Loading...
2010, 08-17 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, August 17, 2010 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT /ACTIVITY GOAL 1. Mike Jackson Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda Discussion/Information 2. Ken Thompson 2011 Budget: Proposed Property Tax Discussion /Information 3. Ken Thompson 2011 Budget: Proposed Decreased Property Tax Discussion/Information 4. Christina Janssen Code Text Amendment, CTA 0 -10, Vehicle Discussion /Information Sales n Mixed Use Zone 5. Scott Kuhta Subarea Plan (SARP): City Center Discussion /Information 6. Neil Kersten Street Preservation Program Discussion / Infonnation 7. Caiv Driskell City Transportation Benefit District Discussion /Information 8. Mayor Towey Advance Agenda Discussion /Information 6:00 p.m. 9. Information Only (will not be discussed or reported): Greater Spokane, Inc. Third Quarter Report 10. Mayor Towey Council Check in Discussion /Information 11. Mike Jackson ADJOURN City Manager Comments Discussion / Information Note: Unless otherwise noted above, there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However, Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the Council reserves the right to take "action" on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term "action" means to deliberate, discuss, review, consider, evaluate, or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Study Session Agenda, August 17, 2010 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 17, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Admin Report: Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Annually, Council considers various legislative topics to determine how best to protect and promote the interests of the City As the session of the Washington Legislature approaches, it is once again time to consider what matters the City Council wishes to promote on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND: Most government associates strive to adopt a Preliminary Legislative Agenda in order to gain attention for potential inclusion in the Governor's Budget in advance of the upcoming session of the Washington State Legislature. This would be Council's first approved Legislative Agenda for 2011, which Council can amend as desired. OPTIONS: Consider the issues for Council's "2011 Legislative Agenda" and proceed as written or revised; or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place this item on an upcoming council agenda for adoption consideration, as drafted or with specific revisions. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson and Mayor Towey ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda 2. AWC's Most Recent Legislative Bulletin j eyl D RAPr DRA FT Agen The following is the draft 2011 legislative agenda for consideration of Council adoption: Principle Items of Interest: 1.) Street utility enabling legislation: Spokane City Councilman Al french previously has proposed street utility legislation. The proposal enables legislation to allow local control and determination by city councils and local electorates to decide if it is a tool they want to use in their community to attend to street maintenance functions. 2,) Increased state fruading for the 911 systeln: Rates applied to telephone and other bills that generate revenue for the 911 systems are set by state legislature and have not been revised for a long time. Many 911 centers are advising their constituents that they are not able to hold a budget below the current revenues and have expressed a need for state relief. In addition, consider the inclusion of an anti- liarassinent provision concerning 911 operators. 3.) Seek $300, 000 for the acquisition of park laird adjacent to the Park Road pool and Centennial Middle School. Spokane Valley has a population of 89,440 people but only 172 acres of public parks — drastically below the 6.25 - 10.5 acres /1,000 population (559 — 938 acres) specified in the Parks Master Plan. Spokane Valley has successfully partnered with the State Legislature in the acquisition and development of Greenacres Park, adjacent to Central Valley School District's future elementary school. We want to ask the Capital Budget Committee for support in replicating our success in co- locating public assets in under - served and economically distressed neighborhoods. 4) Latin Enforcement District enabling legislation: Law enforcement needs and resources vary in jurisdictions across the state like those for fire prevention and suppression. More tools are needed to best consolidate, deploy and pay for law enforcement services. Use of fire districts has proven to be a viable system for the provision of essential public services and many jurisdictions may derive benefit frorn providing law enforcement services under a similar system. S) Securing state fintding for statewide coninninications interoperability itfi�astructure: Locally the citizens have approved a sales tax increase that includes 1 /10 of 1% for communication equipment; however, the revenue is insufficient to fiend all five items within that initiative. InteroperabiIity is a statewide concern and according to the Association of Washington Cities, there is a $400 million problem to be resolved. 6) Reasonable legislation related to the "cap and trade" provisions of climate control regulations under considerations: - Climate control and change regulations continue to be discussed in Olympia as well as Washington D.C., using the term "cap and trade" in reference to efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. We want to be aware of the options under consideration for regulatory enactment. 7) Access to enhanced state fitel purchasing power. We have a desire to determine if there is a way to access enhanced state fiuel purchasing power related to the large amount of fuel purchased by state, county and city organizations to operate government vehicles. Exploration of methods that aggregate governmental purchasing power that may drive down the cost of the fi►el purchases is warranted. 8.) Cell phone registration and confidentiality pertaining to personal itrforination. With the passage of the FCC's "Commercial Mobile Alert System" which allows participating carriers to send emergency text messages to subscribers, and with the ability to gather information to proceed with a Reverse 911 call system, we urge Washington State Legislators to consider placing some restrictions on the release of 911 calls and the personal Spokane Talley 2011 DRAFT Legislative Agenda Page 1 of 2 information connected with such, and to stipulate that "911" personal information, including any audio recordings of "911" calls, shall be inaccessible to the general public. 9.) Endorsemennt of afire sprinkler system in the Spokane Valley Food Bmik. 10) Liquor Initiatives: 1- 1100 & 1- 1105. These Initiatives, which would eliminate the state liquor store system; one initiative favors big retails, and the other preserves a business monopoly for liquor distributors that exist in some forth in every state in the union. Initiative 1 -1100 would for the first time allow retailers to purchase hard liquor, beer and wine directly from manufacturers; and 1105 would require retailers to purchase through distributors. If the voters pass both measures, the courts could decide that 1100 would prevail as 1105 modifies the statues, while 1100 wipes them away and replaces with new statutes. Either initiative to privatize liquor sales would have a negative revenue impact on the City of Spokane Valley, and Council wants to be aware of the options should either or both initiatives pass. 11.) Out-of-state tracks to go to the port of enntny. As Spokane County Commissioners and Spokane Valley Council members hear some members of the public voice their desire to bar heavy trucks from circumventing the port of entry. Council wants to be appraised of any legislation proposed by ranchers or others, to mandate out - of -state trucks weighing in at a port of entry. 12.) Provide support for the 4ssociationn of Washington Cities' legislative agenda items that serve the best interests of the City of Spokanne Valley. Spokane Valley 2011 DRAFTLegislaliveAgernda Page 2 of Page 1 of 2 AWC Interim Bulletin #3 August 11, 2010 �'h1S �S5L1� On the move! Initiative campaigns, Governor ❑s budget & AWG ❑s policy development process Ir on the move! Initiative campaigns, GovemorEs Things are moving at a fast pace. Along with the usual sections found in our Legislative Bulletin, budget & AWC7s policy please look for important updates regarding: development process Initiatives update ■ Six initiatives qualify for November ballot. Find out more here. Governores Committee on ■ Governor's Committee on Transforming Washington's Budget — see how you can ransforming WA Budget provide input here. AWC prepares for 2011 ■ AWC prepares for 2011 legislative session. More here. Legislative session - how you can provide input ©Enemy & telecommunications I return to top 1 f next artfel I Environment & water Federal & health care infrastructure, transportation & economic development R Law & Justice Municipal fFnance J Homepage ■�Lertislative Staff Email the Editor 12 contact us about vour subscription information Search Back Issues ®Print This Article ® PPrint At Articles Print PQF version Association of Washington Cities 1076 Franklin Street SE Olympia, WA 98501 -1346 Phone: (360) 753-4137 legislative Fax: (360) 753.0149 FM,, l t nia 0 U L L E T I H Well: 4 A Email: v awcne o rq orq p7006 As=ATmN of WASHmToti cans w V . a� ^reset http: l /www.nnagnetmail.net/actioiis /email web version.cfin ?recipient _ id = 213943369 &m... 08/12/2010 AWC Legislative Bulletin - AWC Interim Bulletin #3August 11, 2010 Page 1 of 1 AWC Interim Bulletin #3 August 11, 2010 r ill This lssue'� Initiatives update 1 W - n the move Initiative Six initiatives easily qualified for the November ballot. Under state law, the Office of Financial campaigns, Govemors Management is required to develop a fiscal impact statement detailing the way an initiative budget & AVVC's_policy impacts state and local governments. Fiscal impact statements were due on August 10 but have development ZOOMS not yet been posted. As soon as they become available we will post a link on the horne parle of itiatives u pdate our website. o C on W—rr WA's Rudget AWC's role — AWC will continue to provide its members educational materials. Please check our W VVC pre pares for 2011 website for additional information about all of these initiatives. egislative session - how you can provide input The website includes; MEnergy teleco mmunications ■ A summary of each initiative Environment & water ■ The full text of each initiative Federal & health c are I - LdLPS ■ OFM's fiscal impact statements ■ News articles tru c tur ■ Links to the proponents and opponents websites rans portation & eco nomic ■ More detailed information the liquor initiatives and their potential impacts to cities development L aw & ustJce The Association of Washington Cities provides information for educational purposes only. This is Municipal finance not intended to be an expression for or against a ballot measure. AWC will continue to provide information about the fiscal impacts of this initiative on cities. City officials may want to consult legal advice for specific impacts on your city. Mt- eqislative Homepaae Review your role - What can you do to educate your community about initiatives? Review the ®Legislative Staff most recent Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) guidelines and a dos and don't list from AWC ®Email the Editor (also recently approved by the PDC) here. [MConlact us ahcut your subscription information search Back Issues [ previous article ] [ Letum to tor? ] [ next arllcle ] ©P rint This Artieie � 'nn t All Article I3 rint PDF version Association of Washington Cities 1076 Franklin Street SE Olympia, WA 98501 -1346 Phone: (360) 753-4137 l eg islative Fax: (360) 753 -0149 e u L r E T t Email: awcC@awcnet.orq 01006ASSOCAOMOFWASHMQT911 Unts Web: vrnw.awcnet.oro http: l/ newstnanager .cotiiiiipartners.cotn/aweleg /issues /2010- 08 -11 /l .html 08/12/2010 AWC Legislative Bulletin - AWC Interim Bulletin 93August 11, 2010 Page 1 of 1 AWC Interim Bulletin #3 August 11, 2010 r ill � 5 �SSU�'� Governor's Committee on Transforming WA's Budget On the mov_el Initiative Governor Gregoire has begun her budget process for the 2011 -2013 biennium. Faced with a campainns,_Gavernor's potential $3B+ shortfall, she has formed a Committee on Transforming Washington's Budget to budget &,AWC's policy help evaluate spending proposals from state agencies. AWC CEO, Mike McCarty serves on that dgv_e[opment_process committee alongside 34 other individuals from across the state. Along with the Governor and her 8 nitlativ_es update staff, the committee attended four public hearings around the state. There was a tremendous Governors Committee oif turn out: Transforming WA's Budgot ®AWC prepares for 2011 ■ 1,550 attended Leqislative session - how ■ 400+ signed up to testify you can provide input ■ 161 testified O Energy & ■ 315 submitted comment cards or written materials telecommunications Environment & water The Governor also received over 1900 commertslsuggestions through the budget ideas Federal & health care website Infrastructure, The committee convened on August 11 to: transportation & economic development ■ Debrief on budget hearings Law & justice ■ Discuss budget timelines and Priorities of Government Municipal finance ■ Discuss follow -up strategies from budget ideas website ■ Review materials submitted from state agencies ■ Discuss next steps for committee members ■ Formation of subgroups [Ml,egislaiive iiomepage ■ Work on essential v. non - essential activities Leqislative Staff ■ Additional meetings and schedule Email the Editor To assist with Mike's work on the committee, Mike and AWC's Legislative Team conferred with OContact us about your a group of city officials on August 10, via conference call, to brainstorm bold and innovative subscription information proposals to forward to the Governor. The Governor is not only looking for ideas that will assist search Back Issues in reducing the estimated Million shortfall for 2011 -2013, but is very interested in exploring ideas that could fundamentally change what state government does, "Print This Article ® Print All Articles Do you have an idea or a proposal? As the Governor has often stated, "there are no sacred r 'r.nt Pt3F version cows ", so be bold, be creative, and be forward thinking. We will be gathering your ideas and sharing them with the Governor within the next couple of weeks. Please submit your ideas to Sheri Sawyer Association of Washington Citios 1076 Franklin Street SE Olympia, WA 98501 -1346 [ 13mvious article ] [ return to lop ] [ next article J Phone: {360) 753 -4137 Fax: (360) 753 -0149 Email: ativc Dawcnet.orq Web: w%vw.awcnet.orq r legislative a un 0 U L L F T I N 07006 ASSOCIATION OF WASH Nr OTON CITIES http :// newsinanager. cominpartners. c on s sue s/201 0-0 8 -11/2. 