2021, 10-19 Study SessionAGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:00 p.m.
Remotely via ZOOM Meeting and
In person at Council Chambers, 10210 E Sprague Avenue
Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting
NOTE: In response to Governor Inslee's announcement reopening Washington under the "Washington
Ready" plan, members of the public may attend Spokane Valley Council meetings in -person at City Hall at the
address provided above, or via Zoom at the link below. Members of the public will be allowed to comment in -
person or via Zoom as described below. Public comments will only be accepted for those items noted on the
agenda as "public comment opportunity." If wishing to make a comment via Zoom, comments must be
received by 4:00 pm the day of the meeting. Otherwise, comments will be taken in -person at the meeting in
Council Chambers, as noted on the agenda below.
NOTICE: On August 20, 2021, Governor Inslee signed proclamation 20-25.15 re -instituting a statewide
mask mandate, regardless of vaccination status. Therefore, effective August 23, 2021, all those entering or
remaining in City Hall must wear a mask or face covering. Masks are available for the public inside the main
entrances to City Hall. [Governor Inslee's expanded emergency order Proclamation 20-25, which adopts
Secretary of Health Order 20-03. 41
• Sign up to Provide Oral Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling -In
• Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting
• Join the Zoom WEB Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
ACTION ITEM:
1. Motion Consideration: Sullivan Park Waterline Interlocal Agreement — Bill Helbig
[public comment opportunity]
NON -ACTION ITEMS:
DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY
GOAL
2. Morgan Koudelka;
SCRAPS Director Lindsey Soffes
3. Morgan Koudelka, Assistant
Police Chief Kevin Richey
4. Chaz Bates
5. Chaz Bates
6. Cary Driskell, Jerremy Clark
7. Mayor Wick
8. Mayor Wick
9. John Hohman
ADJOURN
SCRAPS Update
Spokane Valley Police Dept
Vehicle Replacement
Housing Action Plan
Implementation Measures
Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Process Update
No -Parking Regulations and
Procedures
Advance Agenda
Council Check -in
City Manager Comments
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Council Agenda October 19, 2021
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 19, 2021
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ❑ admin. report
Department Director Approval:
® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration — Sullivan Park Waterline Interlocal Agreement
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 39.34 RCW: Interlocal Cooperation Act
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Potential & Pending Capital Project Lists for the
following Budget Workshops.
• June 13, 2017
• June 14, 2018
• June 11, 2019
• August 4, 2020
• June 15, 2021
Additionally, the project has been included on all Potential & Pending Capital Project Lists
provided to City Council since 2017.
• April 27, 2021 — Project Administrative Report to outline Project Funding Shortfall.
BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley's Sullivan Park, located on the west side of Sullivan
Road, north of the Spokane River, currently utilizes an under -performing well for its water source.
The well, which is very shallow, requires monthly water quality monitoring and does not produce
the required flows to sustain current and future park facilities.
The initial plan for providing a sustainable water source to the park included a new water main to
be located under the Sullivan Road bridge across the Spokane River. This water main would have
conveyed water from Consolidated Irrigation District to the park. Unfortunately, the park is located
in the Trentwood Irrigation District's (Trentwood) water service area, so the new water main under
the bridge was not installed with the bridge.
In 2016, discussions between the City and Trentwood Irrigation District took place regarding
potential water main extension from just north of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks to
Sullivan Park. At that time, Trentwood and the City identified Kemira Water Solutions (Kemira),
who lease UPRR property, as another party requiring water service from the water main
extension. Preliminary discussions between the three parties began in 2016, but dwindled due to
Kemira not being able to secure funds for the project.
In 2017, additional preliminary scoping work was completed on the project, including updating
costs and discussing partnerships with Trentwood and Kemira. At this time, the City began
identifying its share of the project, and began including it in the Potential & Pending Capital
Projects list, along with the proportional cost of $152,858.
In 2020, the City of Spokane Valley requested Local Community Project support through the
Washington State Legislature, with a total request of $425,000 to fund the entire project.
Unfortunately, the City only received a $130,000 appropriation that is managed by the Department
of Commerce (DOC).
In discussions with Trentwood and the DOC, the most efficient and auditable manner to develop
and construct the project is for the City to complete the project through an interlocal agreement
with Trentwood.
In discussions with the City Council on April 27, 2021, Council consensus was provided to move
the project forward with the City funding the project utilizing the agreement outlined. Since April,
Trentwood Irrigation District #3 and the City have developed an Interlocal Agreement for the
design and construction of the waterline. The attached agreement is the Interlocal Agreement as
developed by both parties and executed by the District.
OPTIONS: 1) Authorize staff to execute the Interlocal Agreement with Trentwood Irrigation District
#3 for the design and construction of the Sullivan Park Waterline, 2) Take other appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to finalize and
execute the Interlocal Agreement with Trentwood Irrigation District #3 regarding the Sullivan Road
Waterline Project.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Currently, the Potential & Pending Capital Project List identifies
a total of $412,900 towards the project including $152,858 committed in the 2021 budget, and the
remaining anticipated to be committed in the 2022 budget. towards this project. A future Budget
Amendment will transfer these monies to Fund 309, the Parks Capital Projects Fund. Additionally,
in 2020, the Washington State Legislature appropriated $130,000 towards the project, with a 3%
holdback, which is managed by the Department of Commerce. The most recent preliminary cost
estimate for the entire project is $539,000. Below is a summary of the current project funding.
Current Funding
Fund 312 (2021)
Fund 312 (2022)
DOC Grant
Total Available
$ 152,858
$ 260,042
$ 126,100
$ 539,000
Project Costs
Engineering
Right of Way
Construction
Total Project Cost
The funding availability coincides as construction is anticipated in 2022.
$ 90,000
$ 10,000
$ 439,000
$ 539,000
STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TRENTWOOD IRRIGATION DISTRICT #3 AND
THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SULLIVAN
ROAD WATERLINE EXTENSION
This Agreement ("Agreement") for design and construction of the Sullivan Road Waterline Extension
Project ("the Project") is entered into by and between the Trentwood Irrigation District #3 ("District"),
an irrigation district organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, and the City
of Spokane Valley ("City"), a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter jointly
referred to as "Parties":
WHEREAS, the City currently owns and maintains the Sullivan Regional Park, located along
Sullivan Road immediately north of the Spokane River and west of Sullivan Road, which has its
potable water supplied from a City -owned water well located onsite;
WHEREAS, the City -owned water well is not of sufficient size, nor is the water quality adequate,
to provide a sustainable water source for additional development of the Sullivan Regional Park;
WHEREAS, the District owns and operates a municipal water system that has sufficient capacity
to supply potable water to the City's park and adjacent properties;
WHEREAS, the City desires to construct the Project, located immediately west of, and along
Sullivan Road from its water system in Sullivan Park, to just north of the Union Pacific Railroad
tracks, which will include a domestic water transmission main and associated appurtenances;
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in developing the Project so it can receive potable water from
the District for existing and future park development;
WHEREAS, the District and the City agree that installation of the Project would benefit the
taxpayers and general public; and
WHEREAS, the District and the City desire to enter into this Agreement to establish the mutually
agreed terms to accomplish the tasks set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the District and the City agree as follows:
SECTION 1 — Responsibilities of City.
