2022, 10-18 Study Session AgendaAGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, October 18, 2022 6:00 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 Govemor 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 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
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Resolution 22-018 Terminating Declaration of COVID Emergency — Cary Driskell
[public comment opportunity]
2. Motion Consideration: Appointment of Alternates to Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) —
Mayor Haley, Erik Lamb [public comment opportunity]
3. Motion Consideration: Request of Councilmember to Participate Remotely — Councilmember Woodard
[public comment opportunity]
NON -ACTION ITEMS:
DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL
4. John Hohman, Briahna Murray Legislative Update Discussion/Information
5. Chief Soto Fire Depaitnient Monthly Report Discussion/Information
6. Levi Basinger Street Vacation, University Discussion/Information
7. Bill Helbig Street Vacation Compensation Discussion/Information
8. Bill Helbig, Jerremy Clark Country Vista Binding Site Plan Discussion/Information
9. Morgan Koudelka, Erik Lamb Police Vehicles Discussion/Information
10. Mike Basinger, Erik Lamb Plantes Ferry Discussion/Information
11. Mayor Haley Advance Agenda Discussion/Information
12. Information Only (will not be reported or discussed):Power of Governor for Declaring State of Emergency
13. Mayor Haley Council Comments Discussion/Information
14. John Hohman City Manager Comments Discussion/Information
ADJOURN
Council Agenda. October 18, 2022 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022 Department Director Approval: El
Check all that apply: n consent n old business ® new business n public hearing
n information n admin. report n pending legislation n executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 22-018 Terminating Declaration of Emergency — Covid
APPLICABLE LAW: Chapter 38.52 RCW; Spokane Valley Resolution 20-005.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of Resolution 20-005 on March 17, 2020.
BACKGROUND: On March 17, 2020, following similar actions at the state and local level in response to
the emerging threat presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, City Council adopted Resolution 20-005
declaring a state of emergency. Resolution 20-005 remains in effect.
On September 8, 2022, Governor Inslee announced that he would terminate all remaining state emergency
orders that are in effect relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, effective October 31, 2022. As such, it would
be appropriate for Council to adopt a resolution declaring the emergency conditions to have ended as well
in Spokane Valley.
Proposed Resolution 22-018, attached, would accomplish this task. Additionally, Resolution 20-005 is
attached for reference.
OPTIONS: (1) Pass Resolution 22-018; or (2) take other action as appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that Council adopt Resolution 22-018 declaring that
emergency conditions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic are no longer in effect, effective October 31,
2022.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS: (1) Proposed Resolution 22-018; and (2) Resolution 20-005.
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 22-018
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DECLARING THAT EMERGENCY CONDITIONS RESULTING FROM
THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC NO LONGER EXIST AND TERMINATING THE STATE OF
EMERGENCY ORDERED BY RESOLUTION 20-005, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED
THERETO.
WHEREAS, on February 29, 2020, the Governor of Washington State proclaimed that a state of
emergency exists for all counties in the state of Washington for the Novel Coronavirus ("COVID-19")
pandemic; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that the spread of the
COVID-19 virus had created a global pandemic (the pandemic); and
WHEREAS, the President of the United States and the Governor of the State of Washington issued
emergency declarations and proclamations on March 13, 2020, regarding the significant public health,
safety, and welfare impacts from the pandemic and necessary mandatory actions to stem and prevent further
spread of the pandemic within the United States and Washington State, including the City and broader
Spokane County region; and
WHEREAS, at the request of various regional and state jurisdictions, the City adopted Resolution
20-005 on March 17, 2020 declaring a state of emergency within the City as a result of the pandemic; and
WHEREAS, through the course of the pandemic, Governor Jay Inslee issued 85 Declarations
relating to limitations of activities in one form or another; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2022, Governor Inslee announced that he will sign a declaration
terminating 13 of the remaining emergency orders, effective October 27, 2022, and all remaining
emergency orders, as well as the state of emergency, effective October 31, 2022; and
WHEREAS, given the actions by Governor Inslee, the bases for Resolution 20-005 no longer exist,
and it is therefore appropriate for City Council to declare the state of emergency in the City ended.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County, Washington as follows:
Section 1. Declaration of emergency conditions to have passed.
The City Council, based upon the actions of Washington State Governor Jay Inslee in terminating
all remaining emergency orders relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as his action in terminating
the state of emergency effective October 31, 2022, hereby finds that the emergency conditions giving rise
to passage of Spokane Valley Resolution 22-005 have ended and the effects of Resolution 20-005, adopted
by the City Council on March 17, 2020, are hereby terminated.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective at 12:01 a.m. on October 31, 2022.
Resolution 22-018 — Declaring End of Emergency Conditions — COVID — 19 Pandemic Page 1 of 2
DRAFT
Adopted this day of October, 2022.
City of Spokane Valley
ATTEST: Pam Haley, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Office of the City Attorney
Resolution 22-018 — Declaring End of Emergency Conditions — COVID — 19 Pandemic Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, RESOLUTION 20-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, PROCLAIMING AN EMERGENCY OR DISASTER IN THE CITY OF
SPOKANE VALLEY RELATING TO THE COVID —19 PANDEMIC, AND OTHER MATTERS
RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 38.52.010, an "emergency or disaster" shall mean "an event or set of
circumstances which: (i) Demands immediate action to preserve public health, protect life, protect public
property, or to provide relief to any stricken community overtaken by such occurrences, or (ii) reaches such
a dimension or degree of destructiveness as to warrant the governor declaring a state of emergency pursuant
to RCW 43.06.010."
WHEREAS, the City is responsible for maintaining the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens;
and
WHEREAS, the City has authority, pursuant to RCW 38.52.070(2), "to enter into contracts and
incur obligations necessary to combat such disaster, protecting the health and safety of persons and
property, and providing emergency assistance to the victims of such disaster. Each political subdivision is
authorized to exercise the powers vested under this section in the light of the exigencies of an extreme
emergency situation without regard to time-consuming procedures and formalities prescribed by law
(excepting mandatory constitutional requirements), including, but not limited to, budget law limitations,
requirements of competitive bidding and publication of notices, provisions pertaining to the performance
of public work, entering into contracts, the incurring of obligations, the employment of temporary workers,
the rental of equipment, the purchase of supplies and materials, the levying of taxes, and the appropriation
and expenditures of public funds..."; and
WHEREAS, the City is a party to the regional lnterlocal Agreement for Emergency Management
Services. That interlocal agreement was established pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW and RCW 38.52.070
to facilitate cooperation between the City and the other local governments that are parties to the agreement
in the event of an emergency; and
WHEREAS, state and federal resources are supplemental to local jurisdiction efforts; and
WHEREAS, on February 29, 2020, the Governor of Washington State proclaimed that a state of
emergency exists for all counties in the state of Washington for the Novel Coronavirus ("COVID-19")
pandemic; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that the spread of the
COVID-19 virus had created a global pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the President of the United States and the Governor of the State of Washington issued
emergency declarations and proclamations on March 13, 2020, regarding the significant public health,
safety, and welfare impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic and necessary mandatory actions to stem and
prevent further spread of the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States and Washington State,
including the City and broader Spokane County region; and
Resolution 20-005 Relating to COVID — 19 Pandemic Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the- Health Officer for the Spokane Regional Health District
identified necessary actions to stem significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the COVID-
19 pandemic within the City and broader Spokane County region; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, Sheriff Knezovich, Director of the Greater Spokane Department
of Emergency Management, activated the Emergency Management Center to assist addressing impacts
from the COVID-19 pandemic within the Spokane County region, including the City; and
WHEREAS, an emergency or disaster currently exists that necessitates utilization of the emergency
powers granted pursuant to chapters 38.52 and/or 35A.33 RCW; and
WHEREAS, the emergency conditions may warrant the calling of an emergency meeting of the
City Council without prior notice pursuant to RCW 42.30.070; and
WHEREAS, significant economic loss has occurred or is occurring as a result of closures of
businesses and various governmental agencies.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1— Purpose and intent. As a result of the aforementioned conditions, it is the purpose
and intent of this Resolution to formally proclaim the existence of an emergency or disaster in the City of
Spokane Valley due to the COVID — 19 pandemic.
SECTION 2 — Defmitions.
"Emergency or disaster" (except RCW 38.52.430) as used in all sections of this Resolution shall
mean an event or set of circumstances which: (i) Demands immediate action to preserve public health,
protect life, protect public property, or to provide relief to any stricken community overtaken by such
occurrences, or (ii) reaches such a dimension or degree of destructiveness as to warrant the governor
declaring a state of emergency pursuant to RCW 43.06.010.
SECTION 3 — Emergency Proclamation.
A. The action by City Manager Mark Calhoun in proclaiming an emergency at 12:53 p.m. on
March 16, 2020, is ratified by the City Council. The City Manager is authorized to amend City programs
and change hours of operation of City facilities, including closing facilities as appropriate and necessary
under the circumstances.
B. It is hereby declared that there has been an emergency since February 29, 2020, and
continues to be an emergency or disaster as a result of the aforementioned conditions in the City of Spokane
Valley, Spokane County, Washington; therefore, designated departments are authorized to enter into
contracts and incur obligations necessary to combat such emergency to protect the health, safety and welfare
of persons and property, and provide emergency assistance to the victims of such disaster pursuant to
chapters 38.52 and/or 35A.33 RCW.
C. Each designated department is authorized to exercise the powers enumerated in this
Resolution in light of the demands of an extreme emergency situation without regard to time consuming
procedures and formalities prescribed by law (except mandatory constitutional requirements).
Resolution 20-005 Relating to COVID — 19 Pandemic Page 2 of 3
SECTION 4 Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption,
and shall remain in effect until subsequent action by the City Council stating the conditions giving rise to
this Emergency Proclamation have subsided.
DATED this 17th day of March, 2020.
ATTEST:
6m/
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved o Form:
Office he City Atfney
us
Ben Wick, Mayor
Resolution 20-005 Relating to COVID — 19 Pandemic Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY OR DISASTER RELATING TO THE NOVEL CORONA
VIRUS (COVID — 19) PANDEMIC IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, BY
THE CITY MANAGER, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 38.52.010, an "emergency or disaster" shall mean "an event or set
of circumstances which: (i) Demands immediate action to preserve public health, protect life, protect public
property, or to provide relief to any stricken community overtaken by such occurrences, or (ii) reaches such
a dimension or degree of destructiveness as to warrant the governor declaring a state of emergency pursuant
to RCW 43.06.010."
WHEREAS, the City is responsible for maintaining the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens;
and
WHEREAS, the City has authority, pursuant to RCW 38.52.070(2), "to enter into contracts and
incur obligations necessary to combat such disaster, protecting the health and safety of persons and
property, and providing emergency assistance to the victims of such disaster. Each political subdivision is
authorized to exercise the powers vested under this section in the light of the exigencies of an extreme
emergency situation without regard to time-consuming procedures and formalities prescribed by law
(excepting mandatory constitutional requirements), including, but not limited to, budget law limitations,
requirements of competitive bidding and publication of notices, provisions pertaining to the performance
of public work, entering into contracts, the incurring of obligations, the employment of temporary workers,
the rental of equipment, the purchase of supplies and materials, the levying of taxes, and the appropriation
and expenditures of public funds..."; and
WHEREAS, the City is a party to the regional Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Management
Services. That interlocal agreement was established pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW and RCW 38.52.070
to facilitate cooperation between the City and the other local governments that are parties to the agreement
in the event of an emergency; and
WHEREAS, state and federal resources are supplemental to local jurisdiction efforts; and
WHEREAS, on February 29, 2020, the Governor of Washington State proclaimed that a state of
emergency exists for all counties in the state of Washington for the Novel Coronavirus ("COVID-19")
pandemic; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that the spread of the
COVID-19 virus had created a global pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the President of the United States and the Governor of the State of Washington issued
emergency declarations and proclamations on March 13, 2020, regarding the significant public health,
safety, and welfare impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic and necessary mandatory actions to stein and
prevent further spread of the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States and Washington State,
including the City and broader Spokane County region; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the Health Officer for the Spokane Regional Health District
identified necessary actions to stem significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the COVID-
19 pandemic within the City and broader Spokane County region,; and
Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, oil March l3,2O2O,Sheriff Kuozovich,Director o[the Greater Spokane Department
of Emergency Management, activated (hc Emergency Management Center to uamimi addressing impacts
from tile COVID- 19 pandenlic within the Spokane County region, including the City; and
WFIEREAS,an emergency or disaster Currently exists that necessitates utilization of the emergency
powers granted pursuant tochapters 38.52 und/or]5&.33 RCVV; and
VV0CKB&S, the emergency conditions may warrant the calling o[on emergency meeting ofthe
City Council without prior notice pursuant to}tCW42.3V.O70;and
WHEREAS, significant economic loss has occurred or is ocouoioO as u rcook Of Closures of
businesses and various governmental agencies; and
NOW THEREFORE, lMark Calhoun, City Manager o[tile City ofSpokane Valley, nsuresult o[
tile aforementioned uituu1ionuodpumouot(o&CYY35&.l3.O8OxodRCVV38.52.V70:
DOHEREBY PROCLAIM that uState of Emergency exists intile City of Spokane Valley and
direct that the plans and procedures of the ooncndy adopted |ntodocn| /\Aroomeo( for Emergency
Management Set -vices hu implemented. Designated departments are authorized hoenter into contracts and
incur obligations necessary tocombat such emergency toprotect the houkh, safety, and welfare of person
and property, and provide emergency assistance to the victims ol'such disaster. Each designated department
is authorized to exercise the powers vested in this pvou)umu|inn in light of the demands of" ail extreme
omorgcnoyoiiva1ionnithoo(ougan|0m\imcconxumingpvnceduresxndfbrmu|idcopnusoribodbviu*(esuupt
/nundn{oryoouohtodouxi requirements). /\opart ofsuch emergency pvno|umxdou, \ may amend City
pnoArxmsond houoo[oporuhun for City facilities, including closing facilities as uppvnprioteund necessary
under the civcomstoouuu. Further, 1 muyvmivo such 6:co as are necessary to promote unoio| distancing For
public health, safety, and welfare purposes.
DATED this Alay o[March, 202O.
16 - 0,11,
Mar Calhoun, City
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 18, 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: Mayoral Appointment: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Alternates
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 67.28.1816; Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.20.040
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee members were last
appointed at the January 18, 2022 Council meeting.
BACKGROUND: Per state statute, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) shall consist of five
members: two representatives of businesses required to collect the tax, two members involved in
activities authorized to be funded by the tax, and one City Councilmember. The Councilmember
serving as the LTAC chair is Rod Higgins. The following are the other current appointed members
of the LTAC:
Entities which Collect the Tax
Amanda Alcamo, Oxford Suites
Grant Guinn, GL8 Hospitality
Entities Involved in Activities Funded by the Tax
Wayne Brokaw, Spokane County Fair Board
Greg Repetti, the HUB
The LTAC meeting to consider the applications for the 2023 awards is scheduled for October 20,
2022, and City staff were recently notified that neither of the LTAC members representing the entities
involved in activities funded by the tax would be able to attend that meeting. While the three
remaining members would constitute a quorum, the recipients would not be represented on the
LTAC. As such and given the short time period, alternates from the Spokane County Fair Board and
the HUB have been identified to attend in their stead.
The alternate from the Spokane County Fair Board is Clint Branz. Mr. Branz is a sitting member of
the Spokane County Fair Board and is the owner of Jim Custer Enterprises, an organization which
has membership with the National Association of Consumer Shows as well as the Washington
Festivals & Events Association. In addition to the Spokane County Fair Board, Mr. Branz volunteers
with the Spokesman Review Christmas Bureau.
The alternate from the HUB Board of Directors is Cherne Haskell. Ms. Haskell is a sitting member
of the HUB Board and is the INW Regional Director of Provider Outreach with Deaconess & Valley
Hospital, Multicare Health System. She previously served on the board of Spokane Valley Partners,
and currently volunteers with ONE* Church, Spokane Valley Partners, and Central Valley School
District.
OPTIONS: Confirm or not, the Mayor's recommendation for appointment of alternates. If the Mayor's
recommendation is not confirmed by Council, the Mayor may either make another recommendation
or the matter can be postponed.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I move to confirm the Mayoral appointments of alternates
to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, of Clint Branz and Cherne Haskell, representing members
involved in activities authorized to be funded by the tax to attend the October 20, 2022 Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee meeting in place of Wayne Brokaw and Greg Repetti, respectively."
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a
STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Mayor Haley
ATTACHMENTS: n/a
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 18, 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: Motion Consideration: Request to Participate Remotely October 25,
2022 Council meeting
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: City Governance Manual, Chapter 1, C8:
Councilmember Meeting remote Participation
Requests to participate in a Council meeting via telephone conference call must be made at least one
week in advance, and shall be approved by Council by motion. The Councilmember making the request, may
also vote on the motion.
Also contained in the Governance Manual: During any meeting that a Councilmember is attending via remote
communication, the Mayor or presiding officer shall state for the record at the beginning of such meeting, that
a particular Councilmember is attending via remote communication and the reason(s) for such attendance.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: n/a
BACKGROUND: Councilmember Woodard has indicated he will be out of town October 25, 2022,
but would like to participate in the meeting remotely.
OPTIONS: Council Discretion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Councilmember Woodard's request
to participate in the October 25, 2022 Council meeting remotely.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a
STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Councilmember Woodard
ATTACHMENTS: n/a
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 18, 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: Legislative Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: This is an update on the draft 2023 State Legislative
Agenda and the first discussion with the City Council.
BACKGROUND: Briahna Murray of Gordon Thomas Honeywell will present potential items for
the 2023 State Legislative Agenda and provide an opportunity for City Council discussion.
Following this administrative report, the second opportunity for discussion, followed by a
subsequent meeting to adopt, will be scheduled for sometime in November. A discussion with the
4th District delegation will be scheduled for late November/early December prior to the Legislative
session that begins January 9, 2023.
This year's draft Agenda includes both capital requests and policy priorities with the policies
separated out to provide a more focused view. Highlights include:
• Pines Grade Separation Project request is a placeholder item pending final approval of
the Move Ahead Washington award in the coming weeks.
• Request to fully fund grants requested for Greenacres Park Phase 2.
• Consideration of support for minor league baseball stadiums and request to approve a
$1,175,808 grant from the Youth Recreational Facilities (YRF) program and a $1,848,577
grant from the Building for the Arts program for the Idaho Central Spokane Valley
Performing Arts Center located in Spokane Valley to galvanize the city's economic
development efforts.
• Request to revisit public safety policies, particularly related to the crime of possession of
a controlled substance, restrictions on vehicular pursuits and increasing investments in
alternative responses teams.
• Requesting changes to the Growth Management Act relating to local flexibility, a change
to municipal utility taxing authority, and removing barriers to the construction of housing.
• Continued commitment to defending local control and protecting and enhancing local
state -shared revenues.
OPTIONS: For discussion only.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is requested this evening. Staff will return
with a second administrative report, followed by a subsequent meeting for adoption to be
scheduled for sometime in November.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, City Manager; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager; Virginia
Clough, Legislative Policy Coordinator; and Briahna Murray, Gordon Thomas Honeywell.