1rtml 08/12/2010 AWC Legislative Bulletin - AWC Interim Bulletin #3August 11, 2010 Page 1 of 2 AWC Interim Bulletin #3 August 11, 2010 —V AW C prepares for 2011 Legislative session - how you can provide This ISS Input Qn the movel Initiati campalgns.,_Go�ernors In 2011, the Legislature will convene for a "long" 105 -day session. We expect the primary focus budg & AW Clicy to be balancing the budget. Due to the economic climate, major revenue proposals or policy dvePment objectives in need of significant revenue will face significant challenges. l k rqmsforaijnp _ W A's itiarwes update overnor's Committee ort The next meeting of AWC's 2010 -11 Legislative Committee will be held on September 27. AWC Budget President, Kathy Turner, Mayor of Puyallup, chairs the committee, which includes over 90 1A for 2011_ elected and appointed city officials from throughout the state. is lative s ess ion - h ow_ you can provid input The Legislative Committee's role is to review action during the 2010 session and recommend M En__argx & specific legislative proposals for the 2011 legislative session, within the framework of the telecommunications resolutions adopted by the membership. To see a list of AWC's 2010 Legislative Priorities and Environment & water their outcomes, click here. Federal & health care_ I tra nfrastructure, The bulk of the work of the Legislative Committee will be done within subcommittees that & correspond to the adopted AWC Resolutions. The subcommittees have already begun to meet _econo de velopment and will continue to do so over the next couple of months to review various legislative proposals. Law & ustice Click here for the list of subcommittees, the members of each subcommittee, and the AWC staff I .Municlipa l contacts. financ Each subcommittee will provide a brief outline of its preliminary major issues to the full committee who will prioritize these issues and recommend preliminary major priorities to the AWC Board for review and discussion at their October 1 meeting. =Legislative Nomepa4e =Legislative Staff The full Legislative Committee will review the final work of the subcommittees in mid - November =Email the Editor and prioritize the proposals for AWC Board consideration, The board will review those =Contact us about your recommendations and finalize the 2011 AWC Legislative Priorities during their December 10 subscription information meeting. =Search Back Issues Your input is needed ©Print This Article 'nnt_AlArticles To assist the Legislative Committee, we are soliciting legislative proposals from city officials. If H you have a specific proposal you would like the committee to consider, please provide the - , i r n F__E_ _sion following information: u The problem your idea addresses Association of u Your specific proposed legislative solutien to the problem Washington Cities 1076 Franklin Street SE Olympia, WA 98501 -1346 Send your proposal to Sheri _Sawyer and she will forward to the appropriate subcommittee staff. Phone: (360) 753 -4137 Fax: (360) 753 -0149 Crafting a legislative package that is reflective of your needs takes more than an active Email: awc0awcnet.org Legislative Committee. We need input from the entire membership. Thank you in advance for Web: www.awcnet.org your contribution to AWC's policy development process. 1 ittp: Hnewsmanager .comnipartners.coni/awcleg /issues /2010- 08- 11 /3.html 08/12/2010 AWC Legislative Bulletin - AWC Interim Bulletin 43August 11, 2010 Page 1 of 1 AWC Interim Bulletin #3 August 11, 2010 In This Issue Energy & telocottimunications O n the movel Initiative Teaser here campaigns Gavemor's brdq @t_ &_Awc's _golvc Cities engaged in state energy strategy discussions development process e Initiative s update The Department of Commerce is leading an effort to revise the State Energy Strategy, Govemor's Committee on Washington's comprehensive energy plan for meeting our future energy needs. 2010 legislation Transforming WA's Budqet (E2SH8 2858) directed the revision of the state energy strategy and declared that a successful M AWC prepares for 2011 strategy must balance three goals to: Legislative session • hour you can provide input 1. Maintain competitive energy prices; IN EDergyA 2. Foster a clean energy economy and jobs; and telecommunications 3. Meet obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Environment &wat Federal & health ca re As part of this process Commerce has engaged an advisory committee. Councilmember Larry - smith from Vancouver sits on the committee, and represents city interests. In addition Victoria e Inirastr Lincoln from AWC and staff from other cities have met with Commerce Director Rogers Weed to trans portation iii econom share their perspectives and concerns. We will continue to monitor development of the strategy. development To learn more see here. To share your issues or concerns with AWC please contact Victoria M Law & [ustice Lincoln or Dave C atterson. MunIcloall finance QLegislative Homepage JMLegisiative Staff DEmail the Editor QContact us about your subscription information Search Back Issues QPrint This Article 14ri nt All Articles rint PaF version t rewlous article ][ return to fan ] [ next ertiele I Association of Washington Cities 1076 Franklin Street SE Olympia, WA 98501 -1346 Fax Pho (3 l ) 753- 14137 pm legislative Fax (360} 753.0149 I . a u L L E T I H Entall:aWc(L;Dawenel. orq r.... A55QLUT�4NOFWASH�NGTANCITI Web: vmv.awcnet orq http;// iiewsmanager. conimparttiers .com/awelegfissues /2010- 08- 11 /4,html 08/12/2010 AWC Legislative Bulletin AWC Interim Bulletin #3August 11, 2010 Page 1 of 1 AWC Interim Bulletin #3 August 11, 2010 �Thi s Issue'► Environment &water or, the move! Initiative Depagment of Ecology holding listening sessions for 2012 campafgns,_Gaverrror5 municipal stormwater permit re — AWC will request budget & AWC's policy deferral development process legi s la tive atives update The Department of Ecology is hosting listening sessions during August and September. These vernors Committee on V sessions provide a forum for interested parties and stakeholders to offer suggestions to Ecology nsforminq WA's Budget for potential improvements to municipal stormwater permits. ®AWC prepares for 2011 Legislative session - how The existing permits were issued in 2007 and were intended to be in place for five years. For the you can provide input next round of permits, currently scheduled to go into effect in 2012, changes and additional is Energy & requirements will be considered. 100 cities around the state have been working hard to teleoommunications implement these permits and these efforts will continue. AWC, Ecology and others have worked Environment & water cooperatively over the past two years to obtain funding to supplement local revenue needed to Federal & health rare successfully meet stormwater challenges. Infrastructure, While these efforts continue, AWC will urge the Governor, Ecology and legislators to delay trans & ec onomic development consideration of changes to the permits until such time as cities are capable of meeting existing requirements and obligations. For more information, please contact AWC's Dave Williams Law 8, lustice Municipal finance For those wanting to participate in Ecology's meetings, at the beginning of each listening session, Ecology will give a brief, informal presentation, The remainder of the meeting will be open discussion to hear your suggestions. There is no agenda for the meeting. See here for remaining dates, locations, and handouts for each listening session. Also note that the page IMLepislative Homepan provides an online comment form. QLepislative Staff QEmall the Editor Contact us about your subscription Information t prev ous article ] [ reiurn to top ] [Peso article ] search Back Issues Print This Article Tint All Articles rint PQF vets a Assoclalion of Washington Cities 1076 Franklin Street SE Olympia, WA 98501 -1346 Phone: (360) 753 -4137 Fax: (360) 753 - 0149 legi s la tive Email: aw @ativcnet.orrt t,,, out 4 c r i N Web: YA"v.awcnet orq ,D'p4p6 AMCLAIDesuovwASa•1 Ta +ants littp:// newsmanager . coli - Lnipailnei's .comlawcicg /issues /2010- 08- 11 /5.litml 08/12/2010 AWC Legislative Bulletin - AWC Interim Bulletin #3August 11, 2010 Page 1 of 1 AWC Interim Bulletin #3 August 11 2010 P in This Issued Federal & health care on the mov Init Federal Health Care Act c mp2 ns, G overnor's b udget & AWC's ooilc The Joint Legislative Select Committee on Health Reform Implementation met on Friday, July 30 develo pment procass to hear updates on the state's effort to implement the Federal Health Care Act. For the Initiatives update committee agenda and meeting handouts, visit mere. You can also watch the recording of the Governor's Committee on meeting Isere. Transforming WA's Budget [T%IVC prepares for 2011 At this time, the committee's discussions do not have direct impacts on city programs or on the Leqislative session - ho%v city as an employer, The focus is on the state's efforts to comply with the provisions of the Act, you can provide input such as implementing a new version of the High Risk Pool for those who have been unable to ®Energy & buy health insurance due to a pre - existing condition. telecommunications Environment & water For information on the latest aspects of implementation and how they impact cities, visit A Federal & health care Fetle I leal Care wehpage I rasMucture Transportation & e development Law _& lustice [ [previous article 1 return to ton ] I next a rticle ] Municipal finance OLe4islatNe Homepage InLegislative Staff IMEmall the Editor Incontact us about your subscription information QSearch Back Issues "Print This Articie W �ri ntAll Arii Tint Pal= version Association of Washington Cities 1076 Franklin Street SE Olympia, WA 98501 -1346 Phone: (360) 753-4137 legislative Fax: (360) 753 -0149 inn pU t t F T t rr Email: atiVCt�awcnet.orq 01006 ASWATrON OF WASH�N( IGH CM11 Web: wwyv.awcnet.orq http:// newsmanager .commpatiners.com /aweleg /issues /2010- 08- 11 /6.html 08/12/2010 AWC Legislative Bulletin - AWC Interim Bulletin Mugust 11, 2010 Pagel of 2 AWC Interim Bulletin #3 August 11, 2010 Fp �h15 SSW 'r Infrastructure, transportation & economic development On the movel Initiative Public Works Board project list and future infrastructure funding campalgns, Governor's budclet &_AWC's poficv The estimated $394 million that has traditionally been available for the Public Works Board will development process clearly be under scrutiny as the state faces an estimated $3 billion shortfall in the upcoming Initiatives update biennium. {The Public Works Assistance Account (PWAA) was redirected to the general fund in Governors Committee orn the last biennium.) Transforming WA's Budget M . prepares for 2011 AWC staff has met with several legislators over the past few weeks on the future of the account. Leqislative session - how Responses have ranged from "strong support" to "it's already gone" to "redirecting the account you can provide input will be a vote of last resort." M nergv & telecommunications The policy debate of redirecting the PWAA will have new dynamics in 2011: Environment & water Federal & health care ■ There is universal recognition that public works projects provide long term community Infrastructure, benefits and create short and long term jobs. transportation & economic n At the end of August, the Public Works Board will recommend between 70 and 80 dev_e1opn7er)t tangible projects that will be identified with the Public Works Assistance Account. Real Latin &. justice projects in legislative districts instead of a funding account for future projects will clearly R iMun![cipal change the flavor of how the legislature responds to infrastructure funding. finance Stay tuned: Preliminary discussions are underway with the Department of Commerce and stakeholders on conducting infrastructure funding symposiums with the goal of creating an infrastructure program strategy for the upcoming biennium. AWC staff will engage our 131 Homepape membership as Information becomes available. QLeglslative Staff IMF-mail the Editor Photo enforcement law is under scrutiny contact us about your subscription information Over the past month, we have heard from legislators that there is increasing concern over how search Bacl Issues cities are implementing the Photo Enforcement Authority. Photo Enforcement is identified in state law as Automated Traffic Safety Cameras (RCW 46.63.170), The legislators have made it Print This Article clear this is a result of direct citizen interaction while doorhelling. V Print All Articles One common complaint is that cities are intentionally reducing the yellow signal time as a int l version "gotcha" to generate tickets. It is also resulting in drivers slamming on breaks or accelerating through intersections. The fact is that tickets are issued only to motorists passing through intersections after the light has turned red and that the yellow signal time is based upon traffic Association of standards for a specific intersection. Another common complaint is that cities are selecting Washington Cities intersections to make money and not because of safety. Data shows otherwise. 