1.1 Provide a complete design of the proposed water line extension by a Professional
Engineer registered to practice Engineering in the State of Washington. The water transmission
main shall include pipe and all appurtenances from a connection point with the District's existing
system, and extending south along Sullivan Road, to a connection point with the City's current
water system. The design of the water system facilities shall be in accordance with the latest
District requirements and standards. The engineering design, construction plans and construction
documents will be submitted to the District for review and/or approval at the 30%, 60%, and final
stages of design.
1.2 From the final design documents, as approved by the District, the City shall construct the
water main, including all appurtenances, in accordance with applicable City, state and federal
construction standards and requirements.
Interlocal Agreement Page 1 of 3
Sullivan Road Waterline Extension
1.3 Be responsible for all costs associated with the design and construction of the waterline
extension, including construction management and construction inspection.
1.4 Shall, at its own costs and efforts, secure all reviews, approvals, and permits from any and
all applicable jurisdictions, including associated fees, for the completion of the water line extension
project.
1.5 Shall execute all deeds, documents, permits, annexation agreements, and checklists
necessary for the permitting, and conveyance of property rights, including conveyance of the final
Project, required for the Project and in the performance if this Agreement.
1.6 If the City determines it is in its best interest, enter into a Latecomer's Agreement with the
District to provide for future reimbursement of incurred costs from additional owners and/or
developers of property who desire to connect to the Project but did not contribute to the costs of
Project development.
SECTION 2 — Responsibilities of District.
2.1 Designate a "responsible person," who shall represent the District's interest during the
design and construction of the Project, and shall coordinate any modifications or changes needed
by the District in conjunction with the work;
2.2 Provide Project design criteria, including the size of the pipe, spacing of isolation valves
and hydrants, and other appurtenances required to maintain the integrity of the District's water
system.
2.3 Provide timely reviews, 14 calendar days or less, of the engineering design, construction
plans, and construction documents at the 30%, 60%, and final stages of design. Costs associated
with the District's review of project documents shall be fully borne by the District.
2.4 Provide construction observation services during the course of construction, as necessary
or required, to ensure the required quality of the completed work meets District guidelines.
2.5 Upon satisfactory completion of the project improvements, accept the dedication of the
water system improvements, and by District Board resolution, accept ownership, maintenance,
and operation of the improvements.
2.6 At the City's request, enter into a Latecomer's Agreement with the City to provide for future
reimbursement of incurred costs to the City from additional owners and/or developers of property
who desire to connect to the Project but did not contribute to the costs of Project development.
SECTION 3. Notice. All communications, notices, or demands of any kind which a party under
this Agreement is required or desires to give to any other party shall be in writing and be either
(1) delivered personally, or (2) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return
receipt requested and addressed as follows:
If to the City:
City of Spokane Valley
10210 East Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Attn: Christine Bainbridge
Interlocal Agreement Page 2 of 3
Sullivan Road Waterline Extension
If to the District:
Trentwooc irrigation District #3
4402 N Sullivan Road
Spokane Valley, WA 9921 B
Attn: Michael Klein
SECTION 4, Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the
successors and the assigns of the Parties.
SECTION 5. GIw'erninct Law.. This Agreement shall be con0-ue :.. ace". , 7ee+,wit� �e taws
of the State cif V :.•• gin. Any action for enforcement of this Agri, 7 . ,. . •art a
curt of oomperci ; ttJraS il, : ;,r, "a Spokane County, Washington by
statute.,
SECTION ty. Modifications. No modification n or ai aciridrnent of this Agreerr:0.r
until the same is reduced to writing and executed wrth the same forrnalitie?
Agreement The City Manager or designee is specifically authorized to atrdr
without further City Council provided, amendments for charges
amounts or costs of theCr....,:;. :ie City Manager's r.s ntrac ual authori"y rurMou
shall require City Council ,...
shall be valid
-is the present
T1'eernent
- : y rnent
,E41
SECTION 7, Waiver. No off°rcer, employee, agent, or otherwise of either Party has the power,
right, .authority to waive any of the conditions or provisions to this Agreement. No waiver or
reach of thws Agreement shall be held lc be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach.
SECT'ON S. Representation. This Anreernent farms, a fully integrated agreement between the
erst:a _• ±° or othenwrse, regarding the subject matter of this
any of she Par=aes rtieeto.
Ai :: es have read and uncr,. stand all of the Agreement. and now skate that no representation,
pr..--use. or agreement not expressed in th.e Agreement has been made to induce any Party to
execute the same.
SECTION 9. Authority. Both Parties to this Agreement represent and certify that they have full
i•r,ority a'i i :sower to enter into and carry out this Agreement. The personas signing this
Agra erne-' s srrnt that they have authority to act for and bird their respective principals_
R :71the Pan ,= r `ire executed this Agreernen: this
day of 2 21.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: TRBNTWOOD IRRIGATION DISTRICT #3'
b
Mark Calhoun, City 1hAanager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
lnterlocal Agreement
Sullivan Road Waterline Extension
Mic -el Klein. District Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM.
tl,
Irrigation Disttict Attorney
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 19, 2021 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS)
Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: COSV Interlocal Agreement 13-015 and Washington RCW 39.34
and 35A.11.020
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council adopted SCRAPS interlocal agreement on
January 8, 2013. An update to Council was provided on February 23, 2016.
BACKGROUND: As it has been some time since Council has received an update on the
SCRAPS contract, Director Lindsey Soffes will discuss current trends related to Spokane Valley
service and impacts to service as a result of COVID restrictions and staffing challenges.
OPTIONS: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No additional costs. 2021 budget amount is $350,000 and
proposed 2022 budget amount is $330,000. Costs are fixed with CPI adjustments for operational
costs through 2033.
STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint from SCRAPS
Spokane County
Regional Animal
Protection Service
(SCRAPS)
Spokane Valley Service Overview
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
72%
\
SCRAPS - Animal Impounds & Save Rates
83%
94%
95%
93%
2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Total Impounds Save Rate
2019 2020
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2
Ili
SCRAPS - Spokane Valley Animal Impounds
2500 24%
2000
1500
1000
500
0
73%
N
2015 2016
2017 2018 2019 2020
n
Spokane Valley Animal Impounds Percentage of Total Animal Impounds
23%
23%
22%
22%
21%
21%
20%
3
u
SCRAPS - Spokane Valley Field Services
3500 24%
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
N
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year
Spokane Valley Requests for Service Percentage of Total Requests for Service
23%
23%
22%
22%
21%
21%
20%
4
Operational Items RE Updates
• COVID challenges
• Law enforcement
reform
• Animal licensing
• Veterinary services
Homo
ur,mim
11MIN
1 IUUMllll
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 19, 2021 Department Director Approval: ❑
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Spokane Valley Police Department (SVPD) Vehicle Replacement
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Washington State RCW 39.34 and Spokane Valley Interlocal
Agreement 17-104.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement Services
adopted by Council on July 25, 2017; Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement approved on May
4, 2021.