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint presentation by Gordon Thomas Honeywell, Draft 2023 Agenda
City of
Spokane Valley
Preparing for the
2023 Legislative
Session
2023 Session ' Draft 2023 Next Steps
Expectations Agenda
2023 Session Expectations
► First year of the two-year biennium, 105-day session
► Tasks before the 2023 Legislature:
► Develop 2023-25 operating, capital, and transportation
budgets
► Consider and adopt policy bills
► Political context
► November elections formative, 25+ new legislators
► Committee assignments in Nov/Dec 2022
Legislative Agenda Structure
Focused Funding City-
& Policies Specific
2023 draft
Legislative
Agenda
i
Funding Requests
• Pines Road Grade Separation
• Greenacres Park Phase 2
• Performing Arts Center (support)
• Minor League Baseball Stadiums (support)
Policy Priorities
• Public Safety
• Housing
• Local Decision -making Authority
• State -shared Revenues
• Municipal Utility Tax
• Growth Management Act Policies
Funding Request: Pines Road Grade
Separation
► Move Ahead Washington Grade Separation Grant
Award pending
► If awarded, remove item from agenda
► If not awarded, request legislative action to:
► Approve a Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB)
grant or
► Request a direct appropriation to the project
6
Funding Request: Greenacres Park, Phase 2
► Project expands the park and adds amenities
► Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Programs
► City Applies -> RCO Ranks Grant Applications -> Legislature
allocates funding
► City applied for two grants that require legislative
approval:
► Land Water Conservation Fund, $1,000,000, ranked 11 of 25
projects
► Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, $500,000, ranked
7 of 59 projects
Funding Request: Performing Arts Center
(Support)
► Idaho Central Spokane Valley Performing Arts Center
(ICSVPAC) is conducting a capital campaign for a
59,000 square foot performing arts center in the City of
Spokane Valley.
► The Center applied for two grants that require legislative
approval:
► $1,175,808 - Youth Recreational Facilities Program
► $1,848,577 - Building for the Arts Program
8
Funding Request: Minor League Baseball
Stadiums (Support)
► Eleven communities across the state are asking for a
total of $24 million to upgrade publicly owned minor
league baseball stadiums to support economic
development.
► If awarded, Avista Stadium would be allocated $5.8
million of the $24 million
► State funding would match local funding
9
► Possession of controlled substances and substance use
treatment
► Revision to policing policies, such as vehicular pursuits
► Alternative response teams, including co -responder
models
Policy Priority: Housing
► Spokane Valley has amended its zoning code to
increase density
► Barriers remain to the construction of housing:
► Revise liability for developers of condominiums
► Evaluate building codes for increasing construction costs
► Consider incentives to reduce barriers
12
Policy Priority: State -shared Revenues
► State distributes revenue to cities from several accounts:
► Liquor excise tax account
► Liquor profits account
► Municipal criminal justice assistance
► City -County Assistance
► Marijuana revenues
13
Policy Priority: Municipal Utility Tax Authority
► The City requests that the Legislature clarify the
conditions under which it is legal for a municipality to
impose utility taxes on revenues from a county
wastewater treatment system.
Policy Priority: Growth Management Act
Policies
► State Task Force on the Growth Management Act will
make recommendations
► Identify opportunities to:
► Increase the city's role within the planning process
► Secure funding for planning activities/directives from the state
14
Legislative Agenda Structure
Approve
agenda
December Session
meeting with begins
legislators January 9th
Briahna Murray
State Lobbyist, Partner
bmurray@gth-gov.com
(253) 310-5477
Spokane
_Valley
10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206
Phone: (509) 720-5000 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org
DRAFT 2023 Legislative Agenda
FundinM Requests:
Completing Pines Grade Separation (Placeholder if $5 million Move Ahead Washington award
is not approved)
The City of Spokane Valley requests a $5 million state funding allocation to the Pines Road Grade
Separation project. This state allocation will match federal and local funds to fully fund the project.
Pines Road is one of the region's key transportation corridors, carrying residential, commercial,
and industrial traffic from Trent Avenue (SR 290) across the Spokane River to I-90. This project
will provide grade separation at a crossing that 60 trains travel through each day, blocking traffic
movements for nearly four hours. The project also improves the intersection of two state highways,
Pines Road (SR 27) and Trent Avenue (SR 290). Pines Road is the primary access to almost
230 acres of undeveloped mixed -use, commercial, and industrial land.
Fully Fund Programs Awarding Grants to Greenacres Park Phase 2
The City of Spokane Valley requests that adequate funding be allocated to the Washington Wildlife
and Recreation Program (WWRP) and the Land Water and Conservation Fund (LWCF) to allow
the City to receive two grants for Phase 2 improvements to Greenacres Park. The City's WWRP
grant award for $500,000 was preliminarily ranked number 7 of 59 projects, and the City's LWCF
grant award of $1,000,000 was preliminarily ranked number 11 of 25 projects. Phase 2 of
Greenacres Park will expand the park to add a tennis court, pickleball courts, basketball courts, a
community garden, and add new parking spaces. The existing playground, splash pad, perimeter
path and disc golf course will also be improved.
Support for Grants Awarded to the Spokane Valley Performing Arts Center
The City of Spokane Valley supports the Idaho Central Spokane Valley Performing Arts Center's
request to fully fund a $1,175,808 grant from the Youth Recreational Facilities (YRF) program and
a $1,848,577 grant from the Building for the Arts program for a performing arts center in Spokane
Valley. These state grant awards will match private contributions to fund a state-of-the-art 59,000-
square-foot performing arts center housing a 475-seat main stage, 200-seat flexible studio theater,
acting conservatory for area youth and event and business meeting space.
Support for Minor League Baseball Stadiums
Spokane Valley is honored to be the official home of the Spokane Indians minor league baseball
team at Avista Stadium and joins communities throughout the State to request $24 million to
upgrade publicly owned stadiums. State funding will be paired with local funding to upgrade
stadiums throughout the state, including Avista Stadium, to allow minor league baseball to maintain
its strong presence in Washington.
Policy Priorities:
Public Safety
Public safety is the City Council's highest priority. The City Council is intent on providing strong
public safety that protects lives and the safety of all persons in the City by holding criminals
accountable for their illegal actions while also recognizing the need for appropriate treatment where
necessary. Recent legislative changes have resulted in increases in crime without corresponding
tangible assistance to those in need of treatment, creating unnecessary risks to lives and property.
As such, the Spokane Valley City Council and its residents support a commonsense and meaningful
approach to public safety policies that protect lives and property and do not erode trust in
government. Examples include revisiting the crime of possession of a controlled substance,
revisiting restrictions on vehicular pursuits, and increasing investments in alternative responses
teams, such as the City's behavioral health and homeless outreach co -responder models.
Removing Barriers to the Construction of Housing
In 2020, the City of Spokane Valley amended its zoning codes to allow duplexes, triplexes,
fourplexes, and townhomes within 1/2 mile of frequent transit and duplexes throughout many other
areas of the community. The City now calls on the state to remove other barriers to the construction
of housing, such as revising condominium liability regulations, reducing construction costs, and
providing tax incentives.
Local Decision -making Authority
A foundational belief for the Spokane Valley City Council and the citizens they represent is that
the most effective level of government is the one closest to the people. As such, the Council urges
the Legislature to respect local decision -making. Some examples include management of right-of-
way and land use decisions.
Protect and Restore Local State -Shared Revenues
The City requests that the Legislature protect and enhance local state -shared revenues to allow the
City to deliver vital services to its residents. These funds include the Liquor Excise Tax Account,
Liquor Board Profits, Municipal Criminal Justice Assistance Account, City -County Assistance
Account, and Marijuana Revenues.
Amend State Law Regarding Municipal Utility Taxing Authority
The City requests that the Legislature clarify the conditions under which it is legal for a municipality
to impose utility taxes on revenues from a county wastewater treatment system.
Growth Management Act Policies
The City of Spokane Valley will monitor proposals making changes to the Growth Management
Act and supports proposals that honor local democracy and enhance the City's role in the planning
process. The City encourages the state to allocate adequate funding to cities to effectively
implement planning directives from the state.
The City supports AWC legislative agenda items that serve the best interests of Spokane Valley.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ® admin. report
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Fire Department Report
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
Department Director Approval:
❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
BACKGROUND: Fire Chief Soto will give a report on his department's monthly activities.
OPTIONS: Discussion/information
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion/information
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint
Monthly Response Distribution
Summary by Aid Type
Incident Distribution by
Station Area
°i'PNiIii/1 September, 2022
�}
Incident and Response Totals
Incident Distribution by
Type and Category
Year to Date
Incident Totals
Incidents by
Year and Month
Incident
Change
Last Update:
This report summarizes all incidents that occurred within the Spokane Valley Fire District
boundary; and all SVFD responses inside and outside the district boundary.
Incident Summary
An incident is ,r call for service that requires the assistance of a public safety agency
Monthly Incident Total
1857
Year to Date Incident Total
0
17.05K
1K
OK
197
Fire
Suppression
1499
Total Incidents by Incident Category
18 i0
Tech Rescue Haz Mat
Incident Category
25
Wildland Fire Other
Response Summary
A response is counted when an apparatus activates the responding button and an en route time is recorded
Monthly Response Total
2344
Year to Date Response Total
20.20K
Total Responses
262
241
195194193178174173
200
144136
0
Q� 4 �,s�4 \0iN . 6 6642' 4 4 osJa�ey� •����a�e Pti<6. � JaV \elv�aV' qz\, ce0 Ja��eJ�V�a�e���
NO' N\Ai'
123
89
Total Responses by Apparatus
5 4 3 2
2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Apparatus
1
Response Distribution
id T
Incident Distribution by
Station Area
September, 2022
Station Area Incidents
Incident Distribution by
Type and Category
Year to Date
Incident Totals
Incidents by
Year and Month
Last Update:
Incidents by Station Area % Total Incidents by
11.29% 8.7%
Station 10
10.43%
Station 2
9.CP%
8. 70%
4.81%
5
Station 4
3.40%
2
Monthly
Summary
Response Distribution Incident Distribution by Incident Distribution by
by Aid Type Station Area Type and Category
..,04 1ref. Incidents by Type
y �and Category
fl RI�DEPI'
f l�
Total Incidents by Category and Year
Year 2021 2022
Total Incidents
836
883119 68 10
OK
G\ae,c\', e., , c,ae� P�,S \spot\1 �p eeoe le\\c,� �5.3 �\,es �5e� Fit
P° t�5 c, C' eG'� '3 e.�Q �\o�a eSQe S�� ee'P° \afe
P�\e Gam P�, \'\ay\G\' ,,,ec� G°ae a a�� eA�ee S°eCk 4,C\
Pia,c`� Cc\ tio(`' . ,teQe s\ c' �a, t
e�5 ��6 P 0,sk\ �tar\P
Incident Category
8320
7924
5824
5508
771 789
47 2 1 127 I it) 7%3 82
Year to Date
Incident Totals
Incidents by
Year and Month
Incident
Change
Last Update:
1
Incident Type Total Incidents Total Incidents Total Incident % Incident
Last Year This Year Change Change
00 2 1 -1-50.00%
11-S/F 712 675 -37 -5.20%
11-W/11-C 59 45 -14-23.73%
13-S/F 82 84 2 2.44%
14-E/L/H/M/S 119 70 -49-41.18%
18-S/F 605 580 -25 -4.13%
31-A/B/T 5508 5824 316 5.74%
31-C/D/E 7924 8320 396 5.00%
35-F 26 32 6 23.08%
36-F 8 10 2 25.00%
37-F/39-H/L 13 6 -7 -53.85%
40-F/40-N 19 24 5 26.32%
40-1/40-T 108 130 22 20.37%
46-A/B 697 718 21 3.01 %
46-C/D/F/P 139 165 26 18.71%
50-S 184 178 -6 -3.26%
CARES 10 13 3 30.00%
CC 68 175 107 157.35%
Total 16283 17050 767 4.71%
3
Monthly
Summary
Response Distribution
by Aid Type
Incident Distribution by Incident Distribution by
Station Area Type and Category
Year to Date
ILS/ Incident Totals
Month
January
February
•March
April
•May
June
•July
•August
September
October
November
December
Total Incidents
20000
15000
10000
Yearly Incident Totals by Month
21951
16978
1446
1356
1434
1303
1394
18297 1757
17821
5000 1343 1413 1387
0
1942 17050
Year to Date
Incident Totals
Incidents by
Year and Month
Incident
Change
Last Update:
Same Period Yearly Incident Totals by Hazard Class
Hazard Class
Fire Suppression
1969 E M S
Tech Rescue
Haz Mat
Wildland Are
Rescue Task Force
1913 Other
1508 1352 1467 1612
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Total Incidents
15000
10000
5000
0
17050
13371 13443
12742
16283
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
4
Monthly
Summary
Response Distribution
by Aid Type
Incident Distribution by Incident Distribution by
Station Area Type and Category
Year over Year
Incident Change
f
Year Over Year Incident Change
Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
4.94%
2.41%
0.54%
21.13%
4.71
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Year to Date
Incident Totals
Incidents by
Year and Month
Incident
Change
Last Update:
f
O
•
% Year Over Year Incident Change by Hazard Class
HazardClass 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
Other
Haz Mat
EMS
Fire Suppression
Tech Rescue
Wildland Fire
Rescue Task Force
100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1900.00% 136.25% 206.59%
1.83% 16.22% -0.78% -0.78% 21.26% 7.45%
2.84% 5.34% -0.97% 23.74% 5.30% 7.22%
2.06% 2.47% 18.54% 1.11 % -4.87% 3.46%
-1.58% 5.56% -12.06% 16.25% 6.07% 2.53%
-6.58%-28.17% 50.98% 54.55% -41.18% -1.52%
16.67% -71.43% 100.00% 150.00%-50.00% -3.45%
Year Over Year Incident Change by Hazard Class
I iazardClass 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
EMS 287 556 -106 2577 712 4026
Fire Suppression 27 33 254 18 -80 252
Other 1 2 0 76 109 188
Tech Rescue -13 45 -103 122 53 104
Haz Mat 2 18 -1 -1 27 45
Rescue Task Force 1 -5 2 6 -5 -1
Wildland Fire -5 -20 26 42 -49 -6
5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 18, 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 22-019 setting public hearing for Street Vacation 2022-
0003.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 22.140 Spokane Valley Municipal Code; RCW 35A.47.020 and
chapter 35.79 RCW.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: Ann Easterly, trustee of the Ann S. Easterly 2018 Living Trust, has requested the
vacation of a 21-square-foot piece of public right-of-way located adjacent to University Road. The area of
right-of-way was previously the site of a school zone flashing beacon assembly. The assembly has been
relocated to the north and only the foundation remains in place.
The right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located west of and adjacent to University Road approximately
170 feet south of the intersection of 16th Avenue and University Road. The piece of right-of-way measures
4.42-feet on its north side, 4.19-feet on its south side, and 5-feet on its east and west sides. The right- f-way
and foundation for the flashing beacon assembly are located behind the existing sidewalk. The right-of-way
is adjacent to Parcel 45291.0125 on three sides. The parcel is owned by Ann S. Easterly 2018 Living Trust.
OPTIONS: Consensus to place proposed Resolution No. 22-019 on the October 25, 2022, Council consent
agenda for setting the date for a public hearing on the street vacation; or take other appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to schedule Resolution No. 22-019 for the
October 25, 2022 consent agenda, which will set the public hearing at the Planning Commission for
December 8, 2022 on street vacation application STV-2022-0003.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Levi Basinger, Planner
ATTACHMENT: PowerPoint
Resolution No. 22-019
Ann S. Easterly 2018 Living
Trust Street Vacation
STV-2022-0003
Setting Public Hearing by Resolution
October 18, 2022
Levi Basinger, Planner
Spokane
Valley
Location of proposed vacation
Right-of-way to
be vacated
Administrative Report - CC Setting Public Hearing STV-
2022-0003
Process
Application Received
Administrative
,o Report
Study Session dates TBD
•1 Nov 10, 2022
E o - Ord. 15t
Public Hearing Z Reading
tu
Dec 8, 2022 c dates TBD
•-
z Findings of Fact ,
dates TBD C j
am
1st Phase of street vacation
Ord.
2nd Reading
dates TBD
Conditions
Administrative Report - CC Setting Public Hearing
STV-2022-0003
Staff Review
Ordinance and Record of
Survey recorded
Road vacated
2nd Phase of street vacation
3
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 22-019
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND TIME FOR THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER STREET VACATION APPLICATION STV-
2022-0003 PURSUANT TO RCW 35.79.010 AND SVMC 22.140.020; AND OTHER
MATTERS RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has received a Street Vacation Application (File # STV-2022-
0003) from property owner Ann S. Easterly 2018 Living Trust to vacate an approximate 21-square-foot piece
of public right-of-way located west of and adjacent to University Road.
WHEREAS, the right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located approximately 170 feet south of the
intersection of 16t1i Avenue and University Road, adjacent to Parcel 45291.0125; and
WHEREAS, the area of right-of-way was previously the site of a school zone flashing beacon
assembly, which has since been relocated leaving its foundation in place; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 specifies that the legislative authority shall establish by resolution the
time when a street vacation application shall be considered by the legislative authority or a committee thereof;
and
WHEREAS, chapter 22.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) establishes regulations
and procedures for the processing of vacations of public streets (hereafter referred to as a "street vacation");
and
WHEREAS, SVMC 22.140.030 specifies that the Planning Commission shall conduct the public
hearing required pursuant to RCW 35.79.010; and shall develop and forward a recommendation for a requested
street vacation to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County, Washington, as follows:
Section 1. Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV-2022-0003. The required public
hearing for Street Vacation Application STV-2022-0003 shall be conducted before the Spokane Valley
Planning Commission on December 8, 2022, beginning at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, in the
City Council Chambers at the City Hall of the City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane
Valley, Washington 99206.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption.
Adopted this 25t1i day of October 2022.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
ATTEST:
Pam Haley, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Office of the City Attorney
Resolution No. 22-019 Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV-2022-0003 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 18, 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: Administrative Report — Street Vacation Compensation
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.79.030; SVMC 22.140.040(D); and Resolution 07-009.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Chapter SVMC 22.140 was originally adopted and codified
in SVMC by Ordinance 04-002; amended and reorganized by Ordinance 05-012; further amended in 2007
by Ordinance 07-015; by Ordinance 17-004 for minor edits resulting from the City's administrative
reorganization; August 16, 2022, administrative report on proposed amendments; and August 23, 2022,
adoption of housekeeping amendments to chapter 22.140 SVMC.
BACKGROUND: On August 23, 2022, Council adopted several technical amendments to chapter 22.140
SVMC relating to street vacations. None of the proposed amendments were substantive in nature. At that
time, staff noted that it would bring back information to Council relating to how the City currently calculates
how much money the City charges an abutting property owner in a street vacation, which is contained in
Resolution 07-009 and attached for reference.
Current methodology: In 2007, Council approved Resolution 07-009, which established a methodology for
determining what dollar amount, if any, the City would charge a property owner for real property being
vacated (transferred) to them. Resolution 07-009 and SVMC 22.140.040(D) both refer to RCW 35.79.030,
which states as follows regarding compensation:
"...the ordinance may provide that it shall not become effective until the owners of property abutting
upon the street or alley, or part thereof so vacated, shall compensate such city or town in an amount
which does not exceed one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated. If the street or alley has
been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or more, or if the subject property or
portions thereof were acquired at public expense, the city or town may require the owners of the
property abutting the street or alley to compensate the city or town in an amount that does not exceed
the full appraised value of the area vacated"
Under Resolution 07-009, the City currently requires payment of 50% of the appraised value of the property
being vacated. Rather than require an appraisal for the value of the property, which would usually exceed
the value of the property being vacated and would be time-consuming to obtain, the Resolution established,
as a rule, that appraised value means it is equivalent to the assessed value as established by the Spokane
County Assessor on a per square foot basis. If the assessed value of two abutting properties is different,
then they would be averaged to establish the charge to both (or all).
