOK*NE 5 ACTIVATE THE LEGISLATURE TO VOTE YES ON SSB 5899 and HB 3455! • Engage on social media — Download the toolkit at point09.com. (Password: invest) • Talk about it with our legislators • Look for communication throughout session as we reach legislative milestones • Engage via Point09 mobilization tool at point09.com • Be an endorser — send your logo to tparchem@greaterspokane.org 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 21, 2020 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Insights about the City of Spokane Valley from Spokane Trends GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Dr. Patrick Jones will discuss some insights about the City of Spokane Valley. Dr. Jones has been EWU's Executive Director for Public Policy & Economic Analysis since its inception. Dr. Jones has a Ph.D. in applied and agricultural economics from the University of Wisconsin -Madison. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 21, 2020 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® Admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Aesthetic Corridors Sign Code Text Amendment — CTA-2019-0003 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150; SVMC 19.30.040; and SVMC 22.110.080; RCW 36.70A.106; PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment is a city -initiated code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.110.080 to allow wall signs on properties in the aesthetic corridor. Since incorporation the City has regulated signage along designated aesthetic corridors. In 2003, the City adopted Spokane County's regulations as the City's interim regulations by Ordinance No. 53. The interim code allowed wall signs and freestanding signs up to a height of 8 feet, with an area ranging from 32 - 90 square feet within the office and commercial zones along the designated aesthetic corridor. In 2007 the City adopted the Uniform Development Code by Ordinance 07- 015 which generally replicated the signage requirements along the aesthetic corridor, but modified the areas categorized as an aesthetic corridor, and added a specific reference in the code that only monument signs shall be allowed along the corridor in an effort to distinguish between freestanding or pole signs, and monument signs. Although signage regulations have been modified since that time, the regulations affecting the aesthetic corridors and the area designated as the aesthetic corridor, have remained generally the same. At this time, only monument signs are allowed on properties in the aesthetic corridor, and thus, even wall signs are prohibited. Staff believes that a change may be appropriate to allow wall signs within the aesthetic corridors. The issues that gave rise to the limitations have largely been addressed and staff believes the modification in 2007 is overbroad at this time. Staff will discuss the regulations as they exist and present the draft code text amendment. The Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a study session on the proposed CTA at the October 10, 2019 meeting. On October 24, 2019, the Commission conducted a public hearing and deliberations. At that meeting, the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend to the City Council that CTA-2019-0003 be approved. Although, the Commission did review the designated Aesthetic Corridor area, no changes were proposed to the area. On December 12, 2019 the Planning Commission adopted Findings and Recommendation. OPTIONS: Consensus to either (a) deny, (b) approve, or (c) modify the request and move such decision to first ordinance reading, or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to place an ordinance on a future agenda for first reading to consider approval of CTA-2019-0003. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, Community and Public Works Dept. ATTACHMENTS: A. PowerPoint Presentation B. Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendation C. PC Meeting Minutes: 9/26/2019, 10/10/2019, 10/24/2019, and 12/12/2019 D. Staff Report CTA-2019-0003 with attachments Spokane Valley AESTHETIC CORRIDOR SIGN REGULATIONS CTA-201 9-0003 City Council Administrative Report January 21, 2020 Environmental Review October 4, 2019 WO .- C : v N . - , = at OM 0 0 W O .- 0 4 Adoption Process 0 .- 1 5 © : Findings of Fact Zi December 12, 2019 40 Ir Ir A A A 2 Study Session October 12, 2019 Public Hearing October 24, 2019 Administrative Repor January 21, 2020 Ordinance 1st Reading February 4, 2020 Ordinance 2nd Reading February 18, 2020 Aesthetic Corridor Standards SVMC 22.1 10.080 (Current Standards) Issue: No other sign types allowed. A. The standards applicable to monument signs shown on Table 22.110-1 shall apply to parcels adjacent to aesthetic corridors designated in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. 1. State Route 27 (16th Avenue south to City limits); 2. State Route 27 (Mansfield Avenue to Trent Avenue); 3. Appleway Boulevard (south side only from Park Road to Dishman Mica Road); 4. Appleway Avenue (Barker Road to Hodges Road); 5. Dishman Mica Road (8th Avenue south to City limits); 6. 32nd Avenue within the City limits; 7. Mirab- - Pui kway (Pines Road to Indiana Avenue). my monument signs as shown on Table 22.110-1 shall be allowed with designated sthetic corridors. 4 Aesthetic Corridor Standards SVMC 22.1 10.080 (Current Standards) ■ A. The standards applicable to monument signs shown on Table 22.110-1 shall apply to parcels adjacent to aesthetic corridors designated in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan: B. Only monument signs as shown on Table 22.110-1 shall be allowed with designated aesthetic corridors. Monument Sign Standards Only signage currently allowed in Aesthetic Corridors Maximum Additional Provisions Land Use Zoning District Number per Parcel Height (ft.) Copy Area (ft2) Copy Area (ca plot Frontage <100ft. Copy Area (ft) not Frontage >1COft, Side Yard Setback (ft) Permit Required Monument Signs Subdivision/Area Name/Multifamily Com plexllnstitutiana I r All Zones 1 10 32 nfa nfa nfa Y *Per street Single Business Neighborhood 1* 7 75 nfa nfa 5 Y frontage Multi -Business Complex Business (NC) Zones - 7 90 nfa nfa 5 Y Single Business All Mixed Use 2* 7 90 nfa nfa 5 Y Multi -Business Complex and Nonresidential Zones 2*7 150 nfa at 5 Y *Per street frontage 5 Monument Sign Definition and Examples Definition: A sign and supporting structure constructed as a solid structure or one that gives the appearance of a continuous, nonhollow, unbroken mass. Irk and Mod % View r 110'. 0" Joseph Konrad Bobby Dodd Antiques INIILtAMSAntiques, INC Designer Rugs LTD Aesthetic Corridor Standards SVMC 22.1 10.080 (Proposed Standards) The standards applicable to wall mounted and monument signs shown ein Table 22.110-1 shall apply to parcels adjacent to the aesthetic corridors identified below. dcsignatcd in the Plan. Other signage types are not allowed. Areas within the aesthetic corridor include: 1. State Route 27 (16th Avenue south to City limits); 2. State Route 27 (Mansfield Avenue to Trent Avenue); 3. Appleway Boulevard (south side only from Park Road to Dishman Mica Road); 4. Appleway Avenue (Barker Road to Hodges Road); 5. Dishman Mica Road (8th Avenue south to City limits); 6. 32nd Avenue within the City limits; 7. Mirabeau Parkway (Pines Road to Indiana Avenue). B. Only monumcnt signs as shown on Tablc 22.110-1 shall be allowcd with dcsignatcd acsthctic corridors. 7 Aesthetic Corridor Standards SVMC 22.1 10.080 (Proposed) Wall Sign Standards Additional signage proposed in the Aesthetic Corridors ■ In addition to Monument Signs, Wall signs would be allowed indicated by the zoning district. Land Use Maximurn Permit Required Additional Provisions Zoning District umber r arcel Height at) Copy Area (ft2) Copy Area (){Lot Frontage <100ft. Copy Area z (ft )1Lot Frontage >100ft, i Side Yard Setback (ft.j Attached Wall Signs Multifamily Complex All Zones * * * * * * Y One sign up to 20 sq. ft. Institutional1 Residerr ial Zones * * * ria nia nla Y *25% of wall area Single Business Res ve^=ial Zones 1 na 60 ^1a nia n.a Y Nonresidential All MiXeC Use and Nonresidentia Zones * na * rta nia n..a Y *25% of wall area per cuilding Wall Sign Definition and Examples 8 Definition: A permanent sign attached or erected parallel to and extending not more than 15 inches from the facade or face of any building to which it is attached and supported throughout its entire length, with the exposed face of the sign parallel to the plane of said wall or facade. Signs incorporated into mansard roofs, marquees, or canopies are wall signs. Freestanding Signs Not Allowed in Aesthetic Corridor 9 Definitions: Freestanding Sign: A permanent sign not attached to or forming part of a building. Pole Sign: A permanent, freestanding sign supported wholly by a pole or poles permanently affixed to the ground and not attached to a building or structure. Aesthetic Corridor Areas SVMC 22.1 10.080 10 NMI Nom �� R Nd.�..m 4Ef HOIMMIVIIMIEJ mmumcirralEMEMIrgormi. E�.4 EEEE:II'• EEitamiM11 . 1IV n-1 4 - w, +.4 Legend Ell Aesthetic Corridors Zoning :%2 R1 R2 R3 POS MF SR 27- 16th Ave south to City limits SR 27 - Mansfield Ave to Trent Ave Appleway Blvd - Park Rd to Dishman Mica Rd (south side only) Appleway Avenue - Barker Rd to Hodges Rd Dishman Mica Rd - 8th Ave south to City limits 32nd Ave within the City limits Mirabeau Parkway - Pines Rd to Indiana Ave Aesthetic Corridor Areas SVMC 22.1 10.080 11 SR 27- 16th Ave south to City limits 111111 SR 27 - Mansfield Ave to Trent Ave Aesthetic Corridors NC Zoning MU R1 CMU R2 - RC - R3 IMU PUS MF India rid Appleway Blvd - Park Rd to Dishman Mica Rd (south side only) Appleway Avenue - Barker Rd to Hodges Rd Dishman Mica Rd - 8th Ave south to City limits 32nd Ave within the City limits Mirabeau Parkway - Pines Rd to ' Indiana Ave Aesthetic Corridor Areas SVMC 22.1 10.080 12 Aesthetic Corridors NC Zoning MU R1 CMU R2 RC R3 IMU POS I MF 1711 SR 27- 16th Ave south to City limits SR 27 - Mansfield Ave to Trent Ave Appleway Blvd - Park Rd to Dishman Mica Rd (south side only) Appleway Avenue - Barker Rd to Hodges Rd Dishman Mica Rd - 8th Ave south to City limits 32nd Ave within the City limits Mirabeau Parkway - Pines Rd to Indiana Ave 1 Aesthetic Corridor Area SVMC 22.1 10.080 1 1 1 j - Aesthetic Corridors Zoning A R1 R2 RS FOS MF MU CMU - RC - IMU I SR 27- 16th Ave south to City limits SR 27 - Mansfield Ave to Trent Ave Appleway Blvd - Park Rd to Dishman Mica Rd (south side only) Appleway Avenue - Barker Rd to Hodges Rd Dishman Mica Rd - 8th Ave south to City limits 32nd Ave within the City limits Mirabeau Parkway - Pines Rd to Indiana Ave FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2019-0003.