BACKGROUND: For many years, the County appropriations for replacing Sheriffs Office vehicles
were inadequate to maintain the fleet at an ideal operational level. Many efforts were made to
work within these financial constraints, including buying used vehicles from other agencies, and
refurbishing aging vehicles within the Sheriffs Office fleet. These efforts ultimately do not prove
successful in maintaining a reliable fleet. Eventually, the County appropriations were increased
from $500,000 to $1.2M. This funding covers all vehicles needs in the Sheriffs Office, including
Spokane Valley. This funding provides eleven vehicles per year that are dedicated to Spokane
Valley service. While this helps tremendously with future needs, it does not adequately address
an existing fleet that contains an abundance of aged vehicles with high mileage.
This presentation will identify the plan for utilizing the proposed $1.4M in the preliminary 2022
City budget for SVPD vehicles. In addition, staff will discuss the plan for maintaining a future
replacement schedule for vehicles.
OPTIONS: Asking for Council feedback. Funding approval will occur through the 2022 Budget
development process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Additional $1.4M in 2022 Budget ($360,000 for transition to
upfront vehicle purchase and $1,040,000 for 20 replacement vehicles). Additional amount of
$212,000 per year (to be adjusted for inflation in future years) to maintain replacement schedule
for SVPD dedicated vehicles. The beginning transition cost of $360,000 will decrease over a four-
year period, dropping off entirely in 2026.
STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint
jvdlaey.
SPOKANE VALLEY
POLICE DEPARTMENT
FLEET INVENTORY
KEVIN RICHEY, ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF
MORGAN KOUDELKA, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST
SVPD Dedicated Officers
Administrative
Patrol
�D
�«��«, Traffic
3
61
7
School Resource 4
SV investigative 12
BHU, Homelessness, Etc. 4
Total 91
2
SVPD Fleet Inventory
105 Vehicles, 6 Motorcycles.
► 101 Operable Vehicles, 4 Inoperable.
► 16 Pool Vehicles (extras) + 2 Extra in Traffic.
► 14 Unassigned Vehicles (due to vacancies.)
3 200K+ miles, 40 100K-200K miles, 8 80K-100K miles, 3 unknown
33 Vehicles 10 Years or Older
56 Explorers, 23 Crown Vics, 10 Trucks, 7 Taurus, 9 Other
3
Vehicle Cost
Patrol SUV
11110
�I«�..
Base Cost
Perimeter Alert
Shields
Console Pkg.
Printer, Scanner, Etc.
Light Bar w/ Opticom
Vinyl Wrap
Total
$43,830
$ 673
$ 1,500
$ 1,200
$ 1,100
$ 3,100
$ 1,700
$53,103
4
History of County Funding for
Sheriff's Office Vehicles
Prior to 2020 -Approximately $500,000
2020 - $1.2M
a»� 2021 - $1.3M
Spokane Valley usually pays for 42-45% of vehicles.
SVPD now receives 11 new vehicles per year under current budget
(approximately $585K). The 11 vehicles for 2021 have not yet been
received.
5
Transition to Upfront Payment for
Vehicles
Currently, the City pays depreciated costs for vehicles, which means
the County buys the vehicles and contributes the entire funds at the
time of purchase, and Spokane Valley only pays for vehicles as they
use the vehicles each year.
The City and County have negotiated terms, subject to Council
approval, that would have the City pay for vehicles up front for
dedicated Spokane Valley positions.
There would be a period of approximately five years in which the City
would pay upfront costs while still paying for some depreciated costs
from vehicles bought in past years (+ $360K in first year) . These
additional costs have not been budgeted for 2022.
The vehicles purchased up front would still be owned by the County
but use of the vehicles would be controlled by the City and ownership
would transfer to the City upon termination of the agreement.
6
City of Spokane Valley Additional
Police Vehicle Funding
City has identified $1.4M in additional funding in the 2022 Preliminary
Budget.
For 2022, the recommendation is to use $300,000 to $500,000 to
fund the additional costs resulting from the transition to upfront
payment and to use the remaining funds to purchase
approximately 17-20 dedicated SVPD vehicles. Replacing these
vehicles in 2022 would help catch the fleet up to the identified
standards, providing more reliable vehicles that require less
maintenance and providing greater consistency of SVPD identity for
dedicated vehicles.
Some of the vehicles being replaced but with some life still left
would be transferred to investigate units and the pool vehicles.
7
Replacement Schedule
To keep the fleet up to date, we recommend maintaining a
replacement schedule. The schedule would apply to all vehicles that
are used to respond to calls for service, which would be 76 vehicles and
place them on a 5 year / 100,000-mile replacement schedule.
The schedule would require the City to replace approximately 15
vehicles per year, four more than the 11 in the current County budget.
The four additional vehicles would require additional appropriations of
approximately $21 2K.
The plan is to create a separate police vehicle replacement fund in the
Spokane Valley budget and maintain a fund balance to allow us to
pay for vehicles as they are purchased. The annual cost of the 15
vehicles would be approximately $800K to start.
All dedicated SVPD vehicles would be billed to the City independent of
the law enforcement contract monthly invoices.
Depreciated costs would continue to be paid through the contract
invoices until they drop off after four years.
8
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 19, 2021 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Housing Action Plan (HAP) — Implementation Measures
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.600
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
• September 24, 2019, City Council authorized staff to apply for grant funding to develop a
HAP.
• March 2, 2021: administrative report update
• May 18, 2021: administrative report
• June 1, 2021 City Council adopted Resolution 21-001 adopting the HAP.
BACKGROUND:
The HAP provides the city with a set of clear, actionable strategies to meet current and future
housing needs. The development of the plan included robust community engagement using
surveys and interviews to connect with and listen to residents, workers, businesses, non-profit
organizations, service providers, and other key stakeholders.
The community engagement coupled with data from the housing needs assessment and policy
and regulation review, produced strategies aimed at increasing housing in the city. Tonight, staff
is requesting guidance on three of the proposed implementation measures identified in the HAP:
including modifying the zoning code to encourage the production of townhomes and cottages,
modifications to the regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and evaluating a Multiple
Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) program.
If directed by the City Council, staff will begin the formal process of developing code text
amendments for the modifications to the zoning code for townhomes, cottages and ADUs. If
Council desires, staff will also start the evaluation process for the MFTE program. The process
will include an assessment of the implications to develop, adopt, and manage a MFTE program.
The evaluation will also study the fiscal impacts and potential benefits associated with increased
housing production (market and affordable units).
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Request consensus to move forward with the
implementation measures as presented
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Consultant services will likely be needed to perform the
evaluation of a MFTE program.