Pursuant to Resolution 07-009, Section 1(2), if the proposed vacation is not City -initiated, then the abutting
property owner is credited with the amount of the vacation application fee, which is currently $1,420. For
example, if the appraised value (assessed value by City definition) of the vacated property is $1,100, then
Council would not charge the applicant any additional money as a condition of approval of the vacation
ordinance. If half of the appraised (assessed) value of the property being vacated is $1,820, then one of the
conditions of the ordinance granting the vacation would be to require payment of $400 before the City
would finalize the vacation.
Resolution 07-009 also contains a provision that reserves to Council the right to deviate from the Resolution
upon the adoption of written findings of fact demonstrating that the public interest is best served by an
alternative approach.
Possible changes to methodology:
(1) One of the existing practices for Council is that when the City initiates the vacation, Council does not
seek any compensation for the value of the vacated property. This is not required in state law, nor is it
specifically referenced in chapter 22.140 SVMC or Resolution 07-009. Instead, this reflects an ongoing
practice by Council dating back, apparently, many years. It would be more appropriate for the sake of
clarity to incorporate this type of policy choice into a new resolution regarding whether Council wants to
receive compensation for all street vacations. Does Council want to require compensation for all right-of-
way vacations, or just those initiated by abutting property owners?
(2) Does Council want to continue the practice of giving a credit of the application fee against any payment
amount required from the abutting owner for the vacated property? In reviewing this practice, please keep
in mind that processing right-of-way vacations is a lengthy process, typically more than six months, that
requires significant staff time. There are, at a minimum, four City Council meetings, three Planning
Commission meetings, and a Public Hearing related to the vacation, as well as consultation with various
agencies and utility purveyors.
(3) The current methodology caps payment at 50% of the appraised value, which the City defines for cost
and simplicity purposes as the assessed value at the time of the Council decision. RCW 35.79.030 allows
jurisdictions to charge up to the full appraised value of the property if it has been part of a dedicated public
right-of-way for 25 years or more, or if it was acquired with public funds. Does Council want to continue
with a 50% cap on the value, or does Council instead wish to require the full amount allowed by state law?
(4) Does Council wish to continue using the assessed value as the definition of appraised value to keep the
expense down for those seeking street vacations?
OPTIONS: (1) Bring forward a proposed resolution regarding street vacation compensation on a future
agenda for motion consideration; or (2) take other action as appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place a resolution regarding compensation
for street vacations on a future agenda.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated.
STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, PE, Community and Public Works Director.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 07-009
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 07-009
RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICIES FOR IMPOSING VACATION
CHARGES PURSUANT TO RCW 36.79.030
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to vacate roadways and right of ways pursuant
to RCW 36.79.030; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to charge for said vacations in an amount that
does not exceed 50 % of the full appraised value or for the full appraised value of the area vacated where
the street or alley had been part of a dedicated right of way for over twenty five years or if the property
was acquired at public expense; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley wishes to establish a policy by which they determine the
amount to be charged the benefited property owners of any such vacation.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ADOPTS
THE FOLLOWING POLICY:
SECTION 1. Policy.
1. The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property
owner shall equal fifty per cent (50%) of the appraised value of the vacated property
received.
a. The appraised value shall be the same as the value of an equivalent portion of
property adjacent to the proposed vacation as established by the Spokane County
Assessor at the time the matter is considered by the City Council.
b. If the value of adjacent properties differs, then the average of the adjacent
property values per square foot will be used.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the applicant shall pay the above -
described fee only to the extent that it exceeds the cost charged by the City of Spokane
Valley to initiate the vacation process, exclusive of any surveying or engineering costs
that may be incurred by the applicant.
3. This charge shall be paid subsequent to council action and prior to recording the vacation
with the Spokane County Auditor.
4. The City Council shall reserve the right to deviate from this policy upon the adoption of
written findings of fact that demonstrate that the public interest shall be best served by an
alternate approach.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon adoption.
Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 1 of 2
Adopted this 10th day of July, 2007.
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
hristine Bainbridge, Ci Clerk
Approved a$o Form:
Office oZ the City ttorney
Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 18, 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: Administrative Report — Country Vista Drive Binding Site Plan (BSP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: On August 10, 2022, the City of Liberty Lake issued a Notice of Application for
the Country Vista Drive Binding Site Plan (LUA2022-0028). The application outlined the overall
project that includes dividing nine existing parcels, totaling 98.2 acres, into 16 new parcels using
the BSP process. The project owner is Centennial Properties. As part of the application, the City
included the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist and a Trip Generation and
Distribution Letter (TGDL) for only the residential portion of the project. Public comment deadline
for this application was August 24, 2022.
For this initial application, both the City of Spokane Valley and the Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) submitted comments that generally centered around how the
proposed project would cause failure of their respective transportation systems. Additionally, both
agencies included comments identifying that the process being followed by Liberty Lake does not
appear to meet SEPA requirements.
Liberty Lake issued a Notice of Revised Application on September 27, 2022. Again, the revised
application only included a SEPA Checklist and a TGDL that, this time, included all anticipated
trips from the project, including those generated from the residential developments and the
commercial developments.
The revised application, again, garnered comments from both the City and WSDOT outlining how
the development will cause failure of the respective transportation systems. These comments,
which are attached, were submitted to Liberty Lake by the October 11, 2022, deadline.
Project Elements & Traffic Generation
The project, as noted, proposes to develop 98.2 acres into a mixture of residential and commercial
properties. The TGDL and BSP provides that there will be approximately 1,176 apartment units,
over one million square feet of commercial space, and one convenience store/gas station. The
TGDL notes that this proposed development will generate, on average, nearly 18,000 new vehicle
trips daily. Additionally, the TGDL provided in the application identifies that, of these new daily
vehicle trips, over 10,500 of them will enter the City of Spokane Valley along Appleway Avenue
and over 600 will enter the City along Sprague Avenue.
Traffic Impacts
After notification of the project, the City completed several evaluations to estimate the impacts of
the trips added by the Country Vista Drive BSP on the Spokane Valley roadway network, with the
primary goal of identifying to Liberty Lake that additional, detailed, traffic analyses are required.
While the City focused on intersections within the City, it was necessary to analyze, in conjunction,
the I-90/Barker Road interchange ramp terminal roundabouts to determine overall impacts.
Page 1 of 3
The most significant method to evaluate an intersection is by its Level of Service (LOS). Through
the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City has established that the LOS standard for signalized
intersections is LOS D or better, and LOS E or better for unsignalized intersections. Similarly,
WSDOT has established standards that require interchange terminals are required to operate at
a LOS D or better.
Intersection Level of Service — 2022 Conditions
Intersection
Control Type
AM Conditions
PM Conditions
Existing
w/ BSP
Existing
w/ BSP
Mission Ave/Barker Rd
Signal
C
C
C
C
Barker Rd/WB Ramp
Roundabout
A
A
A
A
Barker Rd/EB Ramp
Roundabout
A
B
C
E
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd
Signal
D
F
D
F
Sprague Ave/Barker Rd
Roundabout
A
A
A
A
4th Ave/Barker Rd
2-Way Stop
C
B
C
C
8th Ave/Barker Rd
2-Way Stop
B
B
C
C
As shown in the table above, the proposed BSP and subsequent development causes the
intersection of Appleway Avenue and Barker Road to fail. Also, the eastbound ramp roundabout
at the I-90/Barker Road interchange fails due to the project. Further investigation of the City's
intersections, which is presented in the attachments, indicates that several of the intersection legs
fail, with the most prominent failure in movements going to and from Barker Road, north of
Appleway Avenue.
Planned Barker Road Corridor Improvements
Council has been very proactive in traffic planning associated with the Barker Road corridor to
accommodate future transportation needs. There are currently six capital projects planned along
the South Barker Corridor from Mission Avenue south to 8th Avenue. One of these projects is the
widening of Barker Road between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue to a 5-lane urban arterial section.
Given that the most significant failure associated with the Country Vista Drive BSP is Barker Road
in this section, the anticipated intersection LOS was evaluated with the planned corridor
improvements in place. The evaluation indicates that with the planned roadway widening and the
proposed BSP development, the intersection of Appleway Avenue and Barker Road will still fail
with a LOS E in the PM peak hour conditions.
Submitted Review Comments
The City, on October 11, 2022, submitted review comments for the Country Vista Drive BSP to
Liberty Lake. Our final point is that due to the significant impacts to Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake
must require additional traffic studies of the applicant to be consistent with SEPA laws and
regulation. The comment letter is attached for reference.
OPTIONS: Discussion Only.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action or motion is requested as part of this
Administrative Report.
Page 2 of 3
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, PE, Community and Public Works Director
Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE, Traffic Engineering Manager
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint
Country Vista BSP — City Comments
Country Vista BSP — WSDOT Comments
Page 3 of 3
Country Vista Drive
Binding Site Plan
1idib Community & Public Works Director
ierremy Clark, Traffic Engineering Manager
Project Information
Project Owner
Centennial Properties
Binding Site Plan
9 Existing Parcels
Divided into 16 New Parcels
Proposed Uses
Residential (45.2 acres)
Commercial (53.0 acres)
2
WIINL;4 umurnnl 7
APPl evia
fig# q'. ¢ meta
S oakan/a ley 1 ,Liberty Lake
Commercial
County:fist
Residential
Project History
Notice of Application
August 10, 2022
August 24, 2022 Comment Deadline
Spokane Valley Comment
WSDOT Comment
Revised Notice of Application
September 27, 2022
October 11, 2022 Comment Deadline
Spokane Valley Comment
WSDOT Comment
3
Spokane
jvalleye
Traffic Generation
E Appleway Ave
>10,500 Daily Trips
1,011 AM Peak Hour
957 PM Peak Hour
E Country Vista Dr
>7,000 Daily Trips
661 AM Peak Hour
574 PM Peak Hour
E Sprague Ave
>600 Daily Trips
25 AM Peak Hour
47 PM Peak Hour
E CatdIclo Ay
.�„ti.■,�, ,,, .,Ifa
illl .illl �fNm l;I �ffH r'
f.I �•r1.:.IIII.LL= •...y� ai ^� V
Rylj[lIII 4 m�Illllk 11111�1�
Pplewa Ave
Commercial
E Ca entry VIo Ur
Residential
Traffic Generation
AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution
Through Aaalewav and Barker
5
Calculation of distribution based on
historical GPS data results includes
rounding resulting in 0.1% error.
PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution
Through Annlewav and Barker
Spokane
.Valley
Intersection Level of Service
Appleway Ave / Barker Rd
Existing LOS D
LOS w/ Project F
AM Delay 194 sec.
Westbound Right Turn 313 sec.
Southbound Left Turn 277 sec.
PM Delay 213 sec.
Westbound Right Turn 334 sec.
Southbound Left Turn 324 sec.
Barker Rd / Sprague Ave
Existing LOS A
LOS w/ Project A
Tom_
E Sprague Ave_.
1k Aral.
Intersection Level of Service
Planned Corridor Project
Barker Rd — Appleway to I-90
5-Lane Arterial Section
Accommodates Projected Growth
Included in Traffic Impact Fees
Appleway Ave / Barker Rd
Planned Future LOS D
Future LOS w/ Project D/F
AM Delay (LOS D) 43 sec.
PM Delay (LOS F) 67 sec.
Southbound left 179 sec.
• New Traffic Signal
Interchange Level of Service
North Roundabout
Existing LOS A
LOS w/ Project A
South Roundabout
Existing LOS
AM Conditions A
PM Conditions C
LOS w/ Project
AM Conditions B
PM Conditions E
PM Delay 58 sec.
Northbound 150 sec.
Queues projected to reach Appleway Ave
Questions
Spokane
.Valley
October 11, 2022
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS
William S. Helbig, Director
10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206
Phone: (509) 720-5320 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 •
www. spokanevalley .org
Email: bhelbig(a»spokanevalley. org
Ms. Lisa Key, Director
Planning, Engineering & Building Services
City of Liberty Lake
22710 E Country Vista
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
RE: LUA2022-0028 "Country Vista Drive Binding Site Plan" SEPA Notice of Revised
Application: City of Spokane Valley Review Comments
Ms. Key:
The City of Spokane Valley (the City) has reviewed the SEPA checklist for the Country Vista
Drive BSP dated June 30, 2022, and the Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL)
submitted by Simpson Engineers dated September 23, 2022. The City submits the following
comments in response to the Notice of Revised Application for Proposal File # LUA2022-0028.
This comment letter references and incorporates Exhibit A, which is a memorandum dated
October 11, 2022, from the City's Traffic Engineering Manager, Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE.
The City previously commented on the original Notice of Application for Proposal File #
LUA2022-0028. Those previous comments are incorporated by reference herein and are
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
The City's comments stem from two main concerns. First, the project is not sufficiently defined
for Liberty Lake to issue a notice of application or to utilize the optional MDNS process under
WAC 197-11-355. This leads to several related problems addressed below. Second, the
transportation impacts of the proposal are important to the City due to the high trip volume
expected to travel westbound via Appleway Avenue into the City of Spokane Valley.
Although the TGDL identifying the trips expected to be generated by the project was prepared
by a separate entity, these comments are provided directly to the City of Liberty Lake as part of
the SEPA comments.
• SEPA errors.
o The City incorporates by this reference all of its comments regarding SEPA errors it
raised in its previous comment letter, attached as Exhibit B, which still exist and are
in fact exacerbated by the revised application.
o The TGDL was prepared on September 23, 2022, however, the SEPA checklist is
not updated to reflect any analysis of the nearly 18,000 average daily trips (ADTs)
identified by the TGDL.
o The environmental checklist provided in the original application and the Notice of
Revised Application appear to be signed on the same date. However, there are
differences between the two. Regardless, both documents are superficial in key
Ms. Lisa Key
Country Vista Binding Site Plan: CoSV Review Comments
October 11, 2022
Page 2 of 4
respects and fail to disclose specifics upon which Liberty Lake can adequately
assess, consider, and mitigate probable significant impacts.
o The TGDL prepared on September 23, 2022, expands upon the proposed and
anticipated use of the Country Vista site. Specifically, the TGDL states that
"[p]roposed development includes multifamily residential, commercial, office,
mixed use retail, fast-food restaurants and a gas station." While the specific use of
the non-residential space was not identified, it was identified that these uses would
include 1,092,485 square feet of commercial space. In addition, there will be
construction of "28 24-unit 3-story apartment buildings (672 total units) and 14 36-
unit 4-story apartment buildings (504 units, 1,176 total units) with adjacent parking
and maneuvering areas, landscaping, clubhouse/gym facility, playfields, and a view
park with trail access."
■ While various uses of the proposed BSP are identified in the TGDL, neither the
proposed uses nor their associated impacts are mentioned, let alone properly
addressed, in the applicant's SEPA checklist. For example, in answer to
checklist item B(1)(g) regarding impervious surface, the applicant answered
"[u]nknown at this time. TBD upon individual site development plan." This is
an improper answer when the TGDL clearly shows that the applicant has a
general idea of the development of the site. This comment is indicative of many
other comments found throughout the checklist. The applicant's answer to 21 of
the checklist's questions was either "unknown" or "TBD upon site
development." These answers are non -responsive to the checklist questions and
do not serve the most basic SEPA purpose of environmental disclosure. These
answers are also not correct, based on the TGDL, the applicant has a considered
idea of how the site will be developed. Those impacts must be disclosed in an
accurate up-to-date environmental checklist before Liberty Lake may begin to
consider appropriate project mitigation. See WAC 197-11-335(1)-(3); WAC
197-11-100(2); Conservation Northwest v. Okanogan Cnty., 194 Wn. App. 1034,
*34 (2016) ("Since the environmental checklist preceding Okanogan County
Ordinance 2014-7 is insufficient, the ordinance is void.").
• Transportation, traffic, and trip distribution issues.
o The calculation for the AM peak hour of the low-rise apartments results in 231 trips.
This reflects an increase in the AM trip generation of 18 trips. The error impacts the
document in Table 1, Table 3, Table 6, and the trip distribution figures.
o The order of operations for the calculation of internal trips and pass -by trips are
reversed. Per the ITE Trip Generation handbook, internal capture is to be estimated
first to determine the quantity of external trips generated. Next, the pass -by trips are
reduced to determine the quantity of new external trips generated. This would result
in an overall reduction in trip generation for the business park land use of
approximately 44 trips.
o The trip generation values in Table 6 do not appear to correlate with Figure 4 for the
trip distribution. By adding up the trips leaving the overall project area, AM peak
hour trips are overrepresented and PM peak hour trips are underrepresented. Please
review and revise, as necessary.
Ms. Lisa Key
Country Vista Binding Site Plan: CoSV Review Comments
October 11, 2022
Page 3 of 4
o The addition of trips related to the gas station is unclear. Working through the
narrative on page 4 of the TGDL, the total trips would be 1,665 during the AM peak
and 1,647 during the PM peak. This number does not match the total trips calculated
in Figure 5 for the adjusted distribution.
o As reported, the TGDL related to the residential component of LUA2022-0028
identifies 1,011 and 957 trips generated into the City of Spokane Valley during the
AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The distribution does not identify any routing
through the South Barker Corridor or through the Barker/I-90 interchange. It is
expected that the trip distribution for this high traffic volume would be evaluated
further into the transportation network, particularly to the nearest access to
westbound I-90. Please include appropriate estimates for these trips within the trip
distribution figure in order to determine an accurate level of impact on the City's
transportation system.
o In the absence of an allocation of new trips to the South Barker Corridor by the
applicant, the City of Spokane Valley developed an estimate of trip distribution
through the South Barker Corridor for the AM and the PM peak hours. This was
based on the reported trip distribution to the Appleway/Barker intersection, the
existing trip distribution of nearby development through the Appleway/Barker
intersection, and the existing turning movement volume ratios through the Barker/I-
90 interchange. A figure is included in Exhibit A to this letter for reference. The
estimate prepared by Spokane Valley identifies that the project is expected to
contribute a total of 299 new trips to the South Barker Corridor north of Appleway
Avenue during the AM peak hour and 297 new trips during PM peak hour. An
additional 162 trips are estimated along the South Barker Corridor south of
Appleway Avenue during the AM peak hour with 147 new trips during the PM peak
hour. Additionally, 551 new trips and 514 new trips are estimated to utilize
Appleway west of Barker during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
• Impacts to Spokane Valley
o The project will contribute over 1,000 new trips into the South Barker Corridor via
Appleway during the AM peak hour and over 950 new trips during the PM peak
hour. Further west along Appleway, several intersections are expected to experience
impacts that were not analyzed as part of this review due to time constraints and lack
of immediately available data. The City of Spokane Valley reserves all rights to
supplement this comment as pertinent data is compiled. In addition, new traffic
volumes are added to four identified Spokane Valley Transportation Improvement
Projects: Barker Road from Mission to I-90, Barker Road from I-90 to Appleway,
Barker Road from Appleway to Sprague, and Barker Road from Sprague to the
South City Limits. Finally, the project is expected to add nearly 300 trips to the
Barker/I-90 interchange during the peak hours.
o According to the TGDL dated September 23, 2022, this project will generate at least
17,790 new trips. As this project will generate more than 1,000 ADT, the City
requests that Liberty Lake require the applicant to conduct a traffic analysis report as
required under § 1.12(A) of the Liberty Lake Engineering Design Standards. Simply
requiring the applicant to participate in the Harvard Road Mitigation Plan is not
Ms. Lisa Key
Country Vista Binding Site Plan: CoSV Review Comments
October 11, 2022
Page 4 of 4
equivalent to compliance with SEPA. As shown in Exhibit A, the City of Spokane
Valley's calculations show the development causing failures to both City of Spokane
Valley and WSDOT intersections.
o Based on an internal preliminary analysis conducted by the City of Spokane Valley
dated October 11, 2022, the intersections of Barker Road at the I-90 EB ramp
terminal and at Appleway Avenue were shown to operate below acceptable levels of
service when analyzed with the added trips generated by the Country Vista BSP.