- 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. 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-2019-0003 is a City -initiated text amendment to the SVMC, amending SVMC 22.110.080 Aesthetic Corridor sign standards to allow wall signs within designated aesthetic corridor areas. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on October 24, 2019. The Commissioners voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. 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: ED-G4 Collaborate with relevant economic development stakeholders, including the business community, to grow a strong and healthy regional economy. ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability, ED-P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. ED-P5 Promote Spokane Valley as a great place to work, visit, and do business. ED-P17 Engage local businesses to understand their needs and to assist in future growth. LU-P2 Support unique, high -quality, and locally -owned retail in appropriate locations. LU-P8 Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non -motorized transportation routes. T-P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared -use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the goals and policies. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Allowing wall signs in the Aesthetic Corridor Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2019-0003 Page 1 of 2 pursuant to the current regulations is consistent with the intent to maintain attractive routes into the City and additional corridors within the City. Wall signs will increase the visibility of the business while not contributing to visual clutter along the street. Wall signs do not conflict with motorist or pedestrian safety as the signs are located on buildings away from pedestrian areas or site distance triangles at parking lot access points. The proposed amendment addresses business community concerns and protects community character. 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-2019- 0003 as proposed. Attachment: Exhibit 1 — Proposed Amendment CTA-2019-0003 Approved this 12' day of December, 2019 mission airman ATTEST 1261.=dzc�J Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2019-0003 Page 2 of Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council. Chambers — City Hall September 26, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. M. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter- absent excused Timothy Kelley Robert McKinley Raymond Friend Michelle Rasmussen- absent excused Matt Walton Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Cary Driskell, City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Rasmussen and Kaschmitter were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the September 26, 2019 agenda as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the August 08, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Friend attended Valleyfest and thanked the City for organizing such a great event. Commissioner Walton also participated in Valleyfest and was happy to see the large community turn out. Commissioner Johnson attended the August 13, 2019 City Council Meeting and spoke. September 10, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force (SCHRTF) meeting where Sandra Williams with the Carl Maxey Center gave a presentation; also discussed was the Greater Spokane Progress plan. On September 19, 2019 he attended a conversation with the previous US Ambassador Ryan Corker where they discussed the Middle East. Commissioner Johnson also attended Valleyfest and thanked City staff for putting on a phenomenal event. On September 24, 2019 he attended a meeting at CenterPlace regarding homegrown extremism. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow updated the Commission on the Catholic Charities proposed Code Text Amendment. CTA-2018-0006 would allow multifamily development in single family residential zones. After considerable consideration and discussion with the St. John Vianney Board, Catholic Charities has officially withdrawn their proposal and will not be moving forward. Building Official Jenny Nickerson advised staff has made progress in relation to uploading the Planning Commission audio minutes to our website which would make them available to the public. Ms. Nickerson also spoke about the repairs to the Council Chambers curved wall that are in its beginning stages. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 09-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Discussion, SVMC 22.70.020 Fencing; allowable heights in residential areas, fencing when property elevations differ. Ms. Nickerson explained this discussion is to review a section of the current fencing regulations causing some staff and citizen confusion. The hope is to encourage suggestions from the Planning Commission in order to prepare a comprehensive code text amendment. Ms. Nickerson explained the current regulations require that fence heights be measured from the lowest point within six feet of a fence. Ms. Nickerson continued that SVMC 22.70.020 Section E specifically states that when a fence is placed on top of a slope or retaining wall that height is to be measured from the lowest elevation within six feet of the fence. The City has found that constructing a six-foot fence when measured from the bottom of a retaining wall or heavy slope between two properties with differing elevation does not provide adequate privacy. Ms. Nickerson asked that should the language change and the measurement no longer include the height of the retaining wall or lower elevation of slope, would it still be appropriate to have a full eight -foot -high fence, or would a six-foot high fence be more suitable? Adding that nonresidential uses such as schools, churches and utilities would be limited to the eight -foot -high fence. She asked if that would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Friend discussed where the measurement originates from and suggested the measurement originate from the homeowner's side of the fence. Commissioner Walton discussed residents that abut primary arterials and suggested the option of allowing those property owners the ability to build a taller fence for noise reduction. Commissioner Johnson also spoke about front yards on an arterial. He suggested leeway in allowing property owners the ability to build a higher front yard fence. Commissioner Friend felt allowing a taller fence in the front yard was a safety issue in reference to line of sight. Commissioner Walton asked for examples from local municipalities and other jurisdictions relating to front yard fencing and their specific language. Commissioner McKinley's concern was measuring a fence at the lowest point between properties of differing elevations. He was also concerned with clear view triangle issues. Ms. Nickerson advised the fence regulations would not take precedence over the City's sight distance triangle regulations. Commissioner Kelley suggested that the fence measurement be measured at the property line. City Attorney Cary Driskell explained that if the City required the measurement to be right on the property line that would require a survey adding significant costs to the property owner and cautioned against it. Ms. Barlow encouraged the Commission to think about the need of the property owners, as well as neighborhood development. She added that higher front yard fencing may affect the character of a neighborhood especially from a pedestrian standpoint. ii. Discussion, SVMC 22.70.080 Signs; aesthetic corridors. Ms. Barlow advised this discussion is to review a specific section of the aesthetic corridor sign regulations which have caused some concerns. The intent is to encourage discussion from the Planning Commission in order to help prepare a code text amendment. Ms. Barlow explained staff's concerns are that monument signs are allowed in the aesthetic corridor, but wall signs are not allowed. Ms. Barlow provided background into how the City adopted the County's regulations as interim 09-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 regulations during incorporation in 2003. She noted that at that time the Aesthetic Corridor sign regulations were rolled over from the County. In the 1990's the Aesthetic Corridor regulations developed out of the Board of County Commissioners interest in preserving the entrances and exits into the City's and certain developing areas, as well as reducing billboard signage. Ms. Barlow continued that during the development of the City's Uniform Development Code regulations in 2006 one sentence to the code was added that stated "Only monument signs shall be allowed in the aesthetic corridor," which inadvertently prohibited wall signs. Over the years there has been some inconsistency implementing the code based on the interpretation. Staff feels this conflict is creating an unnecessary restriction on those property owners in the aesthetic corridor. Ms. Barlow provided a presentation with maps identifying the City's aesthetic corridors that include two sections of SR 27, two sections of Appleway Boulevard, Dishman Mica Road, 32' Avenue and Mirabeau Parkway. Ms. Barlow advised the zones surrounding these corridors are predominantly mixed use, multifamily, corridor mixed use and commercial zoning, with nominal residential zoning. Ms. Barlow described the definition of a wall sign, which includes that it be attached directly to the wall of a structure. Current regulations would allow a wall sign to be up to 25 percent of the wall area. Commissioner Johnson