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates, Senior
Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Presentation
Housing Action Plan:
Implementation Measures
City Council Administrative Report
October 19, 2021
Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
Background
0n June 1, 2021, the City adopted
Housing Action Plan
HAP included Strategies and Actions to
increase housing options within the
City
HAP identified a need for 6,660
dwelling units by 2037:
550 at 0-30% Annual Median Income (AMI)
635 at 30-50% AMI
1,039 at 50-80% AMI
686 at 80-100% AMI
3,760 at 100%+ AMI
10/5/2021 Housing Action Plan: Implementation - Administrative Report
2
Housing Action Plan Strategies & Actions
The Housing Action Plan has
three Strategic Goals:
Preserve affordable housing and
mitigate displacement
Increase both market rate and
affordable housing supply, in zones
that allow multifamily and missing -
middle housing
Increase housing options and
housing choice
10/5/2021 Housing Action Plan: Implementation - Administrative Report
3
Recommended HAP Strategic Action
Proposal: Modify zoning code to encourage production of
townhomes and cottages
Bonus density for developments providing
units below 80% AMI in the R-4
Up to 15 dwellings/ acre
Adopt unit -lot subdivisions to promote home
ownership
Open space and setback flexibility for cottages
10/5/2021 Housing Action Plan: Implementation - Administrative Report
$15.9
1
'8.6
10 clu/ac 15 & u/a c 22 du/a c
Town home Analysis
4
Recommended HAP Strategic Action
Proposal: Evaluate a Multiple Family Tax Exemption (METE)
program for the City.
Packaged with increased density
Increase potential for housing units at
80% AMI or less
Analysis of the impact of lost of revenue
Identify and designate targeted areas
Program updated last legislative session
Multiple Family Tax Exemption:
In approved MFTE projects, the
improvement value of the
development is exempted from
property tax for a period.
Property tax is still collected on
the remainder of the project.
10/5/2021 Housing Action Plan: Implementation - Administrative Report
Recommended HAP Strategic Action
Proposal: Modify regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
Review parking requirements
especially near transit
Reduce size requirement
Reduce setback requirements
Allow for 2 ADU per lot
Consider permitting fee waivers
for affordable units
tNTERTOR (LOWER LEVEL)
Accrssnry e!'...L Iir L i,rti[s (Or ADUs) crmr i,l nlArly chApr^S 7nd S[yIrc.
10/5/2021 Housing Action Plan: Implementation - Administrative Report 6
Request for Action
Prepare zoning code
amendments for review and
adoption:
Modifications to encourage
production of townhomes and
cottages
Modifications to increase
opportunities for ADUs
Evaluate the impacts of a
Multiple Family Tax Exemption in
the City
Townhouse:
A single-family dwelling unit
constructed in groups of three or
more attached units in which
each unit extends from
foundation to roof, open on at
least two sides.
Source: yp •4,.i.1 lt.inicipal Code, Aplr. Aia.x
Image Credit: Rector,com
Cottage:
A small single-family dwelling unit
developed as a group of dwelling
units clustered around a common
area pursuant to SVMC 19.40.050
as now adapted or hereafter
amended.
.:•.c; Spokaru V l.ky Ntanicrpal Code, Appcndrx A
Dc [ir itio nS
Image Credit: The Cottage Company
10/5/2021 Housing Action Plan: Implementation - Administrative Report
Questions
CITY pF
S o ii
p
Valley°
10/5/2021
Housing Action Plan: Implementation - Administrative Report 8
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 19, 2021
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ® admin. report
Department Director Approval:
® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Process Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: CDBG — Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) 24 CFR § 570; Chapter 39.34 RCW
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: October 15, 2019 the City adopted Resolution 19-014;
June 9, 2020 the City entered into a three-year agreement (2021, 2022 and 2023) to participate
in the Spokane County CDBG/HOME Consortium.
BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley is a member of the Spokane County CDBG
Consortium. Each year the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development provides
CDBG entitlement funding to Spokane County.
Resolution 19-014 authorized the relinquishment of the City's 2020 and 2021 set -aside to assist
eligible low and very low-income homeowners with Assessment and Connection charges on the
Barker Road Homes project.
On June 9, 2020, the City entered into a new agreement that increased identification of City's
participation in the Consortium, increased the number of representatives on the Housing,
Community Services and Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC), increased the City's set -
aside based on its share of Consortium population, and provided an opportunity for the City
Council to weigh in on CDBG applications for projects or activities serving City residents.
Currently, Spokane County is accepting requests for proposals for the use of CDBG funds for
program year 2022. Consistent with our new agreement, the County's application process
requires applicants to identify if the proposed project or program will serve Spokane Valley
residents. Applications that serve City residents will be presented to Council for their
recommendation and prioritization at the January 4 and 11, 2022 meetings. The prioritized list will
be presented to the HCDAC by the City's staff representative at the HCDAC allocation meeting
on January 13, 2022. Tonight, staff will present a proposal for how the City Council can review
and provide input on these applications.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are no expected budget impacts directly to the City.
STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Presentation
Page 1 of 1
Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program
Sfolikane
Valley
10/19/2020
2022 Program Year -Update
October 19, 2021
Spokane Valley City Council - Administrative Report - CDBG
Updates
1
Tonight's Agenda
CDBG Introduction
Revised Agreement Spokane County
New Process Overview
10/19/2020
Spokane Valley City Council - Administrative Report - CDBG
Updates
CDBG Intro: Objective
10/19/2020
Low and Moderate Income Census Blocks
2019 LMI Areas
QualiTying
0 2.000 4.000 6,000 8.000 10,000
Feet
A
Development of viable urban
communities, principally for
low/mod persons
Area -wide (by Block Group) like our
sidewalk projects, or
Individual like the Barker Rd sewer
assistance
Spokane Valley City Council - Administrative Report - CDBG
Updates
CDBG Intro: Partners & Roles
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)
Entitlements and States
Units of General Local
Government (UGLG)
Sub -recipients
Community Based Development
Organizations (CBDO)
o Contractors
Beneficiaries
HUD
\7
Entitlement
Sub -recipient,
Contractor, CBDO
Beneficiary
10/19/2020 Spokane Valley City Council - Administrative Report - CDBG 4
Updates
CDBG Intro: Project Types
Acquisition of property by purchase
Construction of public
improvements
Code enforcement in deteriorated
areas
Clearance and demolition of
buildings
Removal of architectural barriers
Public services assistance
10/19/2020
Planning activities
Economic development projects
Housing counseling and energy
auditing
Expand low and very low income
homeownership
Lead based paint hazard
reduction
Spokane Valley City Council - Administrative Report - CDBG
Updates
CDBG Funding -Limits
10/19/2020
Administation
an Plarming
Human
Services
20% of new funding for
administration & planning
15% limit for human service
allocation
65% for capital projects
Spokane Valley City Council - Administrative Report - CDBG
Updates
Revised Cooperation Agreement
COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR
RANT
AND RELATED FUNDS (HOME, MITE, xDAA)
COMMI1NETV DEVELOPMENT BLOCK fter called the
and between Spokane County (hmnina 20lle
by
THIS AGREEMENT, made she Valley (d ontoted hereinafter
':�iaY of �+yy-•
17.