1076 Franklin Street SE Olympia, WA 98601 -1346 Phone: (360) 753.4137 AWC has anticipated that photo enforcement would be a hot legislator topic during this interim Fax: (360) 753 -0149 and for the upcoming 2011 session. As a proactive measure, AWC held a session on photo EmaT awcr[ enforcement during the annual conference in June. The following information has been helpful Web: wnvtv,awcnet.orq when meeting with legislators that have raised concerns: ■ Photo enforcement works. Statistical evidence repeatedly shows speeds are reduced and serious crashes are reduced. One city went from one violation a minute in a school hlttp,// iiewsmanager .commpartners,cotii/aweleg /issues /2010- 08- 11 /7.html 08/12/2010 AWC Legislative Bulletin - AWC Interim Bulletin 43August 11, 2010 Page 2 of 2 zone to four per hour. Speed kills. One of every ten pedestrians struck at 23 MPH will die. Six of every ten pedestrians struck at 28 MPH will die. Tickets don't tell the whole story. Many cities set their tickets at $124. However, there are recorded violations of drivers going 55 MPH in a 20 MPH zone. If a law enforcement officer was on hand, the ticket would have been substantially more than the fixed rate of $124. Photo enforcement tends to generate revenue during the first year until driver behavior changes. AWC strongly encourages ongoing public outreach on why your city has chosen to use a photo enforcement program. In addition, AWC strongly encourages your law enforcement officers to meet with your state legislators explaining the safety benefits of the program. Joint Transportation Committee The Joint Transportation Committee's (JTC) Local Agency Efficiency Study is continuing. As a reminder, the transportation budget contained a proviso to evaluate the funding and services offered by the four state agencies providing local transportation services. The four state agencies are: the County Road Administration Board, the Transportation Improvement Board, the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board, and WSDOT's highways and local programs division. The principle objective of the study is to identify opportunities to streamline governance and organization, and to identify whether or notthere are more efficient ways to distribute transportation funds and provide services to local governments. Another goal is to increase efficiencies while effectively meeting local governments' needs. Over the past month, the consultants have been organizing the agency data in a format that allows policy makers to make apples to apples comparisons of the programs. This has proved to be a daunting task because of how the local agencies are funded and the fact that each agency has different technical service delivery models. Next steps will be outreach to the customers of the programs over the upcoming weeks. Economic Development and Quality Infrastructure subcommittee will meet September 15 AWC would like to thank Mayor Pete Lewis of Auburn for agreeing to chair the Economic Development and Quality Infrastructure Subcommittee. Boih city elected officials and senior city staff will comprise the committee. This is the first step in developing AWC legislative priorities for the 2011 -2013 biennium. if your city has infrastructure or economic development related legislative ideas that will benefit some or all of our AWC membership, please contact Ashley Probart or Dave Calterson [ previous Article ] [ roturst to ton ] [.next Article ] legislative i if 0 U L L r T I N 67406 MS46IAPON Or WASHMTOH V DIS http:// newsmanager. c© tmnpartners. coinlawc leglissuesl2010- 08- 1117.htllll 08112/2010 AWC Legislative Bulletin. - AWC Interim Bulletin #Mugust 11, 2010 Page 1 of 2 AWC Interim Bulletin #3 August 11, 2010 �rhis issued L aw& just On the move) Initiative Gang legislation in the works campaigns, Governors budget & AWC's policv AWC continues to talk with various cities and stakeholders about the need for new tools to development process combat gang violence in our communities. The Attorney General's office has been working on update potential legislation that would provide a number of additional tools (similar to some of those ® Initiatives Governors Committee on proposed in the 2010 legislative session) as well as providing assistance for prevention and Transforminq WA's Budget intervention programs. AWC prepares for 2011 Leqislative session - how The AG's proposal currently includes: you can provide input In Energy & w No more deferrals for juveniles for gang - related gun offenses. telecommunications m Auto -adult jurisdiction for violent gang - related crime for 16 and 17 year olds charged with Environment & water serious or violent gang - related crime. Federal & health care w Juvenile gang enhancement that would guarantee JRA time. w Gang prevention and intervention provisions. Infrastructure, ■ Expand the scope of criminal gang intimidation beyond students in public schools. transportation & economic ■ Increase the penalty for tagginglgraffiti from a gross misdemeanor to a class C felony. development w New, expanded sentencing enhancements if you prove the crime was gang - related. taw & justice ■ Nuisance abatement for buildings/structures involved in gang - related activity and Municipal finance associated forfeiture of gang - related personal and real property. ■ Neighborhood anti - street gang protection orders based on existing protection order statutes that would permit a local government to seek a protection order in a specified geographic area against specific individual gang members. Violations of such a OLegislative Nomepage protection order would be a criminal offense. ®Legislative Staff AWC is looking to cities for input in the types of anti -gang tools that would be most beneficial. Email the Editor We are also interested in ideas and suggestions for intervention and prevention efforts. AWC ®contact us about your will be hosting a conference call on this topic on August 17. If you would like to participate or subscription information have suggestions, please contact Candice Hoc k. Search Back Issues State asks courts to refrain from processing Model Traffic "Print This Article Ordinance refunds Print All Articles As we have been reporting in CiiyVoice, the Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) Print PdF version estimates up to 10,000 potentially invalid traffic citations have been issued since 2007, due to their oversight in updating the state's Model Traffic Ordinance (MTO). Association of Washington Cities In late July, DOL provided information on a claims process to local courts for those jurisdictions 1076 Franklin Street SE that are impacted. Claims must be made within three years of the date the infraction was paid to Olympia, WA98501 -1346 be eligible for a refund. DOL will be refunding the full amount of the infraction, not just the state Phone: (360) 753 -4137 portion. However, due to a computer software issue, DOL and the Administrative Office of the Fax: (360) 753 -0149 Courts are asking courts to refrain from processing any further refunds until the details of the Email: awcaawenet.org new process are established. In the meantime, cities should consult with their city attorneys and Web: vrtivw.avrcnet.arq courts to determine if they are affected by the listed violations that were left out of the MTO. A list of cities that are not impacted due to their process for enforcing traffic laws and a link to a blog for additional updates may be found Here. If your city should be included on the DOL list of http:// newsmanager .colnnipailners.com/awcleg /issues /2010 -08 -I t /8.html 0$112/2010 AWC Legislative Bulletin - AWC Interim Bulletin #3Augt.tst 11, 2010 Page 2 of 2 entities not impacted, please contact Sheila Ga ll or (360) 753 -4137 with that information. AWC will provide additional information as it becomes available. Suppreme Court adapts rule requiring public defenders to comply WA "to be adopted" Standards for Indigent Defense Services starting September 1, 2010 The Supreme Court Rules Committee adopted an amendment to court rule CrRU 3.1(d) Right to and Assignment of Lawyer which applies to cases in all municipal and district courts. Effective September 1, 2010, this rule would require public defenders to certify compliance with Standards for Indigent Defense Services "to be adopted" by the Supreme Court. While no current rules are under consideration to establish standards, the V VS13A s tan d ards, which are used as reference for locally adopted standards and the Office of Public Defense grants, include minimum competency standards such as continuing legal education requirements and caseload limits and may provide guidance for some of the issues the court would consider as they adopt a standard. This rule could have significant impacts for many jurisdictions. The 2009 Status _Rep on I - 1 ublc D efense showed that even with the Office of Public Defense grants and significant progress, many jurisdictions that have been recipients of grants had not yet been able come into compliance with the standards. The 2009 report documents that county misdemeanor caseloads ranged up to 800 cases per attorney and some cities with grants reported caseloads as high as 1,000 or more misdemeanor cases per attorney. On August 9, the Office of Public Defense issued a 111L u indicating that the Supreme Court has not yet determined which standards to include in the rule and wishes to solicit stakeholder input. Therefore, implementation of the rule is likely to be delayed. AWC will provide more information as it is available. Offender medical costs work group In response to ongoing concerns about the rising costs of medical care for offenders, AWC formed a work group to talk about the issues and search for solutions. The group recently met to discuss possible legislative changes to help address the issues surrounding assignment of offender medical costs. Additionally, the group reviewed an inmate medical claims processing and insurance program currently offered to counties. There is some interest in expanding the program to cities. AWC will further explore this potential program and get information out to our members to see if there is value for our cities and towns. I previous article ] ( returns to top ] ( V A w ir.3e ] Legislative 0 U L L r T I H 07046 ASSWAYM EWHASH -401 TWO WAS http:// newsmanager .commpartners.com/aweleg /issues /201© -08 -11 /8.html 08112/2010 AWC Legislative Bulletin - AWC Interim Bulletin #3August 11, 2010 Page 1 of 1 AWC Interim Bulletin ##3 August 11, 2010 F i r n p"— Th1S iS S_�~ Murticlpal finance Gn_themov_el_I_ntlallo State budget update camn_aInns Governor's dudaet & Al!VC's ptificy The U.S. House, recalled to the Capitol from the campaign trail fora special sitting August 9, 9- ["a ent process Mln lfiat;ves approved and sentto President Obama a$26 bllion budget bailout for the states. For Washington, it means a temporary reprieve, avoiding a special session or immediate across -the- gvarnor's Com_mitlee_on board cuts to state spending. ransforming !lug's Budget M AWC prepares for 2011 The vote was party line in the Washington delegation: 6 Democrats aye and 3 Republicans nay. Legislative session - how While the federal funding provides a reprieve, the state still faces an estimated $3 billion budget you can provide input deficit in the upcoming biennium. M Enerny & telecommunications The measure includes $338 million for Medicaid services in Washington, an amount already Environment & water presumed in the budget adopted last spring, based on assurances from the Whfte House and Federal & health care congressional leaders that it was coming. The aid package also includes an estimated $205 million for K -12 education. Infrastructure, transportation & economic development Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeals decision in brokered R a w &justice natural c as use case � u ni�al trance Currently cities can levy a use tax on brokered natural gas of up to six percent (RCW 82.14.230 Natural gas that is taxed under a city's utility tax is exempt from this use tax. The tax was imposed in 1989 after the deregulation of the natural gas industry, which allowed industries to purchase natural gas directly through the wholesalers and send it through pipelines provided K=l_egislaUve Homepane by the utilities, Instead of purchasing from the local utility provider. This direct purchase meant Megislative Staff that the gas was not subject to the locally imposed utility tax. =Email the Editor =Contact us about your On July 29, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed a 2008 Court of Appeals decision that would subscription Information have impacted the City of Tacoma's brokered natural gas use tax and which had the potential to OSearch Back Issues effectively eliminate the tax for other local jurisdictions (G -P Gypsum Corp_ v. Dept of Pavenue Earlier this year, the state Legislature passed ESH13 3179 to clarify that the local BNG use tax is This Article imposed where a taxpayer burns or stores gas. The law went into effect June 10, 2010, and W Print 'rint All Articles applies to the use of natural gas on or after that date. The department has Issued a S ' rint PDP veri Dr Lice on the effects of this law. The Supreme Court decision concluded the Legislature expressed its clear purpose to authorize Association of municipalities to tax entities for the use of natural gas within city limits, not the place where the Washington Cities customer first exercised dominion and control in the state, as the Court of Appeals had 1076 Franklin Street SE determined. The court's decision applies to the use of gas before June 10, 2010. Olympia, WA 98501 -1346 Phone:(360)753 -4137 Fax: (360) 753.0149 Email: awc@lawcnet.oni Web! vnvw.awcnet.org [ previous article ] f return to too ] legislative 01006 A59VATr04 OF WASH NOTGN [i TAS http:// newsmanager .commpartners.com/aweleg /issues /2010- 08- 11 /9.html 08/12/2010 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 17, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Admin Report: Proposed Property Tax Ordinance for 2010 for taxes to be collected in 2011 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State Law PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: There has been discussion regarding the anticipated amount of property tax revenue for the 2011 budget. A public hearing will be held August 24 to review 2011 projected revenues, including the property tax levy. BACKGROUND: State law requires the City to pass an ordinance in order to levy property taxes. The City is limited to a maximum of $1.60 per thousand dollars of assessed value. Staff expects the assessed value of the City of Spokane Valley to be near $7.1 billion. A tax levy as proposed in the 2011 budget would result in a tax rate of $1.54 per $1,000 of assessed value. It should be noted these estimates are based on the County's latest projections of assessed value. A change in the assessed value and /or a change in the amount of our proposed levy will change the tax rate. OPTIONS: This ordinance is required by law. The council could modify the ordinance to levy a rate different from the $1.54. Each one cent of levy rate generates $70,000 more /less in property tax revenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is needed at this time. This item will return to your agenda on August 24 and September 28. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This ordinance levies property tax for the City's 2011 budget year. We expect property tax revenues to be $10,700,000 (a decrease of 1%) once growth in assessed value and state assessed properties have been included. Property taxes are expected to make up 20% of General Fund revenues. STAFF CONTACT: Finance & Admin. Services Director, Ken Thompson DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LEVYING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON IN SPOKANE COUNTY FOR THE YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2011 TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR CITY SERVICES AS SET FORTH IN THE CITY BUDGET. WHEREAS, State law authorizes the City of Spokane Valley to levy regular property taxes upon the taxable property within the corporate limits in order to provide revenue for the 2011 General Fund budget of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to levy $3.60 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation deducting therefrom the highest levy collected by a fire district within the Spokane Valley city limits and also deducting the Spokane Valley Library District levy; and WHEREAS, RCW 84.52.020 requires the City Council on or before the 30' day of November to certify budget estimates to the clerk of the Spokane County Board of Commissioners including amounts to be raised by taxing property within the limits of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council pursuant to notice, will hold public hearings on August 24, September 14 and September 28, 2010 on the proposed budget estimates for 2011, including revenue sources which will fund the provision of City services, projects and activities. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as Section 1. 2011 Lew Rate. There shall be and is hereby levied and imposed upon real property, personal property and utility property, as defined in RCW Chapter 84.04 and 84.55.005 in the City of Spokane Valley, Washington a regular property tax for the year commencing January 1, 2011 in the total amount of $10,700,000. It is recognized the City of Spokane Valley can levy $3.60 per thousand dollars of assessed value less the highest fire district levy within the City of Spokane Valley and less the Spokane County Library District levy. The regular property tax levied through this Ordinance is for the purpose of receiving revenue to make payment upon the general indebtedness of the City of Spokane Valley, the general fund obligations and for the payment of services, projects and activities for the City during the 2011 calendar year. The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish the levy amount as permitted by law. The City expects the dollar amount of the property tax levy to be $10,700,000 which is $99,500 less than ( -1 %) the 2009 levy which was collected in 2010. Section 2. Notice to Spokane County. Pursuant to RCW 84.52.020, the City Clerk shall certify to the County Legislative Authority a true and correct copy of this Ordinance, as well as the budget estimates adopted by the City Council, in order to provide for and direct the taxes levied herein that shall be collected and paid to the City of Spokane Valley at the time and in the manner provided by the laws of the State of Washington. Ordinance 10- Proposed Property Tax for 2011 Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 3. Severabilitv. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionally of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of 2010. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 10- Proposed Property Tax for 2011 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 17, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Proposed ordinance confirming a 1% decrease in property taxes for 2010 which will be collected in 2011. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The 2011 proposed revenues will be presented to the City Council at a public hearing on Aug 24. Staff suggests a 1% decrease ($99,500)) in the property tax levy for the 2011 budget. Public hearings will held August 24, September 14 and September 28 to consider the entire 2011 proposed budget including property tax revenues. BACKGROUND: State budget law requires we make our revenue projections known and conduct public hearings to consider input from the public. At a public hearing to be held on August 24, special mention will be made of property taxes. Two additional public hearings will be held in September. We expect our revenues to be about the same as in 2010. However, a high unemployment rate and a crippled economy make it difficult for citizens to make ends meet. A 1 % reduction in our property tax levy ($99,500) would lighten the load on our citizens. OPTIONS: State law requires an ordinance be passed confirming our desire to decrease the property tax levy. A second option would be for the council to decide not to pass the ordinance and propose a slightly higher levy. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is needed at this time. This item will return to your agenda on August 24, September 14 and September 28. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The proposed ordinance decreases the city property tax levy by $99,500 for 2011 operations. STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10- . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, CONFIRMING THE CITY PROPERTY TAX LEVY AT $10,700,000, A DECREASE OF 1% ($99,500) FROM THE AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHICH WAS LEVIED IN 2009 FOR COLLECTION DURING THE 2010 FISCAL YEAR, PURSUANT TO RCW 84.55.120; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, State law authorizes the City of Spokane Valley to levy regular property taxes upon the taxable property within the City limits in order to provide revenue for the annual Current Expense Budget of the City, and WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 84.55 provides that cities with a population of over 10,000 persons can increase the amount of their regular property taxes annually by the lesser amount of inflation or 1% of the highest lawful levy, plus any additional value resulting from new construction, improvements and state assessed property; and WHEREAS, a decrease in property tax revenue may be authorized by the City through adoption of a separate ordinance, pursuant to notice, specifically authorizing the decrease stated in terms of dollars and percentage. follows: NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as Section 1 . Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance is to confirm a decrease of 1% ($99,500) in the City's property tax levy in 2010 for the 2011 fiscal year. State law authorizes the City to decrease its property taxes from a preceding year but add new construction, improvements and assessment of State owned property. The tax levy is expected to be $10,700,000 , which is levied through Ordinance 10- and appropriated in the 2011 City Budget. Section 2 Findings A. The City, after public hearings, will adopt a balanced Current Expense Budget that sets forth citizen priorities and promotes the health, welfare and safety of the City. B. The City published notice of this Ordinance through the procedure used to notifi_ the public of regular Council meetings. C. To support the adopted Current Expense Budget of the City and provide for the delivery of services, the making of improvements and the promotion of the health, welfare and safety of the citizens, the City Council, after considering the financial requirements of the City for 2011, finds and determines that an ad valorem property tax levy of $10,700,000 (a decrease of 1% or $99,500) will balance the 2011 budget. Section 3. 1% Decrease. Pursuant to RCW 84.55, the City, by adopting Ordinance 10- will impose a decrease in the regular Ad Valorem Property Tax Levy, which was passed in 2009 and collected in the City 2010 Fiscal Year. Ordinance 10- Decrease in Property Tax Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 4 . City Clerk The City Clerk shall certify a copy of this Ordinance and forward the same to the Board of County Commissioners and the Spokane County Assessors Office upon its passage. Section 5 . Severability If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance. Section 6 . Effective Date This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of this ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley on this day of , 2010. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor, ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 10- Decrease in Property Tax Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 17 2010 City Manager Sign -off Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report on a proposed amendment to Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) as follows: Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan -allow Vehicle Sales as a conditional use in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70B.170 -210 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September of 2007 and was effective October 28 2007. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16 2009 and became effective on October 15 2009. Following the adoption of these codes, a number of items were discovered which were incorrect, impractical, or omitted. Earlier this year, the City Council requested that staff initiate a code amendment for the above referenced item. At a June 24 2010 public hearing, the Planning Commission requested additional information on this proposed amendment which was presented at a second public hearing held on July 22n 2010. ANALYSIS: See attached Staff Repot OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed to first reading of the ordinance or provide staff direction regarding modifications. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed with first reading of ordinance BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen — Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: SARP Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Staff Report and Findings Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16, 2009 Book II — 2.2 Site Development Regulations Page 50 of 201 (1) May be free - standing building or incorporated into mixed -use building. (2) Minimum interior height for ground level retail of all types is 14 ft. from floor to ceiling for new buildings. (3) Drive - through business are permitted subject to the following criteria: (a) Drive - through facilities are permitted on sites adjacent to a principal arterial street. Access and stacking lanes serving drive - through businesses shall not be located between a building and any adjacent street, public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. (See SVMC 22.50.030 for stacking and queuing lane requirements. (b) Stacking lanes shall be physically separated from the parking lot, sidewalk, and pedestrian areas by landscaping and /or architectural element, or any combination therein. c) Mixed Use Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area. (2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4) Convenience Stores (5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities. (6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. (7) Funeral homes. ii) Conditional UsegV44.) ibis °a I I (1) Vehicle sales and Services, including automobiles, recreational vehicles, boats, motorsports vehicles, etc. F-ff4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION S po ne STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ..;oO Valley PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -07 -10 STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 8, 2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: July 22, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning code text amendments to the following section of the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan: Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Allow vehicles sales within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This proposal is considered a non - project action under RCW 43.21C. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. STAFF PLANNER: CHRISTINA JANSSEN, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Amendment Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. BACKGROUND INFO The City Council has requested that the staff review the Sprague and Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP) and propose changes based on public input. The proposed changes will be processed in one of two ways. If the amendment does not conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan (PLAN) it will be sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommended code change. If the proposed change would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, then the issue will be held until the city processes all the proposed changes to the PLAN during the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The reason for this is that the PLAN can be changed no more than once a year by state law. Prior to engaging in the zone by zone review, the City Council heard from a citizen with problems with SARP. The citizen had opened a boat sales operation in the Mixed Use Zone and had been contacted by city staff that vehicle sales are not permitted in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. The City Council directed staff to bring this issue to the Planning Commission in advance of the larger study of SARP. This item was first studied at a Public Hearing held on June 24, 2010. The Planning Commission held this item for additional information regarding consequences of splitting boat and vehicle sales into separate zoning categories. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 1 of 5 B. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: June 4, 2010 Issuance of an Detenmination of Non - Significance (DNS): June 4, 2010 End of Appeal Period for DNS: June 18, 2010 First Public Hearing June 24, 2010 C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). The Planning Division issued a Detenmination of Non - Significance (DNS) on June 18, 2010, for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). No appeals have been received at the time of this report. The appeal period will close June 18, 2010. D. INTENT OF THE SPRAGUE AND APPLEWAY CORRIDORS SUBAREA PLAN (SARP) Book L Community Intent Book I sets forth what the community aspires to achieve and describes the physical outcomes that the SARP is intended to orchestrate as new investment creates change. Book I is essentially the comprehensive plan policy basis for the SARP and is considered a part of the PLAN. Book II: Development Regulations Book II is the implementation of the policy direction established in Book I and contains the Development Regulations that govern all future public and private development actions in the area covered by the SARP. Book III: City Actions Book III outlines the City's role in the redevelopment of the Sprague and Appleway corridor by identifying strategic public investments within the SARP area the implement policy direction from Book I of the SARP Prior to the adoption of SARP, a market analysis was conducted that concluded that the Sprague Appleway corridor had a surplus of commercial property. One of the strategies to address the surplus was change the commercial strip to create centers and segments. The City Center and Neighborhood Center Retail zones would serve the needs of neighborhoods within a short drive and create a dynamic pedestrian oriented city center. The segments portion would be distinguished by cohesive building types. Specifically, the Mixed Use Avenue would focus on a mix of workplace, commercial and high density residential uses. This amendment is proposed within the Mixed Use Avenue zone. The Vehicle Sales use was not included in the Mixed Use Avenue primarily because the original thinking was that by concentrating the vehicle and related sales to the Gateway Commercial areas, car and other vehicle sales would become a destination area for consumers looking for that product. The proposed amendment would allow Vehicle Sales in the Mixed Use Avenue zone with a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit process, which includes a public hearing, ensures that the proposed use is compatible with the zoning and will not interfere with the use of adjacent properties. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 2 of 5 E. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC or the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. a. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. b. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The amendment to add vehicle sales to the Mixed Use Avenue zone is in conflict with the original idea of locating all vehicle sales to the Gateway area. The original draft of the SARP proposed all new vehicle sales in the Gateway area and used vehicle sales in the Mixed Use Avenue. During deliberations, the legal department advised the staff that we could not differentiate between the two. If it was allowed for new vehicles, then used vehicles also have to be permitted. The Planning Commission recommended that the vehicle sales be removed from the Mixed Use Avenue zone. By requiring a conditional use permit, the public will have the opportunity to comment on any proposal and the staff can recommend conditions to mitigate any aesthetic impacts. Following the June 24 2010 Public Hearing, at the request of the Planning Commission, staff requested an interpretation from the legal department regarding separating they types of vehicles sold in a specific location or zone; i.e. could boat sales be allowed while still prohibiting passenger vehicle sales. The City Attorney advised that a city may, in its development code, distinguish between types of vehicles, i.e. cars and boats, if there is a reasonable basis for the distinction and subsequent restriction on use. Additionally, the Planning Commission had requested research on the definition of both vehicles and recreational vehicles in surrounding jurisdictions. The results of the research are outlined in the table below: Jurisdiction Vehicle /Motor Vehicle Recreational Vehicle City of Spokane Valley - Uniform No definition A vehicular -type built on a single Development Code (UDC) chassis designed as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, or travel use, with our without motor power including, but not limited to, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers and self - propelled motor homes. City of Spokane Vehicles that have their own motive A vehicle which is: 1) built on a power and that are used for the single chassis 2) four hundred square transportation of people or goods on feet or less when measured at the streets. Motor vehicles include: a) largest horizontal projection 3) Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 3 of 5 "None of the above codes provide a definition for boats or watercraft of any kind. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code (UDC) separates vehicle sales and boat sales. Outside of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor, vehicle sales are allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use, Community Commercial, Regional Commercial and Light Industrial zones. Boat sales are allowed in the Community Commercial and Regional Commercial zones. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will expand the uses within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA- 07 -10. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 4 of 5 motorcycles b) passenger vehicles c) designed to be self - propelled or trucks, and d) recreational vehicles permanently towable by a light duty with motive power. truck; and 4) designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel or seasonal use. Spokane County An item which is designed to A vehicular type portable structure transport objects, merchandise, other without permanent foundation articles, or persons from one point to primarily designed as temporary another whether the item (vehicle) is living quarters for recreational, operable or inoperable. Does not camping, or travel use, with or include manufactured or mobile without motor power and occupied in homes any one place for a period not exceeding 30 days. This includes, but is not limited to, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers, and self propelled motor homes. Liberty Lake Same as Spokane County Same as Spokane County Cheney No definition No definition Millwood No definition No definition City of Coeur d'Alene, ID No definition Means a motor home, travel trailer, truck camper, or camping trailer, with or without motive power, designed for human habitation for recreational or emergency occupancy, with a living area less than two hundred twenty (220) square feet, excluding built in equipment such as wardrobes, closets, cabinets, kitchen units or fixtures, bath and toilet rooms. City of Post Falls, ID No definition No definition "None of the above codes provide a definition for boats or watercraft of any kind. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code (UDC) separates vehicle sales and boat sales. Outside of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor, vehicle sales are allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use, Community Commercial, Regional Commercial and Light Industrial zones. Boat sales are allowed in the Community Commercial and Regional Commercial zones. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will expand the uses within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA- 07 -10. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 4 of 5 V. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150) when recommending changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, the Planning Commission, by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact. Background: A. The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16 2009 and became effective on October 15 2009. C. Chapter 19.30.040 SVMC allows code text amendments to be submitted at any time. D. Following the adoption of the code a number of items were found to be either incorrect, impractical, or omitted. E. The Planning Commission held public hearings on June 24 ", 2010 and July 22 ad 2010. The Planning Commission approved the following amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan: 1. Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Allow vehicles sales with the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to the conditional use permit requirements. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: (A) the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and (B) the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 1. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendment is consistent with this provision. 2. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendment is consistent with this provision. Conclusions: The proposed amendment meets the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and are consistent with appropriate goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of the proposed amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 5 of 5 ne Department of Community DevelopmentD` _ Lle4 Planning Division City Council Administrative Report August 17th, 2010 CTA -07 -10 Proposed amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Spk Department of Community Development Planning Division c) Mixed Use Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area. (2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4) Convenience Stores (5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities. (6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. (7) Funeral homes. (8) R ill ePrvice re staurants hibited Uses: (1) Used vehicl s ales. rn .• � C.'TYHALL@Sl'�' Department of Community Development 'alle Planning Division c) Mixed Use Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area. (2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4) Convenience Stores (5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities. (6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. (7) Funeral homes. (8) Full Service Restaurants C.ITYHAL L@Sr�-, Department of Community Development rn • Planning Division rr MEMO ft-LIex—I to d Ah" 7P 4bn 9 91h z E M BIL! NL.— F/aM ; !2.h ne Department of Community DevelopmentD`= -sk Planning Division vw Conditional Use Permits SVMC 19.150 19.150.010 A conditional use is subject to specific review during which additional conditions may be imposed to assure compatibility of the use with other uses in the vicinity. ( ez 'T', Department of Community Development Planning Division Questions. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 17, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Report concerning the City Center District Zone within the Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan (SARP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: City Council has requested that the Sprague /Appleway Sub -area Plan be revisited zone by zone with property owners involved in the process. The attached report is the fifth SARP zone district to be reviewed as part of the comprehensive review process. Council previously reviewed the Gateway Commercial Center and Gateway Commercial Avenue District, Mixed Use Avenue and Neighborhood Center zones. A community meeting to discuss the City Center zone areas is scheduled for August 19, 2010 from 8 am to 10 am in Council Chambers. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: This memo is for information only. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not Applicable STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Associate Planner, Community Development Dept. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report and Powerpoint Presentation This report provides information to assist City Council, the public, and property owners to understand the regulations applicable to the City Center Zoning District, adopted as part of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP). This report identifies and compares the zoning districts and uses allowed prior to the SARP, effective October 2009, and prior to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) which became effective October 2007. Non- confonning uses created under the existing zoning classifications are identified and regulations pertaining to those non - conforming uses are discussed. Finally, the report provides an overview of site development, architectural and signage regulations. Overview of the City Center District Zone The City Center is a key component of the revitalization strategy for the Sprague and Appleway corridor. It responds to the community's desire for a town center, a central gathering place filled with activity - generating shops, services and restaurants sharing a walkable- scaled district core complete with civic buildings and public spaces. Location The location of the City Center was carefully considered during the SARP planning process. The directive to the SARP planning team was to find the most suitable location along the Sprague corridor. After a thorough analysis of household demographics, access, underutilized land, and considering public input, the vicinity of Sprague and University was determined to be the best location to develop a City Center. The City Center District Zone is located between Walnut Road and Bowdish Road west to east; Main Street and 4 Avenue north to south. The area is currently characterized by a mix of retail, office, mini - storage, auto sales and vacant lots, shown in red on the Sprague Appleway Zoning Map (see Figure 1 below). Figure 1: City Center Zoning ■. �. ��11111� �� 419P r ■ iri�� �� IIIi���� Fr ■ ■� ■■ �1 _ LL 1l 5t h - a 5th _ ■ L E LL 6th •• 6t h I AMR, City Center Zone District Review Report District Zones = City Center = Mixed Use Avenue = Community Boulevard Page 2 August 17, 2010 Planning Division This report provides information to assist City Council, the public, and property owners to understand the regulations applicable to the City Center Zoning District, adopted as part of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP). This report identifies and compares the zoning districts and uses allowed prior to the SARP, effective October 2009, and prior to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) which became effective October 2007. Non- confonning uses created under the existing zoning classifications are identified and regulations pertaining to those non - conforming uses are discussed. Finally, the report provides an overview of site development, architectural and signage regulations. Overview of the City Center District Zone The City Center is a key component of the revitalization strategy for the Sprague and Appleway corridor. It responds to the community's desire for a town center, a central gathering place filled with activity - generating shops, services and restaurants sharing a walkable- scaled district core complete with civic buildings and public spaces. Location The location of the City Center was carefully considered during the SARP planning process. The directive to the SARP planning team was to find the most suitable location along the Sprague corridor. After a thorough analysis of household demographics, access, underutilized land, and considering public input, the vicinity of Sprague and University was determined to be the best location to develop a City Center. The City Center District Zone is located between Walnut Road and Bowdish Road west to east; Main Street and 4 Avenue north to south. The area is currently characterized by a mix of retail, office, mini - storage, auto sales and vacant lots, shown in red on the Sprague Appleway Zoning Map (see Figure 1 below). Figure 1: City Center Zoning ■. �. ��11111� �� 419P r ■ iri�� �� IIIi���� Fr ■ ■� ■■ �1 _ LL 1l 5t h - a 5th _ ■ L E LL 6th •• 6t h I AMR, City Center Zone District Review Report District Zones = City Center = Mixed Use Avenue = Community Boulevard Page 2 August 17, 2010 City Center Master Plan Early in the SARP planning process, the City partnered with the Spokane County Library District to develop a City Center Master Plan. Building sites for a new City Hall and Library were identified, along with new streets, sidewalks, plazas and a development plan for new retail, residential and office uses. The planning team first looked east of University Road, but then shifted its focus to the west side, ultimately developing a City Hall and Library Master Plan for the old U -City Mall site (see Exhibit 2). Library & City Center Master Plan 0 100' 200' SOP The Library District negotiated an agreement with the U -City property owners to purchase land for a new library, subject to a successful bond vote. The bond vote failed and the Library District decided to re- evaluate its facility needs. Spokane Valley City Council was determined to instigate the development of the City Center and directed staff to negotiate an agreement to purchase land for a City Hall. The U -City property owners were supportive of the City Center concept and were willing to sell land to the City. During this time, the City contracted with an architect team to develop a preliminary design, site plan and cost estimates for a new City Hall building. City Center Zone Description The City Center Zoning District is intended to be the future heart of the community. The Subarea Plan states that the City Center is designed as an urban district consisting of a wide range of building types and uses. The district is where pedestrian activity is most lively and where the most pedestrian amenities are located, including public plazas and ground level retail. It is the core of entertainment, shopping and dining, supported by a surrounding neighborhood of urban homes and workplaces. The City Center consists of two urban forms: the Core Street Development and the City Center Neighborhood Development. City Center District Review Report Page 3 August 17, 2010 Zoning History Since incorporation in 2003, the Sprague Appleway corridor has been regulated by three separate zoning codes, herein referred to as Interim Zoning, Pre -SARP Zoning and SARP Zoning. Figure 3 shows the history of zoning for properties within the City Center area. Following is a general discussion of the uses permitted within the area currently zoned City Center under the SARP. Figure 3: Zoning History SARP Zoning — City Center Permitted Uses: Retail uses allowed in the City Center zone include retail anchors, such as grocery stores, junior department stores, and general merchandise "anchor retail" and "superstore" uses. Other types of permitted retail include specialty foods, such as ice cream, wine shops and bakeries and specialty goods, which include uses such as cooking, lighting, music and specialty hardware stores. The City Center zone permits all types of restaurants, including fast food. However, drive -up /drive through windows are only permitted for businesses with direct access to Sprague Avenue. Bars and nightclubs may locate in the City Center with a Conditional Use Permit. Other retail uses permitted outright include movie theaters, art galleries, banks, health clubs, business and personal services. Multi - family and attached single - family uses are permitted throughout the City Center. Pre -SARP Zoning SARP Zoning (Existing Zoning) Pre -SARP Zoning (Nov 2007 - Oct 2009) Interim Zoning (2003 -2007) UR -3.5 Prior to the effective date of the SARP, the zoning for the properties in the discussion area were consistent with the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan, adopted April 26, 2006 (see Figure 4: Pre -SARP Zoning Map). E I The effective date for the City Zoning was October 28, 2007. Zoning districts implemented throughout the discussion area from October 2007 to October 2009 included the following districts: U R -7 Regional Commercial: Allows a large range of commercial and business uses that draw customers from the region rather than a limited trade area. Corridor Mixed Use: Retail, office, light manufacturing, and high density residential. Community Facilities: Civic, cultural, educational, and institutional uses that address social needs. The Community Facilities zoning district was removed through the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. An accompanying amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) was made allowing these uses in all zones. Multi- Family -1 andMulti- Family -2: Medium and High Density residential, 12 and 22 units per acre, respectively. City Center District Review Report Page 4 August 17, 2010 Interim Zoning Upon incorporation in 2003, the City adopted Spokane County's zoning on an interim basis (see Figure 5: Interim Zoning Map). This zoning was effective from 2003 to October 2007. Zoning districts implemented throughout the discussion area include the following: B -1, Neighborhood Business: Small scale retail, services and office uses serving the immediate neighborhood; B -2, Community Business: Various retail, service, and office uses grouped at one location serving several neighborhoods; B -3, Regional Business: Wide range of retail and service activities that serve the county at large and greater areas; UR -22, Urban Residential: High density residential zone that allows offices; generally used as a transition zone; UR -7: Medium density residential zone that allows single family, duplexes, manufactured home parks and multi- family; UR -3.5: Low density single family residential. City Center District Review Report Page 5 August 17, 2010 Figure 4: Pre -SARP Zoning Map Figure 5: Interim Zoning Map Zone Use Comparison In order to understand the impact of the three generations of zoning districts, a zoning use table was prepared that identifies and categorizes the uses allowed under the SARP, Pre -SARP, and the Interim Zoning Districts (see Attachment 1, Use Chart Comparison). This table compares the three generations of zoning districts in order to identify consistently allowed uses, additional uses allowed, and uses no longer allowed. As noted, the previous zoning districts ranged from different intensities of commercial, office and residential uses. Most retail uses permitted under the Interim and Pre -SARP zoning are still permitted under the City Center zone. The main difference is that auto oriented uses, such as vehicle sales and service, are no longer permitted. Other uses, such as mini - storage and thrift stores, are also no longer permitted. Another significant difference between City Center zone and Interim B -1, B -2 and B- zones inherited from Spokane County is that residential uses are now penmitted on the ground floor (except on the City Center Core Street) where the B -1, B -2 and B- zones only allowed retail or office uses on the ground floor. City Center Core Street Regulations One of the critical components in developing a new City Center is to properly locate and develop a "Core Street." The Core Street is the basis for temporary regulatory restrictions on the entire City Center District. The restrictions insure that a critical mass of clustered, ground level retail shops is established along the main, Core Street before a more diffuse pattern of retail is allowed to develop. Once building permits for development fully lining the Core Street are issued, the temporary restrictions will no longer be effective. It is important to note that the temporary restrictions go into effect only after a final Binding Site Plan (BSP) establishing the City Center Core Street is approved. Until that time, there are no restrictions on City Center Retail uses. City Center District Review Report Page 6 August 17, 2010 �� �u�..■ ■i ■� .� 1111111 .■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ — �� .�- .,, 11111 ■ . �."'lirli■ r .. ■■ ■ ■� �� VIII i� ��� �� - -ti- 111 IAI 111 ■It ■�;Illi- �" ■ ��± ■ ^illl■ ■1 ��r _ WIN � = ■1 ■ ■• � � FIT ■ � I� ■��� - 11 ■11 I 1 1 I ■■ ■ VIII II 111111 � 140 y//� .brfl� y �s?�. lll�11� ■11.1111 ■. ■1 ■�Itil ■11111 J■ ■ �'■ 1 126 ' ■�� �� 2l��93 I ME ' i " ',Jj y I I = 0, , ■' ■ ■ ■■ �3 � ■ ■11 ■. 11.: ��� ■ 1���1I �' �,�l�l� ■ ■�ill■1111�I — w Ok � ■II■ ■ ■I� �1 ■1 ■1 ■ "�I: ■�ioi Jai ■ 1 �� ■i1i■ =il� y� 1 ■, ■ ■� ■ ■�. � � ■��� ■� 1 ■�■ � III ■ ■I � ■1■ € ■ I ' � c �,■ 1� ■ ��.L 9 % G480�11JIe ?/ �= 1 //r'• '� �i ■VIII , 1 ■■ 11'11 ■ M 0l , ■■ �'�� II' _ ■ `f : �� = ■ �' ■1 11 y� ■�:� ■ 111111111, 1111x1 11111 X11 1�1 � ' 1111.. ■� `�■ ..� "■ . ■■ = ■..■ �1 . 111111 II ■1111 - �a��y������/.. Z�1 '. 1� WINNH■■K � — �� �:,��� ■■'� ■� .r ■�'" _ . ■■■ 1111 ■ ■1 ..��s11■ 1 1t EII ■Ih 1 ■° III■ �.111�11 ■1 ■II ■ �: 111114 ■7 �� ��II ■ : ■�■ ■1 ■t■ ■Ili ■11 1,IIIII 11 ■11 ■l ■11= II: � 111 ■ ■1 - ■mtal ■1 11111.1 11 11111111■ 1 11111■ ■11111■ 1 11111■ 111 � 11111 ■� ■ �� 1 ■1111 1 II11 ■r■II. ■ �� ■■ 11 1 X1111 ■11111'■ 1 .. ■11I�11111 :� ■111 ■ ■■ ■111..1 ■ 11■ ■` ■= � ■ ■■ :�� CL ■ ■_'` ■;�111 � Zone Use Comparison In order to understand the impact of the three generations of zoning districts, a zoning use table was prepared that identifies and categorizes the uses allowed under the SARP, Pre -SARP, and the Interim Zoning Districts (see Attachment 1, Use Chart Comparison). This table compares the three generations of zoning districts in order to identify consistently allowed uses, additional uses allowed, and uses no longer allowed. As noted, the previous zoning districts ranged from different intensities of commercial, office and residential uses. Most retail uses permitted under the Interim and Pre -SARP zoning are still permitted under the City Center zone. The main difference is that auto oriented uses, such as vehicle sales and service, are no longer permitted. Other uses, such as mini - storage and thrift stores, are also no longer permitted. Another significant difference between City Center zone and Interim B -1, B -2 and B- zones inherited from Spokane County is that residential uses are now penmitted on the ground floor (except on the City Center Core Street) where the B -1, B -2 and B- zones only allowed retail or office uses on the ground floor. City Center Core Street Regulations One of the critical components in developing a new City Center is to properly locate and develop a "Core Street." The Core Street is the basis for temporary regulatory restrictions on the entire City Center District. The restrictions insure that a critical mass of clustered, ground level retail shops is established along the main, Core Street before a more diffuse pattern of retail is allowed to develop. Once building permits for development fully lining the Core Street are issued, the temporary restrictions will no longer be effective. It is important to note that the temporary restrictions go into effect only after a final Binding Site Plan (BSP) establishing the City Center Core Street is approved. Until that time, there are no restrictions on City Center Retail uses. City Center District Review Report Page 6 August 17, 2010 Development along the Core Street will be the most urban development in the City, with very wide sidewalks, buildings fully lining the street with no setbacks from the sidewalks. Ground floor uses will be dedicated to retail, with office and residential uses permitted above. Non - conforming Uses Existing legal uses that became non - conforming upon adoption of the SARP are now considered legal non- conforming uses. Earlier this year staff conducted a field inventory of land uses located within the SARP area to determine the number of non - confonning uses (see Attachment 2, Non - confonning Use Map). Approximately 36% of the uses within the City Center zone are non - conforming. Typical non - conforming uses within the City Center zone are auto - oriented uses such as car sales and services businesses, equipment rental, mini- storage and single family homes. If single family homes are taken out of the inventory, then the number of non - conforming commercial uses drops to 11 %. A code text amendment currently being processed will address the non- conforming status of existing single - family homes. Non - conforming use regulations Pursuant to the Subarea Plan, Section 2.0.1(7) legal Non - conforming uses are regulated by Title 19.20.060. Non- conforming uses are allowed to continue indefinitely unless the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period greater than 24 months. Non - confonning uses are allowed to expand so long as the following criteria are met: 1. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use; and 2. The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of neighboring property; and 3. Any transfer of ownership or interest on adjacent lots or tracts was made contemporaneously with the transfer of ownership of the lot or tract on which the non - conforming use is located as part of a single transaction; and 4. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist. The right to continue a non - conforming use runs with the property. Therefore a non - conforming use may be sold or leased and still be allowed to continue. In some cases non - confonning uses that are determined to be similar in nature to the existing or previous non - conforming use, may replace a non - conforming use. The one instance where non - conforming uses would not be allowed to continue is, if the use or structure were destroyed more than 80 %. In that case, rebuilding of the structure or resurrection of the use must meet the current regulations. Site Development Standards Site development standards dictate not only the type of uses allowed within a zoning district, but also building height and setbacks. Since the regulatory part of the subarea plan includes a form based code, it addresses elements that will achieve the desired fonn. While many of the site development standards are self - explanatory, several introduce concepts specific to fonn based codes and are new to this community. This includes building orientation, public and private frontage improvements, frontage coverage, maximum building length and minimum and maximum setback limits. Street orientation dictates which regulations apply to new development. Sprague Avenue has different regulations than "Other" streets, which includes all other streets present in the City Center zone. An example of the desired form is shown in Figure 6. Chart 2.2 Site Development Standards for the City Center zone is attached to this report. City Center District Review Report Page 7 August 17, 2010 Figure 6: City Center Form, Use and Disposition Envisioned Core Development Composition Envisioned Neighborhood Development Composition This diagram represents an example nl the w1wal development envisioned far this district. It does not represent a specific design required on any particular site or property. his diagram represents an e %imple of the typical development envisioned for this district It does not represent a specific design required on any particular site •,, property. FO RM - tt,, USE a 4� cY DISPOSITION ' s,. FoRnn USE .+ DISPOSITION Building Placement and Setbacks On Sprague Avenue, the minimum setback is 0 feet and the maximum is 10 feet from the back of sidewalk. Buildings oriented to Appleway may be constructed between 5 and 15 feet from the back of the sidewalk while buildings constructed on "other streets' must be set back between 0 and 10 feet from back of sidewalk. All buildings fronting the City Center Core Street are required to be built at the back of sidewalk with no setback allowed. Building Orientation to streets and public open spaces: Orienting buildings to streets and /or public open spaces is a required element of City Center zone. A building may have other entrances, but the front entrance must be the most prominent. Public Frontage Improvements: Area between the curb face and the back of sidewalk line, including the sidewalk and any sidewalk landscape areas as shown in Figure 2.2.5 Public Frontage. Improvements must be coordinated with Private Frontage /Front Street Setback area treatments. In the City Center, the future curb and back of sidewalk will correspond to the existing curb and back of sidewalk in some areas and to new street configurations in other areas. Private Frontage Improvements: Area between back of sidewalk and primary building facade and building facade up to the top of the 1 or 2 floor. Permitted Private Frontage types are specified in the Zoning District Table and include Shop front, Corner Entry and Grand Entry. Private frontage standards regulate a building's primary entrance treatments, encroachments, setback areas, and property edges. Private frontage regulations apply to full length of property frontage, even where there is no building. Frontage Coverage: This is the minimum percentage of the length of the frontage coverage zone that shall be occupied by a primary building facade. The area is defined as the space between the minimum side yard setback lines. The City Center zone requires 20 to 100% building coverage, depending upon the street the building fronts upon. Build to Corner: Corner parcels must meet this requirement by placing a building at its street corner. This is required only for all corner properties in the City Center zone. The building must be located within the minimum and maximum setback of both the front street and the side street. City Center District Review Report Page 8 August 17, 2010 Architectural Standards: The architectural standards within the SARP identify general architectural characteristics that must be present on new construction, and if applicable, renovated buildings. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that the human scale of the buildings is maintained consistently along the corridor. The Architectural Regulations contain both standards and guidelines. Standards are required elements, while the guidelines are optional elements. The chapter deals with building massing and composition, height and length massing, and architectural elements. Building massing and composition deals with the physical `r „% presence of the building and identifies the street wall, sidewall, and rear wall of the building. The height massing and 4 hii9 composition section address the vertical elements of the building which include base and top elements for both street walls, side walls, and rear walls. Length massing addresses the horizontal appearance of the building and provides examples of how the length of a building may be broken up by using architectural treatments such as pilasters or notches. The architectural elements section addresses certain elements or treatments that must be included in the building design. The vast majority of this section is comprised of guidelines which are optional elements. The district zone regulations chart identifies when a regulation is applied. The chart indicates that buildings in the City Center zone are required to meet the height massing and length massing requirements. Therefore buildings must provide both top and base elements, and if the building exceeds the street wall increment length, must provide articulation in the building to reduce the appearance of a long building. Building designers may either use the type of elements suggested in the plan, or provide a design that meets the intent of the code which is to maintain human scale of the buildings. Since the most significant architectural requirements involve base and top elements, a description is provided. Base Element: The base element is a substantial horizontal articulation of the street wall applied within the first floor to form a horizontal "base" of the facade. This horizontal articulation defines the pedestrian —scale space of the street and is well integrated into the overall facade composition. Generally, the base treatment should be between 9" and 6', or the entire 1S floor if it is a multi -story building. Examples of element options include changes of material, color changes, or a belt course to name a few. Top Element: A substantial horizontal articulation of the street wall applied at the top of the uppermost floor of the facade, to result in termination of the facade that provides an attractive facade skyline and a completion of the upper facade composition. In simpler terns, it provides a cap to the top of the wall. Examples of element options include cornices, canopy elements, shaped parapet, or facade offsets. Architectural Elements The architectural elements address the building facade and roof. This section is made up predominantly of guidelines. A summary of the elements with applicable standards is provided: Facade Building Base: Requires building base element, see discussion above. Wall Cladding anti graffiti coating is required on ground floor and accessible areas above ground floor. Facade composition Requires street wall to contain a minimum of 20% glazing, but not more than 80% allowed. Windows: curtain -wall windows and ribbon windows restricted. City Center District Review Report Page 9 August 17, 2010 Figure 8 Massing and Composition Main Entrances: Building entrances must be prominent, mixed use buildings must have distinguishable entrances for retail, residential and office. Secondary Entrances May not be more architecturally prominent than the main entry. Loading and Service EntryL Requires service entrances to not be visible from the street, or incorporate attractive and durable materials into structure. Roofs Roof Types: Flat or shallow pitched roofs, and mansard roofs are allowed, but specific guidelines must be met. Roof Materials: wood shakes shall be fire resistant Roof equipment and screening: roof mounted equipment must be screened or enclosed; light colored roofs shall be screened to reduce glare. One example of roof screening is a parapet wall. Si ,-na ,-e Standards: Permanent signs within the City Center zone are regulated by section 2.6 of the SARP. The sign types allowed within each zoning district are identified in the Signage Regulations Chart. A review of this chart indicates that freestanding signs are not permitted in the City Center. Animated signs are also not permitted. Since the most common signs are wall signs, monument signs, and freestanding signs, this section of the report will focus on these signs. A definition for each sign type is provided: Wall signs: Wall signs are located on and parallel to a building wall. Freestanding Signs: Freestanding signs are constructed on or affixed to the ground by columns, or poles Monument si n� Monument signs are mounted on the ground and are flush, or have a clearance from the ground of not more than 2 feet, supported by a solid base, one or more uprights, braces, columns poles or similar structural components. The table below identifies the regulations for each sign type that pertain to number of signs allowed, maximum area allowed, maximum sign height, and notable conditions. The relevant Pre -SARP sign regulations were also provided for comparison purposes. The comparison results in the following conclusions: • Wall sign area is reduced from 25% of the wall area to 15% of the total wall area • Monument sign area is a maximum of 32 square feet. Prior to the SARP the maximum area ranged from 90 to 150 sq ft. Monument signs are not penmitted on the Core Street. • Monument sign height limits were reduced from 7' to 6' City Center District Review Report IM M ■I ■I II G) 1= FVA..1,1 kNDING SIGN �} �11���r : ►IE.� i �Ir;aY Page 10 August 17, 2010 SARP and Pre -SARP Sign Comparison Chart Sign Type SARP Regulations • Only allowed for non- residential uses with a ground floor entrance • Only allowed to be mounted below the 2 "d floor level of a building • Cannot exceed 150 square feet and limited to 15% of the wall area. • Animated wall signs are limited to entertainment type uses. • Freestanding signs not permitted in City Center • Not permitted on Core Street • No more than 2 faces • Maximum height of 6' above grade • Maximum area allowed is 32 sq. ft • Only allowed for non- residential uses with a Rround floor entrance City Center District Review Report Pre -SARP Regulations • Cannot exceed 25% of the wall area per building • Each parcel permitted one sign per arterial street frontage; allows parcels with double frontage to have two freestanding signs • Maximum height is 30' for single business, 40' for multi- business, and 50' for parcels adjacent to 1 -90. • Maximum sign area for single business varied from 100 sq ft to 200 sq. ft, dependent on lot width, and a maximum of 250 sq. ft. for multi - business sites. • Two signs per arterial street frontage • Maximum height limit of 7' Maximum area allowed is 90 sq. ft. for single business and 150 sq. ft. per multi business complex. Page 11 August 17, 2010 z 0 a c0 0 N 0 W � C4 H z w 0 a w Q x 0 0 PACs 20 Regulations: City Center Lc end: - -: Not Permitted U_ Upper Floors Only Permitted: These elements are allowed by right unless otherwise Limited: These fromtages may only be applied to access lobbies 1 ground floor use (A2): anchor buildings larger than 50,000 sq. ft. - special regulat Gc Ground Floor Only +: Pernittedwith Shopfront n Section 2.2.2. Building Use Required: These are Required elements of all nee loor uses that are different from the (A): For Anchor Buildings: (see section 2.1.1:(3)) (A3): anchor buildings larger than 50,000 sq. ft. - *: 80% Along tarty Center 'B" Street (see Section 2.1.13); 709'0 iment as indicated. along 4th Street, 3rd Street, Main Avenue; 20% on Other Streets : Upper fagade must be designed to look * *Restricted: see Section 2.1.1.2) Lstory buildings for all single buildings type is permitted ** *Restricted to north side of AmAmay Blvd. Mixed Use Ave Zone Code Use Chart Comparison Community Meeting June 24, 2010 SARP Zone pre -SARP Zones Interim Zoning CC RC CF CMU MF2 61 B2 B3 UR 22 UR 7 UR 3.5 Automobile /light truck sales X X X Automobile /taxi rental X X X X Automobile /truck /RV /motorcycle painting, repair, body and fender works X X X Boat sales /services X X Car wash X X X X Gas Stations X X X X X RV sales and service X X X Adult Retail Use Establishment X X X Ambulance Service X X CU X X Animal clinic /Veterinary X X X X X X Antique Stores X X X X X Apparel /Tailor Shop X X X X X X Appliance Sales /service X X X X Art gallery /studio X X X X X X Automotive parts, accessories and tires X X X X Bicycle Sales /services X X X X X X Book /stationary store X X X X X X Building supply /home improvement X X X X Candy and Confectionary X X X X X X Catalogue and mail order house X X X X X Cemetery and Crematories X X Ceramics Shop X X X X X Clothes, retail sales X X X X X X Communication service /sales X X X X X Computer services X X X X X X Convenience Store X X X X X X Department Store X I X X X X Drug store X I X X X X X X Mixed Use Ave Zone Code Use Chart Comparison Community Meeting June 24, 2010 USE SARP Zone Pre -SARP Zones Interim Zoning CC RC CF CMU MF2 61 62 63 UR 22 UR 7 UR 3.5 Dry Cleaners X X X X X X Equipment Rental Shop(not including industrial oriented equipment) X X X X Film Developing X X X X X X Film Camera sales service X X X X X X Florist shop X X X X X X Food sales /specialty butcher shop /meat market /specialty foods X X X X X X Gas Stations X X X X X X Gift Shop X X X X X X X Greenhouse /nursery, garden center, retail X X X Grocery Store X X I X X X X Hardware Store X X X X X X Hobbyshop X X X X X X Home furnishings X X X X X Landscape materials sales X X Liquor Store X X X X X Locksmith X X X X X X Manufactured Home Sales X X Outdoor Market CUP T T T T T Medical, dental, and hospital equipment supply. sales X X X Music Store X X X X X X Office and computer supplies X X X X X Pawnshops X X X X Pet Shop X X X X X Print Shop X X X X X Radio /TV Sales /Service X X X X Second Hand Store X X X X Storage, self- service facility X X X X Storage, general- outdoor X X Upholstery shop X X X X I X Mixed Use Ave Zone Code Use Chart Comparison Community Meeting June 24, 2010 USE SARP Zone Pre -SARP Zones Interim Zoning CC RC CF CMU MF2 61 B2 B3 UR 22 UR 7 UR 3.5 Warehouse scale retail /buying club. X X X X X IiTTITM Bakery, retail X X X X X X Bars /Taverns CUP X X X X Drive in, Drive up, Fast Food Limited X X X X Espresso stand X X X X X X Micro - Brewery X X X X X Mobile Food Vendors X X X X X Restaurants, full service X X X X X X Adult Entertainment X X X Bowling alley X X X X X Carnival, circus T T T T X X X Casino X X X X X Entertainment and Rec facilities indoor X X X X X Entertainment and Rec facilities, outdoor X X X Golf Courses X X X Racetrack CU RV Campground X X X Theatre - indoor X X X X X AMEEMM Bank /savings loan, other financial institutions X X X X X X Church, etc X X X X X X X X X X X Colleges /Universities X X X X X X X Community facilities X X X X X X X X X X X Community hall, club, lodge or rec facility X X X X X X X X X X X Government Offices X I X X X X X Hospitals CUP X X X X X X X X X Mixed Use Ave Zone Code Use Chart Comparison Community Meeting June 24, 2010 USE SARP Zone Pre -SARP Zones Interim Zoning CC RC CF CMU MF2 61 B2 B3 UR 22 UR 7 UR 3.5 Museum X X X X X X Park and ride facilities X X X X X X X X X X Public Park X X X X X X X Post Office X X X X X X X X X X Public Pay Parking X X X X X Public Utility Distribution facility X X X X X X X X X Schools X X X X X X X X X X Transit Center X X X X X X Assembly — light X Carpenter shop X X Electrical /electronic /computer component and system manufacturing /assembly X X X Jewelry, clock, musical instrument assembly, sales /service X X X X X Laboratories medical and diagnostic X Machine Shop, small Plastic Injection Molding, thermoplastic X Bed N Breakfast X Hotel /motel X X X X Assisted Living Facility X X X X X X Community Residential Facility X X X X X X Convalescent home, nursing home X X X X X Day care; adult X X X X X X X X Day care child X X X X X X X X X X X Dwelling, congregate X X X X X X X Dwelling, Single Family attached X X X X X Mixed Use Ave Zone Code Use Chart Comparison Community Meeting June 24, 2010 USE SARP Zone Pre -SARP Zones Interim Zoning CC RC CF CMU MF2 61 B2 B3 UR 22 UR 7 UR 3.5 Dwelling, Single Family detached X X X X X X X Dwelling, Multifamily X X X X X X Family Home Adult X X X X X X X Family Home, child X X X X X X Manufactured Home Park X X X X . . Barber /beauty shop X X X X X X Exercise facility /gym /athletic club X X X X X X Funeral Home X X X X X Kennel, indoor kennel, doggie day care facility X X X X Laundromat X X X X X X Massage Therapy X X X X X Photographic Studio X X X X X X Vet clinic X X X X X X Medical /Dental clinics /office X X X X X X X X Office, business, professional X X X X X X X CC = City Center RC = Regional Commercial CMU = Corridor Mixed Use CF = Community Facilities MF -2 = Multifamily- 2 B1 = Neighbhorhood Business B2 = Community Buisiness B3 = Regional Business UR22 = Urban Residential 22 UR -12 = Urban Residential 12 UR -3.5 = Urban Residential 3.5 - i 77 3T -1 T F � H IT 4 - Power. - �I =FT j .port SF //,V I/ / //II I/1- • = pp■ Barto IGILI ft! II/ S I�iI _�� o° S® ® ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ® ■ ■ ■!1 f�Jeep� � Z Secure It Self Single Family Single Family Single Family Single Family I I 1 Single Single Single Single Family Family Family Family -, I P F rt I' — fflH L Parcels City Center SARP Inventory N Non - Conforming Cit Center 500 250 0 500 Feat City Center District Zone Map City Center Zone Description Future heart of community Lively gathering place for people Wide range of building types and uses City Center Permitted Uses Department Stores Grocery Stores General Merchandise "anchor" stores Specialty Foods and Goods All types of restaurants Drive - through /Drive -in ok on Sprague Health Clubs Office Multi - family residential Civic, Quasi -Civic ti# rr Office Multi - family residential Civic, Quasi -Civic 8111URM81111 f1a SARP Zoning (Existing Zoning) Pre -SARP Zoning (Nov 2007- Oct 2009) III191Mll Interim Zoning (2003 -2007) l UR -3.5 UR -7� Pre -SARP Zoning ZIMINAWAS Pi:rGcl5 I '. OHMN N IRIR-10 UR-1 U R-7' UR-1 2 B -1 D- 3 1-2 GA IMcrlmzo3jjlz 8 A QFI Boundw� SPIR-S UR-2.S Ln-22 B-2 1-1 1-:� M ED 30 a MFk A Zone Use Comparison - conclusions Most retail uses still permitted in City Center zone All types of restaurants Specialty foods and goods Personal services and health clubs Entertainment -Bars require CUP Auto related uses, not permitted. Service Stations Auto Repair Mini Storage Vehicle Sales Zone Use Comparison - conclusions Office Uses - Previously allowed Commercial and Business zones allowed in City Center in and still Residential uses - Residential not permitted on ground floor in B -1, B -2 or B -3 zones - City allows residential on ground floor except on Core Street. Single Family Residential not permitted in City Center zone Abu A a Orm a W g, Nil Ar !�Mp q , - 41- 4�L Od- 41 AL Arm 40 i ron Ir �ttttt Envisioned Library & City Center Master Plan a Of zu I . 2 -Ovn 4.t ----------- ------ jumak"Xr - 1 k- . n1io "'.71 0' 1)0' 21)(F 501) 40 FREEOMAN TUNG 4 N C7 Cily of Spokane Valley BOTTOMLEY Core Street Regulations Core Street critical to creating a City Center Basis for temporary regulations Once Binding Site Plan is approved for Core Street, City Center Retail is restricted to City Center Core. Once building permits along Core Street are restrictions are lifted. for development issued, regulatory Nonconforming Survey Results • 36% of existing uses in MUA zone are nonconforming • 11 %nonconforming if single family homes are removed from count Site Development Standards Setbacks (minimum and maximum) Height Building Orientation Public and Private Frontage Frontage Coverage Maximum Building Length FORM USE DISPOS'JIGN m a a I 9 I V wvjrFl USE DiSPOSITION -za City Center Development Standards Front Setbacks (back of sidewalk) 0 ft -Core Street 0 to 10 ft - Sprague and Other Streets 5 to 15 ft - Appleway Building Height - 1 to 6 floors Frontage Coverage - 100% on Core Street 70% on Other Streets V �N I R IM , n A Sign Standards -Wall Signs SARP Regulations Pre -SARP Regulations -Only allowed for non- residential uses with a ground floor entrance -Must be mounted below 2nd floor - Individual signs cannot exceed 150 sq ft -Total wall signage must not exceed 15% of wall area Wall signs cannot exceed 25% of wall area Freestanding Sign Regulation Comparison Freestanding signs not permitted in City Center zone. Prior zoning permitted 1 sign per arterial frontage Monument Sign Standards Comparison Monument signs not permitted on Core Street, ok on Sprague /Other Streets Height 7' to 6' limit reduced from Copy area is essentially the same as prior zoning Questions? Scott Kuhta, AICP 720 -5334 skuhta@spokanevalley.org CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 17, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Street Preservation Program GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Public Works developed a proposed Street Preservation Plan in 2006 and updated the plan in 2008. Attached is a copy of the 2008 Pavement Management Plan Update and a presentation that gives an overview of the plan. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS: Pavement Management Plan Update 2008, Presentation CIMY ne Street Master Plan Ulley Pavement Management Program Pavement Management Plan Update 2008 Prepared for City of Spokane Valley January 20, 2009 f"JUB - **"p- J -U -B Engineers, Inc. 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 722 Spokane, Washington 99201 -0302 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. ............................... 3 2007 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS ........................................................... ..............................4 2008 ANALYSIS AND UPDATE ....................................................... ............................... 7 Spring Road Condition Analysis ................................................... ............................... 7 Pavement Performance Issues and Recommendations ............... ............................... 8 Evaluation of Repair and Maintenance Treatments .................... ............................... 10 Budget Scenario Development ................................................... ............................... 12 ArterialStreets ............................................................................ ............................... 12 LocalStreets ............................................................................... ............................... 14 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. ............................... 17 1_1»401171:1 ARTERIAL PROJECTS Arterials and Collectors, 2009 — 2014 Preservation Projects Map — Overlays and Reconstruction Only • 2009 Proposed Budget — Arterials and Collectors — Preservation Projects List and Cost Arterials and Collectors, 2009 — 2012 Preservation Projects Map — Preventative Maintenance Only Arterials and Collectors Roads — Six Year Plan 2009 — 2014 — Preventative Maintenance Projects List and Cost 2008 OCI Map: Arterials and Collectors LOCAL PROJECTS Local Overlay and Reconstruction Map, 2009 — 2014 • Local Roads — Six Year Plan 2009 — 2014 — AC- Overlay Projects List and Cost • Local Roads — Six Year Plan 2009 — 2014 — Reconstruction Projects List and Cost Local Roads, 2009 — 2014 Preservation Projects Map — Preventative Maintenance Only • Local Roads — Six Year Plan, 2009 — 2014 — Preventative Maintenance Projects List and Cost 2008 OCI Map: Local Roads 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE 2008 INTRODUCTION In June of 2007, the city completed their first development of a citywide Pavement Management Plan (PMP) including complete field condition inspections of all city streets and input of data into a computer model, Cartegraph. The computer model allowed the city to analyze and rate the city streets by Overall Condition Index (OCI) of 0 to 100, and establish a method for maintaining them. The primary goal of a PMP is to develop long term maintenance strategies that minimize the costs to the city. Instrumental in that effort is maximizing the maintenance of roads through annual crack sealing and fog sealing, while minimizing major rehabilitation and reconstruction costs which can run ten times greater. Budget scenarios were developed for both existing city funding levels and proposed funding levels in an attempt to maintain the streets at a minimum average 70 OCI. This report updates the results of 2008 field inspections, modeling updates and modified recommendations for budget strategies. As recommended in the 2007 report, roadway inspections should occur bi- annually for arterials, and every three to five years for local roads. Over time, the data will aid the city in establishing actual road conditions. Major components of the 2008 Update include the following: ➢ Field inspected two - fifths of Local Streets all local streets every three years.) ➢ Field inspected all of the Arterial Roads. (PMP recommended re- inspecting (WSDOT bi- annual report on arterials was due this year). ➢ Update the Cartegraph computer database. ➢ Evaