Loading...
2020, 12-15 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Meeting Held via ZOOM Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10210 E Sprague Avenue (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) NOTE: In response to Governor Inslee's March 24, 2020 Proclamation concerning the COVID-19 Emergency, which waives and suspends the requirement to hold in -person meetings and provides options for the public to attend remotely, physical public attendance at Spokane Valley Council meetings are suspended until the Governor's order has been rescinded or amended. Therefore, until further notice, a live feed of the meeting will be available on our website and on Comcast channel 14. Public comments will only be accepted for those items noted on the agenda as "public comment opportunity," will be accepted via the following links, and must be received by 4:00 pm the day of the meeting. • Sign up to Provide Oral Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling -In • Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting • Join the Zoom WEB Meeting CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 20-026 Transportation Impact Fees — Bill Helbig [no public comment] 2. Second Reading Ordinance 20-027 Municipal Tree Ordinance — Mike Stone, Cary Driskell [public comment opportunity] 3. Motion Consideration: Street & Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Contract — John Hohman [public comment opportunity] 4. Motion Consideration: Street Sweeping Contract — John Hohman [public comment opportunity] 5. Motion Consideration: Horse Arena Master Plan — Mike Stone [public comment opportunity] 6. Motion Consideration: Browns Park Playground & Shelter Bid Award — Bill Helbig, Mike Stone [public comment opportunity] NON -ACTION ITEMS: DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL 7. Cary Driskell 8. Mayor Wick SRTC Tribal Membership Discussion/Information Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 9. Information Only (will not be reported on or discussed): Holidays & Heroes Event 10. Mayor Wick Council Comments Discussion/Information 11. Mark Calhoun City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Study Session 2020, 11-17 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 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: Second Reading Ordinance No. 20-026 Transportation Impact Fees Code Text Amendment — CTA-2020-0005 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b); RCW 43.21 C; RCW 82.02.050-.110; WAC 197-11; WAC 365-196-850. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Reports on 2-18-20 and 11-24-20; First Ordinance Reading 12-08-20 BACKGROUND: The proposed ordinance provides a City -initiated code text amendment (CTA- 2020-0005) to provide a new chapter 22.100 to Title 22 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and provide minor modifications as necessary to various other Titles of the SVMC, including Title 17 and Title 22 SVMC, and the Spokane Valley Street Standards (SVSS), to adopt, assess, and collect transportation impact fees within the South Barker Corridor area. Title 22 SVMC regulates the design and development standards pursuant to RCW's 35A.11.020, 35A.14.140, 36.70A (Growth Management Act), and 58.17, WAC 365-195-800 through 365-195- 865, and the provisions of SMVC Titles 17 through 25. In September 2020, Fehr & Peers developed a transportation impact fee rate study derived from the South Barker Corridor Study (the rate study is designated as the "South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study" or "Rate Study" herein). The Rate Study evaluated the previously determined infrastructure improvements and their associated costs, and how those costs can be fairly and proportionately distributed to new development that contributes traffic that affects the transportation network in a manner that complies with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.110. The Rate Study calculates a "per trip" impact fee of $1,272 per PM peak -hour vehicle trip. The following list highlights prominent new development types and their associated impact fee. Costs shown are based on a "per trip" rate of $1,272. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10`" Edition quantifies various "generation rates" associated with a multitude of different land uses and applies an appropriate multiplier to the "per trip" rate of $1,272. 1. $ 1,260 per unit 2. $ 713 per unit 3. $ 891 per room 4. $ 1.74 per sq. ft. 5. $ 4.17 per sq. ft. 6. $ 1.46 per sq. ft. 7. $ 3.20 per sq. ft. Single Family Home/Duplex Multi -Family Hotel (3 or more levels) Elementary School Medical Clinic General Office Shopping Center The concept of adopting an impact fee to help the City mitigate transportation impacts created by new development is not new. In March 2019, the City adopted the "Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance," ("NIA-PAO") set forth in chapter 21.60 SVMC. While technically a SEPA process, the NIA-PAO provides a streamlined land use permit review process that includes traffic mitigation fees in a very similar manner to impact fees. As part of the NIA-PAO, qualifying projects pay a traffic mitigation fee of $2,831. This fee is in lieu of providing detailed lengthy individualized traffic analysis, so it provides certainty to developers and eliminates significant project review time. The Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a study session on the proposed CTA at the October 22, 2020 meeting. On November 5, 2020, the Commission conducted a public hearing and deliberations. Several public comments were received as part of the public hearing and those comments are included within the packet. At that meeting, the Commission voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Council that CTA-2020-0005 be approved as presented by staff. On November 12, 2020 the Commission adopted Findings and Recommendations. Of note, the proposed CTA-2020-0005 provides the mechanism for adopting, assessing, and collecting transportation impact fees. However, it does not contain the fee amount. Rather, the actual transportation impact fee will be adopted as part of the Master Fee Resolution as part of the City's Master Fee Schedule. This process will run concurrently with the process for consideration of Ordinance No. 20-26 and CTA-2020-0005. OPTIONS: Move to approve Ordinance No. 20-026, or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 20-026 adopting, implementing and collecting transportation impact fees for the South Barker Corridor. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no additional cost to the City if the proposed amendment is adopted. Proposed impact fees are anticipated to generate up to $3.36 million of new revenue to be applied to transportation system improvements identified in the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, City Engineer; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Jerremy Clark, Sr. Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance No. 20-026 2. Exhibit C: Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (including South Barker Corridor Study) 3. Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendations 4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes:10/8/2020, 10/22/2020, 11/5/2020, 11/12/2020 5. Staff Report CTA-2020-0005 (including all received comments) 6. Fehr & Peers Response to Liberty Lake Agency Comments Draft CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 20-026 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADOPTING CHAPTER 22.100 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 17.90.010, 17.110.010, AND 22.10.010 AND AMENDING THE SPOKANE VALLEY STREET STANDARDS TO ADOPT, IMPLEMENT AND COLLECT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR; ADOPTING THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY AND THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY; OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted a Comprehensive Plan establishing the intent to utilize available funding sources to pay for capital improvements necessary as a result of new growth within the City, including use of impact fees for new developments to pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve such growth; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that those transportation facilities necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, or shortly thereafter, without decreasing current service levels below established minimum standards for the City; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to adopt, impose, and collect transportation impact fees pursuant to RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.110 and WAC 365-196-850; and WHEREAS, in February, 2020, the City completed a transportation impact study of the South Barker Corridor (the "South Barker Corridor Study") identifying traffic demands within the South Barker Corridor through 2040, necessary capital transportation improvements to meet the traffic demands, and the fair -share proportionate level of financial contribution that new development should pay for those improvements; and WHEREAS, in September, 2020, the City completed a transportation impact fee rate study for the South Barker Corridor (the "South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study") based upon the South Barker Corridor Study identifying the transportation impact fee rates for the South Barker Corridor; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) previously adopted Titles 17 and 22 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and the Spokane Valley Street Standards relating to development regulations, and has made subsequent amendments from time -to -time as appropriate; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2020, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b), providing a notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, the City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance ("DNS") for CTA-2020-0005. The DNS was not appealed; and Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 1 of 36 Draft WHEREAS, on October 16 and 23, 2020, notice of the Planning Commission (Commission) public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald. In addition to legally required notice, the City provided notice of the public hearing in media releases, multiple postings on all City social media outlets, email to email subscribers for numerous City email lists, and created a transportation -specific impact fee website; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, the Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2020, the Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation, followed by deliberations; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2020, the Commission approved the findings and recommended that City Council adopt the amendments; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments, Planning Commission findings, and Planning Commission recommendation; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020 City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the amendment set forth below is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, chapter 22.100 SVMC, sections 17.90.010, 17.110.010, and 22.10.010 SVMC, and the Spokane Valley Street Standards, as amended, bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt, impose, and collect transportation impact fees by adopting chapter 22.100 SVMC, amending sections 17.90.010, 17.110.010, and 22.10.010 SVMC, amending chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards, and adopting the South Barker Corridor Study and South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. Noticing of Public Hearing — The City provided notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendments as follows: 1. Publication in the Spokane Valley News Herald on October 16, 2020, and October 23, 2020. 2. Press release to 320 media -related email addresses, multiple postings on all City social media outlets, email to email subscribers for numerous City email lists, and creation of transportation -specific impact fee website. C. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies (SVMC 17.80.150(F)(1)) - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 2 of 36 Draft Planning Policies. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan set forth below. ED-G3 Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. LU-Gl Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. LU-P8 Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non - motorized transportation routes. T-Gl Ensure that the transportation system and investments in transportation infrastructure are designed to improve quality of life or support economic development priorities. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. T-G3 Strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero. T-P2 Consider neighborhood traffic and livability conditions and address potential adverse impacts of public and private projects during the planning, designing, permitting, and construction phases. T-P6 Work collaboratively with developers to ensure that areas experiencing new development are well served by motorized and non -motorized transportation options. T-P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared -use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. CF-G4 Pursue a diverse set of capital funding sources. CF-P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. CF-P15 Evaluate a variety of capital funding sources including, but not limited to, grants, local improvement districts, latecomer agreements, and impact fees to fund projects and programs. D. Substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment (SVMC 17.80.150(F)(2)) - Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 3 of 36 Draft The proposed amendments implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure a safe and efficient transportation system that supports and maintains the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley. The improvements identified in the South Barker Corridor Study and Rate Study will help maintain adequate levels of service for traffic along the Barker Road corridor over the next 20 years. The transportation impact fees will provide a regular and reliable funding source for a portion of these improvements, and will be provided by developments that are directly contributing to the need for such improvements. Further, the fees will be limited to the proportionate impact from new development, so as new development causes impacts, those impacts will be able to be addressed through necessary improvements. The proposed amendments introduce a consistent and reliable fee schedule for new development that establishes set rates across various types of new development, lending itself to more efficient planning and budgeting for new development projects. The proposed impact fee of $1,272 "per trip" is based on the Rate Study, which was conducted within standard engineering principles and provides a reasonable and appropriate fee amount. E. Conclusions - 1. The requirements for noticing of the public hearing pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(D). 2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(1). 3. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(2). F. Compliance with RCW 82.02.050-.110 and WAC 365-196-850 - 1. The proposed amendments and fees are based on a traffic rate study conducted in accordance with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050-.110. 2. The proposed fees and amendments are for public street and road system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, do not exceed the proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, and will be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development within the South Barker Corridor, as identified in the South Barker Corridor Traffic Study and South Barker Corridor Traffic Rate Study. 3. The Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service. The City has conducted a comprehensive study and plan of traffic growth and necessary system improvements to support such growth for the South Barker Corridor. Chapters 5 and 10 of the Comprehensive Plan identify use of impact fees as a funding source for necessary improvements. Section 3. Adoption. Title 22 SVMC is hereby amended by adding a new chapter, to be designated "Chapter 22.100 Transportation Impact Fees," as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 4. Amendment. SVMC 17.90.010 is hereby amended as follows: 17.90.010 General. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 4 of 36 Draft A. Appeals and Jurisdiction. All final decisions shall be appealed to the authority set forth in Table 17.90-1. Specific procedures followed by the planning commission, hearing examiner, and city council are set forth in Appendix B. Table 17.90-1— Decision/Appeal Authority Land Use and Development Decisions Appeal Authority Type I and II decisions Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Building permits Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type III decisions except zoning map amendments Superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type III zoning map amendments City council (SVMC 17.90.070); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type IV decisions Superior court Matters subject to review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.020 Growth Management Hearings Board Shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, and shoreline variances Shorelines Hearings Board (RCW 90.58.180) Compliance and enforcement decisions (Chapter 17.100 SVMC) Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Order of dwelling, building, structure, or premises unfit for human habitation or other use (Chapter 17.105 SVMC) Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.105.050) pursuant to the appeal procedures set forth in Chapter 17.105 SVMC; further appeal to superior court (SVMC 17.105.120) Impact fee appeals pursuant to chapter 22.100 SVMC shall be heard by the Hearing Examiner. Such appeals shall be subject to the procedures herein for Type I permit appeals, except as otherwise provided for by chapter 22.100 SVMC. Pursuant to chapter 22.100 SVMC, impact fee appeals shall be heard concurrently with appeals of the underlying permit as applicable. Impact fee appeals shall be subject to all requirements of chapter 22.100 SVMC, including any necessary pre -appeal requirements. Section 5. Amendment. SVMC 17.110.010 SVMC is hereby amended as follows: 17.110.010 Master fee schedule. All fees, including but not limited to fees for development permits, code interpretations, impact fees, all other applications allowed pursuant to SVMC Titles 17 through 24, and allowed appeals, shall be set forth in the City master fee schedule. A copy of this schedule shall be available from the city clerk. Section 6. Amendment. SVMC 22.10.010 is hereby amended as follows: 22.10.010 Purpose. The following design and development standards are established pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, 35A.14.140, Chapter 36.70A RCW (the Growth Management Act), Chapter 58.17 RCW, RCW 82.02.50 through 82.02.110, and WAC 365-195-800 through 365-195-865, as well as provisions of SVMC Titles 17 through 25. Section 7. Amendment. Chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 5 of 36 Draft Section 8. Study Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study and the South Barker Corridor Study in support of the amendments and transportation impact fees authorized by such amendments. The South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study is attached as Exhibit "C", the South Barker Corridor Study is attached as Appendix B to the Rate Study in Exhibit "C", and both Studies are incorporated by reference herein and chapter 22.100 SVMC as provided therein. Section 9. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of the SVMC and Street Standards not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 10. 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 11. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of December, 2020. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 6 of 36 Draft EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 22.100 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Sections: 22.100.010 Findings and Authority. 22.100.020 Definitions. 22.100.030 Applicability. 22.100.040 Assessment of Transportation Impact Fees. 22.100.050 Deferral. 22.100.060 Exemptions. 22.100.070 Credits. 22.100.080 Independent Fee Calculations. 22.100.090 Adjustments. 22.100.100 Creation of Impact Fee Fund. 22.100.110 Appeals. 22.100.120 Refunds. 22.100.130 Interlocal Agreements. 22.100.140 Existing Authority Unimpaired. 22.100.150 Review. SVMC 22.100.010 Findings and Authority. A. The City Council hereby finds and determines that new growth and development, including but not limited to new residential, commercial, retail, office, cultural, educational, and industrial development, in the City will create additional demand and need for public transportation facilities, including but not limited to, public streets, roadways, multimodal, and related improvements within the City, and the City Council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. B. The City has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on transportation facilities, has prepared certain Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies, including the South Barker Corridor Study, dated February, 2020, and South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, dated September, 2020. All such studies are hereby adopted and incorporated into this title by reference. Based on the foregoing, the City has prepared a formula and method of calculating transportation impact fees to serve new development that provides a balance between transportation impact fees, public funds, and other sources of funds. The data and method of calculating contained in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies are consistent with the data collected as part of the development of the comprehensive plan, the traffic impact analyses completed for projects, and data and models developed by Spokane Regional Transportation Council and other jurisdictions. The Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies utilize a methodology for calculating transportation impact fees that fulfills all of the requirements of RCW 82.02.060(1). Copies of all studies shall be kept on file with the City Clerk and shall be available to the public for review. C. Pursuant to chapter 82.02 RCW, the City Council adopts this chapter to adopt and assess transportation impact fees. D. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the City Council in establishing the transportation impact fee program. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 7 of 36 Draft SVMC 22.100.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to Appendix A of the SVMC or RCW 82.02.090. A. "Applicant" means a person who applies for a development activity permit and who is the owner of the subject property according to the records of the Spokane County, or the owner's authorized agent. For purposes of transportation impact fee deferral requests pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050, applicant includes an entity that controls the applicant, is controlled by the applicant, or is under common control with the applicant. B. "Building permit" means the official document or certification that is issued by the City and that authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, tenant improvement, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure, as required and issued pursuant to Title 24 SVMC. C. "Development activity" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any changes in the use of land, that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. It does not include buildings or structures constructed by a regional transit authority or buildings or structures constructed as shelters that provide emergency housing for people experiencing homelessness, or emergency shelters for victims of domestic violence. D. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the City that authorizes the commencement of development activity. E. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or department or bureau of any governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a land development activity that creates the demand for additional public facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for a transportation impact fee credit. F. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, or the cost for reviewing independent fee calculations or other traffic studies prepared for safety, SEPA, or other purposes defined in the Spokane Valley Street Standards or in the SVMC. G. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account(s) established for each service area for the system improvements for which impact fees are collected. The accounts shall be established pursuant to this chapter, and shall comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070. H. "Independent fee calculation" means the impact fee calculation and or economic documentation prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of schedule set forth in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, or the calculations prepared by the City where none of the fee categories or fee amounts in the schedules in this chapter accurately describe or capture the impacts of the new development on public facilities. I. "Interest" means the interest rate earned by local jurisdictions in the State of Washington local government investment pool, if not otherwise defined. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 8 of 36 Draft J. "ITE manual" means the current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, as amended from time to time and most current version of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook as referenced therein. K. "Pass -by trip rates" means those pass -by rates set forth in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies, as amended from time to time. L. "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project, and are not system improvements. An improvement or facility included in the City's capital facilities plan is not considered a project improvement. M. "Public facilities" means publicly owned streets and roads, including related sidewalk, bike lanes, adjacent multiuse trails, and streetscape improvements required by the City's comprehensive plan and related development regulations, including adopted Street Standards, within the public rights -of -way. N. "Rate study" or "Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study" means the set of Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies adopted by City Council that define the methodologies, service standards, projects, costs, deficiencies, fair -shares, and rate tables. O. "Rate table" refers to schedule(s) containing the transportation impact fee rate per PM peak hour trip or unit of land use (e.g., single family dwelling unit, square footage of leasable retail space, etc.) as defined by the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, and as may be amended from time to time. The rate table shall be incorporated into the City's adopted Master Fee Schedule, and shall be maintained by the City Clerk and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours and/or electronically on the City's website. P. "Service area" means a geographic area defined by the City in which a defined set of public facilities provide service to development within the identified area. The City has identified the service areas, based on sound planning and engineering principles, but these service areas may change based on the nature of development and the public facilities needs identified to support development across the City. The service areas are defined in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies. Maps depicting the service areas are set forth in the Rate Studies and shall also be maintained by the City Clerk and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours and/or electronically on the City's website. Q. "System improvements" means public facilities included in the capital facilities plan and which are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project improvements. SVMC 22.100.030 Applicability. Except as may otherwise be provided herein, all development activity within the geographical services areas established in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies shall be assessed the transportation impact fee applicable to the type of development in the amounts set forth in the current rate table as adopted by the City Council. SVMC 22.100.040 Assessment of Transportation Impact Fees. A. Transportation impact fees shall be assessed at the issuance of a building permit for each unit in a development, using either the current rate set forth in the adopted transportation impact fee rate table or an independent fee calculation as approved by the City. The transportation impact fee rate table is incorporated into the City's Master Fee Schedule, and is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 9 of 36 Draft B. Transportation impact fees shall be paid at the issuance of a building permit, except as otherwise provided pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050. C. For commercial development involving multiple users, transportation impact fees shall be assessed and collected prior to issuance of building permits that authorize completion of tenant improvements for each use. D. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application pursuant to SVMC 22.100.070 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the City pursuant to 22.100.070 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit awarded. Transportation impact fees, as determined after the application of appropriate credits, shall be collected from the applicant prior to issuance of the building permit for each unit in the development unless deferred per SVMC 22.100.050. E. For mixed use buildings or development, transportation impact fees shall be imposed based on the total PM peak hour trip generation from each individual use, as defined in the rate table. Where internal trip capture is expected based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual or Handbook, manual calculations may be submitted for review and approval pursuant to SVMC 22.100.080. F. The City shall establish the transportation impact fee rate for a land use that is not listed in the rate table based on (1) the most similar land use category identified in the rate table, or (2) the base rate and the most similar land use category identified in ITE Trip Generation Manual, as documented by a trip generation and distribution letter in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards, all pursuant to SVMC 22.100.080. The applicant shall submit all information requested by the City for purposes of determining the impact fee rate pursuant to SVMC 22.100.080. G. The City shall place a hold on permits for development approval and no permits shall be issued unless and until the transportation impact fees required by this chapter, less any permitted exemptions, credits or deductions, have been paid or lien recorded. H. An applicant may request that the transportation impact fee be calculated in advance of building permit issuance, but any such advance calculation shall not be binding on the City and should only be used as guidance by the applicant, except as otherwise provided pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050. There is no vested right to pay a particular transportation impact fee in advance of building permit issuance. If the City Council revises the transportation impact fee formula or the transportation impact fees themselves prior to the time that a building permit is issued for a particular development, the formula or fee amount in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall apply to the development. SVMC 22.100.050 Deferral. A. An applicant for single-family detached and attached residential construction may request deferral of collection of transportation impact fees until certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of the original building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. The following requirements shall apply to any application for deferral of transportation impact fees: 1. The request for deferral must be made in writing prior to the building permit issuance, and consistent with the requirements of this section, to defer payment of the transportation impact fee until certificate of occupancy or equivalent certification. 2. To receive a deferral, an applicant must: Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 10 of 36 Draft a. Submit a deferred impact fee application and acknowledgement form for each single- family attached or detached residence for which the applicant wishes to defer payment of the transportation impact fees; b. Pay the applicable deferral application fee; c. Grant and record at the applicant's expense a deferred transportation impact fee lien in a form approved by the City against the property in favor of the City in the amount of the deferred impact fee that: i. Includes the legal description, tax account number, and address of the property; ii. Requires payment of the impact fees to the City prior to Certificate of Occupancy or equivalent certification, or 18 months from the date of the original building permit issuance, whichever occurs first; iii. Is signed by all owners of the property, with all signatures acknowledged as required for a deed, and is recorded in Spokane County; iv. Binds all successors in title after the recordation; and v. Is junior and subordinate to one mortgage for the purpose of construction upon the same real property granted by the person who applied for the deferral of transportation impact fees. B. The amount of transportation impact fees deferred shall be determined by the fees in effect at the time the applicant applies for a deferral. C. Prior to any required dates for payment, the applicant may pay the deferred amount in installments, with no penalty for early payment. The City may set a minimum installment amount. D. If closing of the first sale of the property for which transportation impact fees were deferred occurs within 18 months of the building permit issuance, payment of all deferred impact fees is required to take place prior to or upon closing, and the seller shall be strictly liable for payment of all deferred impact fees to the City at that time. The City bears no responsibility for determining whether the seller and the buyer have contractually agreed for the buyer to pay the deferred fees, and the City reserves the right to institute legal proceedings against the seller, if necessary, to collect any deferred impact fees that remain unpaid after closing. In addition, the City may withhold issuance of a certificate of occupancy, final inspection approval, or equivalent certification required for occupancy of the residence until all impact fees have been paid in full. E. If closing of the first sale of the property for which transportation impact fees were deferred does not occur within 18 months of the building permit issuance, then all deferred impact fees shall become immediately due and owing to the City, and the applicant shall be strictly liable for payment of all deferred impact fees to the City at that time. If the applicant fails, upon request by the City, to immediately pay all deferred impact fees pursuant to this chapter, then the City may foreclose on the lien in the manner provided for in chapter 61.12 RCW. In addition, the City may withhold issuance of a certificate of occupancy, final inspection approval, or equivalent certification required for occupancy of the residence until all impact fees have been paid in full. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 11 of 36 Draft F. Upon receipt of final payment of impact fees deferred under this section, the City shall execute a release of deferred impact fee lien for each single-family attached or detached residence for which the transportation impact fees have been received. The applicant, or property owner at the time of release, shall be responsible for recording the lien release at his or her expense. G. The extinguishment of a deferred impact fee lien by the foreclosure of a lien having priority does not affect the obligation to pay the transportation impact fees as a condition of certificate of occupancy or equivalent certification, or at the time of closing of the first sale. H. Each applicant for a single-family attached or detached residential construction permit, in accordance with his or her contractor registration number or other unique identification number, is entitled to annually receive deferrals under this section for the first 20 single-family residential construction building permits on an annual basis. SVMC 22.100.060 Exemptions. For the purposes of this chapter only, the following are exempt from the payment of transportation impact fees: A. Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of the same size and use or a residential structure with the same number of residential dwelling units, both at the same site or lot, where demolition of the prior commercial or residential structure occurred within the prior two years. Replacement of a commercial structure with a new commercial structure of the same size shall be interpreted to include any structure for which the gross square footage of the building will not be increased by more than 100 square feet and the primary use of the commercial space is the same. It shall be the feepayer's responsibility and burden to establish the existence of a qualifying prior use. B. Expansions of existing residential structures that do not add residential dwelling units. C. Alteration of an existing nonresidential structure that does not expand the usable space, add any residential units, or result in a change in use. D. Miscellaneous improvements that do not create additional demand and need for public facilities, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs. E. Demolition or moving of a structure. F. Re -use or change in use of an existing structure that does not create additional demand and need for public facilities. It shall be the feepayer's responsibility and burden to establish that no additional demand is created by the re -use or change in use. For a change in use of an existing structure that does create additional demand and need for public facilities, the City shall collect transportation impact fees for the new use based on the schedules in rate table, less the fees that would have been payable as a result of the prior use. SVMC 22.100.070 Credits. A. An applicant may request a credit for the total value of dedicated land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the applicant. Credits will only be given if the land, improvements, and/or facility constructed are for one or more of the transportation projects listed in the Rate Study as the basis for calculating the transportation impact fee. B. Credits shall be based on appraised value made by an appraiser approved of by the City. The appraiser must be a Washington State certified appraiser or must possess other equivalent certification and shall not Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 12 of 36 Draft have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. A description of the appraiser's certification shall be included with the appraisal, and the appraiser shall certify that he/she does not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of the cost of the appraisal and all associated or related costs. C. After receiving the appraisal, and where consistent with the requirements of this section, the City shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, the legal description of the site donated where applicable, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating the applicant's agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the City before the impact fee credit will be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 calendar days shall nullify the credit. The credit must be used within 72 months of the award of the credit. D. Any claim for credit must be made prior to issuance of a building permit, provided any claim for credit submitted later than 20 calendar days after the submission of an application for a building permit shall constitute a waiver and suspension of timelines established by state and/or local law for processing of permit applications. E. In no event shall the credit exceed the amount of the impact fees that would have been due for the proposed development activity. F. No credit shall be given for project improvements or right-of-way dedications for direct access improvements to and/or within the subject development above and beyond what is proposed in the capital facilities plan. SVMC 22.100.080 Independent Fee Calculations. A. If in the judgment of the City Manager, none of the land uses, fee categories or fee amounts set forth in the rate tables accurately describe or capture the impacts of a new development on transportation facilities, the City may prepare independent fee calculations and the City Manager may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations. The default method for calculating such independent fee calculations shall be based on the base rate and the most similar land use category identified in ITE Trip Generation Manual, as documented by a trip generation and distribution letter in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards; provided however, other methods may be used as determined to be necessary to accurately capture the impact from development. The alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed to the applicant. B. Alternatively, if an applicant believes that the applicant's proposed development activity does not fall under one of the fee categories set forth in the rate table, the applicant may, at the applicant's option, prepare and submit to the City an independent fee calculation for the development activity for which a development permit is being sought. The documentation submitted shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer and shall identify a development activity or land use code in the ITE manual that most closely resembles the applicant's proposed development activity and calculate the applicant's fees based on the number of trips assigned to that development activity by the ITE manual. The applicant may also choose to prepare an independent trip generation rate/impact fee study to document why no ITE land use category is appropriate as it relates to this chapter. In calculating such fees, the applicant may choose to incorporate applicable pass -by trip rates or mixed -use internalization factors that are supported by evidence and/or transportation engineering best practices. For any independent fee calculation prepared by the applicant, documentation in the form of a report or memo is required to be submitted to the City that explains the methodology, data sources, and calculations. Independent fee calculations shall use the same impact fee rate per PM peak hour trip generated as documented in the rate table. The independent rate study shall be Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 13 of 36 Draft limited to documenting the project's net PM peak hour trip generation rate and subsequent impact fee and therefore shall not include travel demand forecasts, trip distribution, project cost, or fare -share cost allocation results. C. Any applicant electing an independent fee calculation pursuant to subsection (B) of this section shall pay the City a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the independent fee calculation. No such fee shall apply to calculations performed under subsection (A) of this section. The applicant shall remit all remaining actual costs of the City's review of the independent fee calculation prior to and as a precondition of the City's issuance of the building permit. D. There is a rebuttable presumption that the calculations set forth in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies and the adopted fees in the rate tables are valid. The City Manager shall consider the documentation submitted by an applicant pursuant to subsection (B) of this section, but is not required to accept such documentation or analysis which the City Manager reasonably deems to be inapplicable, inaccurate, or not reliable. The City Manager may modify or deny the request, or, in the alternative, require the applicant to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. The City Manager is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case -by -case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or principles of fairness. The City's decision shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed to the applicant. SVMC 22.100.090 Adjustments. Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study has included and accounted for adjustments for future taxes to be paid by the new development which are earmarked or pro -ratable to the same new public facilities which will serve the new development. The Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study has included committed and probable external funding in calculating the impact fees. SVMC 22.100.100 Creation of Impact Fee Fund. A. There is created a special revenue fund in the treasury of the City termed the "Transportation Impact Fee Fund" into which all transportation impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be placed and used solely for the purposes identified herein and in conformance with applicable state law. Interest earned on the fees shall be retained in the fund and expended for the purposes for which the transportation impact fees were collected. B. On an annual basis, the City shall provide a report on the transportation impact fee fund showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by the transportation impact fees. C. Transportation impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within ten years of receipt, unless there exists an extraordinary and compelling reason for fees to be held longer than ten years. The City Council shall adopt findings identifying the extraordinary and compelling reasons in the event any impact fees are held for longer than ten years and the additional time period fees shall be held. SVMC 22.100.110 Appeals. A. Applicants or feepayers may appeal an impact fee pursuant to the provisions of this section. B. Any applicant or feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit or certificate of occupancy. Any appeal filed prior to the payment of impact fees shall constitute a waiver and suspension of timelines established by state and/or local law for the processing of permit applications. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 14 of 36 Draft C. Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be filed by the applicant or feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. D. The applicant or feepayer must file a request for review regarding impact fees with the City Manager and receive such determination, as provided herein, prior to filing an appeal of the impact fees. 1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the City and shall outline the legal and factual bases for why the impact fee at issue should not be required or should be modified. The applicant or feepayer requesting review shall bear the burden of demonstrating the fee is inappropriate or should be modified. 2. The request for review shall be filed no later than fourteen calendar days after the feepayer pays the impact fees at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar to later seek such review. 3. No administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review; and 4. The City Manager shall issue a determination in writing and may uphold the impact fee, modify the impact fee, or determine the impact fee is inappropriate and dismiss the impact fee. Any amount of an impact fee paid in protest that is determined to be inappropriate shall be refunded. E. Determinations of the City Manager with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the City Manager's decision concerning the independent fee calculation, or any other determination which the City Manager is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, may be appealed to the hearing examiner subject to chapter 17.90 SVMC. F. Appeals of impact fees shall be heard concurrently with any underlying appeal of the permit as applicable. SVMC 22.100.120 Refunds. A. If the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within ten years of receipt or such other time set by City Council as allowed by law, the current owner of the property for which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees, provided a refund is not required where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist for holding the fees longer than ten years, as identified in written findings by the City Council. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first in, first out basis. B. The City shall notify potential claimants by first class mail deposited with the United States postal service at the last known address of the claimants. A potential claimant or claimants must be the owner of record of the real property against which the impact fee was assessed. C. Property owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the City Manager within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within the one-year period shall be retained by the City and expended on the appropriate public facilities. E. Refunds of impact fees under this chapter shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the City. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 15 of 36 Draft F. A feepayer may request and shall receive a refund, including interest earned on the impact fees, when the feepayer and/or the feepayer's successors and assigns do not proceed with the development activity and there has been no impact to the City's transportation system. A request for a refund pursuant to this section must be accompanied by an acknowledgement that the feepayer's underlying development approval, including any associated permits, has expired and that any application to reinstate the development approval shall be subject to the payment of impact fees pursuant to this chapter. SVMC 22.100.130 Interlocal Agreements. Consistent with other terms of this chapter and state law, interlocal agreements by and between the City and other government agencies are permissible. SVMC 22.100.140 Existing Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the City from requiring the applicant for development approval to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW. SVMC 22.100.150 Review. The impact fee rate table set forth in this chapter shall be reviewed by the City Council from time to time, as it deems necessary and appropriate in conjunction with review of the City's transportation improvement plan and as necessary to address changes to travel demands, growth forecasts, or the project list. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 16 of 36 Draft EXHIBIT `B" CHAPTER 3 -TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CHAPTER ORGANIZATION 3.1 Introduction 20 3.2 Trip Generation & Distribution Letter Guidelines 21 3.2.1 Applicability 21 3.2.2 Minimum Elements 22 3.3 Limited Traffic Impact Analysis 23 3.3.1 Applicability 23 3.3.2 Scope 23 3.3.3 Methodology 24 3.3.4 Limited TIA Report Minimum Elements 25 3.3.4.1 Title Page 25 3.3.4.2 Project Description and Summary 25 3.3.4.3 Proposed Development and Trip Generation 25 3.3.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions 26 3.3.4.5 Background Projects 26 3.3.4.6 Other Analyses 27 3.3.4.7 Findings 27 3.3.4.8 Appendices 27 3.4 Traffic Impact Analysis 28 3.4.1 Applicability 28 3.4.2 Scope 28 3.4.3 Methodology 29 3.4.4 TIA Report Minimum Elements 30 3.4.4.1 Title Page 31 3.4.4.2 Introduction and Summary 31 3.4.4.3 Proposed Development 31 3.4.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions 31 Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 17 of 36 Draft 3.4.4.5 Background Projects 32 3.4.4.6 Analysis Scenarios 32 3.4.4.7 Other Analyses 33 3.4.4.8 Findings 33 3.4.4.9 Appendices 33 3.5 Meetings 34 Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 18 of 36 Draft THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 19 of 36 Draft 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the contents of the trip generation letter and traffic impact analysis (TIA) submittals. All projects except those exempt pursuant to SVMC 22.20.020 shall be subject to transportation concurrency review. This review is conducted to ensure that adequate transportation facilities are provided in conjunction with new growth. Transportation concurrency shall be measured using the concept of level of service (LOS). Acceptable LOS thresholds are defined in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. This flowchart may be used to determine what type of transportation concurrency document is required. The City shall not sign off on a project until transportation concurrency has been determined. Required for all projects outside of an impact fee area that generate more than 10 peak hour trips or projects inside of an impact fee area that do not match a land use in the TIF table. Limited TIA Trip Generation & Distribution Letter Required for all projects that generate more than 10 peak hour trips (see section 3.21 • • Required for qualified projects within a SEPA Infill Area that generate more than 20 peak hour trips at an arterial intersection (see section 3.3) May be required for projects within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area that generate more than 20 peak hour trips at an intersection of federally classified streets. TIA Required for all qualified projects that do not qualify for a Limited TIA and that generate more than 20 peak hour trips at an arterial intersection (see section 3.4) Required for all projects that generate more than 20 peak hour trips at an intersection of federally classified streets or add volume to an area with a current traffic problem and do not qualify for a Limited TIA The table below summarizes the mandatory scope elements for each type of analysis required by Spokane Valley: Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 20 of 36 Draft Table 1— Summary of Traffic Analysis Scope Elements Scope Elements Trip Limited TIA Generation Letter Engineering Seal X X Title Page X Project Description and Summary X X Proposed Development and Trip Generation X X Summary of Existing Conditions X Background projects and growth rate X Study Area Intersections of Collectors or higher within % mile X Intersections of Collectors or higher within 1 mile LOS Analyses Safety Analyses Other Analyses (Operations, Sight Distance, Turn Lane Warrants, etc.) Analysis Scenarios (Peak Hours defined in scope) Existing Conditions Build -out year without project Build -out year with project Build -out + 5 years without project Build -out + 5 years with project Regional modeling — regional impacting development Findings Appendices Public Meetings X X X X TIA X X X X X X X X X X 3.2 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION LETTER GUIDELINES All projects outside of an impact fee area which generate 10 or more new peak -hour vehicular trips shall submit a trip generation and distribution letter. Projects within an impact fee area with land uses that are not included in the impact fee rate schedule shall submit a trip generation and distribution letter. The letter shall be based on the current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and developed by an Engineer. If a project is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, the trip generation and distribution letter shall be submitted for review at the time of the SEPA application. The letter is required to be approved by the City prior to submittal of a traffic impact analysis report. 3.2.1 APPLICABILITY a. A trip generation and distribution letter is required for most projects. However, the following projects are typically under the peak -hour threshold and may not be required to prepare a trip generation and distribution letter: Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 21 of 36 Draft i. Residential short plats of 8 or fewer lots or dwelling units (the number of trips from a duplex shall be equivalent to two single family homes); ii. Drive -through coffee stands with no indoor seating; iii. Multi -family projects with nine 13 units or less (for calculation purposes, multi -family housing projects are defined as four or more attached units in the ITE Trip Generation Manual); iv. Changes of use from residential to commercial with no new buildings or building additions; v. Office projects of less than 2,500 additional square feet (ITE land uses 700-799); and, vi. Industrial projects of less than 9,000 additional square feet (ITE land uses 100-199). b. For projects expected to generate less than 10 peak -hour vehicular trips the project applicant is required to submit a letter with the following information for all proposed development phases for the property: i. Brief project description; ii. Number of expected employees; iii. Hours of business; and, iv. The expected number of vehicular trips (customers and employees) to the business during the AM and PM peak hours. 3.2.2 MINIMUM ELEMENTS The trip generation and distribution letter for projects generating 10 or more peak - hour trips shall include the following elements: a. Project application and/or permit number b.Project description, including proposed use; Vic. Site plan with vicinity map; mod. Building size noted in square feet; de. Zoning of the property; f. Determination of whether the project is in a SEPA Infill Area (see following section); eg.Determination of whether the project is in an impact fee area; Proposed and existing access points, site circulation, queuing lengths for driveways (and drive-throughs, if applicable) and parking locations; gi. Project phasing and expected build out year; j. An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak -hour, and PM peak -hour conditions. Supporting calculations and data sources shall Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 22 of 36 Draft be shown. Any adjustments for transit use, mixed use internalization, pass - by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be clearly stated; A comparison of the trip generation between the previous and the proposed site use for projects involving a change of use. If the comparison shows a net increase in trip generation, the project shall be subject to the TIA requirements of a new development; j-1. A preliminary distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network, shown in a graphical format; and, The engineering seal signed and dated by the engineer who prepared the letter. 3.3 LIMITED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Pursuant to SVMC 21.20.040, portions of Spokane Valley had additional environmental review performed as part of the Comprehensive Plan EIS. Because of the additional environmental review within the SEPA Infill Areas, the majority of development projects within these areas do not require a full TIA report if the Applicant adopts the subarea environmental analysis and mitigation requirements identified in the SEPA documents. However, to assess potential traffic safety or site access issues, a limited TIA is required as set forth below. 3.3.1 APPLICABILITY A limited TIA may beis required for the following situations: a. Projects adding 20 or more peak -hour trips through an arterial intersection of federally classified streets as identified in the current Arterial Street Plan, and which are located within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area; b. Projects within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area that contribute volumes toimpact local access intersections, alleys, or driveways located within an area with a current traffic problem as identified by the City or previous traffic study, such as a high -accident location, poor roadway alignment, or area with a capacity deficiency; or c. At the discretion of the City in lieu of a full TIA. A full TIA (see Section 3.4) is required for land uses that exceed the total trip bank established in SVMC 21.20.040. Applicants are encouraged to consult with City staff if they are unsure if they apply for both SEPA relief and a limited TIA. 3.3.2 SCOPE The scope of the limited TIA shall be developed by an engineer. A draft scope shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to submission of the limited TIA. The scope of the limited TIA shall conform to the following: a. The study area may include any intersections or streets within a 1/2 mile radius of the site. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 23 of 36 Draft b. A safety analysis may be required, as identified by City staff in the scope review phase. If the analysis is required, the City shall assist by providing crash data if available. Safety analysis at a minimum requires three years of crash history showing the date and time, type, number of vehicles involved in the crash, including weather and road conditions. Crash analysis shall include bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Crash information shall be assessed by the developer's engineer to identify possible impacts the proposed new trips would add to the problem. Examples may include queuing that exceeds storage pocket lengths or that extends to upstream intersections, recurring left turn crashes, limited sight distance, or proposed project access intersections that may be poorly placed. c. If a safety and operational analysis reveals deficiencies, then mitigation measures shall be developed with recommendations to fix the deficiencies. d. Unless otherwise identified by the City, the analysis shall be performed for the build -out year of the proposed development. 3.3.3 METHODOLOGY The analysis shall be done using the following methodology: a. Background growth rate — The background growth rate may be based on historical growth data or the growth rate as calculated from Figures 30 and 32 of the Comprehensive Plan (the 2016 and 2040 average daily traffic volumes). A minimal annual growth rate of 1% is required unless otherwise approved by the City; b. The LOS shall be determined in accordance with the methods reported in the current version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM); c. Use of the two -stage gap acceptance methodology for unsignalized intersections is subject to City approval; d. "Synchro" is the primary traffic software used by the City to model intersection and turn pocket queuing analysis. Depending on the analysis, the City may request other traffic analysis using other modeling software. In addition to Synchro, the engineer may use the most current version of Highway Capacity Software (HCS). Other analysis tools may be utilized with City approval if HCM methodology cannot accurately model an intersection; e. Trip generation data shall be based on the latest version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Trip generation data from studies of similar facilities may be substituted with prior City approval; and, f. Turning movement counts and crash diagrams may need to be developed to document a safety or operations problem. If traffic counts are required, they shall be taken on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday representing a typical travel day. Counts shall not be taken during a week which contains a holiday or during a week of a significant weather event. Projects near Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 24 of 36 Draft schools may be required to collect turning movement counts during a typical school day. 3.3.4 LIMITED TIA REPORT MINIMUM ELEMENTS The limited TIA report shall include at least the following: 3.3.4.1 Title Page The limited TIA shall include a title page with the following elements: a. Name of project; b. City project number/permit number; c. Applicant's name and address; d. Engineer's name, address and phone number; e. Date of study preparation; and, f. The engineering seal, signed and dated by the professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington who prepared the report. 3.3.4.2 Project Description and Summary The limited TIA shall include a brief description of project, location, study intersections, findings, and mitigation. 3.3.4.3 Proposed Development and Trip Generation The limited TIA shall include the following information for the proposed development: a. Project description, including proposed use; b. Site plan with vicinity map; c. Building size noted in square feet; d. Zoning of the property; e. Determination of whether the project is within a SEPA Infill Area (see following section); f. Proposed and existing access points, site circulation, queuing lengths for driveways (and drive-throughs, if applicable) and parking locations; g. Project phasing and expected opening year; h. An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak - hour, and PM peak -hour conditions. Supporting calculations and data sources shall be shown. Any adjustments for transit use, mixed use internalization, pass -by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be clearly stated; i. A comparison of the trip generation between the previous and the proposed site use for projects involving a change of use. If the Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 25 of 36 Draft comparison shows a net increase in trip generation, the project shall be subject to the limited TIA requirements of a new development; A preliminary distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network, shown in a graphical format; and, k. Project phasing and timing. 3.3.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions The limited TIA shall provide a brief summary of existing conditions for the study area that includes at least the following: a. Brief summary of the transportation network adjacent to the site including a qualitative description of the facilities, speed limits, presence of bike lanes/trails, bus stops, and on -street parking; b. Figure or table of the peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections; c. Collision history — three years minimum; d. Length of existing turn pockets at study intersections; and, e. Other information as identified during the scoping process. 3.3.4.5 Background Projects If background project traffic is necessary to assess build -out conditions, it shall include the following: a. Traffic from newly constructed projects; b. Projects for which traffic impacts have been tentatively reserved; c. Projects for which a Concurrency Certificate has been awarded; d. Non -project, general background traffic increases; and, e. Vested traffic for vacant buildings that are undergoing redevelopment. The limited TIA shall provide the following information for background projects, as identified by the City: a. Project descriptions; b. Vicinity map; c. Trips generated by projects and assigned to study intersections, d. Figure or table of the build -out peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections; e. Planned transportation improvements (private development and City); and, f. Where required, safety and operations analysis results. J. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 26 of 36 Draft 3.3.4.6 Other Analyses Other analyses may be required as requested by the City, including but not limited to: a. Queue lengths at driveways and drive -through windows; b. Noise; c. Air quality (typically required when physical improvements are proposed and requires electronic submittal of Synchro files); d. Intersection control warrant analysis (signal, roundabouts, four-way stop, yield); e. Auxiliary lane warrant analysis; f. Parking study (including vehicles and/or bicycles); g. Site access; and, h. Pedestrian access study. 3.3.4.7 Findings The following shall be addressed in the findings section: a. Traffic and safety impacts; b. Proposed project modifications; and, c. Off -site mitigation or mitigation beyond that included with Impact Fees. 3.3.4.8 Appendices The following information shall be included in appendices: a. Definitions; b. Trip generation sources; c. Passer-by and origin -destination studies (if applicable); d. Volume and turning movement count sheets; e. Analysis software (Synchro, HCS, SimTraffic, etc.) report printouts (electronic submittal may be required); f. Warrant analysis calculations; and, g. References. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 27 of 36 Draft 3.4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS For developments that are not within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area, this section outlines the requirements for a TIA. The intent of the TIA is to allow the City to properly plan and improve the transportation system to meet the mobility needs of future growth and to comply with SEPA requirements. 3.4.1 APPLICABILITY A TIA is required for the following situations: a. Projects adding 20 or more peak -hour trips to an intersection of arterial federally classified streets as identified in the current Arterial Street Plan, within a one -mile radius of the project site as shown by the trip generation and distribution letter; or, b. Projects contributing volumes to impacting local access intersections, alleys, or driveways located within an area with a current traffic problem as identified by the City or previous traffic study, such as a high -accident location, poor roadway alignment or capacity deficiency. 3.4.2 SCOPE The scope of the TIA shall be developed by an engineer. Prior to submittal of the TIA, the City and other impacted jurisdictions/agencies shall approve the scope of the TIA. The scope of the TIA shall conform to the following: a. The study area shall include any intersections of arterial federally classified streets within a one -mile radius of the site that would experience an increase of at least 20 vehicle trips during a peak hour. Some intersections may be excluded if analyzed within the past year and are shown to operate at LOS C or better. All site access points shall be analyzed. Additional federally classified arterial intersections outside of the one mile radius and intersections of local streets may also be required at the discretion of the City; b. If any of the study intersections are on a Major Arterial Corridor, a corridor LOS analysis shall be conducted for all relevant corridors. For example€, if a project increases traffic by 20 vehicles at the intersection of Pines Road/Mission Avenue, then a corridor LOS analysis shall be required for Pines Road. If a corridor has been analyzed within the last two years and is shown to operate at LOS C or better, the City may exempt the corridor LOS analysis, although traffic counts on the corridor may still be required in order to maintain an up-to-date database of counts along the Major Arterial Corridors. Below is a list of the Major Arterial Corridors from the Comprehensive Plan: • Argonne/Mullan Road between Trent Avenue and Appleway Blvd • Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue • Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 28 of 36 Draft • Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue • Sprague Avenue/Appleway Blvd between Fancher Road and Park Road c. A PM peak hour LOS analysis shall be conducted for all study area intersections (and corridors if applicable). An LOS analysis of the AM peak hour, Saturday afternoon, or other time period may be required at the discretion of the City; d. As identified by City staff in the scope review phase, a safety analysis may be required, which may include intersection queuing, turn lane warrants and LOS, sight distance, and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts to identify potential safety issues; and, e. Additional analysis may be required by other reviewing agencies. The Intersection and corridor (if applicable) LOS shall meet or exceed the thresholds pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan — Chapter 4: Capital Facilities, Table 4.3 Spokane Valley Level of Service Standards. In the event that the LOS standard is not met, the project applicant shall work with the City to identify appropriate mitigation measures, which could include modification of the intersection designs, constructing/funding improvements to City -owned intersections, or changing the scale of the development. A safety analysis may be required, as identified by City staff in the scope review phase. If the analysis is required, the City shall assist by providing crash data if available. Safety analysis at a minimum requires three years of crash history showing the date and time, type, number of vehicles involved in the crash, weather and road conditions. Crash analysis shall include bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Crash information shall be assessed by the developer's engineer to identify possible impacts proposed new trips would add to the problem. Examples may include queuing that exceeds storage pocket lengths or that extends to upstream intersections, recurring left turn crashes, limited sight distance, or proposed project access intersections that may be poorly placed. Safety issues shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of City staff. 3.4.3 METHODOLOGY The analysis shall be done using the following methodology: a. Background growth rate — The background growth rate may be based on historical growth data or the growth rate as calculated from Figures 30 and 33 of the Comprehensive Plan (the 2016 and 2040 average daily traffic volumes). A minimal annual growth rate of 1% is required unless otherwise approved by the City; b. The LOS shall be determined in accordance with the methods reported in the current version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) or as further defined by City staff; Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 29 of 36 Draft c. Corridor LOS shall be determined by calculating the volume -weighted average intersection LOS of all signalized arterial/arterial intersections along the defined length of the Major Arterial Corridor.' With all intersection LOS calculated along the corridor, the control delays of all intersections shall be averaged to calculate total corridor LOS. The same control delay thresholds defined for individual intersections shall be used to assign corridor LOS (e.g., corridor average control delay of 38 seconds would correspond to LOS D). Based on City input, WSDOT ramp terminal intersections may or may not be included as part of the corridor LOS calculation, and may be evaluated separately as individual intersections. d. Use of the two -stage gap acceptance methodology for unsignalized intersections requires prior City approval; e. "Synchro" is the primary traffic software used by the City to model intersection and turn pocket queuing analysis. Depending on the analysis, the City may request other traffic analysis using other modeling software. In addition to Synchro, the Engineer may use the most current version of HCS. Other analysis tools may be utilized with prior City approval if HCM methodology cannot accurately model an intersection; f. Trip generation data shall be based on the current version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Trip generation data from studies of similar facilities may be substituted as approved by the City; and, Turning movement counts shall be recorded less than one year prior to submitting a traffic study. Counts less than two years old may be used if no significant development projects or changes to the transportation network have occurred. Counts shall be taken on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday representing a typical travel day. Counts shall not be taken during a week which contains a holiday or during a week of a significant weather event. Projects near schools may be required to collect turning movement counts during a typical school day. Given the potentially large-scale of corridor LOS evaluation, counts older than one year may be used for intersections along a corridor that are more than one mile away, so long as they are factored using the growth rate identified above. However, the City may request, at its discretion, that the project collect new traffic counts at any intersection along a relevant Major Arterial Corridor in an effort to maintain a relatively current database for TIA review. g. 3.4.4 TIA REPORT MINIMUM ELEMENTS The TIA report shall include at least the following: 1 To clarify, unsignalized project driveway intersections with within the Major Arterial Corridor are not part of the corridor LOS calculation since they are not arterial streets. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 30 of 36 Draft 3.4.4.1 Title Page The TIA shall include a title page with the following elements: a. Name of project; b. City project number/permit number; c. Applicant's name and address; d. Engineer's name, address and phone number; e. Date of study preparation; and, f. The engineering seal, signed and dated by the engineer who prepared the report. 3.4.4.2 Introduction and Summary a. Purpose of report and study objectives; b. Executive summary; c. Proposed development description; d. Location and study area; e. Findings; and, f. Recommendations and mitigation. 3.4.4.3 Proposed Development The TIA shall include the following information for the proposed development (this is the same information that is required for the trip letter): a. Project description; b. Location and vicinity map; c. Site plan with building size (square feet); d. Proposed zoning; e. Land use; f. Access points, site circulation, queuing lengths, and parking locations; An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak - hour, and PM peak -hour conditions. Any adjustments for transit use, pass -by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be clearly stated; h. A distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network, shown in a graphical format; and, i. Project phasing and timing. 3.4.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions The TIA shall provide a summary of existing conditions for the study area that includes the following: Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 31 of 36 g. Draft a. Transportation network description, including functional classification, bike/pedestrian facilities and transit routes; b. Existing zoning; c. Existing traffic volumes including percent heavy vehicles; d. Collision history —three years minimum; e. Posted speed limits (and if known the 85 percentile speed determined from a speed study); f. Length of existing turn pockets at signalized intersections; g. Location of the following: i. On -street parking, ii. Bus stops, and, iii. Private and public schools in the area, h. LOS and safety analysis results. 3.4.4.5 Background Projects Background project traffic shall include the following: a. Traffic from newly constructed projects; b. Projects for which traffic impacts have been tentatively reserved; c. Projects for which a Concurrency Certificate has been awarded; d. Non -project, general background traffic increases; and, e. Vested traffic for vacant buildings that are undergoing redevelopment. The TIA shall provide the following information for background projects, as identified by the City: f. Project descriptions; a. Vicinity map; b. Trip generation; c. Trip distribution; d. Planned transportation improvements (private development and City); and, e. LOS and safety analysis results. 3.4.4.6 Analysis Scenarios The TIA shall include the following analysis scenarios: a. Existing conditions; b. Build -out year without project; Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 32 of 36 Draft c. Build -out year with project; d. Build -out + five year analysis if project is expected to proceed in phases, take more than six years to complete, or if the study intersection is included on the City's Six -Year TIP; and, e. Major developments with regional impacts may be required to use the current version of the SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model and the associated horizon years for analyses, as determined by City staff. 3.4.4.7 Other Analyses Other analyses may be required as requested by the City, including but not limited to: a. Queue lengths at driveways and drive -through windows; b. Noise; c. Air quality (typically required when physical improvements are proposed and requires electronic submittal of Synchro files); d. Intersection control warrant analysis (signal, roundabout, four-way stop, yield); e. Auxiliary lane warrant analysis; f. Parking study (including vehicles and/or bicycles); g. Site access; and, h. Pedestrian access study. 3.4.4.8 Findings The following shall be addressed in the findings section: a. Traffic impacts; b. Compliance with level of service standards; c. Proposed project modifications; and, d. Offsite mitigation. 3.4.4.9 Appendices The following information shall be included in appendices: a. Definitions; b. Trip generation sources; c. Passer-by and origin -destination studies; d. Volume and turning movement count sheets; e. Synchro report printouts (electronic submittal may be required); f. Warrant analysis calculations; and, Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 33 of 36 Draft a. References. 3.5 MEETINGS A public meeting(s) may be required for any residential project generating over 100 PM peak -hour trips, commercial projects generating over 100 PM peak -hour trips impacting a residential area, or for other projects at the discretion of the City. The intent of the public meeting is to let the public know about the proposed project and to allow for public input to determine the scope of the TIA. Notice of date, time, place and purpose of the public meeting(s) shall be provided by the following means: a. One publication in the City's official newspaper at least 15 days prior to the meeting; b. A mailing to adjacent residents, property owners, neighborhood groups, jurisdictions, and/or organizations within a 400-foot radius of the project boundaries, not less than 15 days prior to the public meeting. Other persons or entities outside of the 400-foot radius may be required to be notified if the City determines they may be affected by the proposed project or have requested such notice in writing; and, c. A sign shall be erected, on the subject property fronting and adjacent to the most heavily traveled public street, at least 15 days prior to the meetings with formatting consistent with SVMC 17.80.120B. The sign shall be at least four feet in width and four feet in height and shall have letters three inches in size. The sign shall be easily read by the traveling public from the right-of-way. This sign shall announce the date, time and place of the traffic meetings and provide a brief description of the project. a. Proper notification and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. Notification shall be considered satisfied upon receipt of an affidavit provided by the Applicant to the City stating the above requirements have been completed. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 34 of 36 Draft THIS PAGE IS INTENTIALLY LEFT BLANK Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 35 of 36 Draft EXHIBIT "C" Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit C Page 36 of 36 South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington September, 2020 SE20-0748 FEHRif PEERS Table of Contents Introduction 1 Study Area 1 Methodology 3 Project List 4 Travel Growth 5 Cost Allocation 7 Existing Transportation Deficiencies 8 Committed External Funding 8 Fair -Share Cost 8 Impact Fee Schedule 10 Trip Generation 10 Pass -By Trip Adjustment 10 Schedule of Rates 10 Appendices Appendix A — Expanded Impact Fee Schedule Appendix B — South Barker Corridor Study List of Figures Figure 1: Transportation Analysis Zones Included South Barker Corridor Study Fair -Share Analysis 2 Figure 2. Impact Fee Methodology 3 Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation 7 List of Tables Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) 4 Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) 6 Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area 8 Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations 9 Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule 11 Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule 12 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction This report documents the methods, assumptions, and findings of a transportation impact fee (TIF) rate study for the South Barker Corridor in Spokane Valley. The need for a TIF is identified in the South Barker Corridor Study (Feb 2020), which documented the growth along the corridor, projected how that growth will degrade traffic operations along Barker Road, and identified several transportation capacity projects to support growth and ensure adequate level of service through the year 2040. That study identified the needed future improvements along the corridor, completed project cost estimates, and included a fair share cost analysis to separate project costs between growth in southeast Spokane Valley and growth from other parts of the region. This TIF rate study builds on the South Barker Corridor Study and identifies a Growth Management Act (GMA) compliant impact fee rate schedule per development unit. Using this rate schedule, developers in southeast Spokane Valley can quickly identify their fair share contribution toward new transportation projects, facilitating development and reducing the cost and complexity of traffic studies associated with project permitting and transportation concurrency requirements. Except as otherwise identified herein, the South Barker Corridor Study provides the basis for all TIF rates calculated in this rate study. As part of adoption of any TIF rates, both the South Barker Corridor Study and this TIF rate study will be adopted as supporting documents. Study Area The South Barker Corridor extends along Barker Road from Mission Avenue to the south city limits of Spokane Valley. The South Barker Corridor Study defined the impact fee area for the South Barker Corridor as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the portions of Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and unincorporated Spokane County near the South Barker Corridor where development would have the greatest impact on traffic in the corridor. The area was defined in that study using a select zone analysis from the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model to quantify the impact of the transportation analysis zones (TAZs) near the corridor. Combined, this area is expected to contribute between 45% and 52% of future traffic on South Barker Road (depending on the segment of Barker Road). It should be noted that the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) was excluded from the analysis as the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) is already utilizing a Planned Action Ordinance to assess SEPA mitigation fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90. The South Barker Corridor TIF rate provided in this study would apply to any new development in the Spokane Valley TAZs identified in the South Barker Corridor Study, which is the area shaded in pink on Figure 1. This includes the following TAZs: 325, 326, 327, 328, 334, 369, 388, 389, 391, and 392. This area will be referred to in this report as the South Barker Corridor TIF area. Based on the analysis provided in the South Barker Corridor Study, future development in the South Barker TIF area of Spokane Valley is expected to contribute between 18% and 26% of future traffic on the South Barker Corridor - depending on the segment of the corridor. Based on the select zone analysis, areas in Spokane Valley outside of this area generate less traffic on South Barker Road and do not need to pay an impact fee. r aq I �1. o- n90 Dr Illllr.- = 11111■: ,Millwood e;F' 1111:11111111� + n P Illl■Ir ' III�IIII'o' -'-EE1 Iv��� r.r MEANS area Est/ 1i..''%` 7/fP``�i WI /�' �9 �� 7111. 1� IIIJ =1� ialWli�u - urrr is rt rm. €1Y_Oak,Dr -Spokane Valey Sprague E 44th Ave 0 0 m 2 South Barker Corridor Travel Shed Transportation Analysis Zones by Jurisdiction ( 1 S• pokane Valley TAZs in L• iberty Lake TAZs in S• pokane County TAZs E 16th Ave co 326 334 E Coach Dr36 E Euclid Ave 1 3271 128 447 ,eec` 442 91 ' 0) I 92 393 - I �a Indiaha Ave Liberty Lake 4481 443 kat J iniv Fi 1]11M7. In `vista �-Sprague—Av.