The memorandum outlining this information is incorporated by reference and
attached as Exhibit A.
Based on our evaluation of the TGDL and SEPA checklist associated with the proposed project,
in conjunction with the various studies the City of Spokane Valley has conducted on the South
Barker Corridor, we believe that the City of Liberty Lake must require the applicant to conduct
further analyses to determine the true impacts to the regional transportation system. Based upon
the City of Spokane Valley's analysis, it is also believed that the project will cause significant
failures to intersections that are within the City of Spokane Valley but managed by WSDOT.
The City of Liberty Lake should affirmatively reach out to all impacted agencies, including the
City of Spokane Valley and WSDOT, to ensure that the project can be sufficiently mitigated to
assure acceptable levels of service.
The City of Liberty Lake must make its SEPA threshold determination based on adequate
information sufficient to identify impacts and corresponding mitigation. A new revised SEPA
checklist is required. The apparent current assumption that no impacts occur on the road
network in the City of Spokane Valley and no mitigation is necessary for the road network in
the City of Spokane Valley is lacking in support based on expected traffic patterns attributable
to the project and is not consistent with SEPA law and regulations.
The City requests that you please address these concerns and conduct the appropriate analyses
that recognize the impacts and appropriate mitigation in the City. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any further questions or comments. I appreciate your feedback.
Thank you,
William S. He1bi PE
Community and ublic Works Director
cc: Chaz Bates, Planning Manager, City of Spokane Valley
Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineering Manager, City of Spokane Valley
Attachments: Exhibit A — Memorandum: S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the
Country Vista Binding Site Plan dated October 11, 2022
Exhibit B — LUA2022-2028 CoSV Comment Letter dated August 24, 2022
Exhibit A
Spokane
*Valley'
Memorandum
Community & Public Works Department
10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
Phone: (509) 720-5000 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075
www.spokanevalley.org
Date: October 11, 2022
To: File
From: Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE — Traffic Engineering Manager
Re: S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista Binding Site Plan
Introduction
This memorandum summarizes an evaluation completed to assess the impact of traffic related
to the Country Vista Binding Site Plan (BSP) on the South Barker Corridor. The proposed
development project is located east of Henry Lane, north and south of East Country Vista Drive,
in the City of Liberty Lake. The BSP assumes 1,176 apartment units, 1,092,485 square feet of
commercial use, and one convenience store/gas station according to the trip distribution and
generation letter (TGDL) included with the SEPA notice of application (NOA) circulated on
September 27, 2022. As noted in the TGDL, the development is expected to generate 1,665
trips during the AM peak hour and 1,647 trips during the PM peak hour. Of these trips, 957 trips
are estimated to go into the City of Spokane Valley and through the intersection of Appleway
Avenue and Barker Road during the PM peak hour. Likewise, 1,011 trips are expected to go
through that same intersection during the AM peak hour (see Figure 5 of the TGDL).
The South Barker Corridor was the first established transportation impact fee area in the City of
Spokane Valley (City) due to its existing congestion and projected traffic growth related to
expected development in the City, Spokane County, and Liberty Lake. The impact fees were
developed based on the initial South Barker Corridor Study and the subsequent South Barker
Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study and Rate Study Addendum. The underlying
analyses identify that the corridor will deteriorate below acceptable levels of service by 2040
and will require mitigation. The impact fees were established to collect funds for the
proportionate share of the mitigation projects attributed to new development and associated trip
growth within the South Barker Corridor travel influence area.
This evaluation was completed to estimate the impact of trips added by the Country Vista BSP
to the Spokane Valley roadway network and to determine the need for additional analysis to
verify that impact. While the City has focused its efforts on intersections within City jurisdiction,
it was necessary to also analyze the ramp terminal intersections at the Barker/I-90 interchange
to determine their impacts on the overall South Barker Corridor and City network.
This memo includes the following sections:
• 2022 Existing Conditions
• Trip Distribution
• 2022 With -Project Conditions
• Vested Trips
• Mitigation
• Summary
Exhibit A
S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista BSP October 11, 2022
Page 2 of 8
2022 Existing Conditions
An evaluation of existing conditions on the corridor was completed using existing turning
movement counts adjusted to the 2022 analysis year during the AM and PM peak hours. The
peak hours are typical analysis periods capturing the most congested times of the day. Existing
turning movement counts were collected in 2018, 2021, and 2022 and an annual growth rate of
1 % was applied to prior year counts per City standards to estimate 2022 volumes. Level of
Service (LOS) standards in the City of Spokane Valley are established at or above LOS D for
signalized intersections and LOS E for unsignalized intersections. WSDOT intersections are
required to operate at LOS D or above for the ramp terminals. As summarized in Table 1 and
Table 2 below, all intersections are currently meeting LOS requirements during the typical PM
peak hour. The intersection of the 1-90 Eastbound ramp with Barker Road is shown to maintain
an acceptable level of service during the peak hours. However, the northbound approach is
reaching capacity with queues at this intersection expected to extend 980 feet southward toward
Appleway Avenue.
Table 1. Intersection Operations - 2022 Existing PM Conditions
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION
CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Control
Type
LOS
Delay
(s)
Move-
ment
Delay
(s)
V/C
Ratio
Mission Ave/Barker Rd
SGNL
C
25.3
EBTR
33.8
0.82
Barker Rd/WB Ramp
RAB
A
7.0
WBL
18.7
0.41
Barker Rd/EB Ramp
RAB
C
26.7
NBR
61.3
1.06
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd
SGNL
D
45.9
SBR
48.1
0.93
Sprague Ave/Barker Rd
RAB
A
7.8
EBL
15.0
0.55
4th Ave/Barker Rd
TWSC
C
0.7
WBLTR
14.2
0.05
8th Ave/Barker Rd
TWSC
C
2.4
EBLTR
16.8
0.11
Table 2. Intersection Operations - 2022 Existing AM Conditions
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION
CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Control
Type
LOS
Delay
(s)
Move-
ment
Delay
(s)
V/C
Ratio
Mission Ave/Barker Rd
SGNL
C
21.8
EBTR
32.9
0.69
Barker Rd/WB Ramp
RAB
A
7.3
WBL
14.8
0.14
Barker Rd/EB Ramp
RAB
A
6.4
EBL
10.9
0.27
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd
SGNL
D
37.5
WBTR
64.5
0.92
Sprague Ave/Barker Rd
RAB
A
6.6
WBL
13.0
0.30
4th Ave/Barker Rd
TWSC
C
0.5
WBLTR
12.4
0.04
8th Ave/Barker Rd
TWSC
B
1.5
EBLTR
12.7
0.03
Exhibit A
S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista BSP October 11, 2022
Page 3of8
Trip Distribution
As part of a traffic analysis completed for a separate project, trip distribution percentages from a
nearby apartment development and commercial development within Liberty Lake were compiled
from historical GPS data from the TomTom Move platform. Based on this distribution, City staff
calculated the distribution of the PM peak hour trips beyond the Appleway/Barker intersection,
as illustrated in Figure 1. Historical turning movement ratios were used at the intersections
north of Appleway to estimate trip distribution through these segments of the corridor. As
shown, 299 and 297 trips are expected to utilize the Barker Corridor north of Appleway Avenue
during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. In addition, 162 and 147 trips are expected to
utilize the Barker Corridor south of Appleway Avenue during the AM and PM peak hour,
respectively.
The volumes on the figure are color -coded to denote the AM peak hour trips (red) and the PM
peak hour trips (blue) separately. The method used to distribute the volumes through the
Appleway/Barker intersection was based on the inbound and outbound trips of each land use.
As such, the volumes adjacent to this intersection are represented by smaller color -coded boxes
which are aggregated to the larger boxes. As illustrated in the example below, there were 95
commercial trips from the Country Vista BSP going north on Barker during the PM peak hour
and 43 residential trips. These are combined to the 138 total PM peak hour trips going north on
Barker from the Country Vista BSP.
Exhibit A
S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista BSP October 11, 2022
Page 4 of 8
'9 55
�t
►l////4
AM Ttips: 1 112 IN 553 OUT
Comrercial: 1,027IN 21501JT
Residential: 85 IN 338 OUT
Appleway Trips = 1011/1165 = 60.72%
commercial: 6241N 131 OUT
Residential: 52 IN 205 OUT
' 17////l/.1
PM Trips: 628 IN 1,019 OUT
Commercial: 313 IN 827 OUT
Residential: 315 IN 192 OUT
ApplewAirjps = 957/1647 = 58.11%
arntnercial: 182 IN 481 OUT
residential: 183 IN 112 OUT
r on ♦
Figure 1. Estimated Distribution of Trips within Spokane Valley
Exhibit A
S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista BSP October 11, 2022
Page 5 of 8
2022 With -Project Conditions
An evaluation of "with -project" conditions on the corridor was completed using adjusted turning
movement counts combined with the estimated development trips during the AM and PM peak
hours. As summarized in Table 3 and Table 4 below, the intersection of ApplewayfBarker is
expected to degrade below City LOS requirements during both the AM and PM peak hours with
the additional trips attributed to the Country Vista BSP. This failure is expected to result in an
average delay of nearly three minutes across all vehicles during the AM peak hour, with over
four minutes of delay expected on the westbound approach coming from the development. The
existing delay on the westbound approach is approximately one minute, with 37.5 seconds
average across the intersection. Queues are expected to approach 800 feet based on typical
AM peak hour traffic flow and 900 feet during the PM peak hour.
The intersection of the 1-90 Eastbound ramp with Barker Road is shown to drop below the
acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour, with LOS E and a northbound volume to
capacity ratio (v/c) of 1.28. The resulting northbound queues at this intersection are expected to
exceed 2,000 feet southward beyond the Appleway intersection. Each of the intersections
summarized below were analyzed in isolation; the impact of these extensive queues and system
failure is not reflected in the levels of service at each intersection.
Table 3. Intersection Operations - 2022 With Protect PM Conditions
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION
CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Control
Type
LOS}
Delay
(s)
Move-
ment
Delays
WC
Ratio
Mission Ave/Barker Rd
SGNL
C
30.1
EBTR
39.1
0.84
Barker Rd/WB Ramp
RAB
A
8.5
WBL
29.8
0.89
Barker Rd/EB Ramp
RAB
E
58.2
NBR
146.9
1.28
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd
SGNL
F
159.6
WBTR
242.8
1.43
Sprague Ave/Barker Rd
RAB
A
8.7
EBL
18.2
0.51
4th Ave/Barker Rd
TWSC
C
0.8
EBLTR
23.3
0.09
8th Ave/Barker Rd
TWSC
C
2.4
EBLTR
20.3
0.14
Table 4, Intersection Operations - 2022 With Project AM Conditions
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION
CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Control
Type
LOS
Delay
(s)
Move-
ment
Delay
(s)
V/C
Ratio
Mission Ave/Barker Rd
SGNL
C
28.5
SBT
44.7
0.97
Barker Rd/WB Ramp
RAB
A
7.4
WBL
16.8
0.20
Barker Rd/EB Ramp
RAB
B
11.6
NBR
16.7
0.86
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd
SGNL
F
173.6
WBTR
286.6
1.52
Sprague Ave/Barker Rd
RAB
A
6.7
WBL
14,4
0.35
4th Ave/Barker Rd
TWSC
B
0.5
WBLTR
14.1
0.04
8th Ave/Barker Rd
TWSC
B
1.4
EBLTR
14.7
0.03
Exhibit A
S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista BSP October 11, 2022
Page 6 of 8
Vested Trips
An evaluation of conditions on the corridor was completed using adjusted turning movement
counts combined with previously approved developments known as "vested trips" for the failing
intersection at Appleway/Barker as summarized in Table 5 below. This represents the true
impact of the new development beyond what has already been approved. The operations
summarized in Table 6 identify the conditions inclusive of all existing volumes, vested trips, and
the trips from the Country Vista BSP.
Table 5. Intersection Operations — 2022 With Vested Trips
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION
CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Control
Type
LOS
Delay
(s)
Move-
ment
belay
(s)
V/C
Ratio
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd - AM
SGNL
D
45,0
WBTR
86.4
0.99
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd - PM
SGNL
E
68,2
EBTR
86.8
1.02
Table 6. Intersection Operations — 2022 With Project and Vested Trips
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION
CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Control
Type
LOS
Delay
(s)
Move-
ment
Delay
(s)
WC
Ratio
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd - AM
SGNL
F
194.1
WBTR
313.4
1.58
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd - PM
SGNL
F
213.5
WBTR
334.3
1.63
Exhibit A
S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista BSP October 11, 2022
Page 7 of 8
Mitigation and Cost Participation
As noted, the intersection of Appleway Avenue at Barker Road is expected to deteriorate below
acceptable levels of service. There is a planned improvement along the Barker Corridor that
improves the operations at this intersection. Channelization improvements at the
Barker/Appleway intersection are included in the City's Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) Project #41, which includes a widening of the 0.29-mile section of Barker Rd from
Appleway Ave to the 1-90 interchange. This improvement was evaluated with the additional
volumes from vested trips and the Country Vista BSP. The Country Vista BSP causes the
Appleway Avenue and Barker Road Intersection to fail, even after accounting for improvements.
The PM peak hour operations were found to be below acceptable levels at LOS E (see Table 7).
This is primarily related to the conflicting movements associated with the Country Vista BSP of
southbound left turns and westbound through and right turning vehicles. Although this would be
mitigable with the addition of a second southbound left turn lane (see Table 8), the adjacent
businesses on the northwest and northeast corners would likely have to be acquired and
removed.
Table 7. Intersection Operations — TIP # 41 Mitigation
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION
CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Control
Type
LOS
Delay
(s)
Move-
ment
Delay
(s)
V/C
Ratio
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd - AM
SGNL
D
43.3
NBR
63.4
0.91
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd - PM
SGNL
E
67.2
SBL
179.1
1.28
Table 8. Intersection Operations — TIP #41 Mitigation with Additional Southbound Left Turn
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION
CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Control
Type
LOS
Delay
(s)
Move-
ment
Delay
(s)
V/C
Ratio
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd - AM
SGNL
D
41.9
SBL
76.0
0.93
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd - PM
SGNL
D
54.5
SBL
77.2
0.96
Given the continued failure of the intersection even with the planned Barker improvement
project, additional mitigation was identified in the form of a second southbound left turn or a
roundabout to maintain acceptable levels of service at the intersection of Appleway Avenue
and Barker Road. These additional mitigation improvements have not been estimated for cost
at the time of this analysis. However, given the substantial right-of-way required on the
northwest and northeast corners for the additional improvements are expected to result in
substantial increases. Alternatively, the realignment of Broadway Avenue east of Barker Road
to connect to Broadway Avenue west of Barker Road would allow southbound left turns
separate from the Appleway intersection and closer to the 1-90 interchange. The removal of
the southbound left turn and westbound right turn trips attributable to the Country Vista BSP
would result in an acceptable LOS at the Appleway Avenue and Barker Road intersection
along with the TIP #41 improvements.
Either the additional improvements at Appleway and Barker, or the realignment of Broadway
Avenue east of Barker Road are required in addition to the planned improvements
contemplated by TIP Project # 41.
Exhibit A
S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista BSP October 11, 2022
Page 8 of 8
Summary
This document summarizes an evaluation completed to estimate the impact of trips generated
by the Country Vista BSP in the City of Liberty Lake added to the Spokane Valley roadway
network. As analyzed, the addition of project trips to the South Barker Corridor is expected to
reduce the level of service at one City intersection below City standards and is not mitigated by
any planned project. Table 9 illustrates the degradation in level of service at Appleway/Barker
with the addition of the development trips. In addition, one of the WSDOT interchange ramps at
Barker is shown to operate below acceptable levels of service with the Country Vista BSP.
Based on these results, a full traffic impact analysis is requested as part of the comments to the
SEPA Notice of Application and appropriate mitigation completed to avoid these failures.
Table 9. Intersection Operations Comparison — 2022 Without and With Development
INTERSECTION
Control
Type
Without
Development
With
Development
LOS
Delay (s)
LOS
Delay (s)
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd - AM
SGNL
D
37.5
F
173.6
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd - PM
SGNL
D
45.9
F
159.6
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Silikane
Valley'
August 24, 2022
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS
William S. Helbig, Director
10210 E Sprague Avenue 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206
Phone: (509) 720-5320 1 Fax: (509) 720-5075 / www.spokanevalley.org
Email: bhelbig@spokanevalley.org
Ms. Lisa Key, Director
Planning, Engineering & Building Services
City of Liberty Lake
22710 E Country Vista
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
RE: LUA2022-0028 "Country Vista Drive Binding Site Plan" SEPA Notice of Application
Including the Liberty Plateau Apartments Trip Generation and Distribution Letter
Ms. Key:
The City of Spokane Valley (the City) has reviewed the SEPA checklist for the Country Vista
Drive BSP and the associated trip generation and distribution letter (TGDL) submitted by
Simpson Engineers for the residential component of said BSP dated August 8, 2022. The City
submits the following comments in response.
The City's comments stem from two main points. First, the project is not sufficiently defined for
Liberty Lake to issue a notice of application or to utilize the optional MDNS process under WAC
197-11-355. This leads to several related problems addressed below. Second, the transportation
impacts of the proposal are important to the City due to the high trip volume expected to travel
westbound via Appleway Avenue into the City of Spokane Valley. Although the TGDL was
prepared by a separate entity, these comments are provided directly to the City of Liberty Lake
as part of the SEPA comments.
• SEPA errors.
o In making a threshold determination, adequate information is necessary so that the
responsible official can conduct the independent determination of environmental factors
required by SEPA. WAC 197-11-335(1)-(3); WAC 197-11-100(2). The checklist in this
case is inadequate to comply with SEPA's mandate that a project be sufficiently defined
before a threshold determination is issued. WAC 197-11-060(3)(a). In numerous areas
of the checklist, the applicant answers questions indicating the impacts are unknown and
contingent upon "individual site plan development." However, there is nothing to
indicate that subsequent SEPA review will occur. In fact, the opposite seems true. An
email from Lisa Key to the City dated August 15, 2022, indicates that Liberty Lake will
not be requiring further SEPA review unless the individual building permit applications
exceed SEPA's exemption thresholds. This approach is inappropriate for several reasons.
Country Vista Drive Binding Site Plan COSV Traffic Review Comments; Page 2
• If a lead agency is using phased review, it must say so. WAC 197-11-060(5)(e).
Without developing an intentionally phased review, Liberty Lake has failed in its first
SEPA obligation to "make certain that the proposal that is the subject of
environmental review is properly defined." WAC 197-11-060(3)(a). In this case, the
applicant may not yet know what the commercial aspect of the project will be.
Phased review can accommodate this uncertainty. WAC 197-11-060(5)(b). Without
using phased review, Liberty Lake has provided no assurance that there will ever be
any further consideration of project impacts, regardless of how the project may
actually build out.
