Loading...
2022, 06-14 Special Council Agenda 4:00 pm MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING FORMAL FORMAT Tuesday, June 14, 2022 4:00 p.m. Remotely via ZOOM Meeting and In Person at 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. If wishing to make a comment via Zoom, comments must be received by 2:00 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. • 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 INVOCATION: Pastor Craig Lotze, Victory Faith Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: Melanie Rose, Avista Corporation COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION: GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY Ill: 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 remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. To comment via zoom: use the link above for oral or written comments as per those directions. To comment at the meeting in person: speakers may sign in to speak but it is not required. A sign -in sheet will be provided in Council Chambers. Whether in person or via zoom, speakers should indicate if they want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or [2] and may only speak at one or the other, but not both. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program — Adam Jackson [public comment opportunity] 2. Resolution 22-010 Adopting Transportation Improvement Program — Adam Jackson Council Agenda, Special 4 pm meeting: June 14, 2022 Page 1 of 2 NEW BUSINESS: 3. 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 June 14, 2022, Request for Council Action Form: $1,254,217.56 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period ending May 31, 2022: $623,739.55 c. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 24, 2022, Formal Meeting d. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 31, 2022, Study Session 4. Second Reading Ordinance 22-009 Public Parking — Cary Driskell [public comment opportunity] 5. First Reading Ordinance 22-010 Code Enforcement — Erik Lamb, Bill Helbig [public comment opportunity] 6. Resolution 22-011 Amending Master Speed Limit Schedule — Jerremy Clark [public comment opportunity] 7. Resolution 22-012 S. Barker Corridor Rate Studies - Jerremy Clark [public comment opportunity] 8. Motion Consideration: Splashdown Contract Amendment — Cary Driskell [public comment opportunity] GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 121: 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 remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. To comment via zoom: use the link above for oral or written comments as per those directions. To comment at the meeting in person: speakers may sign in to speak but it is not required. A sign -in sheet will be provided in Council Chambers. Whether in person or via zoom, speakers should indicate if they want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or [2] and may only speak at one or the other, but not both. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 9. Code Text Amendment 001, Community Service Regulations — Lori Barlow, Eric Robison, Mike Basinger 10. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley INFORMATION ONLY: n/a CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda, Special 4 pm meeting: June 14, 2022 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 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: Draft 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual advanced six -year plans for coordinated transportation program expenditures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Annual adoption of the TIP and its amendments. BACKGROUND: The TIP is composed of transportation projects intended to be implemented in the next six years that address the transportation needs within the City of Spokane Valley. The City is required by RCW 35.77.010 to prepare and, after holding a public hearing, adopt a comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years. This plan must be submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation by June 30th of each year. OPTIONS: Conduct public hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct public hearing. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The required City match on federal and state funded projects is typically between 10% and 20%. The delivery of the proposed projects generally relies on outside funding support. Staff regularly review the projected Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) fund balances through the planned years to determine if there are sufficient funds to satisfy the City's fiscal responsibility for projects. STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, P.E. — Planning & Grants Engineer ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation (See Agenda for the Resolution and draft TIP) 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) PUBLIC HEARING June 14, 2022 Adam Jackson, P.E. - Planning & Grants Engineer St okan 4.0•0Salle r Transportation Improvement Program 2023 - 2028 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Purpose: Required by RCW 35.77.010 Must be referenced in Comp Plan Required for REET expenditures Required for grant eligibility The Program (67 Total Projects) An integrated approach that aligns: Master plans and studies, Upcoming redevelopment projects, Economic development efforts, Land use changes, Stormwater projects, Capital projects by partner agencies. 2023 Closeout Projects 1. Sprague/Barker Intersection 2. Citywide Reflective Post Panels (2020) 3. Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection 4. Sprague Preservation (Havana-Fancher) 5. Wilbur Rd. Sidewalk (Boone -Mission) 6. Barker/BNSF GSP 7. Buckeye Sewer Extension 8. Mission Ave. Bridge Resurfacing r L ", J% 4 ' 1 41 t. 1 k , ` (8 Projects) 1 •tti It .I Bridge & Grade Separation Projects 25. Pines Rd. (SR27) / BNSF Grade Separation Project 27. Sullivan Rd. / SR 290 Interchange Reconstruction 54. Argonne Rd. & I-90 Interchange Bridge Widening • Jil 7-7 - , • 1 ."-° (3 Projects) = 1 , ., I : '..' J ' ,.i • •. . _ • , • i , -:e z... -. ( — ' ---,- :' • r , I i _ ' • --- -..-7, • k ,.-; 2..';' 5 Intersection Improvement Projects 10. Pines/Mission 19. 2022 CSP Improv. 28. Barker at 4th & 8th 39. 8th/Carnahan 40. Mirabeau/Mansfield 46. Park/Mission 47. Flora/Trent 48. Barker/Cataldo 50. Pines/16th 55. 8th/Park t -w as 1 i LiV. '` 1 t 56. Barker/Boone 58. Pines/4th 59. Sullivan/Kiernan 60. Sullivan/Marietta 66. Sprague/Pines (15 Projects) 28+ Reconstruction/Preservation Projects (30 Projects) 9. Barker Rd. at Union Pacific Crossing 11. Broadway Ave. Preservation - Fancher to Park 12. Sullivan Rd. Preservation - Sprague to 8th 14. 2022 Local Access (Summerfield East) 16. 2023 Local Access (Donwood Neighborhood) 17. Northeast Industrial Sewer Extension 20. Barker Road Corridor Design Phase 21. Sprague Ave. Safety Improvements 23. Sullivan Rd. Preservation - 8th to 16th 24. Broadway Ave. Preservation - Havana to Fancher 29. Barker Rd. Improvement -Appleway to City Limit 33. Argonne Rd. Concrete Pave. - Indiana to Knox 34. 8th Ave. Preservation - Progress to Sullivan 35. South Bowdish Rd. - Phased Corridor Improvements 36. Sullivan Rd Preservation - 16th Ave. to 24th Ave. 37. Dishman-Mica Rd. Pres. - Schafer to S. City Limit 38. Vera Crest + Rocky Ridge Street Reconstruction 41. Barker Rd. Improvements - Appleway to 1-90 42. N. Sullivan Preservation - River to Marietta 43. Flora Rd. Reconstruction - Euclid to Garland 44. Park Rd. Preservation - Sprague to Trent 45. 32nd Ave. Preservation - Pines to SR 27 49. Wellesley Ave. Preservation - Sullivan to Flora 51. Barker Rd. - Mission to Interstate 90 52. 8th Ave. Preservation - Havana to Park 57. Broadway Ave. Improvements - Flora to Barker 61. Boone Ave. Reconstruction - Flora to Barker 62. Flora Rd. Reconstruction - Sprague -Montgomery 63. Euclid Ave. Preservation - Barker to E. City Limit 64. Sullivan Rd. Improvements - Trent to Wellesley ,J'- 1.7 } 35 C Sr 14 64 17 63 43 g 27 42 5741 12 29 34.,20 23 Li 36 6151 62 7 Citywide Projects (4 Projects) 15. Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Analysis 30. Citywide Safety Projects - Biennial 31. Local Access Street Improv. - $1.5M Annually 32. Street Preservation Projects - $3M Annually City of Spokane Valley Local Road Safety Plan Crash Data Time Period: 2014-2D18 ] are: MFT[h 2. mt. s...dlir 1cnn Y.F , Ma.;.vg, A'>. siMiC�4ry yprt:oxr,vf Ar: )LIFI 5«..A�p..J wR6....i.... L�..o Ih« S1.1. Transpnrtx..J [hi FEW. iy.wmi kfery Prysc rSekaiun Frn, Su.1-1- AM1 Mte.nlo+w msr.&We swM, ergiratnr }rd., 15 WSDOT Sidewalk, Trail, and Stormwater Projects (7 Projects) 13. Sprague Ave. Stormwater Improvements 18. 8th Ave. Sidewalk (Park -Coleman) 22. S. Bowdish Sidewalks (12th-22nd) 26. Spokane Valley - River Loop Trail 53. Appleway Trail - Farr to Dishman Mica 65. Spokane Valley - Millwood Trail 67. N. Sullivan Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements Questions? 1 i' r 1 = � 1 - 1. a1 . 1 1 # 1 s • �ti .rr 1. 1. 1141 a. ▪ Ill 1• -t ▪ 1 ■ i 1 • 1 4 • • 4p • • a.."; a 10 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 22-010: Approval of Draft 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual advanced six -year plans for coordinated transportation program expenditures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Annual adoption of the TIP and its amendments. BACKGROUND: The TIP is composed of transportation projects intended to be implemented in the next six years that address the transportation needs within the City of Spokane Valley. The City is required by RCW 35.77.010 to prepare and, after holding a public hearing, adopt a comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years. This plan must be submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation by June 30th of each year. OPTIONS: Adopt the 2023-2028 Six -Year TIP as presented or take other action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 22-010, adopting the 2023-2028 Six -Year TIP as presented. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The required City match on federal and state funded projects is typically between 10% and 20%. The delivery of the proposed projects generally relies on outside funding support. Staff regularly review the projected Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) fund balances through the planned years to determine if there are sufficient funds to satisfy the City's fiscal responsibility for projects. STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, P.E. — Planning & Grants Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 22-010 Draft 2023-2028 Six -Year TIP DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION 22-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2023-2028 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, to provide for the proper and necessary development of the street system within the City of Spokane Valley, the City shall, pursuant to RCW 35.77.010, develop and adopt annually a Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (Six -Year TIP) with such program acting as a guide for the coordinated development of the City's transportation system; and WHEREAS, the Six -Year TIP of the City shall specifically set forth those projects and programs of both City and regional significance that benefit the transportation system and promote public safety and efficient vehicle movements; and WHEREAS, the Six -Year TIP shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and be adopted following one or more public hearings before the City Council; and WHEREAS, a draft copy of the Six -Year TIP was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce and has been reviewed and approved prior to the scheduled adoption of the TIP in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106; and WHEREAS, following adoption of the Six -Year TIP, the City will forward a copy to the Washington State Secretary of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 14, 2022, for the purpose of inviting and receiving public comment on the proposed Six -Year TIP. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the attached Six -Year TIP for the City of Spokane Valley for the purpose of guiding the design, development and construction of local and regional transportation improvements for the years 2023 through 2028. The City Clerk is directed to file the 2023- 2028 Six -Year TIP with the Washington State Secretary of Transportation before June 30, 2022. The Six - Year TIP shall be reviewed at least annually for the purpose of determining the work to be accomplished under the program and the City's transportation requirements. Projects and timeframes identified in the Six -Year TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. In the event a railroad ceases to use rail right-of-way within the City, the City will utilize all reasonable options available under state or federal law to preserve the right-of-way for future rail purposes pursuant to RCW 35.77.010(3), Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Resolution 22-010, Adopting Six -Year TIP DRAFT Adopted this 14 day of June, 2022. ATTEST: City of Spokane Valley Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Pam Haley, Mayor Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 22-010, Adopting Six -Year TIP j�n 2023 - 2028 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department 2023-2028 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Funding Sources: • City • CDBG • CMAQ • COM • DEV • FHWA • FMSIB • FTA • HSIP • NHFP • Other • RCO • REET • RR • SRTS • SW • STA • STBG • STBG-SA • TIB • WAL • WSDOT Glossary & Abbreviations City Funds Community Development Block Grant Congestion Management/Air Quality Washington Department of Commerce Private Developer Funds Federal Highway Administration Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board Federal Transit Authority Highway Safety Improvement Program National Highway Freight Program Misc. Unidentified Funding Sources Washington State Recreation Conservation Office Real Estate Excise Tax Railroad Safe Routes to School City Stormwater Funds Spokane Transit Authority Surface Transportation Block Grant Surface Transportation Block Grant — Set Aside Transportation Improvement Board Washington Legislature Washington Department of Transportation Spokane Valley Project Phases: • PE Preliminary Engineering • RW Right -of -Way • CN Construction Spokane _$Valley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 1 Sprague Ave. / Barker Rd. Intersection Improvement Description: Provide new roundabout and sidewalks and bike accommodations. Status: 2022 CN, 2023 Closeout Length (miles) Intersection Funding Status: 40 City CMAQ 2 2 DEV HSIP 38 38 Secured PE Secured RW Secured CN 40 0 0 40 Total 40 40 2 Citywide Reflective Post Panels (2020) Description: Installation of reflective post panels to stop signs and speed limit signs on select streets. Status: 2022 CN, 2023 Closeout Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 3 HSIP 3 3 City Secured PE RW Secured CN 3 0 0 3 Total 3 3 3 Sullivan Rd. / Wellesley Ave. Intersection Improvement Description: Traffic signal and intersection improvement project, partnership with Spokane County. Status: 2022 CN, 2023 Closeout Length (miles) Intersection Funding Status: 40 City 3 3 CMAQ 17 17 Spo. Co. 20 20 Secured PE Secured RW Secured CN 40 0 0 40 Total 40 40 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 1 Spokane ..Valley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 4 Sprague Preservation - Havana to Fancher Description: Pavement Preservation with signal, sidewalk and ITS improvements as needed. Status: 2022 CN, 2023 Closeout Length (miles) 1 Funding Status: 45 City 25 25 STP 20 20 Secured PE RW Secured CN 45 0 0 45 Total 45 45 5 Wilbur Rd. Sidewalk - Boone to Mission Description: Install sidewalk from Boone to Mission on one side of road, including pavement preservation. Status: 2021 PE, 2022 CN. 2023 Closeout Length (miles) 0.3 14 City 3 3 STBG-SA 11 11 Funding Status: Secured PE Secured RW Secured CN 14 0 0 14 Total 14 14 6 Barker Rd. / BNSF Grade Separation Project Description: Construct Grade Separation at Barker/BNSF RR/Trent (SR290). Status: WSDOT administers CN 2021-2022, 2023 Closeout. Length (miles) Intersection Funding Status: 1,900 City 328 328 NHFP 542 542 TIGER 551 551 FMSIB 452 452 WAL Other 27 27 Secured PE Secured RW Secured CN 1,900 0 0 1,900 Total 1,900 1,900 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 2 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 7 Buckeye Sewer Extension Description: Street reconstruction and sewer extension project with Spokane County (McMillan to City Limit) Status: 2022 CN, 2023 Closeout Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 15 City 15 15 Secured PE RW Secured CN 15 0 0 15 Total 15 15 8 Mission Ave. Bridge Resurfacing Description: Surface preservation of concrete bridge deck over Evergreen Road. Status: 2022 PE, 2023 CN, 2024 Closeout Length (miles) 0.0 242 City Other Fed 237 5 242 Funding Status: Secured PE 2 RW Secured CN 235 5 3 0 240 Total 237 5 242 9 Barker Rd. at Union Pacific Crossing Description: Reconstruct and widen to 3-lane urban section between Euclid intersection legs and install shared -use path from river to Trent. Status: 2022 PE + RW, 2023 CN, 2024 Closeout Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 1,299 City 752 15 767 FMSIB 261 5 266 STBG 102 2 104 HSIP 159 3 162 Secured PE Secured RW Secured CN 1,274 26 0 0 1,300 Total 1,274 25 1,299 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 3 Spokane ..Valley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 10 Pines Rd. / Mission Ave. Intersection Improvement Description: Signal and channelization upgrades to improve capacity and additional turn lane on southbound Pines. Status: 2023 CN, 2024 Closeout Length (miles) Intersection Funding Status: 1,612 City 214 4 218 CMAQ 1,366 28 1,394 Secured PE Secured RW Secured CN 1,580 32 0 0 1,612 Total 1,580 32 1,612 11 Broadway Preservation - Fancher to Park Description: Pavement preservation project. Status: 2023 CN, 2024 Closeout Length (miles) 1 1,660 City 813 17 830 STP 813 17 830 Funding Status: Secured PE RW Secured CN 1,627 33 0 0 1,660 Total 1,626 34 1,660 12 Sullivan Rd. Improvements - Sprague to 8th Description: Pavement rehabilitation with signal and concrete improvements at 4th, ITS, sidewalks and stormwater improvements as necessary. Status: 2023 CN. 2024 Closeout. Length (miles) 0.3 Funding Status: 2,734 City 503 10 513 Other Fed 1,009 21 1,030 TIB 1,167 24 1,191 Secured PE Secured RW Secured CN 2,679 55 0 0 2,734 Total 2,679 55 2,734 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 4 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 13 Sprague Ave. Stormwater Improvements Description: Drywell retrofits between University and Park. Funded by Dept. of Ecology. Status: In Design Length (miles) 2 Funding Status: 1,902 Other State 1,398 28 1,426 City 466 10 476 Secured PE 2 RW Secured CN 1,862 38 2 0 1,900 Total 1,864 38 1,902 14 2022 Local Access Streets (Summerfield East) Description: Street reconstruction with sidewalk and stormwater upgrades as needed. Status: 2022 CN delayed to 2023 due to bid climate. 2023 CN, 2024 Closeout Length (miles) 0 1,300 City 1,274 26 1,300 Funding Status: Secured PE RW Secured CN 1,274 26 0 0 1,300 Total 1,274 26 1,300 15 Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Analysis Description: Evaluate crash history of vehicle versus pedestrian/bicyclists on City streets, as identified in the 2020 Local Road Safety Plan. Status: PE only. May be staff -led with support from consultant team. Sprague, SR 27, and Sullivan have majority of severe pedestrian crashes. Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 150 City 75 75 150 Planned PE 75 75 RW CN 150 0 0 Total 75 75 150 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 5 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 16 2023 Local Access Streets (Donwood Neighborhood) Description: Local street reconstruction and sewer extension project in Donwood neighborhood. Status: Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 1,500 City 100 1,400 1,500 Planned PE RW Planned CN 100 1,400 100 0 1,400 Total 100 1,400 1,500 17 Northeast Industrial Sewer Extension Description: Street reconstruction and sewer extension project (Flora, Tschirley, Dalton) with Spokane County. Status: 2023 CN, 2024 Closeout Length (miles) 0 4,975 City 4,876 99 4,975 Funding Status: Planned PE 25 RW Planned CN 4,851 99 25 0 4,950 Total 4,876 99 4,975 18 8th Ave. Sidewalk Description: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter on north side from Edgecliff park to Coleman Road to Thierman Road. CN may be phased as funding allows. New bike lanes to be considered as well. Status: Park to Coleman: 2023 CN, 2024 Closeout, Coleman to Thierman: TBD Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 920 City 361 7 368 TIB 541 11 552 Secured PE 20 RW Partial CN 882 18 20 0 900 Total 902 18 920 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 6 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 19 2022 City Safety Program Improvements Description: Pedestrian crossing improvments on Sprague (at Chronicle, McKinnon, & City Hall) and Trent access control improvements (at Dale, McDonald, & Evergreen). Status: City Safety Program application funds pending. Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 1,442 City 17 17 HSIP 156 1,269 1,425 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 173 1,269 173 0 1,269 Total 173 1,269 1,442 20 Barker Road Corridor Design Phase Description: Design phase for Barker Road from Appleway to South City Limits Status: Project included for finance tracking purposes. Length (miles) 0 100 DEV 75 25 100 Funding Status: Secured PE 75 25 RW CN 100 0 0 Total 75 25 100 21 Sprague Ave. Safety Improvements 818 City 4 93 97 STA 163 163 Description: Other Fed 24 534 558 Install pedestrian crossing at City Hall & Balfour Park with potential lane reductions, see TIP #23. Status: Funding includes STA, PBP, and City. Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: Secured PE 28 28 RW Secured CN 762 55 0 762 Total 28 790 818 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 7 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 22 South Bowdish Sidewalk (12th to 22nd) Description: Install new sidewalk on the east side, including crosswalk, signage, and ADA ramp improvements. Status: 2023 PE, 2024 CN, 2025 Closeout Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 1,985 City 6 310 316 SRTS 31 1,638 1,669 Secured PE 37 37 RW Secured CN 1,911 74 0 1,911 Total 37 1,948 1,985 23 Sullivan Rd. Preservation - 8th to 16th Description: Pavement preservation with signal, ITS, sidewalks and stormwater improvements as necessary. Status: Seeking funds, candidate for TIB or STBG preservation funding. Length (miles) 0.3 1,400 City 20 80 260 360 Other 1,040 1,040 Funding Status: Planned PE 20 80 RW Planned CN 1,300 100 0 1,300 Total 20 80 1,300 1,400 24 Broadway Ave. - Havana to Fancher Description: Pavement preservation & reconstruction, including stormwater improvements. Status: 2020-2024 PE. 2025 CN. Length (miles) 1 Funding Status: 2,980 City 10 70 580 660 Other 2,320 2,320 Secured PE 10 70 Planned RW Planned CN 2,900 80 0 2,900 Total 10 70 2,900 2,980 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 8 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 25 Pines Rd. (SR27) / BNSF Grade Separation Project Description: Construct Grade Separation at Pines/BNSF RR/Trent (SR290). Status: 2020 PE Start. ROW in progress. Length (miles) Intersection Funding Status: 28,745 City 908 2,690 2,152 5,750 STBG 1,138 1,138 Other Fed 100 100 Other 2,152 10,760 8,608 21,520 DEV 237 237 Secured pE 230 230 Secured RW 1,616 1,616 Partial CN 2,690 13,450 10,760 26,900 Total 4,535 13,450 10,760 28,745 26 Spokane Valley River Loop Trail 6,899 City 333 933 233 600 2,099 Other 2,400 2,400 4,800 Description: Paved shared -use path on north bank of Spokane River between Plante's Ferry and Flora Parks, including two pedestrian bridges at each end. Status: PE planned for 2022 local budget, pursue RW/CN funding. Length (miles) 5 Funding Status: Secured pE 333 333 233 900 RW 0 Planned CN 3,000 3,000 6,000 Total 333 3,333 233 3,000 6,899 27 Sullivan Rd. / SR 290 Interchange Reconstruction Description: Reconstruct interchange to improve safety and capacity. Status: City secured $500,000 for 2021-2022 initiatial PE, pursuing additional PE, RW, CN funding by 2026.CN Start 2027. Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 26,630 City 848 848 562 138 2,260 2,260 6,916 Other 212 212 658 552 9,040 9,040 19,714 Partial pE 1,060 1,060 530 2,650 Planned RW 690 690 1,380 Planned CN 11,300 11,300 22,600 Total 1,060 1,060 1,220 690 11,300 11,300 26,630 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 9 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 28 Barker Rd. Intersection Improvements at 4th & 8th Description: Provide new traffic signal or roundabout, per S. Barker Corridor Study. Status: Assume City funded, but may be eligible for grant funds. Length (miles) 0 Intersection Funding Status: 5,501 City 31 805 1,517 381 1,502 4,236 DEV 4 104 197 50 195 550 CMAQ 5 136 256 64 254 715 Planned PE 40 40 20 100 Planned RW 1,005 495 1,500 Planned CN 1,950 1,950 3,900 Total 40 1,045 1,970 495 1,951 5,501 29 Barker Rd. Improvement- Appleway to S. City Limits Description: Reconstruct to 3-lane urban section including signal/channelization improvements at Appleway. Status: Identified in S. Barker Corridor Study. Length (miles) 0.8 7,327 City 148 486 482 350 1,466 Other 592 1,943 1,927 1,399 5,861 Funding Status: Planned PE 80 20 Planned RW 660 660 660 Planned CN 1,749 1,749 1,749 100 1,980 5,247 Total 740 2,429 2,409 1,749 7,327 30 Citywide Safety Projects - Biennial Description: Projects are consistent with the City's Local Road Safety Plan. Unique projects identified separately in TIP. Status: Costs assume project implementation in odd -number years and design/close-out in even -numbered years. 10% local match. Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 6,999 HSIP 1,866 351 1,866 351 1,866 6,300 City 207 39 207 39 207 699 Planned PE 18 48 18 48 18 150 RW 0 Planned CN 2,055 343 2,055 343 2,055 6,850 Total 2,073 390 2,073 390 2,073 6,999 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 10 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 31 Local Access Street Improvements - $1.5M Annually Description: Fund #106. Project type varies (surface treatments, grind/inlays, reconstruction). Unique projects identified separately in TIP. Status: Site selection is on -going. Actual locations to be determined. Length (miles) Funding Status: 7,500 City 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,500 Secured PE Secured RW Secured CN 100 100 100 100 100 500 0 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 7,000 Total 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,500 32 Street Preservation Projects - $3M Annually Description: Preservation projects, typically arterials or collectors, or used as matching funds for grants. Status: Unique projects identified separately in TIP. Projects may include signal, ITS, storm and sidewalk upgrades as applicable. Length (miles) Varies 15,000 City 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 Funding Status: Planned PE 100 100 100 100 100 500 RW 0 Planned CN 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 14,500 Total 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 33 Argonne Rd. Concrete Pavement- Indiana to Knox Description: Reconstruct with concrete and improve stormwater and signal operations. Status: Length (miles) 0.3 Funding Status: 3,000 City 20 40 540 600 TIB 80 160 2,160 2,400 Planned PE 100 100 200 Planned RW 100 100 200 Planned CN 2,600 2,600 Total 100 200 2,700 3,000 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 11 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 34 8th Ave. Preservation - Progress to Sullivan Description: Pavement preservation with potential partnership with Vera Water & Power for sidewalk extension & stormwater upgrades on south side. Status: Potential Fund 311 project in future CN years. Length (miles) 0.2 Funding Status: 700 City 25 25 585 635 Other 65 65 Planned PE 25 25 RW Planned CN 650 50 0 650 Total 25 25 650 700 35 South Bowdish Rd. - Phased Corridor Improvements Description: Reconstruct Sprague to Dishman Mica as urban section. May also include intersection improvements at 32nd Ave., ITS, and a new signal or roundabout at 16th Ave. Status: Phased improvements to align with available funding opportunities. Potential sources include TIB, SRTC, Local. Length (miles) 3 2,502 City 12 8 460 12 8 500 Other 49 32 1,840 49 32 2,002 Funding Status: Planned PE 200 200 400 Planned RW 100 100 200 Planned CN 2,300 2,300 Total 61 40 2,300 61 40 2,502 36 Sullivan Rd. Preservation -16th to 24th Description: Pavement preservation with signal, ITS, sidewalks and stormwater improvements as necessary. Status: Assumes 20% City match for CN. Length (miles) 0.8 Funding Status: 2,200 City 80 1,700 1,780 Other 420 420 Planned PE 80 20 Planned RW Planned CN 2,100 100 0 2,100 Total 80 2,120 2,200 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 12 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 37 Dishman-Mica Rd. Preservation - Schafer to S. City Limit Description: Pavement preservation project with possible stormwater, path, ITS, and signal improvements as needed. Status: Length (miles) 1 Funding Status: 1,300 City 50 1,250 1,300 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 50 1,250 50 0 1,250 Total 50 1,250 1,300 38 Vera Crest + Rocky Ridge Street Reconstruction 150 City 75 75 150 Projects Description: Stormwater and road reconstruction projects including multiple neighborhoods: Kahuna Hills (Carnahan/Kahuna/15th), Heather Park (16th at Rocky Ridge, Koren), Ridgemont Estates (Vera Crest, Conklin). Status: Multi -year, phased project.PE required to define scope and CN cost. Possible CN funding by Ecology. Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: Planned PE 75 75 RW CN 150 0 0 Total 75 75 150 39 8th Ave. / Carnahan Rd. Intersection Improvement Description: Add intersection control (turn lanes, potential signal). Status: Assumes 20% City match. OTHER may be TIB, DEV or City. Length (miles) Intersection Funding Status: 2,000 City 35 50 315 400 Other 140 200 1,260 1,600 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 175 250 1,575 175 250 1,575 Total 175 250 1,575 2,000 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 13 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 40 Mirabeau Parkway / Mansfield Ave. Intersection 1,835 City 135 27 202 364 Improvement CMAQ 173 1,298 1,471 Description: Intersection capacity improvements: ITS & signal improvements, with added through/turn lanes Status: Potential for Developer funds via Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study. Length (miles) Intersection Funding Status: Partial PE Planned RW Planned CN 135 200 1,500 135 200 1,500 Total 135 200 1,500 1,835 41 Barker Rd. Improvement Project- Appleway to 1-90 Description: Reconstruct 5-lane urban section with ITS and alignment/channelization improvements at Appleway(signal) & Broadway (RAB). Status: Anticipated to follow 1-90 interchange improvements. Length (miles) 0.3 6,501 City 68 202 372 236 878 Other 432 1,298 2,379 1,514 5,623 Funding Status: Planned PE 500 500 1,000 Planned RW 1,000 1,000 2,000 Planned CN 1,750 1,750 3,500 Total 500 1,500 2,751 1,750 6,501 42 N. Sullivan Preservation (Spokane River to Marietta) Description: Pavement Preservation project with potential for new/expanded sidewalk per Sullivan Corridor Study. Status: 2024 PE, 2025 CN Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 1,499 City 22 428 450 Other 52 997 1,049 PE RW CN 75 1,425 75 0 1,425 Total 74 1,425 1,499 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 14 Spokane ..Valley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 43 Flora Rd. Reconstruction - Euclid to Garland Description: Street reconstruction in partnership with Spokane County Sewer Extension. Status: Seeking funding, assume 20% City match. Length (miles) 0.6 Funding Status: 2,200 City 30 410 440 Other 120 1,640 1,760 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 100 100 50 50 100 2,000 2,000 Total 150 2,050 2,200 44 Park Rd. Preservation - Sprague to Trent Description: Pavement preservation project, ITS Broadway to Trent Status: Assumes 100% City funded (Fund 311). Length (miles) 0.8 1,360 City 100 60 1,200 1,360 Funding Status: Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 70 30 1,200 70 30 1,200 Total 100 60 1,200 1,360 45 32nd Ave. Preservation - Pines to SR 27 Description: Pavement preservation project with potential ITS, storm, sidewalk upgrades as needed. Status: Length (miles) 0.8 Funding Status: 2,000 City 60 1,940 2,000 Planned PE RW Planned CN 60 1,940 60 0 1,940 Total 60 1,940 2,000 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 15 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 46 Park Rd. / Mission Ave. Intersection Improvement Description: Improve channelization and signal operations. Status: Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 2,000 City 20 160 1,820 2,000 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 20 80 100 80 20 100 1,800 1,800 Total 20 160 1,820 2,000 47 Flora Rd. / SR 290 Intersection Improvement Description: Provide new signal with added turn lanes or roundabout, per adopted Planned Action Ordinance. Assume ROW& CN after 2027. Status: Planned project. Assume PAO contributions from Developers in the amount of 10%, City 40%, grants 50%. Length (miles) 0 4,000 City 40 40 1,520 1,600 DEV 10 10 380 400 Other 50 50 1,900 2,000 Funding Status: Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 100 100 100 100 3,800 3,800 Total 100 100 3,800 4,000 48 Cataldo Ave. Realignment at Barker Rd. Description: Realign Cataldo east of Barker to intersect Boone Ave., per adopted Planned Action Ordinance. Status: PAO calls for cul-de-sac at ex. Cataldo. Assume PAO contributions from Developers in the amount of 10%, City 40%, grants 50%. CN after 2025. Length (miles) 0.2 Funding Status: 1,300 City 140 100 280 520 DEV 35 25 70 130 Other 175 125 350 650 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 100 100 250 250 500 700 700 Total 350 250 700 1,300 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 16 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 49 Wellesley Ave. Preservation - Sullivan to Flora Description: Pavement preservation project. Status: 2024 PE 2025 CN Length (miles) 1 Funding Status: 2,000 City 54 1,946 2,000 Planned PE RW Planned CN 54 6 60 0 1,940 1,940 Total 54 1,946 2,000 50 Pines Rd. (SR-27) / 16th Ave. Intersection Improvement Description: Add traffic control at five -leg intersecton. Status: $5M est. total. Pending funding to improve five -leg intersection. Length (miles) Intersection 300 City 50 75 25 150 DEV 50 75 25 150 Other Funding Status: Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 100 100 200 50 50 100 0 Total 100 150 50 300 51 Barker Rd. - Mission to Interstate 90 Description: Reconstruct to 5-lane urban section. Improvements at Boone intersection are identified separately. Status: Planned project for 2025 PE. Assume PAO contributions from Developers in the amount of 10%, City 40%, grants 50%. Length (miles) 0.3 Funding Status: 3,000 City 80 200 920 1,200 DEV 20 50 230 300 Other 100 250 1,150 1,500 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 200 500 200 500 2,300 2,300 Total 200 500 2,300 3,000 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 17 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 52 8th Ave. Preservation - Havana to Park Description: Pavement preservation project with select locations of sidewalk and road widening. Status: Length (miles) 1 Funding Status: 2,000 City 54 106 1,840 2,000 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 54 6 60 100 100 1,840 1,840 Total 54 106 1,840 2,000 53 Appleway Trail - Farr to Dishman Mica Description: Extend Shared Use pathway to Dishman Mica. Status: Potential funding sources: TIB, SRTC, RCO, LDA, City Length (miles) 1 1,200 City 20 20 200 240 Other 80 80 800 960 Funding Status: Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 100 100 100 100 1,000 1,000 Total 100 100 1,000 1,200 54 Argonne Rd. & 1-90 Interchange Bridge Widening Description: Widen Argonne Road bridge to 3 lanes southbound and improve sidewalks. New channelization to evaluate future STA park & ride facility. Status: $15 M total assumes bridge reconstruction, rechannelization, adjacent signal rework. 2028-2029 CN Length (miles) 0.1 Funding Status: 7,750 City 50 50 1,450 1,550 FMSIB 75 75 2,175 2,325 STBG 100 100 2,900 3,100 WSDOT 25 25 725 775 Planned PE RW Planned CN 250 250 500 0 7,250 7,250 Total 250 250 7,250 7,750 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 18 Spokane ..Valley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 55 8th Ave. / Park Rd. Intersection Improvement Description: Provide new traffic signal or roundabout. Status: 2029 CN Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 340 City 16 52 68 DEV Other 64 208 272 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 80 20 100 240 240 0 Total 80 260 340 56 Barker Rd. / Boone Ave. Intersection Improvement Description: Provide new signal or roundabout, per adopted Planned Action Ordinance. Assume ROW& CN after 2027. Status: Assume PAO contributions from Developers in the amount of 10%, City 40%, grants 50%. 2030 CN Length (miles) 0 200 City 20 60 80 DEV 5 15 20 Other 25 75 100 Funding Status: Planned PE Planned RW 50 50 100 100 100 Planned CN 0 Total 50 150 200 57 Broadway Ave. Improvements - Flora to Barker Description: Extend 3-lane urban section to Barker Rd and realign connection east of Barker. Status: Possible partnership with WSDOT. 2029 CN Length (miles) 1 Funding Status: 600 City 16 104 120 Other 64 416 480 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 80 20 100 500 500 0 Total 80 520 600 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 19 Spokane ..Valley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 58 4th Ave. / Pines Rd. (SR 27) Intersection Improvements Description: Install new intersection control. Status: 2029 CN Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 600 City 100 500 600 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 100 100 500 500 0 Total 100 500 600 59 Sullivan Rd. / Kiernan Ave. Intersection Improvement Description: Improve channelization and signal operations at intersection and reconstruct intersection with concrete. Status: 2030 CN Length (miles) 0 80 City 16 16 Other 64 64 Funding Status: Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 80 80 0 0 Total 80 80 60 Sullivan Rd. / Marietta Ave. Intersection Improvement Description: Improve channelization and signal operations at intersection and reconstruct intersection with concrete. Status: 2030 CN Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: 80 City 16 16 Other 64 64 Planned PE Planned RW Planned CN 80 80 0 0 Total 80 80 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 20 Spokane ..Valley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 61 Boone Ave. Reconstruction - Flora to Barker Description: Reconstruct corridor to city standards. Status: 2030 ROW. 2032 CN Length (miles) 1 Funding Status: 75 City 75 75 Other PE 75 75 RW 0 CN 0 Total 75 75 62 Flora Rd. Reconstruction - Sprague to Montgomery Description: Reconstruct to city standards, including a shared -use pathway connecting Appleway & Centennial Trails. Status: Assume 20% City match. Possible funding from SRTC, RCO, TIB, WA Leg. Length (miles) 2 75 City 15 15 Other 60 60 Funding Status: PE 75 75 RW 0 CN 0 Total 75 75 63 Euclid Ave. Preservation - Barker to E. City Limit Description: Pavement preservation project. City may consider increasing scope of project to improve road section to meet City standards. Status: 2029 CN Length (miles) 0.5 Funding Status: 50 City 50 50 Planned PE RW Planned CN 50 50 0 0 Total 50 50 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 21 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 64 Sullivan Rd. Improvements - Trent to Wellesley Description: Widen to add center turn lane, improved corridor access management, ITS, improved lighting, and addition of shared -use path. Status: Design may be combined with Sullivan/Trent I/C project. Length (miles) 0.3 Funding Status: 100 City 20 20 Other 80 80 PE 100 100 RW 0 CN 0 Total 100 100 65 Spokane Valley - Millwood Trail Description: Shared use path following existing railway, connecting to City of Spokane and City of Millwood trail network, and the Centennial Trail. Status: PE Concept Design in 2028 Length (miles) 0 75 City 15 15 Other 60 60 Funding Status: Planned PE 75 75 Planned RW 0 Planned CN 0 Total 75 75 66 Sprague & Pines Intersection Improvement 25 City 25 25 Description: Install SB right turn lane and intersection control. Price assumes new signal and channelization. Status: Based on N. Pines Subarea Study. May include developer contributions. Length (miles) 0 Funding Status: Planned PE 25 25 RW 0 CN 0 Total 25 25 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 22 Spokane Walley 2023-2028 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total 67 N. Sullivan Rd. Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements Description: Segments of improved shared -use pathways (5,000 LF +/-) and sidewalks (1,000 LF +/-) between the Spokane River and SR 290, including an improved crossing at the UPRR and potential for transit upgrades. Status: Project identified in 2015 and 2020 Sullivan Corridor Studies. Length (miles) 2 Funding Status: 20 City 4 4 Other 16 16 Planned PE 20 20 Planned RW 0 Planned CN 0 Total 20 20 Totals: 10,976 12,296 163,862 187,134 25,595 35,154 33,077 29,261 25,024 38,683 186,794 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances. 6/8/2022 Page 23 1. Sprague Ave. / Barker Rd. Intersection Improvement Project Type: Intersection Improvement Project Description: Provide new roundabout and sidewalks and bike accomodations. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 260 2020-2022 Right of Way (RW): 200 2021-2022 Construction (CN): 2,000 2022-2023 Total Cost: 2,460 Siiiro kalle � Valley y 2. Citywide Reflective Post Panels Spokane (2020) 4000 Valley Project Type: Safety Project Description: Installation of reflective post panels to stop signs and speed limit signs on select streets. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 8 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): Total Cost: 0 150 158 Estimated Project Schedule 2021-2022 2022-2023 3. Sullivan Rd. / Wellesley Ave. Intersection Improv. Project Type: Intersection Improvement Project Description: Traffic signal and intersection improvement project, partnership with Spokane County. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 230 2019-2021 Right of Way (RW): 165 2019-2021 Construction (CN): 2,000 2022-2023 Total Cost: 2,395 Siiiro kalle � Valley y 4. Sprague Ave. Preservation - Havana to Fancher Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Pavement preservation project with signal, sidewalk, and ITS improvements as needed. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 90 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 2,247 Total Cost: 2,337 Estimated Project Schedule 2021-2022 2022-2023 Siiiro kalle � Valley y 5. Wilbur Rd. Sidewalk - Boone to Mission Project Type: Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Install sidewalk from Boone to Mission on one side of road, including pavement preservation. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): Total Cost: 13 700 813 Estimated Project Schedule 2021-2022 2021-2022 2022 6. Barker Rd. / BNSF Grade Separation Project Project Type: Bridge Project Description: Construct Grade Separation at Barker/BNSF RR/Trent (SR290). Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 3,006 2019-2020 Right of Way (RW): 3,420 2019-2020 Construction (CN): 19,000 2021-2023 Total Cost: 25,426 Siiiro kalle � Valley 7. Buckeye Sewer Extension Project Type: Street Reconstruction Project Project Description: Street reconstruction and sewer extension project with Spokane County. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 2022-2023 Right of Way (RW): 0 Construction (CN): 750 Total Cost: 800 2023 Siiiro kalle � Valley 8. Mission Ave. Bridge Resurfacing Spokane .Valley Project Type: Bridge Project Description: Surface preservation of concrete bridge deck over Evergreen Rd. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 25 2022 Right of Way (RW): 0 Construction (CN): 240 Total Cost: 265 2023 9. Barker Rd. at Union Pacific Crossing Project Type: Arterial Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Recnstruct and widen to 3-lane section at UPRR and E. Euclid Ave. with shared -use path on one side. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 85 2020-2022 Right of Way (RW): 50 2021-2023 Construction (CN): 1,300 2023-2024 Total Cost: 1,435 10. Pines Rd. / Mission Ave. Intersection Improvement Project Type: Intersection Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Signal and channelization upgrades to improve capacity and additional turn lane on southbound Pines. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 355 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 191 1,612 Total Cost: 2,158 Estimated Project Schedule 2020-2022 2021-2022 2023-2024 11. Broadway Ave. Preservation - Fancher to Park 111Illllllllllhiliiiiiiiili111111llll11111lll1111llllilhllllllll1111llllllllllll„„„„lll�l N1 0V01V 10i 000000 0001S" I in III I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII a 11111111 gu l ,i ii mllllllllllllllllll u111111 tltltlllI IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII (11111 00 1111111111111111111111111!111 , I III S tiokane � Valle y Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Pavement preservation project with sidewalk ramp upgrades as needed. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 140 2022 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 1,660 2023-2024 Total Cost: 1,800 12. Sullivan Rd. Preservation - Sprague to 8th Project Type: Street Preservation Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Pavement rehab. with 4th Ave. improvements, sidewalks, ITS, stormwater improvements as necessary. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 224 2021-2022 Right of Way (RW): 504 2022 Construction (CN): 2,734 2023-2024 Total Cost: 3,462 13. Sprague Ave. Stormwater Improvements Project Type: Stormwater Project Description: Drywell retrofits between University and Park. Funded by Dept. of Ecology. Funding Status: Partial Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 1,900 Total Cost: 2,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2022-2023 2023-2024 Siiiro kalle � Valley y 14. 2022 Local Access (Summerfield East Neighborhood) jValley° Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Local street reconstruction project in Summerfield neighborhood. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 80 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 1,300 Total Cost: 1,380 Estimated Project Schedule 2021-2022 2023-2024 15. Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Analysis Project Type: Safety Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Evaluate vehicle vs. pedestrian/bicyclist crashes, as identified in the Local Road Safety Plan. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150 2023-2024 Right of Way (RW): 0 Construction (CN): 0 Total Cost: 150 16. 2023 Local Access (Donwood Neighborhood) Project Type: Street Reconstruction Project Project Description: Local street reconstruction and sewer extension project in Donwood neighborhood. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2023 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 1,400 Total Cost: 1,500 2024 Siiiro kalle � Valley 17. Northeast Industrial Sewer Extension Sitiokane .0,80Valley 4v, - • " )11 IeL " r Project Type: Street Reconstruction Project Project Description: Street reconstruction and sewer extension project (Flora, Tschirley, Dalton) with Spokane County. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 Right of Way (RW): 0 Construction (CN): 4,950 Total Cost: 5,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2022-2023 2023-2024 18. 8th Avenue Sidewalk Project Type: Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Sidewalk north side (Park to Coleman to Thierman) phased as funding allows. Bike lanes considered. Funding Status: Partial Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2022 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 900 Total Cost: 1,000 2022-2023 2023 19.2022 City Safety Program Improvements 1� Project Type: Safety Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Pedestrian crossing improvments on Sprague and access control improvements on Trent. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 173 2023 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 40 1,269 Total Cost: 1,482 2023 2024 20. Barker Road Corridor Design Phase Project Type: Street Reconstruction Project Project Description: Design phase for Barker Road from Appleway to South City Limits Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 250 2022-2023 Right of Way (RW): 0 Construction (CN): 0 Total Cost: 250 Siiiro kalle � Valley 21. Sprague Ave. Safety Improvements ""tt"Pallappapppp..„„pp,„ Sitiokane .0,80Valley 1, I —1Fi'llFit 1 01 • , . r 4,F4 ' `tt a _ lt OPP F. CA Project Type: Safety Project Description: Install pedestrian crossing at City Hall & Balfour Park with potential lane reductions, see TIP #23. Funding Status: Partial Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 46 2022 Right of Way (RW): 0 Construction (CN): 423 Total Cost: 469 2023 22. South Bowdish Rd. Sidewalks (12th to 22nd) Project Type: Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Install new sidewalk on the east side, including crosswalk, signage, and ADA ramp improvements. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 74 2023- Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 1,911 Total Cost: 1,985 2024 23. Sullivan Rd. Preservation - 8th to Spokane 16th ..Valley Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Pavement preservation with signal, ITS, sidewalks and stormwater improvements as necessary. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2023-2024 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 1,300 Total Cost: 1,400 2025 24. Broadway Ave. Preservation - Havana to Fancher Project Type: Street Preservation Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Pavement preservation and reconstruction, including stormwater improvements as necessary. Funding Status: Partial Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2021-2024 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 2,900 Total Cost: 3,000 2025 25. Pines Rd. (SR27) / BNSF Grade Spokane Separation Project Valley Project Type: Bridge Project Description: Construct Grade Separation at Pines/BNSF RR/Trent (SR290). Funding Status: Partial Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 2,300 2020-2023 Right of Way (RW): 5,385 2021-2023 Construction (CN): 26,900 2023-2025 Total Cost: 34,585 26. Spokane Valley - River Loop Trail S`�pokane Valley Project Type: Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Project Description: 5-mile shared -use path on north bank of Spokane River, including two pedestrian bridges. Funding Status: Partial Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 1,000 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 15,000 Total Cost: 16,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2022-2025 2024, 2028 27. Sullivan Rd. / SR 290 Interchange Spokane Reconstruction Valley Project Type: Bridge Project Description: Reconstruct interchange to improve safety and capacity. Funding Status: Partial Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 2,650 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 1,380 22,600 Total Cost: 26,630 Estimated Project Schedule 2021-2025 2025-2026 2027-2028 28. Barker Rd. Intersection Improvements at 4th & 8th Project Type: Intersection Improvement Project Description: Provide new traffic signal or roundabout, per S. Barker Corridor Study. Funding Status: Partial Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 1,500 3,900 Total Cost: 5,500 Estimated Project Schedule 2023-2024 2025-2026 2026 Siiiro kalle � Valley 29. Barker Rd. Improvement - Appleway to S. City Limit Project Type: Arterial Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Reconstruct 3-lane urban section from Appleway to Sprague and 2-lane urban section south of Sprague. Funding Status: Partial Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 2,000 5,300 Total Cost: 7,500 Estimated Project Schedule 2022-2024 2023-2025 2024-2026 30. Citywide Safety Projects - Biennial Project Type: Safety Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Projects are consistent with the City's Local Road Safety Plan. Awarded projects specified in TIP. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 1,700 Total Cost: 1,800 Estimated Project Schedule Biennial Biennial Biennial 31. Local Access Street Improvements - $1.5M Annually Project Type: Street Preservation Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Funded by Street Wear Fee. Project type varies (surface treatments, grind/inlays, reconstruction). Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 500 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 7,000 Total Cost: 7,500 Estimated Project Schedule Annually Annually Annually 32. Street Preservation Projects - $3M Annually Project Type: Street Preservation Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Preservation projects, typically arterials or collectors, or used as matching funds for grants. Funding Status: Secured Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 500 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 14,500 Total Cost: 15,000 Estimated Project Schedule Annually Annually Annually 33. Argonne Rd. Concrete Pave. Spokane Indiana to Knox Valley Project Type: Arterial Improvement Project Description: Reconstruct with concrete and improve stormwater and signal operations. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 200 2,600 Total Cost: 3,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026 34. 8th Ave. Preservation - Progress Spokane to Sullivan Nally Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Pavement preservation with potential sidewalk extension and partnership with Vera Water & Power. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 2024-2025 Right of Way (RW): 0 Construction (CN): 650 Total Cost: 700 2026 35. South Bowdish Rd. -Phased Corridor Improvements Project Type: Arterial Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Reconstruct Sprague to Dishman Mica as a modified urban street with improvements at 16th & 32nd. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 1,000 2023- Right of Way (RW): 500 2024- Construction (CN): 11,500 2025- Total Cost: 13,000 36. Sullivan Rd Preservation - 16th S`�pokane Ave. to 24th Ave. Valley Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Pavement preservation with signal, sidewalks and stormwater improvements as necessary. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2024 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 2,100 Total Cost: 2,200 2025 37. Dishman-Mica Rd. Pres. - SchaferSe to S. City Limit Valley Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Pavement preservation project with stormwater, path, ITS, and signal improvements as needed. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 2024 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 1,250 Total Cost: 1,300 2025 38. Vera Crest + Rocky Ridge Street Spokane Reconstruction Valley Project Type: Street Reconstruction Project Project Description: Stormwater/road reconstruction in multiple areas: Kahuna Hills, Heather Park, Ridgemont Estates. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150 2024-2025 Right of Way (RW): 0 Construction (CN): 0 Total Cost: 150 39. 8th Ave. / Carnahan Rd. Intersection Improvement Project Type: Intersection Improvement Project Description: Add intersection control (turn lanes, potential signal). Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 175 2024 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 250 1,575 Total Cost: 2,000 2025 2026 Siiiro kalle � Valley 40. Mirabeau / Mansfield Intersection Spokane Improvements Project Type: Intersection Improvement Project Description: Intersection capacity improvements: ITS & signal improvements and revised channelization. Funding Status: Partial Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 135 2024 Right of Way (RW): 200 2025 Construction (CN): 1,500 2026 Total Cost: 1,835 41. Barker Rd. Improvements - Appleway to 1-90 Project Type: Arterial Improvement S "' kane � ,00.Valley Project Description: Reconstruct 5-lane section with ITS, alignment/channelization improvements at Appleway & Broadway. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 1,000 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 2,000 3,500 Total Cost: 6,500 Estimated Project Schedule 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 42. N. Sullivan Preservation - River toSIare Marietta Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Pavement Preservation project with potential for new/expanded sidewalk per Sullivan Corridor Study. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 75 2024 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 1,425 Total Cost: 1,500 2025 43. Flora Rd. Reconstruction - EuclidSim< to Garland Valley Project Type: Arterial Improvement Project Description: Street Reconstruction in partnership with Spokane County Sewer Extension. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 100 2,000 Total Cost: 2,200 Estimated Project Schedule 2025 2025-2026 2026 44. Park Rd. Preservation - Sprague Spokane to TrentValley Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Pavement preservation project with potential sidewalks at select locations. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 70 2025 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 30 1,200 Total Cost: 1,300 2026 2027 45. 32nd Ave. Preservation - Pines to Spokane SR 27 Valley Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Pavement preservation project with potential ITS, storm, sidewalk upgrades as needed. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 60 2025 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 1,940 Total Cost: 2,000 2026 46. Park Rd. / Mission Ave. Intersection Improvement Project Type: Intersection Improvement Project Description: Improve channelization and signal operations. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 100 1,800 Total Cost: 2,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028 Siiiro kalle � Valley 47. Flora Rd. / SR 290 Intersection Sl,e Improvement Valley Project Type: Intersection Improvement Project Description: Provide new signal or roundabout, per adopted Planned Action Ordinance. Assume ROW & CN after 2027. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2026 Right of Way (RW): 100 2027 Construction (CN): 3,800 2028 Total Cost: 4,000 48. Cataldo Ave. Realignment at Barker Rd. Project Type: Intersection Improvement S "' kane � ,00.Valley Project Description: Realign Cataldo Ave east of Barker to intersect Boone Ave., per adopted Planned Action Ordinance. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2026 Right of Way (RW): 500 2026-2027 Construction (CN): 1,400 2028-2029 Total Cost: 2,000 49. Wellesley Ave. Preservation - Sullivan to Flora Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Pavement preservation project. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 60 2026 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 1,940 Total Cost: 2,000 2027 Siiiro kalle � Valley 50. Pines Rd (SR-27) / 16th Intersection Improvement Sitioliane .0.0 Valley Project Type: Intersection Improvement Project Description: Add traffic control at five -leg intersecton. Funding Status: Partial Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 100 4,700 Total Cost: 5,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2026-2027 2027-2028 2029-2030 51. Barker Rd. - Mission to Interstate Spokane 90 Valley Project Type: Arterial Improvement Project Description: Reconstruct to 5-lane urban section. Improvements at Boone intersection are identified separately. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200 2026 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 500 2,300 Total Cost: 3,000 2027 2028 52. 8th Ave. Preservation - Havana to Spokane Park Walley Project Type: Arterial Improvement Project Description: Pavement preservation project with select locations of sidewalk and road widening. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 60 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 100 1,840 Total Cost: 2,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2026-2027 2027 2028 53. Appleway Trail - Farr to Dishman Spokane Mica Valley Project Type: Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Project Description: Extend Shared Use pathway to Dishman Mica with north connections to City Hall and Balfour Park. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2026 Right of Way (RW): 100 2027 Construction (CN): 1,000 2028 Total Cost: 1,200 54. Argonne Rd. & 1-90 Interchange Spokane Bridge Widening jvalley Project Type: Bridge Project Description: Widen Argonne Road bridge to 3 lanes southbound and improve sidewalks. Coordinate with STA. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 500 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 0 14,500 Total Cost: 15,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 55. 8th Ave. / Park Rd. Intersection Spokane Improvement .Walley Project Type: Intersection Improvement Project Description: Provide new traffic signal or roundabout. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 300 2,600 Total Cost: 3,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2027-2028 2028-2029 2029 56. Barker Rd. / Boone Ave. Intersection Improvement Project Type: Intersection Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Provide new signal or roundabout, per adopted Planned Action Ordinance. Assume ROW & CN after 2027. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 200 2,500 Total Cost: 2,800 Estimated Project Schedule 2027-2028 2028-2029 2030 57. Broadway Ave. Improvements - S`�pokane Flora to Barker Valley Project Type: Arterial Improvement Project Description: Extend 3-lane urban section to Barker Rd and realign connection east of Barker. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 500 4,400 Total Cost: 5,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2027-2028 2028 2029 58. 4th Ave. / Pines Rd. (SR 27) Intersection Improv. Project Type: Intersection Improvement Project Description: Install new intersection control. Price assumes new signal and channelization. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2027 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 500 2,200 Total Cost: 2,800 2028 2029 Siiiro kalle � Valley y 59. Sullivan Rd. / Kiernan Ave. Intersection Improv. Project Type: Intersection Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Improve channelization and signal operations and reconstruct intersection with concrete. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2028-2029 Right of Way (RW): 100 2029-2030 Construction (CN): 2,300 2030 Total Cost: 2,500 60. Sullivan Rd. / Marietta Ave. Intersection Improv. Project Type: Intersection Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Improve channelization and signal operations and reconstruct intersection with concrete. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2028-2029 Right of Way (RW): 100 2029-2030 Construction (CN): 2,300 2030 Total Cost: 2,500 61. Boone Ave. Reconstruction - Flora to Barker Project Type: Street Reconstruction Project Project Description: Reconstruct corridor to city standards. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 350 3,500 Total Cost: 4,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2028-2029 2030-2031 2032 Siiiro kalle � Valley 62. Flora Rd. Reconstruction - Sprague to Montgomery Project Type: Arterial Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Reconstruct to city standards, including a shared -use path connecting Appleway & Centennial Trails. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 250 3,600 Total Cost: 4,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2028-2029 2030-2031 2032 63. Euclid Ave. Preservation - Barker S`�pokane to E. City Limit Valley Project Type: Street Preservation Project Description: Pavement preservation project. City may elect to improve road section to meet City standards. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 2028 Right of Way (RW): 0 Construction (CN): 450 Total Cost: 500 2029 64. Sullivan Rd. Improvements - Trent to Wellesley Project Type: Arterial Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Widen for center turn lane, improved access management, lighting, and addition of shared -use path. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 300 2,500 Total Cost: 3,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2028-2029 2029-2029 2031 65. Spokane Valley - Millwood Trail Spokane Valley Project Type: Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Project Description: Path following existing railway, connecting to trails in Spokane and Millwood, and Centennial Trail. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150 Right of Way (RW): Construction (CN): 500 6,350 Total Cost: 7,000 Estimated Project Schedule 2028-2029 2029-2030 2031-2032 66. Sprague / Pines (SR 27) Intersection Improv. Project Type: Intersection Improvement Siiiro kalle � Valley y Project Description: Install SB right turn lane and intersection control. Price assumes new signal and channelization. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate (in $1,000) Preliminary Engineering (PE): 25 Right of Way (RW): 0 Construction (CN): 0 Total Cost: 25 Estimated Project Schedule 67. N. Sullivan Rd. Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements Project Type: Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Project Description: Segments of shared -use path and sidewalks, including possible transit upgrades. Funding Status: Planned Cost Estimate Estimated Project (in $1,000) Schedule Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2027-2029 Right of Way (RW): 250 2029-2030 Construction (CN): 4,650 2030-2031 Total Cost: 5,000 Siiiro kalle � Valley y CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST 05/19/2022 05/25/2022 05/26/2022 05/26/2022 05/31/2022 06/01/2022 06/02/2022 06/02/2022 06/07/2022 VOUCHER NUMBERS 56795-56831 9295-9323 (Park Refunds) 56832-56860 56861-56882, Wires 16645726 & 16645807 56883-56899 (-56889 and 56891) Wire transfers 24602604, 24629612, 26417934, 26454866 56900-56931 56932-56937 9324-9342 (Park Refunds) GRAND TOTAL: TOTAL AMOUNT 139,734.32 4,945.00 137,583.20 625,129.11 7,786.62 6,282.22 304,381.82 26,441.27 1,934.00 $1,254,217.56 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.040.041. Engineering 001.040.042. Economic Development 001.040.043. Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Serv. 001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Eco. 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594 General Gov't -Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preserv. Other Funds: 101— Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 107 — PEG Fund 108 —Affordable & Supplem.ental Housing Sales Tax 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 315 — Transportation Impact Fees 316 — Economic Development Capital Projects 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501— Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management 632 -- Passthrough Fees & Taxes 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 05/19/2022 10:43:43AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 56795 5/19/2022 006984 Al TREE SERVICE LLC 4533 4555 56796 5/19/2022 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 56797 5/19/2022 008595 AMERICAN RADIATOR INC 56798 5/19/2022 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 56799 5/19/2022 000030 AVISTA 56800 5(19/2022 008530 CBRE HEERY INC 72974 AA 110277 332338 332510 332725 333627 APRIL 2022 APRIL 2022 PJIN0029653 56801 5/19/2022 008053 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, PETTY CASH REI APRIL 2022 56802 5/19/2022 008469 CORWIN FORD SPOKANE 56803 5/19/2022 000683 DAVID EVANS &ASSOCIATES 56804 5/19/2022 003624 DEHN, SHELLY 56805 5/19/2022 002920 DIRECTV INC 492981 508998 509250 EXPENSES 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.033.000.51 B 001.076.302.576 001.000.322.518 001,013,015.515 001.040.043.558 101.042.000.542 303.000.300.595 001.090.000.517 051738547X220505 402.402.000.531 Description/Account Amount TREE REMOVAL & SERVICE TREE REMOVAL & SERVICE VACUUM TRUCK SERVICE Total: Total: VEHICLE SERVICE: SNOWFLEET Total : PLEXIMELT PLEXIMELT MASTIC (PLEXIMELT) MASTIC (PLEXIMELT) Total: UTILITIES: CPW MASTER AVISTAAPRII UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA API Total: 322 CITY HALL REPAIR 21-197 PETTY CASH: 22159, -60 Total: Total: VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT.: #4-007 Total: ON CALL TRAFFIC SERVICES 0300-TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 2,450.25 544.50 2,994.75 962.55 952.55 378.01 378.01 3,384.61 3,384.61 5,076.92 1,692.31 13,538.45 25,326,68 9,713.14 35,040.02 2,490.00 2,490.00 9.50 9.50 57.90 57.90 989.14 35,352.59 36,341.73 59.94 59.94 CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENANCE : 79.99 Page: vchlist 05/19/2022 10:43:43AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept 56805 5/19/2022 002920 002920 DIRECTV INC 56806 5/1912022 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 56807 5/19/2022 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 56808 5/19/2022 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 56809 5/19/2022 002538 HYDRAULICS PLUS INC 56810 5/19/2022 000070 INLAND POWER & LIGHT CO 56811 5119/2022 006381 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 55812 5/19/2022 006554 NAOMI 56813 5/19/2022 004621 OREILLYAUTOMOTIVE STORES INC 56814 5/19/2022 005048 PARAMETRIX INC 56815 5/19/2022 007280 PATTERSON, MARCI 56816 5/19/2022 005049 PEDERSON, MICHAEL ROY (Continued) 636375 637783 52840 52845 APRIL 2022 1042 24534 APRIL 2022 9309505232 2022 #1 2862-173937 2862-174646 EB15262101 EB15895151 32202 EXPENSES APRIL 2022 311.000.334.595 311.000.334.595 001.040.044.558 31 1.000.334.595 001.011.000.511 501.000.000.594 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.090.000.560 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 311.000.325.595 001.090.000.517 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : Total : Total: GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SERVICES Total: VEHICLE SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOW 225 Total: UTILITIES: PARKS AND CPW Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES Total : 2022 EDSS GRANT REIMBURSEMENT Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES Total : 20-237 SURVEY MONUMENTAT[ON PRI Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total: 79.99 71.10 67.50 138.60 96.05 160.00 256.65 5,674.97 5,674.97 6,534.00 6,534.00 524.61 524.61 435.82 435.82 6,179.00 6,179.00 77.95 14.15 -9.71 -7.17 75,22 3,615.00 3,615.0D 49.32 49.32 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 825.00 Page: 2 vchlist 05/19/2022 10:43:43AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank coder apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 56816 5/19/2022 005049 005049 PEDERSON, MICHAEL ROY 56817 5/19/2022 008596 PRO TECH AUTOMOTIVE AND TOWING 56818 5/19/2022 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC 56819 5/19/2022 003264 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP 56820 5/19/2022 006822 SNAP -ON INC 56821 5/19/2022 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL 56822 5/19/2022 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DST#3 56823 5/19/2022 000405 SPOKANE VALLEY PARTNERS 56824 5/19/2022 000854 SPW LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 56825 5/19/2022 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 56826 5/19/2022 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 56827 5119/2022 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRISES LLC 56828 5/19/2022 000337 UPS (Continued) 3482 56964 B15152883 ARV/52775511 MAY 2022 MAY 2022 #1 2022 #4 2036.09 3506928425 1907030 1909008 1909014 4292022 001.040.043.524 101.000.000.542 001.090.000.518 501.000.000.548 001.076.300.576 402.402.000.531 001.090.000.560 403.000.317.595 001.013.000.513 101.042.000.542 001.040.043.524 001.040.043.524 001.011.000.511 000031V836182 001.040.041.543 Description/Account Amount REMOVAL OF CAMPER SNOW FLEET MAGNET SIGNS ADOBE DC LICENSE Total: Total : Total: Total: SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT Total : SEWER CHARGES Total: WATER CHARGES FOR MAY 2022 #1 Total : 2022 EDSS GRANT REIMBURSEMENT Total : 317- LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SE Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: CITY MGRIDEPUTI Total: TRANSFER STATION CPW APRIL 2022 ABATEMENT: 1203 N HERALD RD ABATEMENT: 18505 E COURTLAND AVI Total : BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTGS Total: 825.00 2,940.30 2,940.30 212.36 212.36 28.42 28.42 32.27 32.27 1,349.24 1,349.24 125.66 125.66 12,138.04 12,138.04 715.00 715.00 138.80 138.80 1,885.32 532.28 6.28 2,423.88 988.00 988.00 SHIPPING CHARGES 18.62 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 05/19/2022 10:43:43AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 56828 5/19/2022 000337 000337 UPS (Continued) Total : 18.62 56829 5/19/2022 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 84929 311.000.334.595 CIP 0334: POSTAGE SERVICES 713.13 Total : 713.13 56830 5/19/2022 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO IN001963585 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE MAINT. SUPPLIES: SNOW FLI 175.35 Total : 175.35 56831 5/19/2022 001792 WHITEHEAD, JOHN EXPENSES 001.090.000.517 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 775.40 EXPENSES 001.018.016.518 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 699.42 Total : 1,474.82 37 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 139,734.32 37 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 139,734.32 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 Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 05/2512022 10:59:34AM Spokane Valley Bank code : Voucher pk-ref Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 9295 5/25/2022 008610 CADER, ANGELINA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PARK 75.00 Total : 75.00 9296 5/25/2022 007267 CENTENNIAL REAL ESTATE INVEST. PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: SMALL DINING ROI 52.00 Total : 52.00 9297 5/25/2022 006581 COMUNIDAD CRISTIANA DE SPOKANE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES PAF 75.00 Total : 75.00 9298 5/25/2022 008608 EDVALSON, JUL1E PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIM TEAM REFUND 60.00 Total: 60.00 9299 5/25/2022 008611 ENDICOTT, TAMMY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND: GREAT ROC 494.50 Total: 494.50 9300 5/25/2022 008612 FLETCHER, LAURA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUN❑ 166.00 Total: 166.00 9301 5/25/2022 008613 GENEVA FINANCIAL LLC PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:AUDITORIUM 52.00 Total: 52.00 9302 5/25/2022 008256 GEORDAN, TIFFANI PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total : 75.00 9303 5/25/2022 007039 GOLD SEAL MECHANICAL PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EXEC CONF ROOIV 52.00 Total: 52.00 9304 5/25/2022 007328 GOLOV!NA, YELENA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 REISSUE SWIM LESSON REFUND 5.00 Total : 5.00 9305 5/25/2022 007783 GREENACRES CONGREGATION OF PARK REFUN❑ 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LOUNGE 210.00 Total : 210.00 9306 5/25/2022 008600 HAASE, MANDEE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PARK 75.00 Total : 75.00 9307 5/25/2022 008614 HARKLEROAD, ANGIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 05/25/2022 10:59:34AM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 9307 5/25/2022 008614 008614 HARKLEROAD, ANGIE (Continued) Total: 75.00 9308 5/25/2022 008601 HAYNES, ROBYN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: TERRACE VIEW 75.00 Total: 75.00 9309 5/25/2022 008594 HELLBUSCH, KAREN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 316.00 Total: 316.00 9310 5/25/2022 008602 HOLMES, COLLEEN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND: MIRABEAU I 175.00 Total : 175.00 9311 5/25/2022 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 9312 5125/2022 008603 JOHNSON, KIARA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 213 52.00 Total: 52.00 9313 5/25/2022 008609 JOKLUR, FREDDY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Total: 75.00 9314 5/25/2022 008604 KIRICHENKO, IRINA PARK REFUND 001,237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total : 75.00 9315 5/25/2022 008615 MEAD, BROOK PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: TERRACE VIEW 75.00 Total : 75.00 9316 5/25/2022 005374 MICRIST ENVIRONMENTAL PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 REISSUANCE OF DEPOSIT REFUND: C 52,00 Total: 52.00 9317 5/25/2022 008616 MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS PARK REFUND 001,237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND: GREAT ROC 1,496.50 Total: 1,496.50 9318 5/25/2022 008617 NEGATIVE SPLIT PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEADC 300.00 Total: 300.00 9319 5/25/2022 008618 RATHBONE, CASSIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Total: 75.00 9320 5/25/2022 008605 REEVES, VICTORIA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEADC 300.00 Page: 6 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 05125/2022 10:59:34AM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 9320 5/25/2022 008605 008605 REEVES, VICTORIA (Continued) Total : 300.00 9321 5/25/2022 008606 SANTOS, ANDREA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 213 52.00 Total : 52.00 9322 5/2512022 008607 SPOKANE FOOD POLICY COUNCIL PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PLAY( 75.00 Total : 75.00 9323 5/25/2022 008619 THOMAS, PAM PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Total : 75.00 29 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 4,945.00 29 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been fumished, 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 authentcate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 4,945.00 Page: \S. 1f vchlist 05/26/2022 8:14:48AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 56832 5/26/2022 006614 AIR REPS LLC 56833 5/26/2022 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 56834 5(26/2022 007808 AMENTO GROUP INC 56835 5/26/2022 007965 ARGUS JANITORIAL 56836 5/26/2022 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 56837 5/26/2022 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 56838 5/26/2022 007871 EMPIRE SPRAY SERVICE INC 56839 5/26/2022 007740 EVERGREEN STATE TOWING LLC 56840 5126/2022 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 0114541-IN 001.076.305.575 147L-JVDQ-QVV1 19LY JQGV JK4X 1TFR-JFKJ-X431 1 WD6-9Y6V-RLMP 032239 042249 042250 INV12508 368665 ROW-2022-0242 RB050602 64693 638500 638502 639347 639349 639350 639351 639352 001.040.041.543 001.090.000.518 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.524 001.000.322.518 001.000.322.518 001.000.322.518 001.016.016.521 001.076.305.575 001.040.041.322 001,016,016.521 001.040.043.524 001.040.044.558 001.040.044.558 001.013.000.513 001.040.044.558 001.040.042.558 001.040.044.558 001.040.044.558 Description/Account Amount REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: CENTERF 48.18 Total : 48.18 OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING 2022 REPLACEMENT MONITORS OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & PLANNING CREDIT MEMO FOR INDUSTRIAL BOO Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CITY HALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CITY HALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CITY HALL Total : JANITORIAL SVCS: PRECINCT, MAINT. Total : RECYCLING COLLECTION AT CENTER Total : PERMIT REFUND: ROW-2022-0242 Total : SPRING BROADLEAF SPRAY: PRECIN( Total : TOWING SERVICES: CODE ENFORCED Total: LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION 91.56 2,306.70 54.36 -143.48 2,309.14 2,035.50 1,650.00 8,965.00 12,650.50 3,950.00 3,950.00 32.50 32.50 32.00 32.00 86.03 86.03 6,783.62 6,783.62 81.00 82.95 26.07 80.58 34.76 87.69 82.16 Page: \L. vchlist 05/26/2022 8:14:48AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 56840 5/26/2022 003274 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 56841 5/26/2022 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 56842 5/26/2022 008107 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP 56843 5/26/2022 003185 LAMB, ERIK 56844 5/26/2022 006778 MAINSTREAM ELECTRIC INC 56845 5/26/2022 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 56846 5/26/2022 007672 MULTICARE CENTERS OF 56847 5/26/2022 000240 NATL LEAGUE OF CITIES 56848 5/26/2022 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. (Continued) 52876 52894 52895 52899 912620 EXPENSES BLD-2022-1810 474 4-30-2022 475 4-30-2022 476 4-30-2022 477 4-30-2022 478 4-30-2022 480 4-30-2022 485 4-30-2022 486 4-30-2022 492 4-30-2022 494 4-30-2022 153102 178847 238380200001 239498403001 240609356001 Fund/Dept 001.040.044.558 001.040.044.558 001.040.044.558 001.040.044.558 001.013.015.515 001.018.013.513 001.040.043.322 001.013.015,515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 314.000.143.595 001.013.015.515 303.000.313.595 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.018.016.518 001.011.000.511 001.076.000.576 001.040.041.543 001.013.015.515 DescriptionlAccount Amount LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total: Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDEREI Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total: PERMIT REFUND: BLD-2022-1810 Total: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL EXAMS Total: Total : MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 2022 000200f Total: OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE OFFICE SUPPLIES: CPW/ENGINEERIN= OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGAL 475.21 95.20 94.35 98.60 94.35 382.50 175.00 175.00 59.73 59.73 78.93 78.93 1,101.85 685.20 420.00 420.00 720.00 232.75 942.60 4,796.44 98.00 73.50 9,490.34 342.00 342.00 7,212.00 7,212.00 37.77 165.55 43.54 Page: vchlist 05/26/2022 8:14:48AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bankcode: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 56848 5/26/2022 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 56849 5/26/2022 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 56850 5/26/2022 007133 PRUNTY, CAITLIN 56851 5/26/2022 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC 56852 5/26/2022 007678 RANDALL DANSKIN PS 56853 5/26/2022 007741 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DIST 56854 5/26/2022 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 56855 5/26/2022 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 56856 5/26/2022 008558 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 56857 5/26/2022 004740 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST (Continued) 240623674002 241960737001 243673454001 2591293 2T49556 EXPENSES 57181 145520 16286947-00 16287513-00 16287521-00 16287622-00 12885234 3506928428 681850400 681850418 846298253 Fund/Dept 001.013.015.515 001.090.000.518 001.013.015.515 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.013.015.515 001.011.000.511 001.000.322.518 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.040.043.558 001.033.033.518 001.033.033.518 001.013.015.515 Description/Account Amount OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGAL OFFICE SUPPLIES: IT OFFICE SUPPLIES: CREDIT RE 240609 Total: REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: CENTERF REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: CENTERF Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total: CAR MAGNET SIGNS: COUNCILMEMBE Total: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total: REFRIGERANT FOR CHILLER AT CENT REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: CENTERF REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: CENTERF REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: CENTERF Total: 895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Total: OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG/PLANNING/E Total: JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: CITY HALL JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: CITY HALL Total : 6.77 140.36 -10.88 383.11 364.84 48.25 413.09 130.99 130.99 74.49 74.49 15,012.30 15,012.30 1,635.00 115.94 75.54 352.29 2,178.77 64,898.17 64,898.17 217.75 217.75 31,79 21.48 53.27 SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES 872.31 Total : 872.31 Page: 3. /0 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 05/26/2022 8:14:48AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 56858 5/26/2022 006852 ULINE INC 147974175 001.033.033.518 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: CITY HALL 15.79 Total : 15.79 56859 5/26/2022 003206 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP 433216 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,788.00 Total : 7,788.00 56860 5/26/2022 007995 WALL AND COMPANY LLC 2111-1714-2484-1 001.033.034.518 TREE REMOVAL: 4908 E 1ST AVE 1,437.48 Total : 1,437.48 29 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 137,583.20 29 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 Total vouchers : 137,583.20 Page: vchlist 05126/2022 10:46:13ANI Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 56861 5/26/2022 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 73038 73039 56862 5/26/2022 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA 56863 5126/2022 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 56864 5126/2022 008216 BERRYDUNN 56865 5/26/2022 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 56866 5/26/2022 007671 HORROCKS ENGINEERS INC 56867 5/26/2022 006579 JACKSON, ADAM EXPENSES 333306 333307 333974 334464 334639 416210 AR236757 AR236758 AR236759 AR236760 AR236761 AR236762 AR236763 AR236764 AR236765 68714 69136 EXPENSES 56868 5/26/2022 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 0152659 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 001.040.041.543 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.513 001.011.000.511 001.018.017.518 001.018.016.518 001.013.000.513 001.013.015,515 001.040.043.558 001.040.041.558 101.042.000.542 001.076.000.576 309.000.338.595 001.040.041.558 001.040.041.558 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount STREET SWEEPING APRIL 2022 STORM DRAIN CLEANING APRIL 2022 Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total: REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: STREET PLEXIMELT OPERATING SUPPLIES MASTIC (PLEXIMELT) MASTIC (PLEXIMELT) CONSULTING SERVICES Total: Total : COPIER COSTS: WEST WING/COUNCII COPIER COSTS: IT COPIER COSTS: HR COPIER COSTS: OPS/ADMIN COPIER COSTS: LEGAL COPIER COSTS: MAIL ROOM COPIER COSTS: CPW ENGINEERING COPIER COSTS: MAINTENANCE SHOF COPIER COSTS: PARKS 0338- LOOP TRAIL PROJECT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total: Total: Total : 48,529.45 6,509.86 55,039.31 69.03 69.03 23.70 3,384.61 103.64 1,692.31 1,692.31 6,896.57 3,420.00 3,420.00 115.09 13.41 78.94 130.02 115.33 240.81 482.48 13.94 154.71 1,344.73 9,722.24 2,160.00 11,882.24 263.78 263.78 ON -CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SVC 5,514.00 Page: ``1. la vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 05/26/2022 10:46:13AM Spokane Valley Bank code: aptrank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 56868 5/26/2022 000864 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. (Continued) Total : 5,514.00 56869 5126/2022 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT MAY 2022 001.033.033.518 SUPPLIES: CITY HALL, PARKS, MAINT. 202.43 Total : 202.43 56870 5/26/2022 000910 MANTZ, GLORIA EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 327.81 Total: 327.81 56871 5/26/2022 008620 PARKER, KERRY 2022-10041344 001.016.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND: 2022-1004134. 65.00 Total: 65.00 56872 5/26/2022 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2T53490 101.042.000.543 REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: MAINT. SI 78.41 Total: 78.41 56873 5/26/2022 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 46976 101.042.000.542 STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENAN 56,805.43 46977 101.042.000.542 STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENAN 90,702.75 46979 101.042.000.542 STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENAN 28,566.00 46980 101.042.000.542 STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENAN 1,001.29 46981 101.042.000.542 STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENAN 3,819.79 46982 101.042.000.542 STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENAN 8,937.84 Total : 189,833.10 56874 5/26/2022 007741 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DIST 16288049-00 101.042.000.543 REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: MAINT. SI 89.38 16288229-00 101.042.000.543 REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: MAINT. SE 261.65 16288229-01 101.042.000.543 REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: MAINT. SI 265.77 Total : 616.80 56875 5/26/2022 003938 ROB'S DEMOLITION INC PAYAPP 1 001.040.043.524 22-023: 4216 BEST RD CLEANUP 135,469.53 Total : 135,469.53 56876 5/26/2022 002288 SARGENT ENGINEERS INC. 34457 101.043.000.542 PROFESSIONAL SVCS 20-006 2,201.00 Total: 2,201.00 56877 5/26/2022 003264 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP B15179388 001.018.017.518 MS OFFICE RENEWAL 101.17 B15179733 001.013.000.513 MS OFFICE RENEWAL 149.55 B15180174 001.040.042.558 MS OFFICE RENEWAL 300.00 Total: 550.72 Page: 13 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 05/26/2022 10:46:13AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 56878 5/26/2022 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51506318 402.402.000.531 APRIL 2022 WORK CREW 2,520.60 Total : 2,520.60 56879 5/26/2022 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 MAY 2022 #2 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES FOR MAY 2022 #2 622.80 Total : 622.80 56880 5/26/2022 006178 WALTER E NELSON CO 470207 001.040.041.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CPW 410.88 Total : 410.88 56881 5/2612022 003210 WEST CONSULTANTS INC. 016866 402.000.000.531 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,023.21 Total : 5,023.21 56882 5/26/2022 000980 WESTERN SYSTEMS INC 0000051614 101.042.000.594 SIGNAL EQUIPMENT (REPLACE & UPC 7,877.16 Total : 7,877.16 16645726 5/27/2022 005314 US BANK 1975404 204.204.000.592 LTGO REFUNDING BONDS 2014 81,700.00 Total: 81,700.00 16645807 5/27/2022 005314 US BANK 1975400 204.000.000.592 LTGO BONDS 2016 113,200.00 Total : 113,200.00 24 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 625,129.11 24 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 625,129.11 Page: 3� vchlist 05/31/2022 2:02:53PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept 56883 5/31/2022 000900 DEPT OF L & I 56884 5/31/2022 000278 DRISKELL, CARY 56885 5/31/2022 008036 EMERALD COAST LEGAL PROCESS 56886 5131/2022 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 56887 5/31/2022 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 56888 5/31/2022 008551 GOPHER LLC 56889 5/31/2022 005101 HALEY„ PAM Voided 297889 EXPENSES PSE-2022000356 640132 640133 640134 640136 640137 640138 640139 640947 640948 640949 640950 640951 640952 640953 52865 52902 52903 52904 52905 6746 6XRENSES 001,076,305.575 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 Description/Account Amount ANNUAL OPERATING CERT: ELEVATOF 149.00 Total: 149.00 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.040.042.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.040.042.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.040.044.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.040.044.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.040.042.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.040.044.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.040.044.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.040.044.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.040.044.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.040.044.558 001.040.042.558 001.013.000.513 001.040.044.558 001.040.044.558 001.013.015.515 001 0907541 LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: 92.49 92.49 95.00 95.00 24.75 33.00 40.29 12.64 27.65 82.16 82.16 24.75 38.25 26.25 79.79 79.79 84.53 68.73 704.74 188.80 73.60 25.00 95.20 95.20 477.80 280.00 280.00 82.54 Page: f4� ! 6" vchlist 05/31/2022 2:02:53PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 56889 5/31/2022 005191 005191 HALEY, PAM 56890 5/31/2022 008626 HENDERSON, CHARLES 6688€ Voided 56892 5/31/2022 000421 HOHMAN, JOHN 56893 5/31/2022 008628 IDAHO PROCESS SERVICE 56894 5/31/2022 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 56895 5/31/2022 006014 RECORDS MANAGEMENT PLUS LLC 56896 5/31/2022 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE 56897 5/31/2022 008463 TRUTH MINISTRIES OF SPOKANE (Continued) BLD-2022-1957 EXPENSES EXPENSES 3772 240623674003 1949 APRIL 2022 62024 56898 5/31/2022 008502 VOLUNTEERS OFAMERICAOF E, WASH & NC VOA 1014 56899 5/31/2022 000100 WABO INC. 17 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 17 Vouchers in this report 42923 001.040.043.322 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.040.043.558 001.040.044.558 001.013.000.555 001.013.000.565 001.018.016.518 Description/Account Amount Total: 82.54 PERMIT REFUND: BLD-2022-1957 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGAL Total : Total: Total: Total: Total: OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG/CODE/FLANI Total : RECORDING FEES Total : RESERVED BEDS: OCT1-DEC 31 2021 Total: VOA SHELTER BED REIMBURSEMENT: Total : 178.10 178.10 110.71 110.71 258.75 258.75 65.00 65.00 1.94 1.94 377.80 377.80 1,416.00 1,416.00 1,840.00 1,840.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 JOB POSTING: CODE ENFORCEMENT 50.00 Total : 50.00 Bank total : 7479.87 Total vouchers : 7,079.67 7,786.62 vchlist 06/01/2022 9:35:OOAM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 24602604 1/31/2022 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 24629612 26417934 26454866 1/31/2022 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 5/2/2022 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 5/2/2022 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 4 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 4 Vouchers in this report Q4-2021 Q4-2021 Q 1-2022 Q 1-2022 FundiDept 632.000.000.589 001.076.301.571 632.000.000.589 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX Total : COMBINED EXCISE TAX RETURN Total : LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 1,636.20 1,636.20 1,167.15 1,167.15 1,965.08 Total : 1,965.08 COMBINED EXCISE TAX RETURN Total : 1,513.79 1,513.79 Bank total : 6,282.22 Total vouchers : 6,282.22 vchlist 06/02/2022 2:49:10PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 56900 612/2022 006984 Al TREE SERVICE LLC 56901 6/2/2022 001308 ALLEN, HENRY 56902 6/2/2022 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 56903 6/2/2022 008425 BULLDOG ROOTER INC 56904 6/2/2022 000322 CENTURYLINK 56905 6/212022 001888 COMCAST 56906 6/2/2022 007637 COMMONSTREET CONSULTING LLC 56907 6/2/2022 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 56908 6/2/2022 007901 DATEC INC 56909 6/2/2022 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 56910 6/2/2022 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 4568 EXPENSES 334962 335031 335200 335201 335262 31833152 835E 5-14-2022 4668 5/17-6/16/22 CSROW 22151 MAY 2022 MAY 2022 51036 508787 INV725434 101.042.000.542 106.000.000.537 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.543 001.076.000.576 001.076.305.575 303.000.320.595 402,402,000.531 001.076.305.575 001.090.000.518 314.000.143.595 101.042.000.543 DescriptionlAccount Amount TREE REMOVAL & SERVICE 3,267.00 Total : 3,267.00 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : MASTIC (PLEXIMELT) COLDMIX - EZ STREET POTHOLE PAT( REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES: STREET SAFETY SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT RENTAL Total : MAIN LINE BACKUP SERVICE: MAINT. Total : 2022 PHONE SVCS: ACCT 509-Z14-002. Total : INTERNET & PHONE: CENTERPLACE Total: 320 SULLIVAN ROAD ROW SERVICES Total : UTILITIES: MAY 2022 CPW UTILITIES: MAY 2022 PARKS & CP Total : JUNIPER SWITCH REPLACEMENT 202: Total : 0143-DESIGN SERVICES Total : 849.57 849.57 1,692.31 1,094.66 473.72 40.12 4,900.50 8,201.31 488.96 488.96 543.71 543.71 380.91 380.91 3,778.75 3,778.75 211.99 559.25 771.24 4,090.28 4,090.28 1,408.28 1,408.28 TOWER RENT 218.73 Page: vchlist 06/02/2022 2:49:10PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 56910 6/2/2022 003255 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 56911 6/2/2022 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 56912 6/2/2022 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 56913 6/2/2022 007465 ELEVATIONS: ACHILDREN'S 56914 6/2/2022 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 56915 6/2/2022 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 56916 6/2/2022 007625 HERC RENTALS 56917 6/2/2022 000421 HOHMAN, JOHN 56918 6/2/2022 007671 HORROCKS ENGINEERS INC 56919 6/2/2022 003238 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 56920 6/2/2022 007157 MASTERGRAPHICS AEC, LLC 56921 6/2/2022 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO (Continued) RE 46 JG6453 L017 MAY 2022 2022 #1 638503 639346 52877 32872838-001 32890465-001 JUNE 2022 69135 417191 011540 20532463 20532630 20532636 314.000.223.595 402.402.000.531 001.090.000.560 303.000.205.595 303.000.205.595 303.000.205.595 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.013.000.513 303.000.300.595 314.000.311.595 001.040.041.543 001.033.034.518 101.042.000.542 001.076.302.576 Description/Account Amount Total: 218.73 0223 PINES RD AGREEMENT JG-6453 Total : WATER CHARGES Total: 2022 EDSS GRANT REIMBURSEMENT Total: LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION EQUIPMENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL MONTHLY AUTO ALLOWANCE Total : Total: Total : Total : 0300- PINES & MISSIONS INTERSECTI' Total : PROJECT 311 PHASE 1 ANALYSIS Total : 2022 BLUEBEAM RENEWAL Total : UTILITIES: MAY 2022 WHITE ELEPHAN UTILITIES: MAY 2022 CPW UTILITIES: MAY 2022 PARKS 508.10 508.10 1,367.47 1,367.47 2,160.00 2,160.00 74.26 70.50 144.76 163.20 163.20 351.16 56.85 408.01 700.00 700.