f 5 okmt nerenrailer called the City) this
County) and. the City of p ANITNESSETII
t !1 I n 1 1( 119.4 n ld d,
air lidos., �i l I-1-t ,:1 I. I 1 -ded,
Spot.. County s
Civil Development
Act t 1964, 1 rh'.. I'
txHl[;I[EAS<Pursuant to Title I of the Housing and L s11{ ;tu,_ .. I I tt hl I „ I
f the
inelud99 Title Community of fM vt meat Act o£ 1974 I t (cU1i,,l Fauds fir fed�'rnl Iiaeal fen 201g,
en t1ed to eive Co Community
Development entitled to receive Community Oevelnpment Block Giant
part dependent upon
2019, and 2020; and t towns which by this Agreement elect to
1 h the [; 3y be entitled s in p
c the otherunt CPR°of e ils'e t t ties
WHFRF.A•, I >>1 � -,'xl the County: and
the pupate in t of D13G and
1 ' �' � append
G and µ[7MI' hnfn ;,ne, entered into Pursuant to, and In
participate t e CDB ,I. t ...illicit in administer the
Woo dance the purpose of this Counsel,. a. R
k it is to plan for, and ad
with the heat Interests t Vanes, sl stop Priors.
(HO0.1Ei.
accordance vherein and the mutual benefits
COB[; program and the HOME f the muual promises made
o
NOW, received
d h THEREFORE, in consideration � follows: from
.ceived hereunder, the parties l 90 or State CDBG Progt0In's
appro
r not apply for grants under the Small Cities
2019, and 2020, the Years during which the City is participating
1 t'nt City may
in the p0 ass tCo unntaCDBG and I1OME Program.rilless of
in the City
may County t tluough Spokane County. rega
2� The City may 00 participate 1n 0HOME ,nnsorlium exceP
receives a 11OME formulaallecn800 2Ut9 and 3U20.
whether p kane Co County penod is tedetal fiscal years 2013,
County mbar couni;.� qualificationsnd income received for
3 The Spokane completed.
rs 20IS insn
and the funded vwndc the Armament
effect until the CLlHCt and IIONL'
4. ThisCounty
Agreement619, and 2i0M areithdtexpended
federal fiscal years 2018,
e County and the City may net terminate m withdraw from this Agreement
rem or assist in undertaking. community
remains an.
rr, e1wunty and t}te City agtvx: to noal+ernte Ir, undertake,
re i ne het's1ne assistance at tivities. urban �a,.,nty's
5. I 1 t Re with the renewal ern yt,a ' t t9 1 r,ct 1's
ilt i k all tun 1 4 nd
I I (i= 1 C[ `I •I. rl t 11 109 of
6 The County ry e lrl3 1 111; I
cart{ atiar d 1i e 1 tl 'T r il„ I i Il I ct m.U4 of
19l 1d € 1.0010g. TI- 1 I - I I ',Pict. { Ola to
01
er
all 1 - 1,0 y t) 1 V 9 i .,11 �- obligation the gel isdir . ,t 1n75, ,
Titlelaf the uau<ng and C"Q1t°` t -
thu Renst»1;iurinn Set al?I f hltlawsd the Aft U
comply evirh 04W1
10/19/2020
PPo" o I t 19). Heat does
0 impedes the County's
\proved
ive farce by law
non-violent civil
cal Saws against
subject f ouch
ConsoidatedPlants) nKand annually fling
rd lite Consolidated
lousing and Urban
080 subreclpients,
rtion of stroll funds to
I In hi the, Of
1 tlis
11 Y_', I tin. Act
Vt dhit
1,1 I wid 1,2at6t11 and
t_ wilt review
_olance Act
proposals and
will include a
trdiszioners in
Cummssmners
Agreement date: June 9, 2020
Agreement term: 2021, 2022, 2023
Increase visibility on materials
Increase Spokane Valley
representatives to 4
Increase CDBG set -aside
Not limited to infrastructure
Recommendations of CDBG projects
and activities in City
Spokane Valley City Council - Administrative Report - CDBG
Updates
Updated CDBG Process & Timeline
Request for Proposal issued - 10/13/21
Applications due - 11/15/21
Applications available for review -
12/15/21
Spokane Valley Review Process
HCDAC Allocation Meeting - 1/13/22
HCDAC Public Hearing - 3/10/22
1"I' County Commission Resolution - 8/8/22
10/19/2020
Spokane Valley City Council - Administrative Report - CDBG
Updates
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan
Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs
. ��lf+!1
• nirrtalr .litti ,
rigrrrillirrn
n Jri [ In hill!
Spokane County
WASH 1 N G T O N
2020 — 2024
Consolidated
Plan
Adopted by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners an May 12, 2020 Res°. #20-0342
for period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2024
Spokane County Community Services, Housing, & Community Development
8
Proposed Spokane Valley Review Process
Download CDBG Applications
Within/ or serving Spokane Valley
Present summarized list to Council
(1/4/22)
Council independently prioritizes returns to staff
(like LTAC process)
Staff complies priority ranking
Present ranked project list to Council
Ranked priority list presented to HCDAC
By City Staff representative on HCDAC
(1/11/22)
10/19/2020 Spokane Valley City Council - Administrative Report - CDBG 9
Updates
Next Requalification Period 2023
Spokane Valley Entitlement Options
Accept status as an entitlement grantee
Accept status as an entitlement grantee
and enter into a joint agreement with the
urban county (Spokane County)
Defer status of an entitlement grantee
and participate through the State CDBG
program
Defer status as an entitlement grantee
and participate as a part of the urban
county
10/19/2020
Spokane county -
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY SERVICES, HOUSING, AND COMMUNITY D1
Kathleen TorelSa, Director
January 31, 2020
Mr. Mark Calhoun
City Manages'
City of Spokane qua Avenue, Suite 196
ey
11747 last Sprague WA venue
Spokane Valley,99206
Dear Mr. Calhoun:
Spokane County has participated in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's
CDBG) entitlement program since 1988 and inthe
HOME
Community rogramn sincente
Block91. Grantvethree years, HUL) requires Urban County
s, such
as Spokanet program since 1 ali. Every is scheduled to re -qualify in 2020 for
as Spokane County, to re -qualify. Currently, Spokane County
fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023.
The City of Spokane Valley has been amember of the Spokane County Urban Consortium since 2006.
e of CDBG funds Spokane Valley has received is $735,232, for a grant total of
I have enclosed a list of the projects for which past CDBG funds have been used in Spokane Valley.
The annual aveiag
$10,293,243 since fiscal year 2003.