• Also, a lead agency "must be able to demonstrate that environmental factors were
considered in a manner sufficient to amount to prima facie compliance with the
procedural requirements of SEPA." Juanita Bay Valley Canty. Ass'n v. City of
Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). Here, many of the applicant's answers to the
SEPA checklist were vague, ambiguous, or simply nonresponsive. Liberty Lake's
acceptance of poor checklist information does not show prima facie compliance under
SEPA. The City requests that Liberty Lake require additional information from the
applicant before issuing a threshold determination. WAC 197-11-335. Deficient
checklist answers relate to questions seeking information on timing of the proposal,
future activity, including permits and approvals, and a myriad of project -level details
and probable impacts.
o Liberty Lake is utilizing the optional DNS process under WAC 197-11-355. Therefore, it
is likely this is the City's only opportunity to comment. However, because the features of
the project are poorly defined, the City cannot provide comments on impacts that have
not been identified or with as much specificity as it would like even on identified
impacts. Because there is little detail regarding the proposal and almost no information
regarding expected mitigation measures, the City believes that Liberty Lake is
inappropriately utilizing the optional DNS process. The City requests that Liberty Lake
issue an MDNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 with a comment period,
o The multi -family residential use identified in the TGDL for this proposal is not addressed
by the SEPA checklist. Liberty Lake should require analysis of the multi -family
residential use for purposes of SEPA. Alternatively, if this truly is a non -project action,
the checklist needs to make that clear and the TGDL needs to be revised. In that event,
Liberty Lake must assume the full range of environmental impacts allowed by the zoning
classification of the project. Heritage Baptist Church v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth
Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 2 Wn. App. 2d 737, 752 (2018).
• Transportation, traffic, and trill distribution issues.
o The distribution does not identify any of the anticipated trips from the commercial
portion of the project. It appears as though the applicant is considering the commercial
portion of the project to be a non -project action. When analyzing the adverse
environmental impacts of a non -project action, the "environmental consequences are
discussed in terms of the maximum potential development of the property under the
various zoning classifications allowed." Heritage Baptist Church, 2 Wn. App. 2d at 752
(internal citation and quotation omitted). Please require the applicant to conduct a
revised TGDL, including the trips to be generated from the most intense commercial use
Country Vista Drive Binding Site Plan COSV Traffic Review Comments; Page 3
allowed in the M-2 zone, and allow for comments on the updated TGDL prior to issuing
a threshold determination.
o The TGDL identifies that the residential portion of the project is expected to generate
6,537 average daily trips. Pursuant to City of Liberty Lake Design Standards 1.12(A.),
"[f]or projects that generate more than 1,000 vehicle trips per day, a traffic analysis
report, certified by a Washington State licensed engineer, will be required in the
application." Payment into a voluntary mitigation program cannot be used to avoid
conducting the analysis. The City of Spokane Valley requests that a traffic analysis
report be conducted pursuant to the City of Liberty Lake's own design standards.
o The distribution for trips to the west of the project is low compared to prior study
estimates and data collected. Please provide a market analysis or other reasoning behind
the variability in distribution.
o As reported, the TGDL related to the residential component of LUA2022-0028 identifies
93 and 179 trips generated into the City of Spokane Valley during the AM and PM peak
hours, respectively. The distribution does not identify any routing through intersections
within Spokane Valley. The assumption that there will be no new•trips into Spokane
Valley is unsupported. Please include appropriate estimates for these trips within the trip
distribution figure in order to determine an accurate level of impact on the City's
transportation system. The SEPA checklist's statement that measures to reduce or
control transportation impacts are "[to be determined] at time of building permit
application" (p. 16) would not be applicable to the Liberty Plateau Apartments given the
inclusion of its trips in this SEPA notice.
o In the absence of an appropriate allocation of new trips to Spokane Valley's traffic
network by the applicant, Spokane Valley developed an estimate of trip distribution
through the City for the PM peak hour based on the existing trip distribution of nearby
development in order to provide mitigation estimates identified in this letter. A figure is
attached to this letter for reference. The estimate prepared by Spokane Valley identifies
that the project is expected to contribute a total of 281 new trips to the City's
transportation network and the South Barker Corridor during the PM peak hour. This
estimate includes 109 trips cross Barker Road to use Appleway Avenue to the west, 143
new trips north of Appleway Avenue, and 29 new trips south of Appleway Avenue.
o Based on an internal impact analysis conducted by the City, the intersections of Barker
Road at Appleway Avenue and Barker Road at Sprague Avenue were shown to
deteriorate below acceptable levels of service as a direct result of the added volumes of
the Liberty Plateau Apartments portion of the Country Vista BSP. The sununarizing
memorandum is attached for reference
Based on our evaluation of the TGDL and SEPA checklist associated with the proposal, we
believe that Liberty Lake has failed to meet its obligation under SEPA to ensure that the
environmental impacts of a proposal are sufficiently defined and mitigated. Liberty Lake has
failed to follow its own code by not requiring the applicant to conduct a traffic analysis report
even though the project will generate more than 1,000 average daily trips. Lastly, based upon
the very limited information presented in the applicant's TGDL, the City believes that Liberty
Lake must impose traffic mitigation measures to account for the impacts to Spokane Valley's
transportation system.
Country Vista Drive Binding Site Plan COSV Traffic Review Comments; Page 4
The City requests that you please work with the applicant to address these concerns and require
additional information prior to making a threshold determination as allowed by WAC 197-11-
355. The City further requests that if you do issue an MDNS, you issue the MDNS with an
additional comment period as allowed by WAC 197-11-340(2) so that the City may comment on
the new information and mitigation measures. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have
any further questions or comments.
Thank you,
William S. Helbig, P , Director
Community & Publi Works
Att: Memo: S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista Binding Site Plan
Cc: Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineering Manager, City of Spokane Valley
Chaz Bates, Planning Manager, City of Spokane Valley -
Spokane
40•0 Valley =
Memorandum
Community & Public Works Department
10210 E Sprague Avenue 4 Spokane Valley WA 99206
Phone: (509) 720-5000 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 •
www.spokanevalley.org
Date: August 23, 2022
To: File
From: Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE — Traffic Engineering Manager
Re: S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista Binding Site Plan
Introduction
This memorandum summarizes an evaluation completed to assess the impact of traffic related
to the proposed Liberty Plateau Apartments portion of the Country Vista Binding Site Plan (BSP)
on the South Barker Corridor. The proposed development project is located east of Henry Lane
north and south of Country Vista Drive in the City of Liberty Lake. The Liberty Plateau
Apartments consist of 1,008 apartment units according to the trip distribution and generation
letter (TGDL) included with the SEPA notice of application (NOA) circulated on August 10, 2022.
As noted in the TGDL, the apartments are expected to generate 454 trips during the PM peak
hour. Of these trips, 179 trips are estimated to go into the City of Spokane Valley and through
the intersection of Appleway Avenue and Barker Road during the PM peak hour (see Figure 3 of
the TGDL).
The South Barker Corridor was the first established transportation impact fee area in the City of
Spokane Valley (City) due to its existing congestion and projected traffic growth related to
expected development. The impact fees were developed based on the initial South Barker
Corridor Study and the subsequent South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate
Study and Rate Study Addendum. The underlying analyses identify that the corridor will
deteriorate below acceptable levels of service by 2040 and will require mitigation. The impact
fees were established to collect funds for the portions of the mitigation projects attributed to new
development and associated trip growth.
This evaluation was completed to estimate the impact of trips added by the Liberty Plateau
Apartments portion of the Country Vista BSP to the Spokane Valley roadway network and to
determine the need for additional analysis to verify that impact,
This memo includes the following sections:
• 2022 Existing Conditions
• Trip Distribution
• 2022 With -Project Conditions
• Summary
S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista BSP August 23, 2022
Page 2 of 2
2022 Existing Conditions
An evaluation of existing conditions on the corridor was completed using existing turning
movement counts adjusted to the 2022 analysis year during the PM peak hour. The PM peak
hour is a typical analysis period capturing the most congested time of the day. Existing turning
movement counts were collected in 2018 and 2021 and an annual growth rate of 1 % was
applied per City standards to estimate 2022 volumes. Level of Service (LOS) standards in the
City of Spokane Valley are established at or above LOS D for signalized intersections and LOS
E for unsignalized intersections. As summarized in Table 1 below, all intersections are currently
meeting City LOS requirements during the typical PM peak hour.
Table 1. Intersection Operations — 2022 Existing PM Conditions
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION
CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Control
Type
LOS
Delay
(s)
Move-
ment
Delay
(s)
V/C
Ratio
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd
SGNL
D
53.1
SUR
101.0
1.11
Sprague Ave/barker Rd
AWSC
E
48.1
SBITR
85.6
1.07
Trip Distribution
As part of a traffic impact analysis completed for a separate project, trip distribution percentages
from a nearby apartment development were compiled from historical GPS data from the
TomTom Move platform. Based on this distribution, City staff calculated the distribution of the
PM peak hour trips, as illustrated in Figure 1. As shown, 281 trips are expected to utilize the
City's transportation network via Appleway Avenue. Of these, 109 trips are expected to cross
Barker and use Appleway west of Barker while 143 trips are expected to use the Barker north of
Appleway and 29 trips are expected to use Barker south of Appleway.
S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista BSP
Figure 1. Estimated Distribution of Trips within Spokane Valley
August 23, 2022
Page 3 of 3
S. Barker Corridor Traffic Assessment of the Country Vista BSP August 23, 2022
Page 4 of 4
2022 With -Project Conditions
An evaluation of "with -project" conditions on the corridor was completed using adjusted turning
movement counts combined with the estimated development trips during the PM peak hour. As
summarized in Table 2 below, the intersections of Appleway/Barker and Sprague/Barker are
expected to degrade below City LOS requirements during the typical PM peak hour with
additional trips attributed to the Liberty Plateau Apartments portion of the Country Vista BSP.
The intersection of Sprague/Barker is currently under construction for the installation of a
roundabout, which will improve the operations back within acceptable levels.
Table 2. Intersection Operations — 2022 With Project PM Conditions
INTERSECTION
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd
Sprague Ave/Barker Rd
INTERSECTION
CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Control
Type
SGNL
AWSC
LOS
F
F
Delay
(s)
94.3
55.4
Move-
ment
SBL
SBLTR
Delay
(s)
333.7
100.8
v/c
Ratio
1.66
1.11
Summary
This document summarizes an evaluation completed to estimate the impact of trips generated
by the Liberty Plateau Apartments portion of the Country Vista BSP in the City of Liberty Lake
added to the Spokane Valley roadway network. As analyzed, the addition of project trips to the
South Barker Corridor is expected to reduce the level of service at two intersections below City
standards (see Table 3). Based on these results, a full traffic impact analysis is requested as
part of the comments to the SEPA Notice of Application.
Table 3. Intersection Operations Comiaarisorr — 2022 Witlrottt and Wi
INTERSECTION
Control
Type
Without
Development
.,, env vvwr✓n e
With
Development
LOS
Delay (s)
LOS
Delay (s)
Appleway Ave/Barker Rd
SGNL
D
53.1
F
94.3
Sprague Ave/Barker Rd
AWSC
E
48.1
F
55.4
From: Figg, Greg <FiggG@wsdot.wa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 3:42 PM
To: Lisa Key <LKev@libertvlakewa.gov>
Cc: Kay, Charlene <KavC@wsdot.wa.gov>; Suski, Shea M. <SuskiSM@wsdot.wa.gov>; Jerremy Clark
<iclark@spokaneval lev.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] LUA2022-0028 Centennial Country Vista BSP Notice of Revised Application
[EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley. Always use caution when opening
attachments or clicking links.
Good Afternoon Lisa,
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the SEPA checklist for the
Country Vista BSP, and the Trip Generation and Distribution Letter submitted by Simpson Engineers
dated September 23, 2022. Given the level of development proposed in the Country Vista BSP, the
project will impact the WSDOT transportation system at the Barker Road / 1-90 Interchange as well as
the Appleway intersection with the 1-90 on/off ramps (Greenacres). Correspondingly, WSDOT has the
following comments on the SEPA checklist including the trip generation and distribution letter:
Traffic Impacts to WSDOT Facilities:
• Based on the trip letter this proposed BSP will add over 1,000 new PM peak hour trips to
the Greenacres and Appleway intersection. This is a concern as this intersection is an
unsignalized intersection with limited ability to accommodate large increases in traffic
volumes. WSDOT conducted a PM Peak Hour turning movements count at this intersection
last week to ensure we had current data to gauge the impact of this proposal against. We
then applied growth from the Neighborly Ventures project to the existing counts to
formulate a background traffic volume, which resulted in this intersection functioning at
LOS "C". We then applied the volumes from the trip letter to our background volume and
the intersection dropped to LOS "F" as a direct result of the proposed Country Vista BSP
(please see attached LOS worksheets). This LOS does not meet our adopted standard of
LOS "D".
• The City of Spokane Valley, with WSDOT review, conducted an analysis of the roundabouts
at the Barker Road and 1-90 Interchange. Based on this preliminary analysis, the LOS at the
South Interchange Roundabout is LOS "C" with the 2022 existing traffic volumes and will
drop to LOS "E" with the addition of the Country Vista BSP (please see attached
worksheets). This again is a direct result of the Country Vista BSP and the nearly 300 PM
peak hour trips it adds to the roundabout. LOS "E" does not meet our LOS standard of "D"
or better.
Trip Generation Letter
WSDOT recommends that the trip generation letter be amended to address the following
comments:
1. The AM peak hour calculation for the low-rise apartments should be 231 trips. This reflects
an increase in the AM trip generation of 18 trips. This error needs to be corrected in the
document.
2. Per the ITE Trip Generation handbook, internal capture needs to be estimated first to
determine the quantity of external trips generated. Next, the pass -by trips are reduced to
determine the quantity of NEW external trips generated. This would result in an overall
reduction in trip generation for the business park land use of approximately 44 trips.
3. The trip generation values in Table 6 do not appear to correlate with Figure 4 for the trip
distribution. By adding up the trips leaving the overall project area, AM peak hour trips are
overrepresented and PM peak hour trips are underrepresented. Please review and revise,
as necessary.
4. The addition of trips related to the gas station is unclear. Working through the narrative on
page 4 of the TGDL, the total trips would be 1,665 during the AM peak and 1,647 during the
PM peak. This number does not match the total trips calculated in Figure 5 for the adjusted
distribution.
5. As reported, the trip letter related to the residential component of this residential
component of LUA2022-0028 identifies 1,011 and 957 trips generated into the City of
Spokane Valley during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The distribution does not
identify any routing through the Barker/I-90 interchange which is needed given the level of
traffic placed at this intersection. Please include appropriate estimates for these trips
within the trip distribution figure in order to determine an accurate level of impact on the
WSDOT transportation system.
6. In the absence of an allocation of new trips to the South Barker Corridor by the applicant,
the City of Spokane Valley developed an estimate of trip distribution through the South
Barker Corridor for the AM and PM peak hours based upon the existing turning movement
volume ratios through the Barker/I-90 interchange. The estimate prepared by Spokane
Valley identifies that the project is expected to contribute a total of 299 new trips to the
South Barker Corridor north of Appleway Avenue during the AM peak hour and 297 new
trips during PM peak hour.
Based on our analysis of the trip letter and SEPA checklist associated with the Country Vista BSP, this
project will have a significant adverse impact on our transportation facilities. In addition to addressing
the above comments related to the trip generation letter, WSDOT requests that a traffic analysis of the
Greenacres/Appleway intersection and the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange be undertaken by the
applicant to identify the impacts, mitigating measures that will be needed, and the timing of the
mitigating measures. WSDOT requests that this information be provided and reviewed before a SEPA
determination is rendered on this project.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Greg Figg
Development Services Manager
WSDOT Eastern Region
(509) 324-6199
From: Lisa Key <LKey@libertylakewa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:51 AM
To: Megan Abhold <mabhold@libertylakewa.gov>; Wayne Hammond
<whammond@libertylakewa.gov>; Damon Simmons <dsimmons@libertylakewa.gov>; Avista (Dave
Byus) <dave.byus@avistacorp.com>; blake.davis@avistacorp.com; CenturyLink (Karen Stoddard)
<karen.stoddard@centurylink.com>; jrowell@cvsd.org; Coeur d'Alene Tribe Jill Wagner
<jwagner@cdatribe-nsn.gov>; Comcast (Vicki Whitt -Williams) <vicki whitt-
williams@cable.comcast.com>; Comcast (Bryan Richardson) <bryan richardson@cable.comcast.com>;
awestby@spokanecleanair.org; rogersg@spokanevalleyfire.com; Harvey, Traci
<HarveyT@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; commprojects@srhd.org; Spokane Tribe
<randya@spokanetribe.com>; sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov; separegister@ecy.wa.gov;
sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov; Figg, Greg <FiggG@wsdot.wa.gov>; Stewart, Ryan (SRTC) <rstewart@srtc.org>;
bijay@libertylake.org; Consolidated Irrigation District<consolidatedirrigation@comcast.net>; Keown,
Clay (ECY) <ckeo461@ECY.WA.GOV>; Knudson, Chris <CKnudson@spokanecounty.org>; Stewart, Ryan
(SRTC) <rstewart@srtc.org>; Ducken, Colton <Colton.Ducken@avistacorp.com>; Burchell, Melissa
<MBurchell@spokanecounty.org>; tpoitevint@libertylake.org; sepa.spokanevalley@spokanevalley.org;
inspections@spokanevalleyfire.com; Limon, Tara <tlimon@spokanetransit.com>;
kweinand@spokanetransit.com; Depner, Colin <CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>;
bgreene@spokanecounty.org; Randy Abrahamson <randya@SpokaneTribe.com>; David Williams
<dwilliams@libertylakewa.gov>; Lange, Connor <Connor.Lange@avistacorp.com>; Amy Mullerleile
<amullerleile@libertylakewa.gov>; David Goehner <dgoehner@libertylakewa.gov>;
esplanningactions@spokanecounty.org; Smith, Adam T. <ASMITH@spokanecounty.org>; Dompier,
Dawn <ddompier@spokanecounty.org>; US Crossings <us crossings@tcenergy.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] LUA2022-0028 Centennial Country Vista BSP Notice of Revised Application
WARNING: This email originated from outside of WSDOT. Please use caution with links and attachments.
NOTICE OF REVISED APPLICATION
City of Liberty Lake Planning, Engineering & Building Sear (Review Authorltyl has published this Notice of Application
to provide the opportunity to comment on the described proposal _ The comment period ands 14 calendar days from the
date issued, During this period, written comments may be submitted to the Review Authority, The file may be examined
8:00 a_rn, to 5 p.m, Monday through Friday (except holidays) at City Halt- Project onfc s also availab a on the City
webeite at www.iibertyrlakewa,govAleveloopment/public_notices-asp- Questions may be directed to the Project
Coordinator listed below.
Proposal File f: LUA2O22-0028 Zoning: R-1
Proposal: Centennial Country Vista Drive Binding Site Plan
Divide 9 parcels consisting of 98.2 acres into 16 parcels, usrig the BSP process to
Proposal Description: delineate the commercial vsresidential uses for this mixed -use project_
site Address: None Assigned
General Location: Portions of the north and south sides of E Country Vista Dnve, west of Kramer Parkway
Abbreviated Legal Description - Section: 16 & 17
Township. 25 N
Range 45E
Owner: Centennial Properties Phone: 509-227-5802
Contact: Torn C:emso,n Phone: 50941794941
Revised devised Determination of
Application Date: 09/23/2022
Notice of Application Issued: 09/27/2022
Completeness Issued: 09/27 i :0
Comment Deadline: 10/11/2022 at p.m.
