Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2020, 11-24 Formal Meeting Amended
AMENDED AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT Tuesday, November 24, 2020 6:00 p.m. Remotely via ZOOM Meeting 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting NOTE: In response to Govemor 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physical public attendance at Spokane Valley Council meetings are suspended until the Governor's order has been rescinded or amended.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 • NEW: Join the Zoom WEB Meeting CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION: GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY [11: Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments and indicate if you want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or [2]. Citizens may only speak at one or the other, but not both. If there is no indication of which comment opportunity, you will be placed in the first. The link will guide you to directions to sign up for oral public comments. This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items, as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep the remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. NEW BUSINESS: 1. First Reading Ordinance 20-022, Amending 2020 Budget — Chelsie Taylor [no public comment] 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2021 Budget — Chelsie Taylor [public comment opportunity] 3. First Reading Ordinance 20-023 Adopting 2021 Budget — Chelsie Taylor [no public comment] 3a. First Reading Ordinance 20-028 Adopting Planned Residential Development Moratorium — Erik Lamb, John Hohman Council Agenda November 24, 2020 Page 1 of 2 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on Nov. 24, 2020, Request for Council Action Form Total: $1,714,815.36 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending November 15, 2020: $378,283.44 c. Approval of November 3, 2020 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session d. Approval of November 17, 2020 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session 5. Second Reading Ordinance 20-024 Amending Subdivision Regulations — Jenny Nickerson [no public comment] 6. Motion Consideration: Amendment and Restated Interlocal Agreement for TPA Establishment — Cary Driskell [public comment opportunity] 7. Motion Consideration: Comp Plan Docket — Chaz Bates, Mike Basinger [public comment opportunity] GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 121: Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments and indicate if you want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or [2]. Citizens may only speak at one or the other, but not both. If there is no indication of which comment opportunity, you will be placed in the first. The link will guide you to directions to sign up for oral public comments. This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items, as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep the remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 8. Transportation Impact Fees Code Text Amendment — Bill Helbig 9. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations to Council — Chelsie Taylor 10. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): 11. Department Monthly Reports CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda November 24, 2020 Page 2 of 2 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 1 2020 11 24 RCA 1st read Ord 20-022 Amend 2020 budg.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 24, 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: First reading of proposed Ordinance #20-022 which amends the 2020 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: In order for the City to amend an adopted budget, State law requires the Council to approve an ordinance that appropriates additional funds. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The Council last took formal action on the 2020 Budget when it was adopted on November 12, 2019. On October 27, 2020, an Administrative Report was delivered to Council regarding the need for a budget amendment. Finally, a public hearing was held on this topic on November 10, 2020. BACKGROUND: Since the initial adoption of the 2020 Budget on November 12, 2019, a number of events have transpired in the normal course of operations that necessitate a 2020 Budget amendment. The proposed amendments include: #001 - General Fund The total of both recurring and nonrecurring revenues reflect an increase of $1,146,900, which is comprised of: • $2,848,900 decrease in general sales tax collections due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. • $128,600 decrease in public safety sales tax collections due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. • $226,300 decrease in criminal justice sales tax collections due to the effects of the COVID- 19 pandemic on the economy. • $90,000 decrease in gambling tax collections due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. • $539,700 decrease in parks and recreation revenues due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on program operations. • $3,000 increase for a grant from the Department of Ecology to update the City's Shoreline Master Plan. • $25,000 increase for a CERB grant to complete an economic development study on the Appleway Trail. • $100,000 increase for a grant from the Department of Commerce to complete a Housing Action Plan. • $4,352,400 increase for the City's CARES Act allocation of Coronavirus Relief Funds passed through the Department of Commerce. • $500,000 increase for potential settlement funds related to the repairs on the City Hall Chambers east wall. 1 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 1 2020 11 24 RCA 1st read Ord 20-022 Amend 2020 budg.docx Provide additional appropriations (expenditures) of $7,082,921 comprised of: • $33,300 increase in salaries and related payroll taxes and benefits in the City Manager Department and a corresponding decrease of $16,650 in salaries and related payroll taxes and benefits in the Engineering Department due to repurposing a vacant Engineer position to a new Housing and Homeless Services Coordinator position. The remaining difference was budgeted as personnel costs related to capital projects. The repurposing of this position has been a discussion topic during the 2021 Budget development process, and the amount proposed to be amended in the 2020 Budget represents approximately 3 months of expenditures for the new position. • $274,489 increase in the Public Safety Department due to updated County contract costs. This includes a decrease of $523,241 in the district court, public defender, prosecutor, and detention services contracts, an increase of $1,047,730 in the law enforcement contract, and a decrease of $250,000 in the contingency. • $15,000 decrease in professional services for the Parks and Recreation Admin Division. There is a corresponding increase of $15,000 in the nonrecurring transfers out to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for soil, turf and irrigation to finish a small strip of property adjacent to the CenterPlace West Lawn improvement project that was not originally included in the scope of the project. • $600,000 decrease to the Parks and Recreation Department representing in decreases in costs due to not being able to run various parks, recreations and aquatics programs throughout the year as well as having CenterPlace closed to the public due to limitations from the COVID-19 pandemic. • $5,000 increase for furniture for the new Housing and Homeless Services Coordinator position. • $103,303 increase to move the remainder of the budget for the generators at City Hall ($44,993) and the Precinct ($58,310) into 2020 to allow for residual installation costs that were not completed during 2019. This is not an increase in the overall cost. • $60,000 increase to replace the HVAC units at the Precinct. • $500,000 increase for estimated costs related to repairs for the City Hall Chamber east wall. • $3,000 increase for an update to the City's Shoreline Master Plan paid for through a grant from the Department of Ecology. • $25,000 increase for an economic development study on the Appleway Trail paid for by a CERB grant. • $100,000 increase to complete a Housing Action Plan paid for by a grant from the Department of Commerce. • $4,352,400 increase for COVID-19 related expenditures paid for through the City's allocation of CARES Act dollars passed through the State. • $350,200 increase in transfers out to the Street O&M Fund #101 to cover an increase in the estimated operating deficit caused by the decrease in fuel taxes from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. • $500,000 to replenish the Winter Weather Reserve Fund #122 back to a fund balance of $500,000. The Street O&M Fund was over budget on snow removal expenditures in 2019 by about $578,000, of which $500,000 was reimbursed to Fund #101 from Fund #122. • $121,298 increase in transfers to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the Browns Park 2019 improvements. This increase is due to a change in the timing of the project. • $401,581 increase in transfers to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the CenterPlace west lawn improvements. Except for $15,000 that was discussed above as a decrease to the Parks and Recreation Admin Division, this does not constitute an increase in the cost of the project but rather a change in the timing of the costs to reflect the actual timing of the work. 2 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 1 2020 11 24 RCA 1st read Ord 20-022 Amend 2020 budg.docx • $810,000 increase in transfers to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the CenterPlace roof replacement. • $75,000 increase in transfers to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 to cover increased costs for the Browns Park 2020 improvements due to receiving higher than anticipated bids. This is being covered by the large decrease in the Parks and Recreation operating budget for 2020 as discussed above. #101 — Street O&M Fund Revenues have a net change of $0; however, recurring revenues are estimated to decrease by $350,200 due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. The decrease is comprised of $331,700 in motor vehicle fuel taxes and $18,500 in multimodal transportation revenues. The estimated deficit of $350,200 in operating activity caused by this decrease is then proposed to be covered by a transfer in from the General Fund in the same amount. #104 — Hotel / Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund Decrease revenues by $207,000 reflecting updated estimates of lodging taxes due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. See additional discussion at the end of this RCA regarding comments from and recommendations made by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) for the 2020 award year. #105 — Hotel / Motel Tax Fund Decrease revenues by $304,000 reflecting updated estimates of lodging taxes due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. Decrease expenditures by $476,000 due to direction by the Council to first fund 2020 lodging tax grant awards, and then determine how much or whether to fund the approved transfer to Fund #104. See additional discussion at the end of this RCA regarding comments from and recommendations made by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) for the 2020 award year. #106 — Solid Waste Fund Increase transfers out to the Pavement Preservation Fund #311 by $13,532 due to 2019 receipts of the road wear administration fee related to the Waste Management collection contract exceeding previous estimates. #108 — Affordable and Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund Add estimated revenues of $144,750 for the new affordable and supportive housing sales tax. The City first began collecting this tax in May 2020. #122 — Winter Weather Reserve Fund Revenues are increased by $500,000 reflecting a transfer in from the General Fund #001 to replenish the fund balance to $500,000. The Street O&M Fund was over budget on snow removal expenditures in 2019 by about $578,000, of which $500,000 was reimbursed to Fund #101 from Fund #122. 3 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 1 2020 11 24 RCA 1st read Ord 20-022 Amend 2020 budg.docx #301 — REET 1 Capital Projects Fund Increase expenditures by $603,424 due to changes in expected transfers out to the Street Capital Projects Fund #303 to reflect current estimates for various projects and the Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund #314 for the Barker Grade Separation project. Grant proceeds are expected to be expended prior to City REET funds to the extent possible. #302 — REET 2 Capital Projects Fund Increase expenditures by $113,881 due to changes in the expected transfers out to the Street Capital Projects Fund #303 to reflect current estimates for various projects. #303 — Street Capital Projects Fund Revenues and expenditures are proposed to increase by $2,108,900 to reflect current estimates on a number of projects, including the Barker/I-90 interchange, various sections of widening of Barker Road, and construction of the extension of Garland Avenue. #309 — Park Capital Projects Fund This fund is being amended to reflect current estimates on a number of projects. Revenues are increased by $3,122,835 reflecting: • $1,634,083 increase in grant proceeds for the Evergreen to Sullivan segment of the Appleway Trail and the Browns Park 2020 improvements. • $1,407,879 increase in transfers in from the General Fund for Browns Park 2019 improvements, phase two of improvements to the CenterPlace west lawn, and the replacement of the CenterPlace roof. See additional information above under the General Fund #001. • $111,873 increase in transfers in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the Evergreen to Sullivan section of the Appleway Trail, frontage improvements at Balfour Park, and some preliminary engineering costs for phase one of improvements at Balfour Park. Expenditures increase by $3,266,100, including: • An increase of $1,604,376 for the Evergreen to Sullivan segment of the Appleway Trail due to construction on this project being moved to 2020 from 2019. • An increase of $116,298 for Browns Park 2019 improvements due to some work being performed in 2020. • An increase of $401,581 for phase two of improvements to the CenterPlace west lawn. See additional information above under the General Fund #001. • An increase of $810,000 for the replacement of the CenterPlace roof. • An increase of $59,850 for frontage improvements at Balfour Park. • An increase of $62,995 for Browns Park 2020 improvements. • And increase of $11,000 for preliminary engineering costs for phase one of improvements at Balfour Park. • $200,000 in transfers out of reserves to the Capital Reserve Fund #312 as part of the acquisition of WSDOT Flora park property. #310 — Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund Expenditures are increased by $16,700 in transfers out to the Capital Reserve Fund #312. This amount reflects excess investment earnings that have accumulated in Fund #310. 4 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 1 2020 11 24 RCA 1st read Ord 20-022 Amend 2020 budg.docx #311 — Pavement Preservation Fund Increase transfers in from the Solid Waste Fund #106 by $13,532 due to 2019 receipts of the road wear administration fee related to the Waste Management collection contract exceeding previous estimates. #312 — Capital Reserve Fund Revenues increase by $216,700 in transfers in from the Park Capital Projects Fund #309 for park land acquisition and the Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund #310 representing accumulated investment earnings in that fund. See explanations under those funds for additional information. Increases expenditures/appropriations of $3,948,996 include: • Increase of $455,779 in transfers to the Street Capital Projects Fund #303 for widening sections of the Barker Road corridor. • Increases of $1,211,436 in transfers to the Street Capital Projects Fund #303 for construction of Garland Avenue. • Increases of $111,873 in transfers out to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the Evergreen to Sullivan section of the Appleway Trail, Balfour Park frontage improvements, and preliminary engineering on phase one of improvements to Balfour Park. • $2,091,600 for the purchase of the WSDOT Flora park property. #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund Revenues decrease by $8,384,098, comprised of: • Decrease of $9,282,373 in grant proceeds to reflect current estimates on the grade separation projects. • Increases of $819,967 in transfers in from the REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301 for the Barker Road grade separation project. • Increase of $78,308 in transfers in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the Pines Road grade separation project. Expenditures decrease by $8,256,816, comprised of: • Decrease of $8,069,316 due to updated estimates for the Barker Road grade separation project. • Decrease of $262,500 due to updated estimates for the Pines Road grade separation project. • Increase of $75,000 for preliminary engineering for the Sullivan Road interchange project. #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund Revenues increase by $97,700 in grant proceeds related to updated estimates on construction projects. Provide additional appropriations (expenditures) of $633,571 including updated estimates on construction projects such as the Regional Decant Facility canopy, the Barker Homes local access streets project, and various pavement preservation projects with aquifer protection updates. #501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement Reserve Fund • Expenditures are increased by $35,000 to purchase a loader for the Maintenance Shop that will be used to load deicer materials into the trucks. This purchase was discussed at the October 27, 2020 Council meeting. 5 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 1 2020 11 24 RCA 1st read Ord 20-022 Amend 2020 budg.docx The 2020 Budget amendment reflects the changes noted above and will affect 17 funds resulting in total revenue decreases of $1,543,781 and expenditure increases of $9,090,209. Revenue Expenditure Fund Fund Increase Increase No. Name (Decrease) (Decrease) 001 General Fund 101 Street O&M Fund 104 HotelMotel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 105 HotelMotel Tax Fund 106 Solid Waste Fund 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 312 Capital Reserve Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Fund 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Reserve 1,146, 900 7,082,921 0 0 (207, 000) 0 (304,000) (476,000) 0 13,532 144,750 0 500,000 0 0 603,424 0 113,881 2,108,900 2,108,900 3,122, 835 3,266,100 0 16,700 13,532 0 216,700 3,948,996 (8,384,098) (8,256,816) 97,700 633,571 0 35,000 (1,543,781) 9,090,209 The 2020 Budget amendment also includes one change to the Employee Position Classification Monthly Salary Schedule in order to add a Housing and Homeless Services Coordinator position. It will also close the City Hall Construction Fund #313. 2020 Lodging Tax Grant Awards and LTAC Comments At the May 5, 2020 meeting, Council reached consensus that it wished to first fund the grant awards and then transfer any remaining revenues up to $450,000 to Fund #104 if possible. Staff has determined that the Council recommendation to fund the grant awards but not the previously approved transfer constitutes a change in the use of revenue as described under RCW 67.28.1817, which states that the change must be submitted to the LTAC for review and comment 45 days prior to final action by City Council. Specifically, the LTAC should provide comments that "include an analysis of the extent to which the proposal will accommodate activities for tourists or increase tourism, and the extent to which the proposal will affect the long-term stability of the [lodging tax fund]." This communication of the change to the LTAC occurred October 15, 2020 at the annual LTAC meeting regarding the 2021 awards. At that meeting, the LTAC passed a motion recommending to Council that no transfer to Fund #104 be done in 2020. Instead, the Committee recommended that after all the grant awards are paid out for 2020 and 2021 any remaining balance available be transferred to Fund #104 in 2021 so that the ending fund balance is approximately $165,000 at the end of 2021 in Fund #105. This recommendation is currently reflected in the 2020 Budget amendment and 2021 preliminary budget as of November 24, 2020. 6 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 1 2020 11 24 RCA 1st read Ord 20-022 Amend 2020 budg.docx Council will take formal action on this issue by adopting the 2020 Budget Amendment, which was scheduled to occur on November 24, 2020. However, due to the 45 day requirement in RCW 67.28.1817, Council is now scheduled to adopt the 2020 Budget Amendment on December 8, 2020. OPTIONS: Options are to accept the proposed amendments in whole or in -part. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance #20-022 amending the 2020 Budget to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This action amends the estimated revenues and appropriations for the 2020 Budget that was adopted on November 12, 2019. There are adequate funds available to pay for these amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Draft Ordinance #20-022 7 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 20-022 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 19-017, WHICH ADOPTED A BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2020 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2020; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance 19-017 on November 12, 2019, which adopted the 2020 annual budget; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the November 12, 2019 adoption of the 2020 annual budget, it has become necessary to make changes by adding new revenue, appropriations, amendments, and transferring funds in order to properly perform City functions, services and activities; and WHEREAS, since March 2020, there have been a series of orders issued by the federal and state governments related to the COVID-19 pandemic that have significantly and detrimentally effected the local economy, including a very large number of people who work for businesses that have been ordered closed. These effects are significant in the service industries in particular, but also have ripple effects throughout the region's economy. Due to the economic impacts of the pandemic, the City has experienced declines in various revenue streams as well as experiencing increased costs related to responding public health and safety needs. The City also received federal Coronavirus Relief Funds from the U.S. Department of Treasury passed through the Washington State Department of Commerce in the amount of $4,352,400 to assist in the City's response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, certain changes to employee positions have been made by the City Manager, which necessitate changes to the Employee Position Classification Monthly Salary Schedule that was included in the 2020 annual budget; and WHEREAS, certain funds should be eliminated because the underlying projects necessitating their use have been completed; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to create Fund 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund, which will be used to account for collections and expenditures of the affordable and supportive sales tax. The City will receive these revenues for 20 years, and the revenues may only be used to support affordable housing within the City or for rental assistance; and WHEREAS, the budget changes set forth in this Ordinance could not have been reasonably anticipated or known when the 2020 annual budget was passed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the best interests of the City are served by amending the 2020 budget to reflect unanticipated revenue, expenditures, transfers, and appropriating the same as set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington do ordain as follows: Section 1. Amended Revenues and Appropriations. Ordinance No. 19-017 adopted a budget for the twelve months beginning January 1, 2020 and ending December 31, 2020. Each item, revenue, appropriation, and fund contained in Section 1 of Ordinance 19-017 is hereby further amended as set forth in Attachment A to this Ordinance, which is incorporated herein. Section 2. Amended Employee Position Classification Monthly Salary Schedule. Ordinance No. 19-017 adopted an Employee Position Classification Monthly Salary Schedule as part of the budget for the Ordinance 20-022 amending the 2020 budget Page 1 of 4 twelve months beginning January 1, 2020 and ending December 31, 2020. The schedule is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment B to this Ordinance, which is incorporated herein. Section 3. Eliminating Fund 313. Fund 313 City Hall Construction Fund is hereby eliminated. Section 4. Creating Fund 108. There is hereby created Fund 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund which will be used to account for collections and expenditures of the affordable and supportive sales tax. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley 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 20-022 amending the 2020 budget Page 2 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Sources Uses Fund No. Annual Appropriation Funds Be ginning Fund Balance Revenues Total Sources Appropriations Estimated Ending Fund Balance Adopted via Ord. 19-017 Amended via Ord. 20-022 Total Revenues Adopted via Ord. 19-017 Amended via Ord. 20-022 Total Appropriations 001 General 37,427,218 48,351,800 1,146,900 49,498,700 86,925,918 44,980,186 7,082,921 52,063,107 34,862,811 101 Street O&M 556,265 5,160,906 0 5,160,906 5,717,171 5,160,906 0 5,160,906 556,265 103 Paths & Trails 14,115 9,000 0 9,000 23,115 0 0 0 23,115 104 Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities 2,690,945 M/1,000 (207,000) 237,000 2,927,945 0 0 0 2,927,945 105 Hotel/Motel Tax 518,240 656,000 (304,000) 352,000 870,240 825,000 (476,000) 349,000 521,240 106 Solid Waste 540,182 1,737,000 0 1,737,000 2,277,182 1,737,000 13,532 1,750,532 526,650 107 PEG 128,255 79,000 0 79,000 207,255 85,000 0 85,000 122,255 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax 0 0 144,750 144,750 144,750 0 0 0 144,750 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 300,000 0 0 0 300,000 0 0 0 300,000 121 Service Level Stabilization 5,500,000 0 0 0 5,500,000 0 0 0 5,500,000 122 Winter Weather Reserve 23,336 5,400 500,000 505,400 528,736 500,000 0 500,000 28,736 204 Debt Service LTGO 03 0 1,021,700 0 1,021,700 1,021,700 1,021,700 0 1,021,700 0 301 Capital Projects 2,798,194 1,035,000 0 1,035,000 3,833,194 1,991,203 603,424 2,594,627 1,238,567 302 Special Capital Projects 4,391,870 1,035,000 0 1,035,000 5,426,870 1,257,331 113,881 1,371,212 4,055,658 303 Street Capital Projects 67,402 8,315,195 2,108,900 10,424,095 10,491,497 8,315,195 2,108,900 10,424,095 67,402 309 Parks Capital Projects 78,627 1,670,000 3,122,835 4,792,835 4,871,462 1,510,000 3,266,100 4,776,100 95,362 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects 855,985 17,000 0 17,000 872,985 0 16,700 16,700 856,285 311 Pavement Preservation 4,425,201 4,037,888 13,532 4,051,420 8,476,621 4,267,523 0 4,267,523 4,209,098 312 Capital Reserve 12,936,816 100,000 216,700 316,700 13,253,516 1,550,910 3,948,996 5,499,906 7,753,610 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects 1,008,638 12,921,984 (8,384,098) 4,537,886 5,546,524 13,037,792 (8,256,816) 4,780,976 765,548 74,261,289 86,596,873 (1,641,481) 84,955,392 159,216,681 86,239,746 8,421,638 94,661,384 64,555,297 Sources Uses Revenues Appropriations Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Adopted via Amended via Total Total Adopted via Amended via Total Working No. Working Capital Funds Capital Ord. 19-017 Ord. 20-022 Revenues Sources Ord. 19-017 Ord. 20-022 Appropriations Capital 402 Stormwater Management 2,180,773 1,999,828 0 1,999,828 4,180,601 2,563,985 0 2,563,985 1,616,616 403 Aquifer Protection Area 2,118,299 829,000 97,700 926,700 3,044,999 500,000 633,571 1,133,571 1,911,428 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 1,496,093 190,600 0 190,600 1,686,693 285,000 35,000 320,000 1,366,693 502 Risk Management 276,004 410,000 0 410,000 686,004 410,000 0 410,000 276,004 6,071,169 3,429,428 97,700 3,527,128 9,598,297 3,758,985 668,571 4,427,556 5,170,741 Total of all Funds 80,332,458 90,026,301 (1,543,781) 88,482,520 168,814,978 89,998,731 9,090,209 99,088,940 69,726,038 Ordinance 20-022 amending the 2020 budget Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT B EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE Effective January 1, 2020 Position Title Grade 2020 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 22 10,063.44 - 15,966.22 City Attorney 21 9,066.16 - 14,369.72 Finance Director 21 9,066.16 - 14,369.72 Parks and Recreation Director 20 8,159.44 - 12,933.70 City Engineer 19 7,343.36 - 11,640.45 Deputy City Attorney 19 7,343.36 - 11,640.45 Human Resources Manager 19 7,343.36 - 11,640.45 Planning Manager 18 6,609.87 - 10,475.89 Building Official 18 6,609.87 - 10,475.89 Engineering Manager 18 6,609.87 - 10,475.89 Economic Development Manager 18 6,609.87 - 10,475.89 Senior Engineer 17 5,948.55 - 9,427.91 Accounting Manager 17 5,948.55 - 9,427.91 Assistant Building Official 17 5,948.55 - 9,427.91 Public Works Superintendent 17 5,948.55 - 9,427.91 Senior Administrative Analyst 17 5,948.55 - 9,427.91 IT Manager 17 5,948.55 - 9,427.91 Attorney 16 5,353.16 - 8,484.58 City Clerk 16 5,353.16 - 8,484.58 Engineer 16 5,353.16 - 8,484.58 Senior Planner 16 5,353.16 - 8,484.58 Development Services Coordinator 16 5,353.16 - 8,484.58 GIS/Database Administrator 16 5,353.16 - 8,484.58 Accountant/Budget Analyst 16 5,353.16 - 8,484.58 Housing and Homeless Services Coordinator 16 5,353.16 - 8,484.58 Associate Planner 15 4,818.50 - 7,636.64 Assistant Engineer 15 4,818.50 - 7,636.64 IT Specialist 15 4,818.50 - 7,636.64 Engineering Technician II 15 4,818.50 - 7,636.64 Economic Development Project Specialist 15 4,818.50 - 7,636.64 Senior Plans Examiner 15 4,818.50 - 7,636.64 Public Information Officer 15 4,818.50 - 7,636.64 Administrative Analyst 15 4,818.50 - 7,636.64 Human Resource Analyst 14 4,336.92 - 6,873.51 CenterPlace Coordinator 14 4,336.92 - 6,873.51 Planner 14 4,336.92 - 6,873.51 Building Inspector II 14 4,336.92 - 6,873.51 Plans Examiner 14 4,336.92 - 6,873.51 Engineering Technician I 14 4,336.92 - 6,873.51 Senior Permit Specialist 14 4,336.92 - 6,873.51 Code Enforcement Officer 14 4,336.92 - 6,873.51 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 13-14 3,902.91 - 6,873.51 Recreation Coordinator 13 3,902.91 - 6,185.92 Deputy City Clerk 13 3,902.91 - 6,185.92 Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator 13 3,902.91 - 6,185.92 Building Inspector I 13 3,902.91 - 6,185.92 Executive Assistant 13 3,902.91 - 6,185.92 Planning Technician 13 3,902.91 - 6,185.92 Human Resources Technician 13 3,902.91 - 6,185.92 Senior Center Specialist 12 3,513.90 - 5,567.19 Permit Facilitator 12 3,513.90 - 5,567.19 Help Desk Technician 12 3,513.90 - 5,567.19 Accounting Technician 12 3,513.90 - 5,567.19 Administrative Assistant 12 3,513.90 - 5,567.19 Recreation Specialist 12 3,513.90 - 5,567.19 Maintenance Worker 11-12 3,161.54 - 5,567.19 Permit Specialist 11 3,161.54 - 5,010.71 Office Assistant II 10-11 2,845.20 - 5,010.71 Custodian 10 2,845.20 - 4,508.59 Office Assistant I 9-10 2,561.00 - 4,508.59 Note: Slight rounding differences may exist betvtieen the figures reflected on this page and the actual payroll rates computed by the Eden Payroll System. Ordinance 20-022 amending the 2020 budget Page 4 of 4 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 2 2020 11 24 RCA Public Hearing #3 2021 Budg.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 24, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing #3 on 2021 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No formal Council action has been taken on the 2021 Budget. BACKGROUND: This marks the sixth occasion where the Council will discuss the 2021 Budget and by the time the Council is scheduled to adopt the 2021 Budget on December 8, 2020, Council will have had an opportunity to discuss it on eight separate occasions, including three public hearings to gather input from citizens: • August 4 Council Budget Workshop • September 8 Admin report: Estimated 2021 revenues and expenditures • September 22 Public hearing #1 on 2021 revenues and expenditures • October 13 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2021 Budget • October 27 Public hearing #2 on 2021 Budget • November 24 Public hearing #3 on 2021 Budget • November 24 First reading on ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget • December 8 Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget This evening's meeting represents the third public hearing on the 2021 Budget and the purpose of the hearing is to consider input from the public on the final 2021 budget. 2021 Budget Overview: • The 2021 Budget currently includes appropriations of $97,968,784 including $32,554,699 in capital expenditures, comprised in -part of: o $8,876,315 in Fund #303 Street Capital Projects. o $1,120,305 in Fund #309 Park Capital Projects. o $4,676,350 in Fund #311 Pavement Preservation including $991,843 financed by the General Fund. o $759,600 in Fund #312 Capital Reserve Fund. o $13,796,320 in Fund #314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects. o $2,878,109 in Stormwater Management Fund #402 and Aquifer Protection Area Fund #403 projects. • To partially offset the $32,554,699 in capital costs we anticipate $21,079,702 in grant revenues which results in 64.75% of capital expenditures being covered with State and Federal money. • Budgets will be adopted across 24 separate funds. • The full time equivalent employee (FTE) count will remain 95.25 in 2021. There is one vacant position in Economic Development being repurposed to Engineering due to workload and one vacant Engineer position that was budgeted 50/50 between Engineering and Street Capital 1 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 2 2020 11 24 RCA Public Hearing #3 2021 Budg.docx Projects being repurposed to a Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator in the City Manager department. Pertaining Specifically to the General Fund: • The 2021 recurring revenue estimate of $45,426,419 is $978,119 or 2.20% greater than the 2020 amended budget of $44,448,300. The 2021 amount is $2,855,381 or 5.91% less than the original adopted 2020 budget estimate. • The 2021 recurring expenditure proposal of $45,101,466 is $2,203,341 or 5.14% greater than the 2020 proposed amended appropriation of $42,898,125. The 2021 amount is $1,879,480 or 4.35% greater than the original adopted 2020 budget amount. • Budgeted recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $324,953 or 0.72% of recurring revenues. • Nonrecurring revenues total $25,000 for a nonrecurring grant to partially fund an update to the Shoreline Master Plan. • Nonrecurring expenditures total $2,176,300 and include: o $212,800 for Information Technology expenditures including: ■ $10,000 to replace outdated copiers ■ $159,000 for server upgrades and to replace the card access systems at CenterPlace and the Maintenance Shop ■ $43,800 for software upgrades and Laserfiche workflow o $78,900 for various Public Safety items including: ■ $37,500 for the replacement of handguns (split 50% with the County) ■ $11,400 for a radar trailer ■ $20,000 to replace the access control gate at the Precinct ■ $10,000 to replace the fire panel at the Precinct o $25,000 for an update to the Shoreline Master Plan that is funded by a grant from the Department of Ecology o $1,859,600 transfer out to the Street O&M Fund #101 to cover the deficit in recurring expenditures exceeding recurring revenues in that fund • The total of 2021 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by $1,826,347. • The projected ending fund balance for the General Fund at the end of 2021 is currently $33,036,464 or 73.25% of recurring expenditures. Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator Position: • The prospect of creating a new Housing & Homeless Services division was discussed at the Budget Workshop on August 4, 2020. During that discussion, it was determined that Council did not wish to establish a new division at this time; however, Council asked staff to research the possibility of repurposing a current vacant position for this use in order to meet immediate City needs in this area. • Staff determined that a vacant Engineer position could be repurposed for this use. The Engineer position has been budgeted 50/50 in the Engineering division and Street Capital Projects. This position will be converted to a Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator in the City Manager Department beginning in the fourth-quarter of 2020 and a full year in the current 2021 proposed budget. This will result in an increase to the City Manager's budget with a 2 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 2 2020 11 24 RCA Public Hearing #3 2021 Budg.docx corresponding reduction in the Engineering budget from what was seen on August 4t". This has not changed since the September 8th presentation to Council. Other Funds: 2021 Budget appropriations (expenditures) in the other funds total $50,691,018 as follows: Fund Number Fund Name 2021 Appropriation 101 Street Fund 103 Paths and Trails Fund 104 Hotel / Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund 106 Solid Waste Fund 107 PEG Fund 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 204 Debt Service Fund 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 312 Capital Reserve Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 402 Stormwater Management Fund 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund 502 Risk Management Fund 5,567,200 0 0 708,240 1,737,000 73,000 0 0 0 500,000 1,043,850 1,224,673 3,698,125 8,876,315 1,120, 305 0 4,726,350 2,050,524 13, 796, 320 2,626,007 2,378,109 140,000 425,000 50,691,018 Primary sources of revenues in these other funds include: • Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the Street Fund is anticipated to be $2,062,000. • Telephone Tax revenues remitted to the City that supports Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated to be $1,431,000. • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large part used to match grant financed street projects are anticipated to total $2,000,000. • Hotel / Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are anticipated to be $559,000 ($346,000 in the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund #105 and $213,000 in the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104). • Stormwater Management Fees that are estimated at $1,900,000. • Aquifer Protection Area Fees are estimated at $460,000. • Grant Revenues offsetting capital project costs are estimated at $21,079,702 o Fund #001 — General Fund - $25,000 o Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects - $6,843,308 o Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects - $480,530 o Fund #314 — RR Grade Separation Projects - $11,508,819 o Fund #402 — Stormwater Fund - $100,000 o Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund - $2,122,045 3 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 2 2020 11 24 RCA Public Hearing #3 2021 Budg.docx Funding Challenges: • The COVID-19 Pandemic continues to impact revenues and as a consequence, as we receive updated information on tax collections and revenue sources we anticipate there may be changes to revenue projections as we progress through this 2021 Budget development process. You'll note there has been a relatively material change to estimates since the August 4th Budget Workshop in one revenue source. o We've received two additional months of sales tax receipts since information was prepared for the Workshop. Overall, receipts are currently tracking with what was received at this time during 2019. However, sources at the state and national level as well as observations of the current economy make it unclear as to whether the current level of collections is sustainable or will decrease in future months. In response to new information, staff has increased sales tax estimates to reflect a 10% decrease from 2019 collections rather than the 20% that was used in the estimates at the Budget Workshop. We will continue to monitor collections and adjust accordingly. o Other revenues are tracking with estimates that were given at the Budget Workshop and have not been adjusted since that time. • Declining revenues in the Street O&M Fund #101 are impacting our ability to deliver historic levels of service. Fund #101 is dependent upon motor vehicle fuel tax revenues and telephone utility tax revenues. o Motor vehicle fuel taxes have increased slightly due to recent State legislation; however, they are generally flat or declining in recent years due to improvements in vehicle fuel mileage. o Telephone utility taxes have been declining at an average of 5.90% per year from 2009 through 2019. We believe the decline is primarily due to the elimination of land lines by individual households. The revenues from this tax reached a high of $3.1 million in 2009 (the year the tax was implemented) and is currently estimated to generate $1.4 million in 2021. • Balancing the cost of pavement preservation against other transportation and infrastructure needs. o Pavement Preservation Fund #311 is relying more heavily on REET revenues due to an elimination of the contribution from the Street Fund #101 related to declining revenues and an elimination of contributions from the Civic Facility Replacement Fund #123. The fund balance in Fund #123 was entirely depleted at the end of 2016, and the fund was closed during 2017. o Reliance on REET revenues to fund pavement preservation in Fund #311 limits the City's ability to provide match funding for State and Federal grants received for other street projects. o Railroad grade separation projects (overpasses and underpasses) are exceptionally expensive endeavors and are largely beyond the City's ability to finance through existing sources of revenue. The City has secured funding for the Barker Rd. Grade Separation project; however, funding is still needed for other grade separation projects within the City. OPTIONS: State law requires a public hearing on the final 2021 budget; and this is the third public hearing on the 2021 budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: As the purpose of the public hearing is to gather input from the public in regard to the 2021 Budget, no action is requested at this time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This public hearing is the final step leading to Council consideration of a first reading of the ordinance that will adopt the 2021 Budget. 4 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for Web1202012020, 11-2411tem 2 2020 11 24 RCA Public Hearing #3 2021 Budg.docx STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • See Agenda Item #3, which includes the draft Ordinance adopting the 2021 budget, as well as the final 2021 budget book. 5 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 3 2020 11 24 RCA 1st read Ord 20-023 adopting 2021 Budg. docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 24, 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: First Reading of Proposed Ordinance #20-023 Adopting the 2021 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: To date the Council has heard presentations on the 2020 Budget on six previous occasions including three public hearings. Thus far no formal Council action has been taken. BACKGROUND: This marks the seventh occasion where the Council will discuss the 2021 Budget and by the time the Council is scheduled to adopt the 2021 Budget on December 8, 2020, Council will have had an opportunity to discuss it on eight separate occasions, including three public hearings to gather input from citizens: • August 4 Council Budget Workshop • September 8 Admin report: Estimated 2021 revenues and expenditures • September 22 Public hearing #1 on 2021 revenues and expenditures • October 13 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2021 Budget • October 27 Public hearing #2 on 2021 Budget • November 24 Public hearing #3 on 2021 Budget • November 24 First reading on ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget • December 8 Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget 2021 Budget Overview: • The 2021 Budget currently includes appropriations of $97,968,784 including $32,554,699 in capital expenditures, comprised in -part of: o $8,876,315 in Fund #303 Street Capital Projects. o $1,120,305 in Fund #309 Park Capital Projects. o $4,676,350 in Fund #311 Pavement Preservation including $991,843 financed by the General Fund. o $759,600 in Fund #312 Capital Reserve Fund. o $13,796,320 in Fund #314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects. o $2,878,109 in Stormwater Management Fund #402 and Aquifer Protection Area Fund #403 projects. • To partially offset the $32,554,699 in capital costs we anticipate $21,079,702 in grant revenues which results in 64.75% of capital expenditures being covered with State and Federal money. • Budgets will be adopted across 24 separate funds. • The full time equivalent employee (FTE) count will remain 95.25 in 2021. There is one vacant position in Economic Development being repurposed to Engineering due to workload and one vacant Engineer position that was budgeted 50/50 between Engineering and Street Capital Projects being repurposed to a Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator in the City Manager department. 1 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 3 2020 11 24 RCA 1st read Ord 20-023 adopting 2021 Budg. docx Pertaining Specifically to the General Fund: • The 2021 recurring revenue estimate of $45,426,419 is $978,119 or 2.20% greater than the 2020 amended budget of $44,448,300. The 2021 amount is $2,855,381 or 5.91% less than the original adopted 2020 budget estimate. • The 2021 recurring expenditure proposal of $45,101,466 is $2,203,341 or 5.14% greater than the 2020 proposed amended appropriation of $42,898,125. The 2021 amount is $1,879,480 or 4.35% greater than the original adopted 2020 budget amount. • Budgeted recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $324,953 or 0.72% of recurring revenues. • Nonrecurring revenues total $25,000 for a nonrecurring grant to partially fund an update to the Shoreline Master Plan. • Nonrecurring expenditures total $2,176,300 and include: o $212,800 for Information Technology expenditures including ■ $10,000 to replace outdated copiers ■ $159,000 for server upgrades and to replace the card access systems at CenterPlace and the Maintenance Shop ■ $43,800 for software upgrades and Laserfiche workflow o $78,900 for various Public Safety items including: ■ $37,500 for the replacement of handguns (split 50% with the County) ■ $11,400 for a radar trailer ■ $20,000 to replace the access control gate at the Precinct ■ $10,000 to replace the fire panel at the Precinct o $25,000 for an update to the Shoreline Master Plan that is funded by a grant from the Department of Ecology o $1,859,600 transfer out to the Street O&M Fund #101 to cover the deficit in recurring expenditures exceeding recurring revenues in that fund • The total of 2021 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by $1,826,347. • The projected ending fund balance for the General Fund at the end of 2021 is currently $33,036,464 or 73.25% of recurring expenditures. Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator Position: • The prospect of creating a new Housing & Homeless Services division was discussed at the Budget Workshop on August 4, 2020. During that discussion, it was determined that Council did not wish to establish a new division at this time; however, Council asked staff to research the possibility of repurposing a current vacant position for this use in order to meet immediate City needs in this area. • Staff determined that a vacant Engineer position could be repurposed for this use. The Engineer position has been budgeted 50/50 in the Engineering division and Street Capital Projects. This position will be converted to a Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator in the City Manager Department beginning in the fourth-quarter of 2020 and a full year in the current 2021 proposed budget. This will result in an increase to the City Manager's budget with a corresponding reduction in the Engineering budget from what was seen on August 4tn This has not changed since the September 8th presentation to Council. 2 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 3 2020 11 24 RCA 1st read Ord 20-023 adopting 2021 Budg. docx Other Funds: 2021 Budget appropriations (expenditures) in the other funds total $50,691,018 as follows: Fund Number Fund Name 2021 Appropriation 101 Street Fund 103 Paths and Trails Fund 104 Hotel / Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund 106 Solid Waste Fund 107 PEG Fund 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 204 Debt Service Fund 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 312 Capital Reserve Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 402 Stormwater Management Fund 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund 502 Risk Management Fund 5,567,200 0 0 708,240 1,737,000 73,000 0 0 0 500,000 1,043,850 1,224,673 3,698,125 8,876,315 1,120, 305 0 4,726,350 2,050,524 13, 796, 320 2,626,007 2,378,109 140,000 425,000 50,691,018 Primary sources of revenues in these other funds include: • Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the Street Fund is anticipated to be $2,062,000. • Telephone Tax revenues remitted to the City that supports Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated to be $1,431,000. • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large part used to match grant financed street projects are anticipated to total $2,000,000. • Hotel / Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are anticipated to be $559,000 ($346,000 in the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund #105 and $213,000 in the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104). • Stormwater Management Fees that are estimated at $1,900,000. • Aquifer Protection Area Fees are estimated at $460,000. • Grant Revenues offsetting capital project costs are estimated at $21,079,702 o Fund #001 — General Fund - $25,000 o Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects - $6,843,308 o Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects - $480,530 o Fund #314 — RR Grade Separation Projects - $11,508,819 o Fund #402 — Stormwater Fund - $100,000 o Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund - $2,122,045 3 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for Web1202012020, 11-2411tem 3 2020 11 24 RCA 1st read Ord 20-023 adopting 2021 Budg. docx The City's 2021 Budget is adopted at a fund level as follows: Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Fund Total Fund Annual Appropriation Funds No. Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance General Fund Street Fund Paths & Trails Fund Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Solid Waste PEG Fund Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Ta CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund Service Level Stabilization Fund Winter Weather Reserve Fund LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund REET 1 Capital Projects Fund REET 2 Capital Projects Fund Street Capital Projects Park Capital Projects Fund Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund Pavement Preservation Fund Capital Reserve Fund Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 001 101 103 104 105 106 107 108 120 121 122 204 301 302 303 309 310 311 312 314 34, 862, 811 556,265 23,115 2,927,945 521,240 526,650 122,255 144,750 300,000 5,500,000 528,736 0 1,238, 567 4,055,658 67,402 95,362 856,285 4,209,098 7,753,610 765,548 45,451,419 5,567,200 8,900 690,840 352,000 1,737,000 79,000 193,000 0 0 1,900 1,043,850 1,025,000 1,025,000 8,876,315 1,205, 680 3,100 4,146,400 100,000 13, 361, 980 80,314,230 6,123,465 32,015 3,618,785 873,240 2,263,650 201,255 337,750 300,000 5,500,000 530,636 1,043,850 2,263,567 5,080,658 8,943,717 1,301,042 859,385 8,355,498 7,853,610 14,127, 528 47,277,766 5,567,200 0 0 708,240 1,737,000 73,000 0 0 0 500,000 1,043,850 1,224, 673 3,698,125 8,876,315 1,120, 305 0 4,726,350 2,050,524 13, 796, 320 33,036,464 556,265 32,015 3,618,785 165,000 526,650 128,255 337,750 300,000 5,500,000 30,636 0 1,038,894 1,382,533 67,402 180,737 859,385 3,629,148 5,803,086 331,208 65, 055, 297 84, 868, 584 149, 923, 881 92, 399, 668 57,524,213 Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Total Working Working Capital Funds No. Capital Revenues Sources Appropriations Capital Stormwater Management Fund Aquifer Protection Area Fund Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Risk Management Fund Total of all Funds 402 403 501 502 1,616,616 1,911,428 1,366,693 276,004 2,040,000 2,597,045 155,400 425,000 3,656,616 4,508,473 1,522,093 701,004 2,626,007 2,378,109 140,000 425,000 1,030,609 2,130, 364 1,382,093 276,004 5,170, 741 70,226,038 5,217,445 90, 086, 029 10, 388,186 160, 312, 067 5,569,116 97, 968, 784 4,819,070 62,343,283 OPTIONS: State law requires the City to adopt a budget prior to December 31. adopt the budget as presented or alter it as they deem necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance #20-023 2021 Budget to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Adoption of Ordinance #20-023 concludes the development process and establishes the final budget including estimated r appropriations. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Draft Ordinance #20-023 • 2021 Budget Book Council may adopting the 2021 Budget evenues and 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 20-023 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2021 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2021; APPROPRIATING FUNDS; ESTABLISHING SALARY SCHEDULES FOR ESTABLISHED POSITIONS; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, State law requires the City Manager to prepare a preliminary budget for the City of Spokane Valley at least 60 days before the beginning of the City fiscal year beginning January 1, 2021 and ending December 31, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City Manager, in consultation with the Finance Director and department heads, has prepared and placed on file with the City Clerk a preliminary budget, together with an estimate of the amount of money necessary to meet the expenses of the City including payment of outstanding obligations; and WHEREAS, notice was posted and published for public hearings held on September 22, October 27, and November 24, 2020. The City Council met and invited public comment in the City Council Chambers during each public hearing; and WHEREAS, proper notice was given and the preliminary budget was filed with the City Clerk October 13, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the 2021 budget, including all allowances, and an appropriation for each fund; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley property tax levy in 2020 for collection in 2021, will be $12,724,200, which represents a 0% increase in the 2021 levy. This levy is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new construction, improvements to property, any increase in the value of State assessed property, any annexations that have occurred, and refunds made. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Adoption of 2021 Budget. The budget for the City of Spokane Valley for the year 2021 is adopted at the fund level. The final budget for 2021 is attached hereto, and by this reference is incorporated herein pursuant to RCW 35A.33.075. For summary purposes, the total estimated appropriations for each separate fund, plus the aggregate total for all such funds, is set forth as follows: Ordinance 20-023 Adopting 2021 Budget Page 1 of 3 Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Fund Total Fund Annual Appropriation Funds No. Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance General Fund 001 Street Fund 101 Paths & Trails Fund 103 Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 104 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 105 Solid Waste 106 PEG Fund 107 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Ta 108 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 120 Service Level Stabilization Fund 121 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 122 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 204 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 301 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 302 Street Capital Projects 303 Park Capital Projects Fund 309 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 310 Pavement Preservation Fund 311 Capital Reserve Fund 312 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 314 34,862,811 556,265 23,115 2,927,945 521,240 526,650 122,255 144,750 300,000 5,500,000 528,736 0 1,238, 567 4,055,658 67,402 95,362 856,285 4,209,098 7,753,610 765,548 45,451,419 5,567,200 8,900 690,840 352,000 1,737,000 79,000 193,000 0 0 1,900 1,043,850 1,025,000 1,025, 000 8,876,315 1,205,680 3,100 4,146,400 100,000 13, 361, 980 80,314,230 6,123,465 32,015 3,618,785 873,240 2,263,650 201,255 337,750 300,000 5,500,000 530,636 1,043,850 2,263,567 5,080,658 8,943,717 1,301,042 859,385 8,355,498 7,853,610 14,127, 528 47,277,766 5,567,200 0 0 708,240 1,737,000 73,000 0 0 0 500,000 1,043,850 1,224,673 3,698,125 8,876,315 1,120, 305 0 4,726,350 2,050,524 13, 796, 320 33,036,464 556,265 32,015 3,618,785 165,000 526,650 128,255 337,750 300,000 5,500,000 30,636 0 1,038, 894 1,382,533 67,402 180,737 859,385 3,629,148 5,803,086 331,208 65, 055, 297 84, 868, 584 149, 923, 881 92, 399, 668 57, 524, 213 Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Total Working Working Capital Funds No. Capital Revenues Sources Appropriations Capital Stormwater Management Fund 402 1,616,616 2,040,000 3,656,616 2,626,007 1,030,609 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 403 1,911,428 2,597,045 4,508,473 2,378,109 2,130,364 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 501 1,366,693 155,400 1,522,093 140,000 1,382,093 Risk Management Fund 502 276,004 425,000 701,004 425,000 276,004 Total of all Funds 5,170, 741 70,226,038 5,217,445 90, 086, 029 10, 388,186 160, 312, 067 5,569,116 97, 968, 784 4,819,070 62,343,283 The total balance of all funds appropriated for 2021 is $97,968,784. Section 2. Transmittal of Budget. A complete copy of the budget as adopted, together with a copy of this Ordinance, shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal Corporations in the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. Ordinance 20-023 Adopting 2021 Budget Page 2 of 3 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 20-023 Adopting 2021 Budget Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action November 24, 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: Proposed Emergency Ordinance No. 20-028 adopting a moratorium on new planned residential development (PRD) applications GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.63.220; 36.70A.390; RCW 36.70A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On November 17, 2020, during advance agenda, City Council agreed to have staff review the applicability of chapter 19.50 SVMC (PRDs). BACKGROUND: In 2016, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Legislative Update (Legislative Update). The City significantly increased flexibility in development options within the City by allowing for more diverse permitted types of development within each zoning district with fewer design and development restrictions while still maintaining the same protections for existing neighborhoods and uses by incorporating transitional standards and rezoning many areas of the City. As part of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments, the City adopted policies H-P5 ("Enable a variety of housing types at increased densities within 1/2 mile of funded high performance transit networks) and H-P6 ("Preserve and enhance the City's established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage development")to further expand alternative housing types from established single-family neighborhoods to areas closer to established services necessary to support those housing types. To implement the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments, the City adopted a new single-family zoning district identified as "R-4 Zoning" to allow for additional density, development flexibility, and more alternative housing types, including duplexes, townhouses, and cottages, within such zone, and amended the Zoning Map to provide for the locations for the new R-4 zone. The City amended allowable uses within the existing "R-3" single-family zoning district to encourage further density growth in the R-4 zone where transit and services are readily accessible. Recently, the City has received and processed applications for planned residential developments (PRDs) for multi -family and other incompatible uses within single-family zoning districts. The City has received citizen complaints that such uses are inconsistent and incompatible with surrounding existing uses and are contrary to the intended purpose of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Legislative Update, 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments, and implementing development regulations. Based on such citizen comments, on November 17, 2020, City Council agreed to have staff review chapter 19.50 SVMC which governs PRDs and to determine its value, applicability, and need for such provisions given the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Legislative Update, 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments, implementing development regulations, and the types of residential uses allowed by such Plan and regulations. While such review is occurring, applicants may still submit applications for PRDs that may be inconsistent and incompatible with surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods and with the Comprehensive Plan and recently adopted alternative housing regulations. Accordingly, staff believes that a moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any new PRD application is appropriate while the City reviews the applicability of chapter 19.50 SVMC and City Council adopts any modifications, repeal, or other changes to the municipal code regarding PRDs. RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220 authorize the City to adopt a moratorium on PRD applications without conducting a public hearing and without utilizing the City's standard approval process through the Planning Commission and multiple readings by City Council. A moratorium preserves the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. After adoption of the moratorium, the City Council must conduct a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days and adopt findings of fact for the moratorium. Additionally, the proposed moratorium includes a work plan and can be effective for up to 365 days from the date of adoption. After adoption of the moratorium, the City will work through the work plan and develop policy and final regulations through its standard process. A moratorium may be extended if the City conducts a public hearing on the ongoing work plan and extension of the moratorium and adopts findings of facts for the extension. Pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, proposed Ordinance No. 20-028 provides for a declaration of emergency and a moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification, or approval of any new PRD applications or licenses. The moratorium applies upon the effective date so it would not impact existing PRD applications or prior approved PRDs. Further, proposed Ordinance No. 20-028 if adopted by Council, sets a public hearing for Tuesday, January 5, 2021, establishes a work plan to review the applicability of chapter 19.50 SVMC and to adopt such modifications or repeal as are determined to be appropriate, adopts preliminary findings of fact, and establishes an effective period of up to 365 days for the moratorium. Finally, proposed Ordinance No. 20-028 is designated as a public emergency and would be effective upon adoption. Staff have already begun review of chapter 19.50 SVMC and will continue to do so. OPTIONS: Move to approve the Ordinance, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance No. 20-028, declaring an Emergency and adopting an immediate moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing, modification, or approval of any permits or licenses for planned residential developments under chapter 19.50 SVMC. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; John Hohman, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 20-028. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 20-028 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM ON SUBMISSION, ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING, MODIFICATION, AND APPROVAL OF PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS, ESTABLISHING A WORK PLAN, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION OF A MORATORIUM, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, in 2016, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Legislative Update ("Legislative Update") and implementing regulations. The City significantly increased flexibility in development options within the City by allowing for more diverse permitted types of development within each zoning district with fewer design and development restrictions while still maintaining the same protections for existing neighborhoods and uses by incorporating transitional standards and rezoning many areas of the City. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan includes specific goals and policies to support such actions, including, but not limited to LU-G1 ("Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley"), LU-P7 ("Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors"), and LU-P16 ("Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial uses"); and WHEREAS, as part of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments, the City adopted policies H-P5 ("Enable a variety of housing types at increased densities within'/2 mile of funded high performance transit networks) and H-P6 ("Preserve and enhance the City's established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage development") to further expand alternative housing types from established single-family neighborhoods to areas closer to established services necessary to support those housing types; and WHEREAS, to implement the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments, the City adopted a new single-family zoning district identified as "R-4 Zoning" to allow for additional density, development flexibility, and more alternative housing types, including duplexes, townhouses, and cottages, within such zone, and amended the Zoning Map to provide for the locations for the new R-4 zone. The City amended allowable uses within the existing "R-3" single-family zoning district to encourage further density growth in the R-4 zone where transit and services are readily accessible; and WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted its "Planned Residential Development" ("PRD") regulations set forth in chapter 19.50 SVMC. Pursuant to SVMC 19.50.010, the PRD regulations were intended to "[e]ncourage imaginative design and the creation of permanent open space by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is generally permitted by other sections of the SVMC; [p]reserve or create environmental amenities superior to those generally found in conventional developments; [c]reate or preserve usable open space for the enjoyment of the residents; [p]reserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural characteristics of the land including, but not limited to, topography, natural vegetation, waterways, and view; [e]ncourage development of a variety of housing types; and [p]rovide for maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public improvements and infrastructure"; and WHEREAS, the City has received and processed applications for PRDs for multi -family and other incompatible uses within single-family zoning districts. The City has received citizen complaints that such uses are inconsistent and incompatible with surrounding existing uses and are contrary to the intended purpose of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Legislative Update (including, but not limited to LU-G1, LU-P7, LU-P16), 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments (H-P5 and H-P6), and implementing development regulations; and Ordinance 20-028 Page 1 of 5 DRAFT WHEREAS, the City Council has requested staff conduct a review of chapter 19.50 SVMC to determine its value, applicability, and need for such provisions given the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Legislative Update (including, but not limited to LU-G1, LU-P7, LU-P16), 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments (H-P5 and H-P6), implementing development regulations, and the residential uses allowed pursuant to such Plan and regulations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 provides that "A legislative body that adopts a moratorium or interim zoning ordinance without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium or interim zoning ordinance, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium or interim zoning ordinance within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the legislative body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning agency. If the legislative body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the legislative body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium or interim zoning ordinance adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period. A moratorium of [or] interim zoning ordinance may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal." RCW 36.70A.390 provides substantially similar language and authority for agencies planning under the GMA, including the City, to adopt moratoria; and WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be thwarted or rendered moot by intervening development; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2020, the City Council requested that City staff review of chapter 19.50 SVMC to determine its ongoing applicability given the variety of development types and options available as a result of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Legislative Update, 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments, and implementing development regulations. City staff have begun review of chapter 19.50 SVMC; and WHEREAS, the City is currently accepting and processing new PRD permit applications. Once a PRD permit application is submitted, it may be vested to be reviewed and considered for approval under the regulations in effect at the time the fully complete application was submitted. Thus, review and processing of new PRD permit applications during the ongoing review of chapter 19.50 SVMC could result in more inconsistent and incompatible development within single-family residential zones and would defeat the intended purposes for reviewing the applicability of chapter 19.50 SVMC; and WHEREAS, additional time is necessary to allow the City to continue the development and completion of the review of chapter 19.50 SVMC; and Ordinance 20-028 Page 2 of 5 DRAFT WHEREAS, new proposals for PRDs that may be submitted pending the completion of the review of chapter 19.50 SVMC pose an imminent threat to public health and safety because they can permanently alter the built environment and create inconsistent and incompatible land uses within existing single-family residential zones, thereby thwarting the intended residential planning set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan (including but not limited to LU-G1, LU-P7, LU-P16, H-P5 and H-P6) and implementing development regulations; and WHEREAS, a moratorium on the acceptance and processing of new PRD permit applications while chapter 19.50 SVMC is being reviewed and revised will maintain the status quo by prohibiting new PRD applications from being accepted, vested, and processed while such review is ongoing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the emergency immediate moratorium imposed and established by this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public peace. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Preliminary Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 2. Moratorium Established. A. The City Council hereby declares an emergency and imposes an immediate moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any non-exempt permit applications or licenses by or for planned residential developments under or pursuant to chapter 19.50 SVMC and as identified as a Type III "planned residential development permit" in Table 17.80-1. For purposes of this moratorium, "non-exempt permit applications or licenses" shall mean (i) any planned residential development application or license submitted after the effective date of this Ordinance, and (ii) any planned residential permit application or license that was submitted but not determined fully complete under SVMC 17.80.100 by City staff on or before the effective date of this Ordinance. This moratorium is adopted pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. B. Except as otherwise provided herein, this moratorium shall not affect the acceptance, processing, or approval of any exempt planned residential development permit applications or licenses under or pursuant to chapter 19.50 SVMC and as identified as a Type III "planned residential development permit" in Table 17.80-1. For purposes of this moratorium, "exempt permit applications or licenses" shall mean any planned residential development application or license submitted and determined to be fully complete under SVMC 17.80.100 by City staff on or before the effective date of this Ordinance and which may be subject to vested rights as provided under Washington law. C. This moratorium shall not affect any planned residential development permit or license approved and issued for a planned residential development prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. D. All non-exempt planned residential development permit applications or licenses shall be rejected and returned to applicant pursuant to this moratorium. With regard to the City's acceptance of any exempt planned residential development permit application or license, such acceptance shall only allow processing to proceed, but shall not constitute an assurance that the application will be approved. Section 3. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted to address the issues involving the City's consideration and regulation of planned residential developments and chapter 19.50 SVMC: A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") is hereby authorized and directed to hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider Ordinance 20-028 Page 3 of 5 DRAFT statements, testimony, positions, and other documentation or evidence related to the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of planned residential developments and the applicability of chapter 19.50 SVMC under the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Planning Commission shall consider the applicability of chapter 19.50 SVMC under the City's Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations and shall develop proposals for planned residential developments and modifications or repeal of chapter 19.50 SVMC and other applicable regulations to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. B. Upon receipt of a recommendation from Planning Commission, City Council shall consider the Planning Commission recommendation and adopt such modifications or repeal of chapter 19.50 SVMC and other applicable regulations for planned residential developments as it determines to be necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare and considering the applicability of chapter 19.50 SVMC under the Comprehensive Plan. Section 4. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and 36.70A.390, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on this moratorium on January 5, 2021 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to hear and consider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such public hearing regarding the moratorium set forth in this Ordinance. The hearing will take place at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall in City Council Chambers, if allowed by law, or if in -person meetings are still prohibited due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, via ZOOM meeting, and will be hosted by the City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague, Spokane Valley, 99206 Immediately after conducting the public hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject to this moratorium and either justify its continued imposition, cancel the moratorium, or modify the moratorium as determined necessary. Section 5. Duration. The moratorium set forth in this Ordinance shall be in effect as of the date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect for a period of 365 days from the date of this Ordinance, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 7. 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 8. Declaration of Emergency; Effective Date. The City Council hereby declares this Ordinance is designated as a public emergency necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare to prohibit development that may be incompatible and inconsistent with established single-family residential neighborhoods in a manner that thwarts the intended purpose to review chapter 19.50 SVMC and the modifications or repeal of chapter 19.50 SVMC that may eventually be adopted by the City Council. This moratorium must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to prevent the submission of a flood of applications to the City in an attempt to vest development rights for an indefinite period of time while review of chapter 19.50 SVMC occurs. This Ordinance does not affect existing vested rights, nor will it prohibit development within the City since all other allowable uses in residential zones are not affected by this moratorium. Based on the reasons and declaration of emergency stated herein, this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council. Ordinance 20-028 Page 4 of 5 DRAFT Passed by the City Council this 24th day of November, 2020. Ben Wick, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Date of Publication: Office of the City Attorney Effective Date: November 24, 2020 Ordinance 20-028 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 24, 2020 Check all that apply: ® consent old business AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: Department Director Approval: new business public hearing VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS 11/05/2020 7325, 7327, 7331, 7333, 7339, 7340, 7343, 7344, 7346, 7352, 7353 1 1 /09/2020 52127-52175 1 1 / 10/2020 1 1 / 12/2020 11/16/2020 11/16/2020 1 1 / 17/2020 52176-52186 52187-52205 52228-52263 8833-8834 52264-52270 GRAND TOTAL: TOTAL AMOUNT $381,900.03 $286,858.45 $627,599.52 $231,200.14 $182,836.77 $996.50 $3,423.95 $1,714,815.36 #001 - General Fund 001.01 1.000.51 1. 001.013.000.513. 001.013.015.515. 001.016.000. 001.018.013.513. 001.018.014.514. 001.018.016.518. 001.040.041. 001.040.042. 001.040.043. 001.076.000.576. 001.076.300.576. 001.076.301.571. 001.076.302.576. 001.076.304.575. 001.076.305.571. 001.090.000.511. 001.090.000.514. 001.090.000.517. 001.090.000.518. 001.090.000.519. 001.090.000.540. 001.090.000.550. 001.090.000.595. City Council City Manager Legal Public Safety Deputy City Manager Finance Human Resources Engineering Economic Development Building Parks & Rec—Administration Parks & Rec-Maintenance Parks & Rec-Recreation Parks & Rec- Aquatics Parks & Rec- Senior Center Parks & Rec-CenterPlace General Gov't- Council related General Gov't -Finance related General Gov't -Employee supply General Gov't- Centralized Serv. General Gov't -Other Services General Gov't -Transportation General Gov't -Natural & Eco. General Gov't -Pavement Preser. Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594 General Gov't -Capital Outlay Other Funds: 101 — Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 120 — CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 204 — Debt Service 301 — REET 1 Capital Projects 302 — REET 2 Capital Projects 303 — Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg. Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist 11/05/2020 4:00:39PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 7325 11/5/2020 000120 AWC 7327 11/5/2020 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 7331 11/5/2020 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES 7333 11/5/2020 007657 WA STATE SUPPORT REGISTRY Ben96124 Ben96126 Ben96128 Ben96130 7339 11/5/2020 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben96132 7340 11/5/2020 000682 EFTPS Ben96134 7343 11/5/2020 007303 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 RO Ben96136 7344 11/5/2020 000145 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFERAGENTS, 457 PLJ Ben96138 7346 11/5/2020 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC PI Ben96140 7352 11/5/2020 000120 AWC 7353 11/5/2020 000682 EFTPS 11 Vouchers for bank code : 11 Vouchers in this report apbank Ben96143 Ben96145 106.231.16.00 001.231.15.00 001.231.21.00 101.231.20.00 001.231.14.00 311.231.12.00 001.231.23.00 101.231.18.00 001.231.14.00 001.231.16.00 001.231.11.00 Description/Account Amount DENTAL PLAN: PAYMENT PERS: PAYMENT UNION DUES: PAYMENT Total: Total : Total: DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT: PAYMEI Total: 401A: PAYMENT FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 457 ROTH OPTION: PAYMENT Total : Total: Total: 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI Total : 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT Total : DENTAL PLAN (COUNCIL): PAYMENT Total : FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 145,909.41 145,909.41 129,942.82 129,942.82 2,768.57 2,768.57 458.00 458.00 36,702.22 36,702.22 39,444.97 39,444.97 1,974.45 1,974.45 10,607.42 10,607.42 703.31 703.31 11,307.10 11,307.10 2,081.76 2,081.76 381,900.03 381,900.03 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 11/09/2020 10:35:32AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52127 11/9/2020 007867 WIDENER &ASSOCIATES 066 314.000.223.595 0223-ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 7,467.00 Total : 7,467.00 52128 11/9/2020 000444 ARCTIC LIGHTING & ELECTRIC 754 001.033.000.518 MONITOR POWER ON UPS UNIT IN TV 2,817.00 Total : 2,817.00 52129 11/9/2020 007965 ARGUS JANITORIAL INV08386 001.033.000.518 JANITORIAL SVCS: CITY HALL, PRECII` 9,714.84 Total : 9,714.84 52130 11/9/2020 004854 CAMTEK INC 50695 001.016.000.521 MOVE CARD READER - SALLY PORT T 3,219.36 Total : 3,219.36 52131 11/9/2020 000869 EVCO SOUND & ELECTRONICS 16216 001.033.000.518 PROXIMITY CARDS: CITY HALL 506.50 Total : 506.50 52132 11/9/2020 007825 HERC RENTALS 31739428-001 001.033.099.518 EQUIPMENT RENTAL: CONSULTANT Fc 1,458.07 Total : 1,458.07 52133 11/9/2020 001944 LANCER LTD 0478494 001.018.014.514 BUSINESS CARDS 41.38 Total : 41.38 52134 11/9/2020 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 0U44093 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES: PRECINCT 265.25 Total : 265.25 52135 11/9/2020 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 577997943 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 131.20 577997950 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 232.66 Total : 363.86 52136 11/9/2020 007231 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 5669954 001.033.000.518 PEST MGMT SERVICES AT CITY HALL 161.17 Total: 161.17 52137 11/9/2020 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 125963 001.040.042.558 MEMBERSHIP DUES/ECONOMIC DEV I 4,494.11 Total : 4,494.11 52138 11/9/2020 006328 KREM-TV Covid Tourism 001.090.099.518 ADVERTISING: COVID TOURISM 35,500.00 Total : 35,500.00 Page: �1� vchlist 11/09/2020 10:35:32AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 52139 11/9/2020 007707 MOUNTAIN DOG SIGN COMPANY 52140 11/9/2020 000093 SPOKESMAN -REVIEW, THE 52141 11/9/2020 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES 52142 11/9/2020 007718 APPLETREE 52143 11/9/2020 005046 FASTSIGNS 52144 11/9/2020 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO 52145 11/9/2020 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 52146 11/9/2020 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 52147 11/9/2020 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 52148 11/9/2020 000854 SPW LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 52149 11/9/2020 000683 DAVID EVANS &ASSOCIATES 52150 11/9/2020 000980 WESTERN SYSTEMS INC INV-5075 50869102020 362135 000018-865-421 INV-1091 1009769 131726041001 131731041001 0W74216 10333668 1976.03 476153 0000044374 0000044481 0000044583 001.090.099.518 001.090.099.518 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001,076,305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.076.000.576 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.594 101.042.000.594 101.042.000.594 Description/Account Amount COUNTER SHIELDS: COVID 190.58 Total : 190.58 ADVERTISING: COVID Total: PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARKS Total: ANSWERING SERVICE FOR CENTERP Total : SIGNAGE FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES: PARKS Total: Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE Total: SUPPLIES Total : CONTRACT MAINTENANCE PARKS: O( Total: VALLEY MISSION HORSE ARENA MAS- Total: TRAFFIC SERVICES 9/13/2020-10/10/2C Total: 8TH/DISHMAN-WIRE/EQUIP REPLACE, 8TH/DISHMAN-WIRE/EQUIP REPLACE, 8TH/DISHMAN-WIRE/EQUIP REPLACE, 215.79 215.79 289.00 289.00 39.44 39.44 320.17 320.17 268.98 268.98 46.27 65.00 111.27 67.95 67.95 63,630.03 63,630.03 4,803.75 4,803.75 10,436.40 10,436.40 3,900.97 8,972.81 -270.98 Page: vchlist 11 /09/2020 10:35:32AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 52150 11/9/2020 000980 000980 WESTERN SYSTEMS INC 52151 11/9/2020 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 52152 11/9/2020 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 52153 11/9/2020 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 52154 11/9/2020 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 52155 11/9/2020 007114 CARDINAL INFRASTRUCTURE LLC 52156 11/9/2020 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 52157 11/9/2020 006852 ULINE INC 52158 11/9/2020 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 52159 11/9/2020 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 52160 11/9/2020 002607 HUB SPORTS CENTER (Continued) RE-313-ATB01013051 RE-313-ATB01013058 131665304001 132430384001 133538305001 133918974001 133919587001 583187 51346 1832 Oct 2020 1042 125631940 68408709 Oct 2020 Oct 2020 Oct 2020 #3 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 106.000.000.537 106.000.000.537 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 001.033.000.518 402.402.000.531 001.076.305.575 105.000.000.557 Description/Account Amount Total : 12,602.80 REIMBURSE TRAFFIC SVCS REIMBURSE ROADWAY MAINTENANCI Total: SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT: CF OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING/DE\ OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING/DE\ OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING/DE\ OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING/DE\ Total: ADVERTISING: SOLID WASTE ADVERTISING: SOLID WASTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : Total: GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SERVICES Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: EXECUTIVE Total: OCTOBER 2020 FLEET FUEL BILL Total : UTILITIES: CPW OCT 2020 UTILITIES: OCT 2020 PARKS AND CP Total : 5,763.08 2,270.20 8,033.28 130.67 74.04 33.50 16.32 25.11 279.64 23.25 23.25 52.80 52.80 6,500.00 6,500.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 51.38 51.38 1,275.91 1,275.91 530.04 951.42 1,481.46 2020 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMBUR8 6,707.20 Total : 6,707.20 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 11/09/2020 10:35:32AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52161 11/9/2020 000070 INLAND POWER & LIGHT CO Oct 2020 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PARKS AND CPW OCTOBEF 454.51 Total: 454.51 52162 11/9/2020 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO Oct 2020 001.016.016.521 UTILITIES: OCTOBER 2020 PARKS 2,333.87 October 2020 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: OCT 2020 CPW 12,652.23 Sept 2020 001.016.016.521 UTILITIES: SEPT 2020 PARKS 5,708.49 September 2020 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: SEPT 2020 CPW 12,284.71 Total : 32,979.30 52163 11/9/2020 004535 SHRED -IT USA LLC 8180781504 001.090.000.518 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION 171.00 Total: 171.00 52164 11/9/2020 000391 SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DIST. #1 Q3-2020 FIRE FEES 001.229.45.00 Q3-2020 FIRE FEES 31,229.00 Total : 31,229.00 52165 11/9/2020 000405 SPOKANE VALLEY PARTNERS 20-151.01 #01-3 001.090.099.518 CARES ACT 2020 GRANT 24,004.14 Total : 24,004.14 52166 11/9/2020 000197 ACRANET 15366 001.018.016.518 EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND CHECKS 111.00 Total: 111.00 52167 11/9/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 13V9-1RGF-FPLR 001.090.099.518 COVID EXPENSE: THERMOMETER 213.34 Total : 213.34 52168 11/9/2020 004850 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, HRA PLAN 10293542 001.018.016.518 FLEX SPENDING ADMINISTRATION 392.00 10306336 001.018.016.518 FLEX SPENDING ADMINISTRATION 392.00 Total : 784.00 52169 11/9/2020 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 117670 001.018.016.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 835.00 Total: 835.00 52170 11/9/2020 007678 RANDALL DANSKIN PS 51007 001.033.099.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,276.00 Total : 1,276.00 52171 11/9/2020 005050 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC 99992010 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6.93 Total: 6.93 52172 11/9/2020 004740 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 843270030 001.013.015.515 SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES 838.41 Page: vchlist 11 /09/2020 10:35:32AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 5 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 52172 11/9/2020 004740 004740 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 52173 11/9/2020 000962 WSBA 52174 11/9/2020 003238 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 52175 11/9/2020 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 49 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 49 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date (Continued) 2021-24087 2021-40557 2021-47353 346755 10333612 Fund/Dept 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 403.000.308.589 402.402.000.531 Description/Account Amount Total : LICENSE DUES FOR CARY DRISKELL d LICENSE DUES FOR ERIK LAMB #4055 LICENSE DUES FOR CAITLIN PRUNTY Total : 0308-ENGINEERING &ARCHITECTURE Total: 895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Total: Bank total : Total vouchers : 838.41 468.00 508.00 468.00 1,444.00 206.98 206.98 3,915.22 3,915.22 286,858.45 286,858.45 Page: vchlist Voucher List 11/10/2020 9:24:33AM Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52176 11/10/2020 000234 ARLT, SHANE EXPENSES 101.000.000.542 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 33.00 Total: 33.00 52177 11/10/2020 001545 BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC 20568 309.000.268.595 0268-LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE - R 6,023.75 Total : 6,023.75 52178 11/10/2020 003624 DEHN, SHELLY EXPENSES 001.018.016.518 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 39.17 Total : 39.17 52179 11/10/2020 000278 DRISKELL, CARY EXPENSES 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 3.00 Total : 3.00 52180 11/10/2020 007940 DW EXCAVATING INC PAYAPP 3 303.000.275.595 DW EXCAVATING BARKER ROAD PRO, 251,215.60 Total: 251,215.60 52181 11/10/2020 007133 PRUNTY, CAITLIN EXPENSES 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 53.73 Total : 53.73 52182 11/10/2020 007878 SIGNATURE ROOFING PAYAPP 4 309.000.305.594 0305-CONSTRUCTION 42,781.97 Total: 42,781.97 52183 11/10/2020 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 19-2-04139-32 314.000.143.595 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY V. HIGH-E£ 308,600.00 Total : 308,600.00 52184 11/10/2020 007976 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST 45012-9054 303.000.249.595 CIP 0249: PARCELACQUISITION & IMP 3,823.00 Total : 3,823.00 52185 11/10/2020 007978 TWO WAY HOLDINGS LLC EGR-2018-0083 001.237.10.95 SURETY DEPOSIT REFUND: EGR-2018 14,780.00 Total : 14,780.00 52186 11/10/2020 007977 WILLIAMS, WES EXPENSES 101.042.000.542 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 246.30 Total : 246.30 11 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 627,599.52 11 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 627,599.52 Page: .Y 7 vchlist 11/12/2020 12:17:58 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 52187 11/12/2020 007808 AMENTO GROUP INC 52188 11/12/2020 000135 APA 52189 11/12/2020 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE 52190 11/12/2020 001770 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO 082038 082039 202975-20104 IN-034398 S010004020.001 S010004414.001 52191 11/12/2020 000603 CONTRACT DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC 47512 52192 11/12/2020 006327 DEVRIES MOVING PACKING STORAGE 92534 52193 11/12/2020 000288 INT'L CODE COUNCIL 1001229342 1001229345 1001238691 1001240040 RTN0028407 52194 11/12/2020 003542 STAR RENTALS & SALES 52195 11/12/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 52196 11/12/2020 007808 AMENTO GROUP INC 509155-13 1641-F4DM-YDKK 092042 092043 001.033.099.518 001.033.099.518 001.143.70.00 001.040.043.558 001.016.016.521 001.016.016.521 001.090.099.518 001.090.099.518 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.033.099.518 001.033.000.518 001.033.099.518 001.033.099.518 Description/Account Amount PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CITY HALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CITY HALL Total: APA MEMBERSHIPS Total: HEARING EXAMINER: INTERLOCALAG Total: REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: F REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: F Total: COVID: PRECINCT CUBICLES COVID: LABOR SERVICES Total : Total : 2018 CODE BOOKS 2018 CODE BOOKS PUBLICATIONS 2018 CODE BOOKS CREDIT FOR RETURNED PUBLICATIOt Total: EQUIPMENT RENTAL OFFICE SUPPLIES: CITY HALL Total : Total: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CITY HALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CHAMBEF Total: 627.00 9,857.41 10,484.41 529.00 529.00 7,708.75 7,708.75 117.62 75.34 192.96 15,666.15 15,666.15 460.13 460.13 736.16 730.50 614.98 1,948.69 -237.40 3,792.93 784.08 784.08 16.26 16.26 1,711.50 19,080.80 20,792.30 Page: vchlist 11/12/2020 12:17:58PM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52197 11/12/2020 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 287924 001.033.000.518 REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: CITY HAL 58.70 288131 001.033.000.518 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: CITY HALL 491.80 288132 001.033.000.518 REPAIR & MAINTNENANCE SUPPLIES 441.05 Total: 991.55 52198 11/12/2020 002592 PURE FILTRATION PRODUCTS 63450 001.033.000.518 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: C 684.31 63584 001.033.000.518 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: C 238.36 Total : 922.67 52199 11/12/2020 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 579872565 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES: CITY HALL 269.90 580691392 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 131.95 582063624 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT 314.72 Total : 716.57 52200 11/12/2020 000337 UPS 000031V836430 001.040.043.558 SHIPPING CHARGES 1.22 Total : 1.22 52201 11/12/2020 000100 WABO INC. 3447 001.143.70.00 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 2021 185.00 Total : 185.00 52202 11/12/2020 000588 CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20-152.01 #1 001.090.099.518 CARES ACT 2020 GRANT 100,000.00 Total : 100,000.00 52203 11/12/2020 006554 NAOMI #2 001.090.000.560 2020 SOC SVCS/ECON DEV GRANT#2 4,035.97 Total : 4,035.97 52204 11/12/2020 000405 SPOKANE VALLEY PARTNERS 20-151.01 #01-4 001.090.099.518 CARES ACT 2020 GRANT 56,050.46 Total : 56,050.46 52205 11/12/2020 000295 VALLEYFEST 2020 #4 001.090.000.560 2020 SOC SER/ECO DEV GRANT REIM 6,822.83 2020 #5 001.090.000.560 2020 SOC SER/ECO DEV GRANT REIM 1,046.90 Total : 7,869.73 19 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 231,200.14 19 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 231,200.14 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 11/12/2020 12:17:58PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: . (0 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 11/16/2020 9:35:10AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52228 11/16/2020 003122 CALHOUN, MARK Q4-2020 001.013.000.513 Q4-2020 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 52229 11/16/2020 000278 DRISKELL, CARY Q4-2020 001.013.015.515 Q4-2020 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 52230 11/16/2020 000421 HOHMAN, JOHN Q4-2020 001.018.013.513 Q4-2020 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 52231 11/16/2020 007408 KLEINGARTNER, JEFF Q4-2020 001.040.042.558 Q4-2020 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 52232 11/16/2020 007847 KNODEL, CHAD Q4-2020 001.018.014.514 Q4-2020 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 52233 11/16/2020 006475 PEETZ, BRANDI Q4-2020 001.011.000.511 Q4-2020 CELL PHONEALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 52234 11/16/2020 002960 WICK, BEN Q4-2020 001.011.000.511 Q4-2020 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 52235 11/16/2020 002651 WOODARD. ARNE Q4-2020 001.011.000.511 Q4-2020 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE 135.00 Total : 135.00 52236 11/16/2020 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 583189 303.000.249.595 CIP 0249 272.55 583190 303.000.249.595 CIP 0249 265.44 583917 303.000.249.595 CIP 0249 258.75 583918 303.000.249.595 CIF 0249 252.00 Total : 1,048.74 52237 11/16/2020 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 51362 303.000.249.595 CIP 0249 635.20 51363 303.000.249.595 CIP 0249 657.60 Total : 1,292.80 52238 11/16/2020 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 1200302003 314.000.223.595 0223-FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN 27.876.81 Total : 27,876.81 Page: Il vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 11/16/2020 9:35:10AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52239 11/16/2020 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO 5-SP29681 314.000.223.595 CIP 0223: PLANT INFO GUARANTEE 326.70 Total : 326.70 52240 11/9/2020 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 118991 309.000.315.594 CIP 0315: PRINT SERVICE 205.62 Total : 205.62 52241 11/9/2020 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 476281 303.000.300.595 0300-TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 744.45 Total : 744.45 52242 11/9/2020 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 583924 309.000.315.594 CIP 0315: ADVERTISING 82.95 Total : 82.95 52243 11/9/2020 000106 FEDEX 7-166-40722 309.000.305.594 FED EX 10-23-2020 86.80 Total : 86.80 52244 11/9/2020 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO 5-SP29869 403.000.317.595 CIP 0317 PLANT INFO GUARANTEE 326.70 SP29818-19 403.000.320.595 CIP 0320: PLANT INFO GUARANTEE 653.40 Total : 980.10 52245 11/16/2020 007671 HORROCKS ENGINEERS INC 58308 303.000.318.595 0318-TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SERVIC 5.967.22 Total : 5,967.22 52246 11/16/2020 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 475912 314.000.143.595 0143-DESIGN SERVICES 81.207.20 Total : 81,207.20 52247 11/16/2020 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB01013144 303.000.275.595 CIP 0275: CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER 64.29 Total : 64.29 52248 11/16/2020 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED SP200325-IN 303.000.275.595 0275-MATERIALS TESTING 10.745.99 Total : 10,745.99 52249 11/16/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1TV4-L7PD-XPTD 001.090.099.518 COVID - SANITIZER 335.17 Total : 335.17 52250 11/16/2020 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0073044-1518-0 101.042.000.542 RENEWAL OF DUMPING PERMIT - GRf 50.00 Total : 50.00 52251 11/16/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1YHC-FDHV-1JLR 001.090.000.518 LOGITECH CAMERA, USB PRINTER CC 737.12 Page: vchlist 11/16/2020 9:35:10AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 52251 11/16/2020 007136 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 52252 11/16/2020 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 52253 11/16/2020 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 52254 11/16/2020 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 52255 11/16/2020 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 52256 11/16/2020 007455 LEMBECK APPRAISAL & CONSULTING 80624476 80624477 80624478 80624479 80624480 80624470 80624471 80624472 80624473 80624474 80624475 AR171859 AR171860 AR171861 AR171862 AR171863 AR171864 AR171865 AR171866 AR171867 (Continued) 2020110003578 2020110005522 2020110025710 20.070 52257 11/16/2020 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 480 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.013.000.513 001.018.014.514 001.018.016.518 001.013.000.513 001.013.015.515 001.040.043.558 001.040.041.543 101.042.000.542 001.076.000.576 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.586 314.000.143.595 314.000.143.595 Description/Account Amount Total : COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-013 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-014 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-015 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-016 COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-017 Total : COMPUTER LEASE: COMPUTER LEASE: COMPUTER LEASE: COMPUTER LEASE: COMPUTER LEASE: COMPUTER LEASE: 001-8922117-007 001-8922117-008 001-8922117-009 001-8922117-010 001-8922117-011 001-8922117-012 Total : COPIER COSTS: WEST WING/COUNCI COPIER COSTS: IT COPIER COSTS: HR COPIER COSTS: OPS/ADMIN COPIER COSTS: LEGAL COPIER COSTS: PERMIT CTR COPIER COSTS: CPW ENGINEERING COPIER COSTS: MAINTENANCE SHOF COPIER COSTS: CENTERPLACE Total : NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE INTERNET INTERNET SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : 737.12 986.55 142.27 176.38 409.18 487.31 2,201.69 139.58 658.51 368.09 187.76 806.78 266.18 2,426.90 148.64 15.58 18.40 248.16 161.71 56.62 353.27 8.85 84.88 1,096.11 283.80 626.70 245.04 1,155.54 4,400.00 4,400.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20.445.35 Page: 1-3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 11/16/2020 9:35:10AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52257 11/16/2020 002259 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP (Continued) Total : 20,445.35 52258 11/16/2020 007678 RANDALL DANSKIN PS 134819 001.033.099.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4.625.25 Total : 4,625.25 52259 11/16/2020 007968 DIRECT TECH CSV-20-001 101.042.099.542 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE REPAIR 4.464.90 Total : 4,464.90 52260 11/16/2020 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 67951 001.013.000.513 ELECTRONIC CODE UPDATE 954.68 67986 001.013.000.513 ELECTRONIC CODE UPDATE 480.00 68150 001.013.000.513 ELECTRONIC CODE UPDATE 194.32 Total : 1,629.00 52261 11/16/2020 007656 MRSC ROSTERS 54935 001.143.70.00 MEMBERSHIP 575.00 Total : 575.00 52262 11/16/2020 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3461008351 001.013.000.513 OFFICE SUPPLIES: EXECUTIVE 126.72 3461008353 001.013.000.513 OFFICE SUPPLIES: EXECUTIVE 27.29 3461008354 001.013.000.513 OFFICE SUPPLIES: EXECUTIVE 36.76 3461008356 001.013.000.513 OFFICE SUPPLIES: EXECUTIVE 300.85 Total : 491.62 52263 11/16/2020 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 462 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 69.00 490 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 322.50 492 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1.616.95 494 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4.485.00 Total : 6,493.45 36 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 182,836.77 36 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 182,836.77 Page: �4/ vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 11/16/2020 9:35:10AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 15 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 11/16/2020 12:48:42PM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8833 11/16/2020 007980 KOOTENAI HEART CLINIC NW PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND: GREAT ROC 210.00 Total : 210.00 8834 11/16/2020 007981 LONE WOLF SPOKANE HOG 2460 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND: GREAT ROC 786.50 Total : 786.50 2 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 996.50 2 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 996.50 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley. and that 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 11/17/2020 12:12:57PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52264 11/17/2020 003624 DEHN, SHELLY EDUCATION 001.018.016.518 EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT 2.936.00 EXPENSES 001.018.016.518 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 76.12 Total : 3,012.12 52265 11/17/2020 007982 HOAG, SHAUN BLD-2020-2457 001.040.043.322 PERMIT REFUND: BLD-2020-2457 190.38 Total : 190.38 52266 11/17/2020 005169 LATIOLAIS, LORRI EXPENSES 314.000.143.595 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 26.35 Total : 26.35 52267 11/17/2020 007983 RYAN EXCAVATING ROW-2020-0862 001.040.041.322 PERMIT REFUND: ROW-2020-0862 164.50 Total : 164.50 52268 11/17/2020 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 45012.9054 303.000.249.595 CIP 0249: QUITCLAIM DEED/REET 10.00 Total : 10.00 52269 11/17/2020 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 45012.9054 303.000.249.595 CIP 0249: TCE/REET 10.00 Total : 10.00 52270 11/17/2020 004072 STURM HEATING INC BLD-2020-3400 001.040.043.322 PERMIT REFUND: BLD-2020-3400 10.60 Total : 10.60 7 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 3,423.95 7 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 3,423.95 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 11/17/2020 12:12:57PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 24, 2020 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending November 15, 2020 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 312,548.54 $ 0.00 $ 312,548.54 Benefits: $ 65,734.90 $ 0.00 $ 65,734.90 Total payroll $ 378,283.44 $ 0.00 $ 378,283.44 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Study Session Format Tuesday, November 3, 2020 Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at approximately 6 pm. The meeting was held in City Hall with Council, staff and the public participating via Zoom. Ben Wick, Mayor Brandi Peetz, Deputy Mayor Pam Haley, Councilmember Tim Hattenburg, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Bill Helbig, City Engineer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Public Hearing: Consider Planned Final Action and Initiate Condemnation Proceedings (45021.5907) — Bill Helbig At 6:02 p.m., Mayor Wick opened the public hearing. City Engineer Helbig explained the process, and mentioned there were some questions about the current process compared to the process used for the Barker Grade Separation; he stated that state statutes require that there be a final action ordinance initiating eminent domain condemnation proceedings; and that the state statutes dictate public noticing which is mainly publication in the newspapers; that once we get to the ordinance adoption the process can vary; with the Barker Grade Separation Project we used public comment as part of the ordinance adoption process; and with the current project we are using the public hearing process to solicit public comments then followed by the ordinance reading with no public comment; that for the two separate projects we used two separate outside counsels and we deferred to that counsel as to the method to use; that both methods are correct, follow the law, and are appropriate. Mr. Helbig reminded Council that we continue to negotiate with property owners throughout this process; that this process is associated with the right-of-way for Sullivan Wellesley intersection project; it includes five different parcels which are all located south of Wellesley along Sullivan; as shown on the attachment, one parcel in the SE corner in green indicates we are in the process of finalizing that right-of-way; the other two in red along the west side of Sullivan, there have been no movement in negotiations with the property owner who owns both parcels. Mr. Helbig noted the fair market value is $6,300 which was presented in April by our right-of-way agent who spoke with the representative of the person who owns the property, but to -date there have been no negotiations or counter-offers, and accordingly we are at an impasse and the offer is deemed rejected. There were no public comments and Mayor Wick closed the public hearing at 6:09 p.m. 2. First Reading Ordinance 20-019 Final Action for Condemnation, parcel 45021.5907 — Bill Helbig After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Woodard and seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance No. 20-019 on one reading, related to land acquisition for the Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project. Mr. Helbig said he had no further remarks. It was noted that there were no public comments. It was also noted that since we had a public hearing on this and the hearing has been closed, there would be no further public comments taken on the ordinance even if Council Meeting Minutes: 11-03-2020 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT we were to have had a second reading. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 3. Public Hearing: Consider Planned Final Action and Initiate Condemnation Proceedings (45021.5909) — Bill Helbig Mayor Wick opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. City Engineer Helbig explained the background of the project and of the right-of-way acquisitions for the Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection project, again mentioning the five parcels as shown on the ordinance attachment; he noted the fair market value for this is $9,500 and was presented by our right-of-way agent in April to the property owners and their representative; and that to -date there have been no negotiations or counter-offers, and accordingly we are at an impasse and the offer is deemed rejected. There were no public comments and Mayor Wick closed the public hearing at 6:16 p.m. 4. First Reading Ordinance 20-020 Final Action for Condemnation, parcel 45021.5909 — Bill Helbig After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance No. 20-020 on one reading, related to land acquisition for the Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project. Mr. Helbig said he had nothing more to add. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 5. First Reading Ordinance 20-018 Donations — Mike Stone, Carly Johnson, Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 20-018 amending chapter 3.34 SVMC to a second reading. Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained the background of the proposed changes. There were no public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 6. First Reading Ordinance 20-021 Facility Naming — Mike Stone, Carly Johnson, Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 20-021, adopting chapter 3.33 SVMC, to a second reading. Parks and Recreation Director Stone went over the highlights of the ordinance. For public comments, one person had signed up to speak. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said with the recent passing of Sally Jackson, she would like to recommend naming a park or pool after her. Mayor Wick noted that tonight we are seeking comments on whether to advance the ordinance to a second reading, and if approved, we will later address naming facilities. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 7. Mayoral Appointment: SRTC Task Force Regarding Tribal Membership Inclusion — Mayor Wick It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to confirm the Mayoral nomination of Ben Wick to the SRTC Task Force, the purpose of which will be to define the terms and conditions of tribal membership in SRTC. Mayor Wick explained about the letter requesting we appoint a representative to the SRTC Task Force for the purpose of defining the terms and conditions of tribal membership in SRTC; and that the State legislature requires the regional transportation planning organizations, such as SRTC, to provide a reasonable opportunity for voting membership to federally recognized tribes within the planning area; and that the state statute specifics that membership must be offered very two years or when the composition of the regional transportation planning organization board is modified in an interlocal agreement. For public comments, one person had signed up to speak. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: mentioned that the Kalispell Tribe isn't even on tribal land, and all the money from the casino goes through Las Vegas, and that the tribes don't pay taxes so the more things like this occur, the less tax we'll get. There were no other public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. NON -ACTION ITEMS: 8. Update on Human Rights Task Force — James `JJ' Johnson Mr. Johnson said he will be talking tonight as a representative of the Human Rights Task Force, and although he is the current Chair of the City's Planning Commission, he said he is not representing the Planning Commission in any way tonight. Mr. Johnson noted the mission of the Spokane County Human Council Meeting Minutes: 11-03-2020 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT Rights Task Force is to guard and advance human rights in order to create a region where all people feel welcome, safe and valued; he mentioned the Task Force was organized February 2016, and is founded upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and Washington State and United States Constitutions, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mr. Johnson mentioned some of the reporting tools the Task Force has such as the form to report hate crimes or incidents as well as the tool to collect that data; and he noted that any hate crime should be reported to the police. Mr. Johnson mentioned the Task Force's relationship with the Pride Foundation, as well as the Spokane County Human Rights Commission, and of many events that had to be curtailed due to the current pandemic; and of his hope that some of these events will be able to be held during 2021. Council thanked Mr. Johnson for his report. 9. Western Dance Hall Amended Agreement — Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that the Western Dance Association has leased the dance hall at Sullivan Park since 2003; and that we entered into a ten-year contract/lease agreement in 2009, with two, five-year renewal options; and that the City extended the lease agreement until December 31, 2022. Mr. Stone further noted that the coronavirus has hindered use of the Dance Hall and that the current condition will likely not change until Spokane County reaches Phase 4 of the State's re -opening plan, and as such, in order not to cause undue hardship, the parties would agree to suspend the $500 monthly lease payments until the first day of the month plus an additional thirty days after Spokane County moves to Phase 4; further in recognition of lease payments made April through September without being able to use the facility, that the City would credit the Association with six months of payments beginning with the first month lease payments chargeable under this amendment. There were no objections from Council that staff bring back a proposed Amended Agreement for a motion consideration. 10. Proposed Amendments to TPA (Tourism Promotion Area) Interlocal Agreement — Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell explained that as a result of his conversations with the TPA and our request to include a termination provision, more timely reporting, and have a Spokane Valley zone, that it was tentatively agreed to include a two-year termination provision, that our City would receive quarterly reports on the revenue generated within our borders, and as such, the request for a separate Spokane Valley zone would be withdrawn since the reporting would provide the information we are seeking. There was Council consensus to bring the amendment forward for a motion consideration. 11. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 12. Finance Department Monthly Report This report was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 13. Council Comments — Mayor Wick There were no additional Council comments. 14. City Manager Comments — Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun had no additional comments. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes: 11-03-2020 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Study Session Format Tuesday, November 17, 2020 Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at approximately 6 pm. The meeting was held in City Hall with Council, staff and the public participating via Zoom. Ben Wick, Mayor Brandi Peetz, Deputy Mayor Pam Haley, Councilmember Tim Hattenburg, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Mike Basinger, Economic Dev. Manager Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Public Hearing: Garland Avenue Street Vacation — Mike Basinger At 6:01 p.m., Mayor Wick opened the public hearing. Economic Development Manager Basinger said that on October 20, 2020, Council passed Resolution 20-015 setting the public hearing date and tonight will be the first reading of the ordinance for the street vacation located between Tschirley Road and vacated Greenacres Road. He said the street vacation was initiated to support economic development in the northeast industrial area and it will be used as a detour route for the Barker Road Grade Separation Project. We received a comment letter from Spokane Transit Authority requesting that sidewalks be constructed concurrent with the rebuilding of Garland Avenue and that the street design consider the location of future bus stops. There were no other public comments. Mayor Wick closed the public hearing at 6:03 p.m. 2. First Reading Ordinance 20-025 Garland Avenue Street Vacation — Mike Basinger After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Woodard and seconded to suspend the rules and adopt Ordinance No. 20-025 on one reading, relating to vacation of a portion of Garland Avenue between Tshirley Road and Barker Road. Mr. Basinger said he had no further remarks. Mayor Wick stated that because we had a public hearing on this and the hearing has been closed, there would be no further public comments taken on the ordinance even if we were to have had a second reading. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 3. Motion Consideration: Approval of 2021 State Legislative Agenda — Cary Driskell, John Hohman, Mark Calhoun It was moved by Councilmember Woodard and seconded to approve the 2021 State Legislative Agenda as drafted. City Manager Calhoun said this is the third and final touch of the Legislative Agenda for 2021 and includes Council changes from previous discussions. He noted that a special meeting is tentatively anticipated for Tuesday, December 15 at 5:00 p.m. prior to the regular scheduled Council meeting with the 4tn District Legislative delegation to discuss the agenda. Deputy City Manager Hohman said he met with the Spokane County Fair board and they developed the flyer for the Regional Expo Expansion project (distributed to Council) and he said all members of the board are looking forward to the project. Mr. Calhoun said that the maximum commitment from the City is $10 million. There were no public comments. Councilmember Higgins cautioned that financing will be heavily dependent on lodging tax funding. Mr. Calhoun said this will go before the legislature and it could be 2021 or 2022 before the issuing of bonds Council Meeting Minutes: 11-17-2020 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT and hopefully that would put us past the pandemic. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Western Dance Hall Amended Agreement — Mike Stone It was moved by Councilmember Haley and seconded to approve the lease agreement. Parks & Recreation Director Stone said this amendment reduces the financial hardship until such time as they are able to utilize the dance hall. Ms. Barb Howard, residing in Spokane Valley, asked if the contract could include language that the dance hall would be responsible for removing the homeless camps from the parking lot. There were no other public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. NON -ACTION ITEMS: 5. Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Chaz Bates Senior Planner Bates presented the PowerPoint slideshow, beginning with the process for annually amending the Comprehensive Plan. He said the deadline to submit applications was October 30th and that any applications received after that date are reserved for the next cycle. He said there are four amendments this year consisting of three map amendments and one text amendment. Mr. Bates noted there is a correction to the slide for CPA-2020-0003, as it is not yet a City -owned property but we are in the process of purchasing it. He added that it is slightly impacted by a critical area with its location in the flood zone, and he said that would be addressed as it moves forward through the process. Council consensus to advance to a motion consideration at the November 24 meeting. 6. Horse Arena, Master Plan — Mike Stone Parks & Recreation Director Stone started his presentation by pointing out that Resolution 20-011 declaring horse arena property surplus that is listed on the RCA under Previous Council Action Taken is unrelated to this discussion and will be removed from future RCAs. He said during the 2019 Park Master Plan process, the public expressed interest in new amenities at Valley Mission Park with a bike pump track, a skate park or both. In 2020, he worked with a consultant to design the Master Plan and we received feedback from the community that showed 40 percent in favor of an asphalt pump track and 28 percent in favor of a skate park and he said that bike pump tracks are good for people of all ages. During the process, he said he was approached by Evergreen Mountain Alliance, which advocates for bike pump tracks throughout the state and has over 586 members and a local chapter in Spokane, stating they would be willing to adopt the project and maintain the track. The design includes a bike pump track, skate park, play area, restroom, dog park, perimeter path, and a new shelter in the south end of the park. He said it consists of three phases, the first phase being the largest phase that will include infrastructure, earthwork, landscape and irrigation, a new restroom, playground, and the bike pump track, and cost approximately $2.25 million. He said the second phase will include earthwork, utilities, the skate park, a new structure, landscape and irrigation and cost approximately $1.1 million; and the third phase will consist of earthwork, landscape, the perimeter path and upper shelter and cost approximately $1.6 million. He said the total cost for all three phases is approximately $3.4 million and added that the cost to improve Bowdish Road to the improved area is approximately $400,000. City Manager Calhoun said that adoption of the Master Plan does not commit money to the park but provides staff a long term goal for future planning and consideration. Council consensus to advance to a motion consideration at a future meeting. 7. Municipal Tree Ordinance — Mike Stone, Cary Driskell Parks and Recreation Director Stone began his slideshow presentation and he said that in March 2020, Council discussed the Tree City USA program, the requirements for communities to manage public trees, and the criteria needed to meet and obtain Tree City USA status. He said the ordinance encourages beautification, enables cities to control destructive insects and diseases, avoid unnecessary cost and liability from hazardous trees and tree related accidents and it protects residents from unscrupulous or careless operators. He concluded by saying he recommends adopting the ordinance which outlines the process for managing the urban forest, that we track our expenditures and continue to have an Arbor Day celebration Council Meeting Minutes: 11-17-2020 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT and proclamation, and that we submit the application to become a Tree City USA. Council consensus to advance the draft ordinance to a first reading at a future meeting. 8. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick Councilmember Thompson mentioned that with regard to the PRD (planned residential development) at 8th Avenue and Long Road, it appears there may be loop hole in our code and she asked that our PRD regulations be looked into and modified to protect the interest of what we just went through. City Manager Calhoun said staff have been discussing this issue and will report back to Council in the very near future. 6. Council Comments — Mayor Wick Mayor Wick said a member of the Planning Commission resigned effective the end of the year and that typically the Mayor makes committee appointments to the in the beginning of January after a new Mayor is selected. Because a new Mayor will not be selected in January, he asked if Councilmembers had any objections to appointing members to the Planning Commission in December. No objections. 10. City Manager Comments — Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun had no additional comments. It was moved by Councilmember Thompson, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes: 11-17-2020 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 24, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent n old business ® new business n public hearing ❑ information n admin. report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Ordinance No. 20-024 Subdivision Regulations Code Text Amendment — CTA-2019-0005 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80; SVMC 19.30.040; Title 20 SVMC; Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.106 and RCW 36.70A.200 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: October 20, 2020 Administrative Report, First Ordinance Reading November, 10 2020. BACKGROUND: RCW 58.17 provides the framework and procedures for processing preliminary and final subdivisions (long plats), subdivision alterations and vacations of plats. Title 20 SVMC regulates the subdivision of land consistent with the requirements of RCW 58.17. RCW 58.17 also allows for local jurisdictions to create procedures for processing both short subdivisions and binding site plans. Title 20 provides the framework and procedures for processing preliminary and final short subdivisions and binding site plans, alterations of short plats and binding site plans, and vacations within Spokane Valley. The proposed code text amendment is intended to ensure Title 20 SVMC is consistent with RCW 58.17 and align the code with current processes and the City's organizational structure. Due to the proposed changes in Title 20 SVMC, the Permit Type and Land Use Application table in Chapter 17.80.030 must also be revised. Staff presented an administrative report at the October 20, 2020 Council meeting, where there was Council consensus to carry these code changes forward to an ordinance first reading. Staff presented the First Ordinance reading on November 10th, where there was Council consensus to carry these code changes forward to an ordinance second reading. OPTIONS: Move to approve Ordinance No. 20-024 with or without further amendments, or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 20-024 as proposed. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Connor Lange, Planner, Community and Public Works Department ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance No. 20-024 redline 2. Draft Ordinance No. 20-024 clean 3. Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and recommendation 4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 9/10/2020, 9/24/2020, and 10/8/2020 5. Staff Report CTA-2019-0005 RCA Administrative Report for CTA-2019-0005 Page 1 of 1 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 20-024 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AND SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.80.030 RELATED TO SUBDIVISIONS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) previously adopted Title 20 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) relating to permitting and processing the subdivision of land as allowed pursuant to chapter 58.17 RCW, and has made subsequent amendments from time -to -time as appropriate; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW and chapter 58.17 RCW; and WHEREAS, City staff have proposed amendments to amend Title 20 SVMC and SVMC 17.80.030 to ensure consistency with chapter 58.17 SVMC and to align the subdivision permitting and processing requirements with current processes and procedures and the City's organizational structure; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, providing a notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on September 4 and 11, 2020, notice of the Commission's public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2020, the Planning Commission (Commission) held a study session; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 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 October 8, 2020, the Commission approved the findings and recommended that City Council adopt the amendments with the modifications proposed by the Commission; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 2020, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments and Commission Findings and Recommendations; and WHEREAS, on November 10, 2020 City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, chapter Title 20 SVMC and SVMC 17.80.030 as amended, bears 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: Ordinance 20-024 Page 1 of 26 DRAFT Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Title 20 SVMC and SVMC 17.80.030 to ensure consistency with chapter 58.17 RCW and to align the subdivision permitting and processing requirements with current processes and procedures and the City's organizational structure. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. and 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. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Planning Policies, set forth below. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. 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. Section 3. Amendment. Title 20 SVMC is hereby amended as follows: Chapter 20.10 AUTHORITY 20.10.010 Purpose This title is established in accordance with Chapter 58.17 RCW which authorizes cities to administer the process for the division of land. Chapter 20.20 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections: 20.20.010 Purpose. 20.20.020 Exemptions. 20.20.030 Legal lot. 20.20.040 Approval required prior to recordation. 20.20.050 Prohibition against sale, lease or transfer of property. 20.20.060 Vertical datum. Ordinance 20-024 Page 2 of 26 DRAFT 20.20.070 Monumentation. 20.20.080 Professional land surveyor. 20.20.090 General design. 20.20.100 Findings. 20.20.110 Attached single-family subdivisions. 20.20.010 Purpose. Pursuant to the purposes set forth in RCW 58.17.010, these regulations are necessary to: A. Promote the health, safety, and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state and the City; B. Promote effective use of land by preventing the overcrowding or scattered development which would be detrimental to health, safety, or the general welfare due to the lack of water supplies, sanitary sewer, drainage, transportation, or other public services, or excessive expenditure of public funds for such services; C. Avoid congestion and promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways through the proper planning and coordination of new streets within subdivisions with existing and planned streets in the surrounding community; D. Provide for adequate light and air; E. Provide for adequate water, sewage, drainage, parks and recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds, and other public requirements; F. Provide for proper ingress and egress; G. Provide for housing and commercial needs of the community; H. Require uniform monumentation of land divisions and conveyance of accurate legal descriptions; I. Protect environmentally sensitive areas; J. Provide for flexibility in site design to accommodate view enhancement and protection, protection of streams and wetlands, protection of steep slopes, and other environmentally significant or sensitive areas; K. Ensure consistency with and further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and L. Provide a process for the division of land for the following: 1. Short Subdivision. The division of land into nine or fewer lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions with a level of review that is proportional to the effect those lots may have on the surrounding area; 2. Subdivision. The division of land into 10 or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions with a level of review that is proportional to the effect those lots may have on the surrounding area; and 3. Binding Site Plan. An alternative method of dividing property interests for nonresidential development and applying to the phased division of any land for sale or lease which is zoned for commercial, business, office, mixed -use, or industrial development, or which is to be developed as condominiums or a manufactured home park. M. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subsection, all processes of land division set forth in Title 20 SVMC shall be consistent with and subject to state law requirements, including but not limited to chapter 58.17 RCW. The provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW shall supplement the provisions of Title 20 Ordinance 20-024 Page 3 of 26 DRAFT SVMC related to subdivisions and short subdivisions and may be relied on for that purpose; provided that any provisions of Title 20 SVMC relating to short subdivisions that conflict with chapter 58.17 RCW shall be construed and interpreted so as to be consistent with Title 20 SVMC. Any provision of Title 20 SVMC relating to subdivisions that conflicts with the requirements of chapter 58.17 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended, shall be construed and interpreted in a manner so as to be consistent with chapter 58.17 RCW. All processes of land division set forth in Title 20 SVMC shall be consistent with state law requirements. Any provision of Title 20 SVMC that conflicts with the requirements of chapter 58.17 RCW, as now chapter 58.17 RCW. 20.20.020 Exemptions. A. The provisions of SVMC Title 20 SVMC shall not apply to: 1. -Cemeteries and other burial plots while used for that purpose (RCW 58.17.040(1)); 2. Divisions made by testamentary provisions or laws of descent (RCW 58.17.040(3)); 3. A division of land for purpose of leasing land for facilities providing personal wireless services while used for that purpose (RCW 58.17.040(8)). B. The provisions of SVMC Title 20 SVMC shall not apply to the following; provided, that an application for exemption and drawing consistent with SVMC 20.20.020(C) is provided to the City: 1. Division of land into lots or tracts if such division is a result of subjecting a portion of the parcel or tract of land to either Chapter 64.32 RCW (Horizontal Regimes Act) or 64.34 RCW (Condominium Act) subsequent to the recording of a binding site plan for all such land (RCW 58.17.040(7)); 2. Division of land due to condemnation or sale under threat thereof, by an agency or division of government vested with the power of eminent domain; 3. Division or acquisition of land for public right-of-way; 4. A division of land into lots or tracts of less than three acres that is recorded in accordance with Chapter 58.09 RCW, used or to be used for construction and operation of consumer- or investor -owned electric utilities to meet the electrical needs of a utility's existing and new customers as set forth in RCW 58.17.040(9). C. An application for exemption for any of the purposes set forth in SVMC 20.20.020(B) shall be processed to determine whether the division is exempt with a minimum review for compliance with applicable adopted City regulations. The application shall be determined to be complete upon the submittal of the following materials: 1. An application; and 2. Maps, plans, and/or exhibits containing all applicable information as required by SVMC 20.30.020(B). 20.20.030 Legal lot. Development shall be permitted only on legally created lots. A lot is created in compliance with applicable state and local land segregation statutes or codes in effect at the time the lot was created or binding site plan was approved including, but not limited to, demonstrating the lot was created through one of the following: Ordinance 20-024 Page 4 of 26 DRAFT A. Lots created through subdivision, on a plat approved by the City or Spokane County separately describing the lot in question; or B. Lots created through short subdivision, on a short plat approved by the City or Spokane County separately describing the lot in question; or C. Lots created pursuant to a binding site plan process in effect at the time the binding site plan was approved by the City or Spokane County; or D. A division of land prior to March 13, 1978; provided, that: 1. A tax segregation request was received by the Spokane County assessor's office prior to said date; or 2. A legal instrument(s) pertaining to said division was filed on record prior to said date; and 3. All state and local land development regulations were met at the time the lot was created or can be met prior to the issuance of a building permit; or E. Development shall be allowed on a lot owned by an innocent purchaser. For purposes of SVMC 20.20.030(E), an "innocent purchaser" is an owner of the property, other than the original owner that created the lot, and who did not have actual notice that the lot was created by a means other than specified in SVMC 20.20.030(A) through (D); or F. In the event a lot was created by a means other than as specified in SVMC 20.20.030(A) through (D), development shall be allowed on such lot if the development does not adversely affect the public interest. When determining the impact on the public interest, the City shall consider the following criteria: 1. Whether the proposed development is consistent with the public health, safety, and general welfare; 2. Whether the use meets the underlying zoning requirements and is consistent with the use of at least one adjoining property; and 3. Whether the lot was created on or before December 31, 2016. In the event an illegally created lot does not meet the criteria of SVMC 20.20.030(A) through (F), a development permit shall not be issued until such time that a legal lot is created. 20.20.040 Approval required prior to recordation. Any map, plat or plan, unless previously exempt, hereafter made of a proposed short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan, or any part thereof, shall be presented for approval and be recorded as set forth in SVMC 20.40.030. No such map, plat or plan shall be recorded or have any validity unless or until it has the approval of City departments and agencies with jurisdiction as required by SVMC Title 20, SVMC. 20.20.050 Prohibition against sale, lease or transfer of property. No person shall sell, lease or offer to sell or transfer any lot, tract or parcel subject to the requirements of SVMC Title 20 SVMC without first receiving approval hereunder by the City and recording the approved division with Spokane County; provided, that if performance of an offer or agreement to sell, lease or otherwise transfer a lot, tract or parcel of land is expressly conditioned on the recording of the subdivision, short subdivision or binding site plan containing the lot, tract, or parcel, the offer or agreement does not violate any provision of SVMC Title 20 SVMC. Ordinance 20-024 Page 5 of 26 DRAFT 20.20.060 Vertical datum. Where topography is required to be shown, the land survey data shall be based on the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD-88). 20.20.070 Monumentation. Right-of-way, street centerline and street intersection monumentation shall be established as described by City -adopted street standards. In addition, for short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plans, every lot corner shall be marked or referenced in a permanent manner with the registration number of the professional land surveyor in charge of the survey in accordance with state law. 20.20.080 Professional land surveyor. The preparation of all preliminary and final short subdivisions, subdivisions and binding site plans shall be made by or under the supervision of a professional land surveyor licensed in the state of Washington. The professional land surveyor shall certify on the final plat that it is a true and correct representation of the lands actually surveyed. A survey is required on all final plats. All surveys shall comply with Chapter 58.09 RCW and Chapter 332-130 WAC. 20.20.090 General design. The design of short subdivisions, subdivisions and binding site plans shall comply with the requirements of all applicable City plans, regulations, and design and development standards. In addition: A. The design, shape, size, and orientation of the lots shall be appropriate for the use for which the divisions are intended, and the zoning and land use classification identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the area in which they are located. B. Lot Arrangement. 1. Side lot lines shall generally be perpendicular to public street rights -of -way, but may be within 20 degrees of perpendicular, or radial to the right-of-way in the case of curvilinear streets or cul-de-sacs. 2. Corner Lots. a. The lot lines at the intersection of two public streets shall be located a minimum of two feet behind the back of curb. b. At the intersection of two arterial streets (collector, minor or principal), the applicant may be required to provide a widened border easement or right-of-way area behind the pedestrian ramp landing for the placement of traffic control devices and street lights and their related appurtenances (see Figure 20.20.01). The limits of the border easement and right-of-way area shall be determined by the City at the time of application. This area shall not extend more than 15 feet behind the landing. The boundary of this area may be defined by an arc that is tangent at each end to the standard border easement, typically located behind the back of sidewalk, or right-of-way if there is no border easement in the vicinity. If this area is already fully contained within right-of-way then no additional border easement width shall be required. The only utilities allowed within this area are those necessary for the function of the proposed lights, signals, et cetera. Ordinance 20-024 Page 6 of 26 DRAFT DIJEa EA,EMENT 1 f M TANGENT LANDING S]DU AL.I' RTC -l1 CF WAY ARTERIAL 4 La R CURB L2' PEN. Figure 20.20.01 3. Lot Dimensions. a. Lot dimensions shall comply with the minimum standards established in Chapter 19.70 SVMC; b. Flag lots are prohibited. Reverse flag lots providing access to alleys or amenities located to the rear of the property are permitted. 4. Double Frontage Residential Lots. a. Double frontage and reverse frontage lots shall be permitted only where necessary to separate residential development from arterial roadway or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation; b. When lots back to arterials, screening shall be installed on the lot(s) limiting visibility between the arterial and the adjoining lots in accordance with SVMC 22.70.070; c. No building, except buildings designed and constructed as two-family dwellings or one -family attached dwellings, shall be constructed on or across existing lot lines. Where buildings are designed and constructed on or across lot lines, the building shall be located so that the common wall separating the individual living units is located on and along the common lot lines of the adjoining lots. C. Block dimensions shall reflect due regard to the needs of convenient access, public safety, connectivity, emergency vehicle access, topography, road maintenance, and the provision of suitable sites for the land use planned. 1. Block Length. Block length shall comply with the adopted street standards. 2. Block and Lot Labeling. Blocks and lots shall be identified in sequential numerical order. 3. Street alignments shall be designed and constructed with appropriate consideration for existing and planned streets, anticipated traffic patterns, topographic and drainage conditions, public safety, adopted street standards, Comprehensive Plan and the proposed use of the land so divided. D. Lots shall not be divided by the City boundary or public right-of-way, and shall not be divided by any zoning designation unless exceptional circumstances exist. E. Every lot shall have direct access to a paved public street, private street, or an easement for a private driveway. Ordinance 20-024 Page 7 of 26 DRAFT F. Prior to filing the final short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan application, the applicant shall improve or make appropriate provisions for the construction of the public or private streets, alleys or private driveways that provide access to lots being created through the short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan consistent with applicable City -adopted standards. G. Wastewater design shall comply with all applicable City regulations and other jurisdictional agency regulations. H. Adequate public domestic water supply and/or fire protection shall be provided in compliance with all applicable City regulations and other jurisdictional agency regulations. I. All road designs shall comply with Chapter 22.130 SVMC and adopted street standards. J. Provisions for stormwater runoff shall comply with City regulations for stormwater management as set forth in Chapter 22.150 SVMC. K. Existing and proposed easements for electric, water, sewer, gas, and similar utilities shall be illustrated on the short plat, plat, or binding site plan. The utility purveyors shall indicate to the department in writing that the easements are adequate for their service needs. L. The short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan shall provide for the location of underground utilities within public rights -of -way, border easements, alleys or utility easements including, but not limited to, those for electricity, communications and street lighting. When conditions make underground installation impractical, the city manager may waive the requirement for underground utilities. 20.20.100 Findings. Prior to approving any preliminary short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan, the department in the case of short subdivisions and binding site plans or the hearing examiner in the case of subdivisions shall determine and make written findings of fact that appropriate provisions are made for the following: A. The public health, safety, and general welfare; B. Open spaces; C. Drainage ways; D. Streets or roads, alleys, sidewalks, and other public ways; E. Transit stops; F. Public potable water supplies; G. Sanitary sewer; H. Parks and recreation; I. Playgrounds, schools and school grounds; J. Sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; K. Whether the public interest is served by the short subdivision, subdivision, and binding site plan; L. The proposed short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan is in conformity with all applicable development code provisions; and Ordinance 20-024 Page 8 of 26 DRAFT M. Other requirements found to be necessary and appropriate and for which written standards and policies have been adopted. 20.20.110 Attached single-family subdivisions. Applications for an attached single-family subdivision consisting of nine or fewer lots shall be submitted and processed according to the requirements for content and form for preliminary and final short subdivisions and process as stated in Chapters 20.30 through 20.40 SVMC. Application for an attached single-family subdivision consisting of 10 or more lots shall be submitted and processed according to the requirements for content and form for preliminary and final subdivisions as stated in Chapters 20.30 through 20.40 SVMC. Application for alterations of any preliminary short subdivision or subdivision shall be submitted and processed according to the requirements of Chapter 20.50 SVMC. Applications for alterations of any final short subdivision or subdivision shall be submitted and processed according to the requirements of Chapter 20.60 SVMC. Applications for vacation of any plat shall be submitted and reviewed according to the requirements of Chapter 20.70 SVMC. Chapter 20.30 PRELIMINARY SHORT SUBDIVISIONS, SUBDIVISIONS AND BINDING SITE PLANS Sections: 20.30.010 Application. 20.30.020 Contents of application. 20.30.030 Processing applications. 20.30.040 Distribution of plans. 20.30.050 Expiration of preliminary approval. 20.30.060 Time extensions. 20.30.010 Application. Prior to filing an application for a preliminary subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan, a pre - application conference pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.80 SVMC is required unless this requirement is waived by the city manager or designee. 20.30.020 Contents of application. Every preliminary short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan shall consist of the appropriate application form, applicable fees and the following: A. Maps and Exhibits. 1. Five Ten copies of the preliminary short plat, plat or binding site plan which shall be a legibly drawn map, 18 by 24 inches in size for short plats; 24 by 36 inches in size for plats and binding site plans at a scale of one inch equals 50 feet or one inch equals 100 feet. If approved by the department, an alternative appropriate scale may be used; 2. One reduced (eight and one-half by 11 inches or 11 by 17 inches) copy of the preliminary short plat, plat or binding site plan; 3. Onc copy of the Spokane County assessor's half section map clearly indicating the subject property. Additionally, all adjacent properties with parcel numbers must be indicated on the half section map. Assessor's maps for preliminary subdivisions shall indicate the parcel numbers of all properties within Ordinance 20-024 Page 9 of 26 DRAFT 4. A written narrative describing the proposal including, but not limited to, the number of proposed lots, nature of surrounding properties, proposed access, zoning, utility providers, method of sewerage, and timing of phasing of the development (if any). The narrative shall also address compliance to applicable sections of the development Spokane Valley Municipal eCode and other applicable regulations; 5. Public Notice Packet. The assessor's One copy of a parcel map(s) indicating properties immediately adjacent to the subject site and a the title company search of current ownership of immediately adjacent properties. If the applicant owns adjacent property, the map should indicate parcels located immediately adjacent to the applicant's ownership. The title company search shall be current within 60 days of issuing the notice of application. If the information is more than 60 days old at the time the notice of application is issued, the applicant shall provide current information; 6. SEPA environmental checklist as applicable pursuant to State and local lawsfor preliminary subdivisions and binding site r'ars ^ r to checklit wil be egui ed f r elirn � hort plat if the construction of improvements will involve more than 500 cubic yards of grading, excavation or fill, or if critical areas exist on site; and 7. A plat certificate dated within 30 days of the application filing date confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown on the short plat, subdivision, or BSPbinding site plan is in the name of the owners signing. B. Preliminary short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan data (to be included on the preliminary short plat, plat or binding site plan). 1. Name, address and telephone number of the owner of the subject property and the person with whom official contact should be made regarding the short plat, plat, or binding site plan; 2. Title of the proposed division; 3. Location of subject property by quarter-quarter(s) of the section, township and range; 4. Legal description of the subject property with the source of the legal description clearly indicated; 5. A vicinity map at a scale of not more than 400 feet to the inch, except that the city manager or designee may approve an alternative scale if requested. The vicinity map shall show all adjacent parcels. It shall show how the streets and alleys in the proposed subdivision connect with existing and proposed streets and alleys in neighboring subdivisions or unplatted property; 6. North arrow, scale and boundary of the proposed short plat, plat, or binding site plan, and the date map is prepared; 7. Boundaries of all blocks, lot numbers, lot lines along with their dimensions and areas in square feet; 8. Location and identification of existing utilities; 9. Location, names and widths of all existing and proposed streets, roads and access easements within the proposed short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan and within 100 feet thereof, or the nearest City street if there is no City street within 100 feet of the subject property. Streets shall be clearly identified as public or private as applicable; Ordinance 20-024 Page 10 of 26 DRAFT 10. All easements, including border easements, or tracts proposed to be dedicated for any public purpose or for the common use of the property owners of the short plat, plat or binding site plan; 11. All existing easements that affect the subject property; 12. Location of any natural features such as wooded areas, streams, drainage ways, special flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, or critical areas as defined in SVMC Title 21; 13. Location of existing buildings, septic tanks, drainfields, wells or other improvements, and a note indicating if they will remain or be removed; 14. Whether adjacent property is platted or unplatted. If platted, give the name of the subdivision. If the proposed short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan is the subdivision of a portion of an existing plat, the approximate lines of the existing plat are to be shown and a copy of the existing plat, along with the recording numbers of any recorded covenants and easements; 15. Topographic information at five-foot maximum contour intervals, or at two -foot intervals where overall site topography is too flat to be depicted by five-foot intervals. Delineate areas with any slopes that are greater than 30 percent; and 16. Site data table showing number of proposed lots, existing zoning, water supplier, and method of sewerage. 20.30.030 Processing applications. Preliminary short subdivisions and binding site plans are classified as Type II applications; preliminary subdivisions are classified as Type III applications. Both application types shall be processed pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 17.80 SVMC. 20.30.040 Distribution of plans. When the department determines that the application is complete pursuant to SVMC 17.80.100, the department shall distribute the application materials to affected agencies. The department or reviewing agencies may request additional information during the review process. 20.30.050 Expiration of preliminary approval. Approval of a preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan shall automatically expire five years from the date of approval unless a complete application for a final short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan meeting all requirements under this title is submitted to the City. Extension of time may be granted as provided in SVMC 20.30.060. 20.30.060 Time extensions. An application form and supporting data for time extension requests shall be submitted to the department at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan. Time extension requests shall be processed as a Type I application pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC. The department may approve an extension provided there are no significant changed conditions or changed development regulations which would render recording of the short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan contrary to the public health, safety or general welfare. The department may grant an initial three-year time extension. Additional one-year extensions may be granted by the department beyond the initial three-year extension. Prior to granting time extensions, the department shall circulate the time extension request to affected agencies for comments. Additional or altered conditions recommended by the department or affected agencies may be required as a condition of Ordinance 20-024 Page 11 of 26 DRAFT this extension. This may include new or updated City regulations deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, or general welfare. The department shall issue a written decision approving or denying the time extension request and provide copies to affected agencies, the applicant, and those parties requesting a copy of such decision. Appeals of a time extension shall be filed in a manner consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.90 SVMC. Chapter 20.40 FINAL SHORT SUBDIVISIONS, SUBDIVISIONS, AND BINDING SITE PLANS Sections: 20.40.010 Final submittal. 20.40.020 Contents of final plat. 20.40.030 Filing final short plat, plat or binding site plan. 20.40.035 Recordation. 20.40.040 Surety in lieu of construction limitations. 20.40.050 Phasing. 20.40.010 Final submittal. A. The final short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan shall incorporate all conditions of the preliminary approval. The final short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan shall incorporate all conditions of approval imposed by the hearing examiner. B. All final subdivision, short subdivision or binding site plan submittals shall include the following: 1. A minimum of five40 copies of the proposed final short plat, plat or binding site plan; 2. Appropriate fees; and 3. Three Two copies of a plat certificate dated within 30 days of the application filing date confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown on the short plat, subdivision, or BSPbinding site plan is in the name of the owners signing.; and are submitted, unless this requirement is waived by the city manager or designee: a. .pdf (portable document format); b. .tiff (tagged image file format); c. Bitmap; or d. Other commonly used format as approved by the city manager or designee. 5. Electronic submittals shall be in accordance with the following criteria: a. Submittals shall utilize a file name using the City submittal number. For example, SUB 08 06.xxx or SHP 22 07.xxx; b. Lines, text and details shall be complete, clear and crisp and at a resolution that enables the smallest detail to be recognized and understood when magnified; Ordinance 20-024 Page 12 of 26 DRAFT c. The electronic files shall be delivered on a CD or DVD that is legibly labeled with subdivision name and phase; submittal number; file creation date; and contact information (firm name, address and phone number). As an option, an email submittal is acceptable and shall include a letter transmittal with the same information. d. CADD Criteria. Reserved. C. The final short plat, plat or binding site plan shall show: 1. All monuments found, set, reset, replaced or removed and not replaced, describing their kind, size and location and giving other data relating thereto; 2. Bearing trees, corner accessories or witness monuments, basis of bearings, bearing and length of lines, scale of map with graphic bar scale and north arrow; 3. Any other data necessary for the interpretation of the various items and locations of the points, lines and areas shown; 4. Reference and show adjoining surveys of record and plats; 5. The allowable error of mathematical closure for the final plat map shall not exceed one foot in 80,000 feet or 0.04 foot, whichever is greater; 6. Bearings and lengths are to be shown for all lines; no ditto marks are to be used; 7. Arrows shall be used to show limits of bearings and distances whenever any chance of misinterpretation could exist; 8. Plat boundary and street center lines having curves shall show radius, arc, central angle and tangent for each curve and radial bearings where curve is intersected by a non -tangent line. Spiral curves shall show two spiral curve elements in addition to the chord bearing and length; 9. Lots along curves shall show arc length and radius. For lot corners that are on non -tangent or non - perpendicular curves, the radial bearing shall be shown. If a curve table is provided, it shall show angle for each segment of the curve along each lot, arc length, tangent length, and radius; 10. All dimensions shall be shown in feet and hundredths of a foot. All bearings and angles shall be shown in degrees, minutes and seconds. All partial measurements shown shall equal the total overall measurements shown; 11. The final short plat, plat or binding site plan shall indicate the actual net area for each platted lot exclusive of dedicated or private road right-of-way. Lots one acre and over shall be shown to the closest hundredth of an acre, and all other lots shall be shown in square feet to the nearest square foot; and 12. Boundary points for corners shall be located and referenced to the current control network as established by the Spokane County GPS control project and that coordinate system. The controlling points used by this subdivision shall be indicated on the map. 20.40.020 Contents of final plat. All surveys shall comply with the Survey Recording Act (Chapter 58.09 RCW), minimum standards for survey and land descriptions (Chapter 332-130 WAC), and any applicable City standards. The contents of a final short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan shall include the following: Ordinance 20-024 Page 13 of 26 DRAFT A. The final short plat, plat or binding site plan shall be a legibly drawn, printed, or reproduced permanent map. Final short plats shall measure 18 by 24 inches. Final plats and binding site plans shall measure 24 by 36 inches. A two-inch margin shall be provided on the left edge, and a one -half -inch margin shall be provided at the other edges of the plat. If more than one sheet is required, each sheet shall show sheet numbers for the total sheets. B. The file number of the short plat, plat or binding site plan, location by quarter -quarter of a section, township and range shall be shown. C. The scale shall be 50 or 100 feet to the inch. If approved by the department, an appropriate scale may be used which does not exceed 200 feet to the inch, provided a 400 feet to the inch reduced copy is also submitted. The scale shall be shown in a text form as well as a graphic bar scale. D. A bold boundary line shall delineate the existing perimeter boundary of the short plat, plat or binding site plan prior to any dedication to the public. E. The location and widths of streets, alleys, rights -of -way, and easements serving the property, parks and open spaces proposed within the division and those platted easements existing immediately adjacent to the division shall be shown and or identified. Areas to be dedicated to the public must be labeled. F. Layout and names of adjoining subdivisions, subdivision lots or portions thereof shall be shown within and adjacent to the subdivision boundary. G. The layout, lot and block numbers, and dimensions of all lots shall be shown. H. Street names shall be shown. I. Street addresses for each lot shall be shown. J. Plat restrictions required as conditions of preliminary short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan approval shall be shown. K. Existing easements and utility easements shall be identified, shown and labeled. Recording information for the easement(s) shall be provided on the survey. Any easement and/or utility easement being created by this division shall be so identified, shown and labeled. L. Any special statements of approval required from governmental agencies, including those pertaining to flood hazard areas, shorelines, critical areas, and connections to adjacent state highways shall be shown. M. A notarized certification and acknowledgements by the owner(s) and beneficiary, if other than the City, as shown on a current plat certificate shall be provided dedicating streets, areas intended for other public use, and granting of easements for slope and utilities. N. A certification signed by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington stating that the final short plat, plat or binding site plan was surveyed and prepared by him/her, or under his/her supervision; that the plat is a true and correct representation of the subject land; and that monumentation has been established as required by City standards. Certification must be consistent with Chapter 58.09 RCW. O. The city council authorizes the City Manager or designee to approve and execute such final approval of any final plat, short plat, or binding site plan. If the plat contains multiple sheets, the first sheet shall contain the required signatures. The plat shall not be considered final unless it is reviewed must be reviewed and signed by the following: Ordinance 20-024 Page 14 of 26 DRAFT 1. Spokane Valley Community and Public Works development services Senior Eengineer; 2. Spokane Valley Ceity M Tanager or designee; 3. Spokane County- Environmental Services Directorutilities director; 4. Spokane Regional Health District (only where septic systems and/or private wells are required to serve the development); 5. Spokane County Measurer; 6. Spokane County Assessor; and 7. Hearing eExaminer for final subdivision plats only. 20.40.030 Filing final short plat, plat or binding site plan. The final short plat, plat or binding site plan shall be submitted to the department for review. It shall be routed to appropriate departments and agencies in order to review for compliance with the conditions of approval and applicable Spokane Valley Municipal Code and Revised Code of Washington requirements. Once all reviewing departments and agencies are satisfied; all conditions have been met or appropriate bonding and surety obtained pursuant to SVMC 20.40.040, the final short plat, plat or binding site plan mylar shall be submitted to the department for obtaining the required signatures. Final plats and short plats shall be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt thereof, unless the applicant consents to an extension of such time period (RCW 58.17.140). 