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 7,808.48 7,808.48 6,378.56 6,378.56 233.89 12,375.47 3,077.06 Page: 1 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 06/0212022 2:49:10PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 56921 6/2/2022 000132 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO (Continued) Total : 15,686.42 56922 6/2/2022 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO 211425 101.042.000.542 OPERATING SUPPLIES: STREET 284.23 Total : 284.23 56923 6/2/2022 008046 NE ROUNDABOUTS INC 220406 101.042.000.542 SIDRA INTERSECTION 9 SOFTWARE 351.35 Total : 351.35 56924 6/2/2022 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER APRIL 2022 632.000.000.589 STATE REMITTANCE 31,539.03 Total : 31,539.03 56925 6/2/2022 003264 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP B15179286 001.090.000.518 MS OFFICE RENEWAL 146.82 Total : 146.82 56926 6/2/2022 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY APRIL 2022 632.000.000.589 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION REM 384.35 Total: 384.35 56927 6/2/2022 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 110100330 101.042.000.542 APRIL 2022 ENGINEERING 53,736.95 42000999 001.016.000.554 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES JUNE 20 23,830.06 51506305 001.016.000.523 MAY 2022 INMATE HOUSING 120,489.30 Total : 198,056.31 56928 6/2/2022 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM 2022#11 001.090.000.560 2022 EDSS GRANT REIMBURSEMENT: 202.58 Total : 202.58 56929 6/2/2022 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED SP220087-IN 311.000.333.595 PROJECT 333 MATERIAL TESTING 4,837.77 Total : 4,837.77 56930 6/2/2022 001660 TITAN TRUCK EQUIP CO INC 1321769 501.000.000.594 ACCESSORIES FOR THREE F150 TRU( 5,236.22 Total: 5,236.22 56931 6/2/2022 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 9906815648 001.076.302.576 MAY 2022 CELL PHONE/DEVICE CHAR 2,579.42 Total : 2,579.42 32 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 304,381.82 32 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 304,381.82 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06/02/2022 3:02:53PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundiDept Description/Account Amount 56932 6/3/2022 001606 BANNER BANK 5120 APRIL 2022 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBE 75.00 5120 APRIL 2022 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE INC: DC FLY -IN Ff 2,500.00 5120 APRIL 2022 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE INC: STATE OF TI 100.00 5120 APRIL 2022 001.011.000.511 SPOKANE LILAC FESTIVAL ASSN: REG 25.00 5120 APRIL 2022 001.011.000.511 RESERVATIONS.COM: LEGISLATIVE T 6,525.94 Total : 9,225.94 56933 6/3/2022 001606 BANNER BANK 5146 APRIL 2022 001.040.042.565 UNITED AIRLINES: ERIC ROBISON 343.20 5146 APRIL 2022 001.040.041.543 ALASKA AIRLINES: GLORIA MANTZ 1,624.01 5146 APRIL 2022 001.011.000.511 ALASKAAIRLINES: PAM HALEY 1,624.01 5146 APRIL 2022 001.011.000.511 ALASKAAIRLINES: ROD HIGGINS 1,624.01 5146 APRIL 2022 001.013.000.513 ALASKAAIRLINES: JOHN HOHMAN 1,624.01 5146 APRIL 2022 001.040.041.558 ALASKAAIRLINES: ADAM JACKSON 1,624.01 5146 APRIL 2022 001.040.042.558 DELTAAIRLINES: MATT REEVES 278.60 5146 APRIL 2022 001.040.042.558 ALASKAAIRLINES: M REEVES 139.00 5146 APRIL 2022 001.040.042.558 EXPEDIA: BOOKING DELTA & ALASKA 1 3.53 5146 APRIL 2022 001.040.042.558 ESKY.COM: LODGING AT PACIFIC HOT 691.09 Total : 9,575.47 56934 6/3/2022 001606 BANNER BANK 5153 APRIL 2022 001.033.033.518 AIR REPS: SERVICE CHECKER TOOL F 831.67 5153 APRIL 2022 001.040.042.558 FACEBOOK: AD FOR ARBOR DAY 2.41 5153 APRIL 2022 001.033.033.518 DEPT OF L&I: ELECTRICAL PERMIT 38 65.50 5153 APRIL 2022 001.016.000.521 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES: ELEC 65.50 5153 APRIL 2022 001.033.033.518 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES: ELEC 83.50 5153 APRIL 2022 001.040.044.558 APA 2022 ANNUAL CONFERENCE: C Bt 491.27 5153 APRIL 2022 001.040.041.543 FRED PRYOR CAREERTRACK: ERICA/ 199.00 5153 APRIL 2022 101.042.000.542 UDEMY INC: REGISTRATION FOR RYAI 14.16 Total : 1,753.01 56935 6/3/2022 001606 BANNER BANK 5112 APRIL 2022 001.076.301.571 THE HOME DEPOT: PARKS/RECREATIC 117.95 5112 APRIL 2022 001.076.000.576 SEATTLE MARRIOTT BELLEVUE: J BO" 432.82 5112 APRIL 2022 001.076.305.575 THERMAL SUPPLY: REPAIR SUPPLIES 106.93 5112 APRIL 2022 001.076.301.571 PARTY CITY: BALLOONS FOR ARBOR I 32.02 5112 APRIL 2022 001.076.301.571 HOBBY LOBBY: ARBOR DAY SUPPLIES 40.89 5112 APRIL 2022 001.076.304.575 SEATTLE MARRIOTT BELLEVUE: LODC 649.23 5112 APRIL2022 001.076.000.576 SEATTLE MARRIOTT BELLEVUE: LODC 649.23 Page: ~h 2I vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0610212022 3:02:53PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 56935 6/3/2022 001606 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued) Total : 2,029.07 56936 6/312022 001606 BANNER BANK 5161 APRIL 2022 001.016.016.521 LOWE'S: REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES F 497.39 5161 APRIL 2022 001.040.043.558 O'REILLY : FUNNEL TO REFILL FLUID F 3.26 5161 APRIL 2022 001.040.043.558 OREILLY: ANTIFREEZE FOR #4-007 14.15 5161 APRIL 2022 001.033.033.518 AUTO RAIN (SITE ONE): SPRINKLER SI 244.43 5161 APRIL 2022 001.033.033.518 LOWE'S: SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 134.38 5161 APRIL 2022 001.040.043.524 TIMBERLAND: RETURN BOOTS FOR C-179.69 5161 APRIL 2022 001.040.043.524 TIMBERLAND: RETURN BOOTS FOR C-179.69 5161 APRIL 2022 001.000.322.518 LA PLAZA DE MEXICO: LUNCH WIDIBB 35.66 5161 APRIL 2022 001.033.034.518 KEYS FOR WHITE ELEPHANT BLDG 13.61 5161 APRIL 2022 001.033.034.518 MORAN FENCE: TEMPORARY FENCIN. 163.50 5161 APRIL 2022 001.033.033.518 AUTO RAIN (SITE ONE): IRRIGATION R 57.27 5161 APRIL 2022 001.033.033.518 AUTO RAIN (SITE ONE): LANDSCAPE E 210.05 5161 APRIL 2022 001.033.033.518 LOWES: IRRIGATION REPAIR SUPPLIE 15.57 5161 APRIL 2022 001.016.016.521 EASY KEYS: KEYS FOR PRECINCT CU 35.48 Total: 1,065.37 56937 6/3/2022 001606 BANNER BANK 5138 APRIL 2022 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSLIST: EMPLOYMENT AD FORA. 25.00 5138 APRIL 2022 001.040.042.558 APA 2022 ANNUAL CONFERENCE: MIKI 491.27 5138 APRIL 2022 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSLIST: EMPLOYMENT AD 25.00 5138 APRIL 2022 001.018.016.518 APA: EMPLOYMENT AD -ASSOCIATE F 100.00 5138 APRIL 2022 001.013.015.515 MRSC: WSAMA MEMBERSHIP 60.00 5138 APRIL 2022 001.013.015.515 WSAMA 2022 CONFERENCE REGISTR 244.40 5138 APRIL 2022 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSLISTORG: EMPLOYMENT AD - 25.00 5138 APRIL 2022 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSLIST.ORG: EMPLOYMENT AD - 25.00 5138 APRIL 2022 001.018.017.518 MAILBOX CENTER 17.37 5138 APRIL 2022 001.040.044.558 NEOGOV: EMPLOYMENT AD -ASSOCIe 199.00 5138 APRIL 2022 001.090.000.518 CRADLEPOINT: RENEWAL OF NETCLO 180.00 5138 APRIL 2022 001.040.041.543 EVENTBRITE: SPOKANE WOMENS SUI 288.03 5138 APRIL 2022 001.040.044.558 PLANNING ASSN OF WASHINGTON: W 40.00 5138 APRIL 2022 001.033.033.518 DEPT OF L&I: ELECTRICAL WORK PEF 34.10 5138 APRIL 2022 001.016.016.521 DEPT OF L&I: ELECTRICAL PERMIT - P 18.00 5138 APRIL 2022 001.076.000.576 INDEED.COM: JOB POSTING FOR PAR 340.01 5138 APRIL 2022 001.090.000.518 AMAZON WEB SERVICES: COUNTY SI- 31.20 5138 APRIL 2022 001.040.041.543 EVENTBRITE: SPOKANE WOMENS SUI 288.03 5138 APRIL 2022 001.040.042.558 OFFICE DEPOT: SUPPLIES FOR ECON 77.31 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 06/02/2022 3:02:53PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 56937 6/3/2022 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued) 5138 APRIL 2022 001.040.042.558 OFFICE DEPOT: SUPPLIES FOR ECON 118.69 5138 APRIL 2022 001.040.044.558 ASSN OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MGRS: I 165.00 Total: 2,792.41 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 26,441.27 6 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 10 authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 26,441.27 Page: 3, vchlist 0 6/07/2022 11:33:29AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 9324 6/7/2022 008634 ALLEN, KEN 9325 6/7/2022 008635 BUCHANNON, ARILYN 9326 6/7/2022 008610 CADER, ANGELINA 9327 6/7/2022 008270 CHASE, HOLLY 9328 6/7/2022 008636 COMPUNET 9329 6/7/2022 008637 DIAL, BEVERLY 9330 6/7/2022 008638 FROST, JESSIE 9331 6/7/2022 008639 GETHSEMANE LUTHERAN CHURCH 9332 6/7/2022 008640 HARVEY, ANNETTE 9333 6R/2022 008641 MOTT, JESSICA 9334 6/7/2022 008642 PIERCE, DEBBIE 9335 6/7/2022 008643 POINTEK, CRYSTAL 9336 6/7/2022 008644 ROBISON, JORDAN Fund/Dept PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 Description/Account Amount DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 109 Total : SHELTER FEE & DEPOSIT REFUNC Total : SHELTER FEE REFUND: BROWNS Total : SWIM TEAM REFUND Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 110 Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, Total : SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND: WK Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: AUDITORIUM Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 111 Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 108 Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, Total : 52.00 52.00 175.00 175.00 40.00 40.00 60.00 60.00 52.00 52.00 75.00 75.00 312.00 312.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 CANCELLATION REFUND: FIRESID 210.00 vchlist 06/07/2022 11:33:29AM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 9336 6/7/2022 008644 008644 ROBISON, JORDAN (Continued) Total : 210.00 9337 6/7/2022 001627 STCU PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 205 52.00 Total : 52.00 9338 6/7/2022 006629 SUN CITY CHURCH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: RED SHELTER 300.00 Total : 300.00 9339 6/7/2022 008645 TAYLOR, JENNIFER PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 75.00 Total : 75.00 9340 6/7/2022 007491 VOLLAND, SAUNDRA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 REISSUE DEPOSIT REFUND: GREE 75.00 Total : 75.00 9341 6/7/2022 008646 WITTHUHN, KARISSA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 75.00 Total : 75.00 9342 6/7/2022 008647 WOODS, ALYSSA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREEN SHELTI 75.00 Total : 75.00 19 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 1,934.00 19 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,934.00 Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 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 May 31, 2022 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 382,013.03 $ 13,050.00 $ 395,063.03 Benefits: $ 214,290.72 $ 14,385.80 $ 228,676.52 Total payroll $ 596,303.75 $ 27,435.80 $ 623,739.55 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 Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 24, 2022 Mayor Haley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held virtually via Zoom, and also in City Hall Council Chambers with Council and staff attending in person. Attendance: Councilmembers Pam Haley, Mayor Rod Higgins, Deputy Mayor Tim Hattenburg, Councilmember Laura Padden, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Absent: Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Staff John Hohman, City Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager Bill Helbig, Community & Public Works Director Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director John Bottelli, Parks, Rec & Facilities Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chaz Bates, Planning Manager Gloria Mantz, City Engineer Mike Basinger, Economic Development Director Tony Beattie, Sr. Deputy City Attorney Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, a few moments of silence were observed. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, staff and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Peetz. It was moved by Councilmember Wick, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Peetz from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Hattenburg: said he spent some time last Tuesday at the Senior Center in CenterPlace; said there were over 100 people using the facility with lots of activities going on; went to the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) board meeting and workshop where they worked on the final plans for the I-90 Sprague Corridor; mentioned summer youth passes in conjunction with school districts; said October 1 summer youth passes will become permanent, which passes will be paid for by a grant. Councilmember Woodard: reported that he attended a Lemonade Day booth where the young entrepreneur was raising donations for SCRAPS; participated in the Spokane Elected Officials for GMA Subcommittee where it was determined after receiving letters of support, that they want to get the PTAC, (Planning Technical Advisory Committee) involved with some of the writing of the policies, that three PTAC meetings are already scheduled and once those meetings are held, they will resume July 6 to try to get those policies which will direct the growth for the next 20 years; said the Continuum of Care group decided they needed more time to get the RFP (Request for Proposal) out so everyone can make comments and know who the three are who applied for the job of running of a shelter once one is determined, and to re -start the process for a shelter; and said the Innovia Foundation Launch was a good function. Councilmember Wick: said he also attended the Innovia Reception which was well received; went to a Visit Spokane Board meeting and they are starting their strategic planning efforts, and this year will do a joint strategic plan with the Public Facilities District and the Sports Commission; said they moved their office into the GSI Building so they will have an open house soon; said they will start to circulate their petitions Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 05-24-2022 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT soon; said we previously left the regional TPA (Hotel/Motel aka Tourism Promotion Area) and TPA was disbanded for the City of Spokane and the unincorporated County, so they have their petitions set and will start that process to get the TPA reestablished in the unincorporated area; said they will start to work with Liberty Lake to see if they will join the semi -regional TPA and that they decided to put more emphasis into the West Plains as they have 13 hotels in that area; said most of the graduation ceremonies have been shifted out of the Convention Center and the Arena and will be moved to the Podium; and that they have officially released the new Spokane Visitor's Guide. Councilmember Wick said he also attended the ribbon cutting for the new Tesla Service Center in Liberty Lake; went to the Lilac Festival; the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board continues discussions on how to advance different freight elements, and talked about truck parking; said our City's Farmers Market opens June 3 and that the Good Guys car show date has been moved to June 10-12 at the Fair & Expo Center. Councilmember Padden: said that the SRLJC (Spokane Regional Law and Justice Committee) discussed the new bylaws and public comment guidelines, and how to handle the less typical comments such as e- mail comments; said they determined the chair will have the option to read as many of those that can fit into the public comment timeframe; mentioned the position of Victim's Advocate is still open and said information can be found on the committee's website. Deputy Mayor Higgins: had no report. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Haley said she attended some of the same events as mentioned above, and that she and Deputy Mayor Higgins were in Washington, D.C. last week and was able to meet with Senator Cantwell's legislative assistant; said the Senate still meets mostly virtually and Congress meets in person; also met with Representative McMorris-Rodgers and her legislative assistant for transportation; said they were unable to meet with representatives of the U.S. Depaitinent of Transportation but they have set up a virtual meeting in a couple of weeks; met with Mr. Eric Smith, Director of the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Economic Development Administration; also met with Senator Patty Murray who is very supportive of our railroad crossing projects, so depending on how the funding goes, we might see some great announcements from the federal government in that regard. PROCLAMATION: n/a GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY I11: Mayor Haley explained the process, then invited public comments. Mr. Dan Allison, Spokane Valley: asked why when people comment at the meting, that they can't ask questions; said the other avenue is e-mails but many times those aren't answered; said there should be a way to get responses. At Mayor Haley's bidding, Mr. Hohman explained that Councilmembers have individual e-mails, and there is also a collective Council e-mail, which he and Mr. Lamb are also part of so there are times when he will respond on Council's behalf or a Councilmember will respond; said most e- mails comments are usually more technical with questions about projects and other issues that are more administrative; and mentioned that Council is working on updating the Governance Manual which could include how to further interact with citizens. Ms. Linda Klesch, Spokane Valley: she proposed Council form a parks advisory board to work under the Planning Commission so public meetings can be held to get community input; said she feels there is no input on parks and realizes many small cities have park boards; mentioned the financial difficulties with CenterPlace; said she went there and talked to people at the front desk; said no one knew there are financial problems; said the City started due to lack of communication from the County; said it has been frustrating, and said there are no parks in the area where she lives. Mr. Renault Patrick Evans, Spokane Valley: he encouraged people to become familiar with the US Constitution. Ms. Patricia Powell, Spokane Valley: voiced her concern with her neighbor's child shooting rabbits and other animals, and said she'd like to get an application like Spokane City has to stop that kind of shooting. Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 05-24-2022 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Ms. Peggy Doering, Spokane Valley: she invited everyone to Valleyfest which is going forward this year September 23-25, and the events will include the parade, as well as Cycle Celebration in July; and that she reported that this year they have an in -person court with three high school students to be ambassadors. Ms. Susanne Davis, Spokane valley: complained about loud traffic in her neighborhood with cars with no mufflers, or mufflers that sound like gunshots; suggested the need for flashing school signals on Broadway and Progress for the Progress Elementary School. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2022 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor Mayor Haley opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Finance Director Taylor went over the information contained in the Request for Council Action, explaining the proposed budget amendments. Mayor Haley invited public comments. No comments were offered and Mayor Haley closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. 2. First Reading Ordinance 22-008 Amending 2022 Budget — Chelsie Taylor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to advance Ordinance 22-008 amending the 2022 budget, to a second reading. Since the public hearing was just held, there were no public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 3. 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 May 24, 2022, Request for Council Action Form: $1,376,819.40 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period ending May 15, 2022: $422,413.29 c. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2022, Study Session d. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 10, 2022, Formal Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. 4. Second Reading Ordinance 22-006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Chaz Bates After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to approve Ordinance 22-006, Comprehensive Plan Amendments as proposed. Mr. Bates briefly went over the amendments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 5. Second Reading Ordinance 22-007 Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map — Chaz Bates After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to approve Ordinance 22-007, Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 6. First Reading Ordinance 22-009 Public Parking — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to advance Ordinance 22-009 to a second reading. City Attorney Driskell explained that this ordinance pertains to public property prohibitions. As Mr. Driskell explained the sections of the ordinance, on SVMC 9.40.030(D) and SVMC 9.40.050(B)(3), Council agreed that the time limit noted in both sections should be 24 hours. There was discussion about SCOPE providing enforcement with Mr. Driskell explaining that they would be willing to assist but we will be monitoring the effectiveness as this would be an increase on our volunteers' workload. Mr. Driskell also noted there is no master `no parking' schedule, that most of those area were established before we incorporated, but they will continue in to be in force, adding that staff is working to compile that data and hopes to bring a schedule to Council soon. There was further discussion concerning the cost of a ticket and whether the price would be set based upon cost recovery; that the price per case could vary depending if it went to court, and/or collections. Mayor Haley invited public comment. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: (via Zoom) said it seems like a lot of people work on their vehicles and store them on roads; said she has turned in cars out there but law enforcement only tags one Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 05-24-2022 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT out of three cars; mentioned cars on jacks; that she is aware SCOPE tries to help, and asked how to keep the apartment complex from telling their residents it is ok to work on cars. There were no other public comments. After further brief discussion concerning cost scenarios, Mr. Hohman said when this comes before Council for the second reading, staff will have a table showing different ticket costs for different scenarios so that we can determine how much to charge and have cost recovery; that staff will also bring more details about SCOPE including how many volunteers would be working, and enforcement effectiveness; said this could be a work in progress and that we could try it and then refine it later if Council decides. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 7. Motion Consideration: Barker GSP Change Order — Bill Helbig It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to authorize the City Manager to approve Change Order Numbers 3 and 7 with Max J. Kuney Company in the amount of $1, 031, 700 and $37,882.00 respectively. After City Engineer Mantz went over the background for this motion, Mayor Haley invited public comments. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: (via Zoom) said she understands that the Kuney company has done 22 change orders and asked if there is a way to put something in writing that when they bid, they can't do these change orders; having them makes it so they are not the lowest bidder. There were no other public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 121: Mayor Haley invited public comment. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: (via Zoom) said she went to CenterPlace this afternoon; that if that building loses $400,000 annually, multiply that by twenty years and that is $8 million; said it is rent free to those folks out there; she suggested figuring out a way to maybe break even, or even contract out, and said it is a nice place. There were no other public comments. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 8. Fire Department Monthly Report — Chief Soto Interim Deputy Fire Chief Jeff Bordwell gave a statistical report of fire department responses and incidents in Spokane Valley. 9. Accomplishments Report — John Hohman Mr. Hohman said this 2021 Accomplishments Report is a bit later than normal as we have had a very busy agenda these last few weeks; he noted as he previously mentioned to individual Councilmembers, tonight will not be a 90- minute presentation, and the PowerPoint included in the packet is a historic reference. Mr. Hohman said he challenged Department Directors to think about the tremendous amount of accomplishments over the year, and to give him the top two or three items to speak about. Some of the highlights Mr. Hohman mentioned included the 50 Council meetings last year; in the Finance Department, the clean opinion audits and handling of allotments of money from ARPA; the numerous projects including the most -needed Grade Separation Projects, Balfour Park project which included a robust public involvement with a packed room to get input on the design; he added that bids didn't go well so it will be re -bid in early January. Mr. Hohman mentioned the completed Browns Park, pavement management program and the Council appointments to the Streets Sustainability Committee which included a tremendous amount of public outreach; the Economic Development Department's continued marketing the City for new development and tourism; the permit center staff which issued an unusually high number of permits which even surpassed last year's unusually high number and he gave thanks to a dedicated staff. Mr. Hohman also noted the code enforcement cases processed and closed; special events; homeless issues along with the unique outreach team including a dedicated Police Officer working directly with individuals to try to get them the needed services; public safety and contract management, including an additional behavioral Health Unit officer; the much appreciated bike patrols; our close association with the County to work on the replacement of police vehicles; and he acknowledged the generous donations from individuals giving the City property and other donations. Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 05-24-2022 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Wick said the City accomplishments were impressive, despite the pandemic, and he extended congratulations. Councilmember Woodard stated that this City has the greatest staff as they do double the work of other cities with comparable staff numbers; and he thanked Mr. Hohman, said he very much appreciates staff's work and is looking forward to another fabulous year. Councilmember Hattenburg also extended congratulations of how well we have handled our financial situation and the taxpayer's money, and that we have an enviable budget. 10. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 11. Department Monthly Reports These reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: City Manager Hohman mentioned the ARPA allocation form distributed to Councilmembers; said that topic will be added to next week's agenda and in the meantime, staff is asking Councilmembers to fill out the spreadsheet with proposed allocations, much like done in the Outside Agency process; and to return the allocations form back to Deputy City Manager Lamb and/or Finance Director Taylor by Tuesday morning; he noted that once all forms have been submitted, staff will compile the information for next week's meeting. On another topic, Mr. Hohman mentioned that we have been asked to send another letter of support to the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs regarding the WASPC Mental Health Field Response Team Grant Program; and asked if there were any objections to having the Mayor sign a letter similar to the one sent last May. There were no objections. Mr. Hohman also noted that effective June 1, providing Zoom will no longer be a requirement, and he asked whether Council would like to continue Zoom. There was consensus from Council to continue providing Zoom. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m. ATTEST: Pam Haley, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes, Formal: 05-24-2022 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Study Session Meeting Tuesday, May 31, 2022 Mayor Haley called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. The meeting was held in person by Council and staff in Council Chambers, and also remotely via Zoom meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers Pam Haley, Mayor Rod Higgins, Deputy Mayor Tim Hattenburg, Councilmember Laura Padden, Councilmember Brandi Peetz, Councilmember (via Zoom) Ben Wick, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Staff John Hohman, City Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director (via Zoom) Cary Driskell, City Attorney Bill Helbig, Community & Public Works Dir. John Bottelli, Parks, Rec & Facilities Dir. Gloria Mantz, City Engineer Tony Beattie, Deputy City Attorney Dave Ellis, Police Chief Chaz Bates, Planning Manager Lesli Brassfield, Comm. & Marketing Officer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 22-008 Amending 2022 Budget — Chelsie Taylor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to approve ordinance 22-008 amending Ordinance 21-018, which adopted a budget for the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. Finance Director Taylor briefly went over the amendments to the budget. As a public hearing on this was previously held, there were no public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 2. Resolution 22-008 Re -setting Public Hearing for Street Vacation — Chaz Bates It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to approve Resolution 22-008, which amends Resolution 22-004, re -setting the date for a public hearing of street vacation STV 2022-0001 to July 14, 2022. Mr. Bates briefly went over the necessity for this Resolution, as stated in the Request for Council Action form. Mayor Haley invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 3. Motion Consideration: Sprague Barker Intersection Bid Award — Gloria Mantz It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to award the Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement Project CIP #0205 construction contract to Inland Asphalt in the amount of $1,873,378 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. City Engineer Mantz went over the background for this construction contract and bids. Mayor Haley invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 05-31-2022 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT 4. Motion Consideration: ARPA Fund Allocations — Erik Lamb, Chelsie Taylor Deputy City Manager Lamb said that there have been several past discussions with Council regarding ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act), including initial discussions based on conversations the subcommittee had with several stakeholders; he reminded Council that we have until 2024 to obligate the funds and until 2026 to spend them; he noted the worksheets completed by individual Councilmembers, which have now been compiled into the spreadsheet shown on the screen by Finance Director Taylor; he said this process will be similar to what Council used in the past to allocate grants to the Outside Agencies. Mr. Lamb also noted some funds have been previously allocated, including $750,000 for the Buckeye Sewer Project and $250,000 for internal City Costs; and $1 million for the Innovia Foundation. Mr. Lamb mentioned the total lost revenues the City may claim is approximately $10.8 million, however, he stressed the City has maintained a balanced budget throughout the entire pandemic, and never experienced a shortfall in providing City services. Mr. Lamb noted that he and City Manager Hohman met with Mr. Cal Coblentz of Spokane Valley Partners, and the site they identified in their proposal is not available so they are still looking for property; said discussions continue with Family Promise so there could be an opportunity for future collaboration. Mr. Lamb gave a broad overview of the categories as noted in his Request for Council Action, and Mr. Hohman pointed out that tonight's agenda item is just a starting point and it is staffs intent to put out an RFP (request for proposal), evaluate them, and then make changes as needed among the categories. After much discussion about fund replacement, land acquisition and the difficulty of finding appropriate land, sewer projects, road improvements, combining the categories of affordable housing and land acquisition; the intent to keep things as flexible as possible; helping Partners get into a larger space to have a kind of one -stop for assistance, Partners also combining with entities such as Meals on Wheels; and the Performing Arts Center. Mayor Haley invited public comment. [Deputy Mayor Higgins had initially made a motion, but it was, with the approval of Council, subsequently withdrawn.] City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned she received as a written comment, an e-mail from Ms. Vicki Greger, owner of Spokane Child Development Center, who asked Council to include childcare centers when they are discussing the allocation of the ARPA funds. Ms. Bainbridge said she would also send each Councilmember a copy of those written comments. Mr. Cal Coblentz of Spokane Valley Partners: confirmed that the Argonne Property, which he had been considering, is not feasible as it is too expensive; and he encouraged Council to make accommodations to make sure he can pursue that objective, although with different property; mentioned that Family Promise might be interested in moving into Spokane Valley and that he considers them a vital part of housing; and he asked that Council consider his proposal. A second speaker, a young woman who said she is a member of Spokane Alliance, spoke about the need to support mental health and quality and affordable childcare. A third speaker, also of Spokane Alliance, mentioned the demands of childcare including worker burnouts, and the high cost of childcare, and said there is a need for affordable childcare. A fourth speaker also spoke about the Spokane Alliance and the crisis in childcare, including the loss of many teachers as they suffer burnout and that families cannot afford tuition; she suggested providing funding for teachers and students, and perhaps vouchers for families. The last speaker, Mr. John Harding of Spokane Valley, said the issue is the pandemic and what it did to our school -age children and that most are damaged in ways that might not materialize until later; said the hospitals have full wards of young people with mental health issues and if there are any remaining funds, he would like to see schools involved to help students catch up after two years of dealing with a pandemic. Further Council comments included the idea of combining projects with Partners; that the spreadsheet shows an average allocation to the Performing Arts Center for more than their initial request, but it was mentioned that they did come in to speak to this issue; to allocate $500,000 for mental health and also for childcare; or to stay with the noted averages for each category. There was unanimous support to allocate Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 05-31-2022 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT $4 million for Partners. The idea was also broached to re -visit the land acquisition section after seeing the proposals that come in as a result of our Request for Proposals. Mr. Lamb said amounts can also be modified later if necessary. In looking at the second half of the spreadsheet, Councilmember Wick said he had no objection to skip the park amenities for now; they all agreed to remove the water projects, and to allocate $500,000 for mental health and also for childcare; and a majority were in favor of allocating $842,857, the average, for law enforcement; and to keep $1,379,386 as a placeholder for sewer extension/improvements. With the assistance of Finance Director Taylor, the final allocations show: Amount Available for Revenue Loss. for General Governmental Purposes: $785, 714 to Spokane Valley Performing Arts Center $4 million to Spokane Valley Partners for a New Facility And $5,998,535 for land acquisition for projects such as affordable housing For a total of $10, 784,249 Other CLFR Eligible potential Programs: $500, 000 for Mental Health Assistance (RFP) $500, 000 for Childcare Provider Assistance (RFP) $842,857 . for Law Enforcement Assistance $1,379,386 for sewer infrastructure extension/improvements Subtotal: $3,222,243 Grand Total Allocations: $14, 006, 492 It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to approve the allocation of $10, 784, 249 of CLFR funds to replace lost revenue of the City, to approve allocations of CLFR funds in the amounts identified on the final spreadsheet column for the general purposes identified therein, and to authorize the City Manager to take such other action necessary to procure proposals for City Council consideration in the categories as appropriate. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 4a. Resolution 22-009: Approving 2022 Amended Master Fee Schedule — Tony Beattie, Cary Driskell It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to approve Resolution No. 22-009 repealing and replacing Resolution No. 22-003, and adopting the Master Fee Schedule as reflected in the attachment. Deputy City Attorney Beattie explained about the scrivener's error in Schedule G of the Master Fee Schedule, that the error relates to omitting the words 'per sq ft' in that section, thus suggesting a much lower fee than was approved by Council; and that the purpose of this resolution is to resolve the clerical error and that is the only change being made to the Master Fee Schedule. Mayor Haley invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. NON -ACTION ITEMS: 5. Mirabeau Vacant Parcel — John Bottelli Director Bottelli explained that Council requested information about the vacant Mirabeau parcel, including how many parking spaces it could potentially hold. Mr. Bottelli noted the attached exhibit which shows an example parking layout with required accessible stalls, stormwater drainage areas, landscaping space, and a Mirabeau Parkway crosswalk with pedestrian access to the existing parking lot at Mirabeau Meadows; and noted an additional recommendation from the Traffic Department would be to expand the speed reduction area from 35 to 25. There was brief discussion about possible uses of that area. City Manager Hohman reminded Council that this is just an information piece as staff is not asking Council to do anything nor is staff advocating for a particular use; said in the past there was a proposal for a restaurant, or a place for bike rentals, or even an ice cream shop, but the person who was championing that is no longer with us. In response to Councilmember Woodard's question if the area could be used for parking without asphalt, Mr. Hohman replied it could not; that to allow parking it would need full improvements, asphalt, stormwater, etc. Councilmember Woodard asked if staff could contact State Parks to see if they would be Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 05-31-2022 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT interested in connecting the two parking spots, and Mr. Hohman said he can take a look at that as well as get a potential cost estimate if Council is interested. There was no consensus for staff to do that so Mr. Hohman said the area will be left as it is for now. 6. Signal Box Art Wraps — Lesli Brassfield After Ms. Brassfield went through her PowerPoint presentation explaining about the art wraps, Mr. Hohman asked if Council would like to have input on art selections, and they confirmed they would. 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 8. Information Only Items The County Wide Planning Policies Draft amendment, and Police Department Monthly Report were for information only and were not reported or discussed. 9. Council Comments — Mayor Haley There were no additional Council comments. 10. City Manager Comments — John Hohman City Manager Hohman said that he received a request from the Performing Arts Center for a letter of support for two grants they are applying for with the Washington State Department of Commerce, and if Council agrees, said staff will draft a letter for the Mayor's signature, which letter is due Friday; he mentioned a stakeholders survey would also be circulated to Council. There were no objections to have the Mayor sign and send the support letter. Mr. Hohman also noted the budget workshop is set for June 14 beginning at 8:30 a.m. and continuing to about 2:30 or 3:00 p.m.; and that following that, there will be a special meeting at 4:00 p.m., which has several items on the agenda, and that the 4:00 p.m. meeting will take the place of the regular 6:00 p.m. meeting; he also noted the June 21 Council meeting will be cancelled as Council attends the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) conference in Vancouver. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. ATTEST: Pam Haley, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 05-31-2022 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 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: Second reading — Proposed Ordinance 22-009 - Parking regulations and enforcement on public rights -of -way. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 46.61.570; WAC 308-330-462; WAC 308-330-265; WAC 308- 330-270; chapter 46.55 RCW; 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; April 13, 2021, administrative report on parking issues, including discussion on authority to establish areas in the City where parking is prohibited; October 19, 2021, administrative report on authority to impose parking prohibitions; March 15, 2022, administrative report; May 24, 2022 first reading. BACKGROUND: In Council meetings throughout 2021, the City received citizen comments relating to parking issues in certain areas, primarily in residentially zoned areas. At the October 19, 2021 meeting, Council stated that it wanted to clarify the respective responsibility between Council and staff for the establishment of site -specific parking prohibitions; and Council determined that staff would be responsible for imposing certain traffic safety prohibitions, and Council would approve areas where parking is prohibited based upon public policy criteria. Proposed SVMC 9.40.010 identifies the authority staff would have pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 308-330-265(11-13) to establish or remove parking prohibitions in limited circumstances. Proposed SVMC 9.40.020 identifies the authority Council would have to establish parking prohibitions in all other areas of the City, including certain criteria Council should consider when deciding whether to add or remove parking prohibitions under this section. Proposed SVMC 9.40.030 states that parking in an area identified in SVMC 9.40.010 or .020, would be a violation subject to a fine, and if left for a short period of time would be subject to impoundment. Council determined on May 24 that period of time should be 24 hours. Proposed SVMC 9.40.040 would prohibit parking a junk vehicle, as defined by SVMC 7.05.020, on the right-of-way, regardless of whether the junk vehicle is subsequently moved to a different portion of the right-of-way. In other words, the City would not be chasing them around a neighborhood as they move a few feet each day. The vehicle must be moved to private property or out of the City to avoid having it impounded. Similarly, this section would prohibit any vehicle with a vehicle registration from the state that is expired more than 45 days, from parking in the public right-of-way. Lastly, it would prohibit the parking of a vehicle within 15 feet on either side of a US Postal Service mailbox. Proposed SVMC 9.40.050 would establish a daily $50 fine for a violation of SVMC 9.40.030 and .040. Please note that this proposed amount was increased from $30 to $50 following clarification from District Court that the current cost per case of $47.84 applies whenever a citation is issued, regardless of whether they immediately pay at the window, contest it, or fail to appear. As such, and in the interest of cost recovery, the proposed fine amount has been increased to $50 per day. All fines collected by District Court would be paid directly to the City. Pursuant to existing Court policy, an additional $25 fee is imposed for failing to appear or respond, which would also be paid to the City. If it remains unpaid after 35 days, the Court will send it to collections to attempt to collect the City's $75, plus any additional collection costs. For similar violations, Spokane County imposes a fine of $30, City of Spokane imposes a fine of $45, and Liberty Lake charges $250. It is likely Liberty Lake is trying to get full cost recovery, including their law enforcement costs in enforcing their provisions. As discussed more below, Spokane Valley intends to first attempt to use SCOPE volunteers in an expanded role and, as such, is unlikely to have the same enforcement costs that Liberty Lake does. If Spokane Valley later decides it needs to hire additional personnel for enforcement, we can reconsider the fine amount as to whether it should be increased for greater cost recovery to include the enforcement personnel. At Council's direction, the current intent is to use SCOPE in an expanded role for parking enforcement. Currently, calls come to SREC or Crime Check. The majority of parking enforcement consists of three SCOPE volunteers who operate two days per week to address illegally parked, abandoned, and junk vehicle complaints. They issue parking infractions, tag vehicles if not moved, and request that vehicles be towed when appropriate. The exception to this is Spokane Valley Fire has several personnel who are trained and specially commissioned to issue tickets for parking violations in fire lanes. Once Council adopts Ordinance 22-009, there will be a short period of time to implement the Code, primarily to draft a new citation ticket, which must then be approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts following adoption. Lastly, the City has received the data regarding the location of all existing signs related to parking prohibitions or limitations, and is converting that to a GIS (geographic information system) layer for use in drafting a Master Parking Prohibition Schedule. This will be attached to a future resolution for adoption as the Master Parking Prohibition Schedule, but it is not ready at this time. The existing language in proposed Ordinance 22-009 will allow the City to enforce these provisions until the subsequent resolution is adopted. OPTIONS: (1) Approve Ordinance 22-009 as drafted; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve Ordinance 22-009 as proposed. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint, Proposed Ordinance 22-009. Parking on public rights -of -way Cary Driskell City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley June 14, 2022 City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney i Infraction case cost The cost per infraction case is $47.84 for District Court to process. $47.84 if paid immediately; $47.84 if paid late; $47.84 if it goes to collections for non-payment. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Increase of proposed fine amount As a consequence, we are proposing that the fine amount increase to $50 per day instead of $3o per day. For equivalent violations, Spokane County charges $30, and Spokane charges $45. Liberty Lake charges $25o per violation, which indicates they are attempting to recover costs of enforcement as well as court costs. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Funds received by the City Infraction paid within 35 days = $5o fine Infraction paid after 35 days (pre -collection) = $5o fine + $25 late fee. Infraction unpaid after approximately 65 days = $5o fine + $25 late fee + all collection costs because it is assigned to collections. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Enforcement for COSV - SCOPF SCOPE currently provides most parking enforcement. Consists of three volunteers working twice a week, Monday and Thursday. Council previously directed staff to attempt to use SCOPE in an expanded role for the additional prohibitions associated with new code sections. Staff will meet with new SCOPE Director on implementation after adoption. Staff will report back to Council on whether expanded use of SCOPE will meet the enforcement needs of the City, or whether we need to consider other options. Additional parking enforcement related to fire lanes provided by Spokane Valley Fire Department personnel. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Master Parking Prohibition Schedule City anticipated having the current no parking areas compiled into a list for adoption byresolution as a Master ParkingProhibition Schedule at the same time22-oo as adoption of Ordinance . 9 We have the data compiled from the street scan but have not yet compiled it into a comprehensive list on our Geographic Information System GIS). The language in Ordinance 22-oo9 will allow us to adopt the Schedule later without compromising enforceability in the meantime. Staff will bring forward the resolution adopting the Master Parking Prohibition Schedule in the near future. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 22-009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 9.40 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING PROHIBITIONS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 9.05 SVMC, the City has adopted the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance, Chapter 308-330 WAC, as the traffic code of the City of Spokane Valley, which authorizes the City Council and the Traffic Engineer to determine and designate site -specific parking prohibitions in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to identify all previously -adopted site -specific parking prohibitions applicable on City roads, in a format that is more accessible and easier to use for the public. The new format is referred to as the "Master Parking Prohibition Schedule," and may be amended periodically pursuant to criteria in City Code and Washington law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authority pursuant to RCW 46.61.570 and WAC 308-330-270 to establish general and site -specific parking prohibitions, which is an exercise of power of the City to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, RCW 46.61.570 currently contains many specific prohibitions or limitations on where and when people may park on public rights -of -way. City Council now desires to establish additional site -specific parking prohibitions beyond those that are statutory for reasons of public policy, efficiency, or convenience, and to create appropriate criteria for the establishment of the same; and WHEREAS, the Senior Traffic Engineer has conducted or will conduct an engineering and traffic investigation for all proposed changes to site -specific parking prohibitions pursuant to WAC 308-330-270; and WHEREAS, the Senior Traffic Engineer has authority pursuant to WAC 308-330-265(11-13) to determine and designate site -specific parking prohibitions in certain circumstances and maintain and erect signs and signals indicating the same to enhance safe and efficient movement of traffic; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authority pursuant to RCW 46.55.240 to adopt ordinances concerning authorized, abandoned, or impounded vehicles, authorize impoundment upon the public right- of-way, and establish a written form of authorization to impound, including but not limited to a law enforcement notice of infraction or citation; and WHEREAS, City Council further desires to adopt and implement parking restrictions relating to parking in a manner that interferes with delivery by the United States Postal Service on public rights -of - way. NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt chapter 9.40 SVMC to establish general and site -specific parking prohibitions in the City. Ordinance 22-009 Adopting Chapter 9.40 SVMC — Parking Page 1 of 5 DRAFT Section 2. Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 9.40 is hereby adopted as follows: Chapter 9.40 PARKING PROHIBITIONS. SVMC 9.40.005. Definitions. The definitions in Title 46 RCW shall apply to chapter 9.40 SVMC unless otherwise specifically identified within this chapter. SVMC 9.40.010. Traffic Engineer Authority to Establish Site -Specific Parking Prohibitions. A. Pursuant to WAC 308-330-265(11-13), the traffic engineer may establish, amend, or repeal site - specific parking prohibitions on public streets and highways pursuant to specified, limited circumstances in the interest of public safety. Site -specific parking prohibitions shall be appropriately marked and maintained pursuant to WAC 308-330-409. B. All site -specific parking prohibitions adopted pursuant to SVMC 9.40.010(A) shall be maintained in a Master Parking Prohibition Schedule, Subsection A: Site -Specific Parking Prohibitions —Traffic Engineer, however failure to adopt a Master Parking Prohibition Schedule or failure to list any specific area or areas shall not affect the enforceability of this section for violations. SVMC 9.40.020. City Council Authority to Establish Site -Specific Parking Prohibitions. A. City Council may, by resolution and following consideration of a report by the traffic engineer, establish, amend, or repeal site -specific parking prohibitions adopted pursuant to SVMC 9.40.020, which shall be appropriately marked and maintained pursuant to WAC 308-330-409. When determining whether to establish, amend, or repeal site -specific parking prohibitions, City Council may consider at least the factors including the following: 1. The relationship between the need for parking spaces for adjacent land uses, the purpose of the parking prohibition, and the need for parking spaces for the general public; 2. The interests of property owners, patrons, and prospective patrons of the places within the block or area served by the parking prohibition; 3. A detailed strip map of the area showing any State Route Mileposts (SR/MP), intersecting streets, and driveways, and other on -street or off-street parking alternatives; 4. Photos or video if available; and 5. The type of parking prohibition contemplated. B. When determining whether to establish, amend, or repeal site -specific parking prohibitions, City Council shall consider the report by the traffic engineer pursuant to SVMC 9.40.020(A), which shall include analysis of the following in the vicinity: Ordinance 22-009 Adopting Chapter 9.40 SVMC — Parking Page 2 of 5 DRAFT 1. The volume of traffic; 2. The volume of parking; 3. The width of the surface street and unimproved right-of-way; 4. Operational conditions identifying need for regulation of parked vehicles, including: a. Narrow shoulders, b. Limited sight distances, c. Roadway speed limit, d. Reported crashes susceptible to correction by parking restrictions; and 5. Comments by the City's Police Chief or designee and from the applicable Fire District. C. All site -specific parking prohibitions adopted pursuant to SVMC 9.40.020(A) shall be maintained in a Master Parking Prohibition Schedule, Subsection B: Site -Specific Parking Prohibitions —City Council, however failure to adopt a Master Parking Prohibition Schedule or failure to list any specific area or areas shall not affect the enforceability of this section for violations. SVMC 9.40.030. Site -specific parking prohibitions in violation of Master Parking Prohibition Schedule. A. No person shall stop, stand, or park a vehicle within any site -specific no -parking zone listed in the Master Parking Prohibition Schedule. B. It is not a violation of SVMC 9.40.030(A) to stop, stand, or park a vehicle when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, when actively picking up or dropping off a passenger(s), or in compliance with the law, directions of a police officer, or official traffic control device. C. In addition to potential impoundment, vehicles stopped, standing, or parked in violation of SVMC 9.40.030(A) are subject to the fine pursuant to SVMC 9.40.050. D. If a vehicle remains stopped, standing, or parked in violation of SVMC 9.40.030(A) for 24 hours after the original notice of violation and fine, the vehicle is subject to impoundment pursuant to RCW 46.55.085. E. All impoundment procedures for SVMC 9.40.030 shall be governed by chapter 46.55 RCW. SVMC 9.40.040. Other parking prohibitions. A. No person shall stop, stand, or park a vehicle: 1. On a public right-of-way when that vehicle meets the definition of a junk vehicle pursuant to SVMC 7.05.020, regardless of whether the vehicle is subsequently moved to another area of public right-of-way. Ordinance 22-009 Adopting Chapter 9.40 SVMC — Parking Page 3 of 5 DRAFT 2. When that vehicle is parked on a public street and has an expired registration of more than 45 days pursuant to RCW 46.55.113, regardless of whether the vehicle is subsequently moved to another area of public right-of-way. 3. Within 15 feet on either side of any United State Postal Service mailbox, except when in the act of delivering or picking up mail or while actively picking up or dropping off a passenger(s). B. It is not a violation of SVMC 9.40.040(A) to stop, stand, or park a vehicle when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the law, directions of a police officer, or official traffic control device. C. Vehicles stopped, standing, or parked in violation of SVMC 9.40.040(A) are unauthorized vehicles subject to impoundment 24 hours after notice is posted on the vehicle pursuant to RCW 46.55.085. D. In addition to potential impoundment, vehicles stopped, standing, or parked in violation of SVMC 9.40.040(A) are subject to the fine pursuant to SVMC 9.40.050. E. All impoundment procedures for SVMC 9.40.040 shall be governed by chapter 46.55 RCW. SVMC 9.40.050. Parking prohibitions —fines. A. In addition to potential impoundment, vehicles stopped, standing, or parked in violation of chapter 9.40 SVMC are subject to a fine of $50 dollars per day. B. Notice of each fine that is assessed pursuant to chapter 9.40 SVMC shall be posted on the vehicle, and shall include: 1. The date of the original notice of violation and fine. 2. The date of the current notice of violation and fine. 3. A warning that the vehicle may be impounded if it is not moved within 24 hours after the original notice of violation and fine. 4. The assessment of the $50 fine, payable to the City of Spokane Valley. 5. Contact information for the City of Spokane Valley. 6. Information concerning an opportunity to appeal the assessment of violation and fine. Section 3. 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 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective five days after publication of the ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. Ordinance 22-009 Adopting Chapter 9.40 SVMC — Parking Page 4 of 5 DRAFT Adopted this day of June, 2022. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Pam Haley, Mayor Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 22-009 Adopting Chapter 9.40 SVMC — Parking Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 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 Ordinance No. 22-010 adopting amendments for junk vehicle, camping, and parking nuisances GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapters 7.05, 19.60, 19.65, and 19.160 SVMC PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of chapter 7.05 SVMC relating to nuisances in 2003; amended in 2005, 2006, 2008, 2012, 2017; and 2018. Chapter 17.100 relating to enforcement was recodified in its entirety in 2016. SVMC 7.05.045 was added as a new section in 2019 to address chronic criminal nuisance properties. Chapter 17.105 SVMC relating to unfit structures was added in 2018 to provide an alternative approach to addressing properties that have seriously degraded structures; June 1, 2021 Code Enforcement Program Overview; June 29, 2021 Administrative Report on Code Enforcement amendments - policy discussion on Council preferences; October 5, 2021 Administrative Report on Code Enforcement Program follow-up — Topic #1 Parking; October 12, 2021 Administrative Report on Code Enforcement Program follow-up — Topic #2 Camping; May 3, 2022 Administrative report on parking and related nuisances on private property. BACKGROUND: As a follow-up to the Code Enforcement Program overview presentation during the regular City Council meeting on June 1, 2021, staff initiated a broad discussion with Council during the regular City Council meeting on June 29, 2021, as to the specific issues and nuisances which are of concern to local residents, business owners, and property owners, as well as elected officials. City Council has had multiple follow-up discussions on a number of the topics. As a result of the discussions, staff drafted amended SVMC language for Council review related to junk vehicles, vehicle parking and storage on private property, camping on private property, and multifamily development parking. During the May 3, 2022 administrative report, Council considered a variety of topics and gave the following direction for the proposed nuisance amendments: - Consensus (5-2) to allow an exception to the junk vehicle prohibition for one junk vehicle behind a fence. - Consensus to add definition of unlicensed vehicle (expired or unregistered more than 45 days) and prohibition on unlicensed vehicles. - Consensus (6-1) to allow one recreational vehicle to be stored on private property - Consensus to limit the total number of operable vehicles to five, with an exception for additional drivers living at the property. - Consensus to allow 30 days for temporary permit for use of an RV. - Consensus to allow short-term tent camping (no more than 48 hours) up to four times per year. Council also discussed multifamily parking requirements, which will be considered separately through the standard Planning Commission process. Staff have incorporated the discussion from May 3, 2022 into proposed amendments for City Council consideration. One issue that has been identified for further discussion is whether boats should be included in the prohibition on private parking. Boats are not classified as "vehicles", and so if Council desires them to be considered, the prohibition would be modified to reference boats/vessels specifically. OPTIONS: Advance to a second reading, with or without amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 22-010, adopting amendments related to junk vehicle, vehicle parking/storage, and camping nuisances, to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager Bill Helbig, Community & Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance No. 22-010 2. PowerPoint presentation DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 22-010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 7.05 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NUISANCES AND OTHER UPDATES, AMENDING CHAPTER 19.65 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE USE, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020 and RCW 35.22.280(30), the City of Spokane Valley (City) is authorized to "declare what shall be a nuisance, and to abate the same, and to impose fines upon parties who may create, continue, or suffer nuisances to exist"; and WHEREAS, the City previously adopted chapter 7.05 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) in order to maintain a safe and healthy environment by regulating nuisance conditions that contribute to injury, illness, devaluation of property, and the incidence of crime; and WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 7.48 RCW, the City is authorized to obtain an order for a warrant of abatement of public nuisances that may exist within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has identified certain other conditions, including but not limited to storage of unlicensed and junk vehicles on private property, camping on private property, improper vehicle parking and storage on private property, and recreational vehicle use on private property, which contribute to injury, illness, devaluation of property, and the incidence of crime and it desires to regulate such conditions as nuisances; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the applicable nuisance provisions in the SVMC to provide necessary updates for the public health, safety, and welfare. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The City Council hereby finds it appropriate to amend the Spokane Valley Municipal Code provisions related to nuisances and to update other appropriate Code provisions related to nuisances and nuisance abatement procedures. Section 2. Amendment. The following sections of chapter 7.05 SVMC are hereby amended as follows. Any section of chapter 7.05 SVMC not identified herein shall remain unchanged. 7.05.010 Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of Chapter 7.05 SVMC is to create and maintain a safe and healthy environment for the citizens of the City by identifying and eliminating the conditions that contribute to injury, illness, devaluation of property, and the incidence of crime through the existence of nuisance conditions on public and private property. 7.05.020 Definitions. In addition to any definitions contained in Appendix A, the following words shall, for the purposes of Chapters 7.05 and 17.100 SVMC, be defined as: Ordinance 22-010 Regarding Nuisances Page 1 of 10 DRAFT "Days" are counted as business days when five or fewer days are allowed to perform an act required by Chapter 7.05 SVMC. "Days" are considered calendar days when more than five days are allowed to perform an act required by Chapter 7.05 SVMC. "Days" are counted by excluding the first day, and including the last day, unless the last day is a holiday, Saturday, or Sunday, pursuant to RCW 1.12.040, as now adopted or hereafter amended. "Determination of compliance" means a written determination by the city manager or designee that the violation(s) stated in the warning, voluntary compliance agreement, notice and order, stop work order, or other applicable order have been sufficiently abated so as to comply with the SVMC. "Graffiti" means an unauthorized marking, symbol, inscription, word, figure, design, or other inscribed material that has been placed upon any property through the use of paint, ink, dye, or any other substance capable of marking property. "Impound" means to take and hold a vehicle in legal custody pursuant to law. "Inoperable" means incapable of being operated legally on a public highway, including, but not limited to, not having a valid, current registration plate or a current certificate of registration. "Junk vehicle" means a vehicle meeting at least three of the following criteria: 1. Is three years old or older; 2. Is extensively damaged, such damage including but not limited to any of the following: a broken window or windshield, or missing wheels, tires, motor, or transmission; 3. Is apparently inoperable; 4. Has an approximate fair market value equal only to the approximate value of the scrap in it. "Nuisance" means a person's unreasonable or unlawful use of real or personal property, or unreasonable, indecent, or unlawful personal conduct or omission of conduct which materially interferes with, obstructs, or jeopardizes the health, safety, prosperity, quiet enjoyment of property, or welfare of others, offends common decency or public morality, or obstructs or interferes with the free use of public ways, places, or bodies of water. "Ongoing criminal activity related to the premises" means that (1) criminal activity is or has been occurring at the premises; or (2) criminal activity is or has been occurring near the premises and such activity has a reasonable and proximate connection to the premises, whether by owners, occupants, or persons visiting such owners or occupants. Examples of conduct or actions that constitute criminal activity occurring at or near the premises of the subject property include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Service of a search warrant by law enforcement personnel; or 2. Arrest of one or more individuals by law enforcement personnel during any 24-hour period; or 3. Commission of a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony at or near the premises and where there is a reasonable and proximate connection between the crime or criminal and the premises, including those visiting the owner or occupants of the premises; or 4. Visits by law enforcement personnel which occur based upon a reasonable belief by law enforcement that a crime is occurring or has occurred, but which do not result in any of the actions Ordinance 22-010 Regarding Nuisances Page 2 of 10 DRAFT identified in subsections (1) through (3) of this definition; provided, that visits alone may not form the sole basis for determining a premises to be a chronic nuisance premises. For purposes of this definition, service of warrants, arrests, or commission of misdemeanor or felony domestic violence shall not be considered criminal activity. "Person" means any public or private individual, sole proprietorship, association, partnership, corporation, or legal entity, whether for -profit or not -for -profit, and the agents and assigns thereof. "Person(s) responsible for a junk vehicle nuisance violation" means any one or more of the following: 1. The land owner where the junk vehicle is located as shown on the last equalized assessment roll; or 2. The last registered owner of the vehicle, unless the owner in the transfer of ownership of the vehicle has complied with state law; or 3. The legal owner of the vehicle. "Person(s) responsible for a nuisance violation" means the person or persons who caused the violation, if that can be determined, and/or the owner, lessor, tenant, or other person(s) entitled to control, use, and/or occupancy of the property and the abutting public rights -of -way. "Unlicensed vehicle" means a vehicle that is not displaying a valid license plate and/or current registration tabs, or which has a license plate but registration that has an expired registration of more than 45 days. "Vehicle," for the purposes of SVMC 7.05.04004, includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles. The term does not include devices other than bicycles moved by human or animal power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks, pursuant to RCW 46.04.670. "Vessel" for purposes of SVMC 7.05.040 shall have the same meaning as set forth in RCW 79A.60.010. 7.05.030 Compliance, authority and administration. In order to discourage public nuisances and otherwise promote compliance with Chapter 7.05 SVMC, the city manager or designee may, in response to field observations, determine that violations of Chapter 7.05 SVMC have occurred or are occurring, and may utilize any of the compliance provisions set forth in Chapter 17.100 SVMC. 7.05.040 Nuisances prohibited. No person, firm, or entity shall erect, contrive, cause, continue, maintain, or permit to exist any public nuisance within the City including on the property of any person, firm, or entity or upon any public rights -of -way abutting a person, firm, or entity's property. Prohibited public nuisances include, but are not limited to: A. Vegetation. 1. Any vegetation, or parts thereof, which hang lower than eight feet above any public walkway or sidewalk; or hang lower than 14 feet above any public street; or which are growing in such a manner as to obstruct or impair the free and full use of any public walkway, sidewalk, or street; or violate City clearview triangle regulations. The City shall be responsible for maintaining all vegetation placed by the City adjacent to a public walkway, sidewalk, or street. Ordinance 22-010 Regarding Nuisances Page 3 of 10 DRAFT 2. Any growth of noxious weeds or toxic vegetation shall be subject to Chapter 16-750 WAC as currently adopted and hereafter amended. B. Buildings, Structures, Fences. Buildings or portions thereof which are deemed dangerous or unfit pursuant to the SVMC (including all building and property maintenance codes and regulations as currently adopted and hereafter amended). C. Sidewalks. 1. Any protrusion, awning, or overhang that inhibits or obstructs use of a public walkway or sidewalk. 2. Any object, construction, or damage that inhibits or obstructs the surface use of a public walkway or sidewalk. 3. Accumulations of dirt or debris not removed from a public sidewalk. D. Accumulations of Materials, Garbage, Recyclables, Furniture, Machinery. 1. Building and Construction Materials. Any accumulation, stack, or pile of building or construction materials, including but not limited to metal, wood, wire, electrical, or plumbing materials, not associated with a current, in -progress project and not in a lawful storage structure or container. This provision does not apply to a designated contractor's yard. 2. Garbage, Recyclables, Compost, and Infestations. a. Garbage or recyclables not properly stored in a receptacle with a tight -fitting lid. b. Any accumulation of broken or neglected items, litter, salvage materials, or junk not in an approved enclosed structure. c. Creating or maintaining any accumulation of matter, including but not limited to foodstuffs or dead vegetation (excluding properly maintained residential compost piles). 3. Furniture, Appliances, Furnishings, and Equipment. a. Any broken or discarded household furniture, furnishings, equipment, or appliance not in an approved enclosed structure. b. Any enclosure which may entrap a human or an animal, including accessible refrigeration appliances that have not had the doors secured or removed. 4. Machinery and Equipment. Any broken or inoperable accumulation of, or part of, machinery or equipment not in an approved enclosed structure. SVMC 7.05.040(D)(4) shall include such machinery and equipment as boats, jet -skis, snowmobiles, aircraft, golf carts, and the like, but shall not include junk vehicles, which are regulated pursuant to SVMC 7.05.040(IsFP). E. Fire Hazards. Any stack or accumulation of newspapers, dead vegetation (excluding properly maintained compost piles), overgrown vegetation, cardboard, or any other paper, cloth, or wood products left in a manner that poses a substantial risk of combustion or the spread of fire, as determined by the fire marshal. F. Toxic or Caustic Substances. Improper storage or keeping of any toxic, flammable, or caustic substances or materials. Ordinance 22-010 Regarding Nuisances Page 4 of 10 DRAFT G. Smoke, Soot, or Odors. Allowing the escape or emission of any harmful smoke, soot, fumes, gases, or odors which are offensive or harmful to a reasonable person. H. Bodies of Water. 1. All stagnant, pooled water in which mosquitoes, flies, or other insects may multiply, excluding any City -approved structure related to storm drainage systems. 2. The polluting of any waterway, well, or body of water which is not subject to the jurisdiction of another federal, state, county, special purpose district or city agency. I. Holes. Any excavated or naturally occurring uncovered holes which are not marked, guarded, or otherwise secured, and which constitute a concealed danger. J. Attractive Nuisances. Any accessible nuisance which is attractive to children including, but not limited to, unattended machinery or equipment, unsecured abandoned or vacant buildings, open and unattended vehicle trunks, or other unguarded conditions or situations that could injure or trap a child. K. Noise. 1. Any noise or sound that, originating within a residential zone, intrudes into the property of another person that exceeds the maximum permissible noise levels pursuant to Chapter 173-60 WAC, as currently adopted and hereafter amended. Such noise or sound may include, but is not limited to, noise or sound created by use of a radio, television set, musical instrument, sound amplifier, or other device capable of producing or reproducing noise or sound; or in connection with the starting, operation, repair, rebuilding, or testing of any vehicle, off -highway machinery or equipment, or internal combustion engine. 2. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1): a. Normal use of public rights -of -way; b. Sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated by Chapter 173-62 WAC; c. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight and sounds that originate at airports which are directly related to flight operations; d. Sounds created by surface carriers engaged in commerce or passenger travel by railroad; e. Sounds created by warning devices not operating continuously for more than five minutes, or bells, chimes, or carillons; f. Sounds created by safety and protective devices where noise suppression would defeat the intent of the device or is not economically feasible; g. Sounds created by emergency equipment and work necessary in the interest of law enforcement or for health, safety or welfare of the community; h. Sounds originating from officially sanctioned parades and other public events; i. Sounds created by watercraft, except to the extent that they are regulated by other City or state regulations; Ordinance 22-010 Regarding Nuisances Page 5 of 10 DRAFT j. Sounds created by motor vehicles licensed or unlicensed when operated off public highways, except when such sounds are made in or adjacent to residential property where human beings reside or sleep; k. Sounds originating from existing natural gas transmission and distribution facilities; 1. Sounds created in conjunction with public work projects or public work maintenance operations executed at the cost of the federal government, state or municipality; m. Sounds created in conjunction with the collection of solid waste; n. Sounds created in conjunction with military operations or training; o. Sounds originating from organized activities occurring in public parks, playgrounds, gymnasiums, swimming pools, schools, and other public facilities and public recreational facilities during hours of operation; p. Sounds originating from agricultural activities. 3. The following shall be exempt from provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.: a. Sounds originating from residential property relating to temporary projects for the repair or maintenance of homes, grounds, and appurtenances; b. Sounds created by the discharge of firearms on authorized shooting ranges; c. Sounds created by blasting; d. Sounds created by aircraft engine testing and maintenance not related to flight operations; provided, that aircraft testing and maintenance shall be conducted at remote sites whenever possible; e. Sounds created by the installation or repair of essential utility services. 4. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., or when conducted beyond 1,000 feet of any residence where human beings reside and sleep at any hour: a. Sounds originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity; b. Sounds originating from the quarrying, blasting and mining of minerals or materials, including, but not limited to, sand, gravel, rock and clay, as well as the primary reduction and processing of minerals or materials for concrete batching, asphalt mixing and rock crushers; c. Sounds originating from uses on properties which have been specifically conditioned to meet certain noise standards by an appropriate City hearing body. L. Dust. Any disturbance of any land area, or permitting the same, without taking affirmative measures to suppress and minimize the blowing and scattering of dust, which unreasonably interferes with the peace, comfort, or repose of a reasonable person. This provision does not include permitted agricultural activities. M. Yard Sales. The holding or permitting of either: Ordinance 22-010 Regarding Nuisances Page 6 of 10 DRAFT 1. A yard sale on the same lot for (a) more than seven consecutive days; (b) more than two consecutive weekends; or 2. More than three separate yard sale events in one calendar year. The prohibition under this Section SVMC 7.05.040(M) shall only apply to dwellings, including but not limited to single family, multifamily, and duplex dwellings. N. Camping on Private Property. Camping on private property, including the use of tents and similar membrane structures, sheds, and similar rigid structures, trailers, vehicles, and recreational vehicles, and similar items for the purposes of sleeping, eating, cooking, sanitation, or other activities consistent with dwelling on private property. SVMC 7.05.040(N) does not apply to: 1. Legally established campgrounds and RV parks. 2. Temporary use of recreational vehicle with a valid City of Spokane Valley Temporary Use Permit pursuant to SVMC 19.65.130 and SVMC 19.160.040. 3. Periodic short-term use of a tent for camping purposes as part of an event, such as a children's birthday party, where there exists a legally established habitable dwelling. For the purposes of this section, short-term use shall not exceed 48 consecutive hours nor occur more than four times per calendar year. O. Improper Vehicle/Vessel Parking and Storage. This section shall not apply to legally established parking lots, outdoor storage areas, self -storage facilities, and similar permitted uses pursuant to chapters 19.60 and 22.50 SVMC, nor where a Temporary Use Permit has been issued pursuant to chapter 19.160 SVMC. This section does not apply to junk vehicles or unlicensed vehicles, which are subject to SVMC 7.05.040(P). 1. Vehicle/vessel storage and parking areas are permitted on a parcel in a single-family residential zone as an accessory use to a legally established dwelling. 2. Except as provided in this subsection, parking or storing more than five total vehicles/vessels on a parcel with a single-family dwelling is prohibited. A property owner or a tenant may park or store more than five operable vehicles/vessels when they provide sufficient proof of more than five licensed drivers currently residing at the property. 3. Parking or storage of more than one recreational vehicle on a single-family residentially zoned property is prohibited- PN. Junk Vehicles and Unlicensed Vehicles. All junk vehicles and unlicensed vehicles, or parts thereof, placed, stored, or permitted to be located on private property within the City limits. SVMC 7.05.040(PN) does not apply to: 1. Any vehicle or part thereof that is completely enclosed within a lawful structure so that it is not visible from the street or other public or private property; 2. Any vehicle or part thereof that is stored or parked in a lawful manner on private property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler or licensed vehicle dealer, and the private property is fenced pursuant to RCW 46.80.130; 3. A junk vchicic does not include a vchicic which is in the process of being repaired, as evidenced by the good faith efforts of the vehicle owner. This exception shall include having up to one "parts" vehicle, from which parts are being salvaged concurrent with the repair process for the vehicle being Ordinance 22-010 Regarding Nuisances Page 7 of 10 DRAFT excepted from compliance in this section. Good faith efforts of repair may include producing invoices showing work or parts purchased for repair or renovation within 30 days prior to issuance of the notice of violation, or a declaration under penalty of perjury that the vehicle is in the process of being repaired and has been worked on within 30 days prior to issuance of the notice of violation. This exception allows up to 60 days for good faith repair. Upon good cause shown, the city manager or designee shall have the discretion to grant one additional 60 day exception period pursuant to SVMC 7.05.0/10(N). Under no circumstance shall any good faith efforts of repair extend for more than 120 days, after which time this exception shall no longer apply. This exception shall apply to one vehicle and one parts vehicle per parcel of land per calendar year; 43. There shall be allowed as exceptions to SVMC 7.05.040(N?� up to twoone junk vehicles in R-1, R-2, and R 3, and R-4 zones, so long as they are completely sight -screened by maintained landscaping, a maintained landscaped berm, or fencing, as allowed pursuant to any currently adopted SVMC landscaping, berm, or fencing requirements pursuant to chapter 22.70 SVMC. O. Graffiti. Any graffiti on public or private property. RP. Development Code Violations. Any violation pursuant to SVMC Titles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and/or 25. Section 3. Amendment. The following sections of chapter 19.65 SVMC are hereby amended as follows. Any section of chapter 19.65 SVMC not identified herein shall remain unchanged. 19.65.130 Residential. A. Accessory Structures. 1. The combined building footprint of all accessory permanent structures in residential zoning districts shall be: a. Up to 1,000 square feet for parcels up to 10,000 square feet in size; or b. Up to 10 percent of the lot size for parcels greater than 10,000 square feet in size. 2. Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential zoning district. B. Dwelling, Accessory Units. Accessory dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. C. Dwelling, Caretaker's Residence. A caretaker's residence is limited to custodial, maintenance, management, or security of a commercial property and is only allowed accessory to another permitted use on site. D. Dwelling, Cottages. Cottages shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. E. Dwelling, Duplex. Duplex dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. F. Dwelling, Industrial Accessory Dwelling Units. Industrial accessory dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. G. Dwelling, Townhouse. Townhouse dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. Ordinance 22-010 Regarding Nuisances Page 8 of 10 DRAFT H. Manufactured Homes on Individual Lots. Manufactured homes on individual lots shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. I. Manufactured Home Park. Manufactured home parks shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. J. Recreational Vehicles. 1. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwelling units in any residential zone, except as permitted pursuant to Chapter 19.40 SVMC; 2. A recreational vehicle shall not be parked within a required front yard setback for more than 15 consecutive days and not more than 30 days cumulative in any 12 consecutive months; and 3. Upon issuance of a Temporary Use Permit pursuant to chapter 19.160 SVMC, gQuests may park and/or occupy a recreational vehicle on private property while visiting the occupants of a dwelling unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month period. 4. Upon issuance of a Temporary Use Permit pursuant to chapter 19.160 SVMC, applicants may utilize a recreational vehicle as temporary living quarters over the duration of construction activities related to a residence or otherwise legally permitted use of right, provided the applicant has an active building permit on file with the City of Spokane Valley. 5. The City Manager or designee may temporarily allow the use of a recreational vehicle as a temporary dwelling unit on private property for quarantine or similar purposes during pandemic events. Section 4. Other Sections Unchanged. All other provisions of chapter 7.05 SVMC and chapter 19.65 SVMC not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. 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 in 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 day of June, 2022. City of Spokane Valley ATTEST: Pam Haley, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 22-010 Regarding Nuisances Page 9 of 10 DRAFT Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 22-010 Regarding Nuisances Page 10 of 10 First Reading Ordinance No. 22-010 Amendments for Junk Vehicle, Vehicle Parking, and Camping Nuisances June 6, 2022 Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager Bill Helbig, Community & Public Works Director Spokane Valley Background Council discussion on June 29, 2021, October 5, 2021, and October 12, 2021 regarding various nuisance issues. Administrative report on May 3, 2022 regarding Junk/inoperable vehicle storage Vehicle (including RV) Parking and Storage on private property RV and tent camping on private property Multifamily parking issues Tonight: First reading on Ordinance No. 22-010 to adopt SVMC amendments for junk vehicles, vehicle parking, and camping on private property. 2 Junk Vehicles Current SVMC Junk vehicles prohibited Must meet 3 of 4 criteria Junk Vehicle exceptions: Exception for repairs Exception for two sight -screened junk vehicles 3 Revised SVMC per discussion on May 3 Keep definition of "junk vehicle" Add definition of "unlicensed vehicle" No license or registration, or expired registration greater than 45 days Prohibit unlicensed vehicles Modify Junk Vehicle exceptions: Delete repair exception. Exception for one sight -screened junk vehicle Vehicle Parking & Storage -Private Property Current SVMC No limits on number of parked vehicles on private property No limits on location of parked vehicles on private property 4 Revised SVMC Limit parking/storage so that it is only allowable as an accessory use to an established residential or otherwise permitted use Limit number of parked vehicles on private property No more than 5 parked or stored operable vehicles Exception where owner/tenant can demonstrate more than 5 licensed drivers residing at property. No more than 1 RV Discuss "vessels" (boats) No limit on locations where vehicles may be parked RV & Tent Camping on Private Property Current SVMC No clear statement prohibiting camping on private property May reside in RV for up to 30 days each year No regulations addressing other types of camping on private property (such as use of tents) 5 Revised SVMC Prohibit camping subject to following exceptions: Allow use of RV for living purposes with valid temporary use permit Permit for up to 30 days Longer stays for temporary use of RV during construction projects (i.e., live in RV while constructing or renovating house) Emergency allowance (such as during pandemic) Allow short-term use of tent/similar set-up for limited social purposes, such as kids' birthday Only when there is already established habitable residence No more than 48 hours No more than 4 times per year Questions? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution #22-011 Amending the Master Speed Limit Schedule GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 9.05.030 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On July 24, 2018, Council approved Resolution #18- 006 which updated the Master Speed Limit Schedule. BACKGROUND: In the spring of 2021, City Council requested staff to install a school zone flashing beacon at all schools identified as candidates by a prior preliminary evaluation. Staff coordinated with the affected schools, including Greenacres Middle School. This location does not currently have an established reduced speed limit school zone and requires the establishment of new school zones on three streets. Additionally, there is one school zone currently signed which is not identified in the Master Speed Limit Schedule, which is on Ella Road north of Broadway Avenue. Finally, the existing school zone on 4th Avenue east of Long Road needs to be expanded to accommodate the school zone flashing beacon installation. Modified or added school zones are identified below: ■ Tschirley Road from Sprague Avenue to Main Avenue ■ Main Avenue from 300 feet west of Tschirley Road to Tschirley Road ■ Corbin Road from Appleway Avenue to 200 feet north of Cowley Avenue ■ Ella Road from Broadway Avenue to Desmet Avenue ■ 4th Avenue from 300 feet west of Long Road to 100 feet east of Moen Street In addition, there are five school zones identified for removal from the Schedule to remain in compliance with the RCW governing school zone establishment. These zones are listed below: ■ 4th Avenue from 300 feet west of Bradley Road to 300 feet east of Coleman Road ■ Barker Road from 750 feet south of Mission Avenue to 300 feet north of Mission Avenue ■ Mission Avenue from Barker Road to 500 feet east of Barker Road ■ Broadway Avenue from 400 feet west of Farr Road to 400 feet east of Farr Road ■ McDonald Road from 7th Avenue to 5th Avenue A further review of the Schedule resulted in the following additional proposed revisions: ■ Progress Road from Wellesley Avenue to Crown Avenue; reduce from 35 mph to 25 mph ■ Barker Road from Euclid Avenue to SR-290; reduce from 40 mph to 35 mph ■ Indiana Avenue from 1-90 ramp to Indiana Parkway; reduce from 35 mph to 30 mph OPTIONS: Move to approve the amended speed limit schedule or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution #22-011 repealing and replacing Resolution #18-006, and amending the Master Speed Limit Schedule. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no anticipated financial impact. School zone signs and speed limit signs will be installed as part of routine annual maintenance and the School Zone Flashing Beacon project is already included in the budget. STAFF CONTACT: Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #22-011— redlined version. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 22-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN AMENDED MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City Council from time -to -time may modify speed limits and speed zones to better reflect changing traffic conditions and roadway characteristics; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 9.05.030, which, in part, provides that the maximum speed limits for streets can be established by ordinance or resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authority under SVMC 9.05.030 to change speed limits, provided that such alteration shall be made on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, be reasonable and safe, and in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this City; and WHEREAS, the City's Traffic Engineer has done an engineering and traffic investigation of the roadway segments identified below and recommends that they be modified in the Master Speed Limit Schedule: • Tschirley Road from Sprague Avenue to Main Avenue • Main Avenue from 300 feet west of Tschirley Road to Tschirley Road • Corbin Road from Appleway Avenue to 200 feet north of Cowley Avenue • Ella Road from Broadway Avenue to Desmet Avenue • 4th Avenue from 300 feet west of Long Road to 100 feet east of Moen Street • 4th Avenue from 300 feet west of Bradley Road to 300 feet east of Coleman Road • Barker Road from 750 feet south of Mission Avenue to 300 feet north of Mission Avenue • Mission Avenue from Barker Road to 500 feet east of Barker Road • Broadway Avenue from 400 feet west of Farr Road to 400 feet east of Farr Road • McDonald Road from 7th Avenue to 5th Avenue • Progress Road from Wellesley Avenue to Crown Avenue; reduce from 35 mph to 25 mph • Barker Road from Euclid Avenue to SR-290; reduce from 40 mph to 35 mph • Indiana Avenue from I-90 ramp to Indiana Parkway; reduce from 35 mph to 30 mph WHEREAS, these changes will be listed in the Master Speed Limit Schedule adopted by the City. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Adoption of the Master Speed Limit Schedule. The Master Speed Limit Schedule, as set forth below, is adopted. Section 2. Repeal. To the extent that any previous actions to establish speed limit signs are inconsistent with those set forth herein, specifically including Resolution 18-006, they are repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Resolution 22-011 Adopting Master Speed Limit Schedule Page 1 of 5 DRAFT Adopted this day of June, 2022. City of Spokane Valley Pam Haley, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 22-011 Adopting Master Speed Limit Schedule Page 2 of 5 DRAFT MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE School Speed Zones SCHOOL SPEED ZONES The following road sections have been designated as school zones. The maximum speed allowable on the said road sections shall be 20 miles per hour as designated with any of the signage options pursuant to Washington Administrative Code section 392-151-035 as adopted or amended. The Council shall establish any changes to speed limits or school speed zones by resolution. TWENTY MILES PER HOUR: 4th AVENUE from 600 feet west of Adams Road to 300 feet east of Adams Road; from 300 feet west of Bradley Street to 300 feet cast of Coleman Street; and from 300 feet west of Long Road to 100 feet east of Moen Street. 