City of liberty Lake Permits Included in Application: City Building Permits will need to be issued prior to beginning
construction_
Other Permits: Liberty Lake Sewer District approval, WA Stater Dept of Ecology (DOE) permits & appiroval.s, Spokane
Clean Air permits & approvals, and Spokane Regional Health District permits & approvals may need to be issued prior to
construction.
Required & Existing Studies: A SEPA Checklist has been completed, along with a Trip Generation & Disenbution
Letter,
Environmental Review: City of Liberty Lake Planning & Building Services is reviewwing the proposed projeet for probable
adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) tar this
project. Any SEPA appeal is governed by the City of Liberty Lake Environmental Ordinance and such appeal shall be filed
within fourteen (14) days after the notice that the determination has been made arid is appealable. The optional DNS
process in WAC 197-11-355 is being used and :his may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental
impacts of this portion of the proposal. The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the
project review process may inccirporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared. A copy
of the subsequent threshold determination for this proposal may be obtained upon request and will be supped to
reviewing agencies_ Probable MONS Conditions: Harvard Road Mitigation Fees and other conditions as recommended
by review inn aitencie:s_
Development Regulations: City of Liberty Lake Developrnerit & Bui.ding Codes, Liberty Lake Engineering Design
Standards, and the Regional Stormwater Management Manual are tee primary City regulations applicable to the site.
Consistency: In consideration of the above referenced development regulations and typical conditions and/or mitigating
measures, the proposal is found to be consistent, as provided lin RCW 36,708.040, with the "type of Land use', "level of
deveoornent", "infrastructure, and 'character of developrment".
Written Comments: Agencies, tribes, and the public are encouraged to review and provide written comments on the
proposed project and its probable environmental impacts. Al comments received within 14 calendar days of the date
this Notice of Application is issued, will be considered prior to making a decision on this application.
Public Hearing: As a Type I Project Permit, this action is not subject to a future public hearing.
Lisa D. Key
City of Liberty Lake
Director of Planning & Engineering
.cue City of
22710 E. Country Vista Drive
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
(509) 755-6708
Website: www.libertylakewa.gov
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 18, 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: 2022 and 2023 Police Vehicle Purchase
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Washington State RCW 39.34 and Spokane Valley Interlocal
Agreement 17-104, as amended.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement Services
adopted by Council on July 25, 2017; Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement approved on May
4, 2021; Presentation to Council on Vehicle Replacement on October 19, 2021; Amendment to
Agreement approved on April 12, 2022.
BACKGROUND: In 2021, City Council determined to begin a program of purchasing
approximately 15 police vehicles per year to maintain the police vehicle fleet as older vehicles
aged out of use. To begin that program, $1.4 million was appropriated as a one-time non-
recurring expense in the 2022 Public Safety Budget to bring up to date the Spokane Valley Police
vehicle fleet. Due to supply chain disruptions and demand exceeding supply, many of the vehicles
ordered were unable to be supplied in 2022. The manufacturer has asked dealerships to cancel
2022 orders and resubmit as a 2023 order for 2023 vehicle models. This new order would be for
2023 vehicles at 2023 prices (Between $8-9,000 more). This has the net effect of increasing
costs for the original 2022 order by $190,727. There was an unused balance of $40,642 from the
original $1.4 million that can be used to offset the increase, resulting in $150,085 needed in
additional appropriations to accommodate the 2022 vehicle re -order. Because these vehicles
would not be expected to arrive until 2023, the corresponding appropriations would be moved to
the 2023 budget with Council consensus.
These same supply issues are also affecting the vehicle order for 2023. The manufacturer has
moved up and shortened the ordering window to accommodate the longer build times and the
revised price exceeds the estimate provided by the County. The County wants to start the
Request for Proposals process immediately. The original proposed 2023 law enforcement
budget was based on price estimates from this spring. With the new price, the current 2023 law
enforcement vehicle budget would only accommodate 9 vehicles. Chief Ellis is also
recommending that we order 14 vehicles in order to accommodate the staffing levels and to
steadily maintain an aging fleet and staff concurs with that recommendation. That would come
closer to the original recommendation of replacing 15 vehicles per year as discussed with Council
in 2021 when the City Council determined to start purchasing vehicles. Ordering 14 vehicles
would require increasing 2023 appropriations $304,332.
Staff are seeking consensus to increase the budget in 2023 to accommodate (1) $150,085 for the
2022 vehicle re -order and (2) $304,332 for the 2023 vehicle purchase of 14 vehicles. This will
result in a total increase to the 2023 budget of $454,417.
OPTIONS: Asking for Council consensus to approve the 2022 and 2023 vehicle orders and
corresponding appropriations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to increase the budget in 2023 to
accommodate (1) $150,085 for the 2022 vehicle re -order and (2) $304,332 for the 2023 vehicle
purchase of 14 vehicles; or take other action deemed necessary.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Total increase to 2023 Budget of $454,417. This will consist
of 1.) moving $1.2 million in appropriations from the 2022 budget to the 2023 budget (which is
currently being done through a 2022 budget amendment) and add $150,085 in additional
appropriations to maintain the same number of vehicles in the existing 2022 order. This would
be shown as a nonrecurring expense in the Public Safety budget; and 2.) adding $304,332 in
appropriations to the 2023 Law Enforcement Contract budget to accommodate a price increase
to order 14 vehicles.
STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst; Erik Lamb, Deputy City
Manager; Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint
POLICE VEHICLES
2022 AND 2023 ORDERS
Spokane
Valley
WA
2003
2022 VEHICLE ORDER
Original nonrecurring 2022 Vehicle Budget = $1,455,000
• SV portion of four used shared unit vehicles - $92,500
• 1 Motorcycle - $36,136
• 1 Homeless Outreach Officer truck - $61,454
• 1 Patrol Lieutenant Ford SUV - $49,244
• 21 Patrol SUVs - $1,166,424 ($55,544 per vehicle)
• Upfit costs for a patrol SUV purchased in late 2020 - $8,600
Balance remaining - $40,642
2022 VEHICLE RE -ORDER
• Ford was unable to process order for 2022 patrol and
supervisor vehicles.
• Required dealer to re -submit order for 2023 vehicle models at
2023 prices
• Price of fully outfitted patrol vehicle increased by $8,696.45
• Price of unmarked supervisor SUV increased by $8,101.05.
• Other vehicles will be received in 2022 at original price.
3
2022 VEHICLE ORDER COST INCREASE
Total 2022 Vehicle Bud : e
Vehicles
Shared Vehicles (Used)
Motorcycle
Homeless Outreach Truck
Patrol Lieutenant Unmarked St)
Patrol Deputy SUVs
Upfit Costs for 2020 Patrol SUV
= Total
,455,00
Total Cost
$ 92,500
$ 36,136
61,454
49,244
,166,424
8,600
$ 1,414 358
Revised
New Total Difference Vehicle
Cost in Cost Number Total
$ 92,500
$ 36,136
$ 61,454
$ 57,345
$ 1,349,049
$ 8,600
1 605 085
$ 8,101
$ 182,625
$ -
$ 190,727
$ 9.
$ 36,136
61,45�
57,34'
,156,32
8,60
1 412 36
1
2022 VEHICLE RE -ORDER
• Seeking Council consensus on 2022 Vehicle Re -Order:
• Recommend adding $150,085 for 2022 Vehicle Re -Order to
purchase all vehicles.
• Note that we anticipate some vehicles will arrive in 2022, as has been
discussed during the 2022 Budget Amendment presentation
• If approved, the $150,085 will be part of the 2023 Budget because we
budget for when we receive the vehicles and have to pay for them.
• Alternatively could reduce number of vehicles, but not
recommended in order to maintain regular ongoing replacement
of aging vehicles.
5
2023 VEHICLE ORDER
• The 2023 budget bein currently considered by Council was based
on preliminary estimates of $53,000 (prior to budget workshop).
After the budget workshop, the estimates increased to $57,000 per
vehicle, which would accommodate the replacement of 11 police
vehicles.
• That cost estimate has been revised to $67,000 per vehicle.
• At the current proposed budgeted amount, 9 vehicles could be
purchased.
• Chief Ellis has recommended 14 vehicles be purchased in 2023.
• Given the price increase, to provide 11 vehicles, the amount
budgeted for vehicles would need to increase an additional
$103,332 in appropriations.
• Given the price increase, to provide 14 vehicles, the amount
budgeted for vehicles would need to increase an additional
$304,332 in appropriations.
6
2023 VEHICLE ORDER
• Other unique aspects that have changed this fall:
• Ford has also changed the ordering process and is opening small
ordering windows, starting earlier in the preceding year, to
accommodate longer build times.
• The first window for 2023 orders occurred in September of 2022 and it
is not known when or if another window will be opened.
• The County put word out to local dealers regarding an expected RFP
for vehicles including the estimated number of vehicles.
• The County estimated 14 vehicles for Spokane Valley.
• That allowed the dealers to place an order, get a price, and submit a
proposal for the future RFP.
• The dealers can cancel or reduce the order prior to the build date.
• The County is hoping to issue an RFP as soon as possible but needs to
know how many cars to put in for SVPD.
7
2023 VEHICLE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS
CONSIDERATIONS
• 2021 Staff presentation to Council recommended replacing
15 vehicles per year compared to 11 in previous years.
• Length to fulfill orders has increased significantly.
• Number of available ordering windows is unknown.
• Recommend budgeting for purchase of 14 vehicles, resulting
in increase of $304,332 to 2023 budget
8
2023 VEHICLE ORDER COST INCREASE
Total 2023 Vehicle Budget
Vehicles
Patrol Vehicles
Cost Difference
Remaining Balance
Number
11
$ 633,668 (Less $277,961 for depreciation costs)
Original
Cost Per
Vehicle
Total Cost
$ 6,668
New Cost New Cost @ New Cost
Per Vehicle 9 Vehicles 11 Vehicles
$ 603,000 $ 737,000
$ (24,000) $ 110,000
$ 30,668 $ (103,332
New Cost @
14 Vehicles
$ 938,000
$ 311,000
$ (304, 332)
OPTIONS AND IMPACT TO BUDGET
ble 1. Recommended O • tion
2022 Reorder 2023 Order
Original # of Reorder # of Change to Original # of Recommended Change to
Vehicles Vehicles Appropriatons Vehicles # of Vehicles Appropriaton
22 22 $ 150,085 11 14 $ 304,33
Total Change $
$ 454,417
NEXT STEPS
• Council consensus toni ht on how many
vehicles to reorder for 2022 and order for
2023.
• 2022 Reorder:
• Recommend adding $1501085 to 2023 Budget for 2022 Vehicle Re -
Order to purchase all vehicles.
• 2023 Vehicles:
• Recommend adding $304,332 to 2023 budget for purchase of 14
vehicles
• Total budget impact: Increases 2023 LE Budget by $454,417
• OR consensus on other options
11
NEXT STEPS
• Once Council consensus:
• 2023 Budget will be adjusted accordingly
prior to final adoption.
• 2022 order will be resubmitted
immediately.
• 2023 order - County will release a Request
for Proposals as soon as possible and
incorporate Council's decision into the
number of vehicles requested.
12
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: October 18, 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: Spokane County American Rescue Plan, Plante's Ferry Funding
Opportunity
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: As far back as at least 2016, there have been multiple
joint and City studies and discussions on potential enhancements and improvements to
Spokane County's Plante's Ferry Sports Complex.
BACKGROUND:
Since at least 2016, City Council has been studying and considering a variety of potential
enhancements and improvements to Spokane County's Plante's Ferry Sports Complex. There
have been multiple studies regarding the feasibility of sports events and improvements at Plante's
Ferry. Recently, the City was contacted by Spokane County Parks about a funding opportunity
for improvements at Plante's Ferry. On Friday, October 7, Spokane County released a Request
for Proposals (RFP) seeking proposals for projects to fund with its American Rescue Plan (ARP)
money to address negative economic impacts and to create strong healthy communities and
neighborhood features. Spokane County Parks has indicated that it will be submitting a proposal
for use of approximately $4 million of ARP funds to fund a master plan, design, and construction
of some portion of improvements at Plante's Ferry. As part of its proposal, they have requested
a letter of support and partnership with the City for the planning, improvements, and operation of
Plante Ferry. They have indicated they are open to discussing further what type of partnership
might work, and that could include financial contributions towards planning, joint use, split financial
contributions towards operations, or some other arrangement. Staff have requested the budget
for Plante's Ferry operations and maintenance. We have received some information, but not the
full budget.
The full Scope for the RFP is attached for reference. Staff are seeking discussion and consensus
to prepare a letter of support from City Council for a motion consideration at a future meeting.
Staff have identified the following as key points for consideration in a letter of support:
Statement of support for planning and improvements at Plante's Ferry.
Statement of support to provide half of the financial contribution towards a master plan.
Staff estimate that planning would likely cost approximately $100,000. Given the City's
ongoing tourism study and timing for the RFP, staff believe it would be beneficial to
get the planning effort started immediately. If Council approves a letter of support, the
City would likely immediately hire a planning firm and seek reimbursement from the
County for half of the planning costs.
Part of the planning/study would be to explore future opportunities for a partnership to
operate and maintain Plante's Ferry. This would include review of the budget and
further discussions with City Council over cost implications to the City for any
partnership arrangement.
Discussion of impacts relevant to the ARP Scope, such as discussion related to access
to parks by low-income individuals, encouraging physical activity, and the increased
park access that the project would provide to disproportionately impacted areas of the
City.
Other items identified by City Council
RFP proposals are due October 28, 2022. Thus, staff are seeking consensus to prepare a letter
of support and the key points that should be included in such a letter. If there is consensus, the
draft letter would be brought for motion consideration at Council's October 25, 2022 meeting.
OPTIONS: Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion; consensus for staff to draft letter of
support for future Council consideration.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: If Council supports the RFP, City staff would engage a
planning firm to immediately begin the planning/study process. Staff estimate this effort would
cost approximately $100,000. There are available funds in the City Manager's budget.
STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager; Mike Basinger, Economic Development
Director
ATTACHMENTS: Spokane County RFP Scope
October 7, 2022
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
P2221ARP
American Rescue Plan (ARP) Categories
Negative Economic Impacts: Strong Healthy Communities
Neighborhood Features (2.22)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE: 3
PROJECT LOCATION: 3
PERFORMANCE: 3
SELECTION SCHEDULE: 3
SELECTION PROCESS: 3
INTERVIEWS: 4
ADDENDA TO THE RFP: 4
EVALUATION COMMITTEE: 4
SUBMITTAL: 4
SUBMITTAL REJECTION: 4
CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY PROPOSAL MATERIAL: 4
ATTACHMENT A - RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 6
ATTACHMENT B - EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS 7
ATTACHMENT C — SCOPE OF WORK 8
ATTACHMENT D — BUDGET 9
ATTACHMENT E - GENERAL CONDITIONS 10
ATTACHMENT F - ARP/CSLFRF CFDA 21.027 FUNDING CONDITIONS 13
ATTACHMENT G - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 15
ATTACHMENT H — SAMPLE CONTRACT 15
Page 2of15
DEFINITIONS:
For clarification and the purpose of brevity, the following definitions will be used throughout these specifications:
1. "ARP" American Rescue Plan
2. "RFP" Request for Proposal
3. "Firm" refers to the person or entity awarded a contract resulting from this RFP.
4. "County" refers to Spokane County Washington, a political subdivision of the State of Washington.
5. "Proposal" a submittal response to this RFP.
For the purposes of the response section it shall be understood that the use of any form of the word "you, your,
company, Firm and other such similar words" refers to the Firm.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to solicit contract proposals from firms for funding of an ARP
Eligible Use Category allocation per the title and number of this RFP.
PROJECT LOCATION:
Determined by the Firm proposal and/or the RFP, limited to the geographical boundaries of Spokane County.
PERFORMANCE:
The County intends that the Firm award the contract shall perform the work commencing upon the notice to
proceed and shall terminate upon project completion unless terminated sooner by written notification from the
County.
The designation of the Firm as "most advantageous" by the County, taking into account all evaluation criteria, is
not intended to be nor will it be a guarantee of an award to a Firm. The County retains the right to award work, on
this or any other project, to other Firms.
SELECTION SCHEDULE:
The following dates are based upon initial planning and should be considered tentative.
ITEM DATE
RFP issued
October 7, 2022
Responses Due (within ARP Application Portal and All Upload
Attachments)
October 28, 3:OOpm local time
Evaluation of Submittals
Week of October 31, 2022
Designation of the most highly qualified firm (s) by the Board
of County Commissioners
November 7, 2022
After submittals, have been opened in public, the County will post a listing of any final award determination.
SELECTION PROCESS:
Spokane County will be the sole judge of determining the most advantageous firm or firms and the work to be
offered. A recommendation committee will rank all proper submittals based on the evaluation criteria set forth in
this packet. From these rankings a recommendation for the most advantageous firm or firms will be made.
Spokane County reserves the right to select the most advantageous firm or firms based solely on the written
responses to the evaluation criteria.
No work will be undertaken without a mutually agreed upon statement of work, fee, and contract signed by the
parties.
Requested amount is only one of the selection criteria considered. Factors other than funding request may include,
Page 3 of 15
but are not limited to; qualifications, experience, and longevity of operations of the Proposer; competence and
technical capabilities of the personnel; technical approach and aspects of the proposal; feasibility of the proposal;
efficiency and the Firm's ability to deliver in a timely manner, as well as, other considerations which may be in
the best interest of the County.
Only complete submittals will be evaluated.
INTERVIEWS:
Interviews are not a mandatory part of this process. Interviews will be held solely at the option of the County. If
interviews are conducted firms should plan to have key personnel on their interview teams who would most likely
be assigned to the work on such on -call projects. Short listed firms may be asked to provide supplemental or
additional information for review by the committee prior to the interviews.
The County reserves the right to utilize new or revised evaluation criteria and weights for the evaluation of the
firms being interviewed. If changes are made to the criteria or weights, they will be reduced to writing and sent to
the interview candidates prior to the conduct of the interviews.
Committee members will use the applicable evaluation criteria and weights to evaluate interview information.
Previous clients may be contacted as part of the evaluation process. The recommendation committee will rank the
firms interviewed and present their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for selection of the
most advantageous firm.
ADDENDA TO THE RFP:
Only those clarifications or interpretations of the documents that have been issued by written addenda by Spokane
County posted on the ARP Application Portal will be official. Clarifications given during the submittal process by
the County to the Firm's questions will be considered informal and unofficial. The county shall not be held
responsible for oral interpretations. Should any apparent discrepancies, omissions, or doubt as to meaning of any
terms or conditions be identified in the document the Firm shall at once notify the person designated to answer
administrative questions.
EVALUATION COMMITTEE:
Contact with a committee member(s) prior to selection of a Firm may constitute grounds for removal of the Firm
from consideration.
SUBMITTAL:
The Firm has the sole responsibility to ensure its response has been uploaded in the Attachments section of the
ARP Application Portal for the Firm by the appointed date and time. Submissions will become part of the official
records for this request for proposal and cannot be returned. Untimely submittals will not be considered.
SUBMITTAL REJECTION:
Spokane County reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals, portions or parts thereof and to waive all minor
irregularities. The Board of County Commissioners may reject any or all submittals for good cause.
CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY PROPOSAL MATERIAL:
The Washington Public Disclosure Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW ("Public Records Act") exempts the following
information from public disclosure:
A. Valuable Formulae, Designs, Drawings, Computer Source Code or Object Code, and Research Data".
B. Proprietary data, trade secrets, or other information that relates to: (a) A Firm's unique methods of conducting
business; (b) data unique to the product or services of the Firm. "Trade Secrets" are defined as information,
Page 4of15
including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that: (a) Derives
independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily
ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use;
and (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
C. Any information contained in the proposal that is considered confidential/proprietary must be clearly
designated and marked. Marking of the entire proposal or entire sections as confidential/proprietary will not
be honored and may render the submittal as non -responsive. Marking of pricing as confidential/proprietary
will not be honored.
D. Proposals submitted to Spokane County for consideration will be held in confidence, and not be made
available to other Firms for review or comparison until after award and contract execution.
E. If a request is made to view a proposer's confidential/proprietary documents, records, or information,
Spokane County will comply strictly with the Public Records Act.
F. Spokane County shall notify the proposer in writing of the public records request as provided in RCW
42.56.520. Within ten (10) days of this notice, the affected proposer will be asked to provide the legal basis
under which such documents are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. Additionally, County
legal staff will review the documents requested to determine whether or not the documents are subject to
disclosure under that act. Spokane County will be the sole judge as to the records, documents or information
that constitutes public information.
G. The proposer shall be notified in writing if Spokane County determines that the documents, records, or
information are subject to disclosure. The proposer shall take such legal actions as it deems necessary to
protect its interests. If the proposer has not commenced such actions within five (5) calendar days after receipt
of the notice that Spokane County legal staff has determined such documents are subject to disclosure and
provided Spokane County written notice of the actions, Spokane County may make such portions available
for review and copying by the public as Spokane County, in its sole judgment as to the records, documents or
information that constitute public information under the Public Records Act.
H. Defense and Reimbursement Obligations:
1. The proposer asserting that portions of its proposal can be legally protected shall bear all
costs of defending such assertion, including indemnifying and reimbursing Spokane County
for its administrative, expert and legal costs and judgments involved in defending itself in
actions arising from such assertions by the proposer including (without limitation) any
assessments as provided by statute.
2. By submitting a proposal with portions marked "Confidential" or "Proprietary or Business
Trade Secrets" or "Valuable Formulae, Designs, Drawings, Computer Source Code or Object
Code, or Research Data" or the like, the proposer has thereby agreed to the provisions of this
section, including the defense and reimbursement obligations.
If these terms are not acceptable, a firm should consider not replying to this Request for Proposal.
Page 5 of 15
ATTACHMENT A - RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
AUTHORSHIP: Applicants must identify any assistance provided by agencies or individuals outside the
proposer's own organization in preparing the proposal. No contingent fees for such assistance will be allowed to
be paid under any contract resulting from this RFP. All proposals submitted become the property of Spokane
County. It is understood and agreed that the prospective Firm claims no proprietary rights to the ideas and written
materials contained in or attached to the proposal submitted.
Did outside individuals/agencies assist with preparation of this RFP? ❑ YES ❑ NO
If "Yes", please describe:
BENEFICIAL INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
In accordance with Chapter 42.23 RCW Firms must disclose any and all personal relatives, or any relatives of the
Firm's employees or sub -contractors, who are presently employed by Spokane County, or who stand to realize
any financial gain, or beneficial interest, if a contract is awarded to the Firm or any sub -contractor of the Firm for
the work of this request for proposals.
The Firm certifies below that there are no persons, meeting the criteria above, have any beneficial interest in the
work of this request for proposals. (CHECK YES OR NO BELOW).
❑YES ❑NO
If NO, list below, the name of the person, organization and relationship and interest. (Add additional pages if
necessary).
ATTESTATION
Signature, Administrator, or Applicant Agency Date
print name and title
Page 6 of 15
ATTACHMENT B - EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTS
It is strongly recommended that this be used as the outline for your response.
Criteria Description Evaluation and Weight:
1. SERVICE DELIVERY ELGIBILTY' 15
a) Experience and qualification of firm in other parks and/or neighborhood features
b) Confirmation of all licensure for operating requirements.
c) Project extent completely within the geographical boundaries of Spokane County
2. COMPETENCE OF KEY PERSONNEL OF FIRM 20
a) General and dedicated staff special expertise, experience, and duration of firm in the local region
b) General experience of firm in audit compliance
c) Experience in Federal guidelines compliance including prevailing wage, if applicable
3. COMMUNITY IMPACT 35
a) Expected impacts including, but not limited to, environmental, drinking water improvements, Public
Health, Impacted Populations, improved resiliency related to COVID-19 impacts.
b) Ability to provide outcome metrics and required State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF)
required demographic information, if applicable, SLFRF for reimbursement payment(s) to identify the
amount of the total funds that are allocated to evidence -based interventions in compliance with State and
Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Program (SLFRF) best practices. Formal report submission template will be
provided by Spokane County upon RFP award. Reporting information may include:
Ethnicity of participants, Race of participants, Sex of participants, Household income percentages
of Federal Poverty Level (FPL), Number of households provided assistance, and other items as
required including participation involvement and performance metrics
Ability to document areas serving disproportionately impacted communities in compliance with
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Program (SLFRF) best practices.
4. ASSURANCE OF REQUIRED DELIVERABLES 20
a) Ability to staff and resources that will be utilized to provide goods and/or services delivery
b) Management and collaboration approach with internal and external stakeholders/community partners
including, but not limited to the capability to explore, develop and use innovative and advanced
techniques to provide goods and/or services to Disproportionately Impacted populations in Spokane
County
5. RESPONSIVENESS OF SUBMITTAL 10
a) Complete
b) Concise
c) Clearly presented information
d) Amount of ARP Funding Requested
TOTAL POSSIBLE POPNTS 100
Page 7 of 15
ATTACHMENT C — SCOPE OF WORK
Strong Healthy Communities: Neighborhood Features that Promote Health and Safety^ (2.22)
The Final Rule issued by the Treasury indicates "Investments in neighborhood features, including parks,
recreation facilities, sidewalks, and healthy food access, can work to improve physical and mental health
outcomes.
Allowing people access to nature, including parks, has been connected to decreased levels of
mortality and illness and increased well-being.
Urban park use during the COVID-19 pandemic may have declined among lower -income individuals.
Encouraging physical activity can also play a role in health outcomes, as a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor for
chronic diseases and more severe COVID-19 outcomes.
Parks, recreation facilities, and sidewalks can promote healthier living environments by allowing for safe and
socially distanced recreation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The final rule also recognizes that the public health impacts of the pandemic are broader than just the COVID-19
disease itself and include substantial impacts on mental health and public safety challenges like rates of violent
crime, which are correlated with a neighborhood's built environment and features.
As such, neighborhood features that promote improved health and safety outcomes respond to the preexisting
disparities that contributed to COVID-19's disproportionate impacts on low-income communities.
The final rule includes enumerated eligible uses in disproportionately impacted communities for developing
neighborhood features that promote improved health and safety outcomes, such as parks, green spaces,
recreational facilities, sidewalks, pedestrian safety features like crosswalks, projects that increase access to
healthy foods, streetlights, neighborhood cleanup, and other projects to revitalize public spaces." [page 131-132]
Quotes obtained from the SLFRF-Final-Rule.pdf (treasury.gov) and Department of the Treasury's Final Rule
(Revised September 20, 2022)
The project request requires confirmation of project completion before December 31, 2026.
^Denotes areas where recipients must report on whether projects are primarily serving disproportionately
impacted communities (see Project Demographic Distribution section for details)
Page 8 of 15
ATTACHMENT D — BUDGET
The total amount to be used in the evaluation criteria as it relates to the Spokane County ARP Requested funding
level. The total cost shall include the cost of everything necessary to meet the requirements of the County as set
forth in the RFP.
Funding Source
Amount
ARP Requests of Other Entities <PLEASE SPECIFY>
$
Other Public Funds (including grants) <PLEASE SPECIFY>
$
Private Funding <PLEASE SPECIFY>
$
Other <PLEASE SPECIFY>
$
Spokane County ARP Request
$
TOTAL
S
Expenses for ARP Request
Amount
Page 9of15
ATTACHMENT E - GENERAL CONDITIONS
LIMITATIONS: This Request for Proposals (RFP) does not commit Spokane County to award a contract to this RFP. Spokane County reserves
the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this RFP, to negotiate with all qualified sources, to waive formalities, to
postpone award, or to cancel a part or in its entirety this RFP if it is in the best interest of Spokane County.
AWARD: A contract award will not be final until Spokane County and a prospective Firm have executed a written Agreement. Spokane County
reserves the right to make an award without further negotiation of the proposal submitted; therefore, the proposal should be submitted in final form
from a budgetary, technical, and programmatic standpoint. Spokane County may elect, after the selection process, to request clarifications,
alterations or changes in the submitted proposal including, but not limited to, monthly Rent, monthly fees for furnished utilities and menu pricing in
order to provide the best service at the best price for Spokane County.
NON-DISCRIMINATION: The Board hereby notifies all individuals that no person or organization shall be discriminated against on the basis of
race, religion, color, age, sex, sexual orientation or national origin in consideration for an award issued pursuant to this advertisement. Additionally,
minority business enterprises are encouraged to submit responses to this invitation.
CONTRACT TERM: A contract award will not be final until the County and prospective Firm have executed a written Agreement. Spokane
County reserves the right to make an award without further negotiation of the proposal submitted therefore the proposal should be submitted in
final form from a budgetary, technical, and programmatic standpoint. The County may elect, after the selection process, to request clarifications,
alterations or changes in the submitted proposal including, but not limited to, prices in order to provide the best service at the best price for the
County.
CANCELLATION OF AWARD: Spokane County reserves the right to immediately cancel an award if the Agreement has not been entered into by
both Parties or if new regulations or policy makes it necessary to change the program purpose or content, discontinue such programs, or impose
funding reductions. In those cases, where negotiation of contract activities is necessary, Spokane County reserves the right to limit the period of
negotiation to thirty (30) days after which time funds may be de -obligated.
CONTRACT: Agreements for the RFP Scope of Work (SOW) and Budget will be negotiated between Spokane County Executive Management, or
their designee, and the Firm. If an agreement cannot be reached with the selected Firm, the next "most advantageous" Firm will be contacted for
contract negotiations. No work will be undertaken without a mutually agreed upon statement of work, fee, and contract signed by the parties.
The method of payment will be reimbursement of approved funds in the approved contract budget, with documented and approved subrecipient
reports in the ARP Application Portal and approved invoice at the County's sole discretion using any of the following methods:
a) By warrant (check);
b) Automated Clearing House (ACH);
No additional fees or charges shall apply, unless otherwise preapproved by the County. Additionally, unless otherwise set forth in the RFP, quote,
or submittal, and after acceptance by the County in the contract, payments shall made in arrears and with payment terms of "Net 30 Days" from the
date that the County receives a correct, accurate and approved invoice with the accompanying subrecipient report through the ARP Application
Portal.
Contract Administration: The following identifies the titles, roles, duties and responsibilities of the authorized representatives of the Parties under this
Agreement.
COUNTY CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
Ariane Schmidt, American Rescue Plan (ARP) Portfolio & Program Manager
Office of Spokane County Commissioners
1116 West Broadway Ave
Spokane, WA 99260
Phone: (509) 477-2625
Email- aeschmidt@spokanecounty.org
County Contract Administrator is the County Department Head or Elected Official, or his/her designee, as identified, on page 1 of this Agreement.
On behalf of the County the Contract Administrator's responsibilities include:
a) assurance of sub -recipient performance, including ARP reporting requirements set forth in this Agreement;
b) anticipation of which (if any) County policies may affect or impact this contract and to address such issues to ensure compliance and
congruity with County policies
c) service as the primary point of contact with the Firm;
d) Approval of submissions to ensure proper reporting of the Firm as an ARP funded sub -recipient in order to receive reimbursement
funding;
e) ensure acceptability of the Firm's accomplishment of the scope of work in the agreement;
f) assurance of certification and authentication responsibilities as the Disbursing Officer under RCW 42.24.080 in connection with
payments made for work performed under the contract agreement to be coordinated through the County Financial Assistance Office;
g) implementing Firm performance and reimbursement payment schedules;
h) causing or initiating changes or modifications to the contract agreement to be coordinated through the County Financial Assistance
Office which may be subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners; and,
Page 10 of 15
i) performance of all other contract administration responsibilities;
TERMINATION: The Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part under the following conditions:
1. by mutual written agreement;
2. by the County for breach by the Firm of any of the obligations or requirements set forth in the contract documents;
3. for convenience of the County; or
4. by the County for non -appropriation of funds.
Upon termination of the Contract the Firm will: 1) stop work on the date and to the extent specified; and 2) terminate and settle all orders and
subcontracts relating to the performance of the terminated work; and 3) transfer all work in process, completed work, and other material related to
the terminated work to the County; and 4) Continue and complete all parts of the work that have not been terminated; and 5) surrender to the County
all files, exhibits, and documents maintained or prepared in conjunction with the provision of funding under this Agreement; 6) safeguard
any of the above referenced materials until surrendered and returned to the County; and 7) surrender and return any County owned and furnished
equipment used in conjunction with the provision under this Agreement.
TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE: Notwithstanding any other provisions contained herein, the County, without cause, may terminate the
contract between the Parties by providing written notice to the Firm. Upon termination under this section: 1) All remaining obligations of the
Parties are discharged, but any right based upon breach or performance occurring prior to termination survives;
LAWS, ORDINANCES, PERMITS, and LICENSES: The Firm must comply with all County, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations
including O.S.H.A - W.I.S.H.A., to the extent that they may have any bearing under the terms of this Agreement. The Firm is solely responsible to
secure and pay for any and all applicable permits, licenses or permissions necessary for legal operation. Those items requiring the County to obtain
or assist will be at the sole expense of the Firm.
The Parties specifically agree to observe federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations including but not limited to those pertaining to
civil rights to the extent that they may have any bearing on either the provision of money under the terms of this Agreement.
INSURANCE: The consultant will be required to carry, for the duration of any contract resulting from this RFP, the insurance types and amounts as
set forth in the Insurance Requirements Attachment E.
COPYRIGHTS: The County reserves a royalty -free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize
others to use, for Government purposes:
1. The copyright in any work developed under a contract resulting from this RFP; and
2. Any rights of copyright to which the County or a Firm purchases ownership with funds received from any contract resulting from this RFP.
DEBARRED OR SUSPENDED PARTY: The County will not make any award or permit any award or contract at any tier to any debarred or
suspended party or is otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549,
"Debarment and Suspension."
In addition, the County will not make any award or permit any award or contract at any tier to any debarred or suspended party or a party that is in
any way excluded from procurement actions by any State or Local governmental agency. If any subsequent information of such debarment,
suspension or prohibition becomes available, such evidence may be grounds for non -award or nullification of the Contract.
SUBCONTRACTING: It is understood that the Firm is responsible for the satisfactory accomplishment of the service or activities included in a
subcontract.
MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS: The Firm will maintain, for at least six (6) years after completion of this contract, all relevant records pertaining
to the contract. The Firm shall make available to the County or the Washington State Auditor or their duly authorized representatives, at any time
during their normal operating hours, all records, books or pertinent information which the Firm shall have kept in conjunction with this Agreement
and which the County may be required by law to include or make part of its auditing procedures, an audit trail or which may be required for the
purpose of funding contracted for herein. If any litigation, claim, or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the records shall
be retained by Firm until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been resolved
PRICE DETERMINATION: The prospective Firm guarantees, in connection with this proposal, the prices and/or cost data have been arrived at
independently, without consultation, communication, or agreement for the purpose of restricting competition. This does not preclude or impede the
formation of a consortium of companies and/or agencies for purposes of engaging in jointly sponsored programs.
USE OF PROCESS: The County reserves the right to utilize the request for proposal process, for any reason whatsoever, to contract for work
regardless of project size, type or estimated fee value.
LIMITATIONS: This RFP does not commit Spokane County to award a contract. The County reserves the right to accept or reject any or all
proposals received as a result of this RFP, to negotiate with all qualified sources, to waive formalities, to postpone award, or to cancel in part or in
its entirety this RFP if it is in the best interest of Spokane County.
A resolution by the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners declaring a firm or firms as the most advantageous to be eligible to perform
on -call work referred to in this RFP.
Page 11 of 15
Any contract awarded will be nonexclusive and if in the County's best interest it may award work to other firms. Any contracts resulting from this
request for professional qualifications will be between the County and the Firm and may be canceled upon written notification by the County.
The production of any schematic design, master plan or any other work produced as part of a scope of work, will not be a guarantee that the firm
preparing it will have the exclusive right to perform any or all work associated with them.
EXPENSES: This RFP does not commit the County to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a response to this RFP or for interviews if held.
All costs associated with a response to this RFP shall born solely by the responding Firm.
INTERPRETATION: Should any discrepancies or omissions be found in the RFP specifications, or doubt as to its meaning, Firm shall at once
notify the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Portfolio & Program Manager in writing. The American Rescue Plan (ARP) Portfolio & Program Manager
will send written instruction or addenda as required to all interested parties. The County shall not be responsible for oral interpretations. All
Addenda issued shall be incorporated into the contract.
REPRESENTATION: In submitting its Proposal the Firm represents that it has read and understands the proposal documents, that it has visited the
site and or is familiarized itself with the local conditions under which the work is to be performed, that by signature of this proposal it is deemed to
have acknowledged all requirements and signed all certificates contained herein. No allowance will be made after proposals are received for
oversight, omission, error, or mistake by proposer.
AUDITS: Firm understands and agrees that it shall allow access and review of any materials submitted for audit, audit reports, corrective action
plans, and any other related reports or documents related thereto.
Page 12 of 15
ATTACHMENT F - ARP/CSLFRF CFDA 21.027 FUNDING CONDITIONS
American Rescue Plan (ARP)
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF)
Funding Authority: U.S. Department of Treasury
CFDA# 21.027 — Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
The Contractor specifically agrees to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations,
requirements, program guidance, including but not limited to the following:
All applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders, OMB Circulars, and/or policies
including, but not limited to: nondiscrimination laws and/or policies, Energy Policy and Conservation Act (PL 94-
163, as amended), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (PL 93-288, as amended), Ethics in Public Services (RCW 42.52), Covenant Against Contingent
Fees (48 CFR Section 52.203-5), Public Records Act (RCW 42.56), Prevailing Wages on Public Works (RCW
39.12), State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C), Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58), State
Building Code (RCW 19.27), Energy Related Building Standards (RCW 19.27A), Provisions in Buildings for
Aged and Handicapped Persons (RCW 70.92), and safety and health regulations.
Comply with all procurement requirements of 2 CFR Part 200.317 - 200.327. All sole source contracts expected
to exceed $50,000.00 must be submitted to Spokane County for review and approval prior to the award and
execution of a contract.