20.40.035 Recordation. The department shall record the completed final short plat, plat, or binding site plan shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor's office and submit copies of the recorded documents to the Spokane County assessor's office. All fees for such recording shall be paid by the applicant prior to recording. 20.40.040 Surety in lieu of construction limitations. A. Street Improvements. Pursuant to SVMC 22.130.040, street improvements include sidewalks, drainage, and approaches. B. Non -Street Improvements. In lieu of the completion of the actual construction of any required non -street improvements prior to the approval of the final plat, short plat or binding site plan, the eCommunity and Public Works development department may accept a surety in an amount and with conditions satisfactory to the department consistent with the provision of RCW 58.17.130, and the criteria listed below. Non -street improvements may include, but are not limited to, fencing, landscaping, and trails. 1. The improvements will be completed within one year of the date of final approval; 2. The applicant for the surety does not have any outstanding improvements that have not been timely completed within other plats, short plats, or binding site plans within the City; 3. The surety is in the form of a cash savings assignment or irrevocable letter of credit in an amount of at least 125 percent of the City -estimated value of the outstanding improvements. 20.40.050 Phasing. Any subdivision or binding site plan may be developed in phases or increments. Phasing of short subdivisions is not permitted. A master phasing plan shall be submitted with the preliminary subdivision or binding site plan for approval by the department. A phasing plan shall not require the City to allow phased mitigation. The phasing plan may be approved by the city manager or designee provided: Ordinance 20-024 Page 15 of 26 DRAFT A. The phasing plan includes all land identified within the legal notice; B. The sequence of phased development is identified by a map; C. Each phase has reasonable public or private infrastructure to support the number of dwelling units or proposed commercial or industrial development contained in that phase; D. Each phase constitutes an independent planning unit with facilities, adequate circulation, and any requirements established for the entire subdivision or binding site plan; and provided, that any nonfinalized portion meets the minimum lot size of the underlying zone for the proposed use; and E. The development services Community and Public Works Senior Engineer senior engineer approves the necessary documents so that all road improvement requirements are assured for that phase. A phasing plan may be amended following preliminary approval. Said plan may be approved administratively provided the above criteria are met. Chapter 20.50 PRELIMINARY PLAT, SHORT PLAT, AND BINDINC SITE PLAN SUBDIVISION ALTERATIONS Sections: 20.50.010 Applications. 20.50.020 Preliminary plat, short plat and binding site planplat alterations — Notice, decision, filing plan. 20.50.030 Final plat alterations — Notice, decision, filing plan. 20.50.010 Applications. An application may be submitted for any proposed alteration to a preliminary or final plat, preliminary short plat or binding site plan. The application shall contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest in the lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions in the subdivision or portion to be altered. If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in a violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration. plat or binding site plan. A preliminary plat alteration is classified as a Type II permit and shall be processed pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC. Any alteration proposed under this chapter shall be subject to the requirements of Chapters 20.30 and 20.40 SVMC and RCW 58.17.215, as adopted or may be amended. 20.50.020 Preliminary plat, short plat and binding sitc plan alterations — Notice, decision, filing plan. A. Alterations of preliminary plats shall be classified as minor alterations and substantial alterations. A preliminary plat alteration for a minor alteration shall be classified as a Type II permit, provided the decision -making authority on the preliminary plat, or other law, allows for the administrative review of a minor alteration. Any preliminary plat alteration that constitutes a substantial alteration shall be classified as a Type III permit. Both permit types shall be processed pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC and in a manner consistent with RCW 58.17.215 subject to any specific requirements of this section. B. For alterations that constitute a substantial alteration, the City shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision in an appropriate regional publication or neighborhood Ordinance 20-024 Page 16 of 26 DRAFT newspaper or trade journal, and to those owners of property within 400 feet of that portion of the subdivision proposed for alteration consistent with SVMC 17.80.110 and 17.80.120. The notice shall include a statement that a public hearing will not be required unless specifically requested within the time frame indicated below. If a public hearing is requested within 14 days of receipt of the notice, notice of the hearing shall be provided as set forth in SVMC 17.80.120. C. Proposed alterations may be circulated to all agencies which were provided notice of the original preliminary plat proposal for review and comment. Proposed alterations shall be provided to any affected agency for review and comment. D. Alterations to subdivisions may be approved if such alteration will be consistent with and conforms to all applicable State and local laws, other applicable approved conditions, and the public use and interest will be served by the alteration. E. Following approval of an alteration, the applicant shall produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration which shall be signed by the city manager or designee and filed with the City. 20.50.030 Final plat alterations — Notice, decision, filing plan. A. A final plat alteration shall be classified as a Type III permit if a public hearing is requested, or a Type II if no hearing is required. B. Upon issuing a Completeness Determination for a final subdivision alteration, the department shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision and in an appropriate regional publication or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal , and to those owners of property within Inn f et of that porti,„ of the subdiyi or p e f r- alteration consistent with SVMC 17.80.110 and 17.80.120. The notice shall either establish a date for a public hearing or provide that a hearing may be requested by a person receiving notice within fourteen days of receipt of the notice. C. Proposed alterations shall be circulated to all agencies which were provided notice of the original preliminary plat proposal for review and comment. D. Alterations to final subdivisions may be approved if such alteration will be consistent with and conforms to all applicable State and local laws, other applicable approved conditions, and the public use and interest will be served by the alteration. E. Following approval of an alteration, the applicant shall produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration which shall be signed by the city manager or designee and filed with the City and the Spokane County Auditor. Any request for a proposed modification to a preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan which has received preliminary approval shall be submitted to the department. Any proposed modification which would amend conditions established administratively shall be circulated to affected agencies for review and comment. An amended decision or amended conditions of approval may be required based on comments received from affected agencies. The city manager or designee may waive formal processing if it is determined that the proposed modification would not have a substantial impact on adjacent properties or conditions of approval. This Ordinance 20-024 Page 17 of 26 DRAFT process shall not apply to amending site plans or conditions thereof established by a hearing body that would constitute a change of condition. Alterations may be approved by the city manager or designee, if the city manager or designee determines that the public use and interest will be served by the alteration. Following approval of an alteration, the appl cat ,hall r ,sauce e drawi„g o fth e ed alteration and Public Works departmentcommunity developmentde department. to the requirements in Chapters 20.30 and 20/10 SVMC. Any proposed modification which would significantly amend conditions established by the hearin_ examiner shall be processed as a change of conditions pursuant to Chapter 20.60 SVMC. Chapter 20.60 FINAL PLAT, SHORT PLAT, SHORT SUBDIVISION AND BINDING SITE PLAN ALTERATIONS Sections: 20.60.005 Purpose. 20.60.010 Application. 20.60.020 Final plat alterations — Notice, public hearing, decision, filing requirements. 20.60.030 Final short plat and binding site plan alterations — Notice, decision, filing requirements. 20.60.040 Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan. 20.60.005 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for alterations of preliminary and final short subdivisions and binding site plans. All references to "short plat" and "binding site plan" shall include both preliminary and final short plats and binding site plans, respectively. 20.60.010 Application. An application may be submitted for any proposed alteration to a final plat, final short plat; or fin -al -binding site plan. The application shall contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest in lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions in the subject subdivision or portion to be altered. If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the vacation of the subdivision or binding site plan, or portion thereof. A short plat or binding site plan alteration is classified as a Type II permit, except when the alteration proposes to alter a public dedication, in which case the alteration unless a public hearing is requested pursuant to SVMC 20.60.020 in which case the plat alteration shall be classified as a Type III permit. Alterations proposing to alter a public dedication shall be classified as a Type III permit subject to a public hearing as described below. Both permit types shall be processed pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC and in a manner consistent with RCW 58.17.215 subject to any specific requirements of this section. Any pl short plat or binding site plan alteration proposed under this section shall be subject to the requirements in Chapters 20.30 and 20.40 SVMC. Ordinance 20-024 Page 18 of 26 DRAFT Upon rt „f . rleted rl:cation r r Cemjaletenes; Detenffinatien for a final plat alteration, the department shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision, publication in an appropriate regional publication or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal, and to those owners of property within 1100 feet of that portion of the plat proposed for alteration consistent with SVMC 17.80.120. The notice shall include a statement that a public hearing will not be required unless, specifically requested within the time frame indicated below. Alterations proposing to alter a public 17.80.070. If a public hearing is requested within 11 days of receipt of the notice, notice of the hearing shall be provided as is set forth in SVMC 17.80.120. Alterations to final plats may be approved if it is determined that the public use and interest will be served by the alteration. Following approval of an alteration, the applic--afft-sliell-pfeEktc-e-a-e-f-the--appfei,e-d-alte-Fatieft of the final plat, which shall be signed by the city manager or designee and filed with the Spokane County auditor's office to become the lawful plat of the property. 20.60.0420 Final sShort plat and binding site plan alterations — Notice, decision, filing requirements. A. Upon receipt of a completed application Upon issuing a Completeness Determination for a €ishort plat or binding site plan alteration, the department shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision, publication in an appropriate regional publication or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal, and to those owners of property adjacent to that portion of the short plat or binding site plan proposed for alteration in the same manner and same type as was originally provided for the preliminary or final short plat or preliminary or final binding site plan proposed to be altered. B. Alterations proposing to alter a public dedication shall be processed consistent with the application procedures for Type III applications in SVMC 17.80.070 and RCW 58.17.215. For alterations that proposing to alter a public dedication, the City shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the short subdivision or binding site plan in an appropriate regional publication or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal, and to those owners of property within 400 feet of that portion of the short subdivision or binding site plan proposed for alteration consistent with SVMC 17.80.110 and 17.80.120. The notice shall include a statement that a public hearing will not be required unless specifically requested within the time frame indicated below. If a public hearing is requested within 14 days of receipt of the notice, notice of the hearing shall be provided as set forth in SVMC 17.80.120. C. Proposed alterations may be circulated to all agencies which were provided notice of the original short plat or binding site plan proposal for review and comment. Proposed alterations shall be provided to any affected agency for review and comment. D. Alterations to final short plats or binding site plans may be approved by the city manager or designee, if the city manager or designee determines such alteration will be consistent with and conform to all applicable State and local laws, other applicable approved conditions, and that the that the public use and interest will be served by the alteration. E. Following approval of an alteration, the applicant shall produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration of the short plat or binding site plan, which shall be signed by the city manager or designee Ordinance 20-024 Page 19 of 26 DRAFT and, for final short plats and final binding site plans, filed with the Spokane County auditor's office to become the lawful short plat or binding site plan of the property. 20.60.0e 40 Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan. A record of survey may be filed subsequent to the recording of a final binding site plan to establish lots within the boundaries of the final binding site plan. The record of survey shall be classified as a Type I application and shall be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC and approved by the city manager or designee. The following information shall be provided on the record of survey: A. The binding site plan file number shall be referenced. B. The scale shall be 50 or 100 feet to the inch. If approved by the city manager or designee, an appropriate scale may be used which does not exceed one inch equals 200 feet, provided a one inch equals 400 feet reduced eight -and -one -half -inch by 11-inch copy is provided. C. A distinct wide boundary line shall delineate the boundary of the lot(s) being created. The boundary of the binding site plan shall be indicated and any lot(s) that have been created by filing of the final binding site plan and/or record of survey. D. Each lot shall be numbered consecutively, and the size of each lot shall be indicated on the record of survey. E. The location and widths of streets, alleys, rights -of -way, and easements within the binding site plan and those existing immediately adjacent to the lot being created shall be shown. F. Street names shall be shown. G. Street addresses shall be shown. H. Restrictions required as conditions of preliminary approval shall be shown. I. Appropriate utility easements shall be shown. J. Certification of the professional land surveyor licensed in the state of Washington. K. The following signatures are required on the record of survey: 1. City of Spokane Valley eCity i Manager or designee; 2. City of Spokane Valley development services Community and Public Works sSenior eEngineer; 3. Property owner. L. Illustrate any existing buildings located on the lot which is being created or altered. The department shall record approved record of surveys with the Spokane County auditor's office and submit copies of the recorded documents to the Spokane County assessor's office. All fees for such recording shall be paid by the applicant prior to recording. Ordinance 20-024 Page 20 of 26 DRAFT Chapter 20.70 SUBDIVISION, SHORT SUBDIVISION, AND BINDING SITE PLANPLAT VACATION Sections: 20.70.010 PlatVacation — Application. 20.70.020 SubdivisionPlat vacation — Process. 20.70.030 Short subdivision and binding site plan vacation — Application. 20.70.040 Short subdivision and binding site plan vacation — Process. 20.70.010 R1atVacation — Application. An application may be submitted for the proposed vacation of part or all of a platsubdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan. The application shall contain the signatures of all parties having an ownership interest in that portion of the subdivision subject to vacation. If the subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval, and the application for vacation would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the vacation of the subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan, or portion thereof. 20.70.020 f1a4Subdivision vacation — Process. A. Except as provided in subsection B below, Vvacation of a platsubdivision or portion thereof is classified as a Type III application. Upon submittal of a complete application for vacation of plata subdivision or portion thereof, the department shall process the platsubdivision vacation request pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC and in a manner consistent with RCW 58.17.212. B. Vacation of city streets shall utilize the procedures for street vacations set forth in chapter 22.140 SVMC, RCW 35A.47.020, and chapter 35.79 RCW. 20.70.030 Short Plat and binding sitc plan vacation Application. An application may be submitted for the proposed vacation of part or all of a plat. The application shall contain the signatures of subject subdivision or a portion to be vacated. 20.70.0230 PlatShort Subdivision and binding site plan vacation — Process. A. Except as provided in subsections B and C below, Vvacation of a platshort subdivision, binding site plan, or portion thereof is classified as a Type IIl application. Upon submittal of a complete application for vacation of plata short subdivision, binding site plan, or portion thereof, the department shall process the plat vacation request pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC. and in a manner consistent with RCW 58.17.212. B. Vacation of any area designated or dedicated for public use within a short subdivision or binding site plan is classified as a Type III application. Upon submittal of a complete application for vacation of an area designated or dedicated for public use within a short subdivision or binding site plan, the department shall process the vacation request pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC and in a manner consistent with RCW 58.17.212. Ordinance 20-024 Page 21 of 26 DRAFT C. Vacation of city streets shall utilize the procedures for street vacations set forth in chapter 22.140 SVMC, RCW 35A.47.020, and chapter 35.79 RCW. Chapter 20.80 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS/ELIMINATIONS Sections: 20.80.010 Scope. 20.80.020 Review process. 20.80.030 Application and drawing requirements. 20.80.040 Recordation. 20.80.010 Scope. Boundary line adjustments shall be a minor alteration in the location of lot or parcel boundaries on existing lots or parcels. In this section "lot" shall mean a parcel of land having fixed boundaries described by reference to a recorded plat, a recorded binding site plan, by metes and bounds, or by section, township, and range, and be of sufficient area to meet minimum zoning requirements. The purpose of the boundary line elimination process is to remove interior lot lines of a parcel comprised of two or more separate lots with contiguous ownership. Boundary line adjustments must be consistent with the following: A. Such alteration shall not increase the number of lots nor diminish in size open space or other protected environments; B. Such alteration shall not diminish the size of any lot so as to result in a lot of less square footage than prescribed in the zoning regulations; C. Such alteration shall not result in a building setback violation or site coverage to less than prescribed by the zoning regulations; and D. All lots resulting from the boundary line alteration shall be in conformance with the design standards of this chapter. 20.80.020 Review process. Boundary line adjustments and eliminations are classified as Type I applications and shall be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC, 20.80.030 Application and drawing requirements. Application for a boundary line adjustment or elimination shall be made on forms provided by the department and shall provide the following information: A. Existing Conditions Site Plan. Produce a to -scale site plan on an eight -and -one -half -inch by 11-inch sheet with one -inch margins on all sides showing the following information: 1. The existing dimensions and square footage of the existing property(ies) involved; 2. The location and setbacks of any permanent improvements (i.e., structures, septic systems, etc.) from all property lines; 3. The identification, location and dimension of all access and utility easements; Ordinance 20-024 Page 22 of 26 DRAFT 4. The location, dimensions and names of public and/or private streets abutting the property(ies); and 5. North arrow and scale shall be noted. B. Proposed Adjustment/Elimination Site Plan. Produce a to -scale plan on an eight -and -one -half -inch by 11-inch sheet with one -inch margins on all sides showing the following information: 1. The location and setbacks of any permanent improvements (i.e., structures, septic systems, etc.) after the proposed boundary line adjustment or elimination from the new property lines; 2. The identification, location and dimension of any access or utility easements after the proposed boundary line adjustment or elimination; 3. The location, dimensions and names of public and/or private streets abutting the property(ies) after the proposed boundary line adjustment or elimination; 4. Indicate the existing property lines to be revised with a dashed line and the proposed property lines with a solid line if applicable; and 5. North arrow and scale shall be noted. C. On a separate sheet of paper (eight and one-half by 11 inches) a written legal description for the existing parcel(s) and the proposed adjusted or eliminated parcel(s) with one -inch margins on all sides. D. One copy each of all involved property owners' recorded deeds, verifying current ownership of the subject property(ies). E. If available, submit a copy of an original plat for the subject property. A copy of the general land office plat is not required. F. A record of survey of the property may be required by the city manager or designee. The need for a survey will be determined based on an evaluation of the number of parcels, legal descriptions, appurtenances, disputed or apparent lines of ownership, and setbacks. If required, the survey must be completed by a professional land surveyor licensed in the state of Washington. 20.80.040 Recordation. The department shall record approved boundary line adjustments and eliminations with the Spokane County auditor's office and submit copies of the recorded documents to the Spokane County assessor's office. All fees for such recording shall be paid by the applicant prior to recording. Section 4. Amendment. SVMC 17.80.030 is hereby amended as follows: 17.80.030 Assignment of development application classification. A. Assignment by Table. Land use and development applications shall be classified pursuant to Table 17.80-1 below: Ordinance 20-024 — Subdivision Regulations Page 23 of 26 DRAFT Table 17.80-1—Permit Type and Land Use Application Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross -Reference Type I Accessory dwelling units 19.40 Administrative determinations by city manager or designee or building official Multiple Administrative exception 19.140 Administrative interpretation 17.50.010 Boundary line adjustments and eliminations 20.80 Building permits not subject to SEPA 21.20.040 Floodplain development 21.30 Grading permits 24.50 Home business permit 19.65.180 Shoreline letter of exemption 21.50 Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan 20.60.040 Right-of-way permits 22.130.100 Site plan review 19.130 Small cell permit 22.121, 22.122 Temporary use permit 19.160 Time extensions for preliminary subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan 20.30.060 Type II Alterations final 20.5-60 preliminary and subdivisions, preliminary and final short subdivisions and preliminary and final; binding site plans (where there is no alteration of a public dedication) Binding site plan — preliminary and final 20.50 Binding 20.50 site plan change of conditionsMinor alterations — preliminary subdivisions SEPA threshold determination 21.20.060 Shoreline conditional use permit 21.50 Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review 21.50 Shoreline substantial development permit 21.50 Shoreline variance 21.50 Short subdivision — preliminary and final 20.30, 20.40 Vacation — short subdivisions and binding site plans where there is no vacation of an area designated or dedicated for 20.7020.30 public usePreliminary short subdivision, binding site plan change of conditions Ordinance 20-024 — Subdivision Regulations Page 24 of 26 DRAFT Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross -Reference Wireless communication facilities 22.120 Type III Alterations — final subdivisions (where a public hearing is requested) 20.50 Alterations - preliminary and final short subdivisions and preliminary and final binding site plans (where there is alteration of a public dedication) 20.60 Conditional use permits 19.150 Planned residential developments 19.50 Plat 20.70.020 vacation Subdivisions 20.5-30 - preliminaryPreliminary subdivision change of conditions Substantial 20.30 alterationsSubdivisions preliminary subdivisions Vacation — subdivision; short subdivisions and binding site plans where there is vacation of an area designated or dedicated for public use 20.70 Variance 19.170 Zoning map amendments (site -specific rezones) 19.30.030 Type IV Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments (text and/or map) 17.80.140 Area -wide zoning map amendments 17.80.140 Development Code text amendments 17.80.150 B. Assignment by City Manager or Designee. Land use and development applications not defined in Table 17.80-1 shall be assigned a type based on the most closely related application type by the city manager or designee, unless exempt under SVMC 17.80.040. When more than one procedure may be appropriate, the process providing the greatest opportunity for public notice shall be followed. C. Shoreline letters of exemption, shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, shoreline variances, and shoreline nonconforming use or structure review shall be processed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.80 SVMC, subject to any additional or modified procedures provided in Chapter 21.50 SVMC, Shoreline Regulations, including submittals, completeness review, notices, hearings, and decisions. D. Small cell permits and wireless communication facilities shall be processed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.80 SVMC, except as may otherwise be required pursuant to federal and state law, including but not limited to 47 USC 1455(a) (Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012) and Chapter 35.99 RCW. Chapter 22.122 SVMC specifies applicable time periods for review and processing of eligible facilities requests, collocations, small cell permits, and new wireless communication facilities. E. Except as provided in Table 17.80-1, change of conditions for permits shall be processed the same as the original permit type. (Ord. 18-007 § 4 (Exh. A), 2018; Ord. 17-004 § 3, 2017; Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). Ordinance 20-024 — Subdivision Regulations Page 25 of 26 DRAFT Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this 24th day of November, 2020. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 20-024 — Subdivision Regulations Page 26 of 26 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 20-024 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AND SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.80.030 RELATED TO SUBDIVISIONS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) previously adopted Title 20 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) relating to permitting and processing the subdivision of land as allowed pursuant to chapter 58.17 RCW, and has made subsequent amendments from time -to -time as appropriate; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW and chapter 58.17 RCW; and WHEREAS, City staff have proposed amendments to amend Title 20 SVMC and SVMC 17.80.030 to ensure consistency with chapter 58.17 SVMC and to align the subdivision permitting and processing requirements with current processes and procedures and the City's organizational structure; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, providing a notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on September 4 and 11, 2020, notice of the Commission's public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2020, the Planning Commission (Commission) held a study session; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 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 October 8, 2020, the Commission approved the findings and recommended that City Council adopt the amendments with the modifications proposed by the Commission; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 2020, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments and Commission Findings and Recommendations; and WHEREAS, on November 10, 2020 City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, chapter Title 20 SVMC and SVMC 17.80.030 as amended, bears 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: Ordinance 20-024 Page 1 of 25 DRAFT Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Title 20 SVMC and SVMC 17.80.030 to ensure consistency with chapter 58.17 RCW and to align the subdivision permitting and processing requirements with current processes and procedures and the City's organizational structure. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. and 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. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Planning Policies, set forth below. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. 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. Section 3. Amendment. Title 20 SVMC is hereby amended as follows: Chapter 20.10 AUTHORITY 20.10.010 Purpose This title is established in accordance with Chapter 58.17 RCW which authorizes cities to administer the process for the division of land. Chapter 20.20 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections: 20.20.010 Purpose. 20.20.020 Exemptions. 20.20.030 Legal lot. 20.20.040 Approval required prior to recordation. 20.20.050 Prohibition against sale, lease or transfer of property. 20.20.060 Vertical datum. Ordinance 20-024 Page 2 of 25 DRAFT 20.20.070 Monumentation. 20.20.080 Professional land surveyor. 20.20.090 General design. 20.20.100 Findings. 20.20.110 Attached single-family subdivisions. 20.20.010 Purpose. Pursuant to the purposes set forth in RCW 58.17.010, these regulations are necessary to: A. Promote the health, safety, and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state and the City; B. Promote effective use of land by preventing the overcrowding or scattered development which would be detrimental to health, safety, or the general welfare due to the lack of water supplies, sanitary sewer, drainage, transportation, or other public services, or excessive expenditure of public funds for such services; C. Avoid congestion and promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways through the proper planning and coordination of new streets within subdivisions with existing and planned streets in the surrounding community; D. Provide for adequate light and air; E. Provide for adequate water, sewage, drainage, parks and recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds, and other public requirements; F. Provide for proper ingress and egress; G. Provide for housing and commercial needs of the community; H. Require uniform monumentation of land divisions and conveyance of accurate legal descriptions; I. Protect environmentally sensitive areas; J. Provide for flexibility in site design to accommodate view enhancement and protection, protection of streams and wetlands, protection of steep slopes, and other environmentally significant or sensitive areas; K. Ensure consistency with and further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and L. Provide a process for the division of land for the following: 1. Short Subdivision. The division of land into nine or fewer lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions with a level of review that is proportional to the effect those lots may have on the surrounding area; 2. Subdivision. The division of land into 10 or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions with a level of review that is proportional to the effect those lots may have on the surrounding area; and 3. Binding Site Plan. An alternative method of dividing property interests for nonresidential development and applying to the phased division of any land for sale or lease which is zoned for commercial, business, office, mixed -use, or industrial development, or which is to be developed as condominiums or a manufactured home park. M. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subsection, all processes of land division set forth in Title 20 SVMC shall be consistent with and subject to state law requirements, including but not limited to chapter 58.17 RCW. The provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW shall supplement the provisions of Title 20 Ordinance 20-024 Page 3 of 25 DRAFT SVMC related to subdivisions and short subdivisions and may be relied on for that purpose; provided that any provisions of Title 20 SVMC relating to short subdivisions that conflict with chapter 58.17 RCW shall be construed and interpreted so as to be consistent with Title 20 SVMC. Any provision of Title 20 SVMC relating to subdivisions that conflicts with the requirements of chapter 58.17 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended, shall be construed and interpreted in a manner so as to be consistent with chapter 58.17 RCW. 20.20.020 Exemptions. A. The provisions of Title 20 SVMC shall not apply to: 1. Cemeteries and other burial plots while used for that purpose (RCW 58.17.040(1)); 2. Divisions made by testamentary provisions or laws of descent (RCW 58.17.040(3)); 3. A division of land for purpose of leasing land for facilities providing personal wireless services while used for that purpose (RCW 58.17.040(8)). B. The provisions of Title 20 SVMC shall not apply to the following; provided, that an application for exemption and drawing consistent with SVMC 20.20.020(C) is provided to the City: 1. Division of land into lots or tracts if such division is a result of subjecting a portion of the parcel or tract of land to either Chapter 64.32 RCW (Horizontal Regimes Act) or 64.34 RCW (Condominium Act) subsequent to the recording of a binding site plan for all such land (RCW 58.17.040(7)); 2. Division of land due to condemnation or sale under threat thereof, by an agency or division of government vested with the power of eminent domain; 3. Division or acquisition of land for public right-of-way; 4. A division of land into lots or tracts of less than three acres that is recorded in accordance with Chapter 58.09 RCW, used or to be used for construction and operation of consumer- or investor -owned electric utilities to meet the electrical needs of a utility's existing and new customers as set forth in RCW 58.17.040(9). C. An application for exemption for any of the purposes set forth in SVMC 20.20.020(B) shall be processed to determine whether the division is exempt with a minimum review for compliance with applicable adopted City regulations. The application shall be determined to be complete upon the submittal of the following materials: 1. An application; and 2. Maps, plans, and/or exhibits containing all applicable information as required by SVMC 20.30.020(B). 20.20.030 Legal lot. Development shall be permitted only on legally created lots. A lot is created in compliance with applicable state and local land segregation statutes or codes in effect at the time the lot was created or binding site plan was approved including, but not limited to, demonstrating the lot was created through one of the following: A. Lots created through subdivision, on a plat approved by the City or Spokane County separately describing the lot in question; or Ordinance 20-024 Page 4 of 25 DRAFT B. Lots created through short subdivision, on a short plat approved by the City or Spokane County separately describing the lot in question; or C. Lots created pursuant to a binding site plan process in effect at the time the binding site plan was approved by the City or Spokane County; or D. A division of land prior to March 13, 1978; provided, that: 1. A tax segregation request was received by the Spokane County assessor's office prior to said date; or 2. A legal instrument(s) pertaining to said division was filed on record prior to said date; and 3. All state and local land development regulations were met at the time the lot was created or can be met prior to the issuance of a building permit; or E. Development shall be allowed on a lot owned by an innocent purchaser. For purposes of SVMC 20.20.030(E), an "innocent purchaser" is an owner of the property, other than the original owner that created the lot, and who did not have actual notice that the lot was created by a means other than specified in SVMC 20.20.030(A) through (D); or F. In the event a lot was created by a means other than as specified in SVMC 20.20.030(A) through (D), development shall be allowed on such lot if the development does not adversely affect the public interest. When determining the impact on the public interest, the City shall consider the following criteria: 1. Whether the proposed development is consistent with the public health, safety, and general welfare; 2. Whether the use meets the underlying zoning requirements and is consistent with the use of at least one adjoining property; and 3. Whether the lot was created on or before December 31, 2016. In the event an illegally created lot does not meet the criteria of SVMC 20.20.030(A) through (F), a development permit shall not be issued until such time that a legal lot is created. 20.20.040 Approval required prior to recordation. Any map, plat or plan, unless previously exempt, hereafter made of a proposed short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan, or any part thereof, shall be presented for approval and be recorded as set forth in SVMC 20.40.030. No such map, plat or plan shall be recorded or have any validity unless or until it has the approval of City departments and agencies with jurisdiction as required by Title 20 SVMC. 20.20.050 Prohibition against sale, lease or transfer of property. No person shall sell, lease or offer to sell or transfer any lot, tract or parcel subject to the requirements of Title 20 SVMC without first receiving approval hereunder by the City and recording the approved division with Spokane County; provided, that if performance of an offer or agreement to sell, lease or otherwise transfer a lot, tract or parcel of land is expressly conditioned on the recording of the subdivision, short subdivision or binding site plan containing the lot, tract, or parcel, the offer or agreement does not violate any provision of Title 20 SVMC. 20.20.060 Vertical datum. Where topography is required to be shown, the land survey data shall be based on the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD-88). Ordinance 20-024 Page 5 of 25 DRAFT 20.20.070 Monumentation. Right-of-way, street centerline and street intersection monumentation shall be established as described by City -adopted street standards. In addition, for short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plans, every lot corner shall be marked or referenced in a permanent manner with the registration number of the professional land surveyor in charge of the survey in accordance with state law. 20.20.080 Professional land surveyor. The preparation of all preliminary and final short subdivisions, subdivisions and binding site plans shall be made by or under the supervision of a professional land surveyor licensed in the state of Washington. The professional land surveyor shall certify on the final plat that it is a true and correct representation of the lands actually surveyed. A survey is required on all final plats. All surveys shall comply with Chapter 58.09 RCW and Chapter 332-130 WAC. 20.20.090 General design. The design of short subdivisions, subdivisions and binding site plans shall comply with the requirements of all applicable City plans, regulations, and design and development standards. In addition: A. The design, shape, size, and orientation of the lots shall be appropriate for the use for which the divisions are intended, and the zoning and land use classification identified in the Comprehensive Plan of the area in which they are located. B. Lot Arrangement. 1. Side lot lines shall generally be perpendicular to public street rights -of -way, but may be within 20 degrees of perpendicular, or radial to the right-of-way in the case of curvilinear streets or cul-de-sacs. 2. Corner Lots. a. The lot lines at the intersection of two public streets shall be located a minimum of two feet behind the back of curb. b. At the intersection of two arterial streets (collector, minor or principal), the applicant may be required to provide a widened border easement or right-of-way area behind the pedestrian ramp landing for the placement of traffic control devices and street lights and their related appurtenances (see Figure 20.20.01). The limits of the border easement and right-of-way area shall be determined by the City at the time of application. This area shall not extend more than 15 feet behind the landing. The boundary of this area may be defined by an arc that is tangent at each end to the standard border easement, typically located behind the back of sidewalk, or right-of-way if there is no border easement in the vicinity. If this area is already fully contained within right-of-way then no additional border easement width shall be required. The only utilities allowed within this area are those necessary for the function of the proposed lights, signals, et cetera. Ordinance 20-024 Page 6 of 25 DRAFT DIJEa EA,EMENT 1 f M TANGENT LANDING S]DU AL.I' RTC -l1 CF WAY ARTERIAL 4 La R CURB L2' PEN. Figure 20.20.01 3. Lot Dimensions. a. Lot dimensions shall comply with the minimum standards established in Chapter 19.70 SVMC; b. Flag lots are prohibited. Reverse flag lots providing access to alleys or amenities located to the rear of the property are permitted. 4. Double Frontage Residential Lots. a. Double frontage and reverse frontage lots shall be permitted only where necessary to separate residential development from arterial roadway or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation; b. When lots back to arterials, screening shall be installed on the lot(s) limiting visibility between the arterial and the adjoining lots in accordance with SVMC 22.70.070; c. No building, except buildings designed and constructed as two-family dwellings or one -family attached dwellings, shall be constructed on or across existing lot lines. Where buildings are designed and constructed on or across lot lines, the building shall be located so that the common wall separating the individual living units is located on and along the common lot lines of the adjoining lots. C. Block dimensions shall reflect due regard to the needs of convenient access, public safety, connectivity, emergency vehicle access, topography, road maintenance, and the provision of suitable sites for the land use planned. 1. Block Length. Block length shall comply with the adopted street standards. 2. Block and Lot Labeling. Blocks and lots shall be identified in sequential numerical order. 3. Street alignments shall be designed and constructed with appropriate consideration for existing and planned streets, anticipated traffic patterns, topographic and drainage conditions, public safety, adopted street standards, Comprehensive Plan and the proposed use of the land so divided. D. Lots shall not be divided by the City boundary or public right-of-way, and shall not be divided by any zoning designation unless exceptional circumstances exist. E. Every lot shall have direct access to a paved public street, private street, or an easement for a private driveway. Ordinance 20-024 Page 7 of 25 DRAFT F. Prior to filing the final short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan application, the applicant shall improve or make appropriate provisions for the construction of the public or private streets, alleys or private driveways that provide access to lots being created through the short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan consistent with applicable City -adopted standards. G. Wastewater design shall comply with all applicable City regulations and other jurisdictional agency regulations. H. Adequate public domestic water supply and/or fire protection shall be provided in compliance with all applicable City regulations and other jurisdictional agency regulations. I. All road designs shall comply with Chapter 22.130 SVMC and adopted street standards. J. Provisions for stormwater runoff shall comply with City regulations for stormwater management as set forth in Chapter 22.150 SVMC. K. Existing and proposed easements for electric, water, sewer, gas, and similar utilities shall be illustrated on the short plat, plat, or binding site plan. The utility purveyors shall indicate to the department in writing that the easements are adequate for their service needs. L. The short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan shall provide for the location of underground utilities within public rights -of -way, border easements, alleys or utility easements including, but not limited to, those for electricity, communications and street lighting. When conditions make underground installation impractical, the city manager may waive the requirement for underground utilities. 20.20.100 Findings. Prior to approving any preliminary short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan, the department in the case of short subdivisions and binding site plans or the hearing examiner in the case of subdivisions shall determine and make written findings of fact that appropriate provisions are made for the following: A. The public health, safety, and general welfare; B. Open spaces; C. Drainage ways; D. Streets or roads, alleys, sidewalks, and other public ways; E. Transit stops; F. Public potable water supplies; G. Sanitary sewer; H. Parks and recreation; I. Playgrounds, schools and school grounds; J. Sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; K. Whether the public interest is served by the short subdivision, subdivision, and binding site plan; L. The proposed short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan is in conformity with all applicable development code provisions; and Ordinance 20-024 Page 8 of 25 DRAFT M. Other requirements found to be necessary and appropriate and for which written standards and policies have been adopted. 20.20.110 Attached single-family subdivisions. Applications for an attached single-family subdivision consisting of nine or fewer lots shall be submitted and processed according to the requirements for content and form for preliminary and final short subdivisions and process as stated in Chapters 20.30 through 20.40 SVMC. Application for an attached single-family subdivision consisting of 10 or more lots shall be submitted and processed according to the requirements for content and form for preliminary and final subdivisions as stated in Chapters 20.30 through 20.40 SVMC. Application for alterations of any preliminary short subdivision or subdivision shall be submitted and processed according to the requirements of Chapter 20.50 SVMC. Applications for alterations of any final short subdivision or subdivision shall be submitted and processed according to the requirements of Chapter 20.60 SVMC. Applications for vacation of any plat shall be submitted and reviewed according to the requirements of Chapter 20.70 SVMC. Chapter 20.30 PRELIMINARY SHORT SUBDIVISIONS, SUBDIVISIONS AND BINDING SITE PLANS Sections: 20.30.010 Application. 20.30.020 Contents of application. 20.30.030 Processing applications. 20.30.040 Distribution of plans. 20.30.050 Expiration of preliminary approval. 20.30.060 Time extensions. 20.30.010 Application. Prior to filing an application for a preliminary subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan, a pre - application conference pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.80 SVMC is required unless this requirement is waived by the city manager or designee. 20.30.020 Contents of application. Every preliminary short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan shall consist of the appropriate application form, applicable fees and the following: A. Maps and Exhibits. 1. Five copies of the preliminary short plat, plat or binding site plan which shall be a legibly drawn map, 18 by 24 inches in size for short plats; 24 by 36 inches in size for plats and binding site plans at a scale of one inch equals 50 feet or one inch equals 100 feet. If approved by the department, an alternative appropriate scale may be used; 2. One reduced (eight and one-half by 11 inches or 11 by 17 inches) copy of the preliminary short plat, plat or binding site plan; 4. A written narrative describing the proposal including, but not limited to, the number of proposed lots, nature of surrounding properties, proposed access, zoning, utility providers, method of sewerage, and timing of phasing of the development (if any). The narrative shall also address compliance to applicable sections of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and other applicable regulations; Ordinance 20-024 Page 9 of 25 DRAFT 5. Public Notice Packet. One copy of a parcel map indicating properties immediately adjacent to the subject site and a title company search of current ownership of immediately adjacent properties. If the applicant owns adjacent property, the map should indicate parcels located immediately adjacent to the applicant's ownership. The title company search shall be current within 60 days of issuing the notice of application. If the information is more than 60 days old at the time the notice of application is issued, the applicant shall provide current information; 6. SEPA environmental checklist as applicable pursuant to State and local laws. 7. A plat certificate dated within 30 days of the application filing date confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown on the short plat, subdivision, or binding site plan is in the name of the owners signing. B. Preliminary short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan data (to be included on the preliminary short plat, plat or binding site plan). 