During the re-qualificationperiod, the City must select one of the following four (4) options with
regard to its participation in the CDBG program:
1. Accept status as an entitlement grantee and receive a directannnal formula allocation ofCDBG
Muds, starting in Federal fiscal year 2020,
2
grantee and enter into a joint agreement with Spokane County;
x
3. Acceptstatusasaan entitlement
gr art of the Late CBOcounty, grate' This
3. Defer status an entitlement grantee and participate through the State CDBG program;
4. Defer status as an entitlement grantee and participate as p
is the option that Spokane Valley has selected since 2003). according to regulations, cheese
During the re -qualification period, the City of Spokane Valley may,
to continue to participate or not, as a member of the consortium. Please provide written notification
ldieeop ion s le of cos Sto polaneri County.
If ou xtaf'mhoos t our remce.n in the consortium lease send
o
Spokane Valley City Council - Administrative Report - CDBG
Updates
www.spokanecounty.orgrCSHCD
312 West 8th Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99204
509.477.5722 T1 800.2735864 1 800.833,6384 Relay 1509.477.6827 P
okaue Coun and HUD
C and HOME Program funds
ban county;end
e of Washington Department
k Chant and 1 I OMp. Program
grantee;
'th Spokane County.
member, please review the
the City to commit to the
. Present the agreement
to sending the initial letter,
than dune 22, 2020. Once
od document will be mailed
the inclusion of additional
er the Spokane County
akane County Homeless
As in past years, this
ryCommittec (HCDAC)
and malting funding
hie Housing Trust Fund,
r, at 477-0488 or at
10
Questions
CITYokane
p
Valley°
10/19/2020
Spokane Valley City Council - Administrative Report - CDBG
Updates
11
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 19, 2021 Department Director Approval: El
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report — Authority to impose parking restrictions.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 46.61.570; WAC 308-330-462; WAC 308-330-265; WAC 308-
330-270; chapter 9.05 SVMC.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: March 6, 2003 adoption of the Model Traffic Ordinance
(MTO), later codified as chapter 9.05 SVMC; October 24, 2006 amended MTO relating to establishing
speed limits; March 24, 2009 amended MTO relating to establishing speed limits; February 16, 2021
administrative report on parking issues on residential streets; March 16, 2021 administrative report on
parking issues on residential streets; and April 13, 2021 administrative report on parking issues, including
discussion on authority to establish areas in the City where parking is prohibited.
BACKGROUND: In Council meetings in February, March, and April 2021, staff and Council discussed
citizen comments relating to potential parking restrictions in certain areas, primarily in residentially zoned
areas. Those discussions also included having staff determine who had authority to establish identified
areas where parking was restricted or prohibited, whether that was Council, staff, or both. At the April 13,
2021 meeting, Council requested that staff obtain a full inventory of all posted signs restricting or
prohibiting parking within the City. Various signs were posted by the County prior to incorporation, and
the City has had various signs posted after incorporation, but staff have determined that there is no
comprehensive record of where all such signs are located or the rationale for their placement.
The City previously paid a company, StreetScan, for a scan of all of its streets as part of the City's pavement
management program. Following Council's April 13 request for a full sign inventory, staff requested that
StreetScan use its existing video of the street scan for review to compile a full inventory of all signs in the
rights -of -way, not just the signs relating to parking. Staff was informed by StreetScan that the estimated
time to provide the sign inventory was the end of July 2021. Subsequent discussions with StreetScan
determined that the inventory would take longer because all of the video would need to be reviewed by a
person, with each sign categorized and marked in GIS manually.
Although the sign inventory has not been compiled to date, staff determined that a discussion regarding
authority to impose parking restrictions could occur prior to that being completed. Council could adopt an
ordinance establishing the process and authority for establishing parking restrictions/prohibitions, and then
when the sign inventory is provided, the City could create its master parking restriction list.
The attached PowerPoint presentation explains the relevant law regarding authority to establish parking
restrictions and several different approaches used by other Washington jurisdictions.
Staff will take comments and a desired policy approach from Council, and then draft an ordinance for future
Council discussion and consideration.
OPTIONS: (1) Request that staff draft an ordinance incorporating Council's policy directive relating to
who can restrict or prohibit parking in various places in the City; or (2) take other action as appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus for staff to draft an ordinance for future Council
discussion and consideration, with the choices being Council -only decision, staff -only decision, or a hybrid
approach.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated as a result of this discussion.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineering Manager.
ATTACHMENTS:
PowerPoint presentation: Authority to impose parking restrictions on public roads; and
List of quality of neighborhoods/nuisance issues for Council discussion and potential action.
DISCUSSION REGARDING "NO
PARKING" REGULATIONS
Cary Driskell
City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley
Liam McKeegan
Legal Intern, City of Spokane Valley
Jerremy Clark
Traffic Engineering Manager, City of Spokane Valley
October 19, 2021
City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney
i
RCW 46.61.570 —Existing state restrictions
(i) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police
officer or official traffic control device, no person shall:
(a) Stop, stand, or park a vehicle:
(i) On the roadway side of any vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a street;
(ii) On a sidewalk or street planting strip;
(iii) Within an intersection;
(iv) On a crosswalk;
(v) Between a safety zone and the adjacent curb or within thirty feet of points on the curb immediately
opposite the ends of a safety zone, unless official signs or markings indicate a different no -parking area
opposite the ends of a safety zone;
(vi) Alongside or opposite any street excavation or obstruction when stopping, standing, or parking would
obstruct traffic;
(vii) Upon any bridge or other elevated structure upon a highway or within a highway tunnel;
(viii) On any railroad tracks;
(ix) In the area between roadways of a divided highway including crossovers; or
(x) At any place where official signs prohibit stopping.
City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 2
RCW 46.61.570 (cont.)
(b) Stand or park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except momentarily to pick up or discharge a
passenger or passengers:
(i) In front of a public or private driveway or within five feet of the end of the curb radius leading
thereto;
(ii) Within fifteen feet of a fire hydrant;
(iii) Within twenty feet of a crosswalk;
(iv) Within thirty feet upon the approach to any flashing signal, stop sign, yield sign, or traffic
control signal located at the side of a roadway;
(v) Within twenty feet of the driveway entrance to any fire station and on the side of a street
opposite the entrance to any fire station within seventy-five feet of said entrance when properly
signposted; or
(vi) At any place where official signs prohibit standing.
City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney
3
RCW 46.61.570 (cont.)
(c) Park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except temporarily for the purpose of and
while actually engaged in loading or unloading property or passengers:
(i) Within fifty feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing; or
(ii) At any place where official signs prohibit parking.
(2) Parking or standing shall be permitted in the manner provided by law at all other
places except a time limit may be imposed or parking restricted at other places but such
limitation and restriction shall be by city ordinance or county resolution or order of the
secretary of transportation upon highways under their respective jurisdictions.
(4) It shall be unlawful for any person to reserve or attempt to reserve any portion of a
highway for the purpose of stopping, standing, or parking to the exclusion of any other like
person, nor shall any person be granted such right.
City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney
4
Model Traffic Ordinance - City adoption 2003
WAC 308-330-462
RCW sections adopted —Stopping, standing, and parking.