suggested separate regulations if the abutting use is residential versus commercial. Ms. Barlow explained that the zoning dictates what uses are allowed; changing the regulations to allow wall signs in the aesthetic corridor will not change the permitted uses allowed nor create opportunity for signage. The sign code does not allow off -premise signage, and therefore a residential use in a residential zone could not have a wall sign advertising another business. Ms. Barlow concluded that she will provide examples of each sign type at the next discussion. iii. Discussion, updating Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Ms. Nickerson provided a brief introduction into the establishment of the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure adopted in 2005. The rules of procedure state they are to be reviewed and updated in odd numbered years, the Commission was provided with a strike through version of the proposed changes for review. Commissioner Kelly asked for clarification in regards to what equals a quorum, the appointed Commissioners seats or the majority of the Commissioners present. Ms. Nickerson's interpretation was the majority of the seven -member Commission seats. Commissioner Kelly suggested adding the language "the number of appointed Commissioners". There was some discussion related to a quorum when there are vacant Commission seats. Commissioner Kelly spoke to the vote of a majority of those present as well as the conduct of business. Commissioner Kelley stated that during the 2019 election of officers all necessary parties were present including a quorum of Commissioners. He continued that there was a tie for the position of Chair between Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Rasmussen whom respectfully declined her nomination. Commissioner Kelley stated there 09-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 was never a re -vote for Chair, and Commissioner Johnson was not voted into his position appropriately. Commissioner Kelley moved to have a special election to establish a legal vote. He moved that Vice Chair Walton assume role of Chair during the election, and that Commissioner Johnson recuse himself from all leadership roles in this election, but not from voting. Commissioner Walton stated the motion as stated is out of order and would be better suited after the current item or before close of meeting. Mr. Driskell advised the best course of action would be for Commissioner Kelley to withdraw his motion as this should not be voted on without further review. Commissioner Kelley withdrew his motion. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification that if a quorum of the Commission is present and one commissioner recuses themselves from the business at hand, does a quorum remain? Or is the quorum dissolved? It was determined that these issues will be addressed with the City's parliamentarian. Commissioner McKinley advised he appreciated the change related to public testimony being limited and not allowing the speaker to monopolize the time. Commissioner Kelley asked if the pledge of allegiance is going to be removed from the meetings. Ms. Nickerson clarified that particular strike through was to eliminate the entire section titled "recommended order of business for meetings". Doing so will provide flexibility for meeting conduct but does not prohibit the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Johnson asked if there were any concerns by the Commission in removing the entire section "recommended order of business for meetings". There were no obj ections. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification that Roberts Rules of Order and the order of business refers to small board forums in relation to the format the Planning Commission holds. Ms. Nickerson advised the City's parliamentarian Chris Bainbridge will be invited to attend the next meeting to assist in further details and discussions. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Johnson spoke about SCHRTF progress plan created by Greater Spokane Progress. He spoke about the July 23, 2019 City Council meeting regarding Council Woman Thompsons letter brought forth from the NAACP. Commissioner Johnson was asked to read a statement from SCHRTF at the August 13th, 2019 City Council meeting and read aloud the statement to the Planning Commission. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kelley moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:17 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chairman Robin Hutchins, Secretary %L0%g/kiy! % Date signed Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall October 10, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. H. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Assistant Deanna Horton called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Timothy Kelley Robert McKinley Raymond Friend Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant IV. AGENDA: Commissioner McKinley moved to approve the October 10, 2019 agenda as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the September 26, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended a candidate forum for Spokane Public Schools on Sept 28, and at the Human Rights Task Force meeting on October 8 attended a screening of Hate and the Internet. VIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson reported the legal team was currently investigating the voting issue which was raised at the September 26 meeting. Neither attorney was able to attend this meeting but hoped to have an answer at the next meeting. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Study Session, CTA-2019-0003 a proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.70.080 Signs in the aesthetic corridors. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation to the Commissioners regarding the proposed amendment to SVMC 22.70.080, signs in aesthetic corridors. Ms. Barlow explained that over the years there has been inconsistency while implementing the code based on staff interpretations. Staff feels the conflict between the intent of the code and how it is written is creating unnecessary restrictions on property owners in the aesthetic corridors. Ms. Barlow discussed the existing dimensional, zoning and size standards for signs, and how they affect the aesthetic corridors. She noted that the current regulations only allow monument signs in the corridors. She showed examples of monument signs as well as wall and pole signs for a better visual understanding. She noted that the amendment would allow wall signs in the aesthetic corridor consistent with the existing regulations. Current regulations allow a wall sign to be up to 25 percent of the wall area. The proposed change would be to strike the 10-10-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 sentence which states "only monument signs are allowed in the aesthetic corridors." The other changes proposed are only for the purpose of cleaning up the code with no substantive change. Commissioner Johnson stated he would support the change but expressed concerns regarding flashing signs. He said he thought they could be distracting and might ruin the feeling of the aesthetic corridor. Ms. Barlow explained that there are regulations in place which control the flashing elements of a sign, automatic dimming is required which causes the brightness to dim to the ambient light. There were no other items brought up for discussion. Ms. Barlow concluded a public hearing had been advertised for the October 24, 2019 meeting. ii. Discussion, updating Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Ms. Nickerson introduced the subject of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and stated City Clerk Chris Bainbridge was in attendance to offer assistance in the update. Mrs. Bainbridge mentioned the Council's Governance Manual is updated every year. It addresses items which are not currently in the PC Rules of Procedure such as where members shall sit, and attendance when a member does not show up for meetings. There was considerable discussion over when a quorum would be established and when it would no longer be in effect. Commissioners were concerned if there were only four members in attendance and a vote needed to be taken, but someone would need to recuse themselves would a quorum still exist. It was determined that unless someone actually left the building/meeting a quorum would still exist. Commissioner Rasmussen asked where the time limit came from in regard to speaking at the public hearing. She asked when the time limit was set, who set it and when it could be different. Commissioner McKinley offered that having a specific time limit lets people know what to prepare for and how long they know they will be allowed to speak. If the chair decides to allow a longer time frame, then they can expand, but not knowing does not allow for someone to prepare if they are trying to limit what they are trying to say. Commissioner Johnson offered if there are a few people wishing to speak at a hearing, then he felt the chair could offer more time, but when there were many people to speak, the time limit should be kept to three minutes. After extensive discussion regarding the use of small board rules, the Commissioners determined that they would prefer to have a motion on the floor before they begin discussion. They will no longer discuss the merits of any proposals without a motion. There was some discussion of having one meeting per month, unless there is no business, then staff will contact the Chair and the Vice Chair and discuss cancelling the meeting. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners thanked Mrs. Bainbridge for her time and expertise in discussing the PC Rules of Procedure. Commissioner McKinley stated he would be unable to attend the October 24, 2019 meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:54 p.m. The vote an the motion was seven in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Chairman James Jo son, an Date signed 10-10-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Dean Horton, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall October 24, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Cary Driskell, City Attorney Timothy Kelley -absent excused Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley -absent excused Raymond Friend Michelle Rasmussen Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Matt Walton -absent excused Robin Hutchins, Administrative Assistant Hearing no objections Commissioners Kelley, McKinley and Walton were excused. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the October 24, 2019 agenda as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: No action taken; October 10, 2019 minutes will be approved at a later date. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission Reports VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: City Attorney Cary Driskell gave some background into a motion brought forward by Commissioner Kelley regarding Commissioner Johnson's position of Chair without a formal vote. During the 2019 January election of officers there was a tie for the position of chair between Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Rasmussen whom withdrew her nomination. There was no re -vote. Staff has determined there is no question as to the validity of Chair Johnson's position as he was the only candidate which clearly implied one outcome with no challenge until September 2019. Mr. Driskell concluded that the Commission makes recommendations to the Council, and there would be no legal consequence in Chair Johnson fulfilling his position through the end of the year. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Public Hearing: CTA-2019-0003 a proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.110.080 Signs in the aesthetic corridors. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6: 09 p.m. Senior Planner Lori Barlow provided a presentation and background into the proposed amendment. On October 4, 2019 a determination of non -significance was issued and a notice of public hearing was mailed. On October 12, 2019 the Commission conducted a study session and tonight the public hearing is being held. Should a recommendation be made by the Commission at the close of the public hearing, it will be formalized in the Findings of Fact on November 14, 2019. 10-24-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Ms. Barlow explained the proposed amendment to SVMC 22.110.080 is to allow wall signs in the aesthetic corridors as they are currently regulated within the SVMC. Ms. Barlow described that currently, per code, only monument signs are allowed in the seven aesthetic corridors, and staff feels this specific language is unnecessarily restrictive. Current wall sign regulations allow a wall sign to be up to 25 percent of the wall area, and those dimensional standards are not proposed to be modified. The proposed change intends to allow the wall signs in the aesthetic corridors by striking the sentence which states "only monument signs are allowed in the aesthetic corridors." All other changes proposed are refining the code language with no substantive change. Ms. Barlow concluded with a response to Chair Johnsons concern at the previous meeting regarding ambient lighting. She explained that within each sign there is an automatic sensor that adjusts the signs brightness as it relates to the ambient light. The City has stipulations in SVMC 22.110.060 stating that all electronic message centers have automatic dimmable capabilities that adjust the brightness to the ambient light conditions at all times of the day and night. This code also requires written documentation that the dimming capabilities exist and are verified by inspection. Commissioner Rasmussen gave an example of her personal experience with a bright sign and its affects. She asked if any jurisdictions have an illumination cap. Ms. Barlow explained that due to the scope of the proposal to allow wall signage in the aesthetic corridor that was not researched. However, she does know there is an industry standard relating to lumens. Commissioner Johnson expressed his concerns with changing colors and scrolling signs. He is concerned with how this could change the character of the aesthetic corridor and worries that allowing lighted motion signs would be distracting to drivers. Ms. Barlow explained that should this be approved the current parameters in code would prohibit lighting hazards such as flashing, strobe or running lights. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. Commissioner Friend moved to recommend to City Council the approval of CTA- 2019-0003 as presented. Commissioner Johnson recommended there be no changing lights in the aesthetic corridor as he feels this would be a distraction. Commissioners Kaschmitter and Friend understood Commissioner Johnsons concerns but felt as though the current regulations put in place would alleviate the matters related to flashing and/or changing lights limiting distractions. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed ii. Study Session: CTA-2019-0004, a proposed amendment to SVMC 22.70.020 Fencing, fence heights in residential zones. Ms. Nickerson provided a brief discussion related to fencing regulations in the residential zones. Ms. Nickerson explained that in researching other jurisdictions the City of Spokane and Spokane County limit the height of residential fences to six feet. However, they have no definition as to how the height is measured. Liberty Lake and Post Falls regulate that fence height be measured from the lowest grade elevation at the base of the fence. Airway Heights and Franklin County regulate the height of a retaining wall be included in the 10-24-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 measurement of a fence, which is consistent with the City's current code language. Ms. Nickerson added the City's current language also requires the height be measured at the lowest grade elevation within six feet of the fence horizontally. The City has found that constructing a six-foot fence when measured from the bottom of a retaining wall, or heavy slope between two properties with differing elevation, does not provide adequate privacy. Ms. Nickerson stated the proposed language would add Section C. indicating that an administrative exception may be granted for a fence of more than six feet in height, but no more than eight feet in height, with a permitted non-residential use in a residential zone. This would allow more flexibility for non-residential uses such as schools, churches and utilities. Ms. Nickerson explained Section E would strike the language indicating that fence height be measured from the lowest grade elevation within six feet of the fence and would simply state "the height of a fence shall be measured from the base of the fence". Ms. Nickerson spoke to a comment by the Commission related to fence height of six feet versus eight feet. With the proposed change the measurement would no longer include the retaining wall. This proposed change would provide a different method of measuring the height making it more appropriate to limit the fence height to six feet. After some discussion it was concluded to be the case. iii. Study Session: Updating Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Ms. Nickerson introduced the subject of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure (ROP) and provided background into the discussions and comments from the previous meetings. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton explained there were three sections of the ROP in need of consideration related to attendance, time limit of public testimony, and how often the rules should to be reviewed. Ms. Nickerson spoke to the section regarding attendance to include excused and unexcused absences. She added this section is new and is consistent with the Council's Governance Manual. Ms. Nickerson addressed the section related to time limit for testimony. After some discussion it was concluded the Commission will impose a three -minute time limit for public testimony. Lastly, it was determined that a review of the ROP be conducted every three years due to commission member turn over and to determine whether changes are necessary and/or appropriate at that time. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners thanked staff for all of their efforts and hard work. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschrnitter moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall December 12, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. H. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Assistant Robin Holt called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter — late excused Cary Driskell, City Attorney Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Raymond Friend Michelle Rasmussen Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Matt Walton Robin Holt, Administrative Assistant Hearing no objections Commissioner Kaschmitter was excused and arrived at 6:06 p.m. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the December 12, 2019 agenda as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the November 14, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended an auction at the Temple Beth Shalom on November 16, 2019; on November 18, 2019 he attended the NAACP general meeting; on November 6, 2019 he attended the City Council meeting and thanked Council Member Wood for his service; on November 3, 2019 he attended a joint meeting between Spokane Human Rights Task Force and the Spokane Human Rights Commission related to the planning of an awards banquet; November 4, 2019 he attended the Spokane Human Rights Commission meeting related to developing an office of Civil Rights and December 10, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force regular meeting. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sheri Robinson, City of Spokane Valley; Ms. Robinson asked the Commission to revisit a code change related to multifamily housing in providing green space for playgrounds and pools. She spoke about millennials and retirees wanting higher walkability scores. She spoke about the concerns related to multifamily housing being located in the residential zones adding that multifamily housing needs to be near services and transportation. She also asked the Commission to entertain a crosswalk at 22"d Avenue and University Road near Bowdish Junior High. She explained the middle school students cross there and it is unsafe, she gave several examples to include a fatality. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2019-0003, a proposed amendment to SVMC 22.110.0 Signs - Aesthetic corridors. 12-12-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Senior Planner Lori Barlow provided background into the proposed amendment CTA- 2019-0003, allowing wall signs in the aesthetic corridors. Ms. Barlow explained that the findings of fact formalize the process and decisions the Commission has made. Ms. Barlow advised this item has been before the Commission on two prior occasions. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on October 24, 2019 voting four to zero forwarding a recommendation of approval to City Council. Commissioner Walton moved to approve Findings of Fact CTA-2019-0003 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Public Hearing: CTA-2019-0004, a proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.70.020 Fencing, fence heights in residential zones. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6.• 12 p.m. Ms. Nickerson provided a brief background and presentation related to fence height regulations in the residential zones. Ms. Nickerson explained this item has been before the Commission on multiple occasions for discussion and review. A Study Session was held on November 14, 2019 and tonight the Public Hearing. Ms. Nickerson addressed the suggested language related to an increase fence height for multifamily use through an administrative exception discussed during the last meeting. She continued, SVMC 22.70.020 section (c) now states that an administrative exception may be granted for a fence of more than six feet in height, but no more than eight feet in height, with a permitted non-residential use in a residential zoning district. There was some discussion regarding residential and non-residential fence heights related to electric fence components. It was conclude those details would be addressed through an administrative exception as listed in code. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:16 p.m. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CTA-2019-0004 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Study Session: STV-2019-0005, a proposed street vacation of portions of 12th and 13th Avenues, the alley between 12th and 13th Avenues and Chronicle Road. Ms. Barlow provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated street vacation for portions of 12th and 13th Avenues and the alleyway in-between as well as a portion of Chronicle Road. Ms. Barlow explained this request is in the southwest portion of the City near the intersection of 12th Avenue and Carnahan Road. The area to be vacated is surrounded by residential development to the south and vacant or developing properties to the northeast and northwest. Ms. Barlow noted the proposed area does cross over a waterbody that was created by previous mining activities. Ms. Barlow provided procedural overview advising the Planning Commission is currently conducting the study session. The public hearing will be held on January 9, 2020 and the formalization of the Commission's decision will be held on January 23, 2020 with the Findings of Fact. Ms. Barlow advised that in processing a street vacation staff reviews connectivity, traffic volume, future developments and access. Potential conditions to consider would be utility and easement access, removal of the portion of the street or streets vacated and design or construction improvements. 12-12-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Ms. Barlow explained the applicant feels the site is unconstructible and this vacation would allow for full development. The alleys are no longer required for public use or access and the on -site wetlands interfere with the construction of 13th Avenue. Ms. Barlow provided an aerial view of the critical areas relative to the site. The unimproved portions of 12th and 13th Avenues and Chronical Road are within the City's floodplain area and a wetland. Ms. Barlow explained the request is to vacate 500 feet of Chronical Street at a full width right-of-way of 60 feet wide. 385 feet of 13th Avenue also at a full width ROW. Lastly, 12 feet of alleyway between 12th and 13th Avenues and 385 feet of 12th Avenue at a half width ROW of 30 feet. Ms. Barlow detailed potential issues explaining that adjacent properties need access for future development, as the proposed area is zones R-3. If Chronicle Road were to be vacated the two adjacent parcels would be land locked. The other potential issues would be the storm water system. The stormwater system is not within an easement, it would need to either be moved or have an easement. The City has been working with the property owner to resolve the potential issues with several options. Commissioner Kelley confirmed the applicant owns both sides of the roads to be vacated. The applicant also has a purchase sale agreement on the property immediately to the north. Commissioner Johnson asked what direction the storm drain flows. There was a lengthy discussion related to the direction of flow and the problems the system currently has and has had. The current storm water system is a private system that the City contributes to. City Attorney Cary Driskel explained that the system does run south to north and makes its' way onto the property owned by the Conservation District. The City's storm water division have been speaking with the Conservation District related to obtaining an easement. In addition, not only city or public waters are contributing to this storm water. There are a number of sources contributing including seepage from under the ground. There was also some discussion related to the site not have an exclusive water service district. Commissioner Johnson asked about compensation and it was determined that once council makes a decision and should compensation be required, it would be determined by resolution. Commissioner Walton asked Ms. Barlow to provide what the maximum allowed dwelling units are currently and what would be allowed if the streets were vacated. Ms. Barlow advised she will have the details requested, but added that there should not be a gain as there will still have to be access provided. The property that would be most affected is currently zoned R-3, which is six dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Johnson asked if the floodplain and the wetland would be included in the available property within the calculations. Ms. Barlow stated that in theory the wetland could not be developed however, the floodplain could be developed as long as it met the standards. iv. Study Session: Updating Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. Ms. Nickerson introduced the subject of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure (ROP) and provided background into the discussions from the six previous visits related to this topic. The Commissioners were provided a clean and a redline version of the ROP to date. Commissioner Kelley spoke to the voting section; he explained it used to read: "four affirmative votes must be cast for comprehensive plans or the election of officers". The language related to the election of officers was redlined, he asked when and why that was changed. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton explained that after the last meeting she added Section (c) Election of officers; that states: "Each Chair and Vice Chair must receive 12-12-20 19 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 four affirmative votes in order to be elected". She continued to explain the Comprehensive Plan votes Section (b) and Election of Officer votes Section (c) have been separated. There was a lengthy discussion related to what a majority vote constitutes, four votes or the majority of the Commissioners appointed? Commissioner Johnson advised there was a discrepancy in the language and multiple sections. Mr. Driskel advised the language should be consistent in all sections related to voting. The language should read: "by majority vote of the membership of the Commission". Commissioner Johnson addressed the language related to votes being taken by paper ballot changing from "shall be taken" to "may be taken". It was determined the language states "may be taken" to allow for flexibility by the Commission and to alleviate public records request concerns by requiring a paper ballot. Lastly, after some discussion, it was concluded the Commission would impose a three -minute time limit for public testimony or otherwise determined by Chair should more time be necessary. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Rasmussen stated she has enjoyed her last three years on the board and this will be her last meeting. She thanked those on the board and the staff for all of their efforts. Commissioner McKinley thanked Commissioner Rasmussen for - her service on the board. He asked everyone to enjoy the holidays. Commissioner Kaschmitter thanked everyone for their time and wished everyone a Merry Christmas. Commissioner Friend also thanked the Commissioners and staff for all of their hard work. Commissioner Kelley thanked Commissioner Rasmussen for her time with the Commission. Commissioner Walton also thanked Commissioner Rasmussen for her service and advised it has been a pleasure serving for the last three years. Commissioner Johnson also thanked Commissioner Rasmussen for her time and service. He was thankful for his time as Chair; he is looking forward to the future, and read aloud a quote form Margaret Mead, XL ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:17 p.m. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chairman Ck.rt�Ir� Robin Holt, Secretary Date signed Spokane Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING &PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMLSSION CTA-201.9-0003 STAFF REPORT DATE: October 7, 2019 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: October 24, 2019, 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) amending SVMC 22.110.080 Aesthetic Corridors to allow wall signs. Existing corridors may be reviewed for applicability. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to SVMC 22.110.080 are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner. REVIEWED BY: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed Amendment APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 SVMC, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment October 10, 2019 SETA DNS Issued Oetobcr 4, 2019 Published Notice of Public Hearing: October 4 and 11, 2019 BACKGROUND: The Aesthetic Corridors and regulations were developed in the 1990's by Spokane County Planning staff at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). At that time, the BOCC was concerned by the proliferation of billboards and signage and wanted to protect the main routes into and out of town. In order to limit the visual impacts of excessive signage the BOCC established more restrictive sign regulations which generally allowed monument signs and wall signs. In 2003, the City adopted Spokane County's regulations as the City's interim regulations by Ordinance No. 53. The interim code allowed freestanding signs up to a height of 8 feet, with an area ranging from 32 - 90 square feet within the office and commercial zones along the designated Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2019-0003 aesthetic corridor. In 2007 the City adopted the Uniform Development Code by Ordinance 07.015 which generally replicated the signage requirements along the aesthetic corridor, but modified the areas categorized as an aesthetic corridor, and added a specific reference in the code that only monument signs shall be allowed. Although it appears that upon incorporation wall signs were allowed in the aesthetic corridors, the provisions adopted in 2007 prohibited, and continue to prohibit, wall signs. Signage regulations have been modified since that time, but, the regulations affecting the aesthetic corridors have remained the same. The seven street segments designated as Aesthetic Corridors have not been reviewed since 2007, and it may be appropriate to review the designated corridors for applicability. The Aesthetic Corridors include: 1, State Route 27 (16th Avenue south to City limits); 2. State Route 27 (Mansfield Avenue to Trent Avenue); 3. Appleway Boulevard (south side only from Park Road to Dishman Mica Road); 4. Appleway Avenue (Barker Road to Hodges Road); 5. Dishman Mica Road (8th Avenue south to City limits); 6. 32nd Avenue within the City limits; and 7. Mirabeau Parkway (Pines Road to Indiana Avenue). ANALYSIS: Currently only monument signs are allowed on properties adjacent to the Aesthetic Corridors (see Table 1 below). Monument Signs are allowed subject to the dimensional requirements applicable to the zoning district or land use as noted in SVMC 22.110.040. Table 1 Current Monument Sign Regulations applicable to the Aesthetic Land Use Zoning District Maxirnurn Number per Parcel Height (ft.) Copy Area (ft2) Copy Area (ft2)/Lot Frontage < 100 ft. Copy Area (ft2) /Lot Frontage > 100 ft. Side Yard Setback (ft.) Permit Required Additional Provisions Monument Signs Subdivision/Area Name/Multifamily Complex/Institutional' All Zones 1 10 32 n/a n/a n/a Single Business Multi -Business Complex Neighborhood Business (NC) Zones 1* 7 75 n/a n/a 5 2* 7 90 n/a n/a 5 Y *Per street frontage Single Business Multi -Business Complex All Mixed Use and Nonresidential Zones 7 90 n/a n/a 5 2* 7 150 n/a n/a 5 *Per street frontage Page2of5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-20 19-0003 The proposed amendment has the following implications on the Aesthetic Corridor: 1. Allow wall signs on properties adjacent to the Aesthetic Corridors. The proposed amendment will allow wall signs consistent with the Sign regulations in SVMC 22.110.040 Table 22.110-1 - Location, Height and Copy Area Requirements (See Table 2). Table 2 — Current Wall Sign Regulations Land Use Zoning District Maximum Side Yard Setback 0" Permit Required Additional Provisions Number per Parcel (ft.) Height Copy Area (ft1) Copy Area (ft�}/Lot Frontage <100 ft. Copy Area {ft2) /Lot Frontage >100 ft. Attached Wa I Signs Multifamily Complex All Zones * * * * * * Y One sign up to 20 sq. ft Institutional Residential Zones * * * nfa n/a nla Y *25% of wall area Single Business Residential Zones 1 n/a 60 n/a n/a n/a Y Nonresidential All Mixed Use and Nonresidential Zones * n/a * n/a n/a n/a Y *25% of wall area per building 2. Maintains attractive routes into the city while increasing business visibility without adding visual clutter. Business along the corridor have expressed a need for more visibility. Wall signage is mounted to the wall of the building, and it allows for storefront business identification. Monument signs are generally placed near the street and provide the method for street side business identification when, or if, the building is recessed from the street. Even when utilized together, the addition of wall signs will not add visual clutter to motorists since it is not in the eye of travel. 3. Supports business attraction and retention by increasing business visibility. Wall signage allows an additional signage option to increase visibility. The current restriction may disadvantage the properties located within the Aesthetic Corridor areas. New business looking for locations may find the corridor an attractive location because of the aesthetic control, but may be concerned about the competitive disadvantage when compared to other locations that allow wall signs. Allowing the wall signs could make Aesthetic Corridor properties more competitive with other commercial properties outside of the Aesthetic Corridor area. 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 The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that: Page 3 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-20 19-0003 i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive PIan and is consistent with the following Comprehensive goals and policies: ED-G4 Collaborate with relevant economic development stakeholders, including the business community, to grow a strong and healthy regional economy; ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. ED-P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets ED-P5 Promote Spokane Valley as a great place to work, visit, and do business. ED-P 17 Engage local businesses to understand their needs and to assist in future growth. LU-P2 Support unique, high -quality, and locally -owned retail in appropriate locations. LU-P8 Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non -motorized transportation routes. T-P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared -use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Allowing wall signs in the Aesthetic Corridor pursuant to the current regulations is consistent with the intent to maintain attractive routes into the city and additional corridors within the city. Wall signs will increase the visibility of the business while not contributing to visual clutter along the street. Wall signs do not conflict with motorist or pedestrian safety as the signs are located on buildings away from pedestrian areas or site distance triangles at parking lot access points. The proposed amendment addresses business community concerns and protects community character. 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-2019-0003 pursuant to adopted public noticing procedures. Page 4 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2019-0003 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: The City has not received any agency comments to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns noted. B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A the proposed code text amendment to allow wall signs in the Aesthetic Corridors is consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 5 of 5 Attachment 1 Draft CTA-2019-0003 Amendment to the Aesthetic Corridor Sign Regulations 22.110.080 Aesthetic corridors. A -The standards applicable to wall mounted and monument signs shown oin Table 22.110-1 shall apply to parcels adjacent to the aesthetic corridors identified below. designated in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Other permanent signs shall not be permitted on such parcels. Areas within the aesthetic corridor include: 1. State Route 27 (16th Avenue south to City limits);_ 2. State Route 27 (Mansfield Avenue to Trent Avenue); 3. Appleway Boulevard (south side only from Park Road to Dishman Mica Road); 4. Appleway Avenue (Barker Road to Hodges=Road); 5. Dishman Mica Road (8th Avenue southlo City limits); 6.32nd Avenue within the City limits, 7. Mirabeau Parkway (Pines Road=tndiana Avenue). corridors. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 21, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: CenterPlace Facility Rentals Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Master Fee Schedule setting 2020 fees was established via Resolution #19-019 and was adopted by the City Council on December 17, 2019. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of the 2020 Master Fee Schedule by resolution on December 17, 2019. BACKGROUND: In September 2005, Centerplace Regional Event Center opened. Its vision is to promote corporate and private events which will help stimulate our local economy; to produce customized, high quality events; and to provide an experience that showcases the values of Spokane Valley. Therefore, renting space, both inside and out is a key component of its activities. Over the past ten years, business and corporate meetings are on the rise and CenterPlace has gained a reputation as a quality meeting facility with outstanding food service. CenterPlace held over 1,100 events in 2019. As the demand to hold more and more events outside has grown, the City has expanded and upgraded its exterior spaces at CenterPlace which includes the west lawn and north meadow. As you are aware, based upon recommendations from City staff, the City Council sets the fees annually for renting space at CenterPlace. Since renting space is a primary goal of CenterPlace, staff is constantly reviewing and monitoring our fees. Our goal is to provide a high quality experience at a fair and reasonable price. We are aware of what other similar venues in the area charge for their rentals and we strive to be competitive. Currently, CenterPlace's rental rates are not the lowest or highest in the area, but rather competitively priced for the quality of space and level of service provided. These fees are applied to all rentals at CenterPlace. Staff strives to be consistent with how our rental fees are applied to our various customers. There are two instances where the City does not charge a fee: • Valleyfest's use of the CenterPlace facility in exchange for an annual community event. • Spokane Valley Arts Council in exchange for the periodic donation of art. Additionally, the City may waive use fees for City sponsored business or intergovernmental use where the public is invited. Currently, CenterPlace's rental income does not exceed expenditure although that is a long-term goal. As a publically owned facility, CenterPlace will probably never be able to generate sufficient revenue to offset expenses. Monitoring revenues and reducing expenses will always be a high priority for CenterPlace. Staff will be providing an update on CenterPlace rentals and fees. OPTIONS: (1) Council discussion; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: CenterPlace Revenue and Expenditures History SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Ten Year History of Revenues and Expenditures for CenterPlace (001.076.305,*) Year 12/30/2019 1/9/2019 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Revenues 510,899 403,744 310,500 440,332 349,078 401,572 434,777 414,074 431,559 422,751 Total Expenditures 1,135,822 1,099,702 988,807 1,108,125 772,990 801,436 802,710 836,728 870,063 826,419 Net Gain (Loss) (624,923) (695,958) (678,307) (667,793) (423,912) (399,864) (367,933) (422,654) (438,504) (403,668) P:\City Clerk\Agenda Packets for Web\2020\2020, 01-21\Copy of Ten Year History of CenterPlace Rev and Exp ms edits elt edits 2020 0109 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 21, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report - enabling ordinance regarding Substitute House Bill 1406 sales and use tax funds for affordable and supportive housing purposes. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 82.14.540 (formerly referred to as SHB 1406), Spokane Valley Resolution 19-013. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: June 9, 2019, discussion with Council regarding SHB 1406 included in a broader discussion relating to homelessness; August 13, 2019, administrative report; September 3, 2019 adoption of Resolution 19-013 representing declaration of intent to adopt an enabling ordinance to authorize the maximum capacity of the sales and use tax authorized by SHB 1406 by July 28, 2020 for affordable and supportive housing purposes. BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Legislature approved SHB 1406 (later codified as RCW 82.14.540), authorizing local jurisdictions to receive a rebate of a portion of state sales and use tax collected within that local jurisdiction, in the amount of .0073%, which shall be used for qualifying expenses relating to affordable and supportive housing pursuant to specified sections of state law. In order to qualify for these funds, a local jurisdiction must adopt a resolution of intent no later than January 28, 2020, followed by adoption of an enabling ordinance authorizing the rebated sales and use tax by July 28, 2020. Any funds generated through approval of an enabling ordinance would be rebated from state sales and use tax that the State currently receives. As a result, the State would receive less sales tax revenue, the City would receive more, and most importantly, in collecting this .0073%, there would not be any increase in the sales tax paid by any consumer on any transaction made in the City. The .0073% of rebated sales tax would be tied to 2019 sales and use tax revenue amounts generated in Spokane Valley, estimated to be $178,000 annually. Local jurisdictions are permitted to help fund qualifying projects within their borders, or may partner with other regional partners to pool resources to pay for larger regional facilities. The funds can be used each year, or may be used to acquire bonds for a capital project, such as constructing a facility. If the Council were to approve the enabling ordinance, it would take roughly between 60 and 90 days after notification to the Department of Revenue, to get the rebated tax funds rerouted to the City, after which it could be used or held for later use by the City. The funds could not be used to fund the construction or operation of a homeless shelter, but instead would need to be used for longer -term low income affordable and supportive housing. Cities with populations under 100,000 may use the funds for low income housing vouchers. Spokane Valley currently has a population under 100,000, but may exceed that threshold by June 30, 2020, when the Washington Department of Office and Financial Management (OFM) issues its updated population estimates. Assuming Council adopts an enabling ordinance prior to July 28, 2020 to access the first .0073%, it is unclear whether the City would be able to continue to use the rebated tax funds for low income housing vouchers if it wanted to after the City exceeds 100,000 residents. Additionally, jurisdictions may qualify to be rebated a second .0073% of state sales and use tax for qualifying expenses if the jurisdiction also passes a voter -approved levy lid lift (referred to as a qualifying local tax) pursuant to one of four options. Adoption of a qualifying local tax in order to be eligible for the second .0073% must also be done by July 28, 2020. Council does not need to reach consensus at this time as to whether it wants to seek the second .0073% by pursuing a voter -approved qualifying local tax, but that type of election would likely need to be held by the last special election prior to the statutory deadline in SHB 1406, which for special elections this year is April 23, 2020. Pursuant to RCW 29A.04.330, a resolution calling for a special election of this nature would have to be delivered to the County Clerk at least 60 days before a scheduled special election date. Therefore, under the current version of this law, Council would need to determine whether to seek the second .0073% and pass a resolution calling for the special election by February 18, 2020. It is important to note that there are efforts in Olympia to extend the final action date from July 28, 2020 until some date in 2021, subject to adoption by the Legislature, and signature of the Governor. It is also important to note that Spokane County has already approved a local qualifying tax for purposes of collecting the second .0073%. As such, if the City does nothing further, Spokane County will collect the second .0073% for use on a regional basis for qualifying affordable and supportive housing purposes. The Council took the first step in this process through adoption of Resolution 19-013 on September 3, 2019, which was a formal statement of intent. In order to actually collect these funds, Council will need to adopt an enabling ordinance such as is being proposed here. Resolution 19-013 directed staff to prepare this enabling ordinance for Council consideration no later than February 4, 2020. OPTIONS: (1) Consensus to place the draft enabling ordinance on a future agenda for first reading; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place on the February 4, 2020 Council agenda, the draft enabling ordinance authorized by RCW 82.14.540 to require collection of the maximum capacity of the sales and use tax for use for qualifying affordable and supportive housing purposes. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Increase of funds to the City in the amount of approximately $178,000 annually for the first .0073% to use for qualifying low income housing purposes if both a resolution and enabling ordinance are adopted prior to July 28, 2020. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed enabling ordinance. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.20-00* AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING CHAPTER 3.06 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING A SALES AND USE TAX CREDIT FOR AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PURSUANT TO RCW 82.14.540, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley is a non -charter code city pursuant to Title 35A RCW, and is a municipal corporation pursuant to the laws of the state of Washington; and WHEREAS, in the 2019 Regular Session, the Washington State Legislature approved Substitute House Bill 1406 (Chapter 338, Laws of 2019), which was later codified at RCW 82.14.540; and WHEREAS, RCW 82.14.540 authorizes the governing body of a city to impose a local sales and use tax for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of affordable housing or facilities providing supportive housing. The first .0073 percent available is credited back to the City by the State of Washington from existing state sales and use tax receipts originating from sales within the City; and WHEREAS, because this sales and use tax will be credited against sales and use taxes collected within the City of Spokane Valley by the State of Washington, it will not result in higher sales and use taxes within the City if limited to .0073 percent. Instead, it will represent an additional source of funding to address affordable and supportive housing needs within the City as contemplated by the Legislature in adopting RCW 82.14.540; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 82.14.540(7), revenue received from imposition of the sales and use tax shall be used to assist persons whose income is at or below 60 percent of Spokane County's