1. Name, address and telephone number of the owner of the subject property and the person with whom official contact should be made regarding the short plat, plat, or binding site plan; 2. Title of the proposed division; 3. Location of subject property by quarter-quarter(s) of the section, township and range; 4. Legal description of the subject property with the source of the legal description clearly indicated; 5. A vicinity map at a scale of not more than 400 feet to the inch, except that the city manager or designee may approve an alternative scale if requested. The vicinity map shall show all adjacent parcels. It shall show how the streets and alleys in the proposed subdivision connect with existing and proposed streets and alleys in neighboring subdivisions or unplatted property; 6. North arrow, scale and boundary of the proposed short plat, plat, or binding site plan, and the date map is prepared; 7. Boundaries of all blocks, lot numbers, lot lines along with their dimensions and areas in square feet; 8. Location and identification of existing utilities; 9. Location, names and widths of all existing and proposed streets, roads and access easements within the proposed short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan and within 100 feet thereof, or the nearest City street if there is no City street within 100 feet of the subject property. Streets shall be clearly identified as public or private as applicable; 10. All easements, including border easements, or tracts proposed to be dedicated for any public purpose or for the common use of the property owners of the short plat, plat or binding site plan; 11. All existing easements that affect the subject property; 12. Location of any natural features such as wooded areas, streams, drainage ways, special flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, or critical areas as defined in SVMC Title 21; 13. Location of existing buildings, septic tanks, drainfields, wells or other improvements, and a note indicating if they will remain or be removed; Ordinance 20-024 Page 10 of 25 DRAFT 14. Whether adjacent property is platted or unplatted. If platted, give the name of the subdivision. If the proposed short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan is the subdivision of a portion of an existing plat, the approximate lines of the existing plat are to be shown and a copy of the existing plat, along with the recording numbers of any recorded covenants and easements; 15. Topographic information at five-foot maximum contour intervals, or at two -foot intervals where overall site topography is too flat to be depicted by five-foot intervals. Delineate areas with any slopes that are greater than 30 percent; and 16. Site data table showing number of proposed lots, existing zoning, water supplier, and method of sewerage. 20.30.030 Processing applications. Preliminary short subdivisions and binding site plans are classified as Type II applications; preliminary subdivisions are classified as Type III applications. Both application types shall be processed pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 17.80 SVMC. 20.30.040 Distribution of plans. When the department determines that the application is complete pursuant to SVMC 17.80.100, the department shall distribute the application materials to affected agencies. The department or reviewing agencies may request additional information during the review process. 20.30.050 Expiration of preliminary approval. Approval of a preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan shall automatically expire five years from the date of approval unless a complete application for a final short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan meeting all requirements under this title is submitted to the City. Extension of time may be granted as provided in SVMC 20.30.060. 20.30.060 Time extensions. An application form and supporting data for time extension requests shall be submitted to the department at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan. Time extension requests shall be processed as a Type I application pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC. The department may approve an extension provided there are no significant changed conditions or changed development regulations which would render recording of the short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan contrary to the public health, safety or general welfare. The department may grant an initial three-year time extension. Additional one-year extensions may be granted by the department beyond the initial three-year extension. Prior to granting time extensions, the department shall circulate the time extension request to affected agencies for comments. Additional or altered conditions recommended by the department or affected agencies may be required as a condition of this extension. This may include new or updated City regulations deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, or general welfare. The department shall issue a written decision approving or denying the time extension request and provide copies to affected agencies, the applicant, and those parties requesting a copy of such decision. Appeals of a time extension shall be filed in a manner consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.90 SVMC. Ordinance 20-024 Page 11 of 25 DRAFT Chapter 20.40 FINAL SHORT SUBDIVISIONS, SUBDIVISIONS, AND BINDING SITE PLANS Sections: 20.40.010 Final submittal. 20.40.020 Contents of final plat. 20.40.030 Filing final short plat, plat or binding site plan. 20.40.035 Recordation. 20.40.040 Surety in lieu of construction limitations. 20.40.050 Phasing. 20.40.010 Final submittal. A. The final short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan shall incorporate all conditions of the preliminary approval. The final short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan shall incorporate all conditions of approval imposed by the hearing examiner. B. All final subdivision, short subdivision or binding site plan submittals shall include the following: 1. A minimum of five copies of the proposed final short plat, plat or binding site plan; 2. Appropriate fees; and 3. Two copies of a plat certificate dated within 30 days of the application filing date confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown on the short plat, subdivision, or binding site plan is in the name of the owners signing. C. The final short plat, plat or binding site plan shall show: 1. All monuments found, set, reset, replaced or removed and not replaced, describing their kind, size and location and giving other data relating thereto; 2. Bearing trees, corner accessories or witness monuments, basis of bearings, bearing and length of lines, scale of map with graphic bar scale and north arrow; 3. Any other data necessary for the interpretation of the various items and locations of the points, lines and areas shown; 4. Reference and show adjoining surveys of record and plats; 5. The allowable error of mathematical closure for the final plat map shall not exceed one foot in 80,000 feet or 0.04 foot, whichever is greater; 6. Bearings and lengths are to be shown for all lines; no ditto marks are to be used; 7. Arrows shall be used to show limits of bearings and distances whenever any chance of misinterpretation could exist; 8. Plat boundary and street center lines having curves shall show radius, arc, central angle and tangent for each curve and radial bearings where curve is intersected by a non -tangent line. Spiral curves shall show two spiral curve elements in addition to the chord bearing and length; Ordinance 20-024 Page 12 of 25 DRAFT 9. Lots along curves shall show arc length and radius. For lot corners that are on non -tangent or non - perpendicular curves, the radial bearing shall be shown. If a curve table is provided, it shall show angle for each segment of the curve along each lot, arc length, tangent length, and radius; 10. All dimensions shall be shown in feet and hundredths of a foot. All bearings and angles shall be shown in degrees, minutes and seconds. All partial measurements shown shall equal the total overall measurements shown; 11. The final short plat, plat or binding site plan shall indicate the actual net area for each platted lot exclusive of dedicated or private road right-of-way. Lots one acre and over shall be shown to the closest hundredth of an acre, and all other lots shall be shown in square feet to the nearest square foot; and 12. Boundary points for corners shall be located and referenced to the current control network as established by the Spokane County GPS control project and that coordinate system. The controlling points used by this subdivision shall be indicated on the map. 20.40.020 Contents of final plat. All surveys shall comply with the Survey Recording Act (Chapter 58.09 RCW), minimum standards for survey and land descriptions (Chapter 332-130 WAC), and any applicable City standards. The contents of a final short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan shall include the following: A. The final short plat, plat or binding site plan shall be a legibly drawn, printed, or reproduced permanent map. Final short plats shall measure 18 by 24 inches. Final plats and binding site plans shall measure 24 by 36 inches. A two-inch margin shall be provided on the left edge, and a one -half -inch margin shall be provided at the other edges of the plat. If more than one sheet is required, each sheet shall show sheet numbers for the total sheets. B. The file number of the short plat, plat or binding site plan, location by quarter -quarter of a section, township and range shall be shown. C. The scale shall be 50 or 100 feet to the inch. If approved by the department, an appropriate scale may be used which does not exceed 200 feet to the inch, provided a 400 feet to the inch reduced copy is also submitted. The scale shall be shown in a text form as well as a graphic bar scale. D. A bold boundary line shall delineate the existing perimeter boundary of the short plat, plat or binding site plan prior to any dedication to the public. E. The location and widths of streets, alleys, rights -of -way, and easements serving the property, parks and open spaces proposed within the division and those platted easements existing immediately adjacent to the division shall be shown and or identified. Areas to be dedicated to the public must be labeled. F. Layout and names of adjoining subdivisions, subdivision lots or portions thereof shall be shown within and adjacent to the subdivision boundary. G. The layout, lot and block numbers, and dimensions of all lots shall be shown. H. Street names shall be shown. I. Street addresses for each lot shall be shown. J. Plat restrictions required as conditions of preliminary short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan approval shall be shown. Ordinance 20-024 Page 13 of 25 DRAFT K. Existing easements and utility easements shall be identified, shown and labeled. Recording information for the easement(s) shall be provided on the survey. Any easement and/or utility easement being created by this division shall be so identified, shown and labeled. L. Any special statements of approval required from governmental agencies, including those pertaining to flood hazard areas, shorelines, critical areas, and connections to adjacent state highways shall be shown. M. A notarized certification and acknowledgements by the owner(s) and beneficiary, if other than the City, as shown on a current plat certificate shall be provided dedicating streets, areas intended for other public use, and granting of easements for slope and utilities. N. A certification signed by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington stating that the final short plat, plat or binding site plan was surveyed and prepared by him/her, or under his/her supervision; that the plat is a true and correct representation of the subject land; and that monumentation has been established as required by City standards. Certification must be consistent with Chapter 58.09 RCW. O. The city council authorizes the City Manager or designee to approve and execute such final approval of any final plat, short plat, or binding site plan. If the plat contains multiple sheets, the first sheet shall contain the required signatures. The plat shall not be considered final unless it is reviewed by the following: 1. Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Senior Engineer; 2. Spokane Valley City Manager or designee; 3. Spokane County Environmental Services Director; 4. Spokane Regional Health District (only where septic systems and/or private wells are required to serve the development); 5. Spokane County Treasurer; 6. Spokane County Assessor; and 7. Hearing Examiner for final subdivision plats only. 20.40.030 Filing final short plat, plat or binding site plan. The final short plat, plat or binding site plan shall be submitted to the department for review. It shall be routed to appropriate departments and agencies in order to review for compliance with the conditions of approval and applicable Spokane Valley Municipal Code and Revised Code of Washington requirements. Once all reviewing depaitnients and agencies are satisfied all conditions have been met or appropriate bonding and surety obtained pursuant to SVMC 20.40.040, the final short plat, plat or binding site plan mylar shall be submitted to the department for obtaining the required signatures. Final plats and short plats shall be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt thereof, unless the applicant consents to an extension of such time period (RCW 58.17.140). 20.40.035 Recordation. The completed final short plat, plat, or binding site plan shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor's office and submit copies of the recorded documents to the Spokane County assessor's office. All fees for such recording shall be paid by the applicant prior to recording. 20.40.040 Surety in lieu of construction limitations. A. Street Improvements. Pursuant to SVMC 22.130.040, street improvements include sidewalks, drainage, and approaches. Ordinance 20-024 Page 14 of 25 DRAFT B. Non -Street Improvements. In lieu of the completion of the actual construction of any required non -street improvements prior to the approval of the final plat, short plat or binding site plan, the Community and Public Works department may accept a surety in an amount and with conditions satisfactory to the department consistent with the provision of RCW 58.17.130, and the criteria listed below. Non -street improvements may include, but are not limited to, fencing, landscaping, and trails. 1. The improvements will be completed within one year of the date of final approval; 2. The applicant for the surety does not have any outstanding improvements that have not been timely completed within other plats, short plats, or binding site plans within the City; 3. The surety is in the form of a cash savings assignment or irrevocable letter of credit in an amount of at least 125 percent of the City -estimated value of the outstanding improvements. 20.40.050 Phasing. Any subdivision or binding site plan may be developed in phases or increments. Phasing of short subdivisions is not permitted. A master phasing plan shall be submitted with the preliminary subdivision or binding site plan for approval by the department. A phasing plan shall not require the City to allow phased mitigation. The phasing plan may be approved by the city manager or designee provided: A. The phasing plan includes all land identified within the legal notice; B. The sequence of phased development is identified by a map; C. Each phase has reasonable public or private infrastructure to support the number of dwelling units or proposed commercial or industrial development contained in that phase; D. Each phase constitutes an independent planning unit with facilities, adequate circulation, and any requirements established for the entire subdivision or binding site plan; and provided, that any nonfinalized portion meets the minimum lot size of the underlying zone for the proposed use; and E. The Community and Public Works Senior Engineer approves the necessary documents so that all road improvement requirements are assured for that phase. A phasing plan may be amended following preliminary approval. Said plan may be approved administratively provided the above criteria are met. Chapter 20.50 SUBDIVISION ALTERATIONS Sections: 20.50.010 Applications. 20.50.020 Preliminary plat alterations — Notice, decision, filing plan. 20.50.030 Final plat alterations —Notice, decision, filing plan. 20.50.010 Applications. An application may be submitted for any proposed alteration to a preliminary or final plat. The application shall contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest in the lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions in the subdivision or portion to be altered. If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in a violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all Ordinance 20-024 Page 15 of 25 DRAFT parties to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration. Any alteration proposed under this chapter shall be subject to the requirements of Chapters 20.30 and 20.40 SVMC and RCW 58.17.215, as adopted or may be amended. 20.50.020 Preliminary plat alterations — Notice, decision, filing plan. A. Alterations of preliminary plats shall be classified as minor alterations and substantial alterations. A preliminary plat alteration for a minor alteration shall be classified as a Type II permit, provided the decision -making authority on the preliminary plat, or other law, allows for the administrative review of a minor alteration. Any preliminary plat alteration that constitutes a substantial alteration shall be classified as a Type III permit. Both permit types shall be processed pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC and in a manner consistent with RCW 58.17.215 subject to any specific requirements of this section. B. For alterations that constitute a substantial alteration, the City shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision in an appropriate regional publication or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal, and to those owners of property within 400 feet of that portion of the subdivision proposed for alteration consistent with SVMC 17.80.110 and 17.80.120. The notice shall include a statement that a public hearing will not be required unless specifically requested within the time frame indicated below. If a public hearing is requested within 14 days of receipt of the notice, notice of the hearing shall be provided as set forth in SVMC 17.80.120. C. Proposed alterations may be circulated to all agencies which were provided notice of the original preliminary plat proposal for review and comment. Proposed alterations shall be provided to any affected agency for review and comment. D. Alterations to subdivisions may be approved if such alteration will be consistent with and conforms to all applicable State and local laws, other applicable approved conditions, and the public use and interest will be served by the alteration. E. Following approval of an alteration, the applicant shall produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration which shall be signed by the city manager or designee and filed with the City. 20.50.030 Final plat alterations — Notice, decision, filing plan. A. A final plat alteration shall be classified as a Type III permit if a public hearing is requested, or a Type II if no hearing is required. B. Upon issuing a Completeness Determination for a final subdivision alteration, the department shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision and in an appropriate regional publication or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal consistent with SVMC 17.80.110 and 17.80.120. The notice shall either establish a date for a public hearing or provide that a hearing may be requested by a person receiving notice within fourteen days of receipt of the notice. C. Proposed alterations shall be circulated to all agencies which were provided notice of the original preliminary plat proposal for review and comment. D. Alterations to final subdivisions may be approved if such alteration will be consistent with and conforms to all applicable State and local laws, other applicable approved conditions, and the public use and interest will be served by the alteration. Ordinance 20-024 Page 16 of 25 DRAFT E. Following approval of an alteration, the applicant shall produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration which shall be signed by the city manager or designee and filed with the City and the Spokane County Auditor. Chapter 20.60 SHORT SUBDIVISION AND BINDING SITE PLAN ALTERATIONS Sections: 20.60.005 Purpose. 20.60.010 Application. 20.60.020 Final plat alterations — Notice, public hearing, decision, filing requirements. 20.60.030 Final short plat and binding site plan alterations — Notice, decision, filing requirements. 20.60.040 Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan. 20.60.005 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for alterations of preliminary and final short subdivisions and binding site plans. All references to "short plat" and "binding site plan" shall include both preliminary and final short plats and binding site plans, respectively. 20.60.010 Application. An application may be submitted for any proposed alteration to a short plat or binding site plan. The application shall contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest in lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions in the subject subdivision or portion to be altered. If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the vacation of the subdivision or binding site plan, or portion thereof. A short plat or binding site plan alteration is classified as a Type II permit, except when the alteration proposes to alter a public dedication, in which case the alteration shall be classified as a Type III permit subject to a public hearing as described below. Both permit types shall be processed pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC and in a manner consistent with RCW 58.17.215 subject to any specific requirements of this section. Any short plat or binding site plan alteration proposed under this section shall be subject to the requirements in Chapters 20.30 and 20.40 SVMC. 20.60.020 Short plat and binding site plan alterations — Notice, decision, filing requirements. A. Upon issuing a Completeness Determination for a short plat or binding site plan alteration, the department shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision, in an appropriate regional publication or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal, and to those owners of property adjacent to that portion of the short plat or binding site plan proposed for alteration in the same Ordinance 20-024 Page 17 of 25 DRAFT manner and same type as was originally provided for the preliminary or final short plat or preliminary or final binding site plan proposed to be altered. B. Alterations proposing to alter a public dedication shall be processed consistent with the application procedures for Type III applications in SVMC 17.80.070 and RCW 58.17.215. For alterations that proposing to alter a public dedication, the City shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the short subdivision or binding site plan in an appropriate regional publication or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal, and to those owners of property within 400 feet of that portion of the short subdivision or binding site plan proposed for alteration consistent with SVMC 17.80.110 and 17.80.120. The notice shall include a statement that a public hearing will not be required unless specifically requested within the time frame indicated below. If a public hearing is requested within 14 days of receipt of the notice, notice of the hearing shall be provided as set forth in SVMC 17.80.120. C. Proposed alterations may be circulated to all agencies which were provided notice of the original short plat or binding site plan proposal for review and comment. Proposed alterations shall be provided to any affected agency for review and comment. D. Alterations to short plats or binding site plans may be approved by the city manager or designee, if the city manager or designee determines such alteration will be consistent with and conform to all applicable State and local laws, other applicable approved conditions, and that the public use and interest will be served by the alteration. E. Following approval of an alteration, the applicant shall produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration of the short plat or binding site plan, which shall be signed by the city manager or designee and, for final short plats and final binding site plans, filed with the Spokane County auditor's office to become the lawful short plat or binding site plan of the property. 20.60.030 Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan. A record of survey may be filed subsequent to the recording of a final binding site plan to establish lots within the boundaries of the final binding site plan. The record of survey shall be classified as a Type I application and shall be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC and approved by the city manager or designee. The following information shall be provided on the record of survey: A. The binding site plan file number shall be referenced. B. The scale shall be 50 or 100 feet to the inch. If approved by the city manager or designee, an appropriate scale may be used which does not exceed one inch equals 200 feet, provided a one inch equals 400 feet reduced eight -and -one -half -inch by 11-inch copy is provided. C. A distinct wide boundary line shall delineate the boundary of the lot(s) being created. The boundary of the binding site plan shall be indicated and any lot(s) that have been created by filing of the final binding site plan and/or record of survey. D. Each lot shall be numbered consecutively, and the size of each lot shall be indicated on the record of survey. E. The location and widths of streets, alleys, rights -of -way, and easements within the binding site plan and those existing immediately adjacent to the lot being created shall be shown. Ordinance 20-024 Page 18 of 25 DRAFT F. Street names shall be shown. G. Street addresses shall be shown. H. Restrictions required as conditions of preliminary approval shall be shown. I. Appropriate utility easements shall be shown. J. Certification of the professional land surveyor licensed in the state of Washington. K. The following signatures are required on the record of survey: 1. City of Spokane Valley City Manager or designee; 2. City of Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Senior Engineer; 3. Property owner. L. Illustrate any existing buildings located on the lot which is being created or altered. The department shall record approved record of surveys with the Spokane County auditor's office and submit copies of the recorded documents to the Spokane County assessor's office. All fees for such recording shall be paid by the applicant prior to recording. Chapter 20.70 SUBDIVISION, SHORT SUBDIVISION, AND BINDING SITE PLAN VACATION Sections: 20.70.010 Vacation — Application. 20.70.020 Subdivision vacation — Process. 20.70.030 Short subdivision and binding site plan vacation — Application. 20.70.040 Short subdivision and binding site plan vacation — Process. 20.70.010 Vacation — Application. An application may be submitted for the proposed vacation of part or all of a subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan. The application shall contain the signatures of all parties having an ownership interest in that portion of the subdivision subject to vacation. If the subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval, and the application for vacation would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the vacation of the subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan, or portion thereof. 20.70.020 Subdivision vacation — Process. A. Except as provided in subsection B below, vacation of a subdivision or portion thereof is classified as a Type III application. Upon submittal of a complete application for vacation of a subdivision or portion thereof, the department shall process the subdivision vacation request pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC and in a manner consistent with RCW 58.17.212. Ordinance 20-024 Page 19 of 25 DRAFT B. Vacation of city streets shall utilize the procedures for street vacations set forth in chapter 22.140 SVMC, RCW 35A.47.020, and chapter 35.79 RCW. 20.70.030 Short Subdivision and binding site plan vacation — Process. A. Except as provided in subsections B and C below, vacation of a short subdivision, binding site plan, or portion thereof is classified as a Type II application. Upon submittal of a complete application for vacation of a short subdivision, binding site plan, or portion thereof, the department shall process the vacation request pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC. B. Vacation of any area designated or dedicated for public use within a short subdivision or binding site plan is classified as a Type III application. Upon submittal of a complete application for vacation of an area designated or dedicated for public use within a short subdivision or binding site plan, the department shall process the vacation request pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC and in a manner consistent with RCW 58.17.212. C. Vacation of city streets shall utilize the procedures for street vacations set forth in chapter 22.140 SVMC, RCW 35A.47.020, and chapter 35.79 RCW. Chapter 20.80 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS/ELIMINATIONS Sections: 20.80.010 Scope. 20.80.020 Review process. 20.80.030 Application and drawing requirements. 20.80.040 Recordation. 20.80.010 Scope. Boundary line adjustments shall be a minor alteration in the location of lot or parcel boundaries on existing lots or parcels. In this section "lot" shall mean a parcel of land having fixed boundaries described by reference to a recorded plat, a recorded binding site plan, by metes and bounds, or by section, township, and range, and be of sufficient area to meet minimum zoning requirements. The purpose of the boundary line elimination process is to remove interior lot lines of a parcel comprised of two or more separate lots with contiguous ownership. Boundary line adjustments must be consistent with the following: A. Such alteration shall not increase the number of lots nor diminish in size open space or other protected environments; B. Such alteration shall not diminish the size of any lot so as to result in a lot of less square footage than prescribed in the zoning regulations; C. Such alteration shall not result in a building setback violation or site coverage to less than prescribed by the zoning regulations; and D. All lots resulting from the boundary line alteration shall be in conformance with the design standards of this chapter. Ordinance 20-024 Page 20 of 25 DRAFT 20.80.020 Review process. Boundary line adjustments and eliminations are classified as Type I applications and shall be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC. 20.80.030 Application and drawing requirements. Application for a boundary line adjustment or elimination shall be made on forms provided by the department and shall provide the following information: A. Existing Conditions Site Plan. Produce a to -scale site plan on an eight -and -one -half -inch by 11-inch sheet with one -inch margins on all sides showing the following information: 1. The existing dimensions and square footage of the existing property(ies) involved; 2. The location and setbacks of any permanent improvements (i.e., structures, septic systems, etc.) from all property lines; 3. The identification, location and dimension of all access and utility easements; 4. The location, dimensions and names of public and/or private streets abutting the property(ies); and 5. North arrow and scale shall be noted. B. Proposed Adjustment/Elimination Site Plan. Produce a to -scale plan on an eight -and -one -half -inch by 11-inch sheet with one -inch margins on all sides showing the following information: 1. The location and setbacks of any permanent improvements (i.e., structures, septic systems, etc.) after the proposed boundary line adjustment or elimination from the new property lines; 2. The identification, location and dimension of any access or utility easements after the proposed boundary line adjustment or elimination; 3. The location, dimensions and names of public and/or private streets abutting the property(ies) after the proposed boundary line adjustment or elimination; 4. Indicate the existing property lines to be revised with a dashed line and the proposed property lines with a solid line if applicable; and 5. North arrow and scale shall be noted. C. On a separate sheet of paper (eight and one-half by 11 inches) a written legal description for the existing parcel(s) and the proposed adjusted or eliminated parcel(s) with one -inch margins on all sides. D. One copy each of all involved property owners' recorded deeds, verifying current ownership of the subject property(ies). E. If available, submit a copy of an original plat for the subject property. A copy of the general land office plat is not required. F. A record of survey of the property may be required by the city manager or designee. The need for a survey will be determined based on an evaluation of the number of parcels, legal descriptions, appurtenances, disputed or apparent lines of ownership, and setbacks. If required, the survey must be completed by a professional land surveyor licensed in the state of Washington. 20.80.040 Recordation. The department shall record approved boundary line adjustments and eliminations with the Spokane County auditor's office and submit copies of the recorded documents to the Spokane County assessor's office. All fees for such recording shall be paid by the applicant prior to recording. Ordinance 20-024 — Subdivision Regulations Page 21 of 25 DRAFT Section 4. Amendment. SVMC 17.80.030 is hereby amended as follows: 17.80.030 Assignment of development application classification. A. Assignment by Table. Land use and development applications shall be classified pursuant to Table 17.80-1 below: Ordinance 20-024 — Subdivision Regulations Page 22 of 25 DRAFT Table 17.80-1—Permit Type and Land Use Application Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross -Reference Type I Accessory dwelling units 19.40 Administrative determinations by city manager or designee or building official Multiple Administrative exception 19.140 Administrative interpretation 17.50.010 Boundary line adjustments and eliminations 20.80 Building permits not subject to SEPA 21.20.040 Floodplain development 21.30 Grading permits 24.50 Home business permit 19.65.180 Shoreline letter of exemption 21.50 Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan 20.60.040 Right-of-way permits 22.130.100 Site plan review 19.130 Small cell permit 22.121, 22.122 Temporary use permit 19.160 Time extensions for preliminary subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan 20.30.060 Type II Alterations —preliminary and final short subdivisions and preliminary and final binding site plans (where there is no alteration of a public dedication) 20.60 Binding site plan — preliminary and final 20.50 Minor alterations — preliminary subdivisions 20.50 SEPA threshold determination 21.20.060 Shoreline conditional use permit 21.50 Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review 21.50 Shoreline substantial development permit 21.50 Shoreline variance 21.50 Short subdivision — preliminary and final 20.30, 20.40 Vacation — short subdivisions and binding site plans where there is no vacation of an area designated or dedicated for public use 20.70 Wireless communication facilities 22.120 Ordinance 20-024 — Subdivision Regulations Page 23 of 25 DRAFT Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross -Reference Type III Alterations — final subdivisions (where a public hearing is requested) 20.50 Alterations - preliminary and final short subdivisions and preliminary and final binding site plans (where there is alteration of a public dedication) 20.60 Conditional use permits 19.150 Planned residential developments 19.50 Subdivisions - preliminary 20.30 Substantial alterations — preliminary subdivisions 20.30 Vacation — subdivision; short subdivisions and binding site plans where there is vacation of an area designated or dedicated for public use 20.70 Variance 19.170 Zoning map amendments (site -specific rezones) 19.30.030 Type IV Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments (text and/or map) 17.80.140 Area -wide zoning map amendments 17.80.140 Development Code text amendments 17.80.150 B. Assignment by City Manager or Designee. Land use and development applications not defined in Table 17.80-1 shall be assigned a type based on the most closely related application type by the city manager or designee, unless exempt under SVMC 17.80.040. When more than one procedure may be appropriate, the process providing the greatest opportunity for public notice shall be followed. C. Shoreline letters of exemption, shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, shoreline variances, and shoreline nonconforming use or structure review shall be processed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.80 SVMC, subject to any additional or modified procedures provided in Chapter 21.50 SVMC, Shoreline Regulations, including submittals, completeness review, notices, hearings, and decisions. D. Small cell permits and wireless communication facilities shall be processed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.80 SVMC, except as may otherwise be required pursuant to federal and state law, including but not limited to 47 USC 1455(a) (Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012) and Chapter 35.99 RCW. Chapter 22.122 SVMC specifies applicable time periods for review and processing of eligible facilities requests, collocations, small cell permits, and new wireless communication facilities. E. Except as provided in Table 17.80-1, change of conditions for permits shall be processed the same as the original permit type. (Ord. 18-007 § 4 (Exh. A), 2018; Ord. 17-004 § 3, 2017; Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or Ordinance 20-024 — Subdivision Regulations Page 24 of 25 DRAFT unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this 24th day of November, 2020. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 20-024 — Subdivision Regulations Page 25 of 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2019-0005 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.I50(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with December 28, 2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA-2019-0005 is a City -initiated text amendment to the SVMC, amending Title 20 and Chapter 17.80 of the SVMC to ensure Title 20 SVMC is consistent with RCW 58.17 and align the code with current processes and the City's organizational structure. Due to the proposed changes in Title 20 SVMC the Permit Type and Land Use Application table in Chapter 17.80.030 must be also be revised. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on September 24, 2020. The Commissioners voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the goals and policies. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The amendment to the code is procedural and administrative and intended to align the regulations with current practices and overarching laws to support continued development that ensures that public health, safety, welfare and the environment are protected. Conclusion: Findines and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2019-0005 Page 1 of 2 The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 2. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA-2019- 0005 as amended. Attachment: Exhibit 1 — Proposed Amendment CTA-2019-0005 Approved this 8th day of October, 2020 anning' ommission f airman ATTEST Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2019-0005 Page 2 of 2 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall September 10, 2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:03 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 James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Tim Kelley, late Bob McKinley, absent Sherri Robinson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Connor Lange, Planner Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant There was a consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner McKinley from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the September 10, 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 August 27, 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: Chair Johnson reported that he continues to attend the Human Rights Task Force meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson mentioned an email sent out to Commission members from Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton regarding staff being willing to work with Commissioners one-on-one to answer any questions regarding agenda items. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings of Fact: STV-2020-0001, A Proposed Street Vacation Of A Portion Of Desmet Court Between Indiana And Flora. 1 09-10-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Haneke recused himself from this due to a conflict of interest as his company is involved in the project. He was placed in the Zoom waiting room for the duration of the agenda item. Planner Connor Lange reminded the Planning Commission the findings support the decision to recommend approval to the City Council based on their deliberations after the public hearing that was held on August 27, 2020 for STV-2020-0001, a privately initiated street vacation for a portion of Desmet Court between Indiana Avenue and Flora Road. Commissioner Robinson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for STV-2020-0001. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was three in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Kaschmitter abstained from the vote since she was not attendance at the public hearing. Commissioner Haneke rejoined the meeting. b. Study Session: CTA-2019-0005, A Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 20 and Title 17, Subdivisions Planner Connor Lange gave a presentation outlining the proposed changes to SVMC Title 20 and Title 17. He explained that the SVMC Title 20 regulates the subdivision of land and provides the framework and procedures for processing preliminary and final subdivisions (both long and short plats), subdivision alterations, binding site plans and vacations of plats. The proposed code text amendment is to ensure that the SVMC Title 20 is consistent with RCW 58.17 so that all procedures and language is consistent with state law. The proposed changes in Title 20 require changes to the Permit Type and Land Use Application table in Chapter 17.80.030 in order to make the codes consistent. Mr. Lange outlined the proposed changes to the municipal code: • Chapter 20.20 General Provisions: Proposed changes will ensure consistency with state law by adding clarification and correct references to "Title 20 SVMC". • Chapter 20.30 Preliminary Short Subdivision, Subdivisions, and Binding Site Plans: Proposed changes include reducing the number of required copies, removing other unnecessary requirements and align the code with state law and other areas of the SVMC. • Chapter 20.40 Final Short Subdivision, Subdivision and Binding Site Plans: Proposed changes include reducing the number of required copies, removing other unnecessary requirements, and updating language in 20.40.020 regarding City Manager final plat authorization and reviewing requirements and 20.40.050 regarding subdivision phasing. • Chapter 20.50 Preliminary Plat, Short Plat, and Binding Site Plan Alterations: Proposed changes include renaming the chapter "Subdivision Alterations" and adding language to 20.50.010 regarding application submittal requirements, adding updates to 20.50.020 outlining procedures for preliminary plat alterations and adding updates to 20.50.030 outlining procedures for final plat alterations. • Chapter 20.60 Final Plat, Short Plat, and Binding Site Plan Alterations: Proposed changes include renaming the chapter "Short Subdivision and Binding Site Plan Alterations", adding language to 20.50.005 regarding purpose, adding language to 20.60.010 regarding application requirements, and adding updates to 20.60.020 regarding procedures for short plat and binding site plan alterations. 2 09-10-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 • Chapter 20.70 Subdivision, Short Subdivision, and Binding Site Plan Vacation: Proposed changes include language updates to 20.70.020 regarding the subdivision vacation process and language updates to 20.70.030 regarding the short subdivision and binding site plan vacation process. • Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures: Permit Type and Land Use Application table updated to reflect new definitions in Chapter 20 regarding Type II and Type III land uses and updates to cross references. Commissioner Kelley joined the meeting at 6:28 p.m. Commissioner Haneke asked about changes to 20.40.020 regarding approval of final plats. He asked why it is being changed from City Council approval to City Manager approval. City Attorney Cary Driskell answered that the language is being corrected so that it reflects the protocol that is currently in place for all final plats. They are all currently approved by the City Manager (not City Council). Mr. Lange also gave a follow-up discussion regarding the City's use of performance surety. He explained that the use of performance surety is outlined in the Spokane Valley Street Standards 9.14 and an applicant must meet the criteria outlined in the standards. Commissioner Haneke asked about using a performance surety for paving of a project because paving is generally affected by weather. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb explained that under the City's street standards regarding proper function and operation of the transportation system, paving would be required prior to allowing a performance surety to be used. However, final determination would be granted by the engineering department if a performance surety could be used for paving in the event of adverse weather. Commissioner Johnson asked for further clarification on this matter from engineering at the next meeting. Commissioner Beaulac asked for clarification about the process when a development is abandoned and someone else decides to continue the development. He wanted to know if the project has to start the whole process over or if it can be picked up where it was left off by the previous developer. Mr. Lange answered that approval would have to be received from the original developer allowing the new person to move forward with the project. Deputy City Attorney Lamb stated that it would also depend on where the project is in the process. With no other questions, Mr. Lange said that a public hearing will be held on September 24, 2020 and he would provide answers to those questions posed by the Commission. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Beaulac commended Commissioner Johnson on his handling of the chairman position. At the August 27, 2020 meeting Commissioner Kelley raised several issues regarding the way he felt about Commissioner Johnson's involvement in a previous council meeting. Commissioner Kelley wanted to bring to light additional concerns when Commissioner Johnson stated the Commission meeting was not the appropriate place to raise his concerns, and offered to meet him at a more appropriate forum. As Commissioner Kelley continued, Commissioner Kaschmitter requested the conversation to stop. Commissioner Kelley stated he had not heard a motion. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to end the conversation. The vote on the motion was five in favor, one opposed, and the motion passed. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Beaulac moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. 3 09-10-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page4of4 James Johnson, Chair Deanna Horton, Secretary Date signed 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall September 24, 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 James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Bob McKinley Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Connor Lange, Planner Chad Riggs, Senior Engineer Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the September 24, 2020 agenda as presented with exception of removing the Administrative Report: Current Transportation Planning for the South Barker Corridor and Related Street Standards. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the September 10, 2020 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chair Johnson reported that he continues to attend the Human Rights Task Force meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson reported Commissioner Kelley's resignation and thanked the Commissioner for his years of service on the Planning Commission. She confirmed that Mayor Wick is working to fill the position. Jenny Nickerson proposed holding a meeting on Thursday, November 5 to discuss Traffic Impact Fees. Jenny Nickerson informed the Planning Commission, Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant, would read two written comments regarding the item removed from the agenda prior to the amendment. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: Commission Secretary Horton read two written comments regarding the South Barker Corridor, item that was on the agenda prior to amending, into the record. The first comment letter was from Kathryn Cote of Spokane Valley. Ms. Cote stated she is opposed to the roundabout at Sprague and Barker, feeling it would make it difficult to access her property, take too much of her property and a three -lane road would be too impactful to the neighborhood. Second comment letter submitted was from Doug Nelson, Spokane 1 09-24-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Valley. Mr. Nelson's email stated he is opposed to three roundabouts along the South Barker corridor. Mr. Nelson feels that four-way stops would serve better. He raised concerns about the speed of traffic and safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists. He promoted the idea of purchasing land for a park instead of road improvements along the corridor. There was a short discussion regarding notification to those who submitted comments of the public hearing date. This would give the submitters the ability to submit any comments they may have at the public hearing or to participate live if they wish. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: CTA-2019-0005, A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 20, Subdivisions Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:16. Planner Connor Lange began by stating the goal with the proposed changes is to align the municipal code with state law and to make the process easier. Mr. Lange summarized the proposed changes into three categories, which were to align process with state law, to improve procedural and submittal requirements, and to update the grammatical and organizational structure. Mr. Lange outlined the proposed changes to the municipal code: • Chapter 20.30 Preliminary Short Subdivision, Subdivisions, and Binding Site Plans: Proposed changes include reducing the number of required copies, removing other unnecessary requirements and align the municipal code with state law and other areas of the SVMC. • Chapter 20.40 Final Short Subdivision, Subdivision and Binding Site Plans: Proposed changes include reducing the number of required copies, aligning submittals with current processes, and updating language in section 20.40.020 regarding City Manager final plat authorization and reviewing requirements, and adding clarifying language in section 20.40.050 regarding subdivision phasing. • Chapter 20.50 Preliminary Plat, Short Plat, and Binding Site Plan Alterations: Proposed changes include renaming the chapter "Subdivision Alterations," adding language to section 20.50.010 regarding application submittal requirements. adding updates to section 20.50.020 outlining procedures for preliminary plat alterations, and adding updates to section 20.50.030 outlining procedures for final plat alterations. • Chapter 20.60 Final Plat, Short Plat, and Binding Site Plan Alterations: Proposed changes include renaming the chapter "Short Subdivision and Binding Site Plan Alterations," adding language to section 20.50.005 regarding purpose, adding language to section 20.60.010 regarding application requirements. and adding updates to section 20.60.020 regarding procedures for short plat and binding site plan alterations. • Chapter 20.70 Subdivision, Short Subdivision, and Binding Site Plan Vacation: Proposed changes include language updates to section 20.70.020 regarding the subdivision vacation process and language updates to section 20.70.030 regarding the short subdivision and binding site plan vacation process. • Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures: Permit Type and Land Use Application table updated to reflect new definitions in Chapter 20 regarding Type II and Type III land uses and updates to cross references. Commissioner Haneke asked who has the authority to determine if a submittal is Type II versus Type III. Mr. Lange explained that staff would review the submittal to determine if 2 09-24-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 the changes are consistent with the conditions. If the changes are inconsistent with the conditions or alter the conditions, the submittal would then be sent to the Hearing Examiner for approval. Commissioner Haneke asked a clarifying question about approval of subdivision phasing. Mr. Lange confirmed that if the applicant showed phasing within their submittal, the mitigation would be discussed at that time, whether it could be phased or not. Mr. Lange then invited Senior Engineer Chad Riggs, to present on the City's use of performance sureties. Mr. Riggs stated that the City does accept performance sureties when a project cannot be completed due to bad weather, the contractor cannot obtain construction materials, or any other unforeseen complications. The conditions are that the project must be substantially completed, ensuring that sewer, water, curb and gutter, stormwater, and crushed gravel are put in place due to safety reasons. Commissioner Haneke asked about using a performance surety for paving of a project. Mr. Riggs explained that the primary goal is to get the developer to pave before the plants close but if it is due to bad weather, the City does try to work with the developers. Chairman Johnson closed the Public Hearing at 6:35 p.m. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to recommend approval of CTA-2019-0005 to City Council. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley voiced his concern with the roundabouts on Barker Road. Jenny Nickerson expressed that staff's goal when discussing topics such as roundabouts and the South Barker Corridor study, is to build in time in the upcoming meeting to talk about the current regulations and to answer those preliminary questions. Commissioner Haneke expressed his desire to inform the people that submitted public comments regarding the agenda item that had been removed. Ms. Nickerson confirmed she would inform those individuals of the removal of the item and ensure they are aware of the progression of this topic. Chairman Johnson expressed he is aware that he is not perfect and that everyone is not always going to agree, which he believes is what makes the Planning Commission team stronger. He requested that if anyone has anything to point out to him to reach out. Chairman Johnson expressed his regret that the Planning Commission lost a member with a unique perspective and passion. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Beaulac moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:42 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed 3 09-24-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 ames Jo "nson, Chai _Y-/ Deanna Horton, Secretary ///ZA zo Date signed 4 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 Jerremy 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. VII. 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 motion 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 coming 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 Commission 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. Mr. 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. XL 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 /4/i(-/gazz) Date signed 5 Spokane Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2019-0005 STAFF REPORT DATE: September 15, 2020 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: September 24, 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: The city initiated code text amendment will provide minor modifications to Title 17 and Title 20 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) (including but not limited to submittal requirements, required signatures, alterations modifying a public dedication and minor grammatical and procedural changes). APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to Title 17 and 20 SVMC are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Connor Lange, Planner REVIEWED BY: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Lori Barlow, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed Amendment APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the Dronosal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment December 17, 2019 SEPA — DNS Issued January 10, 2020 Publish Notice of Public Hearing: September 4, 2020 & September 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: RCW 58.17 provides the framework and procedures for processing preliminary and final subdivisions (long plats), subdivision alterations and vacations of plats. Title 20 SVMC regulates the subdivision of land consistent with the requirements of RCW 58.17. RCW 58.17 also allows for local jurisdictions to create procedures for processing both Short Subdivisions and Binding Site Plans. Title 20 provides the Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2019-0005 framework and procedures for processing preliminary and final short subdivisions and binding site plans, alterations of short plats and binding site plans and vacations within Spokane Valley. The proposed code text amendment is intended to ensure Title 20 SVMC is consistent with RCW 58.17 and align the code with current processes and the City's organizational structure. Due to the proposed changes in Title 20 SVMC the Permit Type and Land Use Application table in Chapter 17.80.030 must be also be revised. ANALYSIS: These proposed changes are procedural in nature and do not have any substantive impact on the use or function of private property within the city. These changes will provide a more efficient application process and align the code with the current city organizational structure and state law. 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: LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. One of the primary strategies for the City related to this land use goal is to "Streamline permitting procedures based on feedback from business and landowners, developers, etc." The updates to Title 20 SVMC will help streamline the submittal requirements relating the division of land. ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. Predictable and stable regulations are key to creating a positive business environment. By ensuring the SVMC aligns with state regulations it will help ensure consistency and stability with the permit process. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The amendment to the code is procedural and administrative and intended to align the regulations with current practices and overarching laws to 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). Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2019-0005 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Public noticing was conducted for CTA-2019-0005 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns noted. B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A the proposed code text amendment to provide minor modifications to Title 17 and 20 SVMC is consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 24, 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 — Amendment No. 3 and Restated Interlocal Cooperation Act Agreement for Establishment of Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 35.101 RCW; RCW 39.34.080. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: March 2004 approval of the TPA interlocal; amendments to the TPA interlocal in 2008 and 2009. Administrative reports August 19, 2014; June 30, 2015; July 28, 2020; September 22, 2020; and November 3, 2020. BACKGROUND: As identified in the July 28, 2020 and September 22, 2020 Requests for Council Action (RCA), the City is a party to the TPA interlocal agreement with the City of Spokane and Spokane County for the collection and distribution of funds arising from hotel/motel lodging stays. The current TPA interlocal was amended in 2008 so that it is perpetual unless agreed by all party jurisdictions to amend or terminate it. The interlocal specifically states that the allowable nightly assessment is capped at $2.00. In 2020, the Legislature amended chapter 35.101 RCW to increase the amount of the special assessment that may be imposed on each room night stay from the previous cap of $2.00, to a cap of $5.00 within the designated tourism promotion area. The County has asked the parties to amend the interlocal agreement to increase the assessment from $2.00 per night to $4.00 per night for the allowable time until July 1, 2027. Additional specific information on the process for amending the TPA interlocal is contained in the July 28, 2020 RCA. At the September 22 meeting, Council requested that staff contact the other parties to the TPA interlocal, as well as the TPA, to seek several amendments in addition to the requested nightly assessment. After a number of discussions, the parties have tentatively agreed to the following changes: 1. The termination provision has an effective termination date of December 31, 2022, if notice has been provided by a party through adoption of a resolution and delivering the same to all other parties no later than 4:00 pm on March 31, 2022. If such notice of termination is not delivered by that time, then a new two-year period would begin on January 1, 2023, and the same provisions would apply for March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2024, and so on every two years thereafter; and 2. Spokane County and the TPA have confirmed that they can identify and aggregate all revenue from assessing hotels in each jurisdiction (Spokane, Spokane Valley, Spokane County) into a separate report. As such, each quarter, Spokane Valley would receive a report on the revenue generated within our borders for TPA purposes. Similarly, the TPA would generate an annual report and distribute it to the parties showing annual revenue and all expenditures. OPTIONS: (1) Approve amendments to the TPA interlocal; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve Amendment No. 3 and Restated Interlocal Cooperation Act Agreement for Establishment of Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the same. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No anticipated change in the foreseeable future. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Amendment No. 3 and Restated Interlocal Cooperation Act Agreement for Establishment of Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. AMENDMENT NO. 3 AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SPOKANE COUNTY TOURISM PROMOTION AREA THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT AGREEMENT ("RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT") made and entered into among Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 W. Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as the "County," the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington having offices for the transaction of business at 808 West Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane, Washington 99201, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "Spokane Valley" together referred to as the "Parties." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington has the care of county property and the management of county funds and business; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the Washington State Legislature recognized the importance of tourism promotion and passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6026, subsequently codified as chapter 35.101 RCW. Chapter 35.101 RCW authorized the establishment of a Tourism Promotion Area by a county and the levy of special assessments on lodging businesses to fund tourism promotion therein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35.101.080, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County adopted Ordinance No. 04-0211 which established a Tourism Promotion Area having certain boundaries to include the unincorporated area of Spokane County, the City of Spokane, and City of Spokane Valley. Ordinance No. 04-0211 also established a Special Assessment on operators of Lodging Business within the Tourism Promotion Area on the furnishing of lodging; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 04-0211, was subsequently amended under Resolution No. 08-0465 to modify the termination section, and was further amended under Resolution No. 09- 0585 to modify certain special assessment fees identified therein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35.101.040(2), the Parties entered into an interlocal agreement dated March 9, 2004 and entitled "INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SPOKANE COUNTY TOURISM PROMOTION AREA" ("AGREEMENT") wherein a Tourism Promotion Area was formed to include properties within the boundaries of the unincorporated area of Spokane County, the City of Spokane, and the City of Spokane Valley. The AGREEMENT was subsequently amended to modify the termination Page 1 of 13 section ("AMENDMENT NO. 1 AGREEMENT") and further amended to recognize an increase in certain of the Special Assessments on operators of Lodging Businesses within the Tourism Promotion Area ("AMENDMENT NO. 2 AGREEMENT"); and WHEREAS, Paragraph 3 of the AGREEMENT provides that any change in the Special Assessment rates for any zone as set forth therein shall be made only by amendment of the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, with the approval of the City Council of the City of Spokane and the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley. No increase in the Special Assessment rates for any zone or change in the boundaries of any zone shall be made by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County except upon affirmative recommendation of the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission; and WHEREAS, the 2020 Washington State Legislature passed and the Governor signed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6592 ("ESSB 6592"). ESSB 6592 authorized legislative authorities to impose an additional Tourism Promotion Area assessment charge of up to $3 per night per stay on furnishing of lodging by a lodging business located in a Tourism Promotion Area ("additional charge"). Any "additional charge" expires July 1, 2027. To consider the imposition of an "additional charge", signatures of the persons who operate lodging businesses who would pay sixty percent or more of the proposed "additional charge" must be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County received a petition signed by more than sixty percent of the lodging business who would pay the proposed "additional charge" in certain of the five (5) zones which provided as follows: (Underlined and lined out language added.) The Special Assessment to be imposed on the operators of those Lodging Businesses with room revenues during the preceding calendar year, which exceeded five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) is as follows: Zone A: $2.00 $4.00 per room/day ($2.00 represents additional charge) Zone B: $2.00 $4.00 per room/day f$2.00 represents additional charge) Zone C: $2.00 $4.00 per room/day ($2.00 represents additional charge) The Special Assessment to be imposed on the operators of those Lodging Businesses with room revenues during the preceding calendar year, which did not exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) is as follows: Zone D: 50 cents $1.00 per room/day ($.50 represents additional charge.) Zone E: $0.00 per room or space/day The additional charge identified above shall commence as of 12:01 a.m. April 1, 2021 and shall automatically expire at midnight on June 30, 2027. Upon the expiration of the additional charge, the previous charge shall be automatically reinstated as of 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2027. Page 2 of 13 ; and WHEREAS, consistent with paragraph 3 of the AGREEMENT, the Parties desire to recognize the request of the lodging businesses to impose the additional charge as referenced in the immediately preceding recital which additional charge was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, in addition to the Parties desiring to recognize the request of the lodging businesses to impose the additional charge, the Parties also desire to add a termination section back into the AGREEMENT to provide as follows: (Underlined language to be added.) 8 A. Duration and Termination of this Agreement: This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until such time as (1) the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area is disestablished by action of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County as provided in Section 7, above; or (2) the legislative body for Spokane County, or City of Spokane, or City of Spokane Valley takes formal action in the form of a resolution to give notice of termination of the Agreement. If this termination provision is invoked, a signed copy of the resolution giving notice of termination shall be delivered either by personal delivery or by regular United States mail delivery to each of the other parties, and shall occur no later than 4:00 pm on March 31, 2022, with an effective date of termination of December 31, 2022. Thereafter, a jurisdiction may invoke this termination provision in even numbered years, with notice to be provided no later than 4:00 pm on March 31 of that year. In the event March 31 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the deadline shall be extended until 4:00 pm on the following Monday. Following termination of this Agreement, Spokane County shall be responsible for utilizing any remaining unallocated revenue from Special Assessments for use for tourism promotion in Spokane County. WHEREAS, in addition to the Parties desiring to recognize the request of the lodging businesses to impose the additional charge, and add a termination section back into the AGREEMENT, the Parties also desire to add an additional TPA Manager reporting requirement to provide as follows: (Underlined language to be added.) 6. B. The TPA Manager will be responsible for administering the activities and programs of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area and to prepare an Annual Budget for the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area to be reviewed and approved by the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission and submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County on or before November 1st of each year. The TPA Manager shall also act as staff to the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission in conjunction with assisting it in determining what activities and Page 3 of 13 :and programs to recommend for funding from the Special Assessments. The TPA Manager, with information provided from the Spokane County Budget and Finance Office, shall provide to the Parties, on a quarterly basis, the aggregate amount of TPA Special Assessments collected from lodging businesses located within their respective boundaries. WHEREAS, this RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT hereby replaces and supersedes in its entirety the agreement entered into among the Parties dated March 9, 2004 and entitled "INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SPOKANE COUNTY TOURISM PROMOTION AREA" as amended by that agreement entered into among the Parties and entitled "AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SPOKANE COUNTY TOURISM PROMOTION AREA" as further amended by that agreement entered into among the Parties and entitled "AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SPOKANE COUNTY TOURISM PROMOTION AREA" and adds the above referenced amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises set forth hereafter, Spokane County, Spokane and Spokane Valley hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions. As used in this agreement, the following terms, unless the context otherwise dictates, shall have the following means: 1.1 "Agreement" shall mean this interlocal cooperation agreement between Spokane County, Spokane and Spokane Valley for the establishment of a Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area by Spokane County as authorized by RCWr 35.101.040 (2). 1.2 "Lodging Business" means a business located within the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area that furnishes lodging taxable by the state under chapter 82.08 RCW that has forty (40) or more lodging units. 1.3 "Operator" means the Operator of a Lodging Business, whether in the capacity of owner, general manager, lessee, sub lessee, mortgagee in possession, license or any other similar capacity. 1.4 "Room Revenues" means the gross per -night -charge (nights of stay) imposed for the rental of a room or combination of rooms for Lodging. 1.5 "Special Assessment" means the levy (charge) imposed by Spokane County on the Operators of a Lodging Business within the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area and subsequently passed on to the guests of the Lodging Business, under the authority of RCW 35.101.050 for the purpose of providing for funding of tourism promotion in Spokane County. Page 4 of 13 1.6. "Spokane Hotel -Motel Association" means the Spokane Hotel -Motel Association, Inc., a Washington non-profit corporation. 1.7 "Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission" means the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission, established by Spokane County, whose members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, the City Council of the City of Spokane, and the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley to provide recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County on proposed uses and projects of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area; pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35.101.130 (1) as provided in this Agreement. 1.8 "Spokane Metropolitan Area" means Spokane County, including the entire areas within the jurisdiction of Spokane and Spokane Valley and the unincorporated area of Spokane County. 1.9 "Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area" means the Tourism Promotion Area created by the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County pursuant to the authority of chapter 35.101 RCW, as authorized by the resolutions of the City Council of the City of Spokane and the City Council of the Spokane Valley adopting the terms of this Agreement. 1.10 "TPA Manager" shall mean a tourism destination marking organization or other similar organization employed by the Board of County Commissioners to administer the operation of the Tourism Promotion Area. 1.11 "Tourism Promotion" means activities and expenditures designed to increase tourism and convention business, including but not limited to, advertising, publicizing, or otherwise distributing information for the purpose of attracting and welcoming tourists, and operating tourism destination marketing organizations. 1.12 "Transient Basis" means the rental of a room or rooms for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes by the Operator of a Lodging Business for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting a portion of a day as a full calendar day. 1.13 "Zone" or "Zones" means the distinct geographic subarea or subareas within the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area as established by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County and as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached to this Agreement. 1.14 "Annual Budget" shall mean the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area budget for a fiscal year, as adopted or amended by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, after the receipt of a recommendation from the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission, identifying all estimated revenue from Special Assessments for the fiscal year, and providing for all proposed uses of Special Assessment revenue for the purpose of providing tourism promotion in Spokane County for the ensuing fiscal year. Page 5of13 2. Tourism Promotion Area to be Established by Spokane County. A. It is hereby understood and agreed by Spokane County, Spokane and Spokane Valley that Spokane County, pursuant to the authority of RCW 35.101.040(2) RCW, shall establish a "Tourism Promotion Area" designated the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area to include the unincorporated area of Spokane County and the entire area within the corporate limits of Spokane and Spokane Valley. B. It is hereby understood and agreed by Spokane County, Spokane, and Spokane Valley that the purpose of permitting the Board of County Commissioners and Spokane County to form the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area under RCW 35.101.040 (2) is to provide revenue to fund tourism promotion within Spokane County which will benefit the Operators of Lodging Businesses in Spokane County, Spokane and Spokane Valley. 3. Levy of Special Assessments on Lodging Businesses within the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. A. The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County will levy Special Assessments on the Operators of Lodging Businesses within the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area in accordance with the zones and levels of Special Assessments as set forth in Resolution No. 4-0140. B. It is understood and agreed by and between Spokane County, Spokane and Spokane Valley that the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area shall include the following five (5) zones: Zone A. Zone A encompasses those Lodging Businesses located within the area of the incorporated city limits of the City of Spokane defined as follows: Downtown core bordered by Interstate 90 to the south, Hamilton Street to the east, Indiana Avenue to the north, and Monroe Street to the west. Zone B. Zone B encompasses those Lodging Businesses located within the area of the incorporated city limits of Spokane and the City of Spokane Valley except those Lodging Businesses located in Zone A. Zone C. Zone C encompasses all Lodging Businesses located outside Zones A and B, but within the unincorporated area of Spokane County. Zone D. Zone D encompasses all Lodging Businesses with room revenue under $500,000 per year, situated within the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area, regardless of their specific location. Zone E. Zone E encompasses Lodging Businesses located within the Tourism Promotion Area, as that term is addressed in WAC 458-20-166 as it Page 6 of 13 presently exists or may be hereinafter amended, other than hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast facilities. Lodging Businesses within this zone, as addressed in WAC 458-20-166, would include only (i) trailer camps and recreational vehicle parks which charge for the rental of space to transients for locating or parking house trailers, campers, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and tents; (ii) educational institutions which sell overnight lodging to person other than students; (iii) private lodging houses, dormitories and bunkhouses operated by or on behalf of businesses and industrial firms or schools soley for the accommodation of employees of such firms or student which are not held out to the public as a place where sleeping accommodations may be obtained; and (iv) guest ranches or summer camps which, in addition to supplying meals and lodging , offer special recreational facilities and instruction in sports boating, riding, outdoor facilities and instruction in sports, boating, riding, and outdoor living. The charge(s) imposed under this section are not a tax on the "sale of lodging" for the purposes of RCW 82.14.410. C. It is understood and agreed by and between Spokane County, Spokane and Spokane Valley that the Operators of Lodging Businesses within the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area operating in the above -described zones will be subject to Special Assessments to be levied as follows: Zone A: $2-99 $4.00 per room/day. $2.00 represents additional charge. Zone B: $2,140 $4.00 per room/day. $2.00 represents additional charge. Zone C: 82440 $4.00 per room/day. $2.00 represents additional charge. Zone D: $0.50 $1.00 per room/day. $0.50 represents additional charge. Zone E: $0.00 per room or space /day. The additional charge identified above shall commence as of 12:01 a.m. April 1, 2021 and shall automatically expire at midnight on June 30, 2027. Upon the expiration of the additional charge, the previous charge shall be automatically reinstated as of 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2027. D. Any change in the Special Assessment rates for any zone as set forth hereinabove shall be made only by amendment of the resolution by the Board of County Commissioners, with the approval of the City Council of the City of Spokane and the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley. No increase in the Special Assessment rates for any zone or change in the boundaries of any zone shall be made by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County except upon the affirmative recommendation of the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission. 4. Use of Special Assessment Revenues For the Promotion of Tourism and Convention Business in Spokane County. Page 7of13 A. It is understood and agreed that all of the revenues from Special Assessments collected by Spokane County from Lodging Businesses within the jurisdiction of Spokane County, the City of Spokane, and the City of Spokane Valley shall be allocated by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County in accordance with the Annual Budget for the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. The Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission shall make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on all Annual Budgets. The Board of County Commissioners shall have the ultimate authority to set and approve all Annual Budgets. B. The revenues from the Special Assessments levied by Spokane County on the Operators of Lodging Businesses situated within the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area shall be used for the following purposes only: (1) The funding of all activities and expenditures designed to increase tourism promotion and convention business within Spokane County as specified in the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area Budget; and (2) The marketing of convention and business that benefit local tourism and the Lodging Businesses in Spokane County; and (3) The marketing of Spokane County to the travel industry in order to benefit local tourism and the lodging businesses situated within the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area; and (4) The marketing of Spokane County to recruit major sporting events in order to promote local tourism and to benefit the Lodging Businesses within the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. 5. Establishment of the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission. A. It is understood and agreed that the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County shall, pursuant to the authority of RCW 35.101.130(1) create an eleven (11) member Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission to advise the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County on the expenditure of Special Assessment revenues by the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area to fund tourism promotion in Spokane County. B. Members of the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission shall be selected by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, the City Council of Spokane and the City Council of Spokane Valley from a list of nominees prepared by the Spokane Hotel and Motel Association. All nominees for membership on the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission must be Operators of Lodging Businesses within Spokane County or employed by the Operator of such a Lodging Business. One ex officio member of the Commission may be appointed from the members of the Board of Commissioners of Spokane County; one ex officio member may be appointed from the members of the City Council of the City of Spokane; and one ex officio member may be appointed from the members of the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley. Ex officio Page 8of13 members of the Spokane Hotel -Motel Commission may participate in all discussions regarding proposed activities and programs by the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area for the promotion and marketing of tourism in Spokane County but shall not have voting rights. C. The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County shall appoint two members, and one ex officio member of the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission, to represent the County of Spokane; the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley shall appoint two members, and one ex officio member, of the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission to represent the City of Spokane Valley; and the City Council of the City of Spokane shall appoint four members, and one ex officio member, of the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission to represent the City of Spokane Any vacancy, on the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission, arising from a resignation or other cause, shall be filled by the appointing agency, from the list of nominees prepared by the Spokane Hotel and Motel Association, within 30 days from the date the "vacancy occurs". D. It is understood and agreed that the initial members of the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission shall serve staggered terms, with one member serving a one-year term, two members serving for two-year terms, and three members serving for three-year terms. The length of the term for each individual member of the initial Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission shall be chosen by lot at the first meeting of the Commission. Thereafter, all members subsequently appointed to the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission shall serve for three-year terms. 6. Contract For Management of Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. A. The Board of County Commissioners shall contract with a TPA Manager. The contract shall be awarded consistent with all applicable Spokane County laws, ordinances and regulations. The contract shall require the TPA Manager to comply with all applicable provisions of law, including chapter 35.101 RCW and with all Spokane County resolutions and ordinances as well as all regulations lawfully imposed by the state auditor or other state agencies. B. The TPA Manager will be responsible for administering the activities and programs of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area and to prepare an Annual Budget for the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area to be reviewed and approved by the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission and submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County on or before November 1st of each year. The TPA Manager shall also act as staff to the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission in conjunction with assisting it in determining what activities and programs to recommend for funding from the Special Assessments. The TPA Manager, with information provided from the Spokane County Budget and Finance Office, shall provide to the Parties, on a quarterly basis, the aggregate amount of TPA Special Assessments collected from lodging businesses located within their respective boundaries. C. The Annual Budget for the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area shall consist of: (1) A list of the Lodging Businesses subject to Special Assessments and an estimate of the revenue to be received from all such Lodging Businesses; and Page9of13 (2) A statement of the proposed budget for all Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area activities and programs recommended by the Spokane Hotel and Motel Commission to be funded from Special Assessments during the ensuing fiscal year; and D. All Special Assessments received by Spokane County from the Washington State Department of Revenue and any interest therein shall be deposited by Spokane County in a special account. Payments to the TPA Manager will be made as provided for in the agreement between the Spokane County and the TPA manager. Provided, however, no Special Assessment shall be dispersed in any fiscal year until after the adoption of that year's fiscal Annual Budget, Provided further, Spokane County shall not expend in any fiscal year Special Assessments in excess of the approved fiscal Annual Budget. 7. Modification or Disestablishment of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. A. The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, by appropriate action, may modify the provisions of the resolution establishing the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area or provide for the disestablishment of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area, after adopting a resolution of intention to such effect. Such resolution of intention shall describe the change or changes proposed, or indicate that it is the intention to disestablish the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area, and shall state the time and place of a public hearing to be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County to consider the proposed action. B. If the Operators of Lodging Businesses which pay over forty percent (40%) of the Special Assessments levied within the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area file a petition with the Clerk of the Board of Spokane County Commissioners requesting the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County to adopt a resolution of intention to modify or disestablish the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County shall adopt such resolution and act upon it as required by law. Signatures on such petition shall be those of a duly authorized representative of the Operators of Lodging Businesses in the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. In the event of failure on the part of the Board of County Commissioners to modify or disestablish the TPA the participating local governments reserve the right to withdraw from this agreement upon three (3) months notice to the other participating local governments. C. In the event the resolution proposes disestablishment of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County shall disestablish the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area; unless at such public hearing, protest against disestablishment is made by the Operators of Lodging Businesses paying over fifty percent (50%) of the Special Assessments in the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. 8. Miscellaneous Provisions: Page l0of13 A. Duration and Termination of this Agreement. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until such time as (1) the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area is disestablished by action of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County as provided in Section 7, above; or (2) the legislative body for Spokane County, or City of Spokane, or the City of Spokane Valley takes formal action in the form of a resolution to give notice of termination of the Agreement. If this termination provision is invoked, a signed copy of the resolution giving notice of termination shall be delivered either by personal delivery or by regular United States mail delivery to each of the other parties, and shall occur no later than 4:00 pm on March 31, 2022, with an effective date of termination of December 31, 2022. Thereafter, a jurisdiction may invoke this termination provision in even numbered years, with notice to be provided no later than 4:00 pm on March 31 of that year. In the event March 31 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the deadline shall be extended until 4:00 pm on the following Monday. Following termination of this Agreement, Spokane County shall be responsible for utilizing any remaining unallocated revenue from Special Assessments for use for tourism promotion in Spokane County. B. Waiver. No officer, employee, or agent of Spokane County, Spokane, or Spokane Valley has the power, right, or authority to waive any of the conditions or provisions of this Agreement. No waiver of any breach of this Agreement by Spokane County, Spokane, or Spokane Valley shall be held to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach. Failure of Spokane County, Spokane, or Spokane Valley to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement or to require performance of any of the provisions herein, shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such conditions, nor in any way effect the validity of this Agreement or any part hereof, or the right of Spokane County, Spokane or Spokane Valley to hereafter enforce each and every such provision. C. Records. All records prepared, owned, used or retained by the TPA Manager in conjunction with operating or administering the activities and programs of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area as provided for under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed records of Spokane County, Spokane, and Spokane Valley and shall be made available by the TPA Manager upon request to Spokane County, Spokane, or Spokane Valley, State Auditor or their authorized representatives. D. Property and Equipment. Spokane County Shall be the owner of all property and equipment purchased by the TPA Manager from Special Assessment Revenues. Provided, however, in the event of the termination of the Agreement with the TPA Manager, Spokane County agrees to make the property and/or equipment available to the successor TPA Manager for its use in conjunction with providing similar services. Provided further, in the event of disestablishment of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area, all property and equipment purchased by the TPA Manager from Special Assessment Revenues shall be retained by Spokane County and used for any lawful purpose. E. Integration. This Agreement contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by Spokane County, Spokane, and Spokane Valley concerning the establishment of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County and Page 11 of 13 the collection of Special Assessments from Operators of Lodging Businesses within the entire area, including the area within the jurisdictions of Spokane and Spokane Valley. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. The parties have read and understand all of this Agreement, and now state that no representation, promise, or agreement not expressed in this Agreement has been made to induce the officials of Spokane County, Spokane, or Spokane Valley to execute this Agreement. F. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not, in any way, be effected or impaired thereby. G. Execution of Agreement. This Agreement shall become effective immediately after it is duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, the City Council of Spokane, and the City Council of Spokane Valley and shall be filed with the County Auditor of Spokane County, the City Clerk of Spokane, and the City Clerk of Spokane Valley, and the Secretary of State of the State of Washington. H. Litigation. In the event litigation is brought against the TPA or any party to this Agreement the TPA Manager shall cause legal counsel to be employed for the purpose of defending or prosecuting the matter. The cost of the legal counsel shall be paid by the TPA. The parties reserve the right to monitor and participate in any litigation as solely determined by the party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley, and Spokane County have executed this RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT by their duly authorized officials pursuant to all requirements of law. Page 12of13 DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ATTEST: Ginna Vasquez, Clerk of the Board AL FRENCH, Chair JOSH KERNS, Vice -Chair MARY L. KUNEY, Commissioner DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE By: Its: ATTEST: Approved as to form: City Clerk DATED: Assistant City Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY By: Title: ATTEST: Approved as to form: City Clerk Office of City Attorney Page 13of13 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 24, 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 - 2021 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) Docket GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A; SVMC Chapters 19.30 and 17.80 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Report to Council November 17, 2020 BACKGROUND: The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 21 and 28, 2020, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 30, 2020. The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. CPAs are divided into two categories: map amendments and text amendments. CPAs may be privately initiated or proposed by City Council, Planning Commission or staff. This year, there are four CPA applications: one privately initiated map amendment, and three city initiated amendments including two map amendments and one text amendment. As part of the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle, the City Council is presented the proposed amendments that may be considered for this year's amendment cycle. This process known as docketing, provides the City Council the opportunity to remove items from the docket. Staff discussed the 2021 CPA Docket at the November 17, 2020 City Council meeting, and advised the Council that they may remove individual items from the Docket prior to approving. At the November 17, 2020 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed with all CPA applications in the Docket. Items included in the Docket must be considered by Council concurrently so the cumulative effect of the amendments can be determined. All considered amendments will be thoroughly analyzed using the criteria set forth in SVMC 17.80.140H. This analysis will be compiled in a staff report for the Planning Commission to formulate their recommendation to Council. The Planning Commission will also hold a public hearing to allow for public comment on the proposed amendments. Council will take the final action to approve, deny or modify the proposed amendments. Items included in the Docket will be considered for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for 2021. OPTIONS: Approve the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket with or without further changes; or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger , Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates , Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 2021 Comprehensive Plan Docket Exhibit 1 City of Spokane Valley 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket PRIVATELY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-2021-0001 Land Use Map A request to change the land use designation for parcel 45163.0584 (approximately 0.68 acres) from Multiple Family Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map Summary of Amendment CPA-2021-0002 Land Use Map A request to change the land use designation for parcels 45174.9061 and 45174.9062 (approximately 5.56 acres) from Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) to Parks and Open Space (P/OS). CPA-2021-0003 Land Use Map A request to change the land use designation for parcels 55072.0324, 55072.0318, and 55072.0319 (approximately 45.8 acres) from Industrial to (I) to Parks and Open Space (P/OS). CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS File Number Text Summary of Amendment CPA-2021-0004 Text Add policies regarding homelessness to Chapter 2: Goals, Policies and Strategies and to Chapter 6: Housing. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 24, 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: 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: February 18, 2020: Unanimous Council consensus for staff to study the subject of transportation impact fees for the South Barker Corridor. BACKGROUND: Staff have identified the Barker Road Corridor as 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. Further, staff have identified challenges with collecting a proportional fee to offset the impacts of the new development occurring around the corridor. Currently, the two primary mechanisms for the City to impose mitigation requirements on new development are through concurrency and SEPA. However, there are challenges with each, as both are limited to larger projects and impacts. Thus, while all new development, including relatively "smaller" residential short plats, will contribute to the impacts within the corridor, the City does not currently have the tools to require such development to address its impacts to the system. In 2018, staff contracted with a transportation engineering and planning firm, Fehr & Peers, to complete a comprehensive traffic study for the South Barker Corridor. Through this study, the City has identified various improvements needed to accommodate new development and the anticipated proportional, fair -share costs per trip for new development. The study was finalized in February 2020 and staff shared the results with City Council on February 18, 2020. City Council supported the study and requested staff to study impact fee collection in the South Barker Corridor area. Transportation impact fees are allowed pursuant to RCW 82.02.050-82.02.110. These are fees specifically allowed to address impacts from new development and they may be imposed on all development within a designated area, such as the South Barker Corridor area. Generally, they are collected when a building permit application is submitted, though there are some allowed deferrals for smaller developments. Further, impact fees provide a known fee so developers may plan for mitigation costs with certainty. The City -initiated code text amendment (CTA-2020-0005) will 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 - .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 per trip. This fee is in lieu of providing detailed lengthy individualized traffic analysis, so it provides certainty to developers and eliminates significant project review time. This administrative report will discuss the proposed code changes, including the proposed impact fee schedule to be applied towards new development in the designated Barker Road corridor area. The discussion will also include a comparison of the proposed transportation impact fee schedule with other adopted impact fees from the NIA-PAO and agencies in the region and across the state. 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. The process for consideration of both CTA 2020-0005 and amendments to the Fee Resolution will run concurrently with additional Staff reports and anticipated Council action during the December 8 and 15, 2020 Council meetings. OPTIONS: Consensus to move such decision to first ordinance reading, or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to move the code text amendment forward to an ordinance first reading at a future Council meeting. 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 against $18.8 million of 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. PowerPoint Presentation 2. Draft CTA-2020-0005 code text language 3. Planning Commission's Findings 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 7. Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study Spokane .Valley CTA-2020-0005 Transportation Impact Fees South Barker Corridor November 24, 2020 Bill Helbig, City Engineer Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jerremy Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer 2020 Process Spokane � Val ley Admin. Report • S.:ar er oa Corridor Study • Council consensus to pursue Transportation Impact Fees PC Info. Item Oct. 8 • S. Bar er oad Corridor Study • Transportation Impact Fees PC Study Session • Oct. 22 • ..:ar er . Transportation Impact Fees • Proposed Code Text Amendments • SEPA Underway PC Public Hearing • Nov. • u"'"'ic ""earing: • S. Barker Rd. Transportation Impact Fees • Proposed Code Text Amendments PC Findings of Fact e rvers findings on S. Barker Rd. Transportation Impact Fees • Proposed Code Text Amendments Transportation Impact Fees • Proposed Code Text Amendments • PC Findings • Transpor a ion Impacts Fees • CC CTA 2nd Reading, Adoption • 15 • Consider Adoption of Transportation Impact Fees Collecting Traffic Mitigation Today Spokane 4,* Val ley • Traffic Concurrency (SVMC 22.20) • SEPA (SVMC 21.20) • Both based upon proportionate share of the project at issue • Requires unique, project specific evaluation each time • Spokane Valley Street Standards • Trip Generation & Distribution Letter • Limited Traffic Impact Analysis • Traffic Impact Analysis • Timing and Cost to developer 3 •• • Historical City short plats and subdivisions in study area. Legend Permits PROJECT C:: ]PLETE IN REVIE;`r DECISION ISSUED ING C14tr[N ORGASUA �l In ViiVrVon RUv Prip AVp1. ti l ted a l M1 tlinn AS h:77thp LaTerCiLiach,9 . . ' 3 Laimed 7 rrr hnpg 4 1 .. _... Current Process Limitations Spokane 4,. Val ley • Transportation Concurrency only requires mitigation when Level of Service (LOS) reaches failing point • SEPA only requires mitigation when there are significant adverse environmental impacts • SEPA and Traffic Concurrency Exemptions Under 10 Peak Hour Trips (Concurrency) All Short Plats Multifamily Dwelling up to 60 Units Commercial Buildings — up to 30,000 SF (gross) • Designated Infill Areas • Impacts still occur from these areas, especially with respect to traffic What are Impact Fees? Spokane 4,* Val ley • Statutorily authorized mechanism to have development pay for its proportionate impact on services and infrastructure • May be limited in application to an identified geographical area rather than City -Wide Area is based on measurable traffic impacts present in specific Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) taken from Spokane Regional Transportation Council's Regional Traffic Model • Proposed Barker Rd. Transportation Impact Fee Area 5 Barker Corridor 0 0 c 0- E 16th Ave Ave a rn cC QJ 0 7 Ccach Dr r-• • 7 ! E Euclid Ave m l cn ° Liberty Lake O czp er What are Impact Fees? (cont.) Spokane Valley° Limitations • Must be "reasonably related to the new development" - Cannot exceed proportionate share of cost of system improvements • City must have other funding sources and cannot rely solely on impact fees • Fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies • But may pay for proportionate share of new facility to the extent that new growth and development will be served by it • E.G. — if intersection improvement addressed existing deficiency (say, 75%) and future growth needs (say, 25%), impact fees could be used towards the 25% 111 Must be used for capital purposes only (no studies or O&M) ■ Must be spent or encumbered within 10 years, unless "extraordinary and compelling reason". 