The following sections of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
pertaining to vehicle stopping, standing, and parking as now or
hereafter amended are hereby adopted by reference as a part of this
chapter in all respects as though such sections were set forth herein in
full: RCW ... 46.61.57o ...
City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney
5
Model Traffic Ordinance (cont.)
WAC 308-330-265
Traffic engineer Authority
The traffic engineer is authorized:
(n) To erect signs indicating no parking upon both sides of a highway when the width of the
improved roadway does not exceed twenty feet, or upon one side of a highway as indicated by
such signs when the width of the improved roadway is between twenty and twenty-eight feet;
(12) To determine when standing or parking may be permitted upon the left-hand side of any
roadway when the highway includes two or more separate roadways and traffic is restricted to one
direction upon any such roadway and to erect signs giving notice thereof;
(13) To determine and designate by proper signs places not exceeding one hundred feet in length
in which the stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles would create an especially hazardous
condition or would cause unusual delay to traffic;
City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 6
Model Traffic Ordinance (cont.)
WAC 308-330-270
Local authority Authority
After an engineering and traffic investigation by the traffic engineer, the local authority may by
resolution:
(4) Determine and declare upon what highways angle parking shall be permitted pursuant to
RCW 46.61.575(3);
(5) Prohibit, regulate, or limit, stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles on any highway at all
times or during such times as shall be indicated by official traffic control devices;
(6) Determine and declare parking meter zones upon those highways or parts thereof where the
installation of parking meters will be necessary to regulate parking;
City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 7
4W iW tW tH tW iW tW Yh tW 4W iW 4W tH tHY
9�'4W Yh�b YHWSv:tU'�n'9�'4W Yh�b YHWSv:tU'�n'9�'V 4W4W4W�YH w'SW tU rfl Y'$VtW�YHWSaw;YV'tW tW�YPWSx'W;YV'tW tW�YPWSx'W; �w'YV'tW tW�YPWSWW"fr" �"
Iskrw.
Three Options For Consideration
There are three options for how "no parking" zones can be designated:
• Assert full Council authority;
• Delegate full staff authority; or
A hybrid approach.
Regardless of which option is chosen, the City would compile a master list
of such areas and make it publicly available.
City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 8
"No Parking" Ordinance - Option One
Council assumes full authority:
Enable the City Council to adopt "no parking" zones by ordinance or
resolution, would require modification of City's prior adoption of the MTO to
remove the Traffic Engineer's authority to establish "no parking" zones.
Any determination by Council must still include a traffic engineering analysis of
surrounding traffic conditions, which forms the recommendation to Council as to
whether the "no parking" zone is appropriate at that location from an engineering
standpoint.
Bellevue and Kent.
City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney
9
"No Parking" Ordinance - Option Two
Delegate full authority to staff:
Delegate authority to establish "no parking" zones to the City Manager or
designee (assumed to be the Traffic Engineer), based upon a traffic
engineering analysis.
• Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, Renton, Federal Way, Yakima, Redmond, and
Kirkland.
City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney io
"No Parking" Ordinance - Option Three
Hybrid approach:
• Staff (Traffic Engineer) would continue to exercise the limited authority granted by
Council in adopting the MTO to establish "no parking" zones (see slide 6);
Council would by ordinance grant itself broad authority to determine whether to add
or remove "no parking" zones, except for the authority delegated to the Traffic
Engineer pursuant to the MTO above;
Any determination by Council must still include a traffic engineering analysis of surrounding
traffic conditions, which forms the recommendation to Council as to whether the "no parking"
zone is appropriate at that location from an engineering standpoint.
• Lake Stevens, Montesano, and Everson.
City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney ii
QUALITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS/NUISANCE DISCUSSION TOPICS WITH COUNCIL
(Or, what is it I would like to live next to in my own neighborhood)
1. Establishing no parking zones on public roadways. (LEGAL and TRAFFIC ENGINEERING)
a. will include limited circumstances when staff can implement a prohibition, including
criteria;
b. will include draft code provision with criteria for when Council can prohibit parking in
areas;
c. anticipate using a master no parking list to identify areas where parking is prohibited;
d. will discuss approaches used by other jurisdictions; and
e. must take into account new limitations arising from Long v. City of Seattle.
2. Parking restrictions relating to residential property (LEGAL AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING)
a. does Council want to consider prohibiting or limiting parking of certain types of vehicles
on public roads in residentially -zoned areas? Examples could include semi -trucks, boats,
camper/RV/fifth wheel, construction equipment.
3. Parking prohibitions on private property. (LEGAL) (general overview discussion October 5,
2021)
a. what qualifies as a junk vehicle, what are exceptions;
b. determine which types of vehicles it will apply to:
i. non-commercial passenger cars/trucks/motorcycles;
ii. commercial cars and trucks;
iii. RV/fifth wheel/campers;
iv. ATVs;
v. trailers; and
vi. construction/heavy equipment.
c. does Council want to limit the total number of any type of vehicles (passenger
car/truck/motorcycle, boat, camper/RV, trailer, ATV, snowmobile, heavy equipment) that
may be kept on property whether or not the vehicles qualify as junk vehicles under the
SVMC?
i. perhaps limit to four passenger vehicles per residential household unless proof is
provided of a higher number of licensed drivers living in the household? This
approach has been used in at least one other jurisdiction in Washington; and
Page 1 of 3
ii. perhaps limit non -passenger vehicles to one boat plus one camper/RV/fifth wheel
plus two ATV and two waverunners, or two waverunners and two snowmobiles.
d. does Council want to limit where vehicles may be stored on property? Examples include:
i. parking only on paved or graveled surfaces;
ii. whether junk vehicles must be kept inside, as opposed to up to two in rear yard
behind Type II sight -screening; and
iii. does this type of sight -screening actually serve its purpose? Type II screening
can include bushes that don't have leaves for six months of the year. Similarly, if
bushes or fence, nuisance conditions can be viewed from the second floor of many
adj oining properties.
4. Camping on private property, options include: (BUILDING OFFICIAL and LEGAL)
a. If the property does not have any established use (such as no permitted residential
structure), then no camping (including tent, RV, trailer, etc.) is allowed unless it is tied to
a building permit, and the permit can identify the temporary use and limit the duration to
60 days or so;
b. limiting camping in RV/trailer/passenger vehicles to a shorter timeframe than the
currently -allowed 30 days per year;
c. require a permit to camp on residential property, including in an RV/trailer. If no permit,
or the permit is expired, then the City knows camping is not allowed on that property
making enforcement much easier for the City;
i. provide clear definitions of what constitutes evidence of camping, similar to what
is done for camping on public property. This may include:
- individuals entering/exiting the vehicle multiple times per day;
- individuals entering/exiting the vehicle on consecutive days;
- sliders, awning, or roof being extended to extend the usable space in the
vehicle;
- extension cords or hoses plugged into the vehicle from a dwelling unit or
garage;
- whether the steps are extended;
- whether the vehicle has been leveled using blocks or jacks
ii. consider providing a 24 or 48-hour exemption to allow for weekend family
campouts in the yard;
5. Noise complaints on private property. (LEGAL and LAW ENFORCEMENT)
a. usually a dog barking from a neighboring property, currently handled by SCRAPS. A
separate presentation will be scheduled with SCRAPS to discuss a range of animal control
issues under the City's interlocal agreement;
b. stereo or machinery from adjoining property that is either outside of allowable hours, or
which exceeds permitted decibel levels.