median income; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that there is a need for additional affordable housing in the City, and that imposing the sales and use tax to address this need will benefit its citizens; and WHEREAS, in order for a city to impose the sales and use tax permitted by RCW 82.14.540, that city must pass a resolution of intent to authorize the maximum capacity of the tax, and then adopt an enabling ordinance no later than July 28, 2020 to authorize imposition of the maximum capacity of the tax; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2019, the Spokane Valley City Council approved Resolution 19-013 declaring the City's intent to adopt legislation to authorize a sales and use tax for use for affordable and supportive housing pursuant to RCW 82.14.540; and WHEREAS, RCW 82.14.540 allows cities and counties to enter into interlocal agreements with other cities, counties, and public housing authorities to pool the sales and use tax received by the agreeing entities to be able to consider larger qualifying projects. There have been discussions among the City, the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and Spokane Housing Authority regarding the potential for such an agreement, although one has not been reached to date; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 82.14.540, participating cities may also adopt a specified qualifying local tax for the purpose of receiving a second state sales and use tax credit of .0073 percent. Any qualifying Ordinance 20-00* - Sales and Use Tax for Affordable Housing Page 1 of 3 DRAFT local tax to qualify for an additional .0073 percent sales and use tax credit from the Washington State Department of Revenue would require separate adoption by ordinance from this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance constitutes the necessary legislative action to authorize a sales and use tax credit of state tax funds from the Washington State Department of Revenue for use by the City for qualifying expenses related to acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of affordable housing or facilities providing supportive housing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds that the recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as findings for this Ordinance and incorporated herein as such. Section 2. Adoption. Chapter 3.06 SVMC relating to imposition of a sales and use tax for affordable and supportive housing expenses as authorized by RCW 82.14.540 is hereby adopted as set forth below: 3.06 SALES AND USE TAX FOR AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING 3.06.010 — Imposition of Sales and Use Tax for Affordable and Supportive Housing. (A) Tax imposed. There is imposed a sales and use tax pursuant to RCW 82.14.540 upon every taxable event, as defined in chapter 82.14 RCW, occurring within the City of Spokane Valley. The tax shall be imposed upon and collected from those persons from whom the Washington State sales or use tax is collected pursuant to chapters 82.08 and 82.12 RCW as adopted or amended. (B) Tax Rate. The rate of the sales and use tax imposed by SVMC 3.06.010 shall be .0073 percent of the selling price or value of the article used, and shall expire 20 years from the date on which it is first imposed, or at such time as allowed by law. In the event the City adopts a qualifying local tax pursuant to RCW 82.14.540(1)(e) as adopted or amended, then the sales and use tax imposed by SVMC 3.06.010(B) may be increased by an additional .0073 percent, or as otherwise authorized by RCW 82.14.540 as adopted or amended. (C) Deduction from State Tax Receipts. The sales and use tax imposed pursuant to SVMC 3.06.010 shall be deducted from the amount of tax otherwise required to be collected or paid to the Washington State Department of Revenue pursuant to chapters 82.08 or 82.12 RCW as adopted or amended. The Department of Revenue shall perform the collection of such taxes on behalf of the City and remit any qualifying funds to the City at no cost to the City. The maximum amount to be received by the City from this sales and use tax credit in each year shall be equal to the taxable retail sales within the City limits in state fiscal year 2019 multiplied by the tax rate or such other amount as allowed by law. The City Manager is authorized to enter into or modify any agreement with the Department of Revenue for the administration of this tax. 3.06.020 — Use of Tax Receipts. Revenue received by the City from the sales and use tax authorized by chapter 3.06 SVMC shall be used for the purposes set forth in RCW 82.14.540 as adopted or amended, which may include use of authorized funds in conjunction with one or more regional governmental entities through an interlocal agreement. Any such use of pooled funds pursuant to interlocal agreement shall also comply with all requirements of RCW 82.14.540 as adopted or amended. Ordinance 20-00* - Sales and Use Tax for Affordable Housing Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of , 2020. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 20-00* - Sales and Use Tax for Affordable Housing Page 3 of 3 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of January 16, 2020; 9:00 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 AWC (Association of Washington Cities) City Action Days, Olympia, Wa. Jan 28-29 Jan 28, 2020, Council Meeting Cancelled due to AWC Action Days Feb 4, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 281 Opportunity for General Public Comment ACTION ITEMS: 1. First Reading Ordinance 20-001 CTA-2019-0003 Re Signage Regulations — Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 2. First Reading Ordinance 20-002 Enabling Ord. Re Collection of Sales and Use Tax — C.Driskell (10 min) NON -ACTION ITEMS: 3. Police Department Quarterly Report — Chief Werner (10 minutes) 4. Public Noticing Procedures — Lori Barlow, Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 5. Potential Grant Opportunity: City Safety Program — Adam Jackson (10 minutes) 6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 7. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports (normally 2nd mtg in Jan.) [*estimated meeting 65 mins] Feb 11, 2020, 6:00 p.m. Council Meeting cancelled Feb 11, 2020, Special Meeting, Winter Workshop 8:30 a.m. [due Tue Feb 41 Tentative items: General Fund -Fund Balance; Public Safety Contracts; Potential and Pending Projects; Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process; ROW Acquisition Process; Transportation Fees; RCO Grant Feb 18, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 111 Opportunity for General Public Comment ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 20-001 CTA-2019-0003 Re Signage Regulations — Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 20-002 Enabling Ord. Re Collection of Sales and Use Tax — C.Driskell (10 min) NON -ACTION ITEMS: 3. STA Update - Susan Meyer (15 minutes) 4. Transportation Fees — Erik Lamb, Adam Jackson (15 minutes) 5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting 60 mins] Feb 25, 2020, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 181 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Rpt: Justice Task Force Wrap-up— C.Driskell; Maggie Yates, Sp Reg. Law & Justice Dept. (30 min) 3. Admin Report: Adams Sidewalk Project Update — Glenn Ritter, Gloria Mantz (5 minutes) 4. Admin Report: Ella and Conklin Sidewalk Project Update — Glenn Ritter, Gloria Mantz (5 minutes) 5. Admin Report Indiana Avenue Preservation Project Update — Erica Amsden, Gloria Mantz (10 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement Project — Erica Amsden, Gloria Mantz (10 mins) 7. Admin Report: Sullivan ITS Project — Glenn Ritter, Gloria Mantz 8. Advance Agenda - Mayor Wick 9. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting 80 mins] March 3, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: CenterPlace Roof Replacement Bid Award — Gloria Mantz 2. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Sullivan ITS Project — Gloria Mantz [due Tue Feb 25 (10 minutes) (10 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 1/16/2020 11:48:56 AM Page 1 of 2 NON -ACTION ITEMS: 3. 2019 Accomplishments Report Mark Calhoun 4. Advance Agenda NLC Congressional City Conf. Washington, D. C (March 7-11) March 10, 2020, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick March 17, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick March 24, 2020, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports (90 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting 115 mins] March 31, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Adams Sidewalk Project — Gloria Mantz 2. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Ella/Conklin Project — Gloria Mantz NON -ACTION ITEMS: 3. Advance Agenda April 7, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick April 14, 2020, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick April 21, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick April 28, 2020, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Appleway Trail Amenities Artwork & Metal Boxes Donation Recognition Fee Resolution Cost of Service Analysis Graffiti Health District Re SV Stats Homelessness Land Use Notice Requirements Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Naming City Facilities Protocol New Employee Rpt (Jan, April, July, Oct) Park Lighting PFD Presentation [due Tue March 31 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue March 10] (5 minutes) [due Tue March 171 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue March 24] (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue March 31] (5 minutes) [due Tue April 7] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue April 14] (5 minutes) [due Tue April 21] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Police Dept Qtr Rpt (Jan, April, July, Oct) SREC Report/Update St. Illumination (owners, cost, location) St. O&M Pavement Preservation Tree City USA Trunk or Treat Utility Facilities in ROW Vaping Water Districts & Green Space Way Finding Signs Draft Advance Agenda 1/16/2020 11:48:56 AM Page 2 of 2