6 Impact Fees: Rate Study South Barker Corridor Study (February 2020) South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (September 2020) 7 Recommended Improvements — $18.8 Million Mission Avenue to Boone Avenue — $3.1 Million 5 Lane Urban Arterial Section Interstate 90 Interchange/Bridge — WSDOT Funded Interstate 90 to Appleway Avenue — $6.5 Million 5 Lane Urban Arterial Section Sprague Avenue Single Lane Roundabout — $2.2 Million Appleway to City Limits — $3.5 Million 3 Lane Urban Section 4th Avenue Single Lane Roundabout — $2.0 Million 8th Avenue Single Lane Roundabout — $1.5 Million �"J Impact Fees: Rate Study Spokane Valley • Corridor Impacts: Mission Avenue to South Limits • Significant Development Impact to Study Area • $18.8M Total Cost to Mitigate Developer Impacts • Identify Fair Share Costs Non -City Funds • Impact Fee Area 2% • $3.6M (19%) • Non -City Funds • $350K (2%) • Other Funding Sources • $14.8M (79%) IS Barker Corridor z 0 0 E 16th Ave Ve A E Euclid Ave Liberty Lake CD • Q. 9 Impact Fees: Proposed Code Changes Spokane Valley 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 • Primary Impact: Title 22 SMVC -Design and Development Standards • New Chapter 22.100 SVMC to adopt and impose Transportation Impact Fees • Secondary Impacts: Updates to affected, related code sections 17.90 — Appeals 17.110.010 — Fees and Penalties — Master Fee Schedule 22.10.010 — Authority — Purpose Street Standards Chapter 3 Barker Road — Looking North at Sprague Avenue Impact Fees: New SMVC 22.100 Spokane 4,* Val ley • Chapter Highlights • .010 -Findings and Authority • .040 —Assessment of Transportation Impact Fees • .050 —Deferral • .060 —Exemptions • .070 —Credits • .080 —Independent Fee Calculations • .110 —Appeals • .120 —Refunds 10 Barker Road — Looking South at Broadway Avenue ��P Impact Fees: Proposed Rates Spokane .Valley Proposed S. Barker Rate $1,272 Per PM Peak Trip Northeast Industrial Area $2,831 per PM Peak 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 3.45 0% 0.00345 $4.39 per sq ft 912 Bank 20.45 34% 0.01350 $17.17 per sq ft 520 Elementary School 1.37 0% 0.00137 $1.74 per sq ft Institution 522 Middle School 1.19 0% 0.00119 $1.51 per sq ft 530 High School 0.97 0% 0.00097 $1.23 per sq ft 925 Drinking Establishment 11.36 43% 0.00648 $8.24 per sq ft Restaurant 934 Fast Food Restaurant (with drive-thru) 32.67 50% 0.01634 $20.78 per sq ft 937 Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru 43.38 89% 0.00477 $6.07 per sq ft 820 Shopping Center 3.81 34% 0.00251 $3.20 per sq ft Retail 841 Automobile Sales - Used/New 3.75 0% 0.00375 $4.77 per sq ft 853 Convenience Market w/ Pumps 23.04 66% 7.84 $9,968 per pump 110 Light Industry/High Technology 0.63 0% 0.00063 $0.80 per sq ft Industrial 140 Manufacturing 0.67 0% 0.00067 $0.85 per sq ft 151 Mini -Storage 0.17 0% 0.00017 $0.22 per sq ft 710 General Office 1.15 0% 0.00115 $1.46 per sq ft Office 720 Medical Office / Clinic 3.46 0% 0.00346 $4.40 per sq ft 750 Office Park 1.07 0% 0.00107 $1.36 per sq ft 1 ITE Trip Generation (loth 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 Spokane Valley and is NOT all-inclusive 2 Excludes pass -by trips: see "Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice" (2014). 3 PM Peak Person Trip Rate excluding pass -by trips 4 sq ft = square foot, pump = vehicle servicing position/gas pump, room = available hotel/motel room Impact Fees: Rate Comparison Spokane Valley IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Liberty Lake Harvard Road Mitigation (2014)*** Single Family & Duplex $1,260 per dwelling unit $99.45 $817.83 $1,160.64 $683.28 $1,258.92 $671.02 $5,402 $1,908 Residential Multi -Family $713 per dwelling unit $70.05 $576.05 $817.51 $481.27 $886.73 $352.39 $3,055 $1,183 Hotel (3 or More Levels) $891 per room $66.70 $548.51 $778.42 $458.26 $844.34 $544.60 $3,819 $1,145 Services Health Club $4.39 per sq ft $0.23 $1.91 $2.71 $1.59 $2.93 $16.23 $6.74 Bank $17.17 per sq ft $0.52 $4.25 $6.03 $3.55 $6.54 $6.52 $24.57 Elementary School $1.74 per sq ft $0.05 $0.43 $0.60 $0.36 $0.66 $6.29 Institution Middle School $1.51 per sgft $0.04 $0.30 $0.41 $0.25 $0.45 High School $1.23 per sq ft $0.04 $0.35 $0.50 $0.29 $0.54 Drinking Establishment $8.24 per sq ft $0.39 $3.19 $4.52 $2.66 $4.91 $13.36 $21.64 Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant (with drive-thru) $20.78 per sq ft $0.93 $7.65 $10.85 $6.39 $11.77 $6.52 $76.83 $31.16 Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru $6.07 per sq ft $0.36 $2.99 $4.25 $2.50 $4.61 $20.40 $81.66 Shopping Center $3.20 per sq ft $0.13 $1.09 $1.55 $0.91 $1.68 $4.67 Retail Automobile Sales - Used/New $4.77 per sq ft $0.20 $1.61 $2.29 $1.35 $2.48 $2.29 $11.43 $5.00 Convenience Market w/ Pumps $9,968 per pump $291.77 $2,399.39 $3,405.14 $2,004.64 $3,693.48 $12,363 Light Industry/High Technology $0.80 per sq ft $0.12 $1.02 $1.44 $0.85 $1.57 $0.72 $2.56 $1.85 Industrial Manufacturing $0.85 per sgft $0.09 $0.77 $1.09 $0.64 $1.18 $0.58 $2.72 $1.39 Mini -Storage $0.22 per sq ft $0.02 $0.17 $0.25 $0.14 $0.27 $0.16 $0.69 $0.50 General Office $1.46 per sq ft $0.15 $1.22 $1.73 $1.02 $1.88 $1.28 $5.28 $2.84 Office Medical Office / Clinic $4.40 per sq ft $0.33 $2.70 $3.82 $2.25 $4.15 $2.76 $15.88 $6.81 Office Park $1.36 per sq ft $0.15 $1.21 $1.72 $1.01 $1.86 $2.82 1 ITE Trip Generation (loth 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 Spokane Valley and is NOT all-inclusive 2 Excludes pass -by trips: see "Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice" (2014). 12 43 PM Peak Person Trip Rate excluding passby trips sq foot = square feet, pump = vehicle servicing position/gas pump, room = available hotel/motel room *** Published rates are per 1,000 sq ft and have been converted to sq ft where necessary Discussion Spokane 4,. Val ley • Consensus to move the CTA forward to Ordinance 1st Reading Take other action deemed appropriate S Barker Corridor 11-70 E16th Ave Ave 7 ; E Euclid Ave Liberty Lake co 0 z ECoach Dr r 45' Draft Draft 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. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 1 of 12 Draft 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. 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 CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 2 of 12 Draft 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. 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. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 3 of 12 Draft 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. 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. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 4 of 12 Draft F. The City shall establish the transportation impact fee rate for a land use that is not listed in the rate table based on the most similar land use category identified in the rate table 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. F. 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. G. 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: 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; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 5 of 12 Draft 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. 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. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 6 of 12 Draft 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 [120-200] 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 CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 7 of 12 Draft certification and shall not 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 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 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 CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 8 of 12 Draft 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 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. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 9 of 12 Draft 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. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. E. Appeals of impact fees shall be heard concurrently with any underlying appeal of the permit as applicable. SVMC 22.100.120 Refunds. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 10 of 12 Draft 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. 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 CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 11 of 12 Draft transportation improvement plan and as necessary to address changes to travel demands, growth forecasts, or the project list. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 11/24/2020 Page 12 of 12 Draft Draft TITLE 17 GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 17.90 APPEALS 17.90.010 General. 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. CHAPTER 17.110 FEES AND PENALTIES 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. (Ord. 19-014 § 4, 2019; Ord. 18-001 § 4, 2018; Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit B 11/24/2020 Page 1 of 2 Draft Draft TITLE 22 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHAPTER 22.10 AUTHORITY 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 82.01.110, and WAC 365-195-800 through 365-195-865, as well as provisions of SVMC Titles 17 through 25. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit B 11/24/2020 Page 2 of 2 Draft CHAPTER 3 -TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CHAPTER ORGANIZATION 3.1 Introduction 5 3.2 Trip Generation & Distribution Letter Guidelines 6 3.2.1 Applicability 7 3.2.2 Minimum Elements 7 3.3 Limited Traffic Impact Analysis 8 3.3.1 Applicability 8 3.3.2 Scope 9 3.3.3 Methodology 9 3.3.4 Limited TIA Report Minimum Elements 10 3.3.4.1 Title Page 10 3.3.4.2 Project Description and Summary 10 3.3.4.3 Proposed Development and Trip Generation 10 3.3.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions 11 3.3.4.5 Background Projects 11 3.3.4.6 Other Analyses 12 3.3.4.7 Findings 12 3.3.4.8 Appendices 12 3.4 Traffic Impact Analysis 14 3.4.1 Applicability 14 3.4.2 Scope 14 3.4.3 Methodology 15 3.4.4 TIA Report Minimum Elements 16 3.4.4.1 Title Page 17 3.4.4.2 Introduction and Summary 17 3.4.4.3 Proposed Development 17 3.4.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions 18 3.4.4.5 Background Projects 18 3.4.4.6 Analysis Scenarios 19 3.4.4.7 Other Analyses 19 CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 1 of 21 Draft 3.4.4.8 Findings 19 3.4.4.9 Appendices 19 3.5 Meetings 20 CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 2 of 21 Draft THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 3 of 21 Draft CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 4 of 21 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 3.2) Required for qualified projects within a SEPA Will 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 Isee section 3.4) i 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: CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 5 of 21 Draft Table 1— Summary of Traffic Analysis Scope Elements Scope Elements Trip Generation Letter Limited TIA TIA Engineering Seal X X X Title Page X X Project Description and Summary X X X Proposed Development and Trip Generation X X X Summary of Existing Conditions X X Background projects and growth rate X X Study Area Intersections of Collectors or higher within % mile X Intersections of Collectors or higher within 1 mile X LOS Analyses X Safety Analyses X X Other Analyses (Operations, Sight Distance, Turn Lane Warrants, etc.) X X Analysis Scenarios (Peak Hours defined in scope) Existing Conditions X Build -out year without project X Build -out year with project X Build -out + 5 years without project X Build -out + 5 years with project X Regional modeling — regional impacting development X Findings X X Appendices X X Public Meetings 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. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 6 of 21 Draft 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: 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 ab.Project description, including proposed use; Vic. Site plan with vicinity map; mod. Building size noted in square feet; he. Zoning of the property; f_Determination of whether the project is in a SEPA Infill Area (see following section); g.Determination of whether the project is in an impact fee area; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 7 of 21 Draft h. Proposed and existing access points, site circulation, queuing lengths for driveways (and drive-throughs, if applicable) and parking locations; Project phasing and expected build out year; h-LAn 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; 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; 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 bei 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. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 8 of 21 Draft 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. 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 (HCMI); 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; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 9 of 21 Draft 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 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; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 10 of 21 Draft 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 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; J. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 11 of 21 Draft 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. 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, CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 12 of 21 Draft g. References. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 13 of 21 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 CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 14 of 21 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; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 15 of 21 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: To clarify, unsignalized project driveway intersections -within the Major Arterial Corridor are not part of the corridor LOS calculation since they are not arterial streets. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 16 of 21 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. g. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 17 of 21 Draft 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: 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. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 18 of 21 Draft 3.4.4.6 Analysis Scenarios The TIA shall include the following analysis scenarios: a. Existing conditions; b. Build -out year without project; 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; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 19 of 21 Draft 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, 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. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 20 of 21 Draft THIS PAGE IS INTENTIALLY LEFT BLANK CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/24/2020 Page 21 of 21 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. 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 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 11-2411tem 9 2020 11 24 RCA Admin Rprt on LTAC mtg ejl comments 11.17.20.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 24, 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: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee - 2021 Recommended Grant Allocations for Tourism Promotion GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State Law RCW 82.08 and 67.28; Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.20 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Thus far in 2020 for the 2021 awards, the Council has had discussions pertaining to lodging tax on two previous occasions: • July 14, 2020 where we discussed: o Lodging tax in general — what it is and how it may be expended. o The LTAC — what it is and its role in the process. o The Council's role in the process. o Council goals and priorities for the LTAC. • July 28, 2020 where Council discussed and reached consensus on the goals and priorities that should be included in the lodging tax grant application and also communicated to the LTAC. BACKGROUND: In 2003 the City implemented a 2% hotel/motel tax, the proceeds of which are used to promote conventions and tourist travel to our City. The organizations to which the tax proceeds are distributed are ultimately determined by the City Council which receives a recommendation from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC). The LTAC is comprised of five members who are appointed by the City Council. The LTAC membership must include: • At least two representatives of businesses that are required to collect the tax, • At least two people who are involved in activities that are authorized to be funded by the tax, and • One elected city official who serves as chairperson of the LTAC. The LTAC makes its recommendations based upon a combination of written application materials and a presentation that is made to them by each applicant. On October 15, 2020, the LTAC met to consider application materials and presentations from applicants seeking a portion of the $678,240 appropriated in the City's 2021 Budget. Prior to applicant presentations, the LTAC passed a motion recommending to Council that no transfer to Fund #104 be done in 2020. Instead, the Committee recommended that after all the grant awards are paid out for 2020 and 2021 any remaining balance available be transferred to Fund #104 in 2021 so that the ending fund balance is approximately $165,000 at the end of 2021 in Fund #105 and recommended that this motion be provided for the Council's approval. The total of all requests in the applications received for 2021 awards totaled $303,000, which meant that $303,000 was the maximum amount that could be awarded for the year as no applicant may receive more than they requested. Presentations were made by the Historic Flight Foundation, the HUB Sports Center, JAKT for Brews, Beats & Eats, JAKT for Crave NW, JAKT 1 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for Web1202012020, 11-2411tem 9 2020 11 24 RCA Admin Rprt on LTAC mtg ejl comments 11.17.20.docx for the farmer's market, Northwest Winterfest, Spokane County Fair and Expo Center, Spokane Sports Commission, Valleyfest, and Valleyfest Cycle Celebration. Following applicant presentations, the LTAC discussed both the merits of making particular awards to various applicants and how they felt revenues should be allocated. Ultimately, the LTAC recommended the following awards be advanced to the City Council for consideration: Amount LTAC Applicant Requested Recommend 1) Historic Flight Foundation 15,000 15,000 2) HUB Sports Center 45,000 45,000 3) JAKT - Brews, Beats & Eats 20,000 2,600 4) JAKT - Crave! 25,000 15,200 5) JAKT - Farmers Market 20,000 7,200 6) Northwest Winterfest 50,000 49,000 7) Spokane Co Fair and Expo Center 50,000 49,000 8) Spokane Sports Commission 9) Valleyfest 55,000 27,000 18,000 12,600 10) Valleyfest Cycle Celebration 5,000 1,800 303,000 224,400 Potential Transfer to Fund #104 453,840 Total Available in 2021 Budget 678,240 At times some organizations apply for funding through both the Outside Agency and the Lodging Tax award processes. JAKT and Valleyfest both applied for Lodging Tax Funding for 2021, as well as for 2021 Outside Agency funding, and were awarded $10,765 and $20,179, respectively, in Outside Agency funding at the October 20, 2020 Council meeting. OPTIONS: The options for City Council action have been viewed as primarily being limited to either (1) approving some or all of the listed recipients and amounts recommended by the LTAC or (2) not approving any recipients and having the LTAC revise its recommendation for further City Council action. However, under RCW 67.28.1817, a municipality may propose "a change in the use of revenue received under [RCW 67.28]," but must submit the proposal to the LTAC for review and comment. Then, the LTAC must be given at least 45 days to review and provide comments prior to final action by the municipality. This allows the City Council to conduct its own review of the materials submitted, including the minutes and recommended amounts by the LTAC, to come up with its own proposed distribution of the revenue for any of the applicants, which may be the same or different from the LTAC recommendation. If it is different, the City must give the LTAC 45 days to review and provide comments on the proposed revised distribution before taking final action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is required at this time. This topic will come back before the City Council on December 8, 2020, when a motion consideration will be requested. 2 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for Web1202012020, 11-2411tem 9 2020 11 24 RCA Admin Rprt on LTAC mtg ejl comments 11.17.20.docx BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2021 Proposed Budget includes total revenues of $352,000 including $346,000 of lodging taxes. Total expenditures are budgeted at $708,240 including $30,000 to offset advertising at CenterPlace and up to $678,240 to be allocated through this award process. The $678,240 includes the $224,400 available for recommended awards by the LTAC as well as $453,840 the LTAC recommended for the Council to transfer into the 1.3% Lodging Tax Fund account dedicated for a large sports venue or venues for tourism facilities if revenue estimates don't further decline due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. Total expenditures are expected to exceed total revenues by $356,240 and this will be offset through the use of a portion of the fund balance. The fund balance at the conclusion of 2021 is expected to be $165,000 which should be adequate to cover cash flow needs. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes of October 15, 2020, Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting. • Chart reflecting a history of hotel/motel tax receipts from January 2011 through August 2020. • Fund #105 — Hotel/Motel Tax — history of revenues and expenditures — 2016 through 2019 Actuals and 2020 and 2021 Budgets. • Lodging Tax Application and Award History for the years 2003 through 2020. • Separately distributed binder titled "Lodging Tax 2021" that was also utilized by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee at their October 15, 2020 meeting. 3 MINUTES LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING October 15, 2020 8:00 a.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 10210 East Sprague Avenue Meeting Held via Zoom Attendance: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Members: Chair: Mayor Ben Wick Lee Cameron, Mirabeau Park Hotel Colleen Heinselman, Hampton Inn Suites Wayne Brokaw, Spokane County Fair Board Gregory Repetti, The HUB Staff Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Sarah Farr, Accounting Technician Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Chair Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and welcomed everyone, after which there were self -introductions. Deputy City Attorney Lamb went through his Open Public Government PowerPoint training for Committee members and he explained various portions of the Public Records Act, and the Open Public Meetings Act. Mayor Wick made some opening comments about tax trends and what the COVID pandemic is doing to the tourism/lodging industry. He also mentioned the TPA's (aka Hotel/Motel Association) request to the state legislature to change the room tax rates from its current $2.00 a night to $5.00 a night and that there was a request from the Sports Commission to have the change at $4.00 a night rather than the $5.00; he said nothing has been finalized. He also mentioned the Council's goals for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) and said the goals have not changed from the previous year. Finance Director Taylor went through the information contained in the Memorandum included with the packet materials, about projected revenues and transfer of funds to Fund 104; followed by Deputy City Attorney Lamb explaining the use of funds and any proposed changes as per RCW 78.28.1817; he noted that for this LTAC meeting, committee members should think about how to award for 2021, keeping in mind impact on 2020 and where the ending cash fund might be as well as uncertainty for cash collections for 2020 and 2021. Mr. Lamb stated that comments Committee members might want to pass to Council regarding funding include award recommendations for 2021, as well as any other motions or comments, and that Council will take final action on 2020 through a 2020 budget amendment in December. Mr. Lamb also noted that regarding the applications, some were for marketing and some for actual operations, and due to Covid restrictions, some were not able to proceed as planned; he also reminded committee members the LTAC funds are awarded on a reimbursement basis; so if some applicants used the funds for marketing, those can be reimbursed, but we will not pay for events that did not occur. Finance Director Taylor said she has been in contact with all awardees to let them know that the exact amount the City will be paying is uncertain. Director Taylor also went over the contents of the meeting binder, and mentioned which events took place and which didn't, and that even though some events didn't take place, some could still have partial spending, such as Crave NW which didn't occur but did have marketing expenses; she also mentioned that the NW Winterfest event for this year is still uncertain; she noted the $30,000 set aside for CenterPlace, which is allowed by state statute as it constitutes historic use of the tax. Director Taylor mentioned the $710,000 anticipated amounts for 2021, minus the $30,000 to CenterPlace which leaves $680,000 for award allocations. LTAC Minutes October 15, 2020 Page 1 of 3 Presentations were made in the following order: 1. Historic Flight Foundation — Mr. John Sessions Chair of the Board John Sessions noted they seek $15,000 for marketing their Vintage Aircraft Weekend, which will be a community and family event to celebrate vintage aircraft and history. 2. The HUB — Mr. Phil Champlin Mr. Champlin explained that the HUB seeks $45,000 for recruiting events to the facility. 3. JAKT Brews, Beats & Eats — Mr. Tom Stebbins and Executive Director Ms. Katie Lee Mr. Stebbins seeks $20,000 for the Brews, Beats & Arts community event, which is an event for all ages celebrating local beer, food and music; and the funds will be used to assist in conducting the event as well as with infrastructure costs. 4. JAKT Crave — Mr. Tom Stebbins Mr. Stebbins seeks $25,000 for the Crave event, which will include cost for a social media team that includes photography and video assets and PR outreach. 5. JAKT Farmers Market — Mr. Tom Stebbins Mr. Stebbins seeks $20,000 to continue the Farmers Market at CenterPlace; that the requested amount is for the market manager position, a position to maintain organized vendors to bring vendors and the public to the community and the event and to boost attendance. 6. Northwest Winterfest — Mr. Sam Song and Ms. Charity Doyl The applicants seek $50,000 to assist with this event to include operation and marketing. 7. Spokane County Fair and Expo center — Ms. Erin Gurtel and Ms. Rachelle Buchanan The applicants seek $50,000 to market and advertise the Fair and interim events to an audience in and beyond the Spokane area. 9. Valleyfest — Ms. Peggy Doering Ms. Doering seeks $18,000 for marketing Valleyfest in and beyond the Spokane region. 10. Valleyfest Cycle Celebration — Ms. Peggy Doering Ms. Doering seeks $5,000 for marketing the City of Spokane Valley as a destination to cyclists and their families. 8. Spokane Sports Commission - Ms. Ashley Blake The Sports Commission seeks $55,000 to support tourism events in 2021. There was some discussion about the Sports Commission's request and that they also requested $50,000 from the City of Spokane Lodging Tax. Ms. Blake explained that the City of Spokane has had a bit of a delay in their process and she is hopeful to secure a little more from them. Chair Mayor Wick called for a five-minute recess at 11:04 a.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 11:09 a.m. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee members develop funding recommendations Ms. Taylor distributed a blank spreadsheet to each committee member; went over the actuals for 2016 through 2019 and 2020 as well as the 2021 budget figures; and mentioned the $163,000 minimum for cash flow purposes. There as brief discussion about the minimum cash flow amount and Director Taylor LTAC Minutes October 15, 2020 Page 2 of 3 explained she is hesitant to reduce that figure. There was also discussion about the budget and presumed revenues, and the amount of the cash reserve. There was a great deal of discussion about the overall budget for the lodging tax fund and fund 104 with discussion focused on whether to make any transfer of funds into fund 104. Chair Mayor Wick recommended that there be no transfers in 2020 to fund 104. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said a motion wasn't necessary, as the chair identified the recommendation, or a motion could be made based on the desire of the committee. There was ultimately consensus from the committee that LTAC would cancel any transfers from fund 105 to fund 104 in the year 2020. Lodging Tax advisory Committee members discussion and award recommendations. Director Taylor then asked each committee member to complete the allocation sheet and that she and Ms. Farr would be by in a few minutes to collect the sheets with each Committee member's recommended allocation, after which Ms. Taylor would enter the figures on the spreadsheet. Mr. Lamb reminded everyone that the meeting is still in session. Ms. Taylor entered the figures on the master spreadsheet, which figures where then slightly modified by several of the committee members. The final recommended amounts after calculating the averages, are as follows: Historic Flight Foundation $15,000; HUB Sports Center $45,000; JAKT Brews, Beats & Eats $2,600; JAKT Crave $15,200; JAKT Farmers Market $7,200; NW Winterfest $49,000; Spokane County Fair and Expo Center $49,000; Spokane Sports Commission $27,000; Valleyfest $12,600; and Valleyfest Cycle Celebration $1,800 for a total of $224,400. It was moved by Lee Cameron, seconded, and unanimously agreed to accept the average amounts in the total amount of $224,400. Ms. Taylor said she would email a final distribution sheet to each committee member. Discussion resumed about the transfer of funds and the ending fund balance, which finally culminated in a motion by Mr. Repetti as follows: It was moved by Mr. Repetti and seconded that all remaining funds be transferred to fund 104 after complete adjudication of all awards and allowing a reserve fund balance of $165, 000 at the end of year 2021. Discussion included mention by Director Taylor that getting to exactly $165,000 would be difficult, and perhaps adding the word `approximately' would be better. It was moved by Mr. Cameron and seconded to amend the motion by changing the reserve fund balance of $165, 000, to `approximately' $165, 000. Vote by acclamation on the amended motion was unanimous in favor. Committee members then voted by acclamation on the fully amended motion with all members voting unanimously in favor. Director Taylor said an administrative report is scheduled to come before Council November 24, with final action scheduled for the December 8 Council meeting. It was moved by Mr. Repetti, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 12:46 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Christine Bainbridge, Spokane Valley City Clerk LTAC Minutes October 15, 2020 Page 3 of 3 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax\2020\105 hotel motel tax 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - August Actual for the years 2011 through 2020 January February March April May June July August 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 22,212 22,792 24,611 38,230 33,791 41,403 49,312 57,452 21,442 21,549 25,655 52,130 37,478 43,971 52,819 57,229 24,185 25,975 27,739 40,979 40,560 47,850 56,157 63,816 25,425 26,014 29,384 48,246 41,123 52,618 61,514 70,384 27,092 27,111 32,998 50,455 44,283 56,975 61,809 72,697 31,887 27,773 34,330 52,551 50,230 55,060 65,007 73,700 27,210 26,795 31,601 52,242 50,112 60,637 69,337 76,972 28,752 28,878 31,906 57,664 51,777 62,048 71,865 79,368 31,865 32,821 40,076 59,117 53,596 73,721 84,628 91,637 36,203 31,035 37,395 24,959 16,906 28,910 41,836 49,772 9/28/2020 2019 to 2020 Difference 4,338 13.61% (1,786) (5.44%) (2,681) (6.69%) (34,158) (57.78%) (36,690) (68.46%) (44,811) (60.78%) (42,792) (50.56%) (41,865) (45.69%) Total Collections 289,804 312,273 327,262 354,707 373,420 390,538 394,906 412,258 467,461 267,016 (200,445) (42.88%) September 58,908 64,299 70,794 76,100 74,051 70,305 80,173 79,661 97,531 0 October 39,028 43,699 43,836 45,604 49,880 55,660 56,631 61,826 77,932 0 November 37,339 39,301 42,542 39,600 42,376 46,393 47,090 52,868 59,252 0 December 32,523 30,432 34,238 33,256 41,510 33,478 37,180 40,363 41,675 0 Total Collections 457,603 490,004 518,672 549,267 581,237 596,374 615,980 646,976 743,851 267,016 Budget Estimate 480,000 430,000 490,000 530,000 550,000 580,000 580,000 580,000 600,000 650,000 Actual over (under) budg (22,397) 60,004 28,672 19,267 31,237 16,374 35,980 66,976 143,851 (382,984) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% 103.64% 105.68% 102.82% 106.20% 111.55% 123.98% n/a % change in annual total collected 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% 5.82% 2.60% 3.29% 5.03% 14.97% n/a % of budget collected through August 60.38% 72.62% 66.79% 66.93% 67.89% 67.33% 68.09% 71.08% 77.91% 41.08% % of actual total collected through August 63.33% 63.73% 63.10% 64.58% 64.25% 65.49% 64.11% 63.72% 62.84% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of August 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2011 2012 1 1 2013 2014 August 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 • August ■ July ■ June • May ■ April • March • February • January Page 22 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\105 Rev and exp CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2020 Budget Amendment and 2021 Budget Fund #105 - Hotel / Motel Tax Fund - Actuals for 2016 through 2019 - 2020 and 2021 Budgets Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest Subtotal revenues Actual 2016 1 2017 2018 I 2019* 596,373 615,980 646,975 743,852 1,275 3,549 7,058 8,459 2020 As Adopted Annualized 8/13/2020 2021 Budget 650,000 346,000 346,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 597,648 619,529 654,033 752,311 656,000 352,000 352,000 Expenditures Transfers out - #001 CenterPlace 30,000 15,778 26,037 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Transfers out - #104 0 250,000 250,000 275,000 0 0 453,840 Transfers out - #309 Parks Capital 58,388 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tourism Promotion 498,172 351,674 321,934 207,000 795,000 319,000 224,400 Subtotal expenditures 586,560 617,452 597,971 512,000 825,000 349,000 708,240 Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 11,088 2,077 56,062 240,311 (169,000) 3,000 (356,240) 208,702 219,790 221,867 277,929 518,240 518,240 521,240 219,790 221,867 277,929 518,240 349,240 521,240 165,000 2020 Awards by Agency HUB Sports Center JAKT - Crave NW JAKT - Farmers Market JAKT - Oktoberfest Northwest Winterfest Spokane County Fair & Expo - marketing Spokane Sports Commission Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration Valleyfest - marketing Visit Spokane 55,020 18,600 8,000 8,400 48,000 66,000 45,000 1,380 18,600 50,000 319,000 for LTAC P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Application / Award History For the years 2003 through 2020 AGENCIES 2003 2004 2005 2006 Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Armed Forces & Aerospace Museum 3,327 0 2,531 0 0 0 0 0 Burke Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CenterPlace - marketing 0 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 CenterPlace - marketing to regional meeting planners 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chamber of Commerce 0 0 0 0 15,440 0 15,440 5,000 City of Spokane Valley - Directed Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Tourism Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Volleyball courts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fair & Expo Marketing 58,376 17,500 35,000 25,000 21,000 18,000 0 0 Fairgrounds 0 0 21,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 Family Guide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friends of Centennial Trail 23,480 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 9,000 0 HUB Sports Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland Dance Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,535 0 Inland NW Sr. Wellness Conference 12,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Crave NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Farmers Market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Oktoberfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latah Creek Wine Cellars 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liberty Lake Rotary Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northwest Winterfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plantes Ferry Park 0 0 71,842 20,000 0 0 23,876 0 Six Bridges Arts Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splash -Down Family Waterpark 230,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spo Con 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Arts Commission 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center - Winter Glow Spe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Parks, Recreation, & Golf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW 5,830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Polo Club 30,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Regional Sports Commission 120,000 52,200 150,000 100,000 100,000 75,000 100,000 84,000 Spokane River Forum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Symphony 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 40,000 1,000 0 0 22,100 10,000 49,104 5,000 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Winery Association 3,285 0 8,250 2,000 0 0 0 0 Sports USA Sports Complex 103,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SV Junior Soccer Association 96,642 24,800 71,842 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 U.S. Figure Skating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest 19,724 2,800 49,700 0 27,200 15,000 25,900 15,000 Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest (additional for Spring 07 (for float) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visit Spokane Visitor Convention Bureau) 200,000 83,700 250,000 150,000 200,000 136,000 200,000 165,000 (Spokane WebMaker 39,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA 50,000 18,000 12,000 6,000 12,000 6,000 17,000 7,000 YMCA Skateboard Park 0 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer out to Fund #104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1,090,264 218,000 694,165 360,000 397,740 260,000 446,855 325,000 Page 1 of 5 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Application / Award History For the years 2003 through 2020 AGENCIES 2007 2008 2009 2010 07 Apply 07 Award Sprg 07 Appl)Sprg 07 Awar Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Armed Forces & Aerospace Museum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burke Marketing 0 0 147,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CenterPlace - marketing 0 40,000 0 0 90,000 90,000 0 90,000 0 37,500 CenterPlace - marketing to regional meeting planners 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chamber of Commerce 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 155,000 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Directed Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Tourism Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Volleyball courts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fair & Expo Marketing 20,000 20,000 0 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 18,250 0 0 Fairgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Guide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friends of Centennial Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HUB Sports Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland Dance Association 0 0 2,535 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland NW Sr. Wellness Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Crave NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Farmers Market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Oktoberfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latah Creek Wine Cellars 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liberty Lake Rotary Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northwest Winterfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plantes Ferry Park 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Six Bridges Arts Association 15,000 12,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splash -Down Family Waterpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spo Con 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Arts Commission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center - Winter Glow Spe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Parks, Recreation, & Golf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Polo Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Regional Sports Commission 100,000 100,000 0 0 175,000 145,000 190,000 115,000 150,000 120,000 Spokane River Forum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Symphony 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 27,450 10,000 0 0 0 0 30,260 3,250 11,600 5,000 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Winery Association 0 0 7,500 7,500 8,300 8,300 9,000 0 0 0 Sports USA Sports Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SV Junior Soccer Association 0 0 17,000 30,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 U.S. Figure Skating 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 Valleyfest 30,000 25,000 5,000 5,000 40,000 30,000 50,000 27,500 50,000 30,000 Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest (additional for Spring 07 (for float) 0 0 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visit Spokane Visitor Convention Bureau) 175,000 175,000 78,000 78,000 325,000 306,000 336,000 236,000 275,000 195,000 (Spokane WebMaker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA Skateboard Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer out to Fund #104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 447,450 432,500 313,535 170,800 823,300 624,300 645,260 505,000 486,600 387,500 Page 2 of 5 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Application / Award History For the years 2003 through 2020 AGENCIES 2011 2012 2013 2014 Application I Award Rnd 1 App I Rnd 1 Awrd I Rnd 2 App I Rnd 2 Awrd Application I Award Application I Award Armed Forces & Aerospace Museum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burke Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CenterPlace - marketing 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 CenterPlace - marketing to regional meeting planners 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chamber of Commerce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Directed Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,000 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Tourism Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Volleyball courts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,500 7,300 Fair & Expo Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fairgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Guide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friends of Centennial Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,600 0 HUB Sports Center 40,000 40,000 50,000 42,600 0 0 50,000 21,100 40,000 36,000 Inland Dance Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland NW Sr. Wellness Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Crave NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Farmers Market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Oktoberfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latah Creek Wine Cellars 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liberty Lake Rotary Club 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 0 Northwest Winterfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plantes Ferry Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Six Bridges Arts Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splash -Down Family Waterpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spo Con 0 0 70,131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Arts Commission 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center 0 0 0 0 30,000 25,900 30,000 27,800 50,000 39,800 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center - Winter Glow Spe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Parks, Recreation, & Golf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Polo Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Regional Sports Commission 165,000 165,000 200,000 185,000 0 0 200,000 150,200 200,000 183,800 Spokane River Forum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Symphony 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 5,000 5,000 5,000 3,900 5,000 1,100 12,000 6,400 20,000 13,100 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Winery Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sports USA Sports Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SV Junior Soccer Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U.S. Figure Skating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest 50,000 36,000 50,000 0 50,000 30,000 50,000 35,200 50,000 20,000 Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest (additional for Spring 07 (for float) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visit Spokane Visitor Convention Bureau) 250,000 250,000 0 0 275,000 251,720 350,000 184,800 280,000 247,000 (Spokane WebMaker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA Skateboard Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer out to Fund #104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 510,000 496,000 375,131 261,500 440,000 308,720 692,000 510,500 659,100 577,000 Page 3 of 5 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Application / Award History For the years 2003 through 2020 AGENCIES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Armed Forces & Aerospace Museum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burke Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CenterPlace - marketing 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 30,000 CenterPlace - marketing to regional meeting planners 30,000 17,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chamber of Commerce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Directed Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Tourism Study 0 0 86,750 80,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Volleyball courts 120,000 68,000 160,000 60,650 233,508 0 238,000 0 0 0 Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fair & Expo Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fairgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Guide 0 0 0 0 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 Friends of Centennial Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HUB Sports Center 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 54,000 48,400 55,100 52,000 Inland Dance Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland NW Sr. Wellness Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Crave NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 30,000 60,000 21,500 JAKT - Farmers Market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 7,000 JAKT - Oktoberfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 10,000 20,000 5,000 Latah Creek Wine Cellars 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liberty Lake Rotary Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northwest Winterfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plantes Ferry Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Six Bridges Arts Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splash -Down Family Waterpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spo Con 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Arts Commission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center 44,000 44,000 100,000 45,000 60,000 47,000 60,000 50,000 60,000 55,000 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center - Winter Glow Spe 0 0 0 0 20,000 2,170 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Parks, Recreation, & Golf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 35,000 Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Polo Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Regional Sports Commission 200,000 120,000 200,000 121,600 200,000 115,600 200,000 80,000 200,000 0 Spokane River Forum 1,000 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Symphony 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 28,209 18,400 35,800 17,200 27,500 9,500 25,000 13,000 28,500 5,500 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Winery Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sports USA Sports Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SV Junior Soccer Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U.S. Figure Skating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest 64,000 31,600 60,000 28,900 150,000 31,600 150,000 18,600 150,000 12,000 Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration 0 0 10,000 3,000 25,000 5,000 25,000 2,000 25,000 1,000 Valleyfest (additional for Spring 07 (for float) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visit Spokane Visitor Convention Bureau) 328,430 230,000 253,777 163,650 282,830 103,130 282,830 70,000 200,000 48,000 (Spokane WebMaker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA Skateboard Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer out to Fund #104 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 250,000 0 275,000 Total 855,639 600,000 946,327 590,000 1,073,838 634,000 1,104,830 602,000 888,600 547,000 Page 4 of 5 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Application / Award History For the years 2003 through 2020 AGENCIES 2020 Application I Award Armed Forces & Aerospace Museum Burke Marketing CenterPlace - marketing CenterPlace - marketing to regional meeting planners Chamber of Commerce City of Spokane Valley - Directed Marketing City of Spokane Valley - Tourism Study City of Spokane Valley - Volleyball courts Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion Fair & Expo Marketing Fairgrounds Family Guide Friends of Centennial Trail HUB Sports Center Inland Dance Association Inland NW Sr. Wellness Conference JAKT - Crave NW JAKT - Farmers Market JAKT - Oktoberfest Latah Creek Wine Cellars Liberty Lake Rotary Club Northwest Winterfest Plantes Ferry Park Six Bridges Arts Association Splash -Down Family Waterpark Spo Con Spokane Arts Commission Spokane County Fair & Expo Center Spokane County Fair & Expo Center - Winter Glow Spe Spokane County Parks, Recreation, & Golf Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW Spokane Polo Club Spokane Regional Sports Commission Spokane River Forum Spokane Symphony Spokane Valley Heritage Museum Spokane Valley Soccer Club Spokane Winery Association Sports USA Sports Complex SV Junior Soccer Association U.S. Figure Skating Valleyfest Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration Valleyfest (additional for Spring 07 (for float) Visit Spokane (Spokane Visitor Convention Burc\au) WebMaker YMCA YMCA Skateboard Park Transfer out to Fund #104 Total 3/31/2020 Total Application Award O 0 5,858 0 O 0 147,500 0 O 30,000 90,000 607,500 O 0 30,000 17,000 O 0 285,880 105,000 O 0 0 55,000 O 0 86,750 80,000 O 0 751,508 128,650 O 0 7,500 7,300 O 0 194,376 128,750 O 0 21,000 15,000 O 0 35,000 0 O 0 41,080 2,000 55,100 55,020 464,200 415,120 O 0 5,070 0 O 0 12,500 0 38,000 18,600 148,000 70,100 18,000 8,000 33,000 15,000 20,000 8,400 60,000 23,400 O 0 20,000 0 O 0 10,000 0 50,000 48,000 50,000 48,000 O 0 125,718 20,000 O 0 15,000 12,500 O 0 230,000 0 O 0 70,131 0 O 0 65,000 0 75,000 66,000 509,000 400,500 O 0 20,000 2,170 O 0 75,000 35,000 O 0 5,830 0 O 0 30,100 0 50,000 45,000 2,900,000 1,957,400 O 0 1,000 1,000 O 0 40,000 0 O 0 372,523 127,350 O 0 25,000 0 O 0 36,335 17,800 O 0 103,000 0 O 0 189,484 59,100 O 0 0 30,000 150,000 18,600 1,271,524 412,800 25,000 1,380 110,000 12,380 O 0 6,000 0 50,000 50,000 4,591,867 3,123,000 O 0 39,000 0 O 0 91,000 37,000 O 0 0 18,000 O 450,000 0 1,225,000 531,100 799,000 13,421,734 9,208,820 Page 5 of 5 To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of November 19, 2020; 3:10 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 Dec 1, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. - Cancelled due to Thanksgiving Holiday December 8, 2020, Regular Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 20-022 for 2020 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor 3. Second Reading Ordinance 20-023 Adopting 2021 Budget — Chelsie Taylor 4. First Reading Ordinance 20-026 Transportation Impact Fees — Bill Helbig 5. First Reading Ordinance 20-027 Municipal Tree Ordinance — Mike Stone, Cary Driskell 6. Motion Consideration: Award Lodging Tax for 2021 — Chelsie Taylor 7. Admin Report: 2021 Fee Resolution — Chelsie Taylor 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick 9. Info Only: Finance Monthly Report — Chelsie Taylor [due Tue Dec 1] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 85 mins] Dec 15, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Dec 81 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 20-026 Transportation Impact Fees — Bill Helbig 2. Second Reading Ordinance 20-027 Municipal Tree Ordinance — Mike Stone, Cary Driskell 3. Resolution for 2021 Fees — Chelsie Taylor 4. Motion Consideration: Street & Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Contract — John Hohman 5. Motion Consideration: Street Sweeping Contract — John Hohman 6. Motion Consideration: Horse Arena Master Plan — Mike Stone NON -ACTION ITEMS: 7. Montgomery and Bessie Street Vacation, STV-2020-0002 — Connor Lange 8. SRTC Tribal Membership — Cary Driskell 9. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick December 22, 2020, Regular Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: SRTC Tribal Membership — Cary Driskell 3. Motion Consideration: Browns Park Playground & Shelter Bid — Bill Helbig, Mike Stone 4. Mayoral Appointments- Planning Commissioners — Mayor Wick 5. Marketing & Communications 2020 Report — Lesli Brassfield 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 95 mins] [due Tue Dec 15] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 75 mins] Dec 29, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Cancelled due to Christmas Holiday Jan 5, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Mayoral Appointments: Councilmembers to Committees — Mayor Wick 2. Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee — Mayor Wick 3. First Reading Ordinance 21--- Montgomery and Bessie Street Vacation — Connor Lange NON -ACTION ITEMS: 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick Draft Advance Agenda 11/19/2020 4:26:12 PM [due Tue Dec 291 (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) Page 1 of 2 5. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports (normally would have been Dec 29) [*estimated meeting: 40 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. Admin Report: Potential Grant Opportunity, Local Bridge Program — Adam Jackson (10 minutes) Jan 19, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1due 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: Report on Bid Award, Barker Grade Separation Project — Bill Helbig (15 minutes) 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. 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 Comcast Cable Franchise 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 11/19/2020 4:26:12 PM Page 2 of 2 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 10/01/20 — 10/31/20 MAINTENANCE Agreements for Services Adopted and In Operation (* Budget estimates ** Does not include October) Contract Name Contractor Contract Amount Total % of Contract Expended Expended Street Maintenance Street Sweeping Storm Drain Cleaning Landscaping Weed Spraying Emergency Traffic Control Litter and Weed Control State Highway Maintenance Traffic Signals, Signs, Striping Dead Animal Control Poe Asphalt AAA Sweeping AAA Sweeping Senske Clearwater Senske 1 1111111111111111 • Geiger Work WM WSDOT .111 Spokane County ail Mike Pederson $1,500,000.00 $560,000.00 $202,587.50 $62,985.00 $39,000.00 $15,000.00 $70,000.00 $265,000.00 $737,000.00 $20,000.00 $1,161,117.90 $357,371.73 $194,840.96 $35,432.30 $39,000.00 $6,838.02 $37,386.97 $196,553.66 $598,140.16 $9,400.00 77.41% 63.82% 96.18% 56.26% 100.00% 45.59% 53.41% 74.17% 81.16% 47.00% IMEMENEEE Snow Season - October 2020 - April 2021 On Call - Graders On Call - Plow Drivers On Call - Sidewalk Operator Multiple Multiple Valley Landscape $500,000.00 $420,000.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 $3,691.50 $0.00 0.00% 0.88% 0.00% Citizen Requests for Public Works "'°October 2020 Request Submitted In Progress Resolved / Waiting Broken Sprinkler Construction - CPW Construction - Private Dead Animal Removal Downed Tree / Branch General Street Maint Hazard on Street Illegal Dumping - Objects Report a Pothole Sidewalks - repair Street Sweeping Vegetation / Weeds SOLID WASTE STORMWATER Traffic Signs: Missing/ Damaged 1 4 2 7 36 8 4 6 6 2 4 15 5 8 17 26 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 1 5 0 0 1 4 2 7 36 5 4 6 6 0 4 14 5 5 16 21 2 2 Totals 155 15 140 STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for October 2020: • Geiger Work Crew — Cutting dryland grass, tree trimming and garbage and dump site removal. • Pothole patching, tree trimming, graffiti removal, snow and ice operations. • Poe Maintenance Contract — Asphalt patching on Barker, Conklin, Montgomery and Thorpe Roads, manhole repair, stormwater inlet and drywell repairs. • AAA sweeping Contract — Arterial sweeping began fall residential sweep. • AAA Sweeping Vactor Contract— Cleaning drywells and sidewalk inlets. WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/spokane/spokane river basin.htm, http://www.spokanecounty.org/utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ STORMWATER UTILITY The following is a summary of City Stormwater Utility activities for October 2020: • Drywell Retrofit with Pavement Preservation (Dept of Ecology grant) — Processing request from Ecology for clarification on elements of the design report submitted previous. • Spokane Valley Regional Decant Facility: Submitted final bid package to Dept. of Ecology for Approval. Received approval from City Council for interlocal agreement amendment with WSDOT. • Continued. In concert with the release of the revised Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (Dept. of Ecology), COSV Stormwater Utility began coordinated effort with City of Spokane, and Spokane County to evaluate the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual for equivalency. • Appleway Stormwater Improvement project (DOE grant project): continue defining project scope with CIP management and continue developing design report requirements. • Continue process to identify the merits for jurisdictional coverage under the UIC program. Begin subbasin delineation, continued development of 2021 UIC stormwater Management Plan, update sink maps. • Continued updating the Stormwater Utility 0 & M plan. • Participation and support Glenrose, Central Park Flood Insurance Study. • Continued annual management and/or participation of the following service contracts: o Roadway Landscape Maintenance Contract — Senske. o Street Sweeping Contract — AAA Sweeping. o Storm Drain Cleaning Contract — AAA Sweeping. o Roadway Weed Control Contract — Clearwater Summit • Continued working on the following tasks: o Responded to stormwater related issues, 6 sites. o Stormwater action requests 2020. 2 Current status to date is shown below: Stormwater Action Requests (Incl. Public and In -Staff Requests) October - 20 Total Requests Logged Since 2009: 688 2020 Completed Project sites: Completed Projects 2009-2019: Locations not warranting work: 13 295 309 Total Project Backlog: 84 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING The following is a summary of Development Engineering activities for October 2020: • Assisted Building and Planning Division with preparation of design requirements for (8) Commercial and (11) Land Use Pre -Application meetings. • Prepared multiple Recommended Conditions of Approvals for preliminary plats and Dedication Languages for final plats. Reviewed multiple final plats and submittal packages to record final plats. • Reviewed civil plans and drainage reports for Engineered Grading Permits associated with commercial and land use projects. Coordinated with private Engineers and Developers. • Reviewed civil plans for the following projects: o Ace Business Park (EGR-2020-0062) o Long Road Frontage Improvements (EGR-2020-0070) o Mygrant Glass — Grading Only (EGR-2020-0072) o Montgomery Short Plat — 5 lots (EGR-2020-0073) o Mansfield Apartments (EGR-2020-0075) o PODS Warehouse (EGR-2020-0077) o Mayhew Plat — 26 lots (EGR-2020-0080) o Cameo Loft Apartments (EGR-2020-0081) o Kaffa Ethiopian Cafe (EGR-2020-0083) o Nora Office Complex (EGR-2020-0084) o Conklin & Broadway Apartments (EGR-2020-0085) o Storage Solutions (EGR-2020-0087) o Spokane Valley West (EGR-2020-0088) o Mygrant Glass (EGR-2020-0089) o Fire Turnaround for SHP-2019-0024 (EGR-2020-0091) o Euclid Logistics Center #2 (EGR-2020-0092) o Shiva Private Driveway (EGR-2020-0093) o Bannen Short Plat — 3 lots (EGR-2020-0094) o Herman Private Driveway (EGR-2020-0095) o Maverik Convenience Store (EGR-2020-0097) • Spoke with and emailed citizens and developers to answer inquiries and discuss design requirements for potential commercial and land use projects. • Conducted preconstruction meetings, performed site visits, prepared punch lists, reviewed surety estimates, and reviewed and approved construction certification packages to finalize final plats and to issue commercial building certificates of occupancy. 3 CAPITAL PROJECTS 1111 Hey Public Works Projects Monthly Summary - Design & Construction October-2020 Proposed Bid % Estimated Total Project # Design & Construction Projects Funding Open Complete Construction Project Ad Date Date PE I CN Completion Cost Street Projects 0143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation FHWA - STP(U) 11/16/20 12/16/20 100 0 12/31/22 $ 6,484,000 0249 Sullivan & Wellesley Intersection Improv FHWA - STP(U) TBD TBD 90 0 12/31/21 $1,370,000 0273 Barker/I-90Interchange WSDOT N/A N/A 100 100 12/31/20 $ 900,000 0275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid FHWA - STP(U) 06/12/20 07/08/20 100 30 12/31/21 $3,850,141 0291 Adams Sidewalk Infill Project TIB - SP 02/28/20 03/20/20 100 100 11/01/20 $ 440,300 0295 Garland Avenue Extension COSV 04/05/19 04/19/19 100 99 12/31/20 $2,900,000 0299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont TIB - UAP TBD TBD 50 0 10/31/21 $2,800,000 0302 Ella Sidewalk: Broadway to Alki CDBG 02/28/20 03/20/20 100 100 11/01/20 $ 431,487 0303 S. Conklin Road Sidewalk CDBG 02/28/20 03/20/20 100 100 11/01/20 $ 179,520 0309 Local Access Streets: Barker Homes COSV 04/24/20 05/20/20 100 100 10/30/20 $1,812,088 0310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Rep. FHWA - BR TBD TBD 100 0 12/31/21 $ 337,625 0313 Barker Road/Union Pacific Crossing FMSIB TBD TBD 90 0 12/31/22 $1,434,000 0318 Wilbur Sidewalk: Boone to Mission STBG-SA TBD TBD 0 0 12/31/22 $ 60,000 Street Preservation Projects 0267 Mission SW - Bowdish to Union TIB - SP 0285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan COSV 03/01/19 03/22/19 100 98 12/31/20 $2,196,922 03/06/20 03/06/20 100 97 12/31/20 $2,343,166 Traffic Projects 0259 North Sullivan ITS Project FHWA - CMAQ 02/14/20 03/06/20 100 100 12/31/20 $1,104,209 0293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP HSIP N/A N/A 100 40 12/31/21 $ 180,000 0294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels HSIP N/A N/A 100 40 12/31/21 $ 78,000 0300 Pines & Mission Intersection Improvement FHWA - CMAQ TBD TBD 60 0 11/01/21 $ 588,000 Parks Projects 0268 Appleway Trail -Evergreen to Sullivan FHWA- STP(U) 06/28/19 07/19/19 100 99 12/31/20 $2,516,550 0304 CenterPlace West Lawn Phase 2 COSV 11/22/19 12/20/19 100 95 12/31/20 $2,000,000 0305 CenterPlace Roof Repair COSV 05/01/20 05/15/20 100 70 12/31/20 $ 815,000 0314 Balfour Park Frontage Improvements COSV TBD TBD 100 0 12/31/21 $ 66,500 0315 Brown's Park 2020 Improvements COSV 08/28/20 09/18/20 100 0 06/30/21 $ 562,780 0316 Balfour Park Improvements - Phase 1 COSV TBD TBD 0 0 10/15/22 $ 217,500 Design % Total Project # Design Only Projects Funding Complete Complete Project Date PE Cost Street Projects 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement FHWA - CMAQ 12/31/20 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF & Trent FHWA - STP(U) 12/31/21 0301 Park & Mission Intersection Improvements COSV 03/31/21 0311 Sullivan Rd./SR 290 Interchange Project COSV 12/31/23 0320 Sullivan Preservation: Sprague-8th COSV 12/31/20 0321 Argonne Corridor Imprv- North of Knox COSV 12/31/21 0323 Evergreen Road Preservation Project COSV 04/30/21 Street Preservation Projects 0286 Broadway Preservation: Havana to Fancher COSV 0292 Mullan Preservation: Broadway -Mission COSV 03/31/21 08/31/21 52 27 0 0 0 5 0 $ 517,337 $ 7, 295,000 $ 733,000 $ 500,000 $ 138,000 $ 30,000 $ 75,000 70 $ 67,600 25 $ 75,000 Stormwater Projects 0308 Regional Decant Facility Canopy Dept of Ecology TBD 0 $ 595,535 0317 Appleway Stormwater Improvements Dept of Ecology 03/31/21 20 $ 90,244 4 PLANNING AND GRANTS WSDOT's Local Bridge Program WSDOT administers the Federal Highway Bridge Program funding via its Local Bridge Program. The Call -for -Projects was announced in mid -October. Applications are due February 19, 2021 and awards are anticipated to be announced by September 2021. Staff are currently reviewing program eligibility requirements and comparing those requirements against potential available bridge projects. Staff will present to council in January 2021 its recommended project applications. WSDOT's City Safety Program WSDOT administers the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program and funds projects under the City Safety Program (CSP). Applications were submitted on March 3, 2020 and due March 6, 2020. Awards are anticipated by November 2020. Washington State Department of Commerce Electrification Transportation Systems Grant Program Spokane Regional Transportation Council and Avista Corp. have partnered to submit a regional application for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations for public use. The City would participate by applying to install charging stations at City Hall and CenterPlace. Applications were submitted by SRTC on June 1, 2020 and awards are anticipated in December 2020. USDOT's BUILD Program USDOT administers the Better Utilizing Investment to Leverage Development (BUILD) discretionary grant program. The City's application for the Pines/BNSF GSP was not selected for funding. Staff has scheduled a debrief meeting with USDOT on November 16, 2020, to discuss the application's scoring and review comments. WSDOT's Safe Routes To School (SRTS) and Pedestrian and Bicyclist Program (PBP) WSDOT administers two parallel funding programs to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Submitted applications included the Sprague Ave. crossing at City Hall and Bowdish Rd. sidewalks from 12th to 16th Ave., and Bowdish Rd. bike lane and sidewalk from 16th to 22nd Ave. Awards are anticipated by December 2020. Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) TIB announced its 2020 Call for Projects, making available $60 million statewide, and $6.4 million to our northeast region, for the Urban Arterial Program (UAP). Submitted applications included Argonne Corridor Concrete Reconstruction (Indiana to Montgomery) and Sullivan Preservation and Sidewalk (Sprague to 8th Ave.). Applications were submitted on August 7 and awards are expected Nov. 20, 2020. Pavement Management Update Public Outreach & Education Staff has tabled the topic of an ad -hoc committee due to funding challenges introduced by the annual budgeting process and the impacts of COVID-19. Staff will coordinate with City Council to determine an appropriate time to restart this process. StreetScan — Pavement Condition Evaluation Through October, StreetScan has completed and updated their contract scope, with exception of final report delivery, which is expected in November. At that time, staff will make available the final report for Council review. 5 Dave Ellis Chief of Police Spokane Valley Police Department Accredited Since 2011 Services provided in partnership with the Spokane County Sherds Office and the Community, Dedicated to Your Safety. Ozzie Knezovich Sheriff TO: Mark Calhoun, City Manager FROM: Dave Ellis, Chief of Police DATE: November 10, 2020 RE: Monthly Report October 2020 ADMINISTRATIVE: Chief Ellis attended a Department of Emergency Management Interlocal Agreement meeting in early October, along with others from the Sheriff's Office. With changes made since the last review in 2012, the County is proposing a new agreement structure for the provision of Emergency Management services. In early October, Chief Ellis, along with others in local law enforcement and first responders, attended the Ground -Breaking Ceremony for the Mental Health Crisis Stabilization Facility Construction Project. This facility, located at 1302 W. Gardner, will be Spokane's first true pre -booking jail diversion option for eligible individuals, and the first in Washington State to offer a full range of medical, mental health, and substance use treatment services all at a single location. Pioneer Human Services is the contracted provider partnering with Spokane County and local municipalities for this facility. The program for the event included an overview of the final layout of the facility, artist renderings, construction overview, and comments from Spokane County Commissioners, local elected officials, leaders in health care and criminal justice, and other stakeholders who helped make the vision of the facility a reality. Construction of the approximately 18,800 square foot facility began after the ceremony and is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2021, with operations starting thereafter. Chief Ellis along with other members of the Sheriff's Office Command Staff continued discussions on the 2021 Budget Review for the Sheriff's Office. Page 1 The Department of Justice established an Opioid Fentanyl Outreach Strategy Committee, of which Chief Ellis was asked to be a member. One of the goals of the committee is to establish plans for how Spokane County can encourage the youth of our area to resist the tide of illegal drugs entering the region, and especially to strategize how we can help young people avoid deadly experimentation with Fentanyl. It is the hope of the Special Agent in Charge of this region for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that this will be a committee of relatively short duration and not an on -going time commitment unless the members decide to continue their combined efforts. In the coming months, the U.S. Attorney's Office and DEA will be sponsoring some community forums and public messaging to the community as well. Likewise, the committee will be working together to provide education and messaging to the school populations. Chief Ellis participated in a virtual meeting with others from the law enforcement community in mid - October to discuss Election Security. FBI headquarters hosted the meeting to discuss a variety of topics to include voter fraud, foreign interference, and potential civil unrest following the election. The monthly Spokane Regional Emergency Communications meeting was held in mid -October, which Chief Ellis attended. In mid -October, Spokane Valley Police Chief, Undersheriff Dave Ellis, swore in and welcomed four new lateral deputies to the Sheriff's Office: Joshua Cotteen is a 31-year-old California native who moved to north Idaho in 2019. He was with the California Highway Patrol from 2015 to 2019, based out of Riverside. Riley Sullivan is 36 years old, married and the father of five children. He was with the California Highway Patrol from 2016 to 2020, assigned to their Napa Detachment. Christopher Kyle is 35 years old, married and the father of two children. He is a Spokane native, who attended Rogers High School and EWU. He comes to us from the King County Sheriff's Office, where he served from 2016. Prior to working with KCSO, he was with the Washington State Patrol from 2011 to 2016. Alex Lever is 31 years old, married and the father of one child. He is a native of Western Washington and has been with the Everett Police Department since 2015. He is a Marine Corps veteran, serving from 2008 to 2012 with the 2nd Recon Battalion out of Camp Lejeune. SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): In the month of October, S.C.O.P.E. participated in: • S.C.O.P.E. Spokane Valley Moving • S.C.O.P.E. Emergency Radio Forward Meeting (S.C.O.P.E.'s Edgecliff, Communication Meeting (setting up an University, Trentwood and West Valley) emergency communication network for neighborhoods) Page 2 • EVCC Drug Takeback Day • Halloween Safety Patrols • S.C.O.P.E. Mounted Patrol Certification Training • Clergy Police Council formed by Pastor Ian Robertson. (LE Support group) • S.C.O.P.E. Volunteers delivering PPE supplies weekly to Medical, Fire Stations, Senior Care Facilities and others. • S.C.O.P.E. Volunteers helping with some Food Bank drop offs. • S.C.O.P.E. Volunteers patrolling neighborhoods and Businesses. • Radar Speed Awareness Volunteer Patrols working throughout Spokane Valley October 2020 Volunteers Hours per Station *Includes estimated volunteer service hours that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover both Spokane Valley and the unincorporated portion of the county. Location # Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 5 13.5 12.5 26 East Valley* 19 154 305.5 459.5 Edgecliff 5 14.5 49 63.5 Trentwood 9 159 102 261 University 12 143.5 14.5 158 West Valley* 14 281.5 43 324.5 TOTALS 64 766 526.5 1,292.5 Volunteer Value ($31.72 per hour) $40,998.10 for October 2020 The SCOPE Latent Fingerprint Team was given 61 cases for the month of October. Out of those 61 cases, 38 were from crimes in Spokane Valley. The team located fingerprints on 13 vehicles; 6 of those were Spokane Valley cases. Again, there was a large number of cancellations; out of 61 cases, 37 were cancelled. Due to some individuals at the Valley Precinct testing positive for COVID, the sallyport was closed the second week of the month; those appointments were rescheduled. Also, due to being short staffed, no appointments are made on Thursdays. The team is currently looking to add new members. S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 66 on -scene hours (including travel time) in October, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control; 53 hours were for incidents in Spokane Valley. There was one special event in October, which was Halloween Treat Handout at the Spokane Valley Fire Training Area. Total volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 1150 for October; total for 2020 is 12,295. Abandoned Vehicles August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 Tagged for Impounding 30 34 29 Cited/Towed 3 2 0 Hulks Processed 30 14 9 Total Vehicles Processed 117 122 101 Yearly Total of Vehicles Processed 754 876 977 Page 3 SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of Vol. # of Hrs. # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 4 22.5 2 25 0 February 4 18.5 3 30 0 March 2 6 0 8 0 April 0 0 0 0 0 May 0 0 0 0 0 June 0 0 0 0 0 July 0 0 0 0 0 August 0 0 0 0 0 September 0 0 0 0 0 October YTD Total 10 47 5 63 0 Spokane County # of Vol. # of Hrs. # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 2 16.4 4 10 0 February 3 12.5 1 10 0 March 2 9 0 4 0 April 0 0 0 0 0 May 0 0 0 0 0 June 0 0 0 0 0 July 0 0 0 0 0 August 3 3.5 0 2 0 September 0 0 0 0 0 October YTD Total 10 41.4 5 26 0 OPERATIONS: Disorderly Male Blocks Traffic, Injured During Fight with Motorist - Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives are investigating a reported stabbing on Pines, south of Broadway. The male was transported to the hospital with what was believed to be non -life -threatening injuries. In Page 4 mid -October, at approximately 3:35 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the report of a disorderly male on a bicycle in the 11900 block of E. Broadway. The caller reported the male was pounding on the door of North Pines Middle School and talking to himself. The male rode off on his bike and stopped in the middle of Pines and Broadway, blocking traffic. Additional callers reported the disorderly male was fighting in the street with another male, while another caller reported the disorderly male stabbed himself. Arriving deputies located the male, who was bleeding, and applied a tourniquet. The male was not initially cooperative at the scene. Spokane Valley Firefighters and AMR personnel arrived and provided additional medical treatment. The male was transported to the hospital with what appeared to be non -life -threatening injuries. Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives were called to the scene to continue the investigation. The second male involved in the fight was located and cooperated with investigators. He was seeking medical attention for minor injuries. Initial information indicates a fight ensued between the two after the disorderly male blocked traffic. At some point, an edged weapon was produced by one of the males, and both were injured. At this time, neither males was arrested or charged as a result of this incident. Southbound traffic lanes on Pines Road were closed while the scene was processed for evidence as the investigation continued. Anyone who witnessed this incident, and has not already been contacted by investigators, is asked to call Crime Check at 509-456-2233, reference #10137048. Attempted Armed Robbery of Homeowners - Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives are investigating a reported attempted robbery at a Spokane Valley residence. During the incident, one suspect fired a shot into the floor of the home; one victim received what appeared to be minor injuries from being punched in the face. In mid -October, at approximately 12:50 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the report of an attempted robbery at a residence located in the 900 block of S. Nina Circle. The adult male and female victims stated two male suspects knocked on their door. The suspects, both wearing masks, inquired if a neighboring home was for rent. When the female victim was distracted, the suspects pushed her down and entered the residence. They confronted the male victim, while one of the suspects kept the female on the ground. One suspect displayed a handgun as they claimed the victims knew what they wanted, and then demanded thousands of dollars. With the victims insisting they didn't have that kind of money, the unarmed suspects hit the male victim in the face. The armed suspect fired a shot into the floor, and both threatened the victims' lives. The female victim yelled the suspects had the wrong house and insisted they were looking for someone else. The suspects fled the area in a white SUV, which was last seen northbound on Dishman Road. The suspects were described as white males, 25-35 years of age. One suspect was described as tall with a stocky build, approximately 6'00"- 6'02" and 280 pounds, and the other shorter with a medium build, estimated at 5' 10"- 6'00" and 180 pounds. Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives responded to the scene to continue the investigation. Anyone with information regarding this incident is asked to call Crime Check at 509-456-2233, reference #10137443. Male Suffering a Mental Health Crisis Eventually Coaxed into Surrendering - Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies, with the assistance of a Mental Health Designated Crisis Responder, worked to help a male suffering a mental health crisis to surrender peacefully. He was reportedly armed with knives and perched nearly 30' above the ground on a stack of plywood in a store parking lot. After 3.5 hours of working to keep the male calm, he eventually agreed to climb down on his own. He was transported to a hospital to receive the help he desperately needed. In mid - October, at approximately 9:15 pm., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the reported disorderly male inside a store located in the 5600 block of E. Sprague in Spokane Valley. Store employees told the male, who was observed with knives earlier, to leave, but he refused. An employee said the male was talking to himself, appeared high or intoxicated, and at one point, was seen carrying knives in the Page 5 store. Deputies were requested to help get the male to leave the property, and the store wished to have him trespassed. When deputies arrived, they found the male on top of a stack of plywood, approximately 30 feet in the air. He identified himself and said he was part of the NSA. He continued to ramble, saying he didn't want to get shot in the face, but he might be suicidal. During this prolonged contact, the male refused to climb down. He appeared to be incapable of focusing on the conversation, going off -topic, saying he was involved with top-secret government agencies, or that he might be assassinated. Multiple times, he would wrap the loose pieces of metal banding used to hold the plywood stack together during shipping around his neck, stating he might jump. Each time, deputies would successfully de-escalate the intense situation and calm him back down. With the male armed with large metal stakes and possibly in possession of knives, deputies backed away, staying in the area but out of sight, hoping he would climb down, presenting a safer opportunity to take him into protective custody. Unfortunately, he stayed on top of the plywood, playing with the large metal stakes. A Mental Health Designated Crisis Responder was requested to assist. Just before midnight, the male agreed to climb down. He was safely taken into protective custody and transported to a hospital for additional medical assistance. Thankfully, during this intense and extremely unpredictable incident, none of the uninvolved shoppers, store employees, the male in crisis, or any first responders were injured. Male Stabs Young Child, Violently Assaults Three Adults and Slashes Small Dog Suspect in a Stolen Car Arrested after a Pursuit - Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies responded to a report of a male stabbing people inside a residence. The suspect had been staying at the home when he suddenly, and without warning, armed himself with a large knife. During the extremely violent assault, the suspect attempted to slice one victim's throat, stabbed/cut another victim who tried to stop the suspect, injured an adult female, and stabbed a four -year -old child. The suspect also sliced a small dog's back before fleeing the home in a stolen vehicle from one of the victims. The suspect and vehicle information was broadcast to all surrounding agencies, including agencies in North Idaho. Soon after, the suspect unsuccessfully attempted to steal another vehicle. Deputies located the suspect, still driving the stolen car. Two PIT maneuvers and spike strips were used to end the pursuit. The suspect, who remained uncooperative during this time, was eventually arrested after a short foot pursuit. During the time prior to his arrest, less -lethal beanbag rounds were used in an attempt to get the suspect to comply, but they were unsuccessful. In mid -October, at approximately 10:05 am., Spokane Valley Deputies, Spokane County Sheriff's Deputies, and a Liberty Lake Police Officer responded to the 3500 block of N. Velox for the report of a male, armed with a large knife, stabbing people inside the residence. The 43-year- old male suspect had been staying at the home off and on. The callers stated several people had been stabbed, including a four -year -old child. Just before deputies arrived on scene, the male suspect stole a white 2001 Ford Taurus; the car belonged to one of the victims. The suspect's information and the stolen vehicle's license plate/description were broadcast to all surrounding law enforcement agencies, including agencies in Kootenai County. Arriving deputies secured the scene, allowing Spokane Valley Fire and AMR personnel to enter and provide medical treatment. Initial information from the victims indicated the suspect had been staying at the residence on occasion, had reportedly been using methamphetamine, and hadn't been sleeping. The victims reported the suspect was seated at the table, reading a bible just before this violent assault. The suspect suddenly and without warning got up, armed himself with a large "butcher" type knife, and walked up behind the first adult male (60's) victim (V 1). From behind, the suspect ran the blade across the front of the victim's throat. Apparently, the suspect held the dull side of the knife toward the victim's throat because he was not cut except for a smaller nick, possibly caused by the point of the blade as it slid off the victim's throat. The victim believed the suspect tried to kill him and said the male suspect didn't say anything during the Page 6 assault. The victim broke free and ran out of the back door as he yelled for help to warn the others inside. The second adult male victim (in his 40's) (V2) exited a bedroom hearing the commotion, and contacted the suspect in the hallway. The suspect was swinging the knife around and making stabbing motions. V2 tried to disarm the suspect, but had his arm slashed in the altercation. Believing the suspect was on a mission to kill people, V2 exited the residence and armed himself with a crowbar. He went to the bedroom window where he knew the adult female victim (in her 50's) and the child were located. He tried to get the window open to allow them to escape; however, he found the suspect was already attempting to break into the bedroom door as the female victim strained to keep the door closed. He re-entered the home to try and stop the suspect, but the suspect had broken the door down, injuring the female victim, and entered the bedroom. The male suspect then stabbed the child in the upper torso as the female victim pleaded for him to stop. V2 entered the room and hit the male suspect several times with the crowbar, with one strike possibly breaking the knife. The suspect eventually gained possession of the crowbar and fled the residence in a stolen (V1) car. At some point during this violent act, it was discovered the suspect had slashed the back of a small dog. Spokane Regional Animal Protection Service was advised, and medical attention was provided. At approximately 10:20 am., an unrelated victim living in the 5500 block of N. Best called 9-1-1, reporting a male just tried to steal her Honda CRV, but he was unsuccessful. The Honda had been started, using remote start, the keys were not in the ignition, and the car doors were locked. The male and the vehicle he arrived in matched the male suspect's description and the stolen vehicle he was driving. At approximately 10:35 am., Deputy Maier observed the suspect still driving the stolen car northbound on Bruce Rd. south of Peone. He activated his emergency equipment to stop the male suspect, but the suspect did not pull over. With Deputy Turner now assisting in the ensuing pursuit, Deputy Maier conducted a PIT maneuver to safely end the pursuit. The technique was successful, with the vehicle coming to a stop at Bruce and Day Mount Spokane Road. The deputies positioned their patrol vehicles in an attempt to block any escape routes. The male suspect put his hands up, but failed to follow any additional commands. Fearing the suspect could attempt to flee and endanger the public again, Deputy Turner used less -lethal beanbag rounds to breach the side windows in an attempt to gain the male suspect's compliance afterward. The less -lethal rounds had little to no effect, and the suspect drove away. With additional patrol units arriving in the area and Deputy Maier and Deputy Turner in pursuit, spike strips were deployed near Howe Rd., but the suspect continued his attempt to escape. With the male suspect's violent assaults and his continued desire to run, a second PIT was conducted as they approached Hwy. 2. The Taurus spun, went into the ditch on the side of the road, and rolled onto its top. Deputies immediately began giving commands, which the suspect ignored. He broke out a window, exited, and fled on foot as deputies yelled, ordering him to stop, advising he was under arrest. With deputies giving chase, Deputy Turner again fired less -lethal beanbag rounds, striking the suspect twice with initially little effect. A short time later, the male suspect finally went to the ground and surrendered. He was taken into custody without further incident. The male suspect was provided medical attention and cleared prior to being transported to the Public Safety Building to be interviewed by Major Crimes Detectives, who had been requested to continue the investigation. Detective Melville requested and was granted a search warrant for the residence. With the assistance of Spokane County Sheriff's Forensic' s Unit Technicians, the broken knife used during this violent assault was recovered along with multiple additional items of evidence. The stolen car was seized pending a search warrant. After the interview, the suspect was again provided additional medical treatment and cleared before being booked into the Spokane County Jail for Assault of a Child 1st Degree, Assault 1st Degree, Assault 2nd Degree (2 counts), Animal Cruelty 1st Degree, Theft of a Motor Vehicle (DV), Attempted Theft of a Motor Vehicle, Attempting to Elude a Police Vehicle and Resisting Arrest. The other adult victims involved in the incident did not require hospitalization. All, including the dog, are expected to recover from their injuries. Spokane Valley Sheriff's Major Crimes Detectives continue to Page 7 investigate this horrific incident and gain more evidence of what occurred. With supporting evidence and consultation with the Spokane County Prosecutor's Office, charges filed against the 43-year-old male suspect were upgraded. The suspect is now charged with Attempted Murder 1st Degree (4- counts), Robbery 1st Degree, Animal Cruelty 1st Degree. He remains in the Spokane County Jail with his bond set at $1,000,000. Suspect Arrested for Attempted Kidnapping 2nd Degree - Spokane Valley Investigative Unit (SVIU) Detectives, through their investigation, identified and arrested the suspect they believe attempted to kidnap a victim inside a store in early October. SVIU Detectives, with the assistance of Spokane Valley Patrol Deputies and Liberty Lake Police Officers, located the suspect and took him into custody without incident. In early October, at approximately 5:40 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputy Van Patten contacted an adult female victim reporting a possible kidnapping. The victim explained, earlier in the day, she went shopping at Fred Meyer, located at 15609 E. Sprague. When she entered the store with her toddler, she observed a male walking in front of her. She noticed the male because he walked the wrong way through the check stand, and an employee asked him not to enter that way. She described the male as 50-60 years of age, 5'07"-5'09", with a thin build, brown hair and eyes, wearing a hat, jeans, and a black puffy motorcycle -style jacket with round military -style patches on it. As she shopped, she continually noticed the male paralleling her in adjacent aisles. He seemed to be keeping her in view and stared at her while she shopped. As she approached the check stand, the 54-year-old male suspect walked up to her and grabbed her by the arm. The suspect pulled on her arm, telling her to go with him. The victim said "no" and told him not to touch her. The victim explained she did not know what the suspect's intentions were, and she was fearful for her safety and the safety of her child. The male suspect made additional statements while continuing to stare at the victim. A store cashier witnessed the incident and motioned for the victim to come over to her check stand in an effort to help protect the victim and her child. The employee asked if she was okay, but the victim was terrified, noting the suspect was still standing close to her, staring. As she paid for the items, the male suspect said, "I could have gotten you if I wanted to," and walked away, exiting the store. The employee walked the victim and her child to the victim's car to help ensure her safety. The victim observed the suspect standing near an older purple/maroon Toyota truck. She also observed a white female, approximately 30-40 years old, exit the driver's side of the truck. The female was tall, with an average build, blond hair, and she was wearing a jacket similar to the suspect's. Deputy Van Patten obtained store surveillance video of the incident and the parking lot. She obtained a possible partial license plate number for the Toyota and observed a distinctive sticker on the tailgate, "Rock." Deputy Van Patten also spoke with the store employee, who provided a statement that corroborated the victim's account. SVIU Detective Mosher continued the investigation. After watching the store video footage coupled with the information provided by Deputy Van Patten, he identified a possible suspect vehicle, a maroon 2005 Toyota Tundra, which was registered to the male suspect matching the suspect from the store. He also obtained a more detailed description of the suspect noticing he was wearing a dark -colored baseball -style hat with letters on the front, a dark -colored jacket with multiple patches on the back/sleeves, and what appeared to be a name stitched on the upper right front side. He also wore sunglasses with what appeared to be chrome arms, black headphones with white letters on top, a lighter colored facemask, and bright red tennis shoes. Detective Mosher learned the owner of the vehicle also matched the suspect's description, had a local history of other harassment type incidents in the Liberty Lake area, and he was the subject of orders of protection. The male suspect also goes by the name "Rock," which coincides with the sticker on the back of his vehicle, "Rock 27." After talking with Liberty Lake Police, it was believed the male suspect was still in the general area of Liberty Lake. One week after the incident, SVIU Detective Eaton notified Detective Mosher that the suspect's vehicle was located, and Liberty Page 8 Lake Police Officers conducted a traffic stop of the truck. The male suspect, who was wearing black headphones with white letters on top, was detained. The suspect's vehicle was seized pending a search warrant. The suspect's travel trailer, which was secured at a separate location, was also pending a search warrant. The male suspect was transported to the Spokane Valley Precinct. The letters on his headphones said, "Rock 27." he didn't recall the exact incident, but admitted he had been to that Fred Meyers a couple of times in the last few weeks. He denied being there on the date of the incident. When the suspect was shown the pictures taken from the store surveillance during and around the time of the incident, he replied something similar to, "that is the Rock right there," referring to himself in the third person. He agreed the SPOKANECOUNTY SHERIFF SHERIFF OZZIE D. KNEZOVICH Images Obtained from Store Surveillance Video He was advised of his rights and agreed to answer questions. He stated Recovered Evidence shoes, coat, and Dolphins facemask were all his, along with the headphones he always wears to "share the gospel with those that will listen." The male suspect said the jacket was made for him to show all the awards he earned during his military career, stating it was only one of possibly five ever made in the United States. The male suspect was arrested and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Attempted Kidnapping 2nd Degree. A search warrant was obtained for his Toyota and travel trailer. The clothing items observed in the store video were located, along with a receipt from that specific Fred Meyer showing the same date and time of the incident. Armed, Erratic, Disorderly Male Continues to Fight - Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies took a disorderly and reportedly armed male into custody after a struggle. After he was detained, he was found to be in possession of a replica BB gun and throwing knives. He was provided medical attention, but his demeanor remained aggressive and erratic, spitting blood while yelling threats and profanities. In mid -October, at approximately 9:00 pm., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the report of a male walking on Sprague, near Pines. The male (approximately 6'02", 2501bs) was yelling at passing cars and people while pulling his coat back as if he was trying to display a gun in his waistband area. Deputy Bitzer arrived in the area and located a male matching the description provided near Denny's. As Deputy Bitzer pulled into the parking lot, the male was gone. Continuing the search, the man was observed hiding between parked vehicles, but did not respond when contact was attempted. Instead, he walked away and went south, crossing Sprague at Pines. Waiting for him to cross the busy street and get out of traffic, Deputy Bitzer told him he needed to stop. He immediately turned around, screaming, "No! (expletive) you! Burn in hell!" Trying to de-escalate his highly -aggressive and erratic behavior, Deputy Bitzer attempted to engage in conversation, asking questions in a calm tone, but he continued to yell, saying he was free to go. When Deputy Bitzer informed him that he was being detained, he yelled, "If you were a (expletive) cop, I'd burn you in hell!" As he continued to yell, he waved around a walking cane that he had been carrying. During Page 9 the contact, Deputy Kullman and Deputy Reno had arrived to assist. Not knowing if the male was suffering a mental crisis, under the influence of drugs/alcohol, or if he was in fact actually armed with a weapon(s), deputies decided they needed to take control of him for his safety, the safety of the citizens who had begun to gather, and the unsuspecting motorists on Sprague, should he suddenly rush into the roadway. The male immediately began to resist, and he was taken to the ground in a grassy area. Deputies worked to control his arms and feet as he continued to fight and thrash around. After he was placed in handcuffs and rolled to his side, he tried to bite a deputy's boot while continuing to yell obscenities. He spat (including blood coming from his nose) at the deputies and hitting another on the side of the face. During a search of the male, a replica CO2 BB pistol was located tucked in his waistband. In addition, he had throwing knives concealed on his person. He continued to resist and fight the efforts of Spokane Valley Firefighters and AMR personnel who had responded to provide medical treatment. The handcuffs were removed, and soft restraints were applied for the transport to the hospital. Because the male was in dire need of medical treatment and needed to be hospitalized while he was evaluated and observed, he was not arrested. A charging request was forward to the Spokane County Prosecutor's Office recommending charges of Assault 3rd Degree (2-counts), Possession of Dangerous Weapons, and Obstructing Law Enforcement. Thankfully, no citizens, the male nor any deputies were injured during this extremely unpredictable and potentially violent encounter. SVIU Detectives Seize Cash, Drugs, Motorcycles, and a Gun - Spokane Valley Investigative Unit (SVIU) Detectives, with the SWAT Team's assistance, served a search warrant at a residence. A stolen Harley Davidson motorcycle was recovered in addition to drugs, a sizable amount of cash, a pistol, and other property, possibly stolen or obtained by the suspect through illegal activity. The suspect, a 10-time convicted felon, was arrested and booked into the Spokane County Jail for a multitude of charges. SVIU Detective Chad Eaton received information a stolen Harley Davidson was sitting in the front room of a residence on N. McDonald Road. Through the investigation, Detective Eaton verified the information, identified the 54-uear-old male suspect and obtained a search warrant for the house. The suspect, a convicted felon with a violent history, was reported to be possibly armed or have access to weapons. In late October, just before 7:00 am., Spokane Valley SWAT Team members, assisting SVIU Detectives, approached a residence in the 200 block of N. McDonald in Spokane Valley to serve a search warrant. The SWAT Team successfully entered and safely detained four individuals, including the suspect, inside the residence. Once the home was secured, it was turned over to SVIU Detectives. The suspect was advised of his rights and agreed to answer questions. The male suspect admitted there was Heroin in the house and a 9mm pistol in his closet. The suspect said he purchased the Harley for $4,000 and that it did not come with paperwork or a key. As a convicted felon (most recent July 2018: Robbery 2nd Degree, Burglary 2nd Degree), the suspect is prohibited from possessing firearms. Detective Eaton amended the search warrant to include any and all illegal drugs and firearms. The 2017 Harley Davidson FXSB was recovered, and a check of the VIN showed it was reported stolen on January of 2018, in Coeur d'Alene, Page 10 Idaho. Evidence showing the sales of controlled substances was recovered, including drug ledgers showing transactions, packaging, and scales. Heroin (black tar and powder), Methamphetamine, liquid Fentanyl (synthetic opiate that is 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine), Methadone, "Mexi's" (pills not produced in a pharmacy believed to contain Fentanyl), "Oxy's" (Oxycontin/Oxycodone), Psilocybin Mushrooms, Xanax, MDMA (ecstasy), Viagra, Clonazepam, Belbuca, and Cyclobenzaprine were seized as well. SVIU Detectives also located and seized over $9,000 in cash, 9 ounces of silver, a Glock 26 9mm (not reported stolen), Mercedes CLK500, BMW 323, Dynamic Custom Chopper, Yamaha YZF R1 motorcycle, Ducati Monster motorcycle, and an RT200 mini - motorcycle. The male suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm 1st Degree, and six counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance with the Intent to Deliver. The others detained at the location were released without charges. This continues to be an active investigation where additional charges and arrests are possible. We encourage residents who have operational surveillance cameras outside their home to go to the Sheriff's website and register their home and video cameras. Thank you. https://www.spokanecounty.org/1080/Sheriff Law Ln11.4n4vrar, VIP Video Identification Program CLICK HERE to walwIILrfly jake. the VIP program LOCK ITEMS IN YOUR TRUNK OBSERVE AND REPORT CARS SHOULD KEEP GARAGE NEVER RUN DOORS CLOSED UNATTENDED Page 11 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Burglary 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY >- 2 LIJ z H C7 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 2017 — 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 55 51 33 40 February 53 26 20 56 March 42 33 37 53 April 49 36 35 70 May 47 34 57 69 June 59 29 38 69 July 51 44 48 63 August 56 51 57 58 September 78 38 50 67 October 37 48 46 67 November 32 49 40 December 33 47 40 Grand Total 592 486 501 612 * IBR Offense: Burglary/Breaking & Entering 220 Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Murder NonNeg Manslaughter 1.2 1 X 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY U cL 2 ■ • > w > H < Z J V7 D Q SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER —0-2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January February 1 March April May 1 June 1 July 1 August September October November 1 December 1 Grand Total 2 1 1 2 *IBR Offense: Murder/Non-Negligent Manslaughter 09A Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts I BR Classification: Identity Theft 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY >- 2 LIJ z H C7 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER —•-2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 9 20 19 18 February 24 16 10 16 March 22 13 13 12 April 16 22 19 17 May 32 21 13 442 June 19 17 5 48 July 23 14 12 25 August 13 14 8 28 September 17 13 14 16 October 15 21 17 18 November 19 23 12 December 25 16 7 Grand Total 234 210 149 640 *I BR Offense: Identity Theft 26F Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Fraud 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY > w > H Q Z J N 2 C7 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 26 69 65 70 February 36 46 32 58 March 37 59 63 49 April 43 55 57 61 May 53 67 56 85 June 57 65 50 74 July 61 65 65 65 August 53 62 65 71 September 66 49 55 67 October 64 60 75 75 November 54 56 68 December 43 60 49 Grand Total 593 713 700 675 * IBR Offense: Fraud - Credit Card/ATM 26B, Fraud - False Pretenses/Swindling/Con Games 26A, & Fraud - Impersonation 26C Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: DUI 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY W z D SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER + 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 22 21 32 25 February 26 18 21 28 March 33 39 21 9 April 18 13 27 18 May 19 33 18 16 June 28 23 27 27 July 26 15 25 25 August 24 28 23 22 September 19 37 40 22 October 24 33 29 28 November 18 31 35 December 20 22 21 Grand Total 277 313 319 220 * IBR Offense: DUI 90D Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Drugs Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 19 42 52 49 February 30 38 42 61 March 30 64 58 53 April 37 57 67 38 May 23 36 40 65 June 20 56 30 53 July 21 57 45 38 August 26 43 54 35 September 25 33 43 34 October 24 52 44 34 November 39 41 56 December 25 48 40 Grand Total 319 567 571 460 * IBR Offense: Drug Equipment Violations 35B & Drugs/Narcotics Violations 35A Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Theft From Motor Vehicle 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY > w > H < Z J V7 D Q SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER —•-2017 2018 2019 --Calendar 2020 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 99 75 51 67 February 104 32 44 98 March 94 78 72 58 April 130 62 120 75 May 78 69 140 85 June 107 66 84 81 July 97 106 112 77 August 69 87 98 148 September 118 85 80 130 October 70 104 97 116 November 52 112 96 December 70 70 112 Grand Total 1088 946 1106 935 * IBR Offense: Theft From Motor Vehicle 23F Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Motor Vehicle Theft 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY W z D SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER —0-2017 2018 2019 --Calendar 2020 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 44 36 34 32 February 37 24 22 32 March 44 28 19 31 April 42 27 29 29 May 27 25 33 29 June 28 24 25 33 July 41 39 31 25 August 36 18 31 25 September 43 26 37 27 October 40 31 25 31 November 34 45 36 December 28 29 35 Grand Total 444 352 357 294 * IBR Offense: Motor Vehicle Theft 240 Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Robbery 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY r 2 W z H C7 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER —•—•2017 2018 2019 —M—Calendar 2020 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 3 6 3 8 February 6 2 8 12 March 7 5 4 6 April 3 6 4 8 May 2 8 6 3 June 1 3 2 8 July 4 7 8 5 August 1 6 11 6 September 4 6 8 8 October 4 5 7 6 November 3 3 11 December 1 4 10 Grand Total 39 61 82 jil70 * IBR Offense: Robbery 120 Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Assault Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 96 84 71 93 February 95 62 62 95 March 78 100 74 80 April 90 88 68 97 May 93 80 87 87 June 93 102 79 104 July 95 112 103 87 August 73 84 95 98 September 92 76 72 79 October 87 82 67 80 November 84 79 85 December 84 89 77 Grand Total 1060 1038 940 900 * IBR Offense: Aggravated Assault 13A & Simple Assault 13B Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Theft 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY > w > H < Z J V7 D Q SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER t 2017 2018 2019 —U—Calendar 2020 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 205 238 238 240 February 199 165 188 199 March 214 208 212 197 April 203 202 208 181 May 235 230 230 152 June 251 223 230 218 July 236 236 236 195 August 222 213 256 167 September 213 194 230 219 October 237 234 239 207 November 219 198 206 December 198 251 231 Grand Total 2632 2592 2704 1975 * IBR Offense: Theft - All Other 23H, Theft - Pocket -Picking 23A, Theft - Purse -Snatching 23B, Theft - Shoplifting 23C, Theft From Building 23D, Theft From Coin -Operated Machine 23E, & Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 23G Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Rape 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY r 2 LIJ z H C7 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER —4-2017 2018 2019 —M—Calendar 2020 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 9 16 3 2 February 2 4 3 2 March 3 8 4 2 April 7 6 5 May 9 9 3 3 June 2 7 5 4 July 6 5 3 1 August 5 3 4 3 September 2 3 9 3 October 7 1 4 November 1 6 2 December 4 7 4 Grand Total 57 75 49 jillW.32i *IBR Offense: Rape - Forcible 11A, Sodomy - Forcible 11B, Sexual Assault with Object - 11C Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Counterfeiting Forgery Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 9 18 22 23 February 11 10 13 11 March 20 24 17 14 April 20 22 13 14 May 26 21 10 10 June 15 15 14 7 July 21 15 10 9 August 14 17 13 9 September 20 14 11 3 October 18 11 14 7 November 9 20 21 December 9 14 15 Grand Total 192 201 173 1071 *IBR Offense: Counterfeiting/Forgery 250 Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Destruction Damage Vandalism 250 200 150 100 50 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY > w > H Q Z J N 2 C7 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER —•—•2017 2018 2019 —U—Calendar 2020 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 January 159 146 124 113 February 148 95 67 141 March 136 121 122 105 April 173 127 144 158 May 139 142 161 118 June 143 140 133 154 July 178 141 156 147 August 149 132 144 172 September 160 155 141 191 October 119 165 165 174 November 131 155 140 December 105 125 174 Grand Total 1740 1644 1671 1473 IBR Offense: Destruction/Damage/Vandalism 290 Produced: 11/18/2020 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420