� j. E 3rd Ave col (co 444 �co ml ti a N Sprague Av 0 Figure 1 Transportation analysis zones included in the South Barker Corridor Study fair -share cost analysis. Methodology The impact fee for the South Barker Corridor was developed to establish the fair share of transportation improvement costs that may be charged to new development in the area. Revised Code of Washington Section 82.02.050 authorizes cities planning under the GMA to impose impact fees for system improvements that are reasonably required to support and mitigate the impacts of new development. Fees may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of improvements and cannot be used to fund existing deficiencies. The following key points summarize the process for developing the impact fee structure (refer to Figure 2): • The South Barker Corridor Study identified a list of future projects and estimated costs along Barker Road that will be needed to support future growth through the year 2040. • The South Barker Corridor Study also accounted for any existing deficiency (intersections/roadway segments that do not meet current level of service standards) or committed outside funding sources by deducting the costs of those deficiencies/external funds from the total project cost. • The South Barker Corridor Study next assigned the fair share of each project to southeast Spokane Valley and nearby areas outside the City. • The forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in southeast Spokane Valley was estimated by converting the forecast land use growth in the SRTC regional travel demand model using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. • A cost per PM peak hour trip was calculated by dividing the fair share cost of each project by the growth in vehicle trips in southeast Spokane Valley. • Lastly, a land use -based fee schedule was developed using the cost per PM peak vehicle trip calculated above. Trip rates for multiple land use categories were estimated using vehicle trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual will provide consistency between a project trip generation letter or traffic impact study and the impact fee rate. Figure 2. Impact Fee Methodology Projects and costs identified (from the South Barker Corridor Study) 1 Eligible project costs identified (from South Barker Corridor Study) Fair share of each project to southeast Spokane Valley identified (South Barker Corridor Study) Forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in southeast Spokane Valley Growth cost allocation (cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip) Impact Fee Schedule The following sections describe in detail these elements that that are integral to the final impact fee schedule. South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 Project List The South Barker Corridor Study, completed in July 2019 and updated in February 2020, included an analysis of traffic demand through the year 2040 to identify potential traffic improvement projects on the segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south City limits of Spokane Valley. That study identified a total of eight projects that will be needed by 2040 along the corridor to accommodate future growth and maintain level of service standards. Those projects, and costs in 2020 dollars, are shown in Table 1. Three of the projects include improvements to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange that will primarily be the responsibility of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). At this time, there are no anticipated costs to the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) for these projects. Therefore, the five projects identified in the South Barker Corridor Study for which COSV would be responsible for funding total approximately $18.8 million in 2020 dollars (note: these costs have been updated from the cost estimates in the South Barker Corridor Study to account for construction cost inflation and/or more detailed estimates by COSV). Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) Project Description Program COSV Cost Agency Estimate (2020 Responsible dollars) Constructed in 2020 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single - lane roundabout and two eastbound approach lanes; realign east leg of Broadway Reconstruct intersection with single - lane roundabout and two southbound approach lanes; convert Barker/Boone to right-in/right-out Horizon 2040 Plan (#12) Horizon 2040 Plan (#12) WSDOT N/A WSDOT N/A Near -Term (2021-2024) Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single - lane roundabout 2021-2026 TIP (#28) COSV $2,139,000 Mid- Term (2025-2030) I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to 1-90 Replace Barker Rd. Bridge, widen to 4- lanes from Boone Ave. to Broadway; reconstruct both intersections to 2-lane Horizon 2040 roundabout; reconstruct Barker/I-90 Plan (#12) WB ramp intersection to six -leg roundabout with Boone Avenue Widen and improve to 5-lane urban section; roundabout @ Broadway 2021-2026 TIP (#44) WSDOT Not anticipated at this time COSV $6,501,000 Project Description Program Agency Responsible COSV Cost Estimate (2020 dollars) Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90 Widen and improve to 5-lane urban section 2021-2026 TIP (#61) COSY $3,146,000 Long -Term (2031-2040) Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct and widen north of Sprague to 3-lane urban section, and south of Sprague to 2-lane urban section Reconstruct 4th Ave. and 8th Ave. intersections with single -lane roundabouts 2019-2024 TIP (#20) 2019-2024 TIP (#21) COSY $3,500,000 COSY $3,500,000 Source: South Barker Corridor Study (February 2020). Costs were updates to 2020 dollars based on the projects except Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90. Cost for that project was updated rates. Note: Horizon 2040: SRTC Long Range Transportation Plan; TIP: City of Spokane Valley Transportation Travel Growth TOTAL $18,786,000 COSV 2021-2026 TIP for all using construction inflation Improvement Plan. Determining the growth in travel demand caused by new development is a key requirement for a TIF program. In nearly every TIF program across Washington and the country, the total eligible costs of building new transportation capacity is divided by the total growth in trips to determine a cost per trip. All developments pay the same cost per trip, but larger developments that generate more trips pay a higher total fee than smaller developments. In this way, the cost to provide the new transportation infrastructure is fairly apportioned to new development. Moreover, in setting the boundary for the TIF, a select zone analysis was performed to validate that all the areas within the TIF area contributed a meaningful amount (at least one percent) of total traffic to Barker Road. The amount of traffic varies somewhat based on which segment of Barker Road is evaluated and which TAZ the project resides in, but in all cases each of the ten identified TAZs within the TIF area contribute at least 5% of the total COSV traffic along the corridor. For the South Barker Corridor TIF, the future growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips was estimated using the change in land use in the study area from the 2015 and 2040 SRTC regional travel demand model as well as trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The SRTC travel demand model includes 11 land use categories: two residential and nine non-residential categories. For each land use in the SRTC model, an associated ITE trip rate was identified. Total PM peak hour vehicle trips within the study area were calculated by multiplying the PM peak hour trip rate identified by ITE by the forecast growth (from 2015 to 2040) in dwelling units, employees, or hotel rooms, depending on the land use. Table 2 summarizes the calculation. It should be noted that COSV directs developers to apply the trip South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 calculation methodology based on the process detailed in Section 4.4 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition when estimating trip generation for developments. In some situations the best -fit curve would be used instead of average trips rates. That methodology is applicable at the development scale where developments of various sizes can impact trip rates. However, in this situation given growth forecast in the model will occur among developments of various sizes over a 25 year period, using average trip rates is more appropriate and was applied to forecast growth in trips in the Barker TIF area. Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) SRTC Land Use (L 2015-2040 Unit of LU Growth Measure ITE Code ITE Description ITE Average Trip Rate 1 (PM peak hr.) Growth in Trips (LU growth x trip rate) Single Family Residential Multi -Family Residential Hotel/Motel 200 Rooms 310 Hotel 917 Dwelling Units 210 Single -Family Detached Housing 1,070 Dwelling Units Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, Industrial, 0 Employees Manufacturing, Wholesale 220 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) N/A N/A Retail Trade (Non - Central Business 280 Employees 820 Shopping Center District) Services and Offices 654 Employees 710 General Office Building Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 62 Employees 710 General Office Building Services (FIRES) Medical 503 Employees 630 Clinic Retail Trade (CBD) 0 Employees N/A N/A Education Employees 35 Employees 520 Elementary School University Employees 0 Employees N/A N/A 0.99 908 0.56 599 0.60 120 N/A 0 1.62 454 0.40 262 0.40 25 0.85 428 N/A 0 1.78 62 0.40 0 Total Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips 2,8572 1. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10`" Edition; average trip rate of adjacent street traffic 4-6 PM was used for all land uses given growth will occur among developments of various sizes. 2. Estimated growth in trips differ from the findings in the South Barker Corridor Study because estimates in this study are based on the ITE trip generation rates as opposed to trip growth outputs of the SRTC regional travel demand model. Using this methodology, it is forecast that the South Barker Corridor TIF area would generate about 2,857 new PM peak hour vehicle trips by 2040. This total PM peak hour vehicle trip growth will be used in the calculation of TIF rate. Note: the trip growth by 2040 differs from the trip growth estimated in the South Barker Corridor Study as the estimate in this report is based on ITE trip rates derived from forecast land use growth, while for the South Barker Corridor Study trip generation was pulled directly from the SRTC regional travel demand model. ITE Trip rates were used to develop the TIF rate in accordance with development requirements defined in the Spokane Valley Street Standards. Cost Allocation Three steps were used to allocate costs per PM peak hour trip, see Figure 3. First, the TIF methodology must separate the share of project costs that address existing deficiencies from the share of project costs that add transportation capacity and serve new growth. Second, dedicated funding from non -City sources must be removed from the project cost as funds generated by the TIF can only be used for projects identified to have an impact from the development being assessed a fee. Third, resulting growth - related improvement costs are then further separated to identify the share of growth related to land development in Barker Road TIF area. Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation STEPS Project List $18.8 M i Future Growth $18.8 M Existing Deficiency $0 City Funds $18.4 M Inside TIF Area $3.6 M Eligible Impact Fee $3.6 M i Non -City Funds $350 K Outside TIF Area $14.8 M i Other Funds Needed $14.8 M South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 Existing Transportation Deficiencies An existing conditions analysis was conducted as part of the South Barker Corridor Study, which identified existing level of service deficiencies at the Barker Road and 1-90 intersections. A deficiency at an intersection is defined as a level of service rating of E or lower at a signalized intersection or level of service F at an unsignalized intersection as established in the Comprehensive Plan. Since the three projects at the Barker Road and 1-90 interchange are expected to be funded by WSDOT, the cost of these projects was not included in the total project cost for the South Barker Corridor. No other locations along the corridor were identified as having an existing deficiency. Therefore, no costs were deducted from the total project cost on account of an existing deficiency. Committed External Funding Of the five projects whose cost are included in the South Barker Corridor TIF, only one currently has dedicated funding from a non -City source, the Sprague Avenue/Barker Road intersection improvement project. This project has $349,000 dedicated from a Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality grant. Therefore, this cost was deducted from the total cost of this project. Table 4 (on the following page) illustrates the eligible project costs that were applied to the South Barker Corridor TIF, totaling $18,437,000. Fair -Share Cost With deficiencies and external funding accounted for, all the remaining project costs are related to supporting new growth in trips that will be funded by COSV. However, not all the growth comes from development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area — there is a portion of growth that comes from other parts of Spokane Valley and surrounding jurisdictions. To ensure that the costs assessed to development as part of the TIF are fair and proportional to the impact, a fair share percentage was used. The South Barker Corridor Study identified the percentage of traffic growth in three different segments of the South Barker Corridor that are expected to be attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area. This was done using a select zone analysis in the 2040 SRTC travel demand model. The percentage ranges from 18% in the south end of the corridor to 26% in the north end of the corridor as shown in Table 3. Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area Segment of Barker Road Southeast Spokane Valley Study Area (TIF Area) North of 1-90 1-90 to Appleway Avenue South of Appleway Avenue Source: South Barker Corridor Study 26% 19% 18% The fair share percentages were multiplied by the eligible cost of each project in the corridor to get the cost of growth -related transportation improvements on the South Barker Corridor that is expected to be attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area. This equates to $3,635,350. Lastly, this cost was divided by the forecast new PM peak hour trips generated by new development in this area (2,857) to arrive at a cost per new PM peak hour vehicle trip of $1,272. Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations Project Project Cost (to COSV) Cost to Address Existing Deficiencies Non -City Dedicated Funds Cost Eligible Project TIF Area Fair Attributable Cost Share Percent to Study Area 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long - Term Improvements Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements N/A N/A $2,139, 000 Not anticipated at this time $6,501,000 $3,146,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 $349,000 N/A N/A $1,790,000 $0 $0 None anticipated at this time $0 $0 $6,501,000 $3,146,000 $3,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500,000 26% N/A 26% N/A 18% $322,200 None 26% anticipated at this time 19% $1,235,190 26% $817,960 18% $630,000 18% $630,00 TOTAL $18,786,000 $18,437,000 Varies $3,635,350 PM Peak Trips Cost Per PM Peak Trip 2,857 $1,272 When taking all the above calculations into consideration, the South Barker Corridor TIF would contribute up to 20 percent of the total $18.4 million eligible cost of the improvement projects on the South Barker Corridor. City matching funds, new grants, and other sources would provide the remaining 80 percent of the total project costs. South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip to reflect differences in trip -making characteristics for the general land use types forecast in the SRTC regional travel demand model within southeast Spokane Valley. The fee schedule is a table where fees are represented as dollars per unit for each land use category which makes it easier for developers to calculate their impact fee rates. Table 5 shows the various components of the fee schedule. Trip Generation Trip generation rates for each land use type in the PM peak hour were derived from average trip rates for selected land uses of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition to ensure consistent and repeatable calculations across all land uses. Pass -By Trip Adjustment The ITE trip generation rates represent total vehicles entering and leaving a development. For certain land uses (e.g., retail, convenience stores, etc.), a substantial amount of the motorized travel is already passing by the property and merely turns into and out of the driveway. These pass -by trips do not add trips to the surrounding street system and therefore are subtracted out prior to calculating the impact fee. The resulting trips are considered "new" trips and are therefore subject to the impact fee calculation. The pass - by trip percentages are taken from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017). Schedule of Rates The proposed impact fee rates are shown in Table 5. An expanded table of land uses is provided in Table 6 in Appendix A. In the fee schedule, fees are shown as dollars per unit of development for various land use categories. The impact fee program is flexible in that if a use does not fit into one of the ITE land use categories listed, an impact fee can be calculated based on the development's projected PM peak hour person trip generation and multiplied by the cost per PM peak hour trip of $1,272 as shown in Table 5. Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or Table 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip. Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule City of Spokane Valley South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule ITE Code ITE Land Use Category PM Peak Vehicle Trip Rate' Passby 2 Adjusted Trips per Unit of Measure 3 Impact Fee Per Unit4 @ $1,272 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family & Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $1,260 per dwelling unit 220 Multi -Family 0.56 0% 0.56 $713 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel (3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $891 per room 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $1.74 per sq ft 630 Medical Clinic 0.00328 0% 0.00328 $4.17 per sq ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $1.46 per sq ft 820 Shopping Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $3.20 per sq ft 11TE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic (weekday 4- 6PM); This worksheet represents only the generalized land uses in the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-inclusive; see Table 6 for a wider variety of uses; Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip. 2 New trips will exclude "pass -by" trips: see "ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition" (2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips 4 sq ft = square feet, room = available hotel/motel room 11 Appendix A - Expanded Impact Fee Schedule Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule 1101 Land Use Group City ITE Cod of Spokane Valley South Barker Corridor , ITE Land Use Category Transportation PM Peak Vehicle Tri P Rate Impact Passby % 2 Fee Rate Schedule Adjusted Trips per Unit of Measure' Impact Fee Per Unit ° @ $1,272 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family & Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $1,260 per dwelling unit Residential 220 Multi -Family 0.56 0% 0.56 $713 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel (3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $891 per room Services 492 Health Club 0.00345 0% 0.00345 $4.39 per sq ft 912 Bank 0.02045 34% 0.01350 $17.17 persq ft 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $1.74 persq ft Institution 522 Middle School 0.00119 0% 0.00119 $1.51 persq ft 530 High School 0.00097 0% 0.00097 $1.23 per sq ft 925 Drinking Establishment 0.01136 43% 0.00648 $8.24 persq ft Restaurant 934 Fast Food Restaurant (with drive-thru) 0.03267 50% 0.01634 $20.79 per sq ft 937 Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru 0.04338 89% 0.00477 $6.07 per sq ft 820 Shopping Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $3.20 persq ft Retail 841 Automobile Sales - Used/New 0.00375 0% 0.00375 $4.77 per sq ft 853 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 23.04 66% 7.83 $9,968 per pump 110 Light lndustry/High Technology 0.00063 0% 0.00063 $0.80 per sq tt Industrial 140 Manufacturing 0.00067 0% 0.00067 $0.85 per sgft 151 Mini -Storage 0.00017 0% 0.00017 $0.22 persq ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $1.46 persq ft Office 720 Medical Office / Clinic 0.00346 0% 0.00346 $4.40 persq ft 750 Office Park 0.00107 0% 0.00107 $1.36 per sq ft ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic (weekday 4-6PM); This worksheet represents only the most common uses in southeast Spokane Valley and is NOT all-inclusive; Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip. 2 New trips will exclude "pass -by' trips: see "ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition" (2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips 4 sq ft = square feet, pump = vehicle servicing position/gas pump, room = available hotel room FEHRk PEERS Appendix B - South Barker Corridor Study [Add S Barker Corridor Study] FEHRPEERS SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY FEHR ''PEERS Spokane FINAL REPORT I UPDATED FEBRUARY 2020 ..►Valley Contents Introduction 3 Methods & Assumptions 5 Existing Conditions 9 1-90 Interchange Interim Improvements Summary & Findings 13 2040 Analysis & Findings 15 2040 Recommendations 23 Implementation 26 Conclusions 32 List of Figures Figure 1. Study Area Intersections 4 Figure 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections 8 Figure 3. Existing conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations 10 Figure 4. Existing conditions level of service and delay 11 Figure 5. Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange 12 Figure 6. Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange 12 Figure 7. Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT 13 Figure 8. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection — revised Interim Concept 14 Figure 9. Year 2028 SimTraffic LOS results under the "hook ramp" concept at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp 15 Figure 10. 2040 conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations 16 Figure 11. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection concept (same as Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 18 Figure 12. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 18 Figure 13. 2040 conditions level of service and delay. 19 Figure 14. Volume -to -capacity ratio in 2040 for Barker Road/I-90 interchange roundabouts. 19 Figure 15. Volume -to -capacity ratio, LOS and/or delay in 2040 with mitigations. 20 Figure 16. Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. 21 Figure 17. Diverging roundabout concept. 22 Figure 18. 2040 volume -to -capacity ratio and 95% queue with a single -lane diverging roundabout. 22 Figure 19. Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three -lane configuration south of Appleway. 25 Figure 20. South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be implemented through year 2040. 26 Figure 21. Transportation analysis zones by jurisdiction included in the fair -share cost analysis. 28 Figure 22. Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by jurisdiction. 29 Figure 23. Fair -share cost by jurisdiction and project 30 Figure 24. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) in Spokane Valley 31 Figure 25. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) by jurisdiction. 32 SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings and recommended improvements of the South Barker Corridor Study. The purpose of the South Barker Corridor Study is to analyze traffic demands through year 2040 and identify potential traffic improvement projects on the segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits in Spokane Valley, Washington. The study includes planning -level cost estimates of improvements and an estimate of the proportion of traffic along segments of the corridor from adjacent jurisdictions (Liberty Lake and Spokane County) to assist in developing potential mitigation fee payments for the new development that is occurring in this part of the Spokane region. In addition, this study analyzed traffic operations at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange under the WSDOT interim concept (year 2020) and long-term concept (by year 2040) to verify that the proposed interchange improvements will operate adequately and serve the planned growth in Spokane Valley and the surrounding area. Based on the analysis, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long- term improvements for the 1-90 interchange. Study Area The study area includes the Barker Road corridor between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits on the east side of Spokane Valley. The following 10 intersections along Barker Road were included in the study and mapped in Figure 1. 1. Barker Road/Mission Avenue 2. Barker Road/Boone Avenue 3. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue 4. Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp 5. Barker Road/Broadway (east) 6. Barker Road/Broadway (west) 7. Barker Road/Appleway Avenue 8. Barker Road/Sprague Avenue 9. Barker Road/4th Avenue 10. Barker Road/8th Avenue City of Spokane Valley Wage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 1. Study Area Intersections Mission AO Maxwell Ay Sinto Ay Sharp Av Beane Av 3 Broadway •41� cgivelof pv Gree n ies Alkl Av qo [I Broadway Av 5prdgue AN Srd Av 4th Ay Sth AV 9th Ay aat Av et 2nd Av City of Spokane Valley 4 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report METHODS & ASSUMPTIONS The following methods and assumptions were applied to forecast traffic and analyze traffic operations as part of this Study. Land Use Assumptions Traffic volumes at each of the study intersections were estimated using the current version of the SRTC 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand models, which was last updated in December 2017. Fehr & Peers received a copy of the SRTC travel demand model on January 9, 2018. Land use assumptions were reviewed by the project technical advisory committee (TAC) on May 17, 2018 which is comprised of staff representing Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, Spokane County, WSDOT and SRTC. The TAC approved the land use assumptions on June 1, 2018 with three comments, including providing a comparison to what is assumed in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, incorporating impacts of new grade schools, and future land use forecasts in Liberty Lake - all of which are addressed below. Detailed land use data assumed in the model is provided in the following appendices: • • Appendix A — Includes a summary of the forecast 2015-2040 change in dwelling units and employees by transportation analysis zone (TAZ) near the Study Area. Appendix B — Includes a summary of the difference in assumed land use for the TAZs around Barker Road and 1-90 between the 2015 travel demand model used for the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update (prepared in 2016) and the current 2015 SRTC travel demand model used for this study. New Grade Schools In addition to the regional travel demand model, traffic forecasts also accounted for several new grade schools planned in the vicinity by 2021. These schools are not specifically accounted for in the model and include: • • • A new elementary school at Long Road and Mission Avenue in Spokane Valley (opens 2018) A new middle school at Harvest Parkway and Mission Avenue in Liberty Lake (opens 2019) A new high school near Sprague Avenue and Henry Road in Spokane County (opens 2021) It was determined through analysis of existing and future school location and enrollment zone boundaries as well as traffic studies completed for each school that the impact to traffic volume on Barker Road in the study area from the new elementary and middle school would result in a net neutral change. It was also determined that the primary impact from the new high school will be a shift in some traffic currently making a southbound right at the Barker Road/Appleway intersection to instead make a southbound through at that intersection and a southbound left at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. The inverse movements at the two intersections' were also adjusted. In the southbound direction, 80 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 17 vehicles in the PM peak hour were assumed to shift from making a southbound right at Barker Road/Appleway to making a southbound left at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue. In the northbound direction 37 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 19 vehicles in the PM peak hour were assumed to shift from making an eastbound left at Barker Road/Appleway to making a westbound right at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue and northbound through at Barker Road/Appleway. 1 For example, at Barker Road and Appleway Avenue southbound right turns were reduced and southbound through movements were increased by the same margin. Similarly, eastbound left turns were also reduced with northbound through movements increased by the same margin. City of Spokane Valley 5 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Liberty Lake Land Use Forecasts During the analysis stage, the City of Liberty Lake was in the process of updating their land use forecasts for 2040 as part of their Land Quantity Analysis. Land uses are expected to be different from the forecasts assumed in the current SRTC travel demand model, particularly in the Riverside District. Given this information was not yet available at the time of analysis, the 2015 and 2040 land use assumed for Liberty Lake in the current SRTC travel demand model was used. Assumptions regarding the future roadway network in Liberty Lake are explained below. Roadway Network Assumptions The SRTC travel demand model was also updated to account for several recent changes to the assumed 2040 roadway network as well as minor changes to the 2015 model to ensure recent projects were reflected. These changes are based on feedback provided by the project's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which included the City of Spokane Valley, WSDOT, Spokane County, and Liberty Lake. The changes to the network include the following. 2015 Model Changes: • • • • • Chapman Road was connected from 32nd Avenue to Barker Road just south of 12th Avenue to reflect existing conditions The centroid connector at transportation analysis zone (TAZ) 369 was moved to load to 4th Ave and 8th Ave instead of Barker Road, which better reflects where the driveways in the area load onto the roadway network The centroid connector at TAZ 392 was moved to load to 4th Ave instead of Barker Road The centroid connector at TAZ 327 was moved to load onto Indiana Avenue (instead of the intersection of Barker Road/ Indiana Avenue) A second centroid connector at TAZ 327 connecting to Mission Avenue was deleted to match the 2040 model 2040 Model Changes: • • • • • • • • Same changes made to the 2015 model Indiana Avenue was connected through from Barker Road to Harvard Road Instead of a new 1-90 interchange at Henry Road (as is currently in the 2040 model), Henry Road was connected from Appleway Avenue to Mission Avenue via an overpass of 1-90, but with no 1-90 interchange; the current partial interchange at Appleway Avenue was retained The preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project was assumed for the intersection of Barker Road/Trent Avenue The south leg of the Flora Road/Trent Avenue intersection across the BNSF railroad track is assumed to close (consistent with the preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project) A new link was added between Flora Road and Barker Road north of Euclid Avenue and south of Trent Avenue (to reflect the Garland Avenue connection assumed in the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) The centroid connector from TAZ 600 is assumed to be more heavily weighted toward Barker Road (reflecting the development potential in the Northeast Industrial Area assumed as part of the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) Barker Road was assumed to be 5 lanes from Mission Avenue to 1-90 (to reflect planned mitigations in the SEIS to the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) City of Spokane Valley 6'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report It should be noted that the following planned improvements are already assumed in the current SRTC travel demand model: • • • The Barker Road/I-90 interchange would be reconfigured to a standard diamond interchange with two-lane roundabouts plus slip ramps for right -turn movements at both ramps (as reflected in I-90/Barker Rd Interchange Justification Report) Barker Road between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue would be widened to five lanes as identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) A new northbound lane would be added on Harvard Road across 1-90 Traffic Forecast Methodology Near -Term Traffic Forecasts An annual growth rate of 3.0% along Barker Road was used for near -term traffic forecasts through year 2020 (based on historic growth) and an annual growth rate of both 2.0% and 3.0% were used for traffic growth on Barker Road between year 2020 and 2028 to capture an upper and lower range of potential growth. 2040 Traffic Forecasts Instead of using the traffic forecasts directly from the 2040 travel demand model, 2040 volumes were estimated using an industry standard approach known as the difference method. The difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 models are added to observed counts at each of the study area intersections to arrive at a 2040 forecast traffic. This method reduces model error by relying as much as possible on observed data rather than model output data. Note: the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 model will be multiplied by 0.88 to account for growth in traffic that occurred between 2015 and 2018 (22 years/ 25 years = 0.88). Existing traffic data was collected during the AM and PM peak hour on Thursday, May 24th 2018 at all study intersections (see Figure 1) except Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Road/8th Avenue. Existing traffic volumes at Barker Road/Boone Avenue are based on counts collected on Tuesday, February 14th, 2007 and existing volumes at Barker Road/8th Avenue are based on counts collected on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. Estimating AM Peak Volumes The regional travel demand model forecasts PM peak hour turn movements, but only forecasts 3-hour AM peak turn movements at each intersection. Therefore, the inverse of PM peak hour traffic growth multiplied by 80% was used to estimate AM peak hour traffic growth. This is consistent with research published in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 3652 and in observed peak hour traffic count data collected in Spokane Valley. For example, 80% of growth in PM peak volumes for southbound right turn movements at each intersection were applied to eastbound left movements to get the AM peak traffic forecast. 2 Martin, W., N. McGuckin. Travel Estimating Techniques for Urban Planning. NCHRP Report 365. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998. City of Spokane Valley 7 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Level of Service Standards Spokane Valley LOS Standards The City of Spokane Valley uses level of service (LOS) to describe and evaluate traffic operations along major arterial corridors and intersections within the City. Levels range from LOS A to LOS F, which encompass a range of congestion types from uninterrupted traffic (LOS A) to highly -congested conditions (LOS F). The description and intersection delay thresholds of each LOS category are described in Figure 2. These are based on the Highway Capacity Manual, which is the methodology used by Spokane Valley. The LOS for signalized intersections and roundabouts is measured by the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection from all approaches, while the LOS for unsignalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle on the approach with the highest average delay. Figure 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections Level of Service Description Signalized Intersection Delay (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Delay (seconds) A Free -flowing conditions. 0-10 0-10 B Stable operating conditions. 10-20 10-15 C Stable operating conditions, but individual motorists are affected by the interaction with other motorists. 20-35 15-25 D High density of motorists, but stable flow. 35-55 25-35 E Near -capacity operations, with speeds reduced to a low but uniform speed. 55-80 35-50 F Over -capacity conditions with long delays. > 80 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2016, Transportation Research Board The LOS standards used by Spokane Valley are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: • LOS D for major arterial corridors: o Argonne/Mullan between the town of Millwood and Appleway Boulevard o Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue o Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard between Fancher Road and Sullivan Road • LOS D for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors • LOS E for unsignalized intersections (LOS F acceptable if peak hour traffic signal warrant is unmet) WSDOT LOS Standards WSDOT also uses LOS thresholds for State Highways. The LOS standard for State Highways in Urban Areas is LOS D. Within the Study Area this would apply to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange. This LOS standard applies to roadway segments and signalized and stop controlled intersections. City of Spokane Valley 8'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Per WSDOT's recommended guidance, the primary measure of effectiveness (MOE) for roundabout analysis is not LOS, but the overall intersection and approach volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. WSDOT recommends that v/c ratios not exceed 0.85-0.9 for any approach or the entire intersection, which typically corresponds to LOS D. Traffic Analysis Methodology In order to analyze traffic operations, including LOS, v/c ratios and/or impacts of queuing, the following traffic engineering software was used in accordance with WSDOT Traffic Analysis policies and protocol3: • Synchro - Synchro software (version 9.2) was be used to evaluate AM and PM peak hour LOS at most signalized and stop controlled intersections. LOS was measured using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology within Synchro. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT Synchro Protocol. The observed intersection peak hour factor averaged for all approaches was used for the existing conditions analysis and near -term traffic analysis. A PHF of 1.0 was used for the 2040 analysis. A saturation flow rate of 1,775 vehicles per lane per hour was assumed in order to be consistent with City of Spokane Valley practice along the Barker Road corridor. • Sidra - Sidra software (version 7.0) was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour v/c ratios for intersections with a roundabout configuration. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT's Sidra Policy Settings (WSDOT, April 2018). • SimTraffic — SimTraffic software was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour traffic operational performance for closely spaced intersections in order to capture the impacts to traffic delay of queuing. This includes the intersections with Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue and Barker Road/I-90 under the single -lane roundabout configuration proposed by WSDOT as an interim solution. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT SimTraffic Protocol with the same PHF and saturation flow rate used in the Synchro analysis. SimTraffic was not used to analyze operations with two-lane roundabouts. Sidra software was used in those instances. EXISTING CONDITIONS Within the 1.6 mile segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south Spokane Valley City limits there are four signalized intersections. These are located where Barker Road crosses Mission Avenue, Cataldo Avenue/I-90 westbound ramp, 1-90 eastbound ramp and Appleway Avenue. There is a four-way stop at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue. All other intersection are controlled by side -street stop signs. The segment of Barker Road north of Boone Avenue is a three lane street with bike lanes, curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. South of Boone Avenue Barker Road is a two-lane street without curb, gutter, storm drain or sidewalks. South of Appleway there is an asphalt paved multiuse trail on the west side of the street that extends to Chapman Road in unincorporated Spokane County. Existing peak hour traffic volumes and lane configurations at the ten study intersections are shown in Figure 3. 3 www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Traffic/Analysis/ City of Spokane Valley 9 I P a g e E. Mis<9r4 Ave iacrea irk &CRES t0 aqua ^a+101.orr4•s EAYI Ave G•eena Cres r, showing Center Sprague Ave 9 of tr Y 1 0 E Mission Ave E Ale,un•11 w:e 1 a v1end,'s > Flume ae ©`Du,_, [role Waif 8 H.' r'ey-Uiwdsan T 8 0 Er Hub $pat$ Cente- F reedtrrr Atlspert Polaris, , Ionda Ya-naha Indian. xrnar,ar 93. E Al,. ,re pVe = e �vypu Ft c:rrlrr �.•? O 4S G.rvt Ave OFnnn,.. E3il Rim• ii6e,i�e Sprague Ave �Aae vow A. E Wain Are A 1. Barker/Mission 2. Barker/Boone 3. BarkerMB I-90 Ramps -—v" "� rn 4n m �pn )1,L 16 (27) 93 (123) a� 192 (100) A 7 (7) e 1 130 (481) J) 24 (6) 45 (13) ' 4 (0) 22 (4) a�� 241 �,gNN wai.9ooroar>a L 15 (44) 4- 36 (94) 35 (57) 28 (154) 43 (136) 49 (71) iI r V t _ . N V N- v 41 (73) 27 (21) -4 15 (22) 475 (268) a 260 (582) —+ 90 (69) -4 4. Barker/EB 1-90 Ramps 5. Barker/B oadway (N) 6 Barker/B oadway (S) Li' v 188 (740) 37 (80) 590 (484) $ 17 (4) w w 3 (15) ® I' 317(733) BaMer I o ro 213 (433) 7(12)� 169 (532) 7. Barker Appleway 8. Barke Sprague 9. Barke /4th Ave �N� 4L� �62 (84) 542 (654) r 49 (136) ® 14 (26) N A A 4- 154 (380) ® J44 40 (100) 76 (73) I 378 (225) 34 (32) 0 18 (16) 711,3, m 177 (508) 0 42(19) Barler 0 13(11) 1 (3) 1 (3) ann.e 0 (0) 101 (111)- 344 (490) 25 (34) 1 TI' iom� A "ri) r, air v 10. Ba ker/8th 7 (47) 4- 101 (353) 8 (46) 0 32 (23) is 21) LEGEND 0 Study Intersection It_ Lane Configuration Peak Hour ® StopSign AM tPM) Traffic Volume g Signalized 3 (13) 6(7)—£0. 3 (13) 0 �� �, Figure 3. Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations South Barker Corridor Study SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Intersection Level of Service The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at the 10 study area intersections are summarized in Figure 4. The intersections between Boone Avenue and Broadway were analyzed using SimTraffic to account for the impact of queuing given the close spacing of intersections as well as the split signal phasing currently used at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp. All other intersections were analyzed using Synchro. Figure 4. Existing conditions level of service and delay. Intersection Control AM Peak PM Peak Side Street Stop Approach Software (all HCM 2010) Delay LOS Delay LOS Barker/Mission Signal 12 B 13 B Synchro Barker/Boone Side -Street Stop >100 F 64 F EB SimTraffic Barker/I-90 Westbound Ramp/Cataldo Signal 57 E 29 C SimTraffic Barker/I-90 Eastbound Ramp Signal 57 E 103 F SimTraffic Barker/Broadway (N) Side -Street Stop >100 F >100 F WB SimTraffic Barker/Broadway (S) Side -Street Stop 60 F 43 E EB SimTraffic Barker/Appleway Signal 21 C 30 C Synchro Barker/Sprague All -Way Stop 26 D 49 E Synchro Barker/4th Side -Street Stop 16 C 17 C EB Synchro Barker/8th Side -Street Stop 23 C 23 C EB Synchro Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Results show that under existing conditions, the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue intersection operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. Thus, both intersections of Barker Road/I-90 do not currently meet WSDOT LOS standards. Additionally, the queue along Barker Road from the two 1-90 intersections impacts the LOS at both Barker Road/Boone Avenue and the two Barker Road/Broadway intersections, causing all three intersections to operate at LOS F during either the AM or PM peak hours or both. Additionally the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour. This intersection has been identified by COSV as a location in need of improvement to address existing congestion and multimodal operations. Results of the existing conditions traffic analysis show this intersection is just two additional seconds of delay from operating at LOS F. A small increase in traffic is likely cause this intersection to operate at LOS F without improvements. The existing average and maximum queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange during the AM peak hour are shown in Figure 5 and in the PM peak hour are shown in Figure 6. In the AM peak hour a long queue forms in the southbound direction at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection. In the PM peak hour a long queue forms in the eastbound direction at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection. It should be noted the distance between the gore point in the eastbound direction of 1-90 City of Spokane Valley 11 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 and the Barker Road intersection is about 1,700 feet and the average queue on this segment during the PM peak hour is 1,200 feet and the maximum queue is 1,500 feet. Figure 5. Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange Intersection Direction Average Queue (feet) Maximum Queue (feet) Barker/ 1-90 westbound/Cataldo EB NB SB WB 60 300 730 100 120 510 1,200 170 Barker/1-90 eastbound EB 150 260 NB 160 170 SB 170 260 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Figure 6. Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange Intersection Direction Average Queue (feet) Maximum Queue (feet) Barker/ 1-90 westbound/Cataldo EB 70 120 NB 190 340 SB 420 630 WB 100 160 Barker/1-90 eastbound EB 1,200 1,500 NB 160 180 SB 440 630 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Corridor Level of Service The existing corridor level of service within the study area is LOS D derived from average daily traffic (ADT) on each roadway segment and weighted by the segment's length. Based on the posted speed and number of lanes, the LOS D threshold for the corridor is 13,800 ADT (as defined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual), and the length -average ADT-to-LOS D volume threshold ratio is 0.83. As long as the ratio is less than or equal to 1.00, the corridor is defined as operating at LOS D or better even though some intersections may experience greater congestion than LOS D. City of Spokane Valley 12'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 I-90 INTERCHANGE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY & FINDINGS The Barker Road/I-90 interchange is currently operating at LOS E or worse at one or both interchange intersections in both the AM and PM peak hour, thus failing WSDOT LOS standards. WSDOT has proposed an interim solution that includes single -lane roundabouts at each ramp intersection until the long-term concept proposed in the 2014 IJR can be implemented. Traffic analysis was performed for the intersections between Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Road/Broadway, including both ramps of the Barker Road/I-90 interchange in years 2020, 2023, and 2028. The analysis was performed to determine how well and for how long a single -lane roundabouts as depicted in Figure 7 would operate acceptably at the two intersections. Figure 7. Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT yeerlJ���r` +�+rt• _it% • tit" r �'.^bd,l iA 4 aroadway Source: WSDOT A subsequent revision to this interim concept, shown in Figure 8, shifted the northern single -lane roundabout to the existing Cataldo Avenue/Barker Road/I-90 Westbound intersection, maintaining the existing "hook ramp" configuration. According to the best available information at this time regarding long-term plans for the interchange and replacement of the Barker Road Bridge, the advantage of this configuration, as compared to the tight diamond configuration (shown in Figure 7 and originally proposed as the interim solution) is that the proposed location of the Barker Road/westbound ramp intersection is City of Spokane Valley 13'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 farther from 1-90 than what is proposed with a tight diamond configuration. This would allow WSDOT to convert a single -lane roundabout at this location to a two-lane roundabout in the future when the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 is replaced without necessitating lowering the elevation of the 1-90 travel lanes in order to achieve the required clearance under the bridge. Figure 8. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection — revised Interim Concept Source: WSDOT A summary of the key findings of this traffic analysis are presented below: • A single lane roundabout will operate acceptably at Barker/I-90 Interchange in 2020 with: o A 2nd southbound approach lane at the westbound ramp — This can be implemented through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. o A 2nd eastbound approach lane at the eastbound ramp • The eastbound ramp intersection will drop below LOS D sometime between 2023 and 2028 o Main constraint: sometime between 2023 and 2028 the northbound traffic demand across the bridge will exceed the physical capacity of the bridge (1,000-1,100 vph) • Regardless of the configuration (either what is shown in Figure 7 or Figure 8) westbound ramp will operate at an acceptable LOS by 2028 because the eastbound roundabout will effectively "meter" northbound traffic so that there will be gaps for the heavy southbound traffic to enter Figure 9 summarizes the LOS results based on SimTraffic. It should also be noted that Sidra analysis was also performed for both intersections in years 2020, 2023 and 2028 with results showing that the v/c ratio would exceed the 0.85-0.9 threshold for both intersections sometime between 2023 and 2028, with the eastbound ramp failing sooner. However, unlike the Sidra results, SimTraffic showed that the eastbound ramp intersection would effectively "meter" traffic entering the westbound ramp intersection resulting in acceptable LOS at that intersection through 2028. City of Spokane Valley 14 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Figure 9. Year 2028 SimTraffic LOS results under the "hook ramp" concept at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp Intersection Control AM Peak Delay I LOS PM Peak Delay I LOS Barker/Boone Side -Street Stop 66 E 30 D Barker/Cataldo/I-90 westbound ramp Roundabout 40 D 17 B Barker/1-90 eastbound ramp Roundabout 84 F 88 F Barker/Broadway Side -Street Stop 107 F 218 F Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 The results of this analysis demonstrate that the interim solution (modified with a second approach lane at one leg of each intersection and revised to maintain the existing location "hook ramp" configuration at Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue/I-90 westbound ramp intersection) for the Barker Road/I-90 interchange would last about 5-10 years before falling below WSDOT LOS standards. Given this, it is recommended that the City of Spokane Valley work with WSDOT to secure funding within 5-10 years to replace the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 with a four -lane bridge. 2040 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS Traffic analysis of the Barker Corridor intersections was performed with the assumption that several already planned transportation projects would be implemented. This includes: • • • Barker Road from Mission Avenue to Appleway would be widened to five lanes (through a combination of several projects). The Barker Road/I-90 interchange would be reconfigured into two-lane roundabouts at each ramp intersection similar to the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative, with some modifications (as described below), including adding Boone Avenue into the westbound ramp roundabout and preserving the existing hook ramp configuration for the westbound ramp. The east leg of Broadway would be realigned with the west leg of Broadway at Barker Road. These changes would effectively consolidate the Barker Road/Boone Avenue intersection with the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue intersection and consolidate the two Broadway intersections into one. Consolidation of these intersection means under 2040 conditions there would be eight study intersections instead of ten. Traffic volumes and lane configurations assumed in 2040 at each of the study intersections are shown in Figure 10. City of Spokane Valley 15 1 P a g e E Mission Ave leoree irk ACRES [oA Ec WQ G'e&nacres /\ Shopping Center roe OE Mission Ave z C :::::: F a Wendy s 4 E Boma Ave Lone wolli Harley-Davidson O 2 CA E /•Ik AVE El Hub Sports Center Freedn• AHspart Polaris , Honda Yamaha Indian.. E BrwEdw ,y Aw pre SC J �, yyrvm Ar[ E Won Ave Sprague Ave O � m fi.Tit Avt E 9ih Ave 6 East F9aaIide Ave Sprague Ave 1. Barker/Mission 2. Barker/ B 1-90 On/Off-Ramp 3. Barker/EB 1-90 On/Off Ramp �� 41L320 40 (80) 100(175) r— (225) _ �°°e N N u�i o o°� sfos°J 1K s(S��JOJ o "`" wa`'c� 5V 1o`,vo`°` 5ns 6° m 5� `o �'e°'°6 0/p� ) a0 900) 45 (55)� $1.. a° m Eai-sornca�. 1,1 Ee iao o-aam. 75 (215) 80 (170) $ 130 (160) �� 285 (595) o (o) 295 (810) • cn 4. Barker/Broadway 5. Barker/Appleway 6. Barke /Sprague m PLL �J 4iL 0 40 (55) 4— 0 (0) 5(10) V A 145 (170) o— 325 (615) oto �r 80 (260) 115 (115) 625 (690) r— 65(� ) r n A a 25 (40) a- 200 (525) 145 (175) Barker 0 205 (110) 4- 70 (65) 20(50) 60 (75) 0(0)�+ 15 (5) 0 ) m t 7. Barker/4th 8. Barker/8th o �n N 10 (5) t 605 (395) A. 5 (5) m o0 0 40 (40) 0 (25) 2 30 (45) em 25 (25) 5 (5) —f 5 (5) ® 5 (15) 20 (25) —f 5 (15) ® str v Figure 10. 2040 Conditions Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations South Barker Corridor Study SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Configuration A conceptual layout in 2040 of the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection is shown in Figure 11 and a conceptual layout of the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection is shown in Figure 12. The configuration of the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection would be largely the same as the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative, including a roundabout with two circulating lanes and two eastbound approach lanes on the 1-90 off -ramp. However, the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection was modified from the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative in order to preserve the "hook ramp" configuration at the same location as today, with Cataldo Avenue on the east leg. Reasons for this change were to satisfy City of Spokane Valley and WSDOT's desire to shift the interim solution to a location that better accommodates long-term reconstruction of the interchange, as well as City of Spokane Valley's desire to find a solution with the least impact to private property. Converting the 1-90 westbound ramp to a diamond interchange would have either required Cataldo Avenue to be rerouted through private property to Boone Avenue or the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection to be moved closer to 1-90. The original IJR preferred alternative would also have necessitated lowering 1-90 in order to achieve adequate clearance under the Barker Road Bridge. Preserving the hook ramp negates both of these potential issues. While the bridge will still need to be replaced to achieve adequate clearance, the proposed configuration would allow sufficient approach length to achieve adequate clearance without the need of lowering 1-90. In addition, the east and west leg of Boone Avenue was added to the westbound ramp roundabout in order to preserve full movement on Boone Avenue and reduce the potential impacts of loss of access or additional ROW needed to provide access near the existing Boone Avenue intersection. These modifications result in a roundabout with six legs. Without this configuration Boone Avenue would be too close to the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp roundabout to safely operate with full movements. It should be noted that the concepts shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 are schematic in nature and the exact diameter of a future roundabout would need to be determined through a more detailed engineering study. The assumed length of the roundabout diameter does not affect the Sidra outputs. City of Spokane Valley 17 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 11. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection concept (same as Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 too `710, 100 0 Figure 12. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 1N Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 181 Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Intersection Level of Service Findings The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) findings at the eight study area intersections are summarized in Figure 13. The 1-90 intersections were analyzed using Sidra. The more relevant measure of effectiveness for these intersections per WSDOT policy is v/c ratio, which is shown in Figure 14. All other intersections were analyzed using Synchro. Figure 13. 2040 conditions level of service and delay. Intersection Control AM Peak PM Peak Software (all HCM 2010) Delay LOS Delay LOS Barker/Mission Signal 20 B 25 C Synchro Barker/I-90 WB Ramp/Cataldo/Boone Roundabout 17 B 13 B Sidra Barker/I-90 EB Ramp Roundabout 9 A 12 B Sidra Barker/Broadway Side -Street Stop 71 (EB) F >300 (EB) F Synchro Barker/Appleway Signal 30 C 46 D Synchro Barker/Sprague All -Way Stop 132 (NB) F >300 (SB) F Synchro Barker/4th Side -Street Stop 22 C 33 D Synchro Barker/8th Side -Street Stop 17 C 33 D Synchro Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Figure 14. Volume -to -capacity ratio in 2040 for Barker Road/I-90 interchange roundabouts. Intersection Control AM Peak v/c 95% Queue PM Peak v/c 95% Queue Software (all HCM 2010) Barker/I-90 WB Ramp/Cataldo/Boone Roundabout 0.69 240 ft. (SB) 0.54 110 ft. (NB) Sidra Barker/I-90 EB Ramp Roundabout 0.47 90 ft. (NB) 0.70 150 ft. (NB) Sidra Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Results presented in Figure 14 show that under existing 2040 conditions, the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection and the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue/Boone Avenue intersection as laid out in Figure 11and Figure 12, respectively, would operate acceptably. The v/c ratio would be meet the WSDOT threshold of 0.85-0.90 for both intersection in both the AM and PM peak hour. Results presented in Figure 13 show that the Barker Road/Sprague intersection (which had poor LOS under existing conditions) would operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hour without improvements. City of Spokane Valley 19'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Additionally, the Barker Road/Broadway intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hour and would meet the peak hour signal warrant in the PM peak hour, thus failing the City of Spokane LOS threshold in 2040. Analysis shows that the Barker Road/4th Avenue and Barker Road/8th Avenue intersection will with acceptable LOS through 2040 under the existing configurations with side street stop control. These intersections would also operate acceptably with a signal or roundabout although the forecasts do not indicate that either intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant in 2040. Mitigation Measures • Barker Road/Sprague Avenue - Traffic operations at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection were analyzed in Sidra assuming a single -lane roundabout concept and in Synchro assuming a traffic signal with left turn lanes and protected left -turn signal timing for all approaches. Results, shown in Figure 15, demonstrate that a single -lane roundabout or a traffic signal with protected left -turn lanes would result in acceptable traffic operations at this intersection in 2040. Figure 16 summarizes the pros and cons of implementing a traffic signal as compared to a roundabout at this intersection. The primary differences in a traffic signal versus a roundabout relate to traffic safety, cost, right-of-way impact, impervious surface and landscaping opportunities. While this study recommends a roundabout at this intersection primarily due to the safety benefits, the City will undertake a separate and more detailed design study as part of implementation to determine the ultimate future intersection configuration. Figure 15. Volume -to -capacity ratio, LOS and/or delay in 2040 with mitigations. Intersection Control v/c AM Peak LOS Delay PM Peak v/c LOS Delay Software Barker/Sprague Roundabout 0.52 A 0.59 A Sidra Barker/Sprague Signal 34 D 36 Synchro Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 20 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Figure 16. Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. Factors Roundabout versus Traffic Signal Traffic Safety The primary benefit of a roundabout over a traffic signal is related to traffic safety. Research provided by WSDOT shows that on average single -lane roundabouts result in 75% fewer injury crashes and 90% fewer fatalities than signalized intersections. Roundabouts mitigate the risk of moderate -to - high -speed broadside crashes commonly caused by a driver running the red light at a traffic signal. Capital Cost On average the capital cost of constructing a roundabout is higher than the capital cost of constructing a signalized intersection, but this can vary from location to location. Operations & Maintenance Cost Long-term operations and maintenance costs associated with a roundabout are typically lower than those associated with a traffic signal (about $5,000 to $10,000 per year based on COSV research), often enough to offset the higher capital cost of a roundabout over the life of the project. Right -Of -Way Impact On average, the right-of-way (ROW) impact of a roundabout can be greater than a traffic signal, but varies depending on the location and number of turn lanes. At the Barker/Sprague location the area of ROW impact would be similar with a roundabout or a signal and neither would impact existing structures. Impervious Surface A roundabout could result in more impervious surface than a traffic signal depending on whether the center island is landscaped or hardscaped. Art & Landscape Opportunities Roundabouts typically have more opportunity for landscaping or art (primarily because of the center island) than traffic signals. Noise & Air Pollution Roundabouts typically result in less air pollution and noise than a traffic signal due to less idling and fewer hard accelerations. • Barker Road/Broadway — Additionally, a two-lane roundabout at the Barker Road/Broadway intersection would result in acceptable operations in year 2040. A traffic signal is not advised at this location due to the proximity of this intersection to the planned roundabout at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp and the potential for queue spillback onto the 1-90 roundabout. An acceptable alternative to a roundabout would be to convert this intersection to right-in/right- out/left-in only configuration. However, this type of intersection configuration would result in some degree of inconvenience for drivers trying to make a left -turn from either leg of Broadway to Barker Road as they would have go out of direction to make that movement. If there is substantial commercial development along the Broadway corridor in the future, the lack of left - out movement could be a major impact to the viability of retail businesses. However, if the Broadway corridor has similar land uses as today (or other lower trip generating uses like offices or apartments), the lack of outbound left -turns would be less of an impact. City of Spokane Valley 21IPage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Diverging Roundabout Concept Given the high volume of northbound left turns from Barker Road onto 1-90 westbound (700 in the AM peak), WSDOT suggested that a "diverging roundabout" concept be tested to see if the interchange could operate effectively with single -lane roundabouts. A diverging roundabout is a diverging diamond interchange with roundabouts instead of signalized "crossover" intersections —see an example in Figure 17. The advantage of this concept is it eliminates all turning vehicle conflicts. The only point of conflict is where through traffic must cross over to the other side of the road. A diverging diamond interchange works best in situations where there are high volumes of vehicles turning off or onto the highway and not a lot of through movement on the road crossing the highway. Figure 17. Diverging roundabout concept. Image source: https://www.youtube.corn/watch?y=ms5Ty2JPME Sidra software was used to test the diverging roundabout concept in 2040 with one circulating lane at both the eastbound and westbound 1-90 ramp intersections with Barker Road. Results are shown in Figure 15 and illustrate this configuration would meet WSDOT standards during three of the four conditions tested. This configuration would result in unacceptable operations at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp in the PM peak hour due to the high volume of northbound and southbound through movements. The primary other disadvantage of this configuration is it would require a diamond interchange, which means the hook ramp would have to be removed and Cataldo Avenue would have to be rerouted to Boone Avenue. It should be noted, however, that a diverging roundabout interchange would likely meet WSDOT LOS standards if the roundabouts were dual -lane and there was a four -lane bridge over 1-90 (although this configuration was not specifically analyzed). Figure 18. 2040 volume -to -capacity ratio and 95% queue with a single -lane diverging roundabout. Intersection Control AM Peak v/c 95% Q PM Peak v/c 95% Q Software Barker/I-90 WB Roundabout 0.49 80 feet 0.93 590 feet Sidra Barker/I-90 EB Roundabout 0.65 120 feet 0.52 110 feet Sidra Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 22'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report 2040 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended transportation improvements for the Barker Road corridor are organized by two distinct segments of the corridor, the section between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue and the section between Appleway Avenue and the south City limits. Mission Avenue to Appleway Avenue The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan identifies a five -lane urban section for Barker Road between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue. The segment between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue is also identified in the Spokane Valley six -year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as a five -lane arterial. Furthermore the segment between Mission Avenue and 1-90 is identified in the in the Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance (PAO), which is in the process of being adopted as a supplement to the Spokane Comprehensive Plan EIS. WSDOT has allocated funding in 2019 and 2020 for implementing an interim improvement to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange until a longer -term solution can be implemented as identified in the SRTC Horizon 2040 Plan and I-90/Barker Road IJR. Based on these previously planned projects and findings of the traffic operations analysis presented in the previous section of this report, the following projects are recommended for Barker Road north of Appleway Avenue. • Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Improvements — It is recommended that WSDOT convert the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to single -lane roundabouts as an interim measure to improve traffic operations and safety until funding for a longer -term solution can be secured. Roundabouts would be implemented at the same locations as the ramp terminal intersections are located today. As part of this project, a second southbound approach lane should be added on Barker Road at the westbound ramp. This can be implemented through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. Additionally, a second eastbound approach lane should be added to the eastbound 1-90 off -ramp. WSDOT will also realign the east leg of Broadway to match the location of the existing west leg. Traffic analysis shows that this solution will operate effectively for about 5-10 years. Thus, it is recommended that WSDOT and City of Spokane Valley work to secure funding for a longer -term solution within the next 5 to 10 years. • Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Long -Term Improvements — It is recommended that WSDOT convert the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to two-lane roundabouts as a longer -term solution to improve traffic operations through 2040. Consistent with recommendations from the 2014 IJR, this would include two eastbound approach lanes at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection and an expansion of the roundabout to include two circulating lanes. However, unlike the 2014 IJR, it is recommended that westbound hook ramp be preserved and the roundabout at the westbound ramp be implemented as a six -leg intersection with Cataldo and Boone Avenue (this would also require that the interim roundabout be widened to include two circulating lanes). This project would include replacement of the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 with a four -lane bridge including a multiuse trail or sidewalk on both sides to wide enough to allow for safe circulation of bicyclists and pedestrians. • Barker Road — Mission Avenue to Boone Avenue Widening — It is recommended that Spokane Valley widen this segment of Barker Road to a five -lane urban section. This project has been identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Industrial Area PAO. It is recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as (or shortly after) the long term improvements are made to the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange. City of Spokane Valley 23 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report • Barker Road —1-90 to Appleway Avenue Widening - It is recommended that Spokane Valley widen this segment of Barker Road to a five -lane urban section. This project is identified in the 2019- 2024 TIP. It is recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as the long term improvements are made to the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange. Given that traffic analysis also shows the Barker Road/Broadway intersection will need improvement by 2040, it is also recommended that either a two-lane roundabout at Barker Road/Broadway be implemented as part of this project or the intersection be converted to prevent left -out movements. A roundabout at Broadway was included in the TIP. Appleway Avenue to South City Limits As identified in the traffic operations analysis, the South Barker corridor will operate acceptably in 2040 with either single -lane roundabouts or traffic signals at the major intersections (Sprague Ave, 4th Ave, 8th Ave).4 The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and TIP identify a three -lane urban roadway section between Appleway and the southern city limit. This roadway would consist of one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left -turn lane, a sidewalk, and the existing multi -use trail. Traffic signal control at the major intersections is entirely consistent with the three -lane cross section, since left -turn lanes approaching the intersections would be required. This configuration is very common in Spokane Valley. However, single -lane roundabouts do not require a turn -lane at the major intersections and this configuration could be pursued with a narrower cross-section with just two travel lanes in each direction. While it is true that traffic signals (with widening at the major intersections) could also be accommodated with a two-lane segment, this configuration is less common in the Valley (existing two- lane roads with traffic signals often do not have turn lanes at major intersections, which reduces the capacity of the street). Based on this finding, Spokane Valley may wish to consider a two-lane cross section for all or a portion of the South Barker Road corridor. Figure 19 illustrates a few pros and cons of the three -lane versus two- lane configuration. For purposes of this study, the cost estimates assume the full three -lane buildout to capture the higher potential cost, which would lead to a cost savings if the two-lane design is ultimately selected. 4 Note that in the near -term (next 5-6 years), only the intersection at Barker Rd/Sprague Ave will likely warrant a traffic signal or roundabout to address poor traffic LOS. However, as development increases in the future it is not unlikely that the intersections at 4' Ave and 8' Ave will eventually need to be upgraded from their current side - street stop control. As of now, it does not appear that these intersections will require upgrades prior to 2040, but that could change if a larger use (e.g., apartment, church) is permitted along one of these streets. City of Spokane Valley 24 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report Figure 19. Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three -lane configuration south of Appleway. v8 2/7/20 Option Pros Cons Two-lane configuration • 33 percent less paved area; results in lower up -front costs and lower long- term maintenance costs • Less impervious surface reduces stormwater conveyance and treatment costs • More space within the right-of-way for wider sidewalks or landscaped area • No mid -block left -turn lane; may require a median to prohibit left - turns at larger developments or a short widened section to accommodate a turn lane • Retrofitting a turn lane could be costly if a parcel is rezoned at a later date for a more intensive use Three -lane configuration • Once this configuration is in place, there is no need to retrofit the road to accommodate left -turns at larger developments • Better accommodates more trip - intensive land uses like multifamily residential • Higher cost to build and maintain • More impervious surface and water runoff • Less opportunity for landscaping Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Given these pros and cons, along with the potential for rezoning of the land north of Sprague Avenue to more dense residential, the following projects are recommended: • Barker Road/Sprague Avenue Intersection Improvements— Implement a single -lane roundabout at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection to improve traffic operations and safety. This project should be prioritized for this segment and can be implemented prior to making corridor -wide improvements. A roundabout is recommended over a traffic signal at this intersection because roundabouts tend to have lower numbers of serious traffic collisions and they cost less to maintain in the long -run compared to traffic signals. In addition, with all the other roundabouts being built by WSDOT farther north on the corridor, roundabouts will be a common and consistent traffic control device on Barker Road. • Barker Road —Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue Widening — Implement a three -lane cross section between Appleway and Sprague Avenue; consider extending the existing northbound right -turn lane at Appleway approximately 200 feet south to Laberry Drive and converting this to a northbound through -right lane when Barker Road is widened north of Appleway. • Barker Road —Sprague Avenue to South City Limits Improvements — Implement a two-lane cross section south of Sprague Avenue. In the design, set the multi -use trail and sidewalk in a position that could ultimately accommodate a three -lane cross section. Build two lanes of a potential three -lane configuration where one side of the street will have a final curb and gutter and the other side of the street will have a shoulder and swale for drainage. In this way, the street can more -easily be widened if it is ever necessary to accommodate a mid -block turn lane, but most of the corridor will benefit from the narrower cross-section. Given the current single-family zoning and the generally smaller parcels south of Sprague, it seems that this area is less likely to see pressure for rezoning and the two-lane cross section will operate well in the future. • 4th Avenue and 8th Avenue Intersection Improvements - Phase the construction of Barker Road to include single -lane roundabouts at 4th Avenue and 8th Avenue along with the two-lane configuration. City of Spokane Valley 25 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 IMPLEMENTATION The recommended transportation improvements can be summarized into a total of eight projects along the South Barker Road Corridor. A list of these projects, along with a brief description, timeframe for implementation, and estimated cost in 2018 dollars for the portion Spokane Valley would be responsible for are shown in Figure 20. Reference to the program and project number from previous plans, documents or the City's TIP is also identified. Figure 20. South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be implemented through year 2040. COSV Program Agency Cost Estimate' Project Description (project #) Responsible (2018 $$) IMMEDIATE (2019-2020) 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single -lane roundabout and two eastbound approach lanes; realign east leg of Broadway Horizon 2040 Plan (#12) WSDOT N/A 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single -lane roundabout and two southbound approach lanes; convert Barker/Boone to right- in/right-out Horizon 2040 Plan (#12) WSDOT N/A NEAR TERM (2021-2024) Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single -lane roundabout 2019-2024 TIP (#15) COSV $1,517,000 MID TERM (2025-2030) I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements Replace Barker Road Bridge and widen to 4-lanes from Boone Avenue to Broadway; reconstruct both intersections to 2-lane roundabout; reconstruct Barker/I-90 westbound ramp intersection to six -leg roundabout with Boone Avenue Horizon 2040 Plan (#12) WSDOT Not anticipated at this time Barker Road Improvement Project— Appleway to 1-90 Widen and improve to 5-lane urban section; roundabout @ Broadway 2019-2024 TIP (#22) COSV $6,477,000 Barker Road Improvement Project— Mission to 1-90 Widen and improve to 5-lane urban section NE Industrial Area PAO (Phase 2) COSV $2,950,000 LONG TERM (2031-2040) Barker Road Improvement Project— Appleway to South City Limits Reconstruct and widen north of Sprague to 3-lane urban section, and south of Sprague to 2-lane urban section. 2019-2024 TIP (#20) COSV $2,854,000 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct 4m Avenue and 8m Avenue intersections with single -lane roundabouts 2019 2024 TIP (#21) COSV $3,000,000 1. Costs do not include WSDOT's portion City of Spokane Valley 26IPage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Source: Fehr & Peers; City of Spokane Valley. Cost estimates are primarily derived from the City of Spokane Valley 2019-2024 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Exceptions include the cost of the Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90, which is derived from the estimate provided in the Northeast Industrial Area PAO and adjusted for 2018 dollars and the 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements, which assume a cost of $1.5 million per intersection comparable to the cost estimate for the Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements. Projects are divided into four distinct timeframes: immediate (by 2020), near -term (3-6 years), mid-term (by 2030) and long-term (2040). The timing of implementation is based on a combination of traffic analysis findings of when the project is needed to meet LOS criteria, time for project development and anticipated availability of funding. Fair Share Analysis and Potential Funding In order to offset the costs of the future infrastructure projects that will be needed to achieve acceptable multimodal operations in the Barker Road Corridor, one option would be for Spokane Valley to collect traffic impact mitigation fees based on a fair -share analysis. Fees could be collected from developments in Spokane Valley around the Barker Road corridor, as well as from neighboring jurisdictions, including Liberty Lake and Spokane County where development is expected to generate traffic that will utilize the corridor, generate/exacerbate traffic impacts, and benefit from the future roadway widening projects. The fair -share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic each jurisdiction is expected to contribute in 2040 to locations in the Barker Road corridor where future transportation improvement projects were identified. The same regional travel demand model used to forecast 2040 traffic was used to estimate the percent of traffic through various segments of Barker Road generated by a portion of each jurisdiction. This was done by using a tool in the model called a "select zone analysis." The select zone analysis was set to identify the traffic generated by the area in each jurisdiction where development is expected to have the greatest traffic impact on the South Barker Road corridor and thus where a development fee could be reasonably assessed. This includes the portion of Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River and east of Flora Road, the area of unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley City limits and the City of Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road as shown in Figure 21. Please note that the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) was excluded from this analysis as the City is already utilizing a Planned Action Ordinance to assess fair -share fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90. City of Spokane Valley 27 1 P a g e Y_076kOr gm- 1111m= I� � '.'' 1111111'•0 E=m teC Pve �_u = Ii: .`,�+wn .iR Rid �■� inillo�7� M��i II J�-!w� aoC i Z Sprague \_s_E2.44th Ave 0 South Barker Road Travel Shed Transportation Analysis Zones by Jurisdiction Spokane Valley TAZs O Liberty Lake TAZs O Spokane County TAZs N I EW elles ey Ave Z c— _F 132L ) Ka se Mirakieau `o E India S Barker Corridor E Coach Dr36 kr ii 389 E=16th Ave :?-;a01 111 III � o m N Z E Euclid Ave Indiana Ave Sprague Av Figure 21 Transportation analysis zones by juristiction included in the fair -share cost analysis. SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report To complete this analysis, the corridor was divided into three segments: north of 1-90, between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue, and south of Appleway Avenue. The results of the fair share analysis are shown Figure 22. As an example, Figure 22 shows that by 2040 about 18% of traffic on Barker Road north of 1-90 will be generated by Liberty Lake and 4% will be generated by unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of Spokane Valley. South of Appleway Avenue, only about 2% of traffic on Barker Road will be generated by Liberty Lake and 35% will be generated by development in unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley city limits. It should be noted that the percentages represent the percent of trip ends, since all trips have two ends. The select link analysis provides the origins and destinations by TAZ of all the PM peak hour trips traveling in each direction of Barker Road. Since each trip has both an origin and destination, half of the trip was assigned to the origin and half of the trip was assigned to the destination. For example, in the case of a trip that begins in Spokane Valley and ends in Liberty Lake half of that trip would be assigned to Spokane Valley and half to Liberty Lake, since both locations generated one end of the trip. Trips in the "other" category include traffic that has at least one trip end outside the TAZs included in the travel shed (see Figure 21). These include trips passing through the area or trips that have one end in the travel shed and one end outside of the travel shed (e.g., a trip between southeast Spokane Valley and downtown Spokane). Spokane Valley will need to use non -mitigation fee funding (grants, general funds) to cover the cost of the "other" trips since they cannot be levied on developers in the study area. Figure 22. Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by jurisdiction. Segment of Barker Road Southeast Spokane Liberty Spokane Valley Lake County Other Total North of 1-90 26% 18% 4% 52% 100% 1-90 to Appleway Avenue 19% 16% 17% 48% 100% South of Appleway Avenue 18% 2% 35% 45% 100% Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 To estimate the fair share transportation impact mitigation fee for new development in each of the jurisdictions, the cost of each project is multiplied by the percent of traffic from that jurisdiction that is forecast to use the infrastructure. Given the relatively low volume of traffic generated by unincorporated Spokane County north of 1-90 and the relatively low volume of traffic generated by Liberty Lake south of Appleway Avenue it is recommended to exclude those jurisdictions from contributing to the cost of projects in those respective segments. It is recommended that new development in Liberty Lake be assessed a fair -share fee of 18% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between Mission Avenue and Boone Avenue and 16% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue. Similarly, it is recommended that new development in Spokane County within the south Barker Corridor travel shed (see Figure 21) be assessed a fair -share fee of 17% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue and a fair share fee of 35% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between Appleway Avenue and the south city limits. In addition to determining which jurisdictions use the new infrastructure, a fair share transportation impact mitigation fee must consider "existing deficiencies." Impact fee case law clearly states that new developments cannot be charged to fix existing deficiencies to the transportation system. Based on the LOS analysis above, there are existing deficiencies at the 1-90 ramp intersections. Since WSDOT is funding City of Spokane Valley 29 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report the bulk of the interim improvements at the Barker Road interchange, there is no need to take a credit at that location. When the percentages in Figure 22 are applied to the cost of the projects listed in Figure 20, the fair share cost that can be applied to new development in each jurisdiction is listed in Figure 23. The total fair share cost is estimated at about $1.57 million to Liberty Lake and $3.57 million to Spokane County. It should be noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road. The agreement totals $116,411, which was subtracted from the fair -share cost (specifically the Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits). Figure 23. Fair -share cost by jurisdiction and project. Segment of Barker Road Total Project Cost Spokane Valley Liberty Lake Spokane County 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements N/A N/A N/A N/A 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements N/A N/A N/A N/A Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements $1,517,000 $273,000 $0 $531,000 I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements Not anticipated at this time N/A N/A N/A Barker Road Improvement Project—Appleway to 1-90 $6,477,000 $1,230,000 $1,036,000 $1,101,000 Barker Road Improvement Project— Mission to 1-90 $2,950,000 $767,000 $531,000 $0 Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits $2,854,000 $514,000 $0 $999,000 minus $116,411 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements $3,000,000 $540,000 $0 $1,050,000 Total $16,798,000 $3,324,000 $1,567,000 $3,565,000* Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 *Total was reduced by $116,411 to account for the existing mitigation fee agreement between Spokane Valley and Spokane County for several vested developments in Spokane County. Typically, costs to mitigate transportation infrastructure impacts are allocated based on PM peak hour traffic generation. Using PM peak hour trips is typical, since it is the PM peak hour that typically has the most -congested traffic and trips are a way to distribute costs in a way that is proportionate to the total impact generated. In other words, larger developments that generate more trips pay proportionately more than smaller developments that generate fewer trips. To develop a per -trip fee, it necessary to estimate PM peak hour traffic that will be generated by new development in the area that will use the South Barker Road Corridor. This includes portions of Spokane Valley and unincorporated Spokane County with the Barker Road Corridor travel shed and Liberty Lake east of Harvard Road (see Figure 21). Based on the 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand model, it was found that about 5,033 new PM peak hour trips will be generated by new development in this area between 2015 and 2040. This includes 2,212 new PM peak hour trips generated by Spokane Valley, 1,888 new PM peak hour trips generated by Liberty Lake and 933 new PM peak hour trips generated by unincorporated Spokane County. To estimate a cost per PM peak hour trip, one would divide the total City of Spokane Valley 30 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report eligible costs of Barker Road projects (project costs minus existing deficiencies) by the new PM peak hour trips forecast to be generated in the study area. As an example, Figure 24 illustrates the cost of each capital improvement project recommended on the South Barker Road Corridor through 2040, along with the portion of the cost attributed to Spokane Valley traffic and the corresponding cost per new PM peak hour trip generated by development east of Flora Road and south of the Spokane River. The total cost of all projects (excluding WSDOT's portion) is about $16.8 million. Using the fair -share estimate, about $3.3 million would be attributed to traffic generated by Southeast Spokane Valley. When the fair share cost is divided by the number of new PM peak hour trips expected from development in Southeast Spokane Valley between 2015 and 2040, the total cost per PM peak hour trip would be $1,503. Figure 24. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) in Spokane Valley Project 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements COSV Cost Estimate1 (2018 $$) N/A Percent Attributed to COSV N/A Portion Attributed to COSV N/A New PM Peak Hour Trips from Nearby COSV Development 2,212 Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip N/A 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements N/A N/A N/A 2,212 N/A Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements $1,517,000 18% $273,000 2,212 $123 I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long- Term Improvements Not anticipated at this time N/A N/A 2,212 N/A Barker Road Improvement Project— Appleway to 1-90 $6,477,000 19% $1,230,000 2,212 $556 Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90 $2,950,000 26% $767,000 2,212 $347 Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits $2,854,000 18% $514,000 2,212 $232 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements $3,000,000 18% $540,000 2,212 $244 Total $16,798,000 - $3,324,000 2,212 $1,503 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Applying this same methodology to the other jurisdictions results in a total cost per new PM peak hour trip of $830 for Liberty Lake and $3,821 for the area of unincorporated Spokane County within the South Barker Road travel shed as shown in Figure 25. These fees represent potential fair -share costs that could be levied on new development to help finance projects on the South Barker Corridor. City of Spokane Valley 31 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report Figure 25. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) by jurisdiction. Segment of Barker Road Southeast Spokane Liberty Spokane Valley Lake County North of 1-90 $347 $281 $0 1-90 to Appleway Avenue $556 $549 $1,180 South of Appleway Avenue $600 $0 $ 2, 640 Total $1,503 $830 $3,821 v8 2/7/20 Vested Trips According to data provided by Liberty Lake and Spokane County, a significant number of dwelling units forecast to be added between 2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In the three TAZs in Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road, about 1,490 of the 1,929 total new dwelling units forecast to be added between 2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In addition, a number of properties in Liberty Lake have already been vested for commercial development (about 397,853 sq. ft. across the City). While there is no mechanism to charge a mitigation fee to existing or vested trips, the number of vested trips does not detract from the fact that Barker Road is not expected to meet the City of Spokane Valley LOS standard by 2040, nor does it detract that development and growth in Liberty Lake and Spokane County contributes substantially to the traffic and congestion on Barker Road. One could recalculate a new impact fee that specifically accounts for the vested trips. However, the resulting impact fee for the unvested trips would be higher than what was calculated in this Study. This is because the total costs for the capacity expansion would be the same, but there would be fewer growth trips to spread the cost of necessary transportation improvements across. Based on a rough calculation, it's estimated the cost per PM peak hour trip for unvested growth in Liberty Lake to be approximately $1,200 to $1,300 or about 50% higher than the PM peak hour fee of $830 when vested trips are included. Therefore, Spokane Valley is suggesting that any unvested trips be assessed the fee calculated in this study as its proportionate fair -share fee. This keeps these trips from being additionally cost -burdened because of the inability to capture the costs of the vested trips. It should be noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road. The agreement totals $116,411, which was subtracted from the fair -share cost for Spokane County. CONCLUSIONS This report provides a summary of recommended capital improvement projects and estimated costs on the South Barker Corridor between Mission Avenue and the south City limits to be implemented by 2040. Projects are recommended to meet City and WSDOT LOS standards as well as to improve multimodal mobility in preparation for future development. This report also provides analysis of a fair -share cost estimation associated with traffic generated by adjacent jurisdictions and potential development traffic impact mitigation fees as one tool to finance projects. Lastly, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long-term alternative for the 1-90 interchange. Analysis of existing conditions shows that both intersections of the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange are not currently operating at acceptable standards and the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is close to City of Spokane Valley 32 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report failing COSV standards in the PM peak hour. Additionally, by 2040 the Barker Road/Broadway intersection will fail City of Spokane Valley LOS standards. Traffic on Barker Road is expected to grow at a rate of about 1.4% per year through 2040, which will necessitate widening the corridor to five lanes between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue. In order to address traffic operations, traffic safety and multimodal mobility on the corridor a total of eight capital improvement projects are recommended to be implemented between now and 2040. These are listed below, organized into four different time frames for implementation based on when the project is needed as well as other factors (including funding availability): • Immediate (2019-2020) o 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements (single -lane roundabout) o 1-90 Westbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements (single -lane roundabout) • Near -Term (2021-2024) o Barker Road/Sprague Avenue Intersection Improvements • Mid -Term (2025-2030) o I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements o Barker Road Improvement Project — 1-90 to Appleway Avenue (5-lane urban section) o Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission Avenue to 1-90 (5-lane urban section) • Long -Term (2031-2040) o Barker Road Improvement Project—Appleway Avenue to south City Limits o 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements In summary, the recommended improvements by 2040 would result in the following future condition. Barker Road would have bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street and curb and gutter along the length of the corridor. The road would be widened to five lanes from Mission Avenue to Appleway Avenue, three lanes from Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue and two -lanes from Sprague Avenue to the south City limits. South of Sprague, the area between the sidewalks on either side of the street would be wide enough to accommodate a third center turn lane in the future if warranted by development. Two- lane roundabouts would be implemented at both intersection of the 1-90 interchange. The Boone Avenue intersection would be consolidated into a new six -leg roundabout with the 1-90 westbound ramp and Cataldo Avenue. The bridge over 1-90 would be widened to four lanes with wide sidewalks on both sides to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. The east -leg of Broadway would be realigned to meet the west -leg and the Broadway intersection would be converted to a roundabout or reconfigured to prevent left -out movements. New single -lane roundabouts or traffic signals would be implemented at the Sprague Avenue, 4th Avenue and 8th Avenue intersections. The combined costs of the projects, excluding the portion that would be funded by WSDOT, is estimated to be about $16.8 million in 2018 dollars. A fair -share analysis of the corridor was also conducted to highlight how development in Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and Spokane County could help to finance these projects. By multiplying the eligible project cost with the fair -share percentage and charging that fee, it would ensure that new development in each jurisdiction is contributing funding to the project reflective of their use of/benefit from the improvement. The fair -share analysis demonstrated that traffic from Southeast Spokane Valley developments will generate fairly equal demand on the length of the corridor. Traffic from Liberty Lake is generally expected to use the section of Barker Road north of Appleway Avenue and traffic from unincorporated Spokane County will generally use the section of the City of Spokane Valley 33 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report corridor south of 1-90. Therefore, it is recommended that a fee program be implemented to collect fees for projects on three distinct segments of the corridor based on the fair -share percentage: • Mission Avenue to 1-90 • 1-90 to Appleway Avenue • Appleway Avenue to south City limits It should be noted that while developer impact fees can provide an important source of funding, after negotiating with developers, elected officials, and neighboring jurisdictions, the impact fees are typically set so that they only cover a portion of project costs (typically less than 50%). Thus, Spokane Valley will need to use other financing strategies to pay for the remaining costs of the projects identified above. Other financing strategies Spokane Valley might consider include implementing a local improvement district or transportation benefit district, and applying for grants. Historically, Spokane Valley has had strong success in seeking and winning external funding, which has kept the costs of expanding transportation infrastructure relatively low for both developers and existing taxpayers compared to other cities in the region and state. City of Spokane Valley 34 1 P a g e FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2020-0005 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. Pursuant to RCW 82.02.050-.110, the City may adopt, assess, and collect transportation impact fees on new development. 3. CTA-2020-0005 is a City -initiated text amendment to the SVMC to create a new chapter 22.100 SVMC to adopt and assess transportation impact fees for the South Barker Road Corridor, minor associated modifications to Titles 17 and 22 SVMC and the Street Standards, and other related items. 4. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on November 5, 2020. The Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(D) Notice of Public Hearing a. The City provided notice of the public hearing on CTA-2020-0005 as follows: i. Publication in the Spokane Valley Herald on 10/16 and 10/23. ii. Press release to 320 media -related email addresses, multiple postings on all City social media outlets, email to email subscribers for numerous City email lists, and creation of transportation -specific impact fee website. b. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 5, 2020 and received public testimony on the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission has considered all testimony received on the proposed amendments. c. Conclusion The requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(D) are met. 2. 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-G3 Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2020-0005 Page 1 of 3 ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. LU-Gl Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. LU-P8 Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non -motorized transportation routes. T-Gl Ensure that the transportation system and investments in transportation infrastructure are designed to improve quality of life or support economic development priorities. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. T-G3 Strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero. T-P2 Consider neighborhood traffic and livability conditions and address potential adverse impacts of public and private projects during the planning, designing, permitting, and construction phases. T-P6 Work collaboratively with developers to ensure that areas experiencing new development are well served by motorized and non -motorized transportation options. T-P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared -use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. CF-G4 Pursue a diverse set of capital funding sources. CF-P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. CF-P15 Evaluate a variety of capital funding sources including, but not limited to, grants, local improvement districts, latecomer agreements, and impact fees to fund projects and programs. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendments implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure a safe and efficient transportation system that supports and maintains the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley. The improvements identified in the South Barker Corridor Study and Rate Study will help maintain adequate levels of service for traffic along the Barker Road corridor over the next 20 years. The Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2020-0005 Page 2 of 3 transportation impact fees will provide a regular and reliable funding source for a portion of these improvements, and will be provided by developments that are directly contributing to the need for such improvements. Further, the fees will be limited to the proportionate impact from new development, so as new development causes impacts, those impacts will be able to be addressed through necessary improvements. The proposed amendments introduce a consistent and reliable fee schedule for new development that establishes set rates across various types of new development, lending itself to more efficient planning and budgeting for new development projects. The proposed impact fee of $1,272 "per trip" is based on the Rate Study, which was conducted within standard engineering principles and provides a reasonable and appropriate fee amount. 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. 3. Compliance with RCW 82.02.050-.110 a. The proposed amendments and fees are based on a traffic rate study conducted in accordance with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050-.110. b. The proposed fees and amendments are for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, do not exceed the proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, and will be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development within the South Barker Corridor, as identified in the South Barker Corridor Traffic Study and South Barker Corridor Traffic Rate Study. 4. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA-2020- 0005. Attachments: Exhibit A, B, & C — Proposed Amendment CTA-2020-0005 Approved thisl2th day of November, 2020 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2020-0005 Page 3 of 3 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall October 8, 2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Walt Haneke, absent James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Bob McKinley Sherri Robinson John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Bill Helbig, City Engineer Jerrerny Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer Connor Lange, Planner Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant. There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Haneke from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the October 8, 2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the September 24, 2020 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson reported that he continues to attend the Human Rights Task Force meetings. VH. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson reminded the Commission that there will be a special Planning Commission meeting held on November 5, 2020 to discuss impact fees for the South Barker corridor. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 1 10-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 a. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2019-0005, A proposed amendment to Title 20, Subdivisions Planner Connor Lange requested approval of the findings of fact from the meeting on September 24, 2020 regarding the proposed amendment to Title 20. This document will formalize the Planning Commission's actions and the recommendation will be submitted to the City Council for approval, Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the findings of fact and forward to City Council. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the 1110t1011 passed. b. Study Session: STV-2020-0002, A privately initiated street vacation for a portion of East Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road Planner Connor Lange gave a staff presentation. He explained that the City received an application on August 7, 2020 from Diamond Rock Financial, LLC/TCF Properties requesting a street vacation of 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and 195 feet of Bessie Road. The area is located east of Vista Road, west of Sargent Road, south of Trent Avenue and north of Mansfield Avenue. The four parcels along Montgomery Avenue where the vacation is being requested are owned by the same person and the City will require that the owner aggregate those properties to avoid any access issues. Bessie Road is 25 feet of right-of-way and Montgomery is 30 feet in the smallest section and 60 feet in the largest section of right-of-way. Chairman Johnson asked for clarification about how the four lots will be accessed if the street is vacated. Mr. Lange answered that the property will still be accessed from the unvacated portion of Montgomery Avenue. Commissioner Robinson asked the zoning of the properties. Mr. Lange answered that the property off Bessie Road is zoned R-3 and the four properties on Montgomery are zoned multi -family residential (MFR). Commissioner Robinson asked if the surrounding properties have been notified about the requested change. Mr. Lange answered that a notice of public hearing has been sent out to all owners of properties within 400 feet of the proposal. Mr. Lange explained that there are three main items that staff reviews when processing a street vacation request: street connectivity, traffic volumes, & future development/access. During the review process, staff determined that there is sufficient street connectivity. Due to the location of the railroad to the north of the property, Bessie Road cannot be connected to Trent Rd. However, there is good access from Mansfield Avenue & Sargent Road providing circulation onto Montgomery Avenue. The applicant's reason's for request is as follows: 1) The proposed vacation is currently undeveloped (dedicated in 1955) and provides no public access at this time, having no potential for connection to the north with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line directly to the north. 2) Both Bessie Road and a portion of Montgomery Road are not full right-of-way widths and therefore would be substandard for todays use. 3) The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties for infill development. 2 10-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Beaulac asked if the railroad has been notified about this request. Mr. Lange answered that notification has been sent but the City has not received any comments from them. Commissioner Beaulac commented that he would really like to know their thoughts on the proposal. Mr. Lange responded that he would try to reach out to them for comments. Chairman Johnson asked about the comment from Whipple Engineering regarding the proposed subdivision of the lot on Bessie Road into three separate lots. Mr. Lange responded that there is a formal request for short plat on that property that has been deemed incomplete due to this proposed street vacation. With no other questions, Mr. Lange said that a public hearing will be held on October 22, 2020 and he will provide answers to those questions posed by the Commission. c. Administrative Report; Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Deputy City Manager John Hohman introduced the agenda item. He explained that the City of Spokane Valley does not currently have impact fees in place. The City would like to implement impact fees for new developments occurring along the Barker Road corridor. When a new project comes in for development, there will be a set dollar amount per trip that a developer pays which will be used by the municipality to improve the infrastructure that is impacted by the development. Senior Traffic Engineer Jerremy Clark stated there are two process used to determine project mitigation, traffic concurrency and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Traffic concurrency ensures that the transportation system has sufficient capacity to accommodate any proposed development. In order to have a consistent process, the City has street standards that must be met for each proposed development. All projects must have a trip generation and distribution letter (TGDL) which provides an estimate of how many trips will be corning onto the transportation network and where they will be occurring. The number of trips generated determines if a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required for a proposed development. These tools are used to determine what kind of mitigation will be required from a developer. SEPA has its own set of requirements and processes but they are separate from concurrency. Mr. Clark explained that the City has done some in-depth studies of areas with substantial growth potential and limited roadway capacity. These areas include the Northeast Industrial area, Mirabeau subarea, North Pines subarea, and the South Barker corridor. Mr. Hohman explained the cost of preserving current infrastructure in the existing configuration. There are roads throughout the City that are deficient and can't support the amount of activity and development happening. The City struggles with funding their street maintenance programs. Historically, the estimated cost to maintain City streets is approximately ten million dollars and the average actual expenditures is six million dollars leaving a deficit of four million dollars each year. The ten million estimate is for preservation only and does not include lane widening, intersection operations, or other needed improvements. The City needs to find additional funding to accommodate growth and maintain current service levels. 3 10-08-2020 Planning Conuoission Minutes Page 4 of 5 Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb explained that the City is looking to identify the fair share impacts of new developments on an even basis so that citizens are not paying for the impacts. He stated that currently mitigation is only required if the level of service drops below acceptable levels based on the addition of a new development. Impacts occur from all developments but only the last developer who tips levels of service over the acceptable levels contributes to mitigation. The mitigation received from that developer will only be required based on that development's proportionate share. SEPA allows the City to address "probable significant adverse environmental impacts" on projects. Traffic is considered to be an environmental impact under SEPA but mitigation cannot be duplicated if it imposed by other regulations. Mr. Lamb stated that there are current process limitations because traffic concurrency is limited to designated corridors and areas. There are substantial exemptions in place through both SEPA and traffic concurrency such as short plats, multi -family dwellings up to sixty units and commercial buildings up to 30,000 square feet. However, impacts still occur from exempt areas, especially in regards to traffic impact. These limitations put the City in a situation where new development is not paying for their impacts to City infrastructure. Due to this shortfall in revenue, the City is looking into the possibility of implementing traffic impact fees. Mr. Lamb explained that impact fees are statutorily authorized mechanisms to have development pay for their proportionate impact on services and infrastructure and may be limited to an identified geographical area. It's a fair assessment of fees which gives certainty to developers regarding the amounts that will have to be paid. The fees are easy to collect because they are due at the time of building permit. The fees are established by an adopted rate schedule for each development activity and must be based on a specific formula or calculation. Chairman Johnson asked if the collected fees can be used city-wide for transportation related projects. City Engineer Bill Helbig answered that statutorily it is required that the fees received must be used within the area that they were collected. Mx. Helbig stated that the City has conducted a substantial study of the South Barker corridor. The study shows that this area has potential for significant future development and the level of service is degrading. The study recommends the need for mitigation and identifies fair share costs. It identifies seven recommended improvement projects throughout the corridor for a total of approximately 18.8 million dollars. Mr. Helbig explained that a public hearing on this agenda item will be held at a special meeting of the Planning Commission on November 5, 2020 and a Findings Of Fact will be held on November 12, 2020. It will then be forwarded to the City Council on November 24, 2020. Commissioner Beaulac asked for a report showing what other municipalities are charging for impact fees because he wants to make sure that the City is adopting fees that are competitive. Mr. Helbig stated that he will submit that report at the next meeting. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Mr. Hohman stated that Mayor Wick will select someone to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission at the October 20, 2020 City Council meeting. The 4 10-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 City has received three applicants for the position. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed James Johnson, Chair Deanna Horton, Secretary Date signed. 5 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall October 22, 2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Deanna Morton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Bcaulac Karl Granrath Walt I laneke James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Bob McKinley Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Hill 11clbig, City Engineer Jerremy Clark. Senior Traffic Engineer Connor Lange, Planner Deanna 1-Lorton, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Ka.schmitter moved to approve the October 22. 2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Contrnissioner Koschmitter moved to approve the October 8. 2020 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vole on the motion was six in favor, one abstention, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner 1 laneke apologized for missing the last meeting. Commissioner Granrath stated that he is excited to be on the Planning Commission. Chairman Johnson reported that he continues to attend the human Rights Task Force meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson welcomed Commissioner Granrath to the Planning Commission. She also reminded the Commission that all meeting videos are on the Spokane Valley website for review. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 1 10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8 a. Public Hearing: STV-2020-0002, A privately initiated street vacation for a portion of East Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road The public hearing was opened at 6:06 p.m. Planner Connor Lange gave a presentation regarding an application received by the City on August 7, 2020 from Diamond Rock Financial, LLCITCF Properties requesting a street vacation of 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and 195 feet of Bessie Road. The area is located east of Vista Road, west of Sargent Road, south of Trent Avenue and north of Mansfield Avenue. The four parcels along Montgomery Avenue are owned by the Montgomery Apartments, LLC, the two properties along Bessie Road are owned by I]iarnond Rock and Kenneth Ward and the adjacent property on East Montgomery Avenue is owned by Argonne/Montgomery Storage, LLC. All four of these property owners signed the submitted application in support of the street vacation. Mr. Lang stated that he reached out to the Burliin4gton Northern Railroad and they expressed that they do not have any issues with the vacation. Mr. Lange said that the applicant's reason for this request is as follows: 1) The proposed vacation is currently undeveloped (dedicated in 1955) and provides no public access at this time. 2) Both Bessie Road and a portion of Montgomery Avenue are not full right-of-way widths and therefore would be substandard for today's use. Bessie Road is 25 feet of right-of-way and Montgomery is 30 feet in the smallest section and 60 feet in the largest section of right-of-way. 3) The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting. properties for infill development. Mr. Lange stated that the public hearing notice was posted as required. was published in the Valley Herald twice, written notice was sent to the property owners adjacent to the properties along Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue and signs were posted at each end of the proposed vacation area. Mr. Lange explained that the right-of-way to be vacated is unimproved, is not currently being utilized for public access, and is overgrown with weeds. Infi11 development on these adjacent parcels will enhance the City's tax base and remove undeveloped right-of- way from the City's maintenance division. Also, there are no means of future connection that would enhance public access because much of the right-of-way is substandard to the current City street standards and the existing street network provides a sufficient level of service for the adjacent properties. Mr. Lange stated that staff condition number eight (submitted in the packet) states: The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of -such vacation and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be .subject to all regulations of the district. However, staff is recommending a change to that condition that would dedicate all of the vacated street along Bessie Road to Diamond Road Financial, LLC because the entire right-of- way was dedicated during the creation of the Vista Gardens subdivision. The proposed staff condition reads as follows: The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to he vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation except in the case of Bessie Road in which the entire 25 feet shall he included with parcel-l5074.0 23 (owned by Diamond Rock Financial, lin.fran, which it was 2 10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 or originally platted as part oldie I'i.+ta Gardens Number -1 Plat. All urea included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations ofthe district. Commissioner Haneke asked why this same logic would not apply to the right-of-way along Montgomery Avenue that is being given to the railroad, Mr. Lange answered that the right-of-way in that area was not dedicated at the same as Vista Gardens. Only fifteen feet of Montgomery Avenue was dedicated during the subdivision plat. Chairman Johnson asked if the property owner Kenneth Ward was notified that the street vacation is being given solely to the other piece of property. Mr. Lang answered that he had not been notified. Chair Johnson asked if Kenneth Ward was specifically told that he would be getting any of the property. Mr. Lang answered that he was not because the allocation is based on how the original plat map was dedicated and based on the plat map the property would not be entitled to any additional area. However. Kenneth Ward did sign the original application in support of the request. Chair Johnson opened the public testimony. Administrative Assistant Deanna I lorton read 27 written comments that were received on October 21, 2020 into the record. The comments were all in opposition to the street vacation request. 1) Alice Marie Bristow, 8720 E Montgomery Avenue, objected due to increased traffic, decrease in property value, increase in taxes, less safety for older people, wear and tear on streets and utilities, more noise in the neighborhood, possible increased crime, and poorer air quality. 2) Matthew Keller, 8603 E Mansfield Avenue. objected because Diamond Rock Financial, LLC. will build a three-story' apartment complex which is in conflict with the Cities housing policy #6, it wi11 strip him of his privacy in his backyard where he installed a $ ] 0,000 vinyl fence, the property would be a better site for storage units, the proposed development will attract a cluster of crime and drugs, and the proposed street vacation is needed to meet fire code. 3) Tracy McCulloch, 8521 E Mansfield Avenue. objected because the future development of the properties owned by Diamond Rock Financial, LLC and Montgomery Apartments will violate the housing policy #6 of the Cities Comprehensive Plan and will cause impact to the neighborhood including increased traffic, increased noise and loss of privacy to the adjacent properties. 4) Sara and Christopher Wilson, 8720 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to increased traffic, making Sargent and Mansfield a more dangerous intersection due to the increased traffic, more people will affect the nice quiet neighborhood, possible increase in crime, and decreased property value. 5) Johnathan E Hannel, 8721 E Mansfield Avenue, objected to an addition of apartment complexes due to increased traffic, children being unable to play outside because of traffic threat, increase in crime, and decrease in property value. He requested that the City not sell or allow the use of Montgomery Avenue by Diamond Rock Financial, L.L.C. 6) Sarah and Toin McKeever, 8820 E Montgomery Avenue, objected due to additional traffic on an unmarked road, increased crime rate and decreased property value. 7) Izeah and Jessica Mattingly, 8504 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because it will negatively affect their way of life in the neighborhood and it will increase traffic which is already a problem in the neighborhood. She stated bringing section eight 3 10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8 housing to the neighborhood is not a good idea and she is worried about an increase to the crime and drug rate and a decrease in property values. 8) Austin and Kaytlyn Auckcrman, 8602E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to decreased property values and an increase in traffic, They also expressed concern about a "problem house" (owned by one of the applicants) where a resident visited their home demanding drugs and threatening to kill them. When this incident was investigated by the police, they found drugs being sold out of the home. He stated that allowing this build to pass \vould promote and increase this type of behavior, especially if it is low income housing. 9) Donna (Thompson) Messinger. 8520 f Mansfield Avenue, objected due to a decrease in property value, traffic congestion will increase. dangerous for children to go to the 2 bus stops in the neighborhood, the roads in the neighborhood cannot handle the traffic for a 3-story apartment complex, and the trains going past Mansfield causes traffic delays at Vista and Trent. and the complex will make these delays worse. 10) Ross Sells and. Sarah Spencer, 8621 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to increase in vehicle traffic, increase in crime and decrease in property values. 11) Dale A McCallum II, 8607 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to increased traffic flow and crime, decreased property values, proximity to railroad, petroleum line. loss of privacy, and risk to children's bus stops. 12) Elizabeth Vazquez, 8621 E Knox Avenue, objected due to increased traffic flow, increased crime rates, increased noise and decrease of privacy fbr neighborhood. 13) Eniogene Sweigle, 2214 N Sargent Road, objected due to increased traffic flows on already overloaded streets and decreased property values. 14)llector Andrade, 8709 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to the decrease in safety for neighborhood children, potential for more/bigger accidents. increased crime, vandalism, and homelessness in the neighborhood. 15) Mark Krum, 8702 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to property value, taxes, traffic congestion, crime/undesirables, environmental impacts, railroad/property conflict, fire/emergency service, neighborhood unity, and noise pollution. 16) Patrick Ohmann, 8716 E Mansfield, objected due to increase in traffic and that the neighborhood will no longer he quiet. 17) Kimberly McKinley, 8715 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because the proposal is an infringement on single home dwellers and owners of property in the neighborhood. She stated that they do not need any additional traffic because people already speed on Montgomery and kids and pets are being put in danger. She also expressed concern about Diamond Rock creating a neighborhood problem around Pasadena Elementary. 18) Brian P McCabe, 8708 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because property values will drop after being as high as they have ever been, drug use/traffic are usually close behind an influx of low-income habitation. fear of crime rates increasing in a safe and close-knit community. 19) Danny "Tryon. 2310 N Margeuritc, objected because the traffic on the streets has increased multiple times since 1972. The neighborhood is family friendly with lots of kids and pets, but the construction of the Maverik gas station and convenience store has tripled the traffic and people do not adhere to the speed limit, He stated the neighborhood does not need the impact of opening up more streets and more building because it is already congested enough. 20) Paul Cockburn and Alexandra Hill, 2302 N Marguerite Road, objected because they just bought their home to get away from apartients. They stated that apartments will 4 10-22-2020 Planning C'onnnussion Minutes Page 5 of8 cause crime, drugs, high traffic, and theft. He stated that apartments need to be built elsewhere and not in their neighborhood. 21) Bill and Kathy Bartlett, 2218 N Marguerite Road, objected because they are concerned about children and elderly safety, heavy traffic associated with a large number of occupants in a small area, children walking to bus stops, danger to pedestrians, more theft/break-ins, property taxes will increase to support additional utilities and infrastructure repairs, and decrease in property values. 22) Danny A and Susan Packard, 8815 E Knox Avenue, objected due to an increase in traffic and speeding on Knox Avenue. 23) Yamada, 8510 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because of continuing crime, concern over major gas line by the railroad track, decrease in property values, increase in traffic, and apartment complexes attract drug and foot traffic. 24) Lonnie Scott, 8704 E Montgomery Avenue, objected because the area is not able to handle the current traffic, additional traffic will put children at risk, development so close to the train tracks will only draw those who cannot afford a better location which will increase crime and drugs, and lower property values. 25) Mike and Lorraine Schweda, 8608 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because there will be increased occupants, foot and car traffic, and the safety of railroad access. They also stated there are no street lights on Mansfield Avenue which has caused an increase in vandalism, car break-ins, gas robbing, and vehicle/car/yard thieves. They stated that they are also concerned about fire and police protection access, decrease in property values and more drug activity. They do not feel that this proposal will be an asset or improvement to what already exists. 26) Kris and Jessica Taylor, 8805 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because the vacation would infringe on the surrounding homes by decreasing privacy. property values, and safety, and increasing traffic volumes. The proposed development would violate housing policy #6 and they stated frustration that Diamond Rock would propose a plan for their gain and knowingly violate this policy. 27) Barbara Sturn, 8415 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because low income housing brings trouble and they just got rid of three drug houses, congested streets that are already crowded and don't have stop signs. decrease in property values, and the residents will lose their view of Mount Spokane. She asked if anything is sacred anymore or if everything is about money. Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers representing the applicant, stated that he understood the comments from the residents regarding high density but the zoning for the properties had already been approved and determined. Therefore. the developers could move forward with the multifamily project regardless of the whether or not the street vacation was approved. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the request. Chairman Johnson asked if the transition requirements would apply between railroad and multifamily. Building. Official Nickerson responded that the railroad does not have a zoning classification associated with it. Therefore, there are no requirements for buffering or transition. During this time, an attendee, Sheri Lang continued to interrupt the meeting by unmuting and interjecting herself into the discussion. While trying to gain control over the interruption, Commissioner McKinley asked Secretary Horton why she just did not allow Ms. Lang to continue to speak. Ms. Horton explained that in order to speak, the public needed to notify staff ahead of time so that staff would be able to maintain control over the meeting. Commissioner McKinley stated that he felt that the Commission should 5 10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8 allow the member of the public to speak on this matter even though she did not request to speak through the proper channels. There was discussion between the Commissioners regarding whether or not to allow the public to speak. They decided to allow Ms. Lang only to speak. Sheri Lang, Spokane Valley, stated that she lives on the corner of Sargent Road and Montgomery Avenue and she felt that this request for street vacation would substantially affect her. She stated that if a large apartment building is built, the only exit for those residents would be past her home onto Sargent Road. She said there should be an easement granted through the Diamond Rock property so that the apartment traffic could funnel onto Bessie Road. She also expressed concern about Ken Ward not being notified about him not maintaining his portion of Bessie Road. Ms. Horton noted that through the chat function Mr. Whipple had requested to speak again to rebut some of the testimony. 'There was consensus from the Commission to move forward without allowing any additional public comment. The public hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Haneke suggested that rather than vacating Bessie Street, changing it to a one-way street. Ms. Nickerson responded that it would be very difficult to make that designation without a specific proposal for development on the undeveloped properties. Deputy City Attorney. Erik Lamb stated that a determination on that sort of change would have be made by traffic engineering during the proposal. Commissioner Robinson commented that this request was for the street vacation only and the decisions regarding zoning have already been determined. Development on these properties is going to continue regardless of the street vacation determination. Commissioner Beaulac moved to recommend approval of STV- 2020-002. the proposed street vacation for Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road to the City Council subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Beaulac asked if the traffic light at Montgomery Avenue and Argonne Road could be adjusted for additional traffic if the apartments are built. Senior Traffic Engineer Jerrerny Clark answered that the corridor along Argonne Road has automated traffic signal performance measures already set up and they could be reviewed in real time so that adjustments could be made as volumes change. Commissioner Haneke commented that he would like Kenneth Ward to be notified that he will not be receiving any of the vacation right-of-way. Commissioner Beaulac stated that his motion is recommending approval of the street vacation subject to the original written staff conditions without any changes to the allocation of Bessie Road (the right- of-way will be split between both property owners). The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion grassed. A brief break was called at 7:42 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:53 p.m. b. Study Session: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor City Engineer Bill Helbig introduced the agenda item. Ile explained that the City is proposing a code -text amendment to implement transportation impact fees along the South Barker Road corridor. He explained that the City currently uses two process to determine project mitigation, traffic concurrency and the State Environmental Policy Act 6 10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 (SEPA). Both processes are based on proportionate share of the proposed project and they require each project to do a unique. project specific evaluation each time. These evaluations are done by following the City's Street Standards. He stated that currently mitigation is only required if the level of service drops below acceptable levels based on the addition of a new development. Impacts occur from all developments but only the last developer who tips levels of service over the acceptable levels contributes to mitigation. The mitigation received from that developer will only be required based on that development's proportionate share. Mr. Helbig stated that there are current process limitations because traffic concurrency is limited to designated corridors and areas. There are substantial exemptions in place through both SEPA and traffic concurrency such as short plats, multifamily dwellings up to 60 units and commercial. buildings up to 30,000 square feet. However, impacts still occur from exempt areas, especially in regards to traffic impact. Mr. Helbig explained that impact fees are statutorily authorized mechanisms to have development pay for their proportionate impact on services and infrastructure and may be limited to an identified geographical area. He stated that the City has conducted a substantial transportation study of the South Barker corridor. The study identifies seven recommended improvement projects throughout the corridor for a total of approximately $18.8 million dollars. If the impact fees are implemented, they will cover about 19% of the improvement amount. Chairman Johnson asked if the City had looked into interlocal agreements with other jurisdictions. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb answered that the City has not engaged in any formalized discussions yet. However, there has been ongoing discussions with Liberty Lake and Spokane County regarding the need for cooperation addressing traffic impact. The City is aware that these agreements will be needed in the future but feels that the impact fee adoption is the first step. Mr. Helbig stated that if these fees are adopted, there will need to be code changes made to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). A new chapter will need to be added to Title 22 adopting and imposing Transportation Impact Fees (Chapter 22.100). Some additional updates will need to be made to 17.90 regarding appeals, 17.110.010 regarding fees and penalties, and 22.10.010 regarding authority. Also, Chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards will also need to be updated. Mr. Lamb explained that these changes are primarily set forth by state law because there are very specific requirements that have to be met in the code language. The language specifically states that these fees arc only for the Barker Corridor based on the traffic studies completed. He explained the highlights regarding the new SVMC Chapter 22.100 including the assessment procedure, the deferral process, exemptions, credits, appeals and refunds. Mr. Helbig presented the proposed rates. The proposed rate for South Barker is $1,272 per PM peak trip. The adopted SEPA mitigation fee for the Northeast Industrial Arca is $2,831 per PM peak trip so this new impact fee is substantially lower than other adopted fees. He also showed a comparison of the proposed rates to other municipalities adopted fees. 7 I0-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8 Mr. Lamb stated that there will be a public hearing on this agenda item at a special meeting of the Planning Commission on November 5, 2020 and a Findings of Fact will presented at November 12, 2020. The findings will then be forwarded to the City Council on November 24, 2020. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: None was offered. XL ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter tnoved to adjourn the meeting al 8:55 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed James Johnson, Chair Deanna Horton, Secretary 4/4./zcziD I)atc signed 8 Special Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall November 5, 2020 I. Chairman Johnson called the special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl Granrath, arrived at 7:11 Walt Haneke James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Bob McKinley Sherri Robinson John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Bill Helbig, City Engineer Jerremy Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer Adam Jackson, Engineer Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Granrath from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the November 5, 2020 Special Meeting agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the October 22, 2020 minutes as presented. Chairman Johnson moved to make a change to page three, paragraph three to include the language "Kenneth Ward was not notified by staff that he would be getting any of the vacated property." The vote on the amendment was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. There was no additional discussion. The vote on the amended motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson reported that he continues to work with the Human Rights Task Force. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson thanked the Planning Commission and administrative staff for the implementation of new Zoom meeting protocols. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb reminded the Planning Commission not to use personal media devices while attending Zoom meeting because the meetings are open to the public and subject to open record requests. 1 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: CTA-2020-0005: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor The public hearing was opened at 6:11 p.m. City Engineer Bill Helbig introduced the public hearing item. He explained that the City is proposing a code -text amendment to implement transportation impact fees along the South Barker Road corridor. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb explained that the City staff really attempted to get notification out to the public regarding this proposed amendment. He stated that the City followed the legal requirements of publishing the notice in the newspaper for two consecutive weeks. Staff also did additional notifications by sending out press releases, emailing to resident distribution lists, posting on the main page of the Spokane Valley website, and sending out through all social media platforms. The press releases led to articles in the Spokesman Review and the Journal of Business and some new broadcasts on some of the radio stations. Mr. Helbig explained that impact fees are statutorily authorized mechanisms to have new development pay for their proportionate impact on services and infrastructure and may be limited to an identified geographical area. These fees can only apply to new development and cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies. He stated that the City has conducted a substantial transportation study of the South Barker corridor. The study identifies seven recommended improvement projects throughout the corridor for a total of approximately $18.8 million dollars. If the impact fees are implemented, they will cover about 19% of the improvement amount. Mr. Helbig stated that if these fees are adopted, there will need to be code changes made to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). A new chapter will need to be added to Title 22 adopting and imposing Transportation Impact Fees (Chapter 22.100). Some additional updates will need to be made to 17.90 regarding appeals, 17.110.010 regarding fees and penalties, and 22.10.010 regarding authority. Also, Chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards will also need to be updated. Mr. Lamb explained that these changes are primarily set forth by state law because there are very specific requirements that have to be met in the code language. The language specifically states that these fees are only for the Barker Corridor based on the traffic studies completed. He noted that the fee amounts will not be included in the code because they are based on information gained from traffic impact studies. The rates will be adopted as part of the City's fee schedule which will allow flexibility for updated rate studies in the future. The impact fees will be assessed at the time of issuance of building permit. He explained the highlights in the new SVMC Chapter 22.100 including the assessment procedure, the deferral process, exemptions, credits, independent fee calculations, appeals and refunds. Mr. Helbig presented the proposed rates. The proposed rate for South Barker is $1,272 per PM peak trip. The adopted SEPA mitigation fee for the Northeast Industrial Area is 2 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 $2,831 per PM peak trip so this new impact fee is substantially lower than other adopted fees. He gave a comparison of the proposed rates to other municipalities adopted fees. Mr. Lamb stated that the Findings of Fact will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting on November 12, 2020. The findings will then be forwarded to the City Council on November 24, 2020. Commissioner Beaulac asked about the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) funded improvement projects in the corridor. Mr. Helbig answered that the new roundabouts off of the interstate are just interim improvements. WSDOT hopes to be able to upgrade those roundabouts to two lanes and increase the capacity of the bridge over Barker Road. Deputy City Manager John Hohman added that if those improvements aren't completed, it could cause a bottleneck on the City projects. However, the City and WSDOT are working together to get the projects completed as quickly as possible. Commissioner Beaulac asked if schools or public facilities could be exempt from paying impact fees because the fee amount would be burdensome. Transportation Engineer Chris Breiland with Fehr and Peers (the technical consultants for the traffic impact fee rate study) answered that according to state law, impact fees must be assessed equally among all uses that generate trips. Therefore, schools and public facilities cannot be exempt. However, the fees assessed for schools could be lower because they aren't impacting traffic during PM peak times. Commissioner Robinson asked about the comments received from the City of Liberty Lake. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb responded that the City does not have jurisdiction to collect fees outside of the City limits but the City hopes to work with other jurisdictions. Comments were received from the City of Liberty Lake that they are in favor of impact fees but they are concerned about what the fee amount is and imposing that fee in their jurisdiction. He explained that the City is not looking to do that through this adoption of fees, they will only apply within the Spokane Valley City limits. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley, asked why these impact fees are not being implemented throughout the entire City. She expressed concern about a lower amount being assessed on storage sheds. Scott Grimmett, Spokane Valley, stated that he is a property owner and developer on Sprague Avenue and he is opposed to impact fees because they are unfair. He explained that infrastructure developments benefit everyone that use them so the fees should be the same for everyone. He stated that this impact fee will inflate home prices and reduce affordability through the City. He asked the Planning Commission not to approve the request. Chairman Johnson asked if the City is planning to implement fees anywhere else in the City limits. Mr. Helbig answered that staff does plan to look at some other areas of the City for rate study analysis. However, the Barker corridor has the biggest impact and has the most development occurring so it is the primary concern for staff right now. 3 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 The public hearing was closed at 7:18. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to recommend approval to the City Council of CTA- 2020-0005 as presented. Commissioner McKinley expressed concern that this fee could make homes in this area less affordable and it could be a detriment to the development of the area. Mr. Hohman responded that there is a cost savings for development by doing impact fees because they will no longer have to do individual traffic impact studies for each new development. Senior Engineer, Jerremy Clark added that small projects require a Trip Generation Letter and that is approximately $1,000 - $2,500 depending on the size of the project. For larger developments that might trigger mitigation (which is anything in excess of 30 trips) the City requires a full traffic impact analysis. They can range from $15,000 - $70,000 and can take up to three or four months to be completed. Commissioner Robinson commented that currently multifamily housing up to 60 units is exempt and this will force them to mitigate their impact on the traffic system. Commissioner Beaulac expressed concern over the implementation of the fees but said that he would be willing to approve these impact fees on a trial basis to make sure that the system is actually doing what is needed for the City, especially before approving any additional impact fees. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated that she thinks this will streamline things for developers wanting to build in the City. She thinks this will be a much easier process for them and it is a needed revenue source for infrastructure improvements. Commissioner Granrath said that he thinks this adoption will lead to some intergovernmental agreements with other jurisdictions to address some of the impacts coming from developments outside of the City limits. Commissioner Haneke said that he thinks the costs of impact fees versus impact fee study requirements will be very similar and shouldn't cause a big change in affordability. Chairman Johnson stated that he supports this request and feels that it will help the developers and keep the taxpayers from having to pay for all needed improvements. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Chairman Johnson stated that long-time Spokane Valley resident, Sally Jackson passed away on November 2, 2020. He said that she will be greatly missed in the community. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to adjourn the meeting at 7: 37 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chair Date signed 4 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 Deanna Horton, Secretary 5 Special Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall November 12, 2020 I. Chairman Johnson called the special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl Granrath Walt Haneke James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Bob McKinley Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Bill Helbig, City Engineer Jerremy Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer Adam Jackson, Engineer Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Granrath from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the November 12, 2020 Special Meeting agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the November 5 minutes as corrected. There was no additional discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: No Reports VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings Of Fact: STV-2020-0002: A privately initiated street vacation for a portion of East Montgomery Avenue & Bessie Road. 1 11-12-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 Planner Connor Lange presented the Findings Of Fact with the information that he added details about the comments received. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approved the Findings Of Fact for STV-2020-0002. There was no discussion. All in favor & motion passed. b. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2020-0005 — Impact Fees For The South Barker Corridor Commissioner Kaschmitter made a motion to approved and recommend to council. There was no discussion. All in favor. Motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Her term is up. Next meeting will be her last meeting. Dani Kaschmitter's. Commissioner Johnson is resigning the Planning Commission at the end of 2020. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to adjourn the meeting at 6: 21 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 2 Spokane Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2020-0005 STAFF REPORT DATE: October 29, 2020 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: November 5, 2020, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak, and pursuant to Governor Inslee's Stay Home, Stay Healthy Proclamation (No. 20-25) and Proclamation 20-28 (and associated extensions), this hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools. A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A City -initiated code text amendment to Title 22 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to create a new Chapter 22.100 SVMC to adopt and assess transportation impact fees that include the South Baker Road Corridor, minor associated modifications to Titles 17 and 22 SVMC and the Street Standards, and other related items. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to Titles 17 and 22 SVMC and the Street Standards are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, P.E. City Engineer REVIEWED BY: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official ATTACHMENTS: Exhibits A, B, & C: Proposed Amendments Exhibit D: Public Comments Exhibit E: Agency Comments NOTE: The South Barker Corridor Study and South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study were relied on as part of the basis for this Report. They are separately provided and are not included as an attachment. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the Drocedural steps for the Dronosal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment October 10, 2020 SEPA — DNS Issued October 16, 2020 Publish Notice of Public Hearing: October 16, 2020 & October 23, 2020 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0005 BACKGROUND: Title 22 SVMC regulates the design and development standards pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, 35A.14.140, 36.70A (Growth Management Act), and 58.17, WAC 365-195-800 through 365-195-865, and the provisions of Titles 17 through 25 SVMC. The proposed code text amendments will add a new chapter 22.100 SVMC and applicable revisions to other affected sections of the SVMC and SVSS in order to impose and provide for collection of transportation impact fees pursuant to RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.110. Transportation impact fees are fees specifically allowed to address impacts from new development, and they may be imposed on all new development. The proposed amendments will allow the City to collect fees from new development that will be impacting the City's transportation system. The fees are limited to the proportionate share of the impact caused by new development and must be based on traffic studies. Further, the fees cannot be collected to address any existing deficiency. Transportation impact fees provide certainty for both developers and the City, as well as a more efficient and timely mechanism for mitigating impacts from development than other types of mitigation methods such as concurrency or through SEPA environmental review. Generally, impact fees are collected when a building permit application is submitted. This is different than fees collected through SEPA or concurrency, which are collected as part of the platting process. Also, impact fees help streamline the permitting process by providing a known fee that allows developers to plan with certainty. The Barker Road Corridor is an area experiencing a significant amount of new development. This has and will lead to continued degradation of levels of service for traffic movement on Barker Road and on connecting streets throughout the corridor. To address traffic impacts along the northern portion of Barker Road, in the City adopted the "Northeast Industrial Area" planned action, set forth in chapter 21.60 SVMC. It provides for a current voluntary mitigation fee of $2,831 per peak PM hour trip. In 2019, the City contracted with Fehr & Peers, a transportation engineering and planning firm, to complete a comprehensive traffic study for the South Barker Corridor. This study quantified the detrimental effects that new development imposes on the existing transportation network. Through this study, the City has identified various street -infrastructure improvements needed to offset the detrimental impacts caused by new development and the anticipated fair -share costs per trip for new development. The total cost of the necessary improvements to offset detrimental impacts of new development was estimated at $18.8 million for seven different projects along the designated Barker Road corridor. Fehr & Peers developed a transportation impact fee rate study from the South Barker Corridor Study (the rate study is designated as the "South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study" or "Rate Study" herein). The Rate Study evaluated the previously determined infrastructure improvements and their associated costs, and how those costs can be fairly and proportionately distributed to new development that contributes traffic that affects the transportation network in a manner that complies with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 - .110. The following is a list of the seven different projects captured in the Rate Study: 1. Mission Avenue to Boone Avenue — Widen to a 5-lane urban section — $3.1 million 2. New Interstate 90 Interchange/Bridge — WSDOT funded (excluded from cost calculations) 3. Interstate 90 to Appleway Ave — Widen to 5-lane urban section — $6.5 million 4. Appleway to South City Limits — Widen to 3-lane urban section — $3.5 million 5. Sprague Ave. Intersection — Construct Roundabout — $2.2 million 6. 4th Ave. Intersection — Construct Roundabout — $2.0 million 7. 8th Ave. Intersection — Construct Roundabout — $1.5 million The South Barker Corridor Study used the Spokane Regional Transportation Council's (SRTC) regional travel demand model to generate afternoon "PM peak -hour" vehicle trips located within the study area and forecast those PM peak -hour vehicle trips to the year 2040. Forecasted growth is based on projected land Page 2 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0005 use growth utilized in SRTC's regional travel demand model. Through the use of the travel demand model, the study was able to estimate what proportion of trips generated in the study area would utilize the South Barker Corridor and the identified projects. The Rate Study established that of the estimated $18.8 million in costs for the seven identified projects, $3.6 million could be proportionately funded by impact fees from new development within the City. Finally, SRTC's regional travel demand model calculates the estimated future number of PM peak -hour vehicle trips within the study area. With this future quantity identified, the Rate Study calculates the change in PM peak -hour vehicle trips generated within the study area. Based on a proportionate fair -share total cost of $3.6 million and the known quantity of new PM peak hour vehicle trips, the Rate Study calculates a "per trip" impact fee of $1,272 per PM peak -hour vehicle trip. The following list highlights prominent new development types and their associated impact fee. Costs shown are based on a "per trip" rate of $1,272. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10`h Edition quantifies various "generation rates" associated with a multitude of different land uses and applies an appropriate multiplier to the "per trip" rate of $1,272. This allows new developments to identify the proposed type of improvement with the appropriate impact fee that matches the proposed development type. Some common use examples are: 1. $1,260 per unit Single Family Home/Duplex 2. $713 per unit Multi -Family 3. $891 per room Hotel (3 or more levels) 4. $1.74 per sq. ft. Elementary School 5. $4.17 per sq. ft. Medical Clinic 6. $1.46 per sq. ft. General Office 7. $3.20 per sq. ft. Shopping Center The Rate Study identifies other uses and their corresponding rates. See Rate Study for full list of impact fee rates. The City is proposing a new chapter 22.100 SVMC to authorize imposition and collection of transportation impact fees. Chapter 22.100 SVMC details the authority, imposition, and collection procedures and costs for the proposed impact fees. Chapters 17.90, 17.110, and 22.10 SVMC will also be revised to implement the transportation impact fees, including reflecting the Hearing Examiner as the proper authority to hear an impact fee appeal, adding impact fees to the master fee schedule, and identifying the statutory authority for the imposition and collection of impact fees. Lastly, revisions to chapter 3 of the Street Standards are necessary to clarify trip generation and distribution letter guidelines, traffic impact analysis requirements consistent with the imposition and collection of transportation impact fees, as well as other housekeeping items. ANALYSIS: 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: i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies listed below: Page 3 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0005 ED-G3 Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. LU-Gl Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. LU-P8 Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non -motorized transportation routes. T-Gl Ensure that the transportation system and investments in transportation infrastructure are designed to improve quality of life or support economic development priorities. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. T-G3 Strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero. T-P2 Consider neighborhood traffic and livability conditions and address potential adverse impacts of public and private projects during the planning, designing, permitting, and construction phases. T-P6 Work collaboratively with developers to ensure that areas experiencing new development are well served by motorized and non -motorized transportation options. T-P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared -use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. CF-G4 Pursue a diverse set of capital funding sources. CF-P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. CF-P15 Evaluate a variety of capital funding sources including, but not limited to, grants, local improvement districts, latecomer agreements, and impact fees to fund projects and programs. Strategies for implementing the Comprehensive Plan are identified within Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The strategies identify the City's approach to implementation. The strategies specifically identify the creation of a 20-year transportation project list to inform the 6-year transportation improvement program, Page 4 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0005 and further direct the city to evaluate, and where feasible, implement transportation impact fees where detailed traffic studies have been completed. The adoption of impact fees will allow the City to collect fair share costs of identified transportation improvement projects from new development to maintain Level of Service standards, support identified growth patterns, and ensure that transportation planning maintains a quality, safe, and efficient transportation system. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendments implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure a safe and efficient transportation system that supports and maintains the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley. The improvements identified in the South Barker Corridor Study and Rate Study will help maintain adequate levels of service for traffic along the Barker Road corridor over the next 20 years. The transportation impact fees will provide a regular and reliable funding source for a portion of these improvements, and will be provided by developments that are directly contributing to the need for such improvements. Further, the fees will be limited to the proportionate impact from new development, so as new development causes impacts, those impacts will be able to be addressed through necessary improvements. The City regularly pursues grant funding for its capital projects; however, the funding need for improvements far outweighs the City's available grant funds and the City's available local revenue for transportation capital improvements. The proposed amendments allow for a more fair and proportionate cost -sharing that allow the City to more efficiently implement improvements to this growing arterial corridor. Further, the proposed amendments introduce a consistent and reliable fee schedule for new development that establishes set rates across various types of new development, lending itself to more efficient planning and budgeting for new development projects. The proposed impact fee of $1,272 "per trip" is based on the Rate Study, which was conducted within standard engineering principles and provides a reasonable and appropriate fee amount. The regulations support continued development that ensures that public health, safety, welfare and the environment are protected. 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: Two public comments have been received to date. Both requested information and clarification of where and how the fees would be imposed, but did not otherwise provide comments on the proposed fees in the South Barker Corridor. b. Conclusion(s): Public noticing was conducted for CTA-2020-0005 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. Page 5 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0005 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: As of the date of this report, Spokane Transit Authority is the only agency to provide comments and they requested a credit for transit improvements. Staff are currently evaluating those comments received. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns noted. Staff are currently evaluating those comments. B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed code text amendments in Title 17 and 22 SVMC and SVSS are consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 6 of 6 SpokaneTransit October 28, 2020 Lori Barlow, AICP Senior Planner Community and Public Works Department City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: CTA-2020-0005-TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Dear Ms. Barlow, Spokane Transit is in receipt of the SEPA notice and associated documents for City -initiated code text amendment to Title 22 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to create a new chapter 22.100 SVMC to adopt and assess transportation impact fees that include the South Barker Road Corridor and other related items. Spokane Transit supports the City's efforts to have development participate in the funding of the necessary roadway improvements along the Barker corridor. For greater clarity, Spokane Transit asks that additional language be added to SVMC 22.100.070 to specifically identify transit improvements as an eligible credit. This could be done in consultation with the City and Spokane Transit, to ensure improvements are being made in current or future bus stop locations. The City of Spokane has language in Section Credits B.5 that may prove useful. Spokane Transit has identified stop improvements that correspond with the following projects on the project list: • Barker Road Improvement Project - Appleway to I-90 • Barker Road Improvement Project - Mission to I-90 Minimum stop improvements would include ADA compliant landing pads, post and signage and accessible paths to and from the bus stops. Identifying future stop locations and planning for necessary improvements now will help avoid costly retrofits. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any additional questions. Regards, Carl Otterstrom, A1CP Director of Planning and Development 328-RIDE spokanetransit.com TTY 456-4327 1230 W Boone Avenue 509.325.6000 Spokane,Washington 99201-2686 509.325.6036 F To Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org From: cdepner@spokanecounty.org Date: 11-6-2020 Subject: CTA-2020-0005 Project Name: Stage: SEPA Description: Site Address: South Barker Corridor Impact Fees Comment - Code Comment Supplemental Comment SSO1A This proposal has no impact on sewer facilities. There are no recommendations. PLANNING, ENGINEERING & BUILDING SERVICES Lori Barlow, Sr. Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: CTA-2020-005 Transportation Impact Fees Ms. Barlow: The City of Liberty Lake offers these comments in response to the Threshold Determination issued for the above referenced Case No. CTA-2020-005, Implementing Impact Fees that includes the South Barker Corridor Study. We ask that these comments also be entered into the record of the Public Hearing before the Spokane Valley Planning Commission regarding this matter, scheduled for November 5, 2020. Regarding the SEPA Threshold Determination on the above referenced case, the City of Liberty Lake does not take issue with the Determination of Significance. However, while the City of Liberty Lake applauds Spokane Valley's efforts to implement transportation impact fees as a proactive strategy for addressing growth -induced deficiencies in the transportation system, we feel that it is critical for the City to go on record regarding the significant flaws in the methodology used in the South Barker Corridor Study, which is being adopted as part of this action. Specifically, the methodology used to develop the South Barker Corridor Study "Fair Share Analysis" overestimates the proportionate share of new trips assigned to the City of Liberty Lake. Figure 21 in the study shows all the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) west of Harvard Road as falling within the Barker Road travel shed. These TAZs encompass an area up to Harvard Road, meaning at least half of the trips generated by these TAZs should fall within the Harvard travelshed rather than the Barker travelshed and the share of trips apportioned to City of Liberty Lake should be reduced. This would reduce the overall percentage share of project costs to be assigned to City of Liberty Lake. The effect on the proposed impact fees is the underestimating of the impact from new trips generated in Spokane Valley. Secondly, the "Fair Share Analysis" analysis excludes new trips generated from the Valley's Northeast Industrial Area simply because they are subject to other impact fees, despite the fact that the Northeast Industrial Park is part of the Barker Road travel shed, with Barker Road 22710 E. COUNTRY VISTA DR., LIBERTY LAKE WA 99019 TELEPHONE (509) 755-6700 FAX: (509) 755-6713 WWW.LIBERTYLAKEWA.GOV considered a significant freight route between the industrial park and 1-90. New trips generated from the Northeast Industrial area, which most certainly contribute to the demand for the South Barker Road Improvements north of 1-90, would significantly increase Spokane Valley's proportionate share in the "Fair Share Analysis", if they were included. Those new trips would also reduce the impact fees assigned to new trips generated within Spokane Valley's proposed Barker Road Transportation Impact Fee Area, if included. Finally, the methodology in the South Barker Corridor Study assigns the full cost of the added capacity to new trips (excepting those new trips generated from the Northeast Industrial area), rather than the proportionate share of the added capacity being utilized by those new trips. The method results in new development paying for capacity produced by the project that it will not use. RCW 82.02.050 section 4(b) states that impact fees "Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development". While at this time, the proposed action only imposes impact fees on development within the proposed Barker Corridor Impact Fee Area within the City of Spokane Valley, it also adopts the South Barker Corridor Study and the "Fair Share Analysis" included therein, which presumably, the City of Spokane Valley will attempt to use as means to "quantify" potential impacts from developments occurring within Liberty Lake that fall within the purported South Barker Corridor Travel Shed, as identified in Figure 1 of the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. If it is indeed the intent of the City of Spokane Valley to use the proposed action as a means to monetize potential impacts from development occurring within the City of Liberty Lake, the City of Liberty Lake does and will strenuously object, as the proposed action clearly does not provide a basis for such application, given the methodological flaws identified in the South Barker Corridor Study, which the City of Liberty Lake has raised on numerous occasions. Respectfully Submitted, Lisa D. Key, Director of Planning & Engineering Cc: Mark Calhoun, City Administrator John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Erik Lamb, City Attorney From: Bob Hammond To: Jerremv Clark Cc: Lori Barlow Subject: Re: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 11:31:59 AM Attachments: image001.pnq Ok, will do On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:28 AM Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> wrote: Glad to help. Please be sure to email your request to speak at the hearing by 4 PM Thursday if you would like to speak. Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE I Senior Traffic Engineer Spokane Valley, WA 1509.720.5019 I jclark(a�sookanevalley.orq This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Bob Hammond <propgrinder@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 11:20 AM To: Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Lori Barlow <lbarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Re: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Thanks for the explanation, Jeremy. That helps a lot as has all your previous explanations. Regards, William On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:14 AM Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> wrote: Good morning, Thank you for following up. There is not an existing agreement between the City and the County for impact fees, primarily because the City has not had impact fees in the past. Many of the subdivisions to the south have been in development for quite a while, some were approved prior to the City's incorporation and there is nothing from this process that can be recouped from pre -approved development in the County or the City. The expense of improvements for existing trips or pre -approved development falls on the responsibility of the City, which is why it is important to identify mitigation necessary for new development by way of impact fees. If impact fees are adopted and established in the City of Spokane Valley, it lays the groundwork for establishing agreements with other jurisdictions for the collection of those fees but step 2 cannot proceed without step 1. As I mentioned before, the County has been very cooperative by including the City of Spokane Valley on reviews of new developments, the most recent of which is currently completing a traffic impact analysis to define impact with the City limits. Thank you again, I appreciate your feedback. Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE I Senior Traffic Engineer Spokane Valley, WA 1509.720.5019 I jclark(a�spokanevalley.org This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Bob Hammond <propgrinder@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 12:41 PM To: Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Lori Barlow <lbarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Re: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Thanks Jeremy. Is there any existing agreement with Spokane County for impact fees relating to the Saltese Meadows, Twin Bridges, Morningside Heights, and other subdivisions whose residents use the S. Barker Transportation Corridor? Regards, William Hammond On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:26 AM Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> wrote: Good morning, These are proposed fees to be assessed to new development only. Thank you for following up. I appreciate your feedback. Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer Spokane Valley, WA 1509.720.5019 I jclark(d�spokanevallev.orq This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Bob Hammond <propgrinder@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 5:27 AM To: Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Lori Barlow <lbarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Re: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Jeremy, Thanks for your reply. Are these proposed fees to be assessed to NEW construction only within the outlined areas or will they be assessed to existing homes, businesses, schools, etcetera? Regards, William Hammond On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> wrote: Good Morning Mr. Hammond, Thank you for your inquiry and input regarding the proposed impact fees related to the South Barker Corridor. I have shared this comment and questions with Lori Barlow, the Senior Planner here at the City. As you referenced, the areas on the maps to the south and east of the City Limits have a lot of potential for development and traffic growth. Unfortunately, the City cannot impose impact fees outside of our jurisdiction. However, Spokane County has been very cooperative by including the City of Spokane Valley on reviews of developments that will impact our City streets. Additionally, for projects that are subject to review based on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the City of Spokane Valley is able to provide comment and requests for mitigation. The bottom line is that the City will do what it can to collect mitigation for impacts to the South Barker Corridor and the proposed impact fees are a good first step for growth within the City. If impact fees are adopted and established in the City of Spokane Valley, it lays the groundwork for establishing agreements with other jurisdictions for the collection of those fees. Public comment is currently being taken, and will continue up to the public hearing, which is scheduled for November 5, 2020. I have attached the notice of public hearing for your review. All comments are directed to Lori Barlow (copied on this message) so she can package them up for the Planning Commission public hearing. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments, I do appreciate your feedback. Thank you again, Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509.720.5019 I jclarkCa�sookanevalley.orq C ❑® This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Bob Hammond <propgrinder@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 6:00 PM To: Planning <planning@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Will any proposed impact fees be collected from homes and businesses in Spokane County and Liberty Lake areas, as shown on the maps in the documentation? A very significant number of people residing in subdivisions south and west of the southern -most City boundaries (therefore in Spokane County) use the South Barker Corridor. I strongly feel that they should pay impact fees as well. When will public comment be taken on the proposed fees? Regards, William Hammond 805 S. Harmony Rd Spokane Valley CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. From: Pamela Maddox To: Adam Jackson Subject: Re: Impact fees Date: Friday, November 6, 2020 9:20:38 AM Attachments: imaae001.1i q Thank you so much for the clarification I really appreciate the info. Have a Great Day! Pam Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 8:44 AM, Adam Jackson <ajackson©spokanevalley.org> wrote: Good Morning Ms. Maddox, Thanks for your inquiry. Assuming that you're not building a new home, convenient store, office building, etc., then existing residents are not charged the impact fees. The proposed South Barker Road Corridor Impact Fees would only apply to NEW development that occurs within the pink -shaded limits identified in the "fee area," which is shown on the City's webpage https://www.spokanevalley.org/impactfees. Fees are only charged when NEW traffic is generated and adds traffic to the street transportation system. Existing properties, their associated land use, and their existing traffic does not pay impact fees. I hope this helps clarify things. Please take a look at our website for more information. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. -Adam From: Pamela Maddox <crazymom9611©yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:55 PM To: City Hall <cityhall©spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE: Impact fees Yes Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 1:54 PM, City Hall <cityhall©spokanevalley.org> wrote: Hi Pam - What Impact Fees are you referring to? Are you referring to the Barker corridor Impact Fees? Marci Marci Patterson l Executive Assistant 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5108 Fax: (509) 720-5075 1 mpattersong.spokanevalley.oru This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Pamela Maddox <crazymom9611 @yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:11 PM To: City Hall <cityhall@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Impact fees Are these proposed fees that us as residents of the City of Spokane Valley will be charged, and if so how will we be charged? Pam crazymom9611 @yahoo.com Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. From: Jerremv Clark To: marilyntrefrv(©hotmail.com Cc: Lori Barlow Subject: Barker impact fees Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 3:25:12 PM Attadrments: imaoe001.onq Imaoe002.onq Good afternoon, Thank you for your inquiry and input regarding the proposed impact fees related to the South Barker Corridor. I have shared these questions with Lori Barlow, the Senior Planner here at the City. I have included a map identifying the area impacted by the fees (the pink area in the figure below), which has been added to the website. The reason is it only the Southeast Valley as described is based on the limits of the traffic study. This specific study was initiated to address traffic growth and mitigation along the South Barker corridor. Pursuant to the feedback received as a result of this impact fee process, the City may pursue a similar City-wide study to address growth and mitigation throughout the City. The South Barker corridor is a bite -sized first step. To address your concern about development north of Mission, there was a separate council action back in early 2019 to establish the Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance, which completed necessary traffic and environmental evaluation for future development. Proposed developments in this area are subject to a fee of $2,831 for each trip generated during the PM peak hour. Regarding the new schools, and all prior -approved development, they will not be included with the impact fee. The proposed impact fee can only be applied to new development during the permitting stage. If a new school or similar development were proposed in this area, the responsible agency would pay the proposed fees. Public comment is currently being taken, and will continue up to the public hearing, which is scheduled for November 5, 2020. I have attached the notice of public hearing for your review. All comments are directed to Lori Barlow (copied on this message) so she can package them up for the Planning Commission public hearing. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments, I do appreciate your feedback. Thank you again, Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE I Senior Traffic Engineer 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509.720.5019 I jclark(aspokanevalley.orq This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. Original Message From: Marilyn Trefry <marilyntrefrvPhotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:32 PM To: Planning <planningPspokanevalley.org> Subject: Barker impact fees Is there some place one can see the exact area(s) that would be Impacted by these fees? Also, why only Southeast, when a lot more development has & is taking place North of Mission? Will the new schools be included? Who would pay those fees? Marilyn Trefry Sent from my iPhone IWC E Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 S. Pines Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Attn: Benjamin Wick, City Mayor City Council To whom it may concern, As a consultant who works throughout the Spokane Region within the development industry and regularly provides traffic analyses (2500+ to date), I support staff recommendations to move toward an Impact Fee based approach to funding transportation infrastructure in Spokane Valley. The time saved on projects located within the City of Spokane Valley with the ability to accept traffic impact fees would be a positive approach to development. The current process is a project that embroils for months. For many projects without Impact Fees, there are significant unaccounted-for losses to development projects when considering the carry of money due to lost time to go through the traffic study process. In the past year, the City of Spokane modified and expanded their Transportation Impact Fee system, which eliminated 6 to 20 weeks of negotiation and planning between ourselves and the City of Spokane. This has been a positive change bringing benefits to the City of Spokane, citizens within city limits, and private developers. I want the City of Spokane Valley to clearly understand that Whipple Consulting Engineers fully supports the implementation of this ordinance. Thank you for taking the time to review this appeal and for examining a move to Impact Fees. Whipple Consulting Engineers Todd R. Whipple, P.E. President 21 South Pines Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 • WhippleCE.com • Info@WhippleCE.com Civil. Structural. Traffic. Survey. Landscape Architecture and Entitlements FEHRk PEERS Memorandum Date: November 4, 2020 To: Jerremy Clark, PE, City of Spokane Valley From: Patrick Picard, AICP and Chris Breiland, PE, Fehr & Peers --e/`6) Subject: Response to City of Liberty Lake Comments on CTA-2020-005 Transportation Impact Fees SE20-0748 Response to Comments This memo provides a response to comments the City of Liberty Lake provided in regard to Case No. CTA-2020-005, Implementing Impact Fees that includes the South Barker Corridor Study. The City of Liberty Lake did not take issue with the Determination of Non -Significance regarding the SEPA Threshold Determination on the above referenced case. Rather, all comments submitted by the City of Liberty Lake were related to the technical analysis used in the South Barker Corridor Study, which is located in Appendix A of the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (September 2020). The City of Liberty Lake made three specific comments in disagreement with specific aspects of the methodology used to in the fair share impact fee technical analysis described in the South Barker Corridor Study. A response is provided to each of these comments in Table 1, the first two of which are similar to previous responses provided to Liberty Lake on earlier comments. We remain confident that our study meets the nexus and rough proportionality requirements for all impact fees and RCW 82.02.050-110. 1001 4th Avenue I Suite 4120 I Seattle, WA 98154 I (206) 576-4220 I Fax (206) 576-4225 www.fehrandpeers.com City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Table 1. Response to Liberty Lake Comments Liberty Lake Comment Response Specifically, the methodology used to develop the South Barker Corridor Study "Fair Share Analysis" overestimates the proportionate share of new trips assigned to the City of Liberty Lake. Figure 21 in the study shows all the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) west of Harvard Road as falling within the Barker Road travel shed. These TAZs encompass an area up to Harvard Road, meaning at least half of the trips generated by these TAZs should fall within the Harvard travelshed rather than the Barker travelshed and the share of trips apportioned to City of Liberty Lake should be reduced. This would reduce the overall percentage share of project costs to be assigned to City of Liberty Lake. The effect on the proposed impact fees is the underestimating of the impact from new trips generated in Spokane Valley. The City of Liberty Lake's interpretation of this aspect of the fair share analysis is a misinterpretation of what was performed. The fair share analysis, as described on page 27 and page 28 of the South Barker Corridor Study, is an estimate of the portion of all traffic on specific segments of Barker Road that is forecast to begin or end in various TAZs near the corridor, including three in Liberty Lake (TAZ 442, 447, 448). Only the traffic generated from these TAZs that the 2040 SRTC regional travel model shows would use various segments of Barker Road in the PM peak hour were included in the analysis. Other trips generated by these TAZs that do not use the segments of Barker Road included in the study were not included in the fair -share analysis. By using this methodology, trips that begin or end in Liberty Lake and use Harvard Road and not Barker Road are not counted. These trips are not included in the percent of trips from Liberty Lake on Barker Road, because only trips that use Barker Road are included. City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Page 3 of 4 11 Liberty Lake Comment Response Secondly, the "Fair Share Analysis" analysis excludes new trips generated from the Valley's Northeast Industrial Area simply because they are subject to other impact fees, despite the fact that the Northeast Industrial Park is part of the Barker Road travel shed, with Barker Road considered a significant freight route between the industrial park and I- 90. New trips generated from the Northeast Industrial area, which most certainly contribute to the demand for the South Barker Road Improvements north of 1-90, would significantly increase Spokane Valley's proportionate share in the "Fair Share Analysis", if they were included. Those new trips would also reduce the impact fees assigned to new trips generated within Spokane Valley's proposed Barker Road Transportation Impact Fee Area, if included. Similar to the previous comments, the claim that new trips generated from Spokane Valley's Northeast Industrial Area were excluded from this analysis is not true and is a misinterpretation of the analysis. All trips that are forecast to use South Barker Road in 2040 were included in the fair -share analysis, including trips from the Northeast Industrial Area. In Figure 22 of the Report, these trips would fall in the "Other" category. In calculating the percent of trips on Barker Road from Liberty Lake, the denominator includes all trips, including those from the Northeast Industrial Area. The misinterpretation on Liberty Lake's behalf may be from the fact that a fair share fee was only estimated in this Study for the TAZs mapped in Figure 21, that are grouped into three geographic areas within Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley, and Spokane County. There is no doubt that the Northeast Industrial Area is part of the South Barker Corridor travel shed and trips from new development in the Northeast Industrial Area will use South Barker Road. All of these trips were included in the analysis, but a fee was not estimated for these trips in this report. As stated in the report, this is because the City of Spokane Valley is using a separate Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) to assess SEPA-based fair -share fees in the Northeast Industrial Area for projects on Barker Road (between Mission and 1-90). There are "Other" trips that use Barker Road from other areas of the region as well. These "Other" trips were accounted for in the fair -share analysis, but an impact fee was not estimated. Their portion is the remainder of the project costs not assessed to the identified areas within Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley and Spokane. Figure 23 of the South Barker Corridor Study shows that of the estimated $16.8 million1 in total project costs, only about half, or $8.5 million, is attributable to the identified areas within Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley, and Spokane County using the fair share analysis. This is because roughly half the trip ends fall outside of the three travel sheds analyzed. The remaining cost, about $8.3 million from the "Other" trips, will be the responsibility of Spokane Valley to generate funds (which cannot be assessed to the growth within the study area). Some of the external trips (the fair share) will be assessed to the Northeast Industrial Area through the PAO. 1 The cost for these projects has been projected to increase to $18.8 M in the Impact Fee Rate Study. It is typical that all impact fee calculations are based on present-day construction cost estimates and the impact fees are indexed over time for construction cost inflation. City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Liberty Lake Comment Response Finally, the methodology in the South Barker Corridor Study assigns the full cost of the added capacity to new trips (excepting those new trips generated from the Northeast Industrial area), rather than the proportionate share of the added capacity being utilized by those new trips. The method results in new development paying for capacity produced by the project that it will not use. RCW 82.02.050 section 4(b) states that impact fees "Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development". The methodology used in the South Barker Corridor Study follows industry standard practices and does not deduct excess capacity beyond 2040. This methodology is used by the majority of jurisdictions in estimating impact fees and is legally acceptable as it accounts for future growth based on the regionally accepted travel demand model's horizon year (2040). This methodology fairly identifies that a project is needed to meet the City's LOS threshold, and without that project, traffic congestion would be unacceptable and there would be an unmitigated traffic impact. It is a basic fact that to mitigate some of the traffic congestion impacts a project with capacity beyond what is strictly needed to accommodate the future forecast growth is identified. This happens because traffic capacity is provided in discreet amounts that cannot always be exactly tailored to the forecast demand. As an example, Spokane Valley cannot build half of a roundabout or two-thirds of a traffic lane. The entire facility is needed to meet future LOS standards. Communities may choose to calculate the amount of "excess capacity" and subtract that from the portion the new growth should pay for. However, for jurisdictions that take this approach, as Liberty Lake suggests, it is also typical to charge new growth for their share of use of the existing "excess capacity." While technically feasible, this is a more laborious process and often the cost of consuming the existing excess capacity cancels out the value of the future excess capacity. In other words, the decrease in the fee by subtracting future "excess capacity" would be counterbalanced by the increase in fee from accounting for existing "excess capacity." Given this level of analysis is unlikely to result any significant net change, it is recommended to maintain the current methodology which is accepted as standard practice. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 2020 Department Director Approval: Fl Check all that apply :n consent n old business Fl new business n public hearing n information n admin. report n pending legislation n executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading — Ordinance 20-027 - Municipal tree care. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Report regarding Tree City USA program March 17, 2020; Arbor Day Proclamation April 18, 2020; November 17, 2020 administrative report on proposed Code provisions; first reading December 8, 2020. BACKGROUND: Council previously indicated an interest in participating in the Tree City USA program. The Tree City USA program is a nationwide program designed by the Arbor Day Foundation to promote responsible public tree care and management. The program has four requirements. First, a city must create a tree board, or appoint someone to take responsibility for tree care. Second, a city must establish a tree care ordinance which outlines public tree care, planting, and maintenance standards, and identifies permitted and prohibited tree activities. Third, a city must have a community forestry program with an annual budget of at least $2 per capita. Finally, the city must make an Arbor Day Proclamation. After completing these requirements, a city must submit a Tree City USA application. Currently, more than 3,400 communities have become Tree City USA members. In the proposed Code, the City Manager or designee would be responsible for public tree care and management, instead of a tree board. Also, staff will create a tree planting guide modeled from the planting guide located in chapter 22.70 SVMC, Appendix 22-A. Additionally, the proposed Code would prohibit public tree removal without the City's written consent, and would prohibit various damaging acts towards public trees. Finally, any violation would be a class 2 infraction and the City would have authority to enforce violations. Adoption of this Ordinance would make the City eligible to apply for Tree City USA status in the next application cycle. OPTIONS: (1) Approve Ordinance 20-027; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve Ordinance 20-027 regarding the City's municipal tree program. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are no additional anticipated financial impacts. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director; Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Carly Johnson, Legal Intern. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 20-027 regarding municipal tree care. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 20-027 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING CHAPTER 6.01 RELATING TO MUNICIPAL TREE CARE OF PUBLIC TREES; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, cities are authorized to improve, maintain, protect, regulate, use and beautify public ways and public property. As such, the City Manager is authorized to plant, prune, maintain and remove public trees as may be necessary to ensure public safety or to preserve or enhance the symmetry and beauty of such public grounds; and WHEREAS, implementing the regulations included in the sections below is anticipated to assist in preserving and enhancing the City's public properties for the use and benefit of the City's citizens; and WHEREAS, adopting these regulations will help qualify the City to participate in the Tree City USA program; and WHEREAS, adoption of these provisions would protect and enhance the life, health, and safety of the City's residents and businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Adoption of a new chapter 6.01 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Chapter 6.01 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code is adopted in as follows: 6.01.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating the planning, maintenance, and removal of trees on City -owned property within the City of Spokane Valley. 6.01.020. Definitions. "City Manager" means the City Manager, or designee, or contracting entity chosen by the City. "Maintain" or "maintenance" means the entire care of trees, including but not limited to, the preparation of ground, fertilizing, mulching, planting, spraying, trimming, pruning, topping and root control. "Public tree" means any tree growing in or upon a City planting strip, right-of-way, park, or other City -owned property, including street trees. "Recommended Planting List" means the recommended planting species list adopted in SVMC 22.70, Appendix 22- A. "Street tree" means any tree located upon property within the improved right-of-way in the City. 6.01.030. Authority. Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, cities are authorized to improve, maintain, protect, regulate, use and beautify public ways and public property. As such, the City Manager is authorized to designate the planting, pruning, maintenance and removal of public trees as may be necessary to ensure public safety or to preserve or enhance the symmetry and beauty of such public grounds. Trees that would otherwise be regulated under chapter 7.05 SVMC (public nuisance trees) or chapter 22.70 SVMC (landscaping and street tree standards) shall be regulated by those chapters. Ordinance 20-027 Adopting Chapter 6.01 SVMC — Municipal Tree Regulations Page 1 of 3 DRAFT 6.01.040. Planting standards. A. Street trees shall be planted pursuant to SVMC 22.70.060. B. The City Manager shall authorize the creation of planting standards to govern the planting and maintenance of all public trees that are not street trees. The planting standards shall include provisions including, but not limited to, spacing requirements, planting distances from curbs and sidewalks, and planting near utility lines. The City shall confer with electrical utility providers within the City regarding these standards. The planting standards shall include the Recommended Planting List; and, at the discretion of the City Manager, may include other species. C. The City Manager may authorize the approval of planting of public trees outside of the Recommended Planting List. 6.01.050. Public tree removal. A. For public trees found by and/or reported to the City to be dead, dying, diseased, or in an otherwise obviously dangerous condition likely to cause damage, the City Manager shall take reasonable steps to remove said trees as allocation of resources permit, and may further authorize the replacement of all such trees. This provision does not create a requirement for the City to actively investigate or inspect public trees for defects, hazards, or dangerous conditions. B. When any public tree is removed, the City Manager shall cause to have the stump of said tree completely removed, which may include grinding the stump to a depth of at least one foot below the surrounding average finished grade. Adequate topsoil shall be used to fill the hole created by the removal of said stump, including accounting for settling of the topsoil. C. Trees on private property meeting the definition of a public nuisance pursuant to SVMC 7.05.040(A) shall be addressed pursuant to chapter 7.05 SVMC. 6.01.060. Abuse of public trees prohibited. A. No person shall damage, remove, or cause the damage or removal of a public tree without written permission from the City Manager. B. No person shall attach or place any rope or wire (other than one used to support the tree itself), sign, poster, handbill, or other thing to any public tree. Exceptions with regard to public trees within parks, if any exceptions exist, may be found in chapter 6.05 SVMC. C. No person shall cause or permit any wire charged with electricity, with the exception of decorative lights for a period not exceeding 45 days per year, to come into contact with any public tree. D. No person shall allow any gaseous liquid, or solid substance which is harmful to such trees to come into contact with the roots or leaves of public trees. 6.01.070. Interference with the City. No person shall prevent, delay, or interfere with the city or any of its agents, while engaging in the planting, maintenance, or removal of any public trees. 6.01.080. Nonliability of City. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the City, its officers, or employees, nor does it create any duty to inspect trees for defects, hazards, or dangerous conditions, and does not relieve the owner or occupant of any private property from the duty to keep trees and other vegetation upon private property or property under his control in a safe condition pursuant to chapter 7.05 SVMC. 6.01.090. Violation. Any person found to have violated any provision of this chapter shall have committed a class 2 infraction. For violations of this chapter, the City shall have all authority under the law to enforce violations, including but not limited to use of injunctive remedies through superior court. However, conduct that constitutes a violation of chapter 7.05 SVMC shall be penalized pursuant to chapter 7.05 SVMC. Ordinance 20-027 Adopting Chapter 6.01 SVMC — Municipal Tree Regulations Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Section 2. 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 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. PASSED by the City Council this day of December, 2020. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 20-027 Adopting Chapter 6.01 SVMC — Municipal Tree Regulations Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 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: Street and Stormwater Maintenance & Repair Services Contract Renewal — 2021 Option Year GOVERNING LEGISLATION: chapter 39.04 RCW. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Motion to execute the Street and Stormwater Maintenance Contract. BACKGROUND: This contract consists of asphalt repair, roadway shoulder repair and grading, gravel road grading, crack sealing, sidewalk and path repair, guardrail repair, fencing repair, drainage structure repair and installation, curb, gutter and inlet repair and installation, and other related work. The contract is based on labor, equipment and material rates. Historical average labor, equipment and material rates were used to establish estimated quantities for bidding. The City advertised for bids in early 2020. We received 2 bids from Poe Asphalt Paving and Inland Asphalt Inc. Poe Asphalt Paving was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The contract award in 2020 was $1,500,000. The 2021 option year will be the first of four option year renewals that may be exercised by the City. Per the contract specifications, the hourly labor rates will change based on the prevailing wage changes. Prevailing wages are required on this contract as the work is considered a "Public Work." The hourly increase in prevailing wages per work classification is 2.12% to 4.56%. The estimated increases in hourly labor rates based on estimated hours is $15,439.95. The 2021 contract amount based on hourly rate increases is $1,515,439.95. Equipment and material rates stay constant for each option year exercised. Poe has provided a good level of service throughout the 2020 contract year and staff recommends exercising the 2021 option year contract. OPTIONS: 1) Renew the maintenance and repair contract, 2) not renew the contract, or 3) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve the 2021 contract renewal with Poe Asphalt Paving Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,515,439.95 for street and stormwater maintenance and repair service, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This contract is included in the 2021 budget and will be financed from Fund #101 Street Fund and Fund #402 Storm Management Fund. STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Contract Prevailing Wage Rates plus markup; Contract Renewal Letter 0'N, jaiy 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org Email: cityhall@spokanevalley.org December 15, 2020 Contract No. 19-162.01 Poe Asphalt Paving, Inc. 2732 North Beck Road Post Falls, ID 83854 Re: Implementation of 2021 option year, Agreement for Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Services, Contract number 19-162, executed March 13, 2020. Dear Mr. Poe, The City executed an Agreement for provision of Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Services on March 13th, 2020, by and between the City of Spokane Valley, hereinafter "City", and Poe Asphalt Paving, Inc. hereinafter "Contractor" and jointly referred to as "Parties." The original Agreement states that it was for one year, with four optional one-year terms possible if the parties mutually agree to exercise the options each year. This is the first of four possible option years that can be exercised and runs through December 31, 2021. The City would like to exercise the 2021 option year of the Agreement. The increase in Compensation as outlined in Exhibit A to the Agreement, includes the labor and material cost negotiated and shall not exceed $1,515,439.95. The history of the annual renewals, including dollar amounts, is set forth as follows: Original contract amount ..$ 1,500,000.00 2021 Renewal $ 1,515,439.95 All of the other contract provisions contained in the original Agreement shall remain in place and remain unchanged in exercising this option year. If you are in agreement with exercising the 2021 option year, please sign below to acknowledge the receipt and concurrence to perform the 2021 option year. Please return two copies to the City for execution, along with current insurance information. A fully executed original copy will be mailed to you for your files. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. Mark Calhoun, City Manager Name Title ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Exhibit A Spokane �.. Valley Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Services Contract Contract #19-162 SCHEDULE A - REGULAR HOURS Poe Asphalt Paving Item # Trade Occupation Hours 2020 Hourly Rate 2020 Total 2021 Hourly Rate 2021 Total 1 *** Superintendent 300 $71.57 $21,471.00 $73.07 $21,921.00 2 *** Foreman 300 $69.17 $20,751.00 $70.67 $21,201.00 3 Cement Masons Journey Level 240 $66.60 $15,984.00 $68.29 $16,389.60 4 Fence Erectors Fence Erector 20 $45.14 $902.80 $46.64 $932.80 5 Flaggers Journey Level 2000 $49.00 $98,000.00 $50.50 $101,000.00 6 Laborers General Laborer 2400 $57.33 $137,592.00 $58.83 $141,192.00 7 Laborers Asphalt Raker 120 $58.67 $7,040.40 $60.17 $7,220.40 8 Laborers Concrete Crewman 220 $61.30 $13,486.00 $62.80 $13,816.00 9 Laborers Guard Rail 10 $65.00 $650.00 $66.50 $665.00 10 Laborers Pipelayer 130 $61.88 $8,044.40 $63.38 $8,239.40 11 Laborers Traffic Control Supervisor 40 $50.00 $2,000.00 $51.50 $2,060.00 12 Pwr Equip. Oper. Blade(finish & bluetop) 200 $66.10 $13,220.00 $68.20 $13,640.00 13 Pwr Equip. Oper. H.D. Mechanic 30 $66.14 $1,984.20 $68.24 $2,047.20 14 Pwr Equip. Oper. Paving Machine 200 $65.77 $13,154.00 $67.87 $13,574.00 15 Pwr Equip. Oper. Rollerman 400 $65.77 $26,308.00 $67.87 $27,148.00 16 Pwr Equip. Oper. Screed Operator 200 $65.77 $13,154.00 $67.87 $13,574.00 17 Pwr Equip. Oper. Power Broom 90 $65.77 $5,919.30 $67.87 $6,108.30 18 Pwr Equip. Oper. Backhoes & Hoe Ram 30 $65.77 $1,973.10 $67.87 $2,036.10 19 Pwr Equip. Oper. Vactor Guzzler, Super Sucker 10 $52.02 $520.20 $54.12 $541.20 20 Pwr Equip. Oper. Roto Mill 90 $65.77 $5,919.30 $67.87 $6,108.30 21 Pwr Equip. Oper. Posthole Auger or Punch 10 $70.00 $700.00 $72.10 $721.00 22 Pwr Equip. Oper. Backhoe (45,000 GW & under) 380 $65.77 $24,992.60 $67.87 $25,790.60 23 Truck Drivers Dump Truck (E. WA-690) 900 $65.23 $58,707.00 $66.56 $59,904.00 24 Truck Drivers Dump Truck & Trailer (E. WA-690) 500 $65.23 $32,615.00 $66.56 $33,280.00 25 Truck Drivers Other Trucks (E. WA-690) 30 $64.58 $1,937.40 $65.91 $1,977.30 26 Truck Drivers Transit Mixer 10 $51.06 $510.60 $52.39 $523.90 SCHEDULE B - OVERTIME HOURS Item # Trade OT Hours 2020 OT Rate 2020 Total 2021 Hourly 2021 Total 27 *** Superintendent 50 $78.07 $3,903.50 $80.32 $4,016.00 28 *** Foreman 50 $76.07 $3,803.50 $78.32 $3,916.00 29 Cement Masons Journey Level 20 $87.45 $1,749.00 $89.99 $1,799.70 30 Fence Erectors Fence Erector 5 $67.72 $338.60 $69.97 $349.85 31 Flaggers Journey Level 50 $63.00 $3,150.00 $65.25 $3,262.50 32 Laborers General Laborer 75 $63.37 $4,752.75 $65.62 $4,921.50 33 Laborers Asphalt Raker 25 $65.05 $1,626.25 $67.30 $1,682.50 34 Laborers Concrete Crewman 20 $80.92 $1,618.40 $83.17 $1,663.40 35 Laborers Guard Rail 5 $97.50 $487.50 $99.75 $498.75 36 Laborers Pipelayer 15 $92.89 $1,393.35 $95.14 $1,427.10 37 Laborers Traffic Control Supervisor 5 $65.00 $325.00 $67.25 $336.25 38 Pwr Equip. Oper. Blade(finish & bluetop) 20 $72.24 $1,444.80 $75.39 $1,507.80 39 Pwr Equip. Oper. H.D. Mechanic 5 $72.28 $361.40 $75.43 $377.15 40 Pwr Equip. Oper. Paving Machine 20 $71.82 $1,436.40 $74.97 $1,499.40 41 Pwr Equip. Oper. Rollerman 40 $71.82 $2,872.80 $74.97 $2,998.80 42 Pwr Equip. Oper. Screed Operator 20 $71.82 $1,436.40 $74.97 $1,499.40 43 Pwr Equip. Oper. Power Broom 10 $71.82 $718.20 $74.97 $749.70 44 Pwr Equip. Oper. Backhoes & Hoe Ram 5 $71.82 $359.10 $74.97 $374.85 45 Pwr Equip. Oper. Vactor Guzzler, Super Sucker 5 $78.03 $390.15 $81.18 $405.90 46 Pwr Equip. Oper. Roto Mill 5 $71.82 $359.10 $74.97 $374.85 47 Pwr Equip. Oper. Posthole Auger or Punch 5 $105.00 $525.00 $108.15 $540.75 48 Pwr Equip. Oper. Backhoe (45,000 GW & under) 30 $71.82 $2,154.60 $74.97 $2,249.10 49 Truck Drivers Dump Truck (E. WA-690) 5 $70.61 $353.05 $72.61 $363.03 50 Truck Drivers Dump Truck & Trailer (E. WA-690) 40 $70.61 $2,824.40 $72.61 $2,904.20 51 Truck Drivers Other Trucks (E. WA-690) 10 $69.79 $697.90 $71.79 $717.85 52 Truck Drivers Transit Mixer 5 $75.00 $375.00 $77.00 $384.98 SCHEDULE C - EQUIPMENT HOURS Item # Equipment Type Unit Type Quantity Hourly Rate Total 53 1 Ton Truck Hour 600 $19.55 $11,730.00 54 1 Ton/Trailer Hour 25 $8.05 $201.25 55 1/2 Ton Truck Hour 150 $6.90 $1,035.00 56 160 Blade Hour 250 $74.75 $18,687.50 57 3 Axle Tilt Trailer Hour 75 $31.05 $2,328.75 58 5th Wheel/Lowboy Hour 125 $102.35 $12,793.75 59 Arrowboard Day 50 $50.00 $2,500.00 60 Asphalt Saw Hour 25 $21.85 $546.25 61 Backhoe Hour 25 $46.00 $1,150.00 62 Broce Broom Hour 150 $49.45 $7,417.50 63 Chop Saw Hour 20 $2.30 $46.00 64 Crack/Joint Sealer Hour 250 $64.69 $16,172.50 65 DD-110 Roller or = Hour 50 $80.00 $4,000.00 66 DD-34 Roller or = Hour 300 $42.00 $12,600.00 67 End Dump Truck Hour 400 $62.10 $24,840.00 68 End Dump/Pup Hour 200 $81.65 $16,330.00 69 Grade Roller Hour 35 $47.15 $1,650.25 70 Hoe Pack Hour 20 $44.10 $882.00 71 Jumping Jack Wacker Hour 30 $2.30 $69.00 72 Nuclear Densometer Hour 150 $5.75 $862.50 73 Paver Hour 150 $225.00 $33,750.00 74 Plate Wacker Hour 10 $3.00 $30.00 75 Skip loader Hour 200 $42.55 $8,510.00 76 Super Dump Hour 450 $79.35 $35,707.50 77 TC Vehicle Hour 400 $20.00 $8,000.00 78 Var. Message Sign Day 40 $150.00 $6,000.00 79 Water Truck - LG Hour 200 $59.80 $11,960.00 80 Water Truck - SM Hour 200 $48.30 $9,660.00 SCHEDULE D - MATERIALS Unit Prices include materials only. Labor and Equipment will be paid separately. Item # Material Type Unit Type Quantity Unit Price Total 81 HMA CL. 3/8" PG 64H-28 Ton 5000 $61.50 $307,500.00 82 HMA CL. 1/2" PG 64H-28 Ton 1000 $58.00 $58,000.00 83 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE Ton 1500 $7.50 $11,250.00 84 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE Ton 200 $7.50 $1,500.00 85 GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR DRYWELLS Ton 700 $11.00 $7,700.00 86 TACK OIL Gallon 1500 $3.00 $4,500.00 87 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL TYPE A EA 7 $960.00 $6,720.00 88 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL TYPE B EA 7 $1,284.00 $8,988.00 89 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 EA 5 $634.80 $3,174.00 90 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 EA 5 $1,627.20 $8,136.00 91 TYPE 1 INLET EA 3 $634.80 $1,904.40 92 GRATE INLET TYPE 2, WSDOT EA 3 $1,350.00 $4,050.00 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 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: Street Sweeping Service Contract — 2021 Option year GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW chapter 39.04; RCW 90.48; Chapter 173-200 WAC; Title 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval and award of Street Sweeping Services Contract 2/27/2020. BACKGROUND: In 2019, City staff prepared a Request for Bid for Street Sweeping Services and received a bid proposal from AAA Sweeping. The proposal was reviewed by staff and found to be responsible and acceptable. Council awarded the bid to AAA Sweeping, LLC. This contract may be extended up to four additional one year terms if mutually agreed by both parties. This will be the fourth of four renewal terms that may be exercised by the City. Upon request by the Contractor, contract specifications note that the City and Contractor may negotiate a rate increase for each option year exercised but shall not be increased or decreased by more than the percent change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) or 3%, whichever is smaller. The CPI-U increased 1.4% for the contract specified period. The Contractor requests a 1.4% hourly rate increase based on the following items: • Prevailing wage rates increased from 2.85% to 4.56%; and, • Health insurance rates are projected to increase 10%. Staff verified that the 1.4% rate increase is reasonable based on increases in wages, benefits and business insurance. AAA Sweeping provided a good level of service throughout the 2020 contract year and staff recommends exercising the 2021 option year with the 1.4% hourly rate increase and the renewal amount will also reflect the 1.4% increase to the contract. OPTIONS: 1) Renew the Street Sweeping contract, 2) not renew the contract, or 3) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the 2021 contract renewal to AAA Sweeping in an amount not to exceed $567,840.00 for street sweeping, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This contract will be funded by Fund #101 and Fund #402 in the approved 2021 Budget. STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Renewal Letter and proposed 2021 hourly rates 0'N, jaiy 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org Email: cityhall@spokanevalley.org December 15, 2020 Contract No. 19-161.01 AAA Sweeping, LLC PO Box 624 Veradale, WA 99037 Re: Implementation of 2021 option year, Agreement for Street Sweeping Services, Contract number 19-161, executed February 27, 2020. Dear Mr. Sargent: The City executed an Agreement for provision of Street Sweeping Services on February 27, 2020, by and between the City of Spokane Valley, hereinafter "City", and AAA Sweeping LLC, hereinafter "Contractor" and jointly referred to as "Parties." The original Agreement states that it was for one year, with four optional one-year terms possible if the parties mutually agree to exercise the options each year. This is the first of four possible option years that can be exercised and runs through December 31, 2021. The City would like to exercise the 2021 option year of the Agreement. The Compensation as outlined in Exhibit A, to the Agreement, includes the labor and material cost negotiated and shall not exceed 567,840.00. The history of the annual renewals, including dollar amounts, is set forth as follows: Original contract amount .$ 560,000.00 2021 Renewal $ 567,840.00 All of the other contract provisions contained in the original Agreement shall remain in place and remain unchanged in exercising this option year. If you are in agreement with exercising the 2021 option year, please sign below to acknowledge the receipt and concurrence to perform the 2021 option year. Please return two copies to the City for execution, along with current insurance information. A fully executed original copy will be mailed to you for your files. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AAA SWEEPING, LLC Mark Calhoun, City Manager Name Title ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Exhibit A — 2021 Hourly Rates Street Sweeping Services Task/Item Unit 2020 Hourly Rate 2021 Hourly Rate Sweeping, Mechanical Type Hour $165.57 $167.89 Sweeping, Regenerative Air Type Hour $165.50 $167.82 Sweeping, High Efficiency Vacuum Type Hour $165.42 $167.74 Water Truck or Truck Mounter Power Washer Hour $123.96 $125.70 Foreman Hour $58.36 $59.18 Dump Truck Hour $123.41 $125.14 Loader Hour $117.78 $119.43 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 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: Valley Mission Horse Arena Master Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of the 2006, 2013, and 2019 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Approval of the 2020 Master Fee Schedule. Council Decision on 1/7/20 to remove horse arena structures. BACKGROUND: When the City incorporated in 2003, one of the facilities that was inherited from Spokane County was the Horse Arena (Arena) at Valley Mission Park. From 2003 through 2009, riding groups rented the Arena 5-10 times annually. Rental revenue did not cover maintenance costs. Beginning in 2010, the rentals decreased significantly and there have been no rentals the past six years. The Arena was discussed in the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan along with the updates that were completed in 2013 and 2019. In 2006, it was suggested to give consideration to removing the Arena and converting it to another recreational use. The 2013 plan expanded on this concept indicating that an assessment and public process should be undertaken to evaluate the potential to transition the Arena to a different facility type such as a skate park. Finally, the 2019 update contained a specific recommendation to develop a master plan to replace the Horse Arena and stables area with a bicycle pump track and/or a skate park. With Council's January 2020 authorization, the arena structures were removed. The draft Valley Mission Horse Arena Master Plan is in direct response to the outcomes from the virtual public input process. This master plan provides a vision for future development and acts as a guide for the revitalization of this space within Valley Mission Park. This plan was discussed with the City Council on November 17, 2020. It was the consensus of the Council to bring the proposed master plan back for a motion consideration. Highlights of the plan include a new asphalt pump track, new skate park, restroom, shelter and improved parking. OPTIONS: (1) Approve master plan as presented by staff; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we approve the Valley Mission Horse Arena Master Plan as presented. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The financial impact would be if and when the City chooses to fund various improvements outlined in the master plan. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: Master Plan RELOCATE SCREEN PARKS WASTE CONTAINER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS EXISTING VEGETATION MANAGEMENT -- s ,-T1 Int rn ENHANCE VEGETATION BUFFER .,,. SKATE PARK .APEROX 12.Q90; q FT SHEITERIEVENT SPACE PLAY AREA EXISTING VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAZA WITH EN STRUCTURE ATH 6'WIDE RPS-ROOMS Pl.'IF- • SO F1 BERM FOR i;- . ANT) PPR,KIRMANCE PROVE ROAD CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 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: Bid Award — Browns Park Playground and Shelter — CIP #0315 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • 2006, 2013 & 2019 — Approval of Parks and Recreation Master Plans • July 1, 2014 — Approval of Browns Park Master Plan • March 2015 — Approval of Phases 1 & 2 • October 16, 2018 — Administrative Report — Browns Park Master Plan Update • January 15, 2019 — Administrative Report — Browns Park 2019 Scope of Work Update • May 21, 2019 - Administrative Report — Browns Park 2019 Improvements Project Update • May 28, 2019 — Approval of 2019 Park Improvements BACKGROUND: Browns Park has a rich history and is loved by a wide range of community members. The Master Plan for Browns Park was adopted in 2014. Since then, the City has added 16 new sand volleyball courts including a championship sand volleyball court, a basketball court, splash pad, perimeter path and lighting, picnic shelters, restroom, and a skate dot. The final phase of the Master Plan to be implemented includes the installation of new playground equipment, along with a small restroom and shelter. The final phase is funded with a Department of Commerce direct appropriation awarded in 2019 and City funds. The project was initially advertised for bids on August 28, 2020. Bids were opened on September, 18, 2020. The low bid was of $746,233.98 which included tax. Unfortunately, the project was overbudget and it was in the City's best interest to reject all bids and rebid the project. The second request for bids was repackaged with the City providing the play equipment and structures. The revised documents included the following bid schedules: • Schedule A (Base Bid) — Site work and permit fees, Contractor installs a City supplied restroom and shelter • Schedule B (Alternate 1) — Contractor installs a City supplied toddler swing • Schedule C (Alternate 2) — Contractor installs a City supplied We Go Round • Schedule D (Alternate 3) — Contractor installs City supplied 5-12 Arch swings • Schedule E (Alternate 4) — Contractor installs a City supplied Omni Spin Spinner • Schedule F (Alternate 5) — Contractor supplies and installs park trees • Schedule G (Alternate 6) — Contractor supplies and installs dedication plaque. The bid was advertised again on October 23, 2020 and bids were opened on November 13, 2020. Five responsive bids were received. LaRiveire, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive, responsible bid of $400,269.47 (includes $54,066.08 sales tax). The low -bid was $50,428.32 over the Engineer's Estimate of $349,841.25; however, the recent low bid and cost of the equipment with State Contract/Public Entity pricing will be approximately $80,000 lower than the original bid. Staff recommends awarding to La Riviere, Inc. for the base bid and all alternates, with the exception of Alternate #4 (less expensive version of Alternate #2), in the amount of $344,883 plus applicable sales tax. A copy of the Bid Tabulation is attached. If City Council awards the bid, $180,000 will be transferred from the Parks Capital fund balance to the project. The project costs and budget will be: Project Costs Preliminary Engineering $ 53,253 Construction Contract $ 375,600 City Provided Structures, etc. $ 265,000 Construction Engineering $ 32,250 Contingency $ 16,677 Total estimated costs $ 742,780 Project Budget Dept. of Commerce $ 525,280 Parks Capital Fund $ 217,500 Total Budget $ 742,780 OPTIONS: 1) Move to award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, or 2) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Browns Park Playground and Shelter Project CIP #0315 to LaRiviere, Inc. for the base bid and all alternates, with the exception of Alternate #4, in the amount of $344,883 plus applicable sales tax, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total project cost is currently $742,780 including all bid alternatives. There is currently $562,800 budgeted for this project between the 2020 and 2021 budget years, leaving about $180,000 needed to completely fund the total project cost. City staff identified $75,000 in the Parks & Recreation 2020 budget that was available for this project, and a transfer of that $75,000 from the General Fund to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 was included the 2020 Budget amendment approved by Council on November 24, 2020. City staff also identified $105,000 of reserve balance in Fund #309 that was available for this project, bringing the total additional funding identified for this project to the $180,000 needed. A future 2021 Budget amendment will be needed for the additional $180,000 in order to reflect the updated project cost. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, City Engineer Mike Stone, Director of Parks & Recreation ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation BID TABULATION Browns Park Playground and Shelter Project CIP No. 0315 Spokane .000 Val ley Engineers Estimate LaRivaere, Inc. Wm. Winkler Co. Bozco Construction, LLC AM Landshaper, Inc. CRC Design Build Systems, LLC Description Units Qty. Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Schedule A Site Work L.S. 1 $217,500.00 $217,500.00 $263,609.00 $263,609.00 $280,004.95 $280,004.95 $339,500.00 $339,500.00 $363,952.00 $363,952.00 $284,000.00 $284,000.00 Minor Change CALC 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Allowance for Permit Fees CALC 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Bid Schedule A Sub -Total $247,500.00 $293,609.00 $310,004.95 $369,500.00 $393,952.00 $314,000.00 8.9% Tax $22,027.50 $26,131.20 $26,131.20 $27,590.44 $27,590.44 $32,885.50 $32,885.50 $35,061.73 $35,061.73 $27,946.00 $27,946.00 Bid Schedule A Total $269,527.50 $319,740.20 $337,595.39 $402,385.50 $429,013.73 $341,946.00 Schedule B Alternate #1 - Toddler Swings installation L.S. 1 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $9,353.00 $9,353.00 $18,209.76 $18,209.76 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $12,594.00 $12,594.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 8.9% Tax 1 $756.50 $832.42 $832.42 $1,620.67 $1,620.67 $534.00 $534.00 $1,120.87 $1,120.87 $5,340.00 $5,340.00 Bid Schedule B Total $9,256.50 $10,185.42 $19,830.43 $6,534.00 $13,714.87 $65,340.00 Schedule C Alternate #2 - We -Go -Round installation L.S. 1 $29,500.00 $29,500.00 $22,806.00 $22,806.00 $23,776.91 $23,776.91 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $30,215.00 $30,215.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 8.9% Tax $2,625.50 $2,029.73 $2,029.73 $2,116.14 $2,116.14 $712.00 $712.00 $2,689.14 $2,689.14 $6,675.00 $6,675.00 Bid Schedule C Total $32,125.50 $24,835.73 $25,893.05 $8,712.00 $32,904.14 $81,675.00 Schedule D Alternate #3 - 5-12 Arch Swings installation L.S. 1 $7,250.00 $7,250.00 $9,916.00 $9,916.00 $27,067.10 $27,067.10 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $29,692.00 $29,692.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 8.9% Tax $645.25 $882.52 $882.52 $2,408.97 $2,408.97 $890.00 $890.00 $2,642.59 $2,642.59 $1,424.00 $1,424.00 Bid Schedule D Total $7,895.25 $10,798.52 $29,476.07 $10,890.00 $32,334.59 $17,424.00 Schedule E Alternate #4 - Omni -Spin Spinner installation L.S. 1 $17,500.00 $17,500.00 $22,674.00 $22,674.00 $16,677.70 $16,677.70 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $18,851.00 $18,851.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 8.9% Tax $1,557.50 $2,017.99 $2,017.99 $1,484.32 $1,484.32 $979.00 $979.00 $1,677.74 $1,677.74 $6,675.00 $6,675.00 Bid Schedule E Total $19,057.50 $24,691.99 $18,162.02 $11,979.00 $20,528.74 $81,675.00 Schedule F Alternate #5 - Park Trees - Procure and install L.S. 1 $8,250.00 $8,250.00 $7,681.00 $7,681.00 $6,976.63 $6,976.63 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,068.00 $10,068.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 8.9% Tax $734.25 $683.61 $683.61 $620.92 $620.92 $890.00 $890.00 $896.05 $896.05 $1,335.00 $1,335.00 Bid Schedule F Total $8,984.25 $8,364.61 $7,597.55 $10,890.00 $10,964.05 $16,335.00 Schedule G Alternate #6 - Dedication Plaque base and installation L.S. 1 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 $1,518.00 $1,518.00 $1,865.60 $1,865.60 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,270.00 $2,270.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 8.9% Tax $244.75 $135.10 $135.10 $166.04 $166.04 $445.00 $445.00 $202.03 $202.03 $667.50 $667.50 Bid Schedule G Total $2,994.75 $1,653.10 $2,031.64 $5,445.00 $2,472.03 $8,167.50 Project Totals $349,841.25 $400,269.57 $440,586.15 $456,835.50 $541,932.15 $612,562.50 Competitive bids were opened on November 13, 2020. I hereby certify to the best of my ability that this is a true and correct bid tabulation for the Browns Park Playground and Shelter Project, CIP #0315. Glenn Ritter, PE Senior Engineer/Project Manager CHECKLIST Bid Proposal Checklist x x x x x Bid Proposal Form x x x x x Addendas Acknowledged x x x x x Cert-Wage Pymt. Compliance x x x x x Contractor Info x x x x x Bid Qualifications x x x x x Subcontractor List x x x x x Bid Bond x x x x x Reps & Certs x x x x x 11/13/2020 P:\Public Works\Capital Projects\Street Projects\0315 - Browns Park 2020 Improvements\Bid Information\Bid Tab\0315-Browns Park-BidTab CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 15, 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 — Offer of membership in the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) to the Kalispel Tribe of Indians and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCS 47.80.050. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of the SRTC interlocal agreement in 2003, last amended in 2013. BACKGROUND: The City is a member of SRTC as a result of execution of the most recent interlocal agreement in 2013. All cities and towns in Spokane County are members, as is Spokane County and the Spokane Transit Authority (STA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the Spokane International Airport (SIA), and the Washington State Transportation Commission. Over the years, there has been interest expressed by the Kalispel Tribe of Indians and the Spokane Tribe of Indians (collectively referred to as "the Tribes") to join the SRTC Board, although no offer to join has been made to date. In 2020, the Washington State Legislature passed an amendment to RCW 47.80.050 which established a requirement that each regional metropolitan transportation planning organization (SRTC qualifies as such) in the state shall "provide a reasonable opportunity for voting membership to federally recognized tribes" within the planning area, which would include the Tribes. Paraphrasing the statute, it requires that membership to SRTC must be offered to the Tribes no later than August 1, 2021, or at such time as the composition of the SRTC Board is modified. Coincidentally, the Spokane International Airport Board recently gave notice of termination of its membership, effective December 31, 2020. According to a letter from WSDOT dated November 4, 2020, this is likely a triggering event necessitating the offer from SRTC to the Tribes by December 31, 2020. It should be noted that the consequence of failing to meet this deadline is that operational funding for SRTC would be withheld by WSDOT. SRTC sent a second letter dated November 20 clarifying that although the likely deadline is December 31, 2020, WSDOT would consider reasonable progress as to whether to allow full completion of this issue by the later date, August 1, 2021. Subsequent discussions with WSDOT indicate a preference for taking the additional time to negotiate changes to the existing interlocal agreement to spell out these new member issues. Regardless of exactly when, it is clear that an offer of membership that complies with RCW 47.80.050 is required in the near future. A complicating factor exists as to what form the offer would take due to unclear language in the SRTC interlocal agreement. Under the existing agreement, an offer of membership to a new member could be extended by a majority of existing member jurisdictions so long as the offer is consistent with existing language in the interlocal agreement. Unfortunately, the existing interlocal agreement did not contemplate an offer of membership to a tribe, which is organizationally different enough from local municipalities that questions have arisen as to whether this would be consistent with the existing language. If not, then arguably the interlocal agreement would need to be amended by the existing members to include language that would allow an offer to be made to the Tribes. Page 1 of 2 A meeting was held November 12 by representatives of the various SRTC members to discuss options relating to extending an offer, including timing. As a result of that meeting, it appears there are two options for offering membership to the Tribes: First option - Request that each of the 18 member jurisdictions/organizations (13 cities and towns, Spokane County, STA, WSDOT, SIA, Washington State Transportation Commission) vote to determine whether to extend an offer of membership to the Tribes. Because of the existing language in the interlocal agreement, the only offer of membership we could make at this time would be to join as a small city, and share with the other small cities in their one vote for Board meetings. The SRTC and its members would then renegotiate the interlocal agreement over a number of months to determine if and how membership by the Tribes would be adjusted. Second option — Take additional time on the front end to renegotiate the interlocal agreement to identify how new members are invited and admitted, and what their voting roles and rights would be. An offer would then be extended to the respective tribes no later than August 1, 2021. There is an interpretation of RCW 47.80.050 that the offer of voting membership has to be at least for one vote between the two Tribal entities, if not a vote each, and an offer for them to join with the small cities would not comply with the statute. On December 1, a memorandum was sent to all attendees of the November 12 meeting, and set a follow up meeting on December 11. The purpose of the second meeting (which occurred after these materials were submitted for the packet) is expected to be to further discuss these options, and then make a recommendation to the SRTC Board on how to proceed. Although it is not entirely clear when SRTC has to extend the offer, it appears the earliest date may be December 31, 2020, and the latest date is highly likely by August 1, 2020. OPTIONS: (1) Set a motion on a future agenda to extend an offer of SRTC membership to the Kalispel Tribe of Indians and to the Spokane Tribe of Indians as an existing small city or town, with the understanding that the interlocal agreement will be renegotiated in the near future; (2) wait to extend an offer until 2021 after the interlocal agreement has been renegotiated to account for what that membership and its voting rights would be; or (3) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None at this time, although Council will be asked before August 1, 2021 to consider a motion to extend an offer of SRTC membership to the Kalispel Tribe of Indians and to the Spokane Tribe of Indians in some form. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Letter from WSDOT dated November 4, 2020; (2) letter from WSDOT dated November 20, 2020; (3) notes of SRTC representative meeting November 12, 2020; and (4) memorandum from attorney Laura McAloon regarding legal options for offering SRTC membership to the Kalispel Tribe of Indians and to the Spokane Tribe of Indians. Page 2 of 2 Washington State Aft WO/ Department of Transportation November 4, 2020 Mayor Ben Wick Chair, Spokane Regional Transportation Council 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Mayor Wick: Transportation Building 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. P.O. Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504-7300 360-705-7000 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Sabrina Minshall notified me that you would appreciate a letter that specifies how the Washington State Department of Transportation, with guidance from the Washington State Attorney General's office, interprets issues associated with the new provisions of Revised Code of Washington 47.80.050. The Tribal and Regional Integrated Planning (TRIP) Office in the Washington State Department of Transportation is responsible for oversight of the Regional Transportation Planning Organization program. The TRIP Office has learned that the Spokane Airport Board has elected to withdraw from the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, effective December 31, 2020. Based on advice from the Attorney General's office, we believe that the Spokane Airport Board's action substantially changes the composition of the Spokane Regional Transportation Council's Board as identified in its interlocal agreement. Revised Code of Washington 47.80.050 directs regional transportation planning organizations to offer voting membership to federally -recognized tribes with reservation or trust lands within the regional transportation planning organization's planning area boundary "...when the composition of the board of the regional transportation planning organization is modified..." Therefore, we would expect Spokane Regional Transportation Council to offer voting membership to the two affected tribes when Spokane Airport Board officially withdraws from the organization. For your information, when Engrossed House Bill 1584 was passed (codified in Revised Code of Washington 47.80.050), two other regional transportation planning organizations were identified as being directly impacted by the legislation: Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council and Chelan -Douglas Transportation Council. Below is a summary of the efforts they have made to comply with this law. Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council The Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) in Clark County, Washington was directed by RCW 47.80.050 to invite the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and Yakama Nation to participate as voting members of the Board of Directors. On August 6, 2019 the Executive Director informed the Board that he would be asking the Board chair to sign letters of invitation to both tribes. The Cowlitz Indian Tribe responded that they would like to participate as a voting member of the Board of Directors. At the October 1, 2019 Board of Directors meeting the Executive Director informed the Board that the RTC Bylaws Committee would need to convene to amend the bylaws to incorporate the Cowlitz Tribe as a voting member. At RTC's November 5, 2019 Board meeting, staff provided the proposed amendments to the bylaws. At its December 3, 2019 Board meeting, the RTC formally amended its bylaws to include the Cowlitz Tribe as a voting member. RTC does not use weighted voting so the Cowlitz Indian Tribe has a full vote on the Board. The Cowlitz Indian Tribe is required to pay $1,500 per year in annual dues. Chelan -Douglas Transportation Council Chelan -Douglas Transportation Council made a formal invitation to the Colville Tribes on August 13, 2020. On August 25, 2020 the Colville Tribes accepted the invitation to participate as a voting member. At Chelan -Douglas Transportation Council's following board meeting they formally welcomed the Colville Tribes and sent a copy of the interlocal agreement and bylaws, informing them that their voting membership will be formalized through the update of those two documents. They plan to involve the Colville Tribes in the negotiations as interlocal agreement and/or bylaws are updated. I hope these examples help Spokane Regional Transportation Council as you prepare to invite the Kalispel Tribe of Indians and the Spokane Tribe of Indians to participate as voting members of the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. Please let me know if I can provide further clarification on how WSDOT will administer this update to the RTPO law. Sincerely, Gabe Philips Tribal and Regional Integrated Planning Manager cc: Sabrina Minshall, SRTC Mike Gribner, WSDOT Eastern Region Charlene Kay, WSDOT Eastern Region Kerri Woehler, WSDOT Multimodal Planning and Data Division Anna Ragaza-Bourassa, WSDOT Tribal and Regional Integrated Planning Office Page 2 of 2 Washington State Department of Transportation November 20, 2020 Mayor Ben Wick Chair, Spokane Regional Transportation Council 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Mayor Wick: Transportation Building 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. P.O. Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504-7300 360-705-7000 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Thank you for allowing me to attend the meeting of all the parties to Spokane Regional Transportation Council's (SRTC's) interlocal agreement on November 12, 2020. It is apparent that the group is moving forward with a plan to involve the Spokane Tribe of Indians and the Kalispel Tribe of Indians as voting members of SRTC. During the meeting I made some comments that I would like to follow-up with in writing. As administrators of the new law (RCW 47.80.050), we are looking to make sure SRTC makes an invitation to the tribes every two years or when the composition of the board is modified in an interlocal agreement. We recognize that interlocal agreements are difficult negotiations that typically cannot be accomplished quickly. Therefore, if we see progress being made toward fulfillment of the law, we will allow a reasonable timeframe for the voting structure to be finalized. It appears as if the parties to SRTC's interlocal agreement are considering following the "McAloon Proposal." As I understand it, this proposal would offer the Spokane Tribe of Indians and the Kalispel Tribe of Indians membership in the organization and they, along with the small towns, would share one vote. Another option the group could consider would be to offer an invitation to the tribes without specifying the voting membership at this time. Voting structure and associated details can be worked out as part of the interlocal agreement negotiation over the coming months, as long as they are completed by the date specified in law, August 1, 2021. Either of the options presented here, among others, would satisfy the requirement to invite the tribes and therefore preserve SRTC's allocation of Regional Transportation Planning Organization funding. We are committed to supporting the Spokane Regional Transportation Council as you work toward compliance with the requirements of RCW 47.80.050. Please let me know if I can provide more information that will help your organization work toward that goal. Sincerely, Gabe Philips Tribal and Regional Integrated Planning Manager cc: Sabrina Minshall, SRTC Mike Gribner, WSDOT Eastern Region Charlene Kay, WSDOT Eastern Region Kerri Woehler, WSDOT Multimodal Planning and Data Division Anna Ragaza-Bourassa, WSDOT Tribal and Regional Integrated Planning Office Page 2 of 2 MEETING MINUTES Spokane Regional Transportation Council Interlocal Agreement (ILA) Signatory Members Special Meeting Thursday November 12, 2020 — 3:00 pm Zoom Video Conference Meeting ILA Representatives Present: Council Member Sonny Weathers City of Airway Heights Council Member Paul Schmidt City of Cheney Council Member Dee Cragun City of Deer Park Mayor Shirley Maike City of Medical Lake Mayor Kevin Freeman City of Millwood Katherine Miller City of Spokane Mayor Ben Wick City of Spokane Valley Cary Driskell City of Spokane Valley Legal Counsel Commissioner Al French Spokane County Mark McClain Spokane County Legal Counsel E. Susan Meyer Spokane Transit Authority Laura McAloon Legal Counsel for Spokane Transit and Medical Lake Mike Gribner WSDOT-Eastern Region Kelly Fukai WA St Transp. Commission Council Member Micki Harnois Representing Towns of Latah, Rockford, Spangle & Waverly Sabrina Minshall SRTC Executive Director Stanley Schwartz SRTC Legal Counsel ILA Representatives Absent: Mayor Shane Brickner City of Liberty Lake Mayor KayDee Gilkey Town of Fairfield Guests Present Gabe Phillips WSDOT Tribal and Integrated Planning Manager Anna Ragaza-Bourassa WSDOT-Eastern Region Char Kay WSDOT-Eastern Region Kitty Klitze Futurewise Shauna Harshman City of Spokane Council Member Kate Burke City of Spokane Council President Breean Beggs City of Spokane The group agreed to record the meeting, to have SRTC staff take minutes, and for Mayor Wick to chair the meeting. Mayor Wick provided a background and purpose of the meeting and asked Mr. Schwartz to give a high- level overview of Engrossed House Bill 15284 requiring Regional Transportation Organizations (such as SRTC) to offer federally recognized tribes with reservation or trust lands within the planning area voting membership. Mr. Schwartz said read from the statute and from a letter from WSDOT sent to SRTC Board Chair Ben Wick on 11/4/20. Mr. Schwartz also read an excerpt from page 8 of the 10/8/2020 SRTC Board meeting minutes that covered the motion made by Mr. French. He said the purpose of this group meeting today is to identify the terms of new membership positions. 11.20.2020 SRTC ILA Members Special Meeting Minutes The group discussed: • Does the withdrawal of Spokane Airports (SIA) effective 12/31/20 mean that a membership offer must be submitted to the Tribes by 12/31/20? • Does the withdrawal of SIA from SRTC constitute an amendment to the ILA or is it an administrative modification? • The structure of the existing weighted voting. • The method by which today's representatives were selected. • Risk of losing state funding if SRTC does not become compliant with the law by the deadline. • Besides the new membership issue, the current ILA has several areas that need clarification so it must be re -done. • Small towns have indicated they do not want to share their vote with two additional jurisdictions. • The "how" and the effective date of the new membership is what must be decided by this group. • While the statute requires that Tribes be offered voting membership on the Board, it does not indicate whether the Tribal members must be signatory members to the ILA. • Suggestion that the Board seat vacated by SIA could be replaced by a seat shared by the Kalispel and Spokane Tribes. • Ms. Cragun liked the suggestion and stated that she feels the Tribes must be included as soon as possible. Mayor Wick opened the floor for discussion of the issue by legal counsel, asking if membership invitations can be extended without ILA modification. Comments included; • Simply offering a seat on the Board does not require unanimous approval by ILA signatories. • If the offer is extended prior to updating the ILA and if the Tribes accept the membership offer, they are accepting the terms of the existing ILA. • Section 13 of the ILA says membership can be offered based on majority vote, but the new members must fit into an existing membership category. • Changing Table 1 (weighting voting) of the ILA would require unanimous approval of ILA signatories. • Ms. McAloon suggested that in the interest of being compliant with the law by the deadline, the Tribes be offered membership under the Small Cities and Towns seat in the short-term. Then the process of ILA modification process could begin without being under a deadline, since it is likely to take quite some time. The modification would include formalizing a position(s) on the Board for the Kalispel and Spokane Tribes, their dues structure, the weighting voting, etc. • Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Driskell concurred with Ms. McAloon's proposal, saying it was a good solution to conform to the law quickly. At 3:54 Ms. Cragun commented that she had to leave the meeting for another appointment. She re -stated her support to adding the Tribes to the SRTC Board, saying it was very overdue. Group discussion continued; some comments included: • In regards to the letter from WSDOT, would the McAloon proposal be sufficiently compliant in the eyes of WSDOT? Mr. Gribner said he would need to check with their legal counsel before answering. • The Tribes may choose not to accept the offer of membership as part of the Small Towns seat. • If they did accept, would the representative be required to be an Elected Tribal official? • Mr. Gribner asked if there was not a 12/31/20 deadline, would the strategy be different? Ms. McAloon stated her opinion is that SRTC should become compliant with the law before the next legislative session 11.20.2020 SRTC ILA Members Special Meeting Minutes starts due to the risk of losing state funding, per the WSDOT letter dated 11/4/20. Mayor Freeman said he would push for an alternative if there was not a 12/31/20 deadline. • Mr. Gribner clarified that RTPO funding does not come to MPOs from the State of Washington directly; funds are forwarded to WSDOT who then distributes the allocated funds to the MPOs on a reimbursement basis. He said there may be a possibility that the 12/31/20 deadline could be extended if progress is made in the process to include Tribes on the Board. • Does legal counsel interpret the law as saying the membership offer must be voting membership or ILA signatory membership and voting membership. • Mr. French does not feel that SIA resignation constitutes a substantive change in the ILA; it is an administrative modification only, therefore the 12/31/20 is not accurate. The law states a deadline of 08/31/21. Mayor Wick said the answer is not 100% clear, asked if it is worth risking losing the funding if we're wrong. • Mr. Weathers commented that the Tribes would add value to SRTC as a member agency. He asked about offering membership similar to the Major Employer representative. Ms. McAloon responded that would require an ILA amendment and unanimous approval. Mr. Phillips stated that WSDOT wants the Tribes to be involved but would not like to see a sub -optimal offer go out just in order to meet the 12/31 deadline. He said that date is not set in stone and they are really looking for progress. Ms. Meyer pointed out that his letter clearly states it is a firm deadline. Mr. Phillips responded that WSDOT prefers that a membership offer be extended that the Tribes will want to accept, so WSDOT is willing to be a bit flexible on the timeline in order to craft an appealing offer. Mr. Driskell requested a revised letter stating that fact and Mr. Phillips agreed. Mr. Phillips stated that the membership invitation and ILA revisions do not have to happen at the same time. Discussion continues: • Mr. Schmidt likes the incremental steps outlined in Ms. McAloon's proposal. He said it may appear that we are kicking the can down the road, but it is more a series of smaller steps which allows time for deliberate consideration of the terms of new membership. • Mayor Wick asked the group how they want to move forward. Do we start re -writing the ILA and invite the Tribes to that process? Extend an invitation now under the small Towns membership seat? • Mr. French suggested not adding the Tribes as ILA signatory members as goes beyond the legislation. • Mayor Maike is in favor of Ms. McAloon's proposal as it allows for sufficient time to work on the ILA update. • Mr. Weathers feels the desired outcome should be meeting the intent of the law, which would be to add the Tribes as full members to the Board as soon as possible. Mayor Wick said it appears that majority consensus is in favor of Ms. McAloon's proposal. He asked Ms. McAloon to put her proposal in writing, which will then be distributed to all signatory representatives. The group agreed to hold another meeting in early December to continue the discussion. Meeting adjourned at 4:45 pm. Julie Meyers -Lehman, Recording Secretary 11.20.2020 SRTC ILA Members Special Meeting Minutes 11.23.2020 Memo To Spokane Regional Transportation Council Signatories From Laura McAloon CC Stanley Schwartz Cary Driskell Re Addition of Tribal Jurisdictions to SRTC ANALYSIS ISSUE: All Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPO) are required by state law (RCW 47.80.050(2)) to "provide a reasonable opportunity for voting membership to federally recognized tribes that hold reservation or trust lands within the planning area of the regional transportation planning organization." There are two such qualifying Tribes, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) was created via interlocal agreement between sixteen jurisdictions and two state entities to serve as the RTPO for Spokane County (the "SRTC Agreement"). These signatories to the SRTC Agreement seek a method to comply with RCW 47.80.050 in a timely manner while concurrently working on additional related and unrelated amendments or revisions to the SRTC Agreement by the jurisdictions. SHORT ANSWER: Section 13 of the existing SRTC Agreement provides a method for the addition of new members to SRTC upon majority consent of the parties and written acceptance of the terms of the existing SRTC Agreement by the new members. Voting membership on the SRTC Board is allocated by population of each jurisdiction, therefore an offer of voting membership to an entity not currently a party or participant can be implemented based on the existing language in Section 5 of the SRTC Agreement. Once the results of the 2020 Census are available, the parties can then proceed with updating the SRTC Agreement and revising any provisions of it as desired. A. Addition of new members to SRTC The existing SRTC Agreement was adopted in 2013 by eighteen signatory entities defined as "Members" in the agreement: WA Department of Spokane County City of Spokane Transportation 509-474-0030 421 W Riverside Ave Suite 515 Spokane, WA 99201 www.mcaloon-law.com McAloonLaw FLLC 11.23.2020 Memo Pg.02 WA State Transportation Commission Spokane Transit Authority City of Airway Heights City of Cheney City of Deer Park City of Fairfield City of Latah City of Liberty Lake City of Medical Lake City of Millwood City of Rockford City of Spangle City of Waverly City of Spokane Valley Spokane Airport Board* *Spokane Airport Board has resigned as a Member, effective 12/31/20. Section 13 Amendments and New Members provides: This Agreement may be amended by unanimous consent of the Members' governing bodies, except WSDOT may take action through its Secretary. Upon majority consent of the voting Members, new members may join the Council upon written acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. The bolded text in Section 13 above provides clear direction as to how the Members can extend and approve voting membership on SRTC to the local tribes in compliance with RCW 47.80.050. SRTC can seek the consent of the eighteen Members to add the Spokane Tribe and the Kalispel Tribe as members of SRTC and once ten (10) of the Members have provided consent, each Tribe will simply need to execute a written acceptance of the terms of the existing interlocal in order to become members. Upon the effective date of Spokane Airport Board's resignation as a Member, the number required for majority consent will be reduced to nine (9) Members. Once membership has been accepted by a Tribe, voting rights of the new member will be controlled by the terms of the existing SRTC Agreement until it is amended by unanimous approval of the eighteen Members, or replaced and rescinded in its entirety by a new interlocal agreement. B. Governance and Voting Rights 11.23.2020 Pg.03 Board governance and the voting rights of the Tribes as new members is already addressed in the SRTC Agreement and does not require an immediate amendment to comply with RCW 47.80.050. Section 5 Governing Body and Officers of the SRTC Agreement determines the voting membership of each Member jurisdiction on the SRTC Board and further authorizes one additional voting position and three non -voting positions on the SRTC Board for other entities. Voting representation for the existing eighteen Members is determined by the population of each jurisdiction; therefore, voting representation for the Tribes can be allocated under the existing SRTC Agreement without any need for an amendment requiring unanimous approval of the Members. Under Section 5(a), jurisdictions with a population under 5,000 people have voting representation through one person "jointly selected" by those jurisdictions and "[t]he person selected shall be an elected official from a small town/city". Thus, the Tribes would participate in the joint selection of the person who represents all jurisdictions with populations of 5,000 or fewer, but the person must be an elected official from a small town or city. Tribal populations can be determined based on the current Census data for Spokane County, just as it has historically been determined for all other Member jurisdictions. Voting is described in Section 6 Meetings and Voting. The addition of new members will not alter any of the provisions of Section 6, including the weighted voting formula set forth in Table 1. Nothing in Section 6 requires unanimous attendance of the full Board in order to conduct a vote on any matter and the addition of the Tribes will not cause a conflict in any of the voting provisions of the SRTC Agreement. CONCLUSION Compliance with RCW 47.80.050 can be readily accomplished with simple majority consent of nine of the existing Members and signatories to the existing SRTC Agreement. This approach is consistent with the terms of the SRTC Agreement, does not require any changes to the SRTC Agreement and avoids the complexity and delay inherent in obtaining unanimous approval of amendatory language. Subsequent to the addition of the Tribes as voting members of SRTC, the signatories to the SRTC 11.23.2020 Pg.04 Agreement can proceed with the update and revisions that will be triggered by the results of the 2020 Census as well as any other changes that are required or recommended. Prior interlocal agreements for SRTC were replaced and rescinded in their entirety by the Members and became effective upon ratification by the County and at least sixty percent (60%) of the cities and towns within Spokane County representing seventy-five (75%) of the total population of the cities and towns. This formula for ratification is based on the membership requirements for an RTPO under RCW 47.80.020 and avoids the complexity of obtaining unanimous approval. Although this formula is not necessary for extending membership to the Kalispel and Spokane Tribes, compliance will become necessary for any amendments to or replacement of the existing SRTC Agreement. To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of December 10, 2020; 1:10 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative Council & Staff City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings December 22, 2020, Regular Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Resolution 20-016 for 2021 Fees — Chelsie Taylor 3. Motion Consideration: SRTC Tribal Membership — Cary Driskell 4. Mayoral Appointments- Planning Commissioners — Mayor Wick 5. Marketing & Communications 2020 Report — Lesli Brassfield 6. Admin Report: Montgomery & Bessie Street Vacation STV-2020-0002 — Connor Lange 7. Admin Report: House Bill 1590 — Cary Driskell 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick [due Tue Dec 15] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 85 mins] Dec 29, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Cancelled due to Christmas Holiday Jan 5, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Dec 291 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Public Hearing: Planned Residential Development Moratorium — L. Barlow, E. Lamb 2. Mayoral Appointments: Councilmembers to Committees — Mayor Wick 3. Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee — Mayor Wick 4. First Reading Ordinance 21--- Montgomery and Bessie Street Vacation — Connor Lange NON -ACTION ITEMS: 5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports (normally would have been Dec 29) [*estimated meeting: (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) 55 mins] Jan 12, 2021, Regular Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 5] Proclamation: Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Planned Residential Dev Findings of Fact — L. Barlow, E. Lamb (10 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Potential Grant Opportunity, Local Bridge Program — Adam Jackson (10 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Potential Grant Opportunity, National Hwy System Asset Mgmt — A. Jackson (10 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 35 mins] Jan 19, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 121 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 21--- Montgomery and Bessie Street Vacation — Connor Lange (10 minutes) NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Admin Report: Retail Recruitment Update — Chaz Bates, Scott VonCannon of Retail Strategies (15 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Report on Bid Award, Barker Grade Separation Project — Bill Helbig (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 mins] Jan 26, 2021, Regular Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 19] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunity, Local Bridge Program — Adam Jackson (10 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opp, National Hwy System Asset Mgmt — A. Jackson (10 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 12/10/2020 2:00:35 PM Page 1 of 2 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Appleway Trail Amenities Arts Council Sculpture Presentations Artwork & Metal Boxes Core Beliefs Resolution Flashing Beacons/School Signage Health District Stats Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Park Lighting PFD Presentation SPEC Report/Update St. Illumination (owners, cost, location) St. O&M Pavement Preservation Vehicle Wgt Infrastructure Impact Water Districts & Green Space Way Finding Signs Winter Workshop Draft Advance Agenda 12/10/2020 2:00:35 PM Page 2 of 2 Holidays and Heroes Annual Event Sunday December 6th 2020 Tiotiara &� i-(eroes° Fnghrenfny C6riernus in Our Co imunfrp merga p ne ex p n fi * le Things looked a little different this year, but the outcome was the same About 30 children were picked up and brought to Walmart... Law enforcement paired with a child and shopped for gifts for the child and their family, up to $300. .,„„:,....,.... Then they made their way to the Garden Center where helpers wrapped gifts. Food and drinks were available too! Thank you to all who made it a success! CENTRAL VALLEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION SCSO/SVPD, Corrections Officers, Chaplains, SCSO Explorers, Volunteers, and Walmart Staff