Page 2 of 3
6. What are the practices for use of voluntary compliance agreements? (LEGAL and CODE
ENFORCEMENT)
a. allows staff discretion to work with violators so they can remedy their violations at less
cost to them, or to account for injury, sickness, or weather -related delays;
b. helps keep the City's costs down by not City's costs down by not quickly moving to
abate all nuisance conditions;
c. helps legal staff manage their time better by not filing as many cases. Each case costs
approximately $300 in hard costs to file and serve, not counting staff time to draft.
Litigation is time consuming, so if we think there is a reasonable opportunity to resolve a
case by working more with the violator, then we have used that route historically;
d. our internal practice has been to use voluntary compliance methods more liberally when
it is a first time violator, or sometimes a second time if the violation is relatively minor and
would be easy to clean up. If the violator has multiple prior offenses, or if they have not
productively used prior opportunities for voluntary compliance, then our practice has been
to keep them on a short leash. It may be appropriate to adopt administrative policies and
procedures to specify when this will be allowed or not.
7. Does the City want to regulate weeds and non -decorative grass over a certain height, for example
12 inches? (BUILDING OFFICIAL)
a. noxious weeds already regulated by the Noxious Weed Board, questions remain about
the effectiveness of those efforts.
8. Does the City want to explore use of a receivership program, similar to what Spokane uses
whereby a severely dilapidated property may be put into receivership and managed/sold by the
City? (LEGAL)
a. are there properties this would apply to that are not already covered by appropriate City
regulations (nuisance, chronic nuisance, unfit dwellings, etc.)? In other words, what would
this add that we don't already have?
b. we understand from Spokane staff that this is a work and time -intensive program to
operate.
9. Adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code. (BUILDING OFFICIAL)
a. Does the City want to adopt all provisions of the IPMC, which addresses not only
nuisance -type violations, but also issues such as the condition of roofing, cracked windows,
weeds, etc. that may be considered overly intrusive?
Page 3 of 3
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
as of October 14, 2021; 9:00 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council & Staff
From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
Oct 26, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2021 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor
2. First Reading Ordinance 21-017, Amending 2021 Budget — Chelsie Taylor
3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
4. Second Reading Ordinance 21-016, Property Tax — Chelsie Taylor
5. First Reading Ordinance 21-018 Adopting 2022 Budget — Chelsie Taylor
6. Proposed Resolution 21-008: Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) — Erik Lamb
7. Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Grant Awards - Chelsie Taylor
8. Motion Consideration: City Hall Holiday Closure — Mark Calhoun
9. Admin Report: Balfour Park Design Update — Bill Helbig, John Bottelli
10. Admin Report: Code Text Amendment 2020-0006, Planned Residential Dev Regs
11. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
12. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated
Nov 2, 2021, Study Session (Meeting Cancelled: General Election)
[due Tue Oct 19]
(15 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(15 minutes)
— J. Nickerson (10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
meeting: 110 mins]
Nov 9, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Nov 2]
Proclamation: Veterans Day; Native American Heritage Month
1. PUBLIC HEARING #3: 2022 Budget — Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes)
2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
3. Second Reading Ordinance 21-017, Amending 2021 Budget — Chelsie Taylor (5 minutes)
4. Second Reading Ordinance 21-018, Adopting 2022 Budget — Chelsie Taylor (5 minutes)
5. First Read Ord 21-019 Code Text Amendment 2020-0006, Planned Res.Dev Regs—J. Nickerson (10 min)
6. Admin Report: Street Sustainability Committee Report — Adam Jackson; Committee members (60 minutes)
7. Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to Council — Chelsie Taylor
8. Admin Report: Update on Yellowstone Pipe Line Franchise — Cary Driskell
9. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
Nov 16, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS;
1. Second Read Ord 21-019 Code Text Amendment 2020-0006 Planned Res.Dev Regs—J. Nickerson (10 min)
2. Motion Consideration: Adopting 2022 Legislative Agenda — C.Driskell, J.Hohman, Briahna Murray (10 min)
NON -ACTION ITEMS:
3. 2022 Comp Plan Docket — Chaz Bates
4. SVPD Update — Chief Ellis
5. Salary Commission Update — Cary Driskell
6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
(15 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 125 mins]
Nov 23, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Motion Consideration: 2022 Comp Plan Docket — Chaz Bates
3. Admin Report: 2022 Fee Resolution — Chelsie Taylor
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
5. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports
[due Tue Nov 9]
(15 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 65 mins]
[due Tue Nov 16]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: mins]
Draft Advance Agenda 10/14/2021 1:31:32 PM Page 1 of 2
Nov 30, 2021, Study Session (possibly cancelled: Thanksgiving Holiday Week)
Dec 7, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Nov 30]
1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
Dec 14, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Resolution 21- Amending Fees for 2022 — Chelsie Taylor
3. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Awards for 2022 — Chelsie Taylor
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
[due Tue Dec 7]
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 25 mins]
Dec 21, 2021, Study Session (with action items), 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes [normally on the Dec 28 meeting])
2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports (normally on 4th Tue)
Dec 28, 2021, Formal Meeting (possibly cancelled: Christmas Holiday)
[due Tue Dec 14]
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
January 4, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Swearing in of newly elected councilmembers
[Note: This is NOT a special meeting, but an opportunity to administer the oath of office to newly elected councilmembers.]
Jan 4, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
1. Council Officer Selections for Mayor and Deputy Mayor — Chris Bainbridge
2. Advance Agenda — Mayor
Jan 11, 2022, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Mayoral Appointments- Planning Commissioners
3. Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Members
4. Mayoral Appointments: Councilmembers to various committees and boards
[due Tue Dec 28]
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes )
[due Tue Jan 4]
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
5. Admin Report: Training Public Records Act, Open Public Meetings — Cary Driskell, Erik Lamb (30 minutes)
6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 65 mins]
*time for public or Council comments not included
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Appleway Trail Amenities
Appleway Trail Crossing
Artwork & Metal Boxes
Consolidated Homeless Grant
Core Beliefs Resolution
HHAA Funds
Illumination (Park & Mission)
Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt.
Neighborhood Restoration
No Parking Zones
Park Lighting
PFD Presentation
Prosecutor Services
Residency
Ridgemont Area Traffic
St. Illumination (owners, cost, location)
St. O&M Pavement Preservation
SVPD Precinct Needs Assessment
TPA
Vehicle Wgt Infrastructure Impact
Water Districts & Green Space
Way Finding Sign
Draft Advance Agenda 10/14/2021 1:31:32 PM Page 2 of 2