Any contract awarded to the successful Contractor must contain and/or comply with the following provisions in
accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.317 - 200.327:
• Administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where contractors violate or breach contract terms,
and provide for such sanctions and penalties as appropriate;
• Termination for cause and for convenience by Spokane County or the Contractor including the manner by
which it will be affected and the basis for settlement;
• Compliance with Executive Order 11246, "Equal Employment Opportunity," (30 FR 12319, 12935, 3 CFR
Part 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339), as amended by Executive Order 11375, as supplemented in Department of
Labor regulations (41 CFR Chapter 60);
• For Capital Expenditure that involve the employment of mechanics of laborers: Compliance with the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 USC 3702 and 3704) as supplemented by Department of Labor
Regulations (29 CFR Part 5);
• For all contracts in excess of $100,000.00 with respect to water, sewer, or broadband that involve the
employment of mechanics of laborers: Compliance with the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(40 USC 3702 and 3704) as supplemented by Department of Labor Regulations (29 CFR Part 5);
• For construction or repair contracts: Compliance with the Copeland "Anti -Kickback" Act (40 U.S.C. 3145) as
supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR part 3);
• For construction contracts in excess of $2,000.00 when required by Federal grant program legislation:
Compliance with the Davis -Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141-3144 and 3146-3148) as supplemented by
Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR part 5);
• For construction contracts in excess of $100,000.00 that involve the employment of mechanics and laborers:
Compliance with the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standard Act (40 U.S.C. 3701-3708) as supplemented
by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5);
Contractor must comply with Executive Orders 12549 and 12689 and 2 C.F.R. Part 180, which restrict awards,
subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or
ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs or activities. Contractor must certify that it is not
Page 13 of 15
presently debarred, suspended or proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
participating in this Agreement by any federal department or agency.
Contractor must comply with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 3729-3733 which prohibits the submission of false
or fraudulent claims for payment to the Federal Government. See also 31 U.S.C. § 3801-3812 which details the
administrative remedies for false claims and statements made.
Contractor must maintain a Conflict -of -Interest Policy consistent with 2 CFR 200.318(c) that is applicable to all
activities funded with the award. All potential conflicts of interest related to this award must be reported to
Spokane County and/or U.S. Treasury.
Contractor is required to be non -delinquent in their repayment of any Federal debt. Examples of relevant debt
include delinquent payroll and other taxes, audit disallowances, and benefit overpayments. See OMB Circular A-
129.
Contractor's costs must be compliant with 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E Cost Principles.
Contractor must comply with 31 U.S.C. § 1352, which provides that none of the funds provided under an award
may be expended by the recipient to pay any person to influence, or attempt to influence an officer or employee of
any agency, Member of Congress, an officer, or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress
in connection with any Federal action concerning an award, making of any federal grant, federal loan,
continuation, renewal, amendment or modification of any federal contract, grant loan, or cooperative agreement,
and that if any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or
employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this award, the Contractor
will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its
instructions.
In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance or refusal to comply with any applicable law, regulation,
executive order, OMB Circular or policy, Spokane County may rescind, cancel, or terminate the contract in whole
or in part in its sole discretion. The Contractor is responsible for all costs or liability arising from its failure to
comply with applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, OMB Circulars, or policies.
CERTIFICATION
Signature, Administrator, or Applicant Agency Date
Print name and title
Page 14 of 15
ATTACHMENT G - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
INSURANCE: The Firm shall furnish and maintain all insurance as required herein and comply with all limits, terms and conditions stipulated
therein, at their expense, for the duration of the contract. Following is a list of requirements for this contract. Any exclusion must be pre -approved
by the Spokane County Risk Management Department. Work under this contract shall not commence until evidence of all required insurance and
bonding is provided to Spokane County of Spokane. The Firm's insurer shall have a minimum A.M. Best's rating of A- and shall be licensed to do
business in the State of Washington. Evidence of such insurance shall consist of a completed copy of the certificate of insurance, signed by the
insurance agent for the Firm and returned to the Spokane County. The insurance policy or policies will not be canceled, materially changed or
altered without forty-five (45) days prior notice submitted to the department with whom the contract is executed. The policy shall be endorsed and
the certificate shall reflect that Spokane County of Spokane is named as an additional insured on the Firm's general liability policy with respect to
activities under the contract. The policy shall provide and the certificate shall reflect that the insurance afforded applies separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the Firm's liability.
The policy shall be endorsed and the certificate shall reflect that the insurance afforded therein shall be primary insurance and any insurance or self-
insurance carried by the Firm or County shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by the Firm.
The Firm shall not commence work, nor shall the Firm allow any Firm to commence work on any subcontract until a Certificate of Insurance,
meeting the requirements set forth herein, has been approved by Spokane County
Failure of the Firm to fully comply with the insurance requirements set forth herein, during the term of the Agreement, shall be considered a
material breach of contract and cause for immediate termination of the Agreement at Spokane County's discretion.
Providing coverage in the above amounts shall not be construed to relieve the Firm from liability in excess of such amounts.
REQUIRED COVERAGE:_The insurance shall provide the minimum coverage as set forth below, all coverage $1,000,000.00 per occurrence with
no deductible.
GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: The Firm shall have Commercial General Liability with limits of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence, which
includes general aggregate, products, completed operation, personal injury, fire damage and $5,000.00 medical expense.
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT: General Liability Insurance must state that Spokane County, it's officers, agents and employees, and
any other firm(s) specifically required by the provisions of this Agreement will be specifically named additional insured(s) for all coverage
provided by this policy of insurance and shall be fully and completely protected by this policy from all claims. Language such as the following
should be used "Spokane County, It's Officers, Agents And Employees Are Named As An Additional Insured As Respects To Contract No.
P6064."
PROOF OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE: The Firm shall carry, for the duration of this Agreement, comprehensive automobile liability coverage
of $100,000/$300,000 and property damage coverage of $50,000.00 or $300,000.00 combined single limit for any vehicle used in conjunction with
the provision under the terms of this Contract. Said policy shall provide that it shall not be canceled, materially changed, or renewed without forty
five (45) days written notice prior thereto to Spokane County.
WORKERS COMPENSATION: If the company has employees, the Firm shall show proof of Worker's Compensation coverage by providing its
State Industrial Account Identification Number. Provision of this number will be the Firm's assurance that coverage is in effect.
SUB -CONTRACTOR: The Firm shall include any and all sub -contractors as insured under its policies or shall require separate certificates and
endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
The Firm will furnish the County with evidence of the above coverages, in the form of a certificate of insurance with copies of all exclusions and
deductibles applicable to the insurance policy as evidence of the above coverage, before work on the project shall proceed. The Firm agrees to
provide the County at least a forty-five (45) day written notification prior to any cancellation or restrictive modification of the policies. Notice of
cancellation of such coverage for nonpayment of premium shall be provided to the County at least forty-five (45) days in advance. Notice of
cancellation for any other reason, or suspension, or of reduction of coverage limits below that required under this section shall be provided to the
County at least forty-five (44) days in advance.
ATTACHMENT H — SAMPLE CONTRACT
A sample contract grant agreement is available on the ARP Application Portal under each Eligible Category Page.
Page 15 of 15
To:
From:
Re:
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
as of October 13, 2022; 10:30 a.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
October 25, 2022, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2022 Budget Amendment - Chelsie Taylor
2. First Reading Ordinance 22-022 Amending 2022 Budget - Chelsie Taylor
3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes, resolution 22-019 setting hearing for St Vacation )
4. Second Reading Property Tax Ordinance 22-021= Chelsie Taylor
5. First Reading Ordinance 22-023 Adopting 2023 Budget - Chelsie Taylor
6. Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Grant Awards - Dan Domrese
7. Motion Consideration: Solid Waste Management Plan Consultant Agreement - Bill Helbig
8. Motion Consideration: Plantes Ferry, Letter of Support - Mike Basinger, Erik Lamb
9. Admin Report: Stormwater Utility Rates - Gloria Mantz
10. Admin Report: Retail Strategies Annual Update - Susan Nielsen, Mike Basinger
[due Tue Oct 18]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(15 minutes)
11. Admin Report: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2023 Project(s) Submittal - Eric Robison (15 mins)
12. Admin Report: Advance Agenda - Mayor Haley (5 minutes)
13. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 130 mins]
Nov 1, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Oct 25]
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Motion Consideration: City Hall Holiday Closure - John Whitehead (5 minutes)
NON -ACTION ITEMS:
2. Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC) - Assistant Police Chief Kevin Richey, Erik Lamb (30 mins)
3. Code Text Amendment Stormwater Utility - Gloria Mantz
4. Park Maintenance Contract - John Bottelli, Erik Lamb
5. Law Enforcement Contract Renewal - Morgan Koudelka, Erik Lamb
6. Advance Agenda - Mayor Haley
(10 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
7. Executive Session: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] Review Performance of a public employee [*estimated meeting: 90 mins]
Nov 8, 2022, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CDBG 2023 Project(s) Submittal - Eric Robison
2. Motion Consideration: Approval of CDBG 2023 Project(s) Submittal - Eric Robison
3. PUBLIC HEARING #3: 2023 Budget - Chelsie Taylor
4. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
5. Second Reading Ordinance 22-022 Amending 2022 Budget - Chelsie Taylor
6. Second Reading Ordinance 22-023 Adopting 2023 Budget - Chelsie Taylor
7. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment, Citizen to SHA - Mayor Haley
8. Motion Consideration: Stormwater Utility Rates - Gloria Mantz
9. Motion Consideration: Law Enforcement Contract Renewal - Morgan Koudelka, Erik Lamb
10. Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to Council - Chelsie Taylor, Sarah Farr
11. Admin Report: Advance Agenda - Mayor Haley
[*estimated me
Nov 15, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
1. Comprehensive Plan - Chaz Bates
2. Advance Agenda - Mayor Haley
National League of Cities, City Summit, Kansas City, MO Nov 17-19, 2022
Nov 22, 2022, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Admin Report: 2023 Fee Resolution - Chelsie Taylor
3. Admin Report: Fire Dept Monthly Report - Chief Soto
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda - Mayor Haley
5. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports
6. Executive Session: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] Review Performance of a public employee [*estimated meeting: 30 mins]
[due Tue Nov 1]
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
eting: 95 mins]
[due Tue Nov 8]
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Tue Nov 15]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
Draft Advance Agenda 10/13/2022 2:06:26 PM Page 1 of 2
Nov 29, 2022 — meeting cancelled — Thanksgiving holiday
Dec 6, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley
Dec 13, 2022, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Resolution Adopting Fees for 2023 — Chelsie Taylor
3. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Awards for 2023 — Chelsie Taylor
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley
Dec 20, 2022, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley
3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports
4. Executive Session: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] Review Performance of a public employee
Dec 27, 2022 — meeting likely cancelled — Christmas holiday
Jan 3, 2023, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley
Jan 10, 2023, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Mayoral Appointments: Councilmembers to Committees — Mayor Haley
3. Mayoral Appointments- Planning Commission — Mayor Haley
4. Mayoral Appointments: LTAC Committee — Mayor Haley
5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley
*time for public or council comments not included
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Appleway Trail Amenities
Basement space
Castle Park
CDBG Interlocal
Consolidated Homeless Grant
Continuum of Care (info item)
Core Beliefs Resolution
Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt.
Neighborhood Restoration
Park Lighting
Pavement Mgmt Funding
PFD Presentation
Prosecutor Services
Residency
SCRAPS Update
St. Illumination (owners, cost, location)
St. O&M Pavement Preservation
Street Scaping, signs, trees, etc.- info item
Vehicle Wgt Infrastructure Impact
Water Districts & Green Space
Way Finding Sign
[clue Tue Nov 29]
(5 minutes)
[due Tue Dec 6]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Tue Dec 13]
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Tue Dec 27]
(5 minutes)
[due Tue Jan 3]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
Draft Advance Agenda 10/13/2022 2:06:26 PM Page 2 of 2
Siokane`
jUalleye
Memorandum
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CARY P. DRISKELL — CITY ATTORNEY
10210 East Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 720-5105 • Fax: (509) 720-5095 • cityattorney@spokanevalley.org
To: City Council
From: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Tony Beattie, Senior Deputy City Attorney;
Nate Sargent, Legal Intern
CC: John Hohman, City Manager; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager
Date: October 18, 2022
Re: Governor's Emergency Powers
Questions Presented:
1. What is the authority and process for the governor to declare an emergency?
2. What are the powers of the governor during a state of emergency?
3. How is a state of emergency terminated?
Brief Answers:
1. The governor has broad authority under RCW 43.06.200 — 43.06.270 to identify and
declare a state of emergency. The legislature has no similar authority.
2. Once an emergency has been declared, the governor may issue proclamations that act as
binding law. These proclamations fall into two categories: 1) prohibiting otherwise
lawful conduct and 2) suspending statutory obligations. As long as the state of
emergency continues, these proclamations can be extended throughout the life of the
emergency.
3. The governor has sole discretion to determine when an emergency ends, thereby
suspending his emergency powers. In theory, the legislature or court could override the
governor's state of emergency, but this is unlikely to occur.
Background:
In response to the COVID pandemic, a statewide emergency was declared by Gov. Jay Inslee on
February 29, 2020.1 This declaration unlocked the governor's emergency powers, which include
the power to prohibit otherwise lawful conduct, and the power to suspend statutory obligations.2
These powers are statutorily granted and are intended to be broad —in recognition that a swift
1 WA PROCLAMATION 20-05 (Feb. 29, 2020).
2 See RCW 43.06.220 (explaining the powers of the governor to issue orders after declaring an emergency).
and decisive emergency response is best achieved through the executive branch.3 Nearly two
and half years later, Gov. Inslee announced the remaining emergency proclamations and the
underlying state of emergency would be terminated by October 31, 2022.4 During this state of
emergency, there were eighty-five emergency proclamations issued by the governor.5 Many
states have since amended their emergency power statutes, either placing more legislative checks
on the governor's power, or clarifying when the powers can be invoked.6 In Washington, the
state legislative and judicial branches have largely deferred to the governor during the COVID-
19 Pandemic. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Washington is one of the few states that has
not placed new limitations on the governor's emergency powers.
Analysis:
Governors of every state have emergency powers, whether constitutionally or statutorily
granted.8 It is widely recognized that these powers must be broad to allow the executive to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public in times of emergency; however, states differ
in the checks and balances they place on these powers.9 Where Washington provides broad
emergency powers to the governor, it provides limited legislative checks on the governor's use
of these powers, including the power to declare an emergency, the authority during an
emergency, and the authority to terminate an emergency.'°
1. The Governor's Authority to Declare a State of Emergency:
The Governor was delegated the sole authority to declare a state of emergency and unlock broad
police powers. Pursuant to RCW 43.06.010(12) "[t]he governor may, after finding that a public
disorder, disaster, energy emergency, or riot exists within this state or any part thereof which
affects life, health, property, or the public peace, proclaim a state of emergency." In Slidewaters
LLC v. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, the Ninth Circuit looked to the
statutory definition of "emergency" to determine that Gov. Inslee properly declared a state of
emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic." The Ninth Circuit also found that this
statutory interpretation aligned with Washington Supreme Court prior rulings that held the
governor has the sole discretion to declare an emergency.'2 Slidewaters is just one of many
cases that illustrates the level of deference courts provide the governor during emergencies.13
3 See id. (explaining the intent of the legislature to grant the governor broad authority to suspend statutes following a
large flooding event in 2007).
4 James Halon, Washington's remaining COVID-19 emergency orders to end on Oct. 31, SPOKESMAN REVIEW, Sept.
8, 2022.
5 Id.
6 NAT'L CONF. STATE LEGIS., Legislative Oversight of Emergency Executive Powers, (Sept. 26, 2022),
https://tinyurl.com/2p8y8ubc.
Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
1° See RCW 43.06.200-270.
11 4 F.4th 747, 754-55 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding Covid was a "public disorder," and "disaster" within the meaning of
RCW 43.06.010(12)).
'2 Id. at 756 (citing Cougar Bus. Owners Ass'n v. State, 97 Wash. 2d 466 (1982)) (explaining the use of emergency
powers are at the sole discretion of the Governor in the context of the Mt. St. Helens eruption).
13 See Gonzales v. Inslee 21 Wn. App. 2d 110, 116-18 (Div. II 2022).
2
2. The Governor's Authority During a State of Emergency:
Once the governor issues a proclamation declaring the existence of an emergency, the governor
can act in two ways. First, the governor can issue proclamations pursuant to RCW 43.06.220(1),
which prohibit "activities he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and
maintain life, health, property, or public peace."14 There is no legislative action required to
extend these proclamations, meaning the governor has sole discretion to extend these
proclamations if the state of emergency still exists.15 In the second category of emergency
powers pursuant to RCW 43.06.220(2), the governor "[may] issue an order or orders concerning
waiver or suspension of statutory obligations or limitations."16 For a proclamation made under
this subsection to extend beyond thirty days, the legislature must approve it through concurrent
resolution.17 This incentivizes the governor to issue proclamations that do not require legislative
approval, so the governor will attempt to fit his proclamations under the RCW 43.06.220(1).
In Gonzalez v. Inslee, two landlords brought an action challenging the governor's authority to
issue proclamation 20-19 and multiple extensions, which prohibited landlords from evicting
tenants who failed to pay rent.18 These proclamations were issued under RCW 43.06.220(1),
which requires no legislative approval to extend.19 The landlords argued that the governor
disguised his authority to issue these proclamations under RCW 43.06.220(1), but because these
proclamations suspended the statutory right of a landowner to evict tenants and the statutory
obligation of a tenant to pay rent, these proclamations were properly authorized under RCW
43.06.220(2)—requiring the legislature's approval to extend.20 In addressing this, the court
noted that "activities" is defined extremely broad in RCW 43.06.220(1). The court also looked to
the plain language of the proclamation and found that "none of the proclamations stated that the
governor was suspending any statutes."21 This case, like many others, shows the level of
deference given to the governor. It also shows the ease with which the governor can classify his
actions under RCW 43.06.220(1) and avoid the need for legislative approval to extend, even if
the proclamations affect rights and obligations guaranteed by statutes.
3. The Governor's Authority to Terminate a State of Emergency:
RCW 43.06.210 states "[t]he state of emergency shall cease to exist upon the issuance of a
proclamation of the governor declaring its termination; provided, that the governor must
terminate said state of emergency proclamation when order has been restored." (emphasis
added). In effect, the governor has the sole discretion to declare when an emergency is over.
While a court could theoretically determine that "order has been restored" and the emergency
must end, courts have been reserved in supplanting their policy decisions over those of the
governor. Further, because the Washington emergency power statutes do not provide any
legislative means to end a state of emergency, a court would likely interpret this as the legislature
intentionally providing the governor sole discretion to end an emergency. These emergency
powers can be abused, even in states where legislative approval is required to extend a state of
14 RCW 43.06.220(1)(h) (e.g. setting curfews, closing non -essential businesses, limiting gatherings)
15
Id.
16 RCW 43.06.220(2) (e.g. suspending Open Public Meeting Act requirements).
17
Id.
18 21 Wn. App. 2d 110, 116-18 (Div. II 2022).
19Id. at 127.
20 See id. at 128.
21 Id. at 129.
3
emergency. In Michigan, Governor Whitmer had authority to declare an emergency under either
the Emergency Management Act (EMA) or the Emergency Powers of Governor Act (EPGA);
however, legislative approval was required to extend the duration of the state of emergency.22
Instead, Governor Whitmer bypassed the legislature, ending the state of emergency under one
authority and issuing a new emergency under the other authority.23 This situation exhibits the
importance of drafting emergency statutes with clear boundaries and also implementing
legislative checks.
Conclusion:
In Washington, the governor is the sole authority of declaring, managing, and terminating a state
of emergency. So far, the courts have largely deferred to the executive's powers. However, due
to the pandemic, these powers have received heightened scrutiny.24
22 Brian Friery, Legislatures Want to Unlockdown, but Courts Hold the Key: Resolution of Executive and Legislative
Disputes in Coronavirus Times, 48 J. Legis. 188, 195-196 (2021).
23 Id.
za See S.B. 5909, 67th Leg. (Wash. 2022) (giving the legislature the authority to terminate a state of emergency and
authority to terminate proclamations made under RCW 43.06.220(1)); see also H.B. 1772, 67th Leg. (Wash. 2022).
4