8th AVENUE from 300 feet west of Adams Road to 800 feet east of Adams Road. 9th AVENUE from Herald Road to Felts Road. 10th AVENUE from Wilbur Road to Union Road. 12th AVENUE from Wilbur Road to Union Road. 16th AVENUE from 300 feet west of University Road to 300 feet east of Glenn Road; from Woodlawn Road to Clinton Road; and from 300 feet east of Bolivar Road to 200 feet west of Warren Road. 24th AVENUE from Union Road to Pines Road and from 300 feet west of Calvin Road to 200 feet east of Adams Road. 32°d AVENUE from 300 feet west of Pines Road to Woodlawn Road. ADAMS ROAD from 9th Avenue to 350 feet north of 4th Avenue and from 850 feet north of 24th Avenue to 24th Avenue. ALKI AVENUE from Glenn Road to Pierce Road and from 100 feet west of Pines Road to Pines Road from 800 feet east of Wilbur Road to 600 feet west of SR-27. BARKER ROAD from 750 feet south of Mission Avenue to 300 feet north of Mission Avenue. BOONE from 300 feet west of Farr Road to 300 feet east of Farr Road. BOWDISH ROAD from 20th Avenue to 24th Avenue and from 300 feet south of 1 1th Avenue to 300 feet north of l tth Avenue. BRADLEY ROAD from 5th Avenue to 3' Avenue. BROADWAY AVENUE from 100 feet west of Farr Road to 100 feet east of Farr Road; from 100 feet west of VanMarter Road to Johnson Road; from 300 feet west of Progress Road to St. Charles Road; from 400 feet east of McDonald Road to Blake Road; from 300 feet west of Felts Road to 300 feet east of Felts Road; from 300 feet west of Ella Road to 300 feet east of Ella Road; and from 400 feet east of Wilbur Road to 650 feet west of SR-27. BUCKEYE AVENUE from 200 feet east of Park Road to 350 feet east of Center Road. CATALDO from Rudolf to MacArthur. CENTER ROAD from Marietta Avenue to Utah Avenue. CIMMARON DRIVE from Sunderland Drive to 300 feet east of Woodruff Road. COLEMAN ROAD from 5th Avenue to 3' Avenue. CORBIN ROAD from Appleway Boulevard to M00 feet north of Cowley Avenue. ELLA ROAD from Broadway Avenue to Desmet Avenue. FARR ROAD from 300 feet south of Valleyway Avenue to 350 feet north of Valleyway Avenue. FLORA ROAD from 600 feet south of Wellesley to Wellesley Avenue. HERALD ROAD from 1 1th Avenue to 9th Avenue. LONG ROAD from 300 feet south of 4th Avenue to 2nd Avenue and from 650 feet south of Mission Avenue to 150 feet north of Mission Avenue. MacARTHUR from Boone to Cataldo. MAIN AVENUE from 300 feet west of Tschirley Road to Tschirley Road. MCDONALD ROAD from Broadway Avenue to Cataldo Avenue; and from 350 feet south of 16th Avenue to 14th Avenue; and from 7' Avenue to 5" Avenue. Resolution 22-011 Adopting Master Speed Limit Schedule Page 3 of 5 DRAFT MISSION AVENUE from 500 feet west of Bowman Road to Park Road; from SR-27 to 750 feet east of SR- 27; and from 750 feet east of Long Road to 350 feet east of Long Road; and from Barker Road to 500 feet east of Barker Road. PARK ROAD from 300 feet south of Mission Avenue to Nora Avenue and from 100 feet south of Carlisle Avenue to 400 feet north of Buckeye Avenue. PINES ROAD from 25th Avenue to 23rd Avenue, from 40th Avenue to 500 feet north of 32"d Avenue, and from 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue. PROGRESS ROAD from 650 feet south of Broadway Avenue to Broadway Avenue and from Wellesley Avenue to Crown Avenue. RUDOLF from Boone to Cataldo. SCHAFER ROAD from 300 feet south of Cimmaron Drive to 300 feet north of Cimmaron Drive. SR-27 from 200 feet south of Mirabeau Parkway to 100 feet north of Pinecroft Way and from 300 feet north of Broadway Avenue to 300 feet south of Broadway Avenue. TSCHIRLEY ROAD from Sprague Avenue to Main Avenue. UNION ROAD from 12th Avenue to 10th Avenue. UNIVERSITY ROAD from 19th Avenue to 16th Avenue. VALLEYWAY AVENUE from 300 feet west of Marguerite Road to 150 feet east of Hutchinson Street. VISTA ROAD from Frederick Avenue to 200 feet south of Buckeye Avenue. WELLESLEY AVENUE from 700 feet west of Adams Road to 200 feet east of Burns Road and from Conklin Road to Flora Road. WILBUR ROAD from 12th Avenue to 10th Avenue. WOODRUFF ROAD from 300 feet south of Cimmaron Drive to 300 feet north of Cimmaron Drive. Playground Speed Zones PLAYGROUND SPEED ZONES The following road sections have been designated as playground zones. The maximum speed allowable on said road sections shall be as shown below when signs are in place. TWENTY MILES PER HOUR: MISSION AVENUE from 250 feet west of Bowdish Road to 1,500 feet west of Bowdish Road. TWENTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: MIRABEAU PARKWAY from 1,000 feet east of Pinecroft Way to 1,300 feet north of Mansfield Avenue. Speed Limits The following road sections have maximum speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour. THIRTY MILES PER HOUR: 3rd AVENUE from west city limits to Fancher Road. 8th AVENUE from Pines Road to Sullivan Road. INDIANA AVENUE from the I-90 eastbound Ramp to Indiana Parkway. INDIANA PARKWAY from Indiana Avenue to Flora Road. MISSION AVENUE from Pines Road to Sullivan Road and from Flora Road to Barker Road. MISSION PARKWAY from Indiana Parkway to Flora Road. MONTGOMERY DRIVE from Argonne Road to Dartmouth Lane. THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: lst AVENUE from Eastern Road to Thierman Road. 4th AVENUE from west city limits to Eastern Road. 8th AVENUE from west city limits to Park Road; from Dishman-Mica Road to University Road; and from Barker Road to Hodges Road. 16th AVENUE from Dishman-Mica Road to Sullivan Road. Resolution 22-011 Adopting Master Speed Limit Schedule Page 4 of 5 DRAFT 32' AVENUE from Dishman-Mica Road to Best Road. 44th AVENUE from Locust Road to Sands Road. APPLEWAY AVENUE from Sprague Avenue to east city limits. APPLEWAY BOULEVARD from Thierman Road to University Road. ARGONNE ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to SR-290. BARKER ROAD from south city limits to SR-290120 fcct n rth f Bridgcp rt Avcnuc. BLAKE ROAD from SR-27 to Saltese Road. BOWDISH ROAD from Sands Road to Mission Avenue. BROADWAY AVENUE from Havana Street to Flora Road. CARNAHAN ROAD from south city limits to 8th Avenue. DISHMAN ROAD from 8th Avenue to Appleway Avenue. DISHMAN-MICA ROAD from 300 feet south of 8th Avenue to Sprague Avenue. EUCLID AVENUE from Sullivan Road to Flora Road; from Flora Road to Barker Road; and from Barker Road to east city limits. EVERGREEN ROAD from 32" d Avenue to Indiana Avenue and from SR-290 to Forker Road. FANCHER ROAD from the Freeway (PSH No. 2) access on 3' Avenue to SR-290. FLORA ROAD from Sprague Avenue to Montgomery Avenue and from the north side of the Spokane River to Wellesley Avenue. INDIANA AVENUE from SR-27 to Indiana Parkway. INDIANA AVENUE from Sullivan Road to the I-90 eastbound Rampindiana Parkway. MADISON ROAD from Thorpe Road to Pines Road. MANSFIELD AVENUE from Montgomery Avenue to Mirabeau Parkway. MARIETTA AVENUE from Sullivan Road to Euclid Avenue. McDONALD ROAD from 16th Avenue to Mission Avenue. MIRABEAU PARKWAY from SR-27 to Indiana Avenue. MISSION AVENUE from Argonne Road to SR-27 and from Barker Road to east city limits. MONTGOMERY DRIVE from Daitniouth Lane to SR-27. MULLAN ROAD from Appleway Avenue to Indiana Avenue. PARK ROAD from Beverly Drive to Bridgeport Avenue. PINES ROAD from Madison Road to 16th Avenue. PROCRESS ROAD from Wellesley Avenue to Crown Avenue. RUTTER AVENUE from west city limits to Park Road. SALTESE ROAD from 16th Avenue to Blake Road. SANDS ROAD from 44th Avenue to Bowdish Road. SCHAFER ROAD from 44th Avenue to Dishman-Mica Road. SPRAGUE AVENUE from west city limits to east city limits. SR-27 from SR-290 to 500 feet south of 16th Avenue. SULLIVAN ROAD from Saltese Road to Wellesley Avenue. THORPE ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to Madison Road. UNIVERSITY ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to Mission Avenue. WELLESLEY AVENUE from McDonald Road to Flora Road. FORTY MILES PER HOUR: BARKER ROAD from Euclid Avcnuc to SR 290. SR-290 from west city limits to 1,200 feet west of University Road. FORTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: DISHMAN-MICA ROAD from south city limits to 300 feet south of 8th Avenue. SR-27 from 500 feet south of 16th Avenue to south city limits. FIFTY MILES PER HOUR: SR-290 from 1,200 feet west of University Road to east city limits. Resolution 22-011 Adopting Master Speed Limit Schedule Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution #22-012 S. Barker Corridor Rate Studies GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b); RCW 43.21C; RCW 82.02.050-.110; WAC 197-11; WAC 365-196-850; SVMC 22.100 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: December 15, 2020: Council approved Ordinance No. 20-026 to establish Transportation Impact Fees as part of CTA-2020-0005 and to adopt the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. December 22, 2020: Council approved Resolution No. 20-016 to update the Master Fee Schedule to include the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fees. March 22, 2022: Council approved Ordinance No. 22-005 to adopt the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study Addendum. June 6, 2022: Admin Report to Council; Council consensus to bring back for resolution approval BACKGROUND: Chapter 22.100 SVMC was adopted in December, 2020 and imposes impact fees in areas identified by adopted rate studies and in such amounts as identified in the rate studies and Master Fee Schedule. The South Barker Corridor is an established impact fee area. Impact fees in the South Barker Corridor are based specifically on trips originating in the City of Spokane Valley and may only be directly applied to developments permitted within the City of Spokane Valley. The implementation of impact fees outside of the City requires an interlocal agreement with the permitting jurisdiction. Staff contracted with a transportation engineering and planning firm, Fehr & Peers, to complete two additional rate studies for the areas of the South Barker Corridor study area external to the City of Spokane Valley, which includes analysis zones in the City of Liberty Lake and Spokane County. These rate studies include a per -trip fee for the overall development as well as a fee rate per -unit -of -development. The rate studies are intended to be used a basis for subsequent interlocal agreements. The following list highlights the per -trip impact fees developed for the external areas as well as a comparison of the City of Spokane Valley per -trip impact fee. Transportation Impact Fee Area Cost per Trip City of Spokane Valley City of Liberty Lake Spokane County $1,153 per trip $ 657 per trip $3,859 per trip In addition to a per -trip of development or per -unit of development fee, an analysis was completed to develop a per -trip of corridor fee for each project along the corridor. This method of mitigation is an alternative to the overall development method to provide an alternative avenue for mitigation options. Tonight's discussion will include the process used to complete the Rate Studies and resultant fee rates to be applied towards new development in the external areas to the City of Spokane Valley. OPTIONS: Move to approve the resolution adopting the rate studies or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution #22-012 adopting the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake, the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County, and the South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no additional cost to the City if the proposed Rate Studies are adopted. Proposed impact fees are anticipated to generate up to $5.68 million of new revenue to be applied to transportation system improvements identified in the Rate Studies. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, Community & Public Works Director; Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineering Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution #22-012 2. South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake 3. South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County 4. South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 22-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY FOR LIBERTY LAKE, THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY FOR SPOKANE COUNTY, AND THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR IMPACT FEE COST PER TRIP BY SEGMENT; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted a Comprehensive Plan establishing the intent to utilize available funding sources to pay for capital improvements necessary as a result of new growth within the City, including use of impact fees for new developments to pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve such growth; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that those transportation facilities necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, or shortly thereafter, without decreasing current service levels below established minimum standards for the City; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, the City of Spokane Valley adopted Chapter 22.100 SVMC to establish and collect transportation impact fees as provided by adopted impact fee rate studies and the Master Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study to establish the rates in the Master Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 2022, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Addendum to South Barker Corridor TIF Rate Studies with ITE 1 1th Edition Trip Generation Rates South Barker Road to establish the rates in the Master Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, in January, 2022, the City completed the transportation impact fee rate studies for the South Barker Road for the transportation analysis zones (TAZ) in adjacent jurisdictions based upon the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, identifying the transportation impact fee rates for the South Barker Corridor; and WHEREAS, the adoption set forth below is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Resolution 22-012 Adopting South Barker Corridor Rate Studies Page 1 of 3 DRAFT Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Resolution is to adopt the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake, the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County, and the South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis to provide a reference to identify traffic impacts and resultant mitigation for added traffic related to developments in adjacent jurisdictions. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 22.100 SVMC was adopted enabling the collection of impact fees as assessed in impact fee rate studies based on traffic studies. B. Compliance with RCW 82.02.050-.110, WAC 365-196-850, and Chapter 22.100 SVMC 1. The proposed adoption of the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake, the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County, and the South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis establishes the recommended mitigation fee for added development vehicular trips and enables assessment of impact fees in adjacent jurisdictions with supporting interlocal agreements in accordance with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050-.110 and pursuant to Chapter 22.100 SVMC. 2. The proposed fees are for public street and road system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, do not exceed the proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, and will be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development within the South Barker Corridor, as identified in the Rate Studies and the underlying study. 3. The Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service. The City has conducted a comprehensive study and plan of traffic growth and necessary system improvements to support such growth for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas. Chapters 5 and 10 of the Comprehensive Plan identify use of impact fees as a funding source for necessary improvements. Section 3. Study Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake, the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County, and the South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis. The South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A". The South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "B". The South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "C". The South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake, the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County, and the South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis are incorporated by reference herein and incorporated in Chapter 22.100 SVMC as provided therein. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality Resolution 22-012 Adopting South Barker Corridor Rate Studies Page 2 of 3 DRAFT shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Adopted this day of June, 2022. City of Spokane Valley Pam Haley, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 22-012 Adopting South Barker Corridor Rate Studies Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A For th Barker T.rridor asportation e Riitte Study ,iberry e Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington Updated January 2022 SE21-0769/ DN21-0719 FEHRtPEERS 1111111111 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Study Area 2 Methodology 4 Project List 5 Travel Growth 6 Comparison to Liberty Lake Adopted impact Fee 8 Cost Allocation 8 Existing Transportation Deficiencies 9 Fair -Share Cost 9 Impact Fee Schedule 12 Trip Generation 12 Pass -By Trip Adjustment 12 Schedule of Rates 12 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 3 Figure 2. Impact Fee Methodology 4 Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation 9 List of Tables Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) 5 Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) 7 Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area 10 Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations 10 Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule 13 Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule 14 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 specifically for development near the corridor in Liberty Lake. A TIF Rate Study for development withing Spokane Valley that impacts traffic was adopted by City of Spokane Valley City Council on December 15, 2020. The need for a TIF is identified in the South Barker Corridor Study (Feb 2020, adopted by the City of Spokane Valley City Council on December 15, 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 Liberty Lake and growth from other parts of the region. Without improvements on this corridor the residents and businesses in Liberty Lake near Barker Road will experience the traffic impacts on South Barker Road as part of their daily travel. 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. The City of Spokane Valley understands that it cannot impose a GMA impact fee on another community, but the State Environmental Policy Act requires that all projects disclose traffic congestion impacts that result from implementation of the project and to identify feasible mitigation to reduce the significance of the impact. Therefore, this TIF rate study was prepared to calculate the fair share mitigation fee for Barker Road improvements that are required to support development in Liberty Lake. This TIF rate study uses the same methodology as the as the Rate Study prepared for Spokane Valley development that was adopted by City of Spokane Valley City Council on December 15, 2020; a similar TIF rate study has also been prepared for development in Spokane County. By using a consistent methodology, development in any jurisdiction along the Barker Road corridor can be assured they are paying their fair share for future capacity improvements. It is our understanding that some developers may not agree with the GMA-based impact fee identified in this report. Therefore, we have identified an alternative method to address the documented significant traffic operations impacts of development in Liberty Lake on Barker Road. Under this alternative methodology, a detailed traffic study would be required to track all trips generated by planned development that would use different sections of the Barker Road corridor and pay their fair share to the roadway and intersection improvements to meet Spokane Valley's LOS standard. A review of several sample projects indicates that this alternative analysis method generally results in a higher mitigation fee for developers and has substantial costs to hire a traffic engineer to prepare the study. Therefore, the City of Spokane Valley considers payment of the GMA-based fee to be a solid approach to promote development and economic activity in Liberty Lake but also ensure that Spokane Valley residents and development are not left with a disproportionate share of the cost to accommodate traffic and traffic - related impacts coming from Liberty Lake. 1 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 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 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 development in the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) also contributes to traffic on the Barker Road corridor north of 1-90. A separate Planned Action Ordinance to assess SEPA mitigation fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90 was previously prepared for the Northeast Industrial Area. Fair share fees are currently being collected from development in the PAO to fund traffic mitigation projects on Barker Road north of 1-90 based on a fair share analysis performed as part of that project. The financial contributions from the Northeast Industrial Area are accounted for in this TIF rate study. The South Barker Corridor TIF rate for Liberty Lake provided in this study would apply to any new development in the Liberty Lake TAZs identified in the South Barker Corridor Study, which is the area shaded in green on Figure 1. This includes the following TAZs: 442, 447, and 448 and is generally the area west of Harvard Road and Liberty Lake Road. This area will be referred to in this report as the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake TIF area. Based on the analysis provided in the South Barker Corridor Study, future development in the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake TIF area is expected to contribute between 16% and 18% of future traffic on the South Barker Corridor between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue - depending on the segment of the corridor. 2 Figure 1: Transportation Analysis Zones Included South Barker Corridor Study Fair -Share Analysis 3 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 Methodology The impact fee for the South Barker Corridor is based on 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. Understanding that Spokane Valley cannot implement impact fees in Liberty Lake, this study is intended to demonstrate the impact of development in Liberty Lake on the South Barker Corridor and quantify the fair share fees to mitigate Liberty Lake's impacts using the same methodology that was applied to development in Spokane Valley. 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 to address unacceptable levels of service 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) by deducting the costs of those deficiencies from the total project cost. • The South Barker Corridor Study next assigned the fair share of each project's cost to Liberty Lake and other nearby areas as mapped in Figure 1. • The forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in relevant portion of Liberty Lake 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 vehicle trip was calculated by dividing the fair share cost of each project by the growth in vehicle trips from this area of Liberty Lake. • Lastly, a land use -based fee schedule was developed using the cost per PM peak hour 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 peal< hour vehicle trips in southeast Spokane Valley Growth cost allocation (cost per PM pealc hour vehicle trip) Impact Fee Schedule 4 The following sections describe in detail these elements that that are integral to the final impact fee schedule. Project List The South Barker Corridor Study, completed in July 2019, updated in February 2020, and adopted by the City of Spokane Valley on December 15, 2020 pursuant to Ordinance No. 20-026, included an analysis of traffic demand through the year 2040 to identify 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 to accommodate future growth and maintain level of service standards (i.e., avoid significant and unavoidable transportation impacts). 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 cost estimates by COSV). Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) Proied 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 (2027-2024) Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single - lane roundabout 2021-2026 TIP (#28) COSY $2,139,000 Mid- Term (2025-2030) I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements 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 WSDOT Not anticipated at this time 5 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 Project Description Program Agency COSV Cost Responsible Estimate (2020 dollars) Barlcer Road Improvement Project— Appleway to 1-90 Barlcer Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90 Widen and improve to 5-lane urban section; roundabout @ Broadway 2021-2026 TIP (#44) Widen and improve to 5-lane urban 2021-2026 section TIP (#61) COSY COSY $6,501,000 $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 2019-2024 south of Sprague to 2-lane urban TIP (#20) section Reconstruct 4th Ave. and 8th Ave. intersections with single -lane roundabouts 2019-2024 TIP (#21) COSY $3,500,000 COSV $3,500,000 TOTAL $18,786,000 Source: South Barker Corridor Study (February 2020). Costs were updates to 2020 dollars based on the COSV 2021-2026 TIP for all projects except Barker Road improvement Project— Mission to 1-90. Cost for that project was updated using construction inflation rates. Note: Horizon 2040: SRTC Long Range Transportation Plan; TIP: City of Spokane Valley Transportation Improvement Plan. Travel Growth 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 cost 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 of total traffic to Barker Road between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue (in this case, each of the three Liberty Lake TAZs contribute at least five percent). 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 three identified TAZs within the TIF area contribute a similar proportion of the total Liberty Lake traffic along the corridor. For the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake 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 6 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. Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) SRTC Land Use (LU) 2015-2040 Unit of LU Growth Measure ITE Code ITE Description ITE Average Trip Rate' (PM peak hr.) Growth in Trips (LU growth x trip rate) Single Family Residential Multi -Family Residential Hotel/Motel Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, Industrial, Manufacturing, Wholesale Retail Trade (Non - Central Business District) Services and Offices Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Services (FIRES) Medical Retail Trade (CBD) Education Employees University Employees 353 Dwelling Units Dwelling 1,576 Units 210 Single -Family Detached Housing 220 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) 75 Rooms 310 Hotel 1,002 Employees 196 Employees 939 Employees 0 Employees 0 Employees 0 Employees 0 Employees 0 Employees 110 General Light Industrial 0.99 349 0.56 883 0.60 45 0.49 449 820 Shopping Center 1.62 318 710 General Office Building 0.40 376 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A NJA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 Total Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips 2,4612 1. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10'h 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 Liberty Lake TIF area would generate about 2,461 new PM peak hour vehicle trips by 2040. This total PM peak hour vehicle trip is one of the key foundations of calculating the 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 7 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 pulled directly from the SRTC regional travel demand model. ITE Trip rates were used to develop the TIF rate since this is the most common method used when traffic impact analysis and trip generation letters are prepared. This conversion of trips is necessary in order to develop costs per unit of development as opposed to cost per trip. It should also be noted that the conversion based on ITE trip rates results in a higher number of estimated trips and ultimately lower per -trip fees than the land use conversion method used in the South Barker Corridor Study. Comparison to Liberty Lake Adopted impact Fee It should be noted that Liberty Lake adopted a transportation impact fee to assess developments within Liberty Lake for various transportation improvement projects in Liberty Lake, which is documented in a report titled: Harvard Road Mitigation Plan Update 2073. Similar to the methodology used in this study, that report also used 1TE trip generation rates as a basis for estimating peak hour trips from planned development. The future land use (and traffic forecasts) from that study assume full build -out based on current zoning and historic development patterns, while this report is based on a 2040 horizon year for land use growth and associated traffic growth as forecast in the SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model. The Harvard Road Mitigation Plan Update 2013 forecasts over 8,000 new PM peak hour trips for the area that overlaps with the Barker Road Corridor Liberty Lake TIF area. Using the methodology described above, this rate study forecasts 2,461 new PM peak hour trips between 2015 and 2040 in the Barker Road Corridor Liberty Lake TIF area. Most of the discrepancy between these two numbers is likely due to the fact that the SRTC Travel Demand Model does riot forecast full build out in Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road by 2040. As of 2013, that study established a impact fee of $762.53 per peak hour trip to pay for transportation projects in Liberty Lake that will mitigate the impact of development (the study also notes that the rate should be updated every two years). Cost Allocation Two 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, resulting growth -related improvement costs are then further separated to identify the share of growth related to land development in Barker Road Corridor Liberty Lake TIF area. It should be noted that dedicated funding from external sources (state/regional grants, other mitigation payments, etc.) is considered in the impact fee eligible costs, if the dedicated funding exceeds the share of costs caused by growth outside of the TIF areas. This is currently not the case, thus non -City funding sources were not excluded from the total eligible project cost. 8 Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation STEPS 0 Liberty Lake TIF Share ;iala' Eligible Impact Fee Protect List 4188 M Existing Deficiency F47 COSV TIF Share 17LI County TIF Share 147 I•,: NE Industrial Area PAO 1.317 Y. Outside TIF Areas Other Funds Needed 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 Spokane Valley 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. Fair -Share Cost With deficiencies 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 Liberty Lake TIF area — there is a portion of growth that comes from Spokane Valley and other 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 Liberty Lake TIF area. This was done using a select zone analysis in the 2040 SRTC travel demand model. The percentage ranges from less than 5% in the south end of the corridor to 18% in the north end of the corridor as shown in Table 3. Given less than 5% of traffic south of Appleway Avenue is generated by trips from the Liberty Lake the cost of projects in that segment of the corridor were excluded from the fee. 9 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area Segment of Barker Road Liberty Lake (TIF Area) North of 1-90 1-90 to Appleway Avenue South of Appleway Avenue Source; South Barker Corridor Study 18% 16% 2% 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 Liberty Lake TIF area. This equates to $1,606,440. This cost was divided by the forecast new PM peak hour trips generated by new development in this area (2,461) to arrive at a cost per new PM peak hour vehicle trip of $653. Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations Project Cost to Address Cost Project Cost Eligible TIF Area Fair (to COSY) Existing Project Cost Share Percent Attributable to Deficiencies Study Area 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements $2,139,000 I-90/Barker Road Not Interchange Long -Term anticipated at Improvements this time 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 $6,501,000 $3,146,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 $1,790,000 None $0 anticipated at this time $0 $6,501,000 SO $3,146,000 $0 $3, 500,000 $0 $3,500,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 None N/A anticipated at this time 16% $1,04,160 18% $566,280 N/A $0 N/A $0 SUBTOTAL $18,786,000 $0 $18,786,000 Varies $1,606,440 PM Peak Trips Cost Per PM Peak Trip 10 2,461 $653 When taking all the above calculations into consideration, the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake TIF would contribute up to nine percent of the total $18.8 million eligible cost of the improvement projects on the South Barker Corridor. City matching funds, regional funds, new grants, TIFs from Spokane Valley development, fees collected from the Northeast Industrial Area PAO, and other sources would provide the remaining 91 percent of the total project costs. 11 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 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. 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 net PM peak hour vehicle trip generation (accounting for pass -by trips) and multiplied by the cost per PM peak hour trip of $653 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 $653 per PM peak hour vehicle trip. 12 Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake Transportation PM Peak Vehicle ITE Code ITE Land Use Category r Trip Rate Impact Fee Rate Schedule ' Passby Adjusted Trips z per Unit of I % Measure3 Impact Fee Per Unit' @ $653 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family & Duplex 0.94 0% 0.94 $614 per dwelling unit 220 Multi -Family (Low -Rise) - Not Close to Rail Transit 0.51 0% 0.51 $333 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel (3 or More Levels) 0.59 0% 0.59 $385 per room 520 Elementary School 0.16 0% 0.16000 $1044..44 per student' 630 Medical Clinic 0.00369 0% 0.00369 per sq ft 710 General Office 0.00144 0% 0.00144 $0.94 per sq ft 820 Shopping Center 0.0034 29% 0.00241 $1.58 per sq ft 1 ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vel icle 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 will be responsible for a fee based on $653 per PM peak hour trip. 'Pass by rates were updated based on the Pass -By Data and Rate Tables/2021 Pass -By Tables for ITETripGen Appendices, 11th Edition 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips sq ft - square feet, room = available hotel/motel room 5 ITE also includes an employment -based trip rate which may be used if approved by Spokane Valley 13 App n d bK A - Expanded _In etcl ee Schedule Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule Land Use Group ITE Code South Barker Corridor Liberty Loire Transportation ITE Land Use Category Single Family & Duplex Multl-Family (Low -Rise) - Not Close to Rail Transit PM Peak Vehicle TripPossby Rate' 0.94 0.51 Import Fee Rate Schedule Adjusted %2 Trips per Unit of Measure' 0% 0.94 0% 0.51 Impact 5653perPMPegkVehlefeTrip $614 $333 Fee Per Unit @ per dwelling unit • er dwelling unit Residential 210 220 310 Hotel (3 or More Levels) 0.59 0% 0.59 $385 per room Services 492 Health Club 0.00345 0% 0.00345 $2.25 per sq ft 912 Bank 0.02101 35% 0.01366 $0.91 per sgft 520 Elementary School 0.16 0% 0.16000 $104.44 per student 5 Institution 522 Middle School 0.15 0% 0.15000 $97.91 per student 5 525 High School 0.14 0% 0.14000 $9130 per student 5 975 Drinking Establishment 0.01136 43% 0.00648 54.23 per sq ft Restaurant 934 Fast Food Restaurant (with drive-thru) 0.03303 55% 0.01406 $9.70 per sq ft 937 Coftce Shop with Drive-Thru 0.03899 89% 0.00429 $2.80 per sq ft 820 Shopping Center 0.0034 29% 0.00241 11_58 per sq ft Retail 841 A.utnrochile Sales - Used/New 0.00375 0% 0.00375 $245 per sq ft 945 Convenience Store/Gas Station-GFA(4-5.5k) 22.76 6696 7.74 $5,051 per pump 110 Light Industry/High Technology 0.00065 0% 0.00065 $0.42 per sq ft Industrial 140 150 Manufacturing Warehousing 0.00074 0.00018 0% 0% 0.00074 0.00018 $0.48 $0,12 per sq ft per sq ft 151 Mini -Storage 0.00015 0% 0.00015 $0.10 pers. ft 710 General Office 0.00144 0% 0.00144 $0.94 per sq ft Office 720 Medical Office / Clinic 0.00393 0% 000393 $2.57 per 03 ft 750 Office Park 00013 0% 0.00130 $0.85 per • ft ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates fur the Adjacent Street Traffic (weekday 4-6PM); This worlcsheet 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 will be responsible for a fee based on $653 per PM peak hour trip. 'Pass by rates were updated based on the Pass -By Data and Rate Tables/2021 Pass -By Tables for ITETripGen Appendices 11 th Edition PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips sq it = square feet, pump = vehicle fueling position(VFA), room = available hotel room 5 ITE also includes an employment -based trip rate which may be used if approved by Spokane Valley FEHR4 PEERS Appendix B - South Barker Corridor Study FEHR''PEERS FEHRkPEERS Spokane e ' 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/1-90 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 3 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY ve 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 1. Study Area Intersections Mission: Maxwell Av Sinto Av Sharp Av ifBoone Av 131ouLivia y co l e'i' v sc b eu w �u A', 0 Lsucid''+ay Av Av Sprague Av 0 3rd Av 4th Av 0 E.Lli Av 9th Av siii City of Spokane Valley 2nd Av CC ctl 4IPage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vII 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 south bound 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 south bound 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. 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 Wage 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 I-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/8t Avenue. Existing traffic volumes at Barker Road/Boone Avenue are based on counts collected on Tuesday, February 14tn 2007 and existing volumes at Barker Road/8tr' 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 1 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 Free -flowing conditions. Signalized Intersection Delay (seconds) 0-10 Unsignalized Intersection Delay (seconds) 0-10 A B Stable operating conditions. 10-20 10-15 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 a 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/1-90 interchange. This LOS standard applies to roadway segments and signalized and stop controlled intersections. City of Spokane Valley Wage 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 protocol': • 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/1-90 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 'Page E M94Sian Ave !acres Irk ACRES v p, sneuanq p Gfeenacres Shoppveg Center v _ rt4" von, Adr Fa -g Rur' grip Epyple'na'f Pva FBeonc lwa EHoaetlAYe Q Lone Wolf A Harley-Dandson r 4Nk4Aue F Tr 9 HuA Sports Center Freedan Ag5pod PDt3ISI Hondo Yamaha Indian E NM,1e.1y Aun �Yc m E G.wI VM1ve evi0. QED Sprague Ave E P.:tr Are Go gie a r 1111r1 Lr" EMun+at x Eat F4cuf4e A.Y Sprague Ave A 1. Barker/Mission 2. Barker/Boone 3. BarkerA lB i-90 Ramps m �. q 18(27) {044rLt920) i. E. 8' L 4513) 22(4) Bm• a . 4,L gm' 475 (268) 260 (582) , 90(69) 28 054) 43 (136) .�r.9r 49 (71) Ifr ;— and 44 (11) 11 (D) 4, 3(0) . t a m 1 ,e �Q vn 4 41 (73) 27 � •-� 15 L4. Barker/EB I-90 Ramps 5. Barker/Broadway (N) 6. BarkerlB oadway (S) a v Cr `z leoons.v • .5vi C6 m Pi al > us) ^,C ',_ J _� �'m zs m 213 (433) 7 (12) 169 (532) . IS, eV a G h 3 3) 1 7. BarkerlAppleway 8. Barker/Sprague 9. Barker/4th Ave v ril N 4L, 62 (64) ,~ 542 (654) r 49 (136) • Jt 14(?8) A 4- 154 (380) • l 40 (100) is 4- 70 (63) 17(50) 1;(60) m ' 3 ,:..- (.7;4— 4L • 13 (11) 1 (3) 1(3) ytl. 0 (a) 101 (111) 344 (490) 25 (34) )Tir e. m mNv `fr • +n n'N Lryn v m . timn n 8 (4 ) 1 l3) 1(5) (5) El " r r^r '; m v 10. Barker/8th C21. ;7.-.2. • 32 (23) 2 (10) 13{2)) LEGEND 0 1` Study Intersection Lane Configuration Am (PM) Peak Hour $ stop Sgn Traffic Volume I S)gnalized 3 (13)� 3 613 ( 1 • SCm iti Figure 3_ Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations South Barker Corridor Study SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report vII 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 AM Control Delay Peak LOS PM Peak Side Software Street (all HCM Stop 2010) Approach 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 (5) 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 1=B 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/1-90 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 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report 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 Barker/ 1-90 westbound/Cataldo EB 60 120 NB 300 510 SB 730 1,200 WB 100 170 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 Barker/ 1-90 westbound/Cataldo EB 70 120 NB 190 340 SB WB 420 630 100 160 Barker/I-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 segments 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 Tess 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 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report 1-90 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 Single Lane Roundabouts .. 't`�\`��Y\ 1+r `fil ,l\44d '1?#, t7hiQtP i\ �41y{t o+ 6+stit0 ti Vh`it1trart+r, I1.0111g11: l}#~ 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 13IPage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report 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/E-90 westbound ramp intersection — revised Interim Concept Source: WSDOT v8 2/7/20 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 resurts under the "hook ramp" concept at the Barker Road/i-90 westbound ramp Barker/Boone Side -Street Stop 66 30 Barker/Cataldo/I-90 westbound ramp Roundabout 40 D 17 B Barker/I-90 eastbound ramp Roundabout 84 F 88 F Barker/Broadway Side -Street Stop 107 218 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/1-90 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 I P a g e O. arker, B 1-90 ONOff--R N 0114, Rd 1104.4ddI. H WLkm Rd II I O. � � o N 0II 0 tF <�-- (004) OL (oa£) ses (ss) of (asz) ae (9L9) see --� Cos 4) 5V1 ti o n cd 4. 0)56 (OOL) 596 (SO 0 +mod m (09) 06 Ix] {564'L)5LO r (se) so m m Dd ra V2 (o£) s4 . (S4£)sss (ot) s (5s) as (05) 594 -+ (as) 04 FVF 0•In (s) s 4- (S6£) coo (5) OL +I+�e (oo) s (see) coo -4. (ss) oo t N ly W CC e Y �. IB 00 1i Iluun .I lxn a w:5e,1,I1! 4 0 0 U N o_ w 7 a 0 Im 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/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection is shown in Figure 11 and a conceptual layout of the Barker Road/1-90 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 Toss 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/1-90 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 va 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 11. 2040 Barker Rd/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection concept (same as Barker Road. IJR preferred alternative) }N Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Figure 12. 2040 Barker Rd/1-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 1N Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 18 W P a g e 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 I-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/[ 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 2.40 ft. (5B) 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/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection and the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue/Boone Avenue intersection as laid out in Figure lland Figure 12, respectively, would operate acceptably. The vie 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 via 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/8t'' 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. AM Peak PM Peak intersection Control Software v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay Barker/Sprague Roundabout 0.52 A 0.59 A Sidra Barker/Sprague Signal 34 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 v8 2/7/20 Updated Report 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.com/watch?v=msSTv2 JPME 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 I-90 (although this configuration was not specifically analyzed). Figure 18. 2040 volume -to -capacity ratio and 95% queue with a single -lane diverging roundabout. AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control Software v/c 95% Q v/c 95✓ Q Barker/I-90 WB Roundabout 0.49 80 feet 0.93 Barker/I-90 EB Roundabout 0.65 120 feet 0.52 110 feet Sidra 590 feet Sidra Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 22IPage 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 aver 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 Tess 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. 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 L05. However, as development increases in the future it is not unlikely that the intersections at 4th Ave and 8th 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 I P a g e 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 O 'tion 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 Ieft- 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. • 4tn Avenue and 8th Avenue Intersection Improvements - Phase the construction of Barker Road to include single -lane roundabouts at 4"' 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. COSY Program Agency Project Description Cost Estimate' (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 I.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) SpraguelBarker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single -lane roundabout 2019-2024 TIP (#15) COSV $1,511,000 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 & 8r"' AvenuelBarker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct 4t' Avenue and 8th 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 I-90, which is derived from the estimate provided in the Northeast Industrial Area PAQ 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 I-90. City of Spokane Valley 27 (P a g e I -- o a'� Rv":� �l = ---z• c,� 92 r E z z. E. o m` z , d '9il. -� a - w:.z Ao.e , zz Z= - z cprague -,,L _ .. L,Sprague Ave _ 1 E 4th Avg L� �- t�-. 1 -7 Ahandoned WN r ` F ath Ave E 6t. Aw a 6.6 ~n cc e E 12ihi A. e �+-= a_--- - co T3 r3o w(� ti1y� N o - E 15t Ave .-'�_mT-mom awl T"'``- o" o a-cr) - c_ CC .` . ,•. -- �� 71,... i-r_ m-E 24[hP e 9�aELcf)e-'°° fi\ 'y� 41. $Q/�4. -m�E3dA-6?`C a c Y ra— I —� u i 17.2 cc E Wellesley Ave _ EC Lm. y _ - -z e—, i . 'fl - _ E, cc. �n90 Dr �, ' `��� w Kaiser i Z Barker Corridor _'I - L_o Millwood -S CL' P Mirabeau � - _ cc a Raa. • \l 1 ins .�- z Nho�tan_ - N zF 1 E Euclid Ave a Indiana Foe Liberty 327! Lake 448 28 l 447 " 442 92 i 393 T' •- -. `� _� - -- - _ E Indiana'.4 - 325 ca - 388 326- I . ---r: -Spokane - ' z t-- ? Valley -_ a _ - cn E"44th Ave c "1—i . �. mr__} C7 C7 s South Barker Road Travel Shed -- Transportation Analysis Zones by Jurisdiction Spokane Valley TAZs Liberty Lake TAZs Spokane County TAZs • • E Coach Dr36 389 1 segue Av 3rdAve Sprague As Figure 21 Transportation analysis zones by juristiction included in the fair -share cost analysis. SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Vn 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. Se: ment 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 $1,101,040 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,ODD $514,000 $D $999,000 minus $116,411 4th AvenuelBarker & 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 301 Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 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 COSV Project Cost Estimates (2018 $$) Percent Attributed to COSV Portion Attributed to COSV New PM Peak Hour Trips from Nearby COSV Development Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip 1-90 Eastbound Ramp! Barker Road N/A Interchan • e Interim Im +rovements N/A N/A 2,212 NIA 1-90 Westbound Ramp! Barker Road Interchange Interim Im+rovements NIA N/A N/A 2,212 N/A SpraguelBarker Intersection Improvements $1,517,000 18% $273,000 2,212 $123 I.901Barker Road Interchange Long- Term Improvements Not anticipated at this time N/A NIA 2,212 NIA Barker Road Improvement Project — A +lewa to I.90 $6,477,000 ° 19 /o $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 — A++lewa to South Cit Limits $2 854,0a0 18% $514,000 2,212 $232 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th AvenuelBarker 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 so 1-90 to Appleway Avenue $556 $549 $1,180 South of Appleway Avenue $600 so $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 2040the 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 aver 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 I P a g e Exhibit B South ortadoli ate e Cou Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington Updated January 2022 5E21-0679/ DN21-0719 FEHRk PEERS Table of Contents Introduction 1 Study Area 2 Methodology 4 Project List 5 Travel Growth 6 Cost Allocation 8 Existing Transportation Deficiencies 8 Fair -Share Cost 9 Impact Fee Schedule 11 Trip Generation 11 Pass -By Trip Adjustment 11 Schedule of Rates 11 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 3 Figure 2. Impact Fee Methodology 4 Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation 8 List of Tables Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) 5 Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) 7 Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area 9 Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations 10 Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule 12 Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule 13 This page intentionally left blank, Introduckion This report documents the methods, assumptions, and findings of a transportation impact fee (TIF) rate study for the South Barker Corridor in Spokane Valley specifically for development in unincorporated Spokane County south of the corridor. A TIE Rate Study for development withing Spokane Valley that impacts traffic was adopted by City of Spokane Valley City Council on December 15, 2020. The need for a TIF is identified in the South Barker Corridor Study (Feb 2020, adopted by the City of Spokane Valley City Council on December 15, 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 unincorporated Spokane County south of the corridor and growth from other parts of the region. Without improvements on this corridor, the residents and businesses in this area of Spokane County will experience the traffic impacts on South Barker Road as part of their daily travel. 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. The City of Spokane Valley understands that it cannot impose a GMA impact fee on another community, but the State Environmental Policy Act requires that all projects disclose traffic congestion impacts that result from implementation of the project and to identify feasible mitigation to reduce the significance of the impact. Therefore, this TIF rate study was prepared to calculate the fair share mitigation fee for Barker Road improvements that are required to support development in unincorporated Spokane County. This TIF rate study uses the same methodology as the as the Rate Study prepared for Spokane Valley development that was adopted by City of Spokane Valley City Council on December 15, 2020; a similar TIF rate study has also been prepared for development in Liberty Lake. By using a consistent methodology, development in any jurisdiction along the Barker Road corridor can be assured they are paying their fair share for future capacity improvements. It is our understanding that some developers may not agree with the GMA-based impact fee identified in this report. Therefore, we have identified an alternative method to address the documented significant traffic operations impacts of development in unincorporated Spokane County on Barker Road. Under this alternative methodology, a detailed traffic study would be required to track all trips generated by planned development that would use different sections of the Barker Road corridor and pay their fair share to the roadway and intersection improvements to meet Spokane Valley's LOS standard. A review of several sample projects indicates that this alternative analysis method generally results in a higher mitigation fee for developers and has substantial costs to hire a traffic engineer to prepare the study. Therefore, the City of Spokane Valley considers payment of the GMA-based fee to be a solid approach to promote development and economic activity in unincorporated Spokane County but also ensure that Spokane Valley residents and development are not left with a disproportionate share of the cost to accommodate traffic and traffic -related impacts coming from unincorporated Spokane County. 1 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County Updated January 2022 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 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 development in the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) also contributes to traffic on the Barker Road corridor north of 1-90. A separate Planned Action Ordinance to assess SEPA mitigation fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90 was previously prepared for the Northeast Industrial Area. Fair share fees are currently being collected from development in the PAO to fund traffic mitigation projects on Barker Road north of 1-90 based on a fair share analysis performed as part of that project. The financial contributions from the Northeast Industrial Area are accounted for in this TIF rate study. The South Barker Corridor TIF rate for Spokane County provided in this study would apply to any new development in the Spokane County TAZs identified in the South Barker Corridor Study, which is the area shaded in blue on Figure 1. This includes the following TAZs: 390, 393, 443, 575, 576, and 586.1 This area will be referred to in this report as the South Barker Corridor Spokane County TIF area. Based on the analysis provided in the South Barker Corridor Study, future development in the South Barker Corridor Spokane County TIF area is expected to contribute between 17% and 35% of future traffic on the South Barker Corridor south of 1-90 - depending on the segment of the corridor. ' Note that TAZ 444 was included in the South Barker Corridor Study as a Spokane County TAZ that would impact the corridor. However, in preparing this study and reviewing the data, there is relatively little growth forecasted for this TAZ ancl traffic also does not rely on Barker Road as much as the other TAZs. Therefore, for the purposes of setting the rate for this study, TAZ 444 was excluded from the TIF area. 2 Figure 1: Transportation Analysis Zones Included South Barker Corridor Study Fair -Share Analysis 3 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County Updated January 2022 Methodology The impact fee for the South Barker Corridor is based on 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. Understanding that Spokane Valley cannot implement impact fees in Spokane County, this study is intended to demonstrate the impact of development in unincorporated Spokane County on the South Barker Corridor and quantify the fair share fees to mitigate Spokane County's development impacts using the same methodology that was applied to development in Spokane Valley. 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 to address unacceptable levels of service 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) and 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's costs to unincorporated Spokane County and other nearby areas as mapped in Figure 1. • The forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in Spokane County 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 vehicle trip was calculated by dividing the fair share cost of each project by the growth in vehicle trips from unincorporated Spokane County. • Lastly, a land use -based fee schedule was developed using the cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip calculated above. Trip rates for multiple land use categories were estimated using vehicle trip generation rates from the 1TE 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) 1 Forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in southeast Spokane Valley 1. Growth cost allocation (cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip) Impact Fee Schedule P" 4 The following sections describe in detail these elements that that are integral to the final impact fee schedule. Project List The South Barker Corridor Study, completed in July 2019 and updated in February 2020, and adopted by the City of Spokane Valley on December 15, 2020 pursuant to Ordinance No. 20-026, included an analysis of traffic demand through the year 2040 to identify 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 to accommodate future growth and maintain level of service standards (i.e., avoid significant and unavoidable transportation impacts). 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 cost 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- 2021-2026 lane roundabout TIP (#28) COSV $2,139,000 Mid- Term (2025-2030) I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements 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 WSDOT Not anticipated at this time 5 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County Updated January 2022 Project Description Program Agency Responsible COSV Cost Estimate (2020 dollars) Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90 Widen and improve to 5-lane urban 2021-2026 section; roundabout @ Broadway TIP (#44) Widen and improve to 5-lane urban 2021-2026 section TIP (#61) COSY COSY $6,501,000 $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 2019-2024 south of Sprague to 2-lane urban TIP (#20) section Reconstruct 4th Ave, and 8th Ave. intersections with single -lane roundabouts 2019-2024 TIP (#21) COSV $3,500,000 COSY $3,500,000 TOTAL $18,786,000 Source: South Barker Corridor Study (February 2020). Costs were updates to 2020 dollars based on the COSV 2021-2026 TIP for all projects except Barker Road Improvement Project— Mission to 1-90. Cost for that project was updated using construction inflation rates. Note: Horizon 2040: SRTC Long Range Transportation Plan; TIP: City of Spokane Valley Transportation Improvement Plan. Travel Growth 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 of total traffic to Barker Road relative to the amount of growth expected. 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 seven identified TAZs within the TIF area contribute a similar proportion of the total Spokane County traffic along the corridor relative to the amount of growth expected in the respective TAZ. For the South Barker Corridor Spokane County 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 6 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. Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) SRTC Land Use (LU) 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 Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, Industrial, Manufacturing, Wholesale Retail Trade (Non - Central Business District) Services and Offices Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Services (FIRES) Medical Retail Trade (CBD) Education Employees University Employees Dwelling 1,096 Units 0 Dwelling Units 0 Rooms 0 Employees 210 Single -Family Detached Housing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.99 1,085 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 9 Employees 820 Shopping Center 1.62 15 17 Employees 710 General Office Building 0,40 7 2 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 1 0 Employees 0 Employees 0 Employees 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 ri s 1.1072 Total Growth in PM Peak Hour T p 1. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10'h 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 Spokane County TIF area would generate about 1,107 new PM peak hour vehicle trips by 2040. This total PM peak hour vehicle trip growth is one of the key foundations of calculating the 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 an ITE trip rates derived from forecast land use growth, while for the South Barker Corridor Study trip generation was 7 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County Updated January 2022 pulled directly from the SRTC regional travel demand model. ITE Trip rates were used to develop the TIF rate since this is the most common method used when traffic impact analysis and trip generation letters are prepared. This conversion of trips is necessary to develop costs per unit of development as opposed to cost per trip It should also be noted that the conversion based on ITE trip rates results in a higher number of estimated trips and ultimately lower per -trip fees than the land use conversion method used in the South Barker Corridor Study. 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, resulting growth -related improvement costs are then further separated to identify the share of growth related to land development in Barker Road Corridor Spokane County TIF area. It should be noted that dedicated funding from external sources (state/regional grants, other mitigation payments, etc.) is considered in the impact fee eligible costs, if the dedicated funding exceeds the share of costs caused by growth outside of the TIF areas. This is currently not the case, thus non -City funding sources were not excluded from th•e total eligible project cost. Third, funds from a previous agreement between City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road (totaling $116,441) were separated from Spokane County's share. Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation STEPS 0 Future 0.'6th lata;M Project List Existing Deficiency >.n County TIF Share nd Eligible Impact Fee 1.4.1 IA COSV TIF Share Existing Agreements 1Gr, k. Liberty Lake TIE Share m 1 NE Industrial Area PAO Outside TIF Areas Oki 1 Other Funds Needed kl 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 I-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 8 service F at an unsignalized intersection as established in the Spokane Valley 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. Fair -Share Cost With deficiencies 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 Spokane County TIF area — there is a portion of growth that comes from Spokane Valley and other 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 Spokane County TIF area. This was done using a select zone analysis in the 2040 SRTC travel demand model. The percentage ranges from less than 5% in the north end of the corridor to 35% in the south end of the corridor as shown in Table 3. Given less than 5% of traffic north of 1-90 is generated by trips from unincorporated Spokane County the cost of projects in that segment of the corridor were excluded from the fee. Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area Segment of Barker Road Unincorporated Spokane County (TIF Area) North of 1-90 1-90 to Appleway Avenue South of Appleway Avenue Source: South Barker Corridor Study 4% 17% 35% 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 Spokane County TIF area. This equates to $4,186,409. Lastly, the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County have a previous agreement for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road, totaling $116,441. This amount was deducted from Spokane County's share to arrive at a total fair share cost attributable to development in unincorporated Spokane County of $4,070,998.2 This cost was divided by the forecast new PM peak hour trips generated by new development in this area (1,107) to arrive at a cost per new PM peak hour vehicle trip of $3,677. Development that have a vested building permit that includes a mitigation payment toward improvements along the South Barker Corridor would not have to pay this TIF, 9 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County Updated January. 2022 Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations Project Cost to Address TIF Area Fair Cost Project Cost Existing Eligible Share Attributable (to COSV) Deficiencies Project Cost Percent to Study Area 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Sprague/Barlcer 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 SUBTOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2,139,000 $0 $2,139,000 35% $748,650 Not None anticipated $0 anticipated at this time at this time $6,501,000 $0 $6,501,000 $3,146,000 $0 $3,146,000 $3,500,000 $0 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $0 $3,500,000 None N/A anticipated at this time 17% $1,105,170 N/A $0 35% $1,108,590 $1,108,590 35% $18,786,000 $0 $18,786,000 Varies $4,186,410 Minus Funds from Previous Agreements TOTAL PM Peak Trips Cost Per PM Peak Trip $116,411 $4,070,998 1,107 $3,677 When taking all the above calculations into consideration, the South Barker Corridor Spokane County TIF would contribute up to 22 percent of the total $18.8 million eligible cost of the improvement projects on the South Barker Corridor. City matching funds, regional funds, new grants, TIFs from Spokane Valley development, and other sources would provide the remaining 78 percent of the total project costs. 10 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. 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 1TE 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 net PM peak hour vehicle trip generation (accounting for pass -by trips) and multiplied by the cost per PM peak hour trip of $3,677 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 $3,677 per PM peak hour vehicle trip. 11 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County Upclated January 2022 Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule ITE Code South Barker Corridor Spokane ITE Land Use Category County Transportation impact Fee Rate Schedule Passby Adjusted Trips a per Unit of % Measure 3 Impact Fee Per Unit 4 @ $3,677 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip PM Peak Vehicle Trip Rate 210 Single Family & Duplex 0.94 0% 0.94 $3,456 per dwelling unit 220 Multi -Family (Law -Rise) - Not Close to Roll Transit 0.51 0% 0.51 $1,875 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel (3 or Mere Levels) 0.59 0% 0.59 $2,169 per room Ebementaiy School 0.15 0% 0.16000 $588.28 per student' 630 Mrdical Clinic 0.00369 0% 0.00369 . per sq ft 710 General Office 0,00144 0% 0.00144 $5.29 per sq ft 820 Shopping Center 0.0034 29% 0.00241 $8.88 per sq ft ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition); 4-6 PM Peak Flour 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 will be responsible fora fee based on $3,677 per PM peak hour trip. Pass by rates were updated based on the Pass -By Data and Rate Tables/2021 Pass -By Tables for ITETripGen Appendices, 11th Edition 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips d sq ft = square feet, room = available hotel/motel room 5 ITE also includesan employment -based trip rate which may be used if approved by Spokane Valley 12 A en SC ix A edule Xpinctedt- Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule ]Ti act Fee II- �T ITE Cad u 210 220 re South BarkerCorridor SpokaneCountyTransportation impact %'I 0% 0% Fee Rate Schedule tmpuct $3,677 $3,456 $1,875 Fee Per Unit 4 Ca per PM Peek Vehicle Trip per dwelling unit per dwelling unit ;Land Usc Group I 1TE Land Use Category r'. Single Family & Duplex Multi -Family (Low -Rise) - Not Close to Rail Transit. PM Peak Vehicle TripPasshy Ratee r 0.94 0.51 Adjusted Trips per Unit of Measure 3 0.94 0.51 310 Hotel (3 or More levels) 0.59 0% 0.59 $2,169 per room Services 492 Health Cfub 0.00345 0% 000345 $12.68 per sgft 912 Bank 0.02101 356Y 0.01366 $50.21 per sgft 520 Elementary School 0.16 0;6 0.16000 $588.28 perstudent 5 Institution 522 Middle School 0.15 0' 0.15000 $551.52 per student s 525 High School 0.14 0% 0.14000 $514.75 per students 975 Drinking Establishment 0.01135 4316 0.00648 $23.81 persq ft Restaurant 934 Fast Food Restaurant (with drive-thru) 0.03303 55% 0.01486 $54.65 persq fl. 937 Coffee Shop with Drive-Thm 0.03899 89% 0.00429 $15.77 persq ft 820 Shopping Center 0.0034 29% 0.00241 $8.08 persq ft Retail 841 Automobile Sales Used/New 0.00375 0% 0.00375 $13.79 persq ft 945 Convenience Store/Gas Station -GFA(4-55k) 22.76 66% 7.74 $28,452 per pump 110 Lightlndustry/High Technology 0.00065 0% 0.00065 $2.39 per sgft Industrial 140 150 Manufacturing Warehousing 0.00074 000018 0% 0% 0.00074 0.00018 $2.72 $0.65 per sgft per sq ft 151 Mini -Storage 0.00015 0% 0.00015 $0.55 persq ft 710 Genera! Office 0.00144 0% 0 00144 $5.29 persq It Office 720 Medical Office / Clinic 0.00393 0% 0.00393 $14A5 per sq ft 750 Office Park 0.0013 0% 0.00130 $478 persq ft ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehi-(c 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 -inch .r, . I'a wit i land uses not in Table 5 or 6 will be responsible fora fee based on $3,677 per PM peak hour trip. 'Pass by rates were updated based on the Pass -By Data and Rato Tables/2021 Pass -By Tables for ITETripGen Appendices, 11 th Edition a PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips 4 sq ft - sc)us n:: feet, pump = vehicle fueling position(VFA), room = available hotel room 51TE al-. la, - an employment -based trip rate which may be used if approved by Spokane Valley FEHRtPEERS Appendix B Sonith _Darker Coirrdor Study FEHR/S' PEERS 'am). FEHRtPEERS *Wane FINAL REPORT 1 UPDATED FEBRUARY 2020 ii.o.Valler 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/1-90 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 3 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 1. Study Area Intersections Mission Alla Maxwell Av Silvio Av Sharp Av Boone Av 8 Broadway 411, Alkl Av c'ree n acre 5 C. 7'o AV Broadway Av PW� Sprague Av 0 2nd Av 3rd Av 4th Av 0 8tlr Av 9th Av City of Spokane Valley 4IPage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vO 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 5IPage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 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 Toad 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 SETS to the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) City of Spokane Valley 6 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR. STUDY vB 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. z Martin, W., N. McGuckin. Travel Estimating Techniques for Urban Planning. NCHRP Report 365. National Academy Press, Washington, O.C., 1998. City of Spokane Valley 7 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 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 Manual2016, 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/1-90 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.gav/Design/Traffic/Analysis/ City of Spokane Valley 9 V P a g e E Minlai Ave ;acres wont,. s ACRES issonnA=r ©=_a"m r0 OELAisslan Ave Ci LW wr1[Avr 14. 0 7 W.^R14a ta. EAVSAux 0 CTreeoacres Shopoin8 Center T e "1nh+s.e Lone Vd0II ei Harvey -Davidson E 1RA ai EionAty 0,01 EAC Ave OE.n 1.¢r 9 R: h'cvr. a GO=g1e Er Hub Spotl6 Center Freedort Allsporr Polaris, Hands Yamaha kldlan tlroaeverty Rvc Spra44e Ave £rnu, s.r E Vain APO 1. Barker/Mission 2 Barker/Boone 3. Barker/WB 1-90 Ramps am ns 9 pII �jk , 16(27) r 92((00) eon " L 45(131 ' 242((4) eee�. �� v�NJ`` N MAO. ;iL 15(44) 3604) 35 (57) umnn 28 (154) 43 (1361 49 (71) fir h m v m 7-4":" mm 44 (11) 11 (0) � 3 (0) , N --.,. <N 41 (73) 27 (21) -4 15 (22) -. Tr m m rn C P.m N. 4. Barker/EB I-90 Ramps b. Barker/Broadway (N) 6. BarkeriB oadway (8) a rM Sao {484) —8, • 17 (4) avi M 97, ov A? < 213 (433) - t 7 (12)-y 169 (532) 3 (3) 3(3) . 7. Barker/Appleway 8. Barker/Sprague i _ 9. Barker/4th Ave mn a cil . T(' 5i ,� r 4 L � 62 (84) 542 (654) w- 4}9 (136) o,-. $$ l .7..." r v • 4.. . 123 (60) 4- 70 (63) 17 (50) 18(16) ,au m 4- 177 (568) •j 2 (19) i 6.. . 13 (11) 4-1 (3) 1 (3) M 0 (0) 101 (i11)� 344(490)-s). 25 (34) ) l r N,e sne r` 31 (34 22 941 32 (132) • •ea t • �" al' e.,,;; 'e' t vov m^- a 10. Ba ker/8th i ML ©$ j 00 4" 32(231 4— 2 1310) (2 11) .m LEGEND ,_ It— V Study Intersection Ak -- Lane Configuration Peak Hour / Stop Sign km pm) Traffic Volume Signalized 3 (43) s(7)$ 3 (13) • it' sMm NI C' g1 n 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/1-90 eastbound ramp. All other intersections were analyzed using Synchro. Figure 4. Existing conditions level of service and delay. Intersection Control Signal AM Peak PM Peak Side Street Stop Approach Software (all KM 2010) Synchro Delay LOS Delay LOS Barker/Mission 12 B 13 B 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 (5) 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 muftimodal 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 J P age SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report 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 peal< hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange Barker/ 1-90 westbound/Cataldo EB 60 120 NB 300 510 SB 730 1,200 WB 100 170 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 Barker/ I-90 westbound/Cataldo EB 70 120 NB 190 340 5B 420 630 WB 100 160 Barker/I-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 ( P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report 1-90 INTERCHANGE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY & FINDINGS The Barker Road/1-90 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 11.' �01 s- Irl( 546k 4i4a� :}t it ah 53“i 5 s *'.41drdat111.° Qrgadwav �ti*ASSANAWA—:vrr l0,//4f IJi if!jll 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 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 v8 2/7/20 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 2' southbound approach lane at the westbound ramp — This can be implemented through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. o A 2' 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 I P a g e SOUT"I-I 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 Barker Boone Side -Street Stop AM Peak Delay PM Peak Delay LOS 66 30 Barker/Cataldo/I-90 westbound ramp Roundabout 40 D 17 B Barker/I-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 I P a g e EMarlon Ave acres irk ACRES tro e OE Marian Ave fl E0.Wv�dt a.v � E'«Iv4 t.9 Lone welt e Harley-1)21,4 n IF 0 oruoa/,rq0 ENV Res L All: Rv. Shelving Center yEs 6 F�yEaY Spmpue Ave Yo z rs.+lnr w� O u � Gcr gle E1 Hub Spats Center Freedan f fuwi.. 5R 5tl6per Pcdar 15 i Hontin vumano Palen... i nren..ar o afjl., AY I! E FPPP�e`I pvc r. tT,un. a,. 1. Barker/Mission 2. BarkegrlwB 1-90 On/Of--Ramp 3. Barker/BB 1-90 On/OffRamp .; S `a.a " 5 ;1 7 p "1 40 BO .-100 (175) r 320 (225) . Q-Q�_- s, n�ei Sio 0 /f �'. ?:A `yy� rt a, "° v>\ °,r`y� 11a0,� 1A06l k $��pl Ohl \l a9° ' OHO, 0 a) •�`+ , 41 40 O(gpl $1". rvy��$ `,7,,T S .'- 77 c'v M 2- 75 (215) BO (170) -,. 130(160) H o m ��tr 'o2 m N r 285 (MS) 0 (0} .-,-'` 255(010) lir o C� M m ii 4. Barker/Broadway 5. Barker Appleway 6. Barker/Sprague m r 'nro 90e,Y m m v ao • 40(66) 4} - 0 (0) 5 (10) 1?�O e.-o 4,4,v n S ..11, 0 (0) .� 140 (180) 370 (590). 55(SO) 115 (115) as- B25 MO)N 65 (150) l i r rn m CI25 ❑`~% ,y'/ .-.Nr m o,n� c, N r • 205 (110) +- 70 (65) 20 (50) 60 (75) 0 {0} - 15 (5) • ) 1 1 cG' Fa~Y19 45 (45) (85). 55(185) • o m n ;�- i�r 7. Barker/4th S. Barker/Bth mB rot cCi w 44 • 15 (15) 4- 5 (5) 5(5) N O w 1J' +0- 165 (520) • 4, 20 {55) • 40 (40) 4— 20 (25) 30 (45) 25 (25) 5(5)-` 5(5) • I ,,F oElm ' v 0 it a rsa LIII < 4 Figure 10.2040 Conditions Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations South Barker Corridor Study SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vs 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 an 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 1 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) s 11 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 100 V 101 102 100 liner a Figure 12. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 1" Rya 4,411 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 18 1 P a g e 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 I-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 Signal AM Peak PM Peak Software (all HCM 2010) Synchro Delay 20 LOS B Delay 25 LOS C Barker/Mission Barker/I-90 WB Ramp/Cataldo/Boone Roundabout 17 B 13 B Sidra Barker/l-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 PM Peak 95% Software (all v/c v/c 95% HCM 2010) Queue Queue Barker/1-90 WB Ramp/Cataldo/Boone Roundabout 0.69 Barker/I-90 EB Ramp Roundabout 0.47 240 ft. (SB) 90 ft. (NB) 0.54 0.70 110 ft. (NB) 150 ft. (NB) Sidra 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. Barker/Sprague Roundabout 0.52 A 0.59 Barker/Sprague Signal 34 A D 36 Sidra Synchro Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 20 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report vO 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 v8 2/7/20 Updated Report 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.com/watch?v=msSTv2 JPME 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. 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 vB 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 toApplewayAvenue 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 1-90/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/1-90 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 ApplewayAvenue 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. ApplewayAvenue 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 4th Ave and 8th 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 I P a g e 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 Tower 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. + 4►h Avenue and 8th Avenue Intersection Improvements - Phase the construction of Barker Road to include single -lane roundabouts at 4th Avenue and gth Avenue along with the two-lane configuration. City of Spokane Valley 25 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report vI3 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 Prram Agency Project Description (pro ect #) Responsible Cost Estimates (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 NiA 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) 5praguell3arker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single -lane roundabout 2019-2024 TIP (#15) COSV $1,517,000 MID TERM (2025.2030) 1.90/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) COSY $2,854,000 491 Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct 41-h Avenue and 8th 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 261Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY ve 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 I-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 muitimodal 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 I P a g e J Ct __� ,C. ['a rat t 41)- , E - Go• Qak Dr lac[ *s, i 1- _ Cam _t b I I 1 Z ri o 2 u 1 c E,We!!es{eY Ave _m. �at1LnK , v i r m n \ c?_ o z m o I inont?nr- z j jaw —"-'� j - E;anR - �_-� v Kaiser �Lj I cCpa. 2tr fz rl -j ▪ 90 pFu3 o S Barker Corridor w a�� Millwood ae Ave. Mirabeau z -- — z - i E Euclid:Aw z � �e� i _ I - if I 6 ��viA r_,z y �� xi j Indiana Ave C) co butt � = �� A� ` CC a .i Liberty A w itent% E Indiana" ` 9 25 m 27 i' Lake 9�� I _ -` ▪ 3 3 ,mil nr - =m _ _ , 388 • 326 28 447 ` � _ z o o r I - iOunYry VistaQ p • 334 der 442 w z "'e <n z z z Valley m 391 1 s' - z - t- Sprague'-Av - _E,SprragueA S E4fhAve - - - -). -Abandoned RR----- - m r' a -E:8th Ave E 6th Ave ---- • r • -'' ✓x _ "' a',,. - -7 y - -- i_ - EI12th-Ate • — a - a Fs co -- --- -- 389 . x m -�--, •L yi. a, r o . -c - _ E 16th-Ave o a ` -1 a -d n E• 24th Pve den � k+ �s_-. 6 '-t a m E-32nd Ave z' i a .,R-`'�-1� j E44th Aue tr a. - u Sv 1 s -C a- (7 -: 6) s. Vi t a'^rcS South Barker Road Travel Shed Z o Transportation Analysis Zones by Jurisdiction Spokane Valley TAZs Liberty Lake TAZs Spokane County TAZs 1 ti • o •m- - C36 • " r 92 pac D-,...' T. Ir �SPi.�uetAv E 3rd Ave fi4 a' Sprague AV tea: ol� 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 1-90 to Appleway Avenue 26% 18% 4% 52% 100% 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 vB 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 NIA N/A Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements $1,517,000 $273,000 SO $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,OOa $514,000 $0 $999,000 minus $116,411 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements $3,400,000 $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 Updated Report vB 2/7/20 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 peal< hour trip from new development (2015-2040) in Spokane Valley Project COSV Cost Estimates (2018 $$) Percent Attributed to COSY Portion Attributed to COSV New PM Peak Hour Trips from Nearby COSV Development Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip 1-90 Eastbound Ramp! Barker Road Interchange Interim lrnprovements NIA N/A NIA 2,212 N/A 1.90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim improvements NIA N/A N/A 2,212 NIA 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 41h Avenue/Barker & 8r11 AvenuelBarker 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 31IPage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 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 so $2,640 Total $1,503 $830 $3,821 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/l-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 1-90/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 I-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 I P a g e Exhibit C FEH109 PEERS Memorandum Date: June 7, 2021 To: Jerremy Clark, City of Spokane Valley From: Patrick Picard, AICP and Chris Breiland, PE, Fehr & Peers Subject: South Barker Corridor impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis SE21-0769 Introduction The South Barker Corridor Study (Feb 2020), adopted by the City of Spokane Valley on December 15, 2020 pursuant to Ordinance No. 20-026, identified several transportation capacity projects along South Barker Road, between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits, to support future growth and ensure adequate level of service (LOS) through the year 2040. Based on this study, the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (Oct 2020), adopted by the City of Spokane Valley on December 15, 2020 pursuant to Ordinance No. 20-026, identified a cost per PM peak hour trip for all traffic generated within the Impact Fee Study Area in Spokane Valley, which is typical for a Growth Management Act (GMA) based impact fee program. Additionally, Impact Fee Rate Studies were subsequently completed (in March 2021) for the portion of unincorporated Spokane County and Liberty Lake where future development will generate vehicle trips that will use South Barker Road. The Spokane County and Liberty Lake Impact Fee Rate Studies have not been adopted by either jurisdiction or the City of Spokane Valley as of the date of this memo. While the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (and subsequent studies in unincorporated Spokane County and Liberty Lake) use an industry -standard method for fairly allocating the costs of new transportation infrastructure, the City of Spokane Valley only has the legal authority to assess impact fees within its jurisdiction. Unless the other jurisdictions adopt the rate studies through an ordinance or an interlocal agreement, the Spokane County and Liberty Lake impact fees are "voluntary." A voluntary fee is a typical way that a development impacting the transportation system can easily mitigate its impact without the need for a complex traffic study. Spokane Valley would consider any development within the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) 518 17th Street I Suite 1100 I Denver, CO 80202 I (303) 296-4300 I Fax (303) 296-4302 www,fehrand peers.com Jerremy Clark June 7, 2021 Page 2 of 7 identified in the Spokane County or Liberty Lake Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies to meet their SEPA obligations relative to traffic impacts on Barker Road to be met if they paid the voluntary fee. However, if a developer opts to review impacts from proposed developments at the time of proposal, this memo provides an analysis of the per trip impact at various paints along the south Barker Road corridor. The purpose of this memorandum is twofold: • First, this memorandum clearly documents that any new trip that uses Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south city limit generates a significant adverse cumulative impact on traffic operations that must be mitigated in order to maintain the City of Spokane Valley's level of service standard. • Second, this memorandum clearly identifies the fair share cost contribution to each trip that passes through each of the infrastructure projects along the Barker Road corridor. Inherently, this method of traffic mitigation and calculating the fair share contribution to funding necessary infrastructure is more complex than the GMA-based approach identified in the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies. Specifically, this approach requires developers to go one step beyond identifying the number of PM peak hour trips that would be generated by development and also identify the number of those trips that would pass through various segments of Barker Road. This requires additional data collection and potentially travel demand model runs. Once the trip distribution pattern is known and the total trips passing through the entire Barker Road corridor are identified, Spokane Valley may then utilize the amounts identified in this memo as appropriate mitigation for the impacts from those trips. The mitigation is equal to the sum of the cost per each PM peak hour trip that passes through each project. Any project that applies this methodology and pays the fee calculated as described above will be considered to have met its traffic mitigation requirements by the City of Spokane Valley. Methodology Table 1 summarizes the data used to determine the cost per PM peak hour trip for each project trip that uses the new capacity along the Barker Road corridor. This section describes how the costs were calculated. Jerremy Clark June 7, 2021 Page 3 of 7 Table 1 Cost Per PM Peak Trip Per Project Calculations Project Eligible Segment or Project Cost Intersection New PM Peak Trips Accommodated Cost per PM Peak Trip Barker Rd Improvement - Mission to 1-90 Barker Rd Improvement - 1-90 to Appleway Barker Rd Improvement - Appleway to South City Limit Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 4th Ave/Barker & 8th Ave/Barker Intersection Improvements $3,146,000 $6,501,000 $3,500,000 Barker n/o Boone Barker s/o Broadway Barker s/o Appleway $1,790,000 Barker/ Sprague $3,500,000 Barker/ 4th Ave 1,335 $2,356 917 $7,090 531 $6,591 1,016 $1,762 1,405 $2,492 The steps of this analysis are described below, roughly organized by column in Table 1: • Step 1 - Project Need and Identification: The South Barker Corridor Study identified five transportation capacity projects along South Barker Road for which the City of Spokane Valley would be responsible for funding. These projects are required to meet the City's LOS standards when accounting for the additional traffic generated by future development in the area. In other words, if the City fails to implement these projects, the LOS along Barker Road will not meet the City's established standards as new development along the South Barker Corridor generates additional traffic. The fact that LOS will fail with growth without City action and that the City does not have full funding to address this growth -caused LOS failure leads us to draw the conclusion that any project that adds even a single PM peak hour trip to the Barker Road corridor between Mission Avenue and the south city limits causes a cumulatively significant adverse traffic operations impact that warrants mitigation. Table 2 illustrates the existing and 2040 LOS at each project location. The growth -related impacts at each of the five project locations were identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance SEPA Analysis, and/or the South Barker Corridor Study. 1erremy Clark June 7, 2021 Page 4 of 7 Table 2 2020 and 2040 Level of Service Impact at Each Project Location Project Location Existing LOS 11E040 Source without project Barker Rd - Mission Ave to 1-90 Barker Rd - 1-90 to Appleway Ave Barker Rd - Appleway Ave to South City Limit Sprague Ave/ Barker Rd Intersection 4th Ave/ Barker Rd & 8th Ave/ Barker Rd Intersection 0 E2 F F Comprehensive Plan; Northeast Industrial Area PAO Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan South Barker Corridor Study Di South Barker Corridor Study 1 The impact identified at this location is based on the roadway not meeting COSV multimodal roadway standards. 2 LOS E is acceptable based on COSV LOS standards for a side street stop. • Step 2 — Eligible Project Cost: The eligible cost of each project in 2020 dollars are shown in column 2 of Table 1, totaling $18.8 million, as provided in the adopted South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. Eligible cost includes the project cost minus both dedicated funding from non -City funds as well as costs to mitigate existing deficiencies. • Step 3 — Segment/Intersection: In this step, a segment of Barker Road or intersection of Barker Road was identified as the corresponding location for each project from which to measure the number of existing and future trips that uses the new transportation capacity. The segments/intersections are shown in column 3 of Table 1. When assessing the development fee, if a PM peak hour vehicle trip is forecast to pass through this location, then the cost per trip of the associated project would be assessed. • Step 4 — PM Peak Trip Growth: Using existing (2018) and forecast (2040) traffic counts estimated as part of the South Barker Corridor Study, the number of existing PM peak hour trips and future PM peak hour trips passing through each segment or intersection was identified. The 2018 PM peak trips was then subtracted from 2040 PM peak trips to get the forecast growth in PM peak trips by 2040 and is shown in Table 3. Jerremy Clark June 7, 2021 Page 5 of 7 Table 3 PM Peak Hour Trip Growth Calculations Segment or 2018 PM 2040 PM PM Peak Trip Growth Intersection Peak Trips Peak Trips (2018-2040) Barker n/o Boone Barker s/o Broadway Barker s/o Appleway Barker/Sprague Barker/4th Ave 1,096 1,219 951 1,269 880 1,945 2,015 1,430 1,705 1,175 849 796 479 436 295 • Step 5 — Excess PM Peak Capacity: In this step, the excess capacity each segment/ intersection project would create in year 2040 was estimated. This is a key step to ensure that development projects that add traffic to the corridor do not pay for capacity that is in excess of what is required to meet LOS standards. Excess capacity was calculated by performing an analysis whereby the number of trips passing through the project location was artificially scaled up until the location exceeded the LOS D threshold, which is the standard set by the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. The percent by which traffic would need to grow in order to hit this capacity threshold is shown in Table 4. For intersection projects where the project includes a roundabout, Sidra was used with a volume -to -capacity threshold of 0.85, which is equivalent to LOS D. For widening projects, two analyses were used, including a segment analysis using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) LOS methodology for segments, and an intersection LOS analysis based on the LOS at the nearby signalized intersection using Synchro. Of the two results, the one with the lower amount of excess capacity was the amount used (since this lower capacity threshold represents the bottleneck on the segment). The results comparing the two types of analysis for each location are shown in Table 4, The excess capacity of each project was added to the PM peak trip growth forecasts show in Table 3 to arrive at the new PM peak trips accommodated by each project, which is shown in column 4 of Table 1. Jerremy Clark June 7, 2021 Page 6 of 7 Table 4 Excess Capacity Analysis Segment or Intersection Excess Capacity Excess Capacity Excess Capacity Intersection Analysis Segment Analysis (lower of the two) Barker n/o Boone Barker s/o Broadway Barker s/o Appleway Barker/Sprague Barker/4th Ave 25%1 54% 6%2 49% 34%3 4% 34% N/A — intersection improvement 94% N/A — intersection improvement 25% 6% 4% 34% 94% 1: This value represents the excess capacity at the Barker Road & Mission Avenue intersection in 2040 after improvements, which is the constraining intersection along this segment of Barker Road. 2: This value represents the excess capacity at the Barker Road & Appleway Boulevard intersection in 2040 after improvements, which is the constraining intersection along this segment of Barker Road. 3: This value represents the excess capacity at the Barker Road & Sprague Avenue intersection in 2040 after improvements, which is the constraining intersection along this segment of Barker Road. • Step 6 — Cost per PM Peak Trip (factoring excess capacity) — In the last step of the analysis, the cost per PM peak hour trip that pass through each project location was estimated by dividing the new PM peak trips accommodated (column 4) by the associated project cost (column 2). The results are shown in the far -right column of Table 1. This reflects the cost of the additional capacity for each trip that can take advantage of the capacity, even if some of the capacity is in excess of what future development on the corridor is forecast to consume by 2040 (i.e., this methodology lowers the cost per PM peak hour trip compared to an analysis that does not factor in excess capacity). Conclusions The analysis presented in this memo estimates the cost per PM peak hour trip per project on the South Barker Corridor that could be assessed to developers based on the number of trips that would pass through each impacted roadway segment and intersection. The findings of this analysis are presented in the far -right column of Table 1. If this method was used to assess developer impact mitigation fees in the South Barker Corridor, each developer would need to provide an estimate of the number of trips from their development expected to pass through each of the five segments of the South Barker Corridor listed in Table 1. The total of all those costs would be the amount that would need to be paid to provide for a fair share mitigation for Jerremy Clark June 7, 2021 Page 7 of 7 cumulative traffic impacts on the corridor. As an example, for each trip that would pass through the entire length of the corridor, the developer would be assessed for all five projects, totaling $20,292 per PM peak hour vehicle trip. If a trip only traveled along the segment of Barker Road from Mission Avenue to Appleway Boulevard, then the developer would only be assessed for the first two projects in Table 1, which would total $9,446 per trip. If a trip only traveled along Barker Road from the 1-90 interchange to Sprague Avenue, then the developer would only be assessed for the second, third, and fourth projects in Table 1, which would total $15,444 per trip. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration — Splashdown 2022 lease amendment. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.A.11.020; SVMC 3.49.020(D). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: May 19, 2009: Council approved agreement with Splashdown; May 15, 2012: update on Splashdown financial situation and current economy; May 22, 2012: Council approved lease amendment consistent with signed agreement letter; May 29, 2018: admin report on the contract and new owners; June 5, 2018 Council approved a lease agreement with "New Splash -Down Concessions, Inc." (Splashdown); July 21, 2020 motion approved to amend the 2020 lease; July 28, 2020: contract amendment approved (amendment due to Covid-19 impact); May 4, 2021 admin report on amending the lease; May 11, 2021 motion approval to amend the lease for 2021; June 7, 2022 admin report on proposed 2022 lease amendment. BACKGROUND: The City has had a series of lease agreements with Splashdown since the City approved the first agreement with Splashdown May 19, 2009. The current lease agreement was executed in June 2018 when the Bleasner family came back into ownership of the facility, which operates on City park property at Valley Mission Park. The current lease requires Splashdown to pay the City $15,000 annually in three payments of $5,000 each through the summer, along with a leasehold payment due to the County for leasing public property. Additionally, Splashdown is required to maintain certain premises liability coverage for any claims that may be made, in order to protect the City's interests. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the owners of Splashdown requested and Council approved amendments to the lease requirements for 2020 and 2021. Splashdown was not able to open in 2020 or 2021 as a consequence of emergency health orders issued by Governor Inslee. As such, Council agreed to not require Splashdown to open and further waived the lease payment for 2020 and 2021. Splashdown will not be able to open in 2022 due to several major factors. As a consequence of being closed since 2019, the landscaping is very overgrown and the lawn is essentially all weeds. There have been numerous instances of vandalism resulting in substantial damage to the facilities. Lastly, due to the death of the managing owner in 2020, there is uncertainty amongst the remaining owners on how to proceed. They are actively attempting to sell the business, which includes the slides and other personal property attachments on the property, but have been unsuccessful to date. The remaining owners of Splashdown are again requesting amendments to the lease agreement similar to the previous two years to give them an opportunity to try to sell the business in the hopes it can re -open in the future. If it does sell, the City would seek a lease agreement with the new owner. The proposed lease amendments for 2022 would allow Splashdown to not open for 2022, would waive lease payments for 2022, and would waive the requirement for them to have premises liability insurance for this year. In 2020, Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA), the City's liability provider, informed the City that the Splashdown facility could be covered by the City's pool coverage so long as it remained closed, and appropriately signed with "No Trespassing" signs, which has been done. City staff will request that WCIA again provide this coverage if Council agrees to the amendments. Staff is recommending that Council approve these proposed amendments to the lease agreement for 2022, given the circumstances. OPTIONS: (1) Approve 2022 lease amendments; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve the 2022 Amendment to the Lease Between the City of Spokane Valley and New Splash -Down Concessions, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the same. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Loss of $15,000 in lease revenue. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: 2022 Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City and New Splash -Down Concessions, Inc. DRAFT 2022 AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND NEW SPLASH -DOWN CONCESSIONS, INC. Spokane Valley Contract #18-104.3 For good and valuable consideration, the legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, City and New Splash -Down Concessions, Inc. mutually agree as follows: 1. Purpose: This Amendment is for the lease for New Splash -Down Concessions, Inc. by and between the Parties, executed by the Parties on June 1, 2018, and which terminates on December 31, 2023. Said lease shall be referred to as the "Original Lease" and its terms are hereby incorporated by reference. New Splash- down concessions, Inc. is obligated to pay the City an annual lease payment of $15,000 plus 12.84% of this payment as leasehold excise tax. 2. Original Lease Provisions: The Parties agree to continue to abide by those terms and conditions of the Original Lease and any amendments thereto which are not specifically modified by this Amendment. 3. Amendment Provisions: This Amendment is subject to the following provisions: All such amended provisions are hereby incorporated by reference herein and shall control over any conflicting provisions of the Original Lease, including any previous amendments thereto. COVID-19 significantly impacted the ability of New Splash -Down Concessions, Inc. to operate in 2020 and 2021, resulting in the business being unable to open either year. The City and New Splash -Down Concessions, Inc. entered into amendments to the Original Lease in 2020 and 2021 that allowed New Splash -Down Concessions, Inc. to not open for business, waiving lease payments, and waiving the requirement to obtain premises liability insurance. As a further consequence of being closed in 2020 and 2021, the physical facilities at New Splash -Down Concessions, Inc. have suffered extensive vandalism and the landscaping has become substantially overgrown. Additionally, due to the death of the managing owner in August 2020, there is a lack of certainty regarding future operations by New Splash -Down Concessions, Inc. The remaining family have been actively attempting to sell the business, which leases a portion of Valley Mission Park from the City for its operations. Given these issues, New Splash -Down Concessions, Inc. will not open in 2022. Because New Splash - Down Concessions, Inc. will not open for 2022, the City waives the lease payment for 2022. The City will not require New Splashdown Concessions, Inc. to obtain premises liability insurance for the 2022 season since they will not be open, and the operator shall post at least five no trespassing signs on each of the four fenced sides of the property. 1 DRAFT The parties have executed this Amendment to the Original Lease this day of June, 2022. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: NEW SPLASH -DOWN CONCESSIONS, INC. John Hohman By: City Manager Its: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 14, 2022 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report: Code Text Amendment (CTA) 2022-0001 Community Services and Regulations. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, RCW 35.21, SVMC 17.80 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: none. BACKGROUND: CTA-2022-0001 is a City -initiated code text amendment to adopt permanent regulations to address transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, emergency housing, emergency shelters and transitional parking. The proposed regulations formalize the zones where such uses are allowed, identify permit processing procedures to include application contents, reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity limits, approval criteria, and associated definitions. In 2021, the Washington State Legislature adopted Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1220 (HB 1220) regarding affordable housing and homelessness. HB 1220 preempted the City from prohibiting transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in residential zones or zones where hotels were permitted and also pre-empted the City from prohibiting emergency housing and emergency shelters in zones where hotels were permitted. Portions of the HB became effective on July 25, 2021 and it became fully effective on September 30, 2021. Due to the pre-emption established in HB 1220, the City adopted Ordinance No. 21-009 on July 20, 2021 establishing interim regulations to set reasonable occupancy, spacing and intensity of use regulations to regulate emergency housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. The ordinance became effective immediately for a period of 365 days unless it were repealed, extended or modified. Ordinance 21-009 will expire on July 19, 2022 unless further action is taken. Pursuant to the work plan established in Ordinance 21-009, the City began the process of developing permanent regulations to address these uses and presented them to the Planning Commission (Commission) at a study session on April 28, 2022. On May 12, the Commission conducted a public hearing. Following public comment, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The Commission deliberated and voted 5-0 (two Commissioners were absent) to recommend to the City Council that CTA-2022-0001 be approved with the following modifications that have been incorporated into the attached draft: 1. Allow recreational vehicles in Transitional Parking; 2. Require lighting and security cameras in all parking areas; 3. Require a minimum of five parking spaces, plus enough for all on duty facility staff in the residential zones, and require ten parking spaces plus enough for all facility staff on duty in the non-residential zones; and 4. Reduce the minimum distance between facilities from one mile to 1/2 mile. OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed with first reading at a future council meeting; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed with first reading at a future council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Undetermined STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner and Eric Robison, Housing and Homeless Coordinator ATTACHMENT: 1. PowerPoint Presentation 2. Draft CTA-2022-0001 Amendment 3. Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendation 4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 4/14/2022, 4/28/2022, 5-12-2022; and 5/26/2022 will be provided when available 5. Staff Report CTA-2022-0001 CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Regulations Admin Report - June 14, 2022 Lori Barlow, Senior Planner and Eric Robison, Housing and Homeless Coordinator Spokane Valley Tonight's Agenda Review of background information Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1220 (HB 1220) Adoption of Ordinance No. 21-009 - interim regulations Comparison of Planning Commission Recommended regulations to Interim Regulations Next steps 6-14-2022 CC Administrative Report - CTA-2022-0001 Background HB 1220 Adopted Legislature in 2021 Effective July 25, 2021 Council adopted interim regulations Adopted July 20, 2021 (expires July 19, 2022) Interim Regulations Created Chapter 19.45 Community Services Modified permitted use matrix for uses in zones required by HB 1220 Identified supplemental standards Added Definitions (specified by HB 1220) 6/14/202 /1V 1IIII I Il'port' C I{�-LVL�-0001 HB 1220 Critical Points Cities Cannot prohibit Transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in any zones where residential dwellings and hotels are allowed Prohibit emergency housing and emergency shelters in any zone where hotels are allowed Cities can adopt Reasonable occupancy, intensity of use, and spacing standards to promote public health and safety Interim Regulation Comparison Interim Regulations Applies to four uses Emergency housing c Emergency Shelters c Transitional Housing Permanent Supportive Housing Type II permit - administratively approved No children unless licensed or with parent or guardian Coordinated Entry (CMIS) Required for providers receiving local, state or federal funding Encouraged for other programs Planning Commission Proposal Applies to five uses Emergency housing o Emergency Shelters o Transitional Housing o Permanent Supportive Housing c Transitional Parking Regulations Type II permit - administratively approved No children unless licensed or with parent or guardian Coordinated Entry (CMIS) Required for all providers regardless of funding 6/14/2022 CC Ad min Report - CTA-2022-0001 6/14/2022 Interim Regulation Comparison Interim Regulation Criteria: Qualifications of operators Operations plan Staff o Security o Code of conduct o Outreach with neighbors o Record keeping Coordination plan with street outreach teams regarding bed availability Onsite supervision Lighting, parking, sanitation, trash, bike and pedestrian access, all functions must be inside CC Planning Commission Proposal Criteria: Generally the same with exceptions: o Expanded to address loitering and trespassing; o Requires security cameras to monitor parking areas o Simplified language in occupancy policies o Expanded outreach section to identify services provided, point of contact to report concerns, plan for addressing concerns and notice requirements to 400' Added parking requirements and exterior lighting for parking areas o Transitional Parking requirements Site plan 24-hour restroom access required Can be 24-hour or overnight parking RV's allowed Agreement between organization and manager Ad min Report - CTA-2022-0001 Interim Regulation Comparison Interim Regulation Criteria: Occupancy: MFR, CMU, MU, RC, IMU and zones: 20 individuals being served R-1 through R-4 and NC: 8 individuals being served per dwelling unit Permanent supportive housing in commercial and MFR zones is treated like other residential uses for occupancy limits Spacing 1 mile between uses 6/14/2022 Planning Commission Proposal Criteria: Occupancy, the same with exceptions: Increased the number of individuals per dwelling unit in the R-1 through R-4 and NC zone to 10; Limits permanent supportive housing to 20 adults in commercial and MFR zones Clarifies that population limits do not include children under 18 Spacing 1/2 mile between uses CC Admin Report - CTA-2022-0001 Interim Regulation Comparison Interim Regulations related changes: Modified permitted use matrix for uses in zones required by HB 1220 Identified supplemental standards Added Definitions (specified by HB 1220) 6/14/2022 Planning Commission Proposal related changes: Adds Transitional Parking to permitted use matrix, supplemental standards and definitions; Modified or deleted related definitions for consistency; Added uses to Permit Type and Land Use Application table CC Ad min Report - CTA-2022-0001 Qi '�' JNO 55 � 441 ti O e,6 �Q ¢o 40:0 4/28/2022 Timeline CTA-2022-000 1 ��� Study Session k‘� April 14 & 28, 2022 Public Hearing May 12, 2022 Finding & Recommendation May 26, 2022 PC Study Session - CTA-2022-0001 Administrative Report June 14, 2022 1st Ordinance Reading June 28, 2022 2nd Ordinance Reading July 5, 2022 Admin Report - CTA-2022-0001 CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Page 1/15 Chapter 19.45 COMMUNITY SERVICES Sections: 19.45.010 Purpose. 19.45.020 Applicability. 19.45.025 Permit Type 19.45.030 Application requirements and standards. 19.45.040 Data entry into regional homeless management information system. 19.45.060 Waivers and decision. 19.45.010 Purpose. The purpose of Chapter 19.45 SVMC is to allow and establish a review and permitting process for the location, siting, and indoor operation of emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and transitional parking. These regulations are intended to protect public health and safety by requiring safe operations of these uses for both the residents and broader community. 19.45.020 Applicability. Chapter 19.45 SVMC applies to all proposals for new or expanding emergency shelter, emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and transitional parking uses or modifications to such uses. 19.45.025 Permit Type Emergency shelter, emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and transitional parking uses are classified as a Type II permit and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.070. 19.45.030 Application requirements and standards. A. Application contents. All applications for emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and transitional parking permits shall contain the following: 1. Identification of sponsors and/or managing agencies, including, but not limited to: a. Identification of experience providing similar services to people experiencing homelessness. b. Certifications or academic credentials in an applicable human service field and/or applicable experience in a related program with people experiencing homelessness. 2. An operations plan that addresses the following elements: a. Key staff positions and their roles and responsibilities. b. Site/facility management plan, including a security and emergency plan, and a plan for managing individuals excluded from accessing the proposed facility that specifically addresses loiterin and trespassin . Security cameras shall be provided to monitor parking areas. c. Site/facility maintenance plan, including at a minimum, regular trash patrol in the immediate vicinity of the site. d. Occupancy policies, including resident responsibilities and a code of conduct that includes, at a minimum, a plan that addresses threatening or unsafe behavior, substance use, safety, and cleanliness. e. Provision of human and social services, including a staffing plan and outcome measures. f. Outreach with surrounding property owners and residents that includes at a minimum the following: CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Page 2/15 i. A description of how the proposed facility will serve the population that will be accommodated by the use; ii. Identification of a phone number and point of contact at the site of the proposed facility for the community to report concerns: iii. A plan for addressing reported concerns and documenting resolution, and making this information publicly available; and iv. Notice to all property owners and residents of the proposed site consistent with the distribution requirements of SVMC 17.80.120-(B)-(1). g. Procedures for maintaining accurate and complete records and how confidentiality will be maintained; and h. For those providers that operate emergency shelters or emergency housing, a coordination plan with street outreach teams and enforcement agencies to ensure that space is available for people experiencing homelessness in the City. 3. A map showing transit, pedestrian and bicycle access from the subject site to services and schools. 4. Emergency shelters and emergency housing providers shall provide an interior space plan identifying all functions associated with the facility, including adequate waiting space. All functions must take place within a building or facility. 5. A parking plan that addresses the parking needs of the use based on the population served and projected needs. Parking shall be provided on -site unless it can be provided for consistent with SVMC 22.50.020(B). IThe plan shall include security cameras and areas to be observed by the cameras. 6. An exterior lighting plan for the parking area in compliance with Chapters 19.75 and 22.60 SVMC. 7. Additional materials required for transitional parking uses include: a. A site plan that indicates the facility parking and the parking area provided for the transitional parking; b. The operations plan shall specify how waste and restroom access will be provided. Restroom access may be provided either in the building or portable facilities; c. The operations plan shall specify if the site is available for overnight parking use only, or available for parking during the daytime and overnight; and d. A signed agreement between the organization and the managing agency, if applicable. B. Design Standards and Requirements. Emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing shall be subject to all locally applicable land use, development, zoning, and building regulation requirements including, but not limited to, all applicable requirements set forth in SVMC Titles 17 through 24. In addition, emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and transitional parking shall be subject to the following standards: 1. In the MFR, CMU, MU, RC, IMU, and I zones, emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing sites, permanent supportive housing sites and transitional parking sites shall be limited to no more than 20 individuals being served. In the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and NC zones, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing shall be limited to no more than ten adults per dwelling unit, not including children under the age of 18. 2. Emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and transitional parking shall be located a minimum of 0.5 miles apart measured from the nearest property line of any use regulated by this Chapter. CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Page 3/15 3. All residents, staff, and operators shall comply with all Spokane County Health District requirements related to food preparation, service, and donations. 4. Trash receptacles shall be provided in multiple locations throughout the facility and site. Managing parties shall contract with the applicable trash service provider for the duration of the use. 5. The number of parking spaces shall be required based on the population served and the projected needs of the emergency shelteremergency housing. transitional housing. or permanent supportive housing facility as outlined in the parking plan and subject to review and approval of the City. Spaces shall be provided at a minimum, and may increased at the discretion of the City after review of the parking plan as follows: a. One space for the maximum number of staff on duty throughout each day; and b. Five spaces for transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in residential zones; or c. Ten spaces for emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in non-residential zones. d. Transitional parking uses do not need to provide additional parking. e. Off street parking shall comply with all other requirements of Title 22 SVMC including, but not limited to paving, drainage, location, dimensions, and design standards. 6. On -site supervision shall be provided at all times, unless it can be demonstrated through the operations plan that this level of supervision is not warranted for the population being served. 7. No children under the age of 18 are allowed to stay overnight in emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing or transitional parking sites unless accompanied by a parent or guardian, or unless the facility is licensed to provide services to youth. If a child under the age of 18 without a parent or guardian present attempts to stay in a facility not specifically licensed for providing housing to youth, the sponsor and/or managing agency shall immediately contact Child Protective Services and actively endeavor to find alternative housing for the child. 8. The sponsor and/or managing agency shall designate points of contact and provide 24-hour accessible phone contact information to the patrol operations commander for the Spokane Valley Police Depaituient (SVPD). The names of the on -duty points of contact shall be posted on site daily, and their contact information shall be provided to the SVPD. 9. Transitional parking programs are subject to the following additional requirements: a. Restroom access either within the buildings on the property or through use of portable facilities. Restrooms shall include handwashing stations or facilities in an adequate number as determined by the City. Restroom and handwashing station access shall be available at all hours of the day and night. b. Organizations providing transitional parking spaces must continue to abide by the parking requirements in SVMC 22.50 so that the provision of transitional parking spaces does not reduce the total number of available parking spaces required for the primary use. c. Recreational vehicles shall be allowed. 19.45.040 Data entry into regional homeless management information system. A. Emergency shelter, emergency housing, transitional housing, or permanent supportive housing entities shall be required to provide and comply with a plan for collecting information/data from prospective occupants for inclusion in the homeless management information system. CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Page 4/15 19.45.060 Waivers and decision. A. The City manager or designee shall have the authority to grant, grant with conditions, or deny an application for emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing under Chapter 19.45 SVMC. Conditions may be imposed to: 1 Minimize nuisance -generating features such as noise, waste, air quality, traffic, physical hazards, and other similar impact and 2. Mitigate potentially adverse operational characteristics, including, but not limited to, direct intake of residents on site, daily check -in of residents to secure a bed, lack of resident enrollment in a program operated by the on -site agency, or lack of available intensive case management for residents on site. B. In cases where the application does not meet the provisions of Chapter 19.45 SVMC or adequate mitigation may not be feasible or possible, the City manager or designee shall deny the application and issue a decision pursuant to SVMC 17.80.130. CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Page 5/15 Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures 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: 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 20.60.030 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 20.30.060 site plan Type II Alterations — preliminary and fmal short subdivisions and preliminary and 20.60 final binding site plans (where there is no alteration of a public dedication) Binding site plan — preliminary and fmal 20.50 Emergency Shelter and Emergency Housing 19.45 Minor alterations —preliminary subdivisions 20.50 Permanent supportive housing 19.45 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 CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Page 6/15 Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross -Reference Short subdivision — preliminary and fmal 20.30, 20.40 Transitional housing 19.45 Transitional Parking Programs 19.45 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 Type III Alterations — final subdivisions (where a public hearing is requested) 20.50 Alterations — preliminary and fmal short subdivisions and preliminary and 20.60 final binding site plans (where there is alteration of a public dedication) Conditional use permits 19.150 Subdivisions — preliminary 20.30 Substantial alterations —preliminary subdivisions 20.50 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. Page 7/15 CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Chapter 19.60 PERMITTED USES Sections: 19.60.010 General. 19.60.020 Use categories. 19.60.030 Uses not listed. 19.60.040 Explanation of table abbreviations. 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. 19.60.010 General. A. Uses allowed in each zoning district are shown in SVMC 19.60.050, Permitted uses matrix. B. Uses within shoreline jurisdiction are also subject to additional use restrictions pursuant to Chapter 21.50 SVMC, Shoreline Regulations.. 19.60.020 Use categories. Uses are assigned to the category that describes most closely the nature of the use. Uses have been classified into general use categories and subcategories. Definitions and examples are provided in Appendix A, Definitions.. 19.60.030 Uses not listed. A. If a use is not listed, the city manager or designee shall have the authority to allow uses that are similar to a use category or use listed in SVMC 19.60.050, subject to the same review procedures as the similar use. B. Accessory Uses. The city manager or designee shall have the authority to allow accessory uses when they are subordinate to, or incidental to, the primary use on the same lot and permitted within the zoning district. C. Temporary Uses. Temporary uses are permitted for a limited period of time or pending the occurrence of an event pursuant to Chapter 19.160 SVMC, Temporary Use Permits. 19.60.040 Explanation of table abbreviations. The following describe the abbreviations used in SVMC 19.60.050, Permitted uses matrix: A. Permitted uses are designated with a "P." Permitted uses are allowable uses within a zoning district. B. Conditional uses are designated with a "C." Conditional uses are authorized pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC, Conditional Use Permits. C. Essential public facility (EPF) uses are designated with an "E." Essential public facility uses are of statewide, regional/countywide or local significance. EPFs shall be subject to Chapter 19.90 SVMC, Essential Public Facilities (EPFs). D. Uses subject to supplemental use regulations are designated with an "S." The supplemental regulations are set forth in Chapter 19.65 SVMC and shall apply to the corresponding supplemental uses listed in SVMC 19.60.050, Permitted uses matrix. E. Prohibited uses are designated with a blank cell. Page 8/15 CTA-2022-0001 Community Services 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Agriculture and Animal Animal processing/handling P Animal raising and/or keeping SSSS S S S Animal shelter S P P Beekeeping, commercial P Beekeeping, hobby S S S S Community garden SSSS S S S S Greenhouse/nursery, commercial P P P Kennel S S S S P P Orchard, tree farming, commercial P P Riding stable P P C Communication Facilities Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P Repeater facility P P PP P P P P P Small cell deployment S SSS S S S S S S S S Telecommunication wireless antenna array S S S S S S S S S S S Telecommunication wireless support tower S S S S S S S S S S S Tower, ham operator SSSS S S S S S S S Community Services Community hall, club, or lodge P P P P P P P P Church, temple, mosque, synagogue and house of worship PPPP P P P P P Crematory P P P P Emergency housing S S S - S S S Emergency shelter S S S - S S S Funeral home P P Permanent supportive housing SSSS S S Transitional housing SSSS S S S Transitional parking S S S Page 9/15 CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Day Care Day care, adult P P PP P P P P P P P Day care, child (12 children or fewer) P P P P P P P P P P P Day care, child (13 children or more) C C C C P P P P P P P Eating and Drinking Establishment P P P P P P S Education Schools, college or university P P P Schools, K through 12 PPPP P P P P P Schools, professional, vocational and trade schools P P P P P P Schools, specialized training/studios P P P P Entertainment Adult entertainment and retail S Casino P P P Cultural facilities P P P P Exercise facility S S S S Off -road recreational vehicle use P P Major event entertainment P P P Racecourse P P P P Racetrack P P Recreational facility P P P P P P Theater, indoor P P P Group Living Assisted living/convalescent/nursing home P P P P Community residential facilities (-8 residents or less) P P P P P P P Community residential facilities (greater than-6-8 and under 25 residents) P P P Dwelling, congregate P P P Industrial, Heavy Assembly, heavy P Hazardous waste treatment and storage S S Manufacturing, heavy P Page 10/15 CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Processing, heavy P Mining S Industrial, Light Assembly, light P P P P P Manufacturing, light P P P Processing, light P P Recycling facility S S S S Industrial service P P Lodging Bed and breakfast PPPP P P Hotel/motel P P P P S Recreational vehicle park/campground S Marijuana Uses Marijuana club or lounge Marijuana cooperative Marijuana processing S S Marijuana production S S Marijuana sales S S S Marijuana transporter S S S Medical S P P P P P Office Animal clinic/veterinary S S S S S Office, professional P P P P P P P Parks and Open Space Cemetery P PPP Golf course P PPP P P P P P Golf driving range CCCCC P C P P P Parks PPPP P P P P P P Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities PPPP P P P P P P P P Essential public facilities EEEE E E E E E E E Public utility local distribution facility S S S S S S S S P P P S Page 11/15 CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Public utility transmission facility SSSS S S S S S S S S Tower, wind turbine support S S S S Residential Dwelling, accessory units S S S S S S S S S Dwelling, caretaker's residence S S S S S Dwelling, cottage S S S S Dwelling, duplex S P P S S Dwelling, industrial accessory dwelling unit S S Dwelling, multifamily P P P Dwelling, single-family PPPP P P P P Dwelling, townhouse S S S S S Manufactured home park S S S Retail Sales and Service P P S P P S S Transportation Airstrip, private P P Battery charging stations SSSS P P P P P P P S Electric vehicle infrastructure P P P P P P P P Heliport P P Helistop C C P Parking facility — controlled access P P P P P Railroad yard, repair shop and roundhouse P Transit center P P P P P Vehicle Services Automobile impound yard P P Automobile/taxi rental P P P P P Automobile parts, accessories and tires P P P P P Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle painting, repair, body and fender works P P P P Car wash P P S P P P Farm machinery sales and repair P P P Fueling station P P S P P P Page 12/15 CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Heavy truck and industrial vehicles sales, rental, repair and maintenance P P Passenger vehicle, boat, and RV sales, service and repair P P P Towing P P P P Truck stop P P Warehouse, Wholesale, and Freight Movement Auction house P P P Auction yard (excluding livestock) P P Catalog and mail order houses P P P P P Cold storage/food locker P P Freight forwarding P P Grain elevator P P Storage, general indoor P P S P P P Storage, general outdoor S S S S P P Storage, self-service facility P P P P P P Tank storage, critical material above ground S S Tank storage, critical material below ground S S S Tank storage, LPG above ground S S S S S S Warehouse P P P P P Wholesale business P P P P P Page 13/15 CTA-2022-0001 Community Services Chapter 19.65 SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS 19.65.035 Community services. A. Emergency Shelter. Where permitted, emergency shelters shall comply with the provisions in Chapter 19.45 SVMC, Community Services. B. Emergency Housing. Where permitted, emergency housing shall comply with the provisions in Chapter 19.45 SVMC, Community Services. C. Transitional Housing. Where permitted, transitional housing shall comply with the provisions in Chapter 19.45 SVMC, Community Services. D. Permanent Supportive Housing. Where permitted, permanent supportive housing shall comply with the provisions in Chapter 19.45 SVMC, Community Services. E. Transitional parking programs. Where permitted, transitional parking programs shall comply with the provisions in Chapter 19.45 SVMC, Community Services. Spokane Valley Municipal Code Page 14/15 APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS A. General Provisions. 1. For the purpose of this code, certain words and terms are herein defined. The word "shall" is always mandatory. The word "may" is permissive, subject to the judgment of the person administering the code. 2. Words not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 3. The present tense includes the future, and the future the present. 4. The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular. 5. Use of male designations shall also include female. B. Definitions. Community services, use category: Uses of a public, nonprofit, or charitable nature that provide a local service to the community. Examples include funeral service facilities, religious institutions, senior centers, community centers, youth club facilities, hospices, drug and alcohol centers, social service facilities, mass shelters, short-term housing when operated by a public or nonprofit agency, vocational training for the physically or mentally disabled, soup kitchens, and surplus food distribution centers. "Community services" include the following specific uses: • Emergency housing: Temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless that is intended to address the basic health, food, clothing, and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families. Emergency housing may or may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. • Emergency shelter: An indoor facility that provides a temporary shelter for individuals or families who are currently homeless. Emergency shelters may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Emergency shelter facilities may include day and warming centers that do not provide overnight accommodations. • Permanent supportive housing: Subsidized, leased housing with no limit on length of stay that prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history, and personal behaviors. Permanent supportive housing is paired with on -site or off - site voluntary services designed to support a person living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing to retain their housing and be a successful tenant in a housing arrangement, improve the resident's health status, and connect the resident of the housing with community -based health care, treatment, or employment services. Permanent supportive housing is subject to all of the rights and responsibilities defined in Chapter 59.18 RCW. • Transitional housing: A project that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons or families, or other displaced individuals or families in need of protective shelter, for up to two years and that has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless or otherwise displaced persons and families into independent living. Detention and post -detention facilities, hospitals, psychiatric and/or substance abuse and secure community transition facilities are not transitional housing. • Transitional parking program: A program for people who are experiencing homelessness and sleeping in their vehicles at night. A transitional parking program can include locations open only for overnight use, or locations only during the daytime and overnight where persons experiencing homelessness reside in their vehicles on site. Spokane Valley Municipal Code Page 15/15 APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS Dwelling, congregate: A residential facility under joint occupancy and single management arranged or used for lodging of unrelated individuals, with or without meals, including boarding or rooming houses, dormitories, fratemities and sororities, and convents and monasteries. Emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing are not considered congregate dwellings. See "Group living, use category." Group living, use category: Living facilities for groups of unrelated individuals that include at least one person residing on the site who is responsible for supervising, managing, monitoring, and/or providing care, training, or treatment of residents characterized by shared facilities for eating, hygiene, and/or recreation. Examples include dormitories, fraternities and sororities, assisted living facilities, nursing and convalescent homes, aggregate dwellings, and community residential facilities. Excludes detention and post -detention facilities, emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing. Lodging, use category: Establishments that provide a person, typically a traveler, a place to stay for a short period of time. Examples include bed and breakfasts, hotels, and motels. Transitional housing and mass shelters are included in the "Community services, use category." Supportive housing: For purposes of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, supportive housing refers to a temporary or permanent residential development with more than one small residential dwellinT. Transitional housing: Congregate living- facilities for temporarily displaced individuals and families with an on site facilities, hospital, psychiatric and/or substance abuse and secure community transition facilities are not transitional FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2022-0001 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. The Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1220 (HB 1220) in 2021 which became fully effective on September 30, 2021. HB 1220 adopted amendments to the Growth management Act and other associate statutes related to affordable housing and homelessness. Amongst other requirements, HB 1220 preempts municipalities from prohibiting transitional housing and permanent supportive housing from residential zones and zones where hotels are permitted. HB 1220 also preempts municipalities from prohibiting indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in zones where hotels are permitted. HB 1220 allows municipalities to adopt reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements to protect public health and safety on indoor emergency shelters, indoor emergency housing, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing, so long as such ordinances do not prevent siting sufficient housing for projected needs. 3. The City Council adopted Ordinance 21-009 on July 20, 2021, to establish emergency interim regulations to ensure that healthy, safe, and well -planned emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing with reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use standards in the zones required by HB 1220. Ordinance 21-009 was passed as an emergency ordinance that was to be effective for 365 days. The Ordinance will expire on July 19, 2022. 4. CTA-2022-0001 is a City -initiated text amendment to establish Chapter 19.45 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to regulate Community Services, including Emergency Shelters, Emergency Housing, Transitional Housing, Permanent Supportive Housing and Transitional Parking and other related housekeeping items that include modifying SVMC 17.80.030, chapters 19.60 and 19.65 SVMC, and Appendix A to include references to the community services uses. 5. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on May 12, 2022. The Commissioners voted 5-0 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: H-G4 Work collaboratively with local stakeholders to develop a Homeless Response System specific to the needs of the Valley Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2022-0001 Page 1 of 3 H-G5 Work closely with and support the Regional Homeless System to ensure continuity of care for community members that are unsheltered and unstably housed in the Valley and throughout our region. 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 H-P7 Work with service providers to bring additional resources to Valley residents. H-P8 Ensure the provision of homeless and housing services have commensurate on -site support to maintain the character of neighborhoods and minimize public service calls. H-P10 Ensure equal access for Valley residents to publicly funded programs, transportation, job opportunities and housing. H-P12 Support the implementation of the Continuum of Care Five -Year Strategic Plan to End Homelessness. H-P15 Encourage and support new projects and programs which seek to assist in maintaining housing stability or provide exits from homelessness to housing. H-P16 Analyze and collect data through our local Community Management Information System and use this data to help drive homeless and housing policy. H-P17 Continue to support and participate in the Coordinated Entry implementation Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the goals and policies. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The City is preempted by HB 1220 from prohibiting emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in various zones described in the bill. The City recognizes the need to provide safe and stable parking areas for persons taking residence in their vehicles. HB 1220 authorizes the City to establish reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity regulations for the mandated uses. The City is committed to encouraging and supporting new providers or programs which assist the City's unsheltered population_and others experiencing housing instability. These regulations prevent the unsafe, overconcentrated, or otherwise unhealthy siting of these uses in an attempt to respond to the challenges of homelessness in an effective and responsible manner. 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. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2022-0001 Page 2 of 3 2. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA-2022- 0001 with the following modifications: a. Allow recreational vehicles in Transitional Parking; b. Require lighting and security cameras in all parking areas; c. Require off-street parking for all on duty staff for all uses, and a minimum of five parking spaces in the residential zones and ten parking spaces in the non-residential zones; and d. Reduce the minimum distance between facilities from 1 mile to 0.5 mile. Attachment: Exhibit 1— Proposed Amendment CTA-2022-0001 Approved this 26th day of May, 2022 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2022-0001 Page 3 of 3 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall April 14, 2022 I. Planning Commission Vice -Chairman Sherri Robinson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in person. H. III. Planning Commission Secretary Lemons took attendance, and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Susan Delucchi Karl Granrath Walt Haneke Bob McKinley, absent Nancy Miller Sherri Robinson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chaz Bates, Planning Manager Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Eric Robison, Homeless & Housing Coordinator There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Chairman McKinley from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the April 14, 2022 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed V. MINUTES: Commissioner Delucchi moved to approve the March 24, 2022 minutes as submitted. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Robinson stated that she went to the new library ground -breaking ceremony and is very excited to see that project finally moving forward. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Planning Manager Chaz Bates reported that long-time Planner Karen Kendall has left the City. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Study Session: CTA-2022-0001 — Community Services Interim Regulations Governing Transitional & Emergency Housing 04-14-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Senior Planner Lori Barlow stated that staff is going to bring proposed permanent regulations governing transitional and emergency housing at the next Planning Commission meeting. The current presentation is to outline the interim regulations that are already in place based on House Bill (HB) 1220 that was passed by State Legislation in 2021. HB 1220 requires that Washington cities plan for affordable housing in their next Comprehensive Plan update. It also states that the City cannot prohibit transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in any zones where residential dwellings or hotels are allowed and cannot prohibit emergency housing and emergency shelters in any zone where hotels are allowed. HB1220 does allow cities to adopt reasonable occupancy, intensity of use, and spacing standards to promote public health and safety but cities must allow enough transitional or emergency housing to meet current and projected needs. Ms. Barlow explained that the City regulations prior to July 20, 2021 allowed transitional housing only in the Multi -Family (MFR) zone through a conditional use permit process. This regulation is in direct conflict with HB 1220. Therefore, the City adopted Ordinance 21- 009 regarding interim regulations that were to remain in effect for one year until permanent regulations are adopted. Ms. Barlow stated that the interim regulations established Chapter 19.45 "Community Services As Interim Regulations." It outlined definitions for the four types of required housing: Emergency Housing, Emergency Shelter, Permanent Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing. It also updated the "Permitted Use Matrix" in the code to provide for uses in zones required by HB1220. Ms. Barlow explained that based on the interim regulations, any application received for one of the four housing types would require a Type 1I permit that would be administratively approved with conditions based on specific criteria. The criteria includes that there will be no kids unless the facility is specifically licensed for children, or the child is with their parent/guardian and the facility must comply with record keeping in the Community Management Information System (CMIS) and Coordinated Entry. The contents of the application must include the qualifications of operators and a detailed operations plan that outlines information regarding staff', security, code of conduct, outreach with neighbors, record keeping, coordination plan with street outreach teams regarding bed availability, onsite supervision, and inside functions. The regulations also limit that occupancy to twenty individuals in the non-residential zones and eight per dwelling unit in the residential zones. There are also requirements stating that there is a minimum of one mile spacing between facilities and the City can implement conditions to minimize nuisance impacts and adverse operations characteristics. Ms. Barlow mentioned that the City adopted a Housing Action Plan (HAP) in 2021 and it identified a need for 6,660 new dwelling units needed by 2037. It also identified that of those new dwelling units, 2,900 units are needed for households under 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The HAP was designed to implement strategies to increase housing supply for all income segments. The City also adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-2021-0004) that formalized the City's commitment to a regional approach in reducing homelessness and provided guidance on zoning regulations for homeless services. Ms. Barlow said the proposed permanent regulations will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation at the next meeting. Commissioner Miller asked what the current and projected demands are for this type of housing. Homeless and Housing Coordinator Eric Robison answered that there are currently 100-120 unsheltered people in the City at any given time. Also, based on numbers received 04-14-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3of4 from the school districts in the area that one in every thirty-seven students are without a permanent home. Currently, the City helps fund homeless services throughout the County but does not have any services directly located in Spokane Valley. Commissioner Miller asked the percentage of people who would use the services if they were provided. Mr. Robison answered that there are no clear percentages of people who would use the services but there is a need for immediate services such as detoxification centers, transitional services such as clean and sober housing, and long-term solutions such as affordable housing options. Commissioner Beaulac asked about the notification process to adjacent property owners. Ms. Barlow answered that based on the current interim regulations, the City is required to notify property owners immediately adjacent to the proposed site. Commissioner Beaulac asked if the notification is sent to the property owner or the tenants of a multi -family location. Ms. Barlow answered that the regulations state the notice be sent to the property owner. Mr. Beaulac mentioned that the tenants should be aware of the proposals when they are received. Planning Manager Chaz Bates commented that there is a proposed outreach program that will be outlined in the permanent regulations that will be discussed at the next meeting. Commissioner Granrath asked how many of the different types of housing exist in the City limits currently. Mr. Robison answered that the City does not have any emergency shelters, emergency housing, or permanent supportive housing. There are a few transitional housing locations. Commissioner Granrath asked who will be overseeing the facilities for on -going compliance with the City issued criteria. Ms. Barlow answered that the facilities will be granted a "Type 2" permit which has a set of rules that must be followed. If the facilities are not following the outlined compliance rules, residents can file a complaint and the City will go through the process to bring the facility back into compliance. Commissioner Delucchi mentioned that these types of facilities must apply for a state license through the Department of Health and Social Services, and they will have to comply with regulations for those licenses as well. Ms. Barlow commented that if these entities are receiving public funds, there would be reporting requirements for those monies received. Commissioner Haneke commented that he would feel better about the issuance of these types of permits if they are monitored by additional authorities for compliance so it is known that they maintaining all of the conditions of approval in the future. City Attorney Cary Driskell responded that the City does not actively monitor all issued permits for compliance because the City just doesn't have enough staff to facilitate that type of project. However, when a complaint is received, the City will work with the facility to address the reported items and confirm that all other criteria is being met. Commissioner Haneke commented that he would like to make sure that there is some sort of reporting being done by each facility that the City can monitor. Commission Robinson commented that if the facility is receiving public funds, they will have to be tracked, regulated and licensed. She feels that the City only has the authority to monitor code items such as structural, correct use, and responding to neighbors as requested. Commissioner Delucchi asked if the Housing Needs Assessment/HAP is going to be updated. Mr. Bates answered that an update will be done and adopted during the periodic update in 2026. 04-14-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 Commissioner Beaulac asked if the City will know how many beds are available at any given time. Mr. Robison answered that one of the conditions of approval is reporting into the CMIS database. That program would provide information regarding bed availability. Commissioner Robinson asked if the database provides information on what types of beds are available (female, male, kids allowed, etc.). Mr. Robison answered that the database only includes shelters that are "low barrier," and they report by location which should give detail on what types of recipients they can house. Commissioner Granrath asked if the City has received any applications for the housing types outlined. Ms. Barlow answered that they City has not formally received any applications but there have been a few conversations with some entities that are interested in serving Spokane Valley. Commissioner Miller asked for regulation detail on the one mile spacing. Mr. Robison answered that the current regulations state one housing shelter type per mile. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Robinson commented that she attends a local church and they have been significantly affected by the homelessness problem. The church has had to take steps to protect their property including changing their landscaping, posting "no trespassing/no camping" signs, and putting in security measures. She is happy that the City is taking steps to address the problem. She also mentioned that there was a fire at a local housing complex which caused several families to be displaced from their homes and there wasn't anything available in Spokane Valley to accommodate the people affected. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Beaulac moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:34 p. m. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed Bob McKinley, Chair Date Signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall April 28, 2022 I. Planning Commission Chairman Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in person. II. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took attendance, and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Susan Delucchi Karl Granrath Walt Haneke Bob McKinley Nancy Miller Sherri Robinson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chaz Bates, Planning Manager Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Eric Robison, Homeless & Housing Coordinator III. AGENDA: Commissioner Haneke moved to approve the April 28, 2022 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the April 14, 2022 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Robinson stated that she would like the minutes to be resubmitted at the next meeting due to content error. She would like to wait until the next meeting when Planning Commission Secretary Marianne Lemons is available to address the errors. The vote on the motion was zero in favor, and seven against and the motion did not pass. The minutes will return for approval at the next meeting. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Robinson reported that she recently assisted at a fundraiser for NAOMI Community. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Bates stated that after conversations with City Administrative Staff and a review of the Planning Commission Code Of Conduct procedures, it has been determined that Planning Commissioners are not allowed to participate in meetings via ZOOM. It is required that Planning Commissioners appear in person now that the meetings have moved back to Council Chambers. Mr. Bates requested that Planning Commissioners let staff know ahead of time if they are unable to attend a meeting. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 04-28-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 a. Study Session: CTA-2022-0001 — Community Services Regulations Senior Planner Lori Barlow presented proposed permanent regulations governing transitional and emergency housing. She explained that the regulations were prompted by the adoption of House Bill (HB) 1220 that was passed by State Legislation in 2021. HB1220 requires that Washington cities plan for affordable housing in their next Comprehensive Plan update. It also states that the City cannot prohibit transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in any zones where residential dwellings or hotels are allowed and cannot prohibit emergency housing and emergency shelters in any zone where hotels are allowed. HB1220 does allow cities to adopt reasonable occupancy, intensity of use, and spacing standards to promote public health and safety but cities must allow enough transitional or emergency housing to meet current and projected needs. Ms. Barlow explained that the City regulations prior to July 20, 2021 allowed transitional housing only in the Multi -Family (MFR) zone through a conditional use permit process. This regulation is in direct conflict with HB 1220. Therefore, the City adopted Ordinance 21- 009 regarding interim regulations that were to remain in effect for one year until permanent regulations are adopted. Ms. Barlow stated that staff was presenting draft permanent regulations that would replace the previous interim regulations (that will be entirely removed from the code upon expiration). The draft regulations will establish Chapter 19.45 "Community Services." It will establish definitions for the following: Emergency Housing, Emergency Shelter, Permanent Supportive Housing, Transitional Housing and Transitional Parking. It will also add uses to the Permit Type and Land Use Application Table, it will modify the "Permitted Use Matrix" in the code to provide for uses in zones required by HB 1220, and it will identify uses that are subject to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) supplemental use regulations. She mentioned that "Transitional Parking" was not included in the interim regulations. Ms. Barlow explained the definitions as outlined in the draft code and gave detail on the definitions that were modified and/or deleted from the interim regulations. She also explained the changes to Table 17.80-1 regarding Permit Procedures and the Permitted Use Matrix. She explained that the newly added items are all "Type 2" permits which are approved administratively by staff. Staff can approve, approve with conditions, or deny the applications based on the application meeting the outlined criteria of the code. The permit procedure also outlines the notification process. A "Type 2" permit requires a notice of application with a comment period and a notice of decision must be issued by the City. Ms. Barlow outlined detail regarding the application requirements and standards. When an application is received it must include the following: identification of sponsors/agencies and their experience, an operations plan, an access to services map, an interior space plan, and a parking plan. The operations plan must detail staff contacts, a site management plan, a site maintenance plan, occupancy policies and code of conduct, an outreach plan, record keeping and confidentiality, and a coordination plan with street outreach teams to ensure space availability. If the facility is proposing a transitional parking program, they would also have to provide a site plan showing where parking will occur, a restroom and handwashing stations, and details regarding overnight/day use. Ms. Barlow explained the standards and requirements that each application will have to meet. The facility must meet all local development, zoning and building codes, occupancy is limited to twenty adults in the non-residential zones and ten adults per dwelling unit in the residential zones, the facility must comply with Spokane County Health requirements, the 04-28-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 ol'5 facility must have adequate trash receptables, the parking must be approved by the City, there must be onsite supervision, children are not allowed without a parent/guardian, and 24-hour points of contact are required. There are also requirements stating that there is a minimum of one mile spacing between facilities. The transitional parking program requirements include onsite access to restroom and handwashing stations, parking for organizations must be maintained and recreational vehicles are prohibited. Ms. Barlow stated that the public hearing for the proposed permanent regulations will be held at the next Planning Commission meeting for review and recommendation. Commission Delucchi asked if there is a definition for recreational vehicle (RV) and asked why living in an RV is prohibited. Ms. Barlow answered that there is a definition for recreational vehicle in the code. Homeless and Housing Coordinator Eric Robison answered that prohibiting recreational vehicles was determined by reviewing other communities parking projects. In those communities it was found that it was very hard to keep track of the individuals living in RV's and enforcing safety protocols. It was also found that the people living in RV's are less interested in moving into permanent housing than those living in vehicles. The proposed transitional parking intent is to allow a temporary housing solution and an RV could be used for long-term housing. Commissioner Delucchi asked about exterior lighting being excluded from transitional parking. Ms. Barlow answered that it was removed from the code because the lighting requirement was more geared towards planned encampments, but she stated that requirements for lighting could be added if the Planning Commission wanted. Commissioner Haneke asked if it would be possible to allow RV's but limit the time that they are allowed to park. Mr. Robison answered that time limits were discussed but there are situations where a person could be waiting for a significant amount of time to get into permanent housing and that could cause problems in these transitional parking areas. Mr. Haneke expressed that if people are allowed to live in their vehicles while waiting for a permanent home, an RV isn't much different. Commissioner Miller asked how the transitional parking would be monitored. Ms. Barlow answered that the parking areas would have to comply with all the rules and requirements just like the other housing solution types. Commissioner Beaulac asked about putting the housing types in the "industrial" zones. He expressed concern that these facilities would not be a good fit in these areas. Ms. Barlow answered that according to HB1220, these types of facilities must be allowed in any zone where hotels are allowed and hotels are allowed by the code in the industrial zone. Commissioner Beaulac asked if these facilities will be required to report using the Community Management Information System (CMIS) and Coordinated Entry Program. Ms. Barlow responded that the new regulations state that all entities must report regardless of whether they are private or publicly funded. Commissioner Delucchi asked about people living in semi -trucks being allowed in transitional parking. Ms. Barlow answered that semi -trucks were not specifically considered but the regulations have a limit of 20 adults in non-residential zones and 10 adults in residential zones. Staff feels that the monitors of these sites will probably restrict semi - trucks to allow for the maximum adults to park in the space. Commissioner Miller asked about the one mile spacing of facilities. Ms. Barlow clarified that only type of facility can be built within a mile of another. According to the proposed 04-28-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 language, the different housing types cannot be combined into one facility. Each type of housing must be at least one mile apart. Commissioner Miller expressed that she would like something in the code regarding overbuilding of these types of facilities. She stated that she doesn't think a new one should be allowed if the current ones aren't running close to capacity. Mr. Robison responded that these facilities are expensive to build and typically if two facilities are being built in a similar location, they are generally serving a different population or providing different services. Commissioner Haneke answered about the notification process to the adjacent property owners. Ms. Barlow answered that according to Type 2 permitting regulations, a notice of application and a notice of decision is sent to the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Haneke asked if the notification is just adjacent properties or all properties within 400 feet of the proposed location. Ms. Barlow answered that the notice is only sent to the immediately adjacent properties. Commissioner Haneke expressed that he would like to see additional notices sent to residents. Commissioner Granrath asked about the determination of "experience" that is specified as a requirement. Mr. Robison answered that running a shelter is very difficult and the City wants to make sure that the applicant or their designees have some sort of knowledge and experience in this area. Commissioner Granrath asked if the City will impose conditions regarding fencing, landscaping, etc. to help mitigate the impact on surrounding areas. Ms. Barlow answered that the proposed language in 19.45.060 regarding "Waivers and Decisions" states that the City can impose conditions to minimize nuisance -generating features and mitigate potentially adverse operational characteristics. It also states that if adequate mitigation is not possible, the City can deny the application. Commissioner Robinson asked if there is a plan to get information out to the public regarding this new regulation. Ms. Barlow answered that the City is following the procedural process of publishing the public hearing notice, notifying stakeholders/agencies/providers and holding the public meetings. Mr. Robison responded that there has been some communication with the community about the City's plan for addressing homelessness and he hopes to increase that communication in the future. Commissioner Robinson commented that she would like to see more notification to the public and the Parks Department of the decisions being contemplated or made to get more community "buy in". A brief recess was called at 7:25 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Delucchi asked if the City has an issue with RV's being parked on the street. Mr. Robison answered that RV's being parked on the street and people living in RV's is a challenge for the City and Law Enforcement. City Attorney Driskell responded that the code does have restrictions in the code regarding camping in the right-of-way and the City Council will be reviewing stricter guidelines regarding parking on the street and junk vehicles for possible adoption. Ms. Delucchi commented that she would like to see the City reconsider prohibiting RV's. Commissioner Haneke asked if the Planning Commission could give suggested changes to staff to make to the proposed language to be brought back to the next meeting. Ms. Barlow answered that the public hearing has already been advertised and any changes to the proposed draft language will have to be made via motion during the public hearing. A public hearing will be held on this matter at the May 12, 2022 meeting. 04-28-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Beaulac asked if it would be possible to send a recommendation to the City Council to change the official paper of record from the Spokane Valley Herald to the Spokesman Review. City Attorney Driskell answered that staff would discuss the matter and figure out the best way to get the information to the City Council. Chairman McKinley stated that he will not be able to attend the May 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Beaulac moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, one against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Marianne Lemons, Secretary Date Signed Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall May 12, 2022 I. Planning Commission Vice -Chairman Sherri Robinson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in person and via ZOOM meetings. II. The Commissioners, staff, and audience stood for the Pledge Of Allegiance III. Planning Commission Secretary Marianne Lemons took attendance, and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Susan Delucchi Karl Granrath, absent Walt Haneke Bob McKinley, absent Nancy Miller Sherri Robinson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Tony Beattie, City Senior Deputy Attorney Chaz Bates, Planning Manager Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Chairman McKinley and Commissioner Granrath. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the May 12, 2022 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 Haneke moved to approve the April 14, 2022 minutes as submitted. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Delucchi requested a change to page three, paragraph eight to include language about people living in their semi -trucks. Commissioner Robinson requested a change to page 4, paragraph 5 to include notification to the Parks Department to get more "buy -in". Commissioner Haneke moved to approve the April 28, 2022 minutes as amended. There was no discussion. The vole on the motion was five in, favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Planning Commissioner Reports. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: City Attorney Cary Driskell introduced Tony Beattie as the new Senior Deputy City Attorney. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. 05-12-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: CTA-2022-0001 — Community Services Regulations The Public Hearing was opened at 6:09 p.m. Senior Planner Lori Barlow presented proposed permanent regulations governing transitional and emergency housing. She explained that the regulations were prompted by the adoption of House Bill (HB) 1220 that was passed by State Legislation in 2021. HB 1220 requires that Washington cities plan for affordable housing in their next Comprehensive Plan update. It also states that the City cannot prohibit transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in any zones where residential dwellings and hotels are allowed and cannot prohibit emergency housing and emergency shelters in any zone where hotels are allowed. HB 1220 does allow cities to adopt reasonable occupancy, intensity of use, and spacing standards to promote public health and safety but cities must allow enough transitional or emergency housing to meet current and projected needs. Ms. Barlow explained that the City regulations prior to July 20, 2021 allowed transitional housing only in the multi -family (MFR) zone through a conditional use permit process. This regulation is in direct conflict with HB 1220. Therefore, the City adopted Ordinance 21-009 regarding interim regulations that were to remain in effect for one year until permanent regulations are adopted. Ms. Barlow presented draft permanent regulations to replace the previous interim regulations (that will be entirely removed from the code upon expiration). The draft regulations will establish Chapter 19.45 "Community Services." It will establish definitions for the following: Emergency Housing, Emergency Shelter, Permanent Supportive Housing, Transitional Housing and Transitional Parking. It will add uses to the Permit Type and Land Use Application Table, it will modify the "Permitted Use Matrix" in the code to provide for uses in zones required by HB1220, and it will identify uses that are subject to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) supplemental use regulations. She mentioned that "Transitional Parking" was not included in the interim regulations but has been added in the draft permanent regulations. Ms. Barlow explained the definitions as outlined in the draft code and gave detail on the definitions that were modified and/or deleted from the interim regulations. She explained the changes to Table 17.80-1 regarding Permit Procedures and the Permitted Use Matrix. She also explained the addition of Chapter 19.65.035 regarding Community Services - Supplemental Use Regulations. Ms. Barlow stated that Chapter 19.45 outlined the purpose of the chapter and the applicability (which applies to all five uses). It stipulated that the permit type is a Type II permit that is administratively approved and notice is required. It stated application requirements and standards plus requirements for data entry into regional Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). It stated that the City can approve, approve with conditions, and deny permits. It also stated that the City can impose conditions to address nuisance and adverse operational impacts. Ms. Barlow described the details regarding the application contents. When an application is received it must include the following: identification of sponsors/agencies and their experience, an operations plan, an access to services map, an interior space plan, and a parking plan. The operations plan must detail staff contacts, a site management plan, a site 05-12-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 maintenance plan, occupancy policies and code of conduct, an outreach plan. record keeping and confidentiality, and a coordination plan with street outreach teams to ensure space availability. If the facility is proposing a transitional parking program, they would also have to provide a site plan showing where parking will occur, a restroom and handwashing stations, and details regarding ovemight/day use. Ms. Barlow explained the standards and requirements that each application will have to meet to be approved. The facility must meet all local development, zoning and building codes, occupancy is limited to twenty adults in the non-residential zones and ten adults per dwelling unit in the residential zones, the facility must comply with Spokane County Health requirements, the facility must have adequate trash receptables, the parking must be approved by the City, there must be onsite supervision, children are not allowed without a parent/guardian, and 24-hour points of contact are required. There are also requirements that state there is a minimum of one mile spacing between facilities. The transitional parking program requirements include onsite access to restroom and handwashing stations, parking for organizations must be maintained and recreational vehicles are prohibited. Commissioner Beaulac asked ifa residential Homeowner's Association (HOA) can adopt covenants or restrictions to prohibit the housing types. Mr. Driskell stated that state law would supersede any HOA adoptions. The matter was opened to public comment. Joe Ader (Spokane resident representing Family Promise of Spokane) stated that he is in favor of the regulations. He explained that Family Promise works with families dealing with homelessness and they attempt to get those families into permanent housing. The City of Spokane Valley had more than 700 homeless students during the school year. Family Promise would be interested in providing a "neighborhood site" for transitional housing. They currently have five of these locations throughout Spokane County and they are extremely successful. He stated that the one -mile requirement would make establishing a location that is located near schools that are referring a lot of students to their organization. He fears that the restriction of one mile would make that very difficult. He requested that the City allow for a variance or waiver process for potential locations that won't cause a negative public impact. Jennifer Wilcox (Spokane Valley resident) stated that she is an advocate for people experiencing homelessness or difficulty accessing affordable housing. She said that she feels that Spokane Valley should create their own plan and not solely rely on the surrounding areas for homeless services. She stated that she is in favor in the adoption of the code text amendment because the amendment is critically needed to ensure permanent regulations. She feels that the amendment will improve public safety and preserve the City's culture and growth management plan while improving the quality of life for life for the City's most vulnerable residents. There was no additional public comment offered. The public hearing was closed at 6:50 p.m. Commissioner Delucchi asked if the regulations will apply to churches. Ms. Barlow answered that if a church is establishing a facility that meets the definition of the code, it would have to comply with the requirements. However, there are some special circumstances regarding churches that will be taken into consideration at the time of application. 05-12-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Delucchi relayed information from publications regarding transitional parking lots. She stated that she would like recreational vehicles (RV's) to be allowed in the transitional parking zone. Commissioner Miller expressed concern of overbuilding of like facilities. She stated that she would like to include a recommendation that a new facility cannot be built until other "like" facilities are at maximum occupancy. Commissioner Haneke asked about parking lot lighting. Ms. Barlow answered that there was a requirement in the interim regulations regarding lighting, but it was removed in the draft permanent regulations because the building code addresses lighting. Mr. Haneke stated that he would like to re -add the requirement regarding lighting in parking lots of the facilities and transitional parking lots so that the lots are extremely well lit and there are no areas that aren't visible. Commissioner Haneke asked if security cameras are required. Ms. Barlow answered that security cameras are not included in the draft language. Mr. Haneke expressed he would like to add language requiring security cameras. Commissioner Haneke asked about the noticing process for surrounding neighbors. Ms. Barlow answered that there are two noticing requirements built into the code as presented. 1) The Type II permit requires notice to be sent to adjacent property owners. 2) In Chapter 19.45.030.2, an outreach requirement is included that states that notice must be sent to all property owners and residents within 400 feet of the proposed site. Ms. Barlow clarified that outreach is not required until after the application is approved. Commissioner Haneke asked if it would be possible to send out notification to all properties within a 400-foot radius at the time of application, even though it's not required by the Type II permitted process. Senior Planner Bates responded that changing the noticing requirement for one type of use could cause an "appearance of unfairness" to the specific use and cause confusion within the code making it difficult to interpret. Commissioner Haneke asked if the permit type could be changed to a Type III permit. Attorney Driskell answered that changing to a Type III permit for these types of uses would make the process inconsistent with State Law. The draft code as presented is consistent and is outlined as required by State Law. He also explained that these types of permits don't fit within the scope of the Type III permitting process. Mr. Haneke commented that he would like to see more notification go out to surrounding residents prior to the approval process. Commissioner Haneke asked about parking space requirements. Ms. Barlow answered that applicants are required to provide a parking plan that addresses the parking needs of the use based on the population served and projected needs. She explained that staff feels that the providers will have knowledge of what the projected parking requirements will be for their facility. The City will require a narrative from the providers of their proposed parking plan that will be reviewed for adequacy. Mr. Haneke comment that he would like a minimum parking requirement included in the code. Commissioner Delucchi asked if it would be possible to change the one -mile limit to one facility per elementary school district. Ms. Barlow responded that most elementary schools are located within residential zones so making that change could affect the uses that are only permitted in the non-residential zones. Commissioner Delucchi expressed that it might be necessary to allow additional facilities within a one -mile radius to meet the need. Chairman Robinson asked about a variance process. Ms. Barlow answered that the draft code does not outline a variance process. Commissioner Beaulac stated that he thinks there 05-12-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 should be process for a variance or exemption that could be administratively approved or denied. Ms. Barlow responded that putting in a staff exemption process would be difficult to process because there's no criteria built into the code for staff to review if the exemption should be granted. The decision would be completely discretionary. Attorney Driskell suggested reducing the limit from one mile to one-half mile to allow for more facilities in a particular location. Commissioner Robinson commented that she thinks there needs to be at least enough parking spaces for the staff on duty. Mr. Haneke said that there should also be a parking requirement for residents. He suggested a minimum of ten spaces plus staff on duty for the facilities in non-residential zones and four or five spaces plus staff on duty for the facilities in residential zones. The following items were discussed by the Planning Commission for inclusion in the draft code recommendation. Commissioner Robinson asked for a show of hands to allow recreational vehicles in the transitional parking zone. The consensus was unanimously in favor. Commissioner Robinson asked for a show of hands to require lighting and security cameras in all parking areas. The consensus was unanimously in favor. Commissioner Robinson asked for a show of hands to prohibit a second facility from being built unless a like facility shows maximum occupancy. The consensus was one in favor and four against. Commissioner Robinson asked for a show of hands to add a minimum parking requirement of ten spaces plus staff on duty for the facilities in non-residential zones and four or five spaces plus staff on duty for the facilities in residential zones. The consensus was unanimously in favor. Commissioner Robinson asked for a show of hands to reduce the one -mile spacing requirement to one half mile. The consensus was four in favor and one opposed. Commissioner Beaulac moved to recommend approval of CTA-2022-0001 regarding Community Services Regulations subject to the following modifications: • Allow recreational vehicles in the Transitional Parking zone, • Require lighting in all parking areas • Require security cameras in all parking areas • Require a minimum of: five parking spaces, plus enough for all facility staff on duty in the residential zones, and 10 parking spaces, plus enough for all facility staff on duty, in the non-residential zones. • Reduce the minimum distance between facilities from one mile to one half mile. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Beaulac stated that he will not be at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Miller provided a copy of the Spokane Valley Herald to each of the Commissioners and informed them that a subscription is $25.00 per year. 05-i2-2022 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Delucchi moved to adjourn the meeting at 8: 04 p. M. The vote on the motion was and the motion passed! Bob McKinley, Chair Date Signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary Spokane Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2022-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 2, 2022 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 12, 2022 beginning at 6:00 p.m.; This hearing will be conducted in person and 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 (CTA) to establish regulations to address emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and transitional parking with reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use standards, identify the zones where such uses are allowed, and other matters related. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, and 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that CTA-2022-0001 is consistent with the minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, and Eric Robison, Homeless and Housing Coordinator REVIEWED BY: Chaz Bates, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed Amendment APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 SVMC, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Procedural Action Date SEPA — DNS Issued April 22, 2022 Published Notice of Public Hearing: April 22 and 28, 2022 Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment April 24, 2022 Background: In 2021, the Washington State Legislature adopted Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1220 (HB 1220) regarding affordable housing and homelessness. HB 1220 preempts the City from prohibiting transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in any residential zones or zones where hotels are permitted and preempts the City from prohibiting emergency housing and emergency shelters in zones where hotels are permitted. HB 1220 does allow cities to adopt reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity limits on such housing and shelters. HB 1220 provides definitions for permanent supportive housing, emergency housing, and emergency shelters, but does not define "transitional housing." The provisions of Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2022-0001 HB 1220 affecting transitional housings and permanent supportive housing became effective on July 25, 2021, and the provisions affecting emergency housing and emergency shelters became effective on September 30, 2021. . Due to the preemption established in HB 1220, absent additional City regulations on occupancy, spacing, and intensity, all transitional housing and permanent supportive housing would be allowed in nearly all City zones with no limits other than generally applicable building code requirements, and similarly all emergency shelters and emergency housing would be allowed in the RC Regional Commercial (RC), MU Mixed Use (MU), CMU Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), IMU Industrial Mixed Use (IMU), and I Industrial (I) zones without any limits other than generally applicable building code requirements. At that time, the City only regulated "transitional housing" and allowed it in the multifamily residential zone through a conditional use permit The City recognized the potential for significant impacts from such land uses to adjacent properties and the community since the City did not have any occupancy, spacing, or intensity regulations for such uses except as noted. As a result the City adopted Ordinance #21-009 on July 20, 2021 which established temporary interim regulations to provide for reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity limits on such uses until the City developed permanent regulations regarding such housing and shelters. The interim regulations will expire on July 19, 2022, unless other action is taken. The City has initiated this code text amendment to provide reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity limits on transitional, permanent supportive, and emergency housing, and emergency shelters. The City has also introduced regulations to manage Transitional Parking programs in non-residential zones. The CTA formalizes the zones where such uses are required to be allowed pursuant to HB 1220 and provides definitions for each of the uses. The proposed regulations limit these housing types to serving 10 adults in residential zones, and 20 adults in the RC, CMU, MU, IMU and I zones. A one -mile buffer is required between all such uses. The regulations require compliance with the building codes, and additional requirements related to homelessness services, such as requiring a code of conduct and information submittal to the Homelessness Management Information System. As required by HB 1220, the City must allow a sufficient number of facilities to provide for current and projected needs. Staff currently estimates that there are approximately 100-120 unsheltered individuals living in Spokane Valley in any given month. This estimate is based upon street outreach and direct contacts made by the Spokane Valley Homeless and Housing Coordinator, SNAP outreach teams, and the Spokane Valley Police Department and the recent Point -in -Time Count. The City does need to provide regulations that allow transitional, permanent supportive, and emergency housing and emergency shelters. Through the draft regulations, the City will allow providers to establish such facilities to address the current and projected needs, while still addressing impacts from such facilities. ANALYSIS: On July 19, 2022 the interim regulations will expire. At that time Title 19 SVMC Zoning will allow transitional housing in the Multifamily Residential zone through a conditional use permit. Emergency shelters, emergency housing, will be allowed in the RC, CMU, MU, IMU and I zones, and the transitional housing and permanent supportive housing will be allowed in nearly all zones without any limits other than generally applicable building code requirements. The proposed amendment: 1. The proposed regulations identify the zones allowed and provide for reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity limits on emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing consistent with HB 1220. In the absence of regulations the city has determined that there is potential for significant impacts from such uses. For example, the zoning code does not contain a limit on how many persons Page 2 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2022-0001 could be served in a transitional housing facility regardless of what zone it is located. This could result in a fifty -person transitional housing facility allowed to locate in a single family residential zone with an 8 dwelling unit per acre density. While both are residential uses, the impacts from the density, scale and size of the structure is evident and easily managed by limiting the number of persons served to be compatible with the density of the zone. The proposed code text amendment proposes to limit the number of persons to 10 adults, not including children under the age of 18, to be served at transitional housing and permanent supportive housing located in residential zones. This will ensure that the density of the development is compatible with the density of the single-family residential zones. Emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing and permanent non -supportive housing in non-residential zones may serve up to 20 adults, not including children under the age of 18. This provides opportunity for a larger scale facility in a setting where higher densities are common for residential development. 2. The proposed regulations limit the population served to 20 adults in facilities located in nonresidential zones, and 10 adults in those transitional housing or permanent supportive housing facilities located in residential zones to ensure safe and manageable conditions. Concerns associated with providing effective shelter for unsheltered persons are known to be safety and site management. -A prevalent reason that unsheltered individuals and families refuse or avoid shelters is the fear of large groups and concerns over safety. -Common concerns from unsheltered persons are having possessions stolen and physical safety, exposure to health conditions, or the prevalence of drugs or alcohol. Community concerns include impacts of having large numbers of individuals aggregating, or coming and going from sites, increase in unlawful activities in the area, property damage or affects to property values. Best practices have shown that providers serving small populations are able to more effectively manage the facilities to meet the needs of the population served as well as reduce impacts to adjacent and nearby residents, property owners and/or businesses. The City's approach to limit the capacity at each site recognizes both the concerns of those persons experiencing homelessness and the community at large. 3. A one -mile buffer prevents the concentration of community services (or emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing and permanent non -supportive housing) to avoid unintended impacts to property owners or businesses as well as ensures that services are provided throughout the community in areas needed. Individuals and families experiencing homelessness come from all areas of the community. It's beneficial to provide services to individuals and families throughout the community to afford them the opportunity to be close to their jobs, or close to their children's schools, etc.. Often transportation barriers separate individuals from their network of family, friends, churches, and other social support. Requiring the services and facilities to be separated by one mile ensures that the sites are distributed throughout the community, provides accessible opportunities, and avoids the concentration of the uses and potential indirect impacts to districts or neighborhoods. 4. The transitional parking regulations provide a safe place to park and connections to human and social services for people who are using their vehicles as residences. Due to a variety of reasons, that include rising rent, lack of available and affordable housing, the pandemic etc., more individuals and families have found themselves in temporary situations that include living in their vehicles. The City has documented cases of persons who are living in their vehicles while parked in the public right-of-way or on private property. The transitional parking regulations create an opportunity for providers to offer a safe and stable place for persons to park their vehicles where they have access to services that may include food and clothing, on -site Page 3 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2022-0001 service providers who can link them to housing, employment, and medical services. In the absence of a safe and stable location to park, the cycle of moving from location to location continues. Transitional parking programs can connect vehicle residents with the services that can lead to emergency housing or transitional housing. 5. The regulations implement the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. In 2021, the City adopted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan's goals, policies and strategies to guide the development of implementing regulations for the siting and/or provision of homeless services (CPA-2021-0004). As part of the development of the Comprehensive Plan amendment the City developed a Community Engagement Plan (CEP) designed to solicit input, gather feedback, and increase awareness of housing needs and opportunities in the City. The CEP included formal stakeholder interviews as well as a community wide survey. A total of 318 responses were received. Overall, the community was supportive of introducing services for unsheltered and unstably housed persons, conveyed strong responses on limiting the size of facilities, and agreed that community resources should be located in close proximity to public transportation. The adoption of CPA-2021-0004 formalized the City's commitment and participation in regional efforts to address homelessness and housing instability and provided policy support that enables safe, equitable, and efficient provision of services throughout the City, and provided guidance to the development of the interim and proposed regulations 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 supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following Comprehensive goals and policies: H-G4 Work collaboratively with local stakeholders to develop a Homeless Response System specific to the needs of the Valley H-G5 Work closely with and support the Regional Homeless System to ensure continuity of care for community members that are unsheltered and unstably housed in the Valley and throughout our region. 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 H-P7 Work with service providers to bring additional resources to Valley residents. H-P8 Ensure the provision of homeless and housing services have commensurate on - site support to maintain the character of neighborhoods and minimize public service calls. Page 4 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2022-0001 H-P10 Ensure equal access for Valley residents to publicly funded programs, transportation, job opportunities and housing. H-P12 Support the implementation of the Continuum of Care Five -Year Strategic Plan to End Homelessness. H-P15 Encourage and support new projects and programs which seek to assist in maintaining housing stability or provide exits from homelessness to housing. H-P16 Analyze and collect data through our local Community Management Information System and use this data to help drive homeless and housing policy. H-P17 Continue to support and participate in the Coordinated Entry implementation. Strategy: Develop regulations that provide for the safe, efficient, and equitable provision of supportive housing services within the City. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The City is preempted by HB 1220 from prohibiting emergency shelters, emergency housing, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in various zones described in the bill. The City recognizes the need to provide safe and stable parking areas for persons taking residence in their vehicles. HB 1220 authorizes the City to establish reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity regulations for the mandated uses. The City is committed to encouraging and supporting new providers or programs which assist the City's unsheltered population. These regulations prevent the unsafe, overconcentrated, or otherwise unhealthy siting of these uses in an attempt to respond to the challenges of homelessness in an effective and responsible manner. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80.150(F). 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-2022-0001 pursuant to adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: The City has not received any substantive agency comments to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns noted. Page 5 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2022-0001 B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A the proposed code text amendment to adopt regulations to address emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and transitional parking with reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use standards, identify the zones where such uses are allowed, and other matters related, is consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 6 of 6 To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of June 8, 2022; 1:30 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 June 21, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. — Meeting Cancelled, Council attends AWC Conference, June 21-24, Vancouver June 28, 2022, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 22-010 Code Enforcement — Erik Lamb [due Tue June 21] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) 3. First Reading Ordinance 22-011, Code Text Amendment 001, Community Service Regulations — L. Barlow (15 min) 4. First Reading Ordinance 22-012, Hearing Examiner Amendments — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Wilbur Sidewalk Project — Gloria Mantz (5 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Update Aging & Long Term Care of Eastern Wa — Executive Director Lynn Kimball (15 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley (5 minutes) 8. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports; Noticing Requirements [*estimated meeting: 65 mins] July 5, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Proclamation: Parks and Recreation Month ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Read Ordinance 22-011 Code Text Amendment 001, Comm. Service Regulations — 2. Second Reading Ordinance 22-012 Hearing Examiner Amendments — Cary Driskell NON -ACTION ITEMS: 3. Reclaim Project — Lisette Alent, Kenneth Carlson 4. RCO Greenacres Update — John Bottelli 5. Sprague Ave. Stormwater Dept of Ecology Grant - Bill Helbig, Gloria Mantz 6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley July 12, 2022, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley July 19, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Council Goals & Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax — Chelsie Taylor 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley July 26, 2022, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. Proclamation: National Night Out 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [due Tue June 28] Lori Barlow (5 minutes) (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 mins] [due Tue July 5] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue July 12] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue July 19] [*estimated meeting: August 2, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. — meeting cancelled (National Night Out) August 9, 2022, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley August 16, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Council Goals & Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax — Chelsie Taylor NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Council 2023 Budget Goals — Chelsie Taylor 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley (5 minutes) (5 minutes) mins] [due Tue Aug 2] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Aug 2] (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 6/9/2022 1:14:21 PM Page 1 of 2 August 23, 2022, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: 2023 Budget, Estimated Revenues & Expenditures — Chelsie Taylor 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports August 30, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley Sept 6, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley Sept 13, 2022, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING #1: 2023 Budget: 2023 Revenues, Includes Property Taxes 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Set 2023 Budget Hearing for October 11 — Chelsie Taylor 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley Sept 20, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Outside Agency presentations (5 minutes each) 2. Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2023 Property Taxes — Chelsie Taylor minutes) 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley Sept 27, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley October 4, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. City Manager Presentation of 2023 Preliminary Budget — John Hohman 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley Oct 11, 2022, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING #2: 2023 Budget: 2023 Revenues, Includes Property Taxes 2. First Reading Property Tax Ordinance — Chelsie Taylor 3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 4. Admin Report: 2022 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley *time for public or council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Gov. Auth. Emergencies (info) Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Neighborhood Restoration Park Lighting PFD Presentation Prosecutor Services Residency Appleway Trail Amenities Basement space Castle Park CDBG Interlocal Consolidated Homeless Grant Continuum of Care (info item) Core Beliefs Resolution [due Tue Aug 16] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Aug 23] (5 minutes) [due Tue Aug 30] (5 minutes) [due Tue Sept 6] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Sept 13] (-110 minutes) (10 (5 minutes) [due Tue Sept 20] (5 minutes) [due Tue Sept 27] (25 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Oct 4] (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) SCRAPS Update St. Illumination (owners, cost, location) St. O&M Pavement Preservation Vehicle Wgt Infrastructure Impact Water Districts & Green Space Way Finding Signs Draft Advance Agenda 6/9/2022 1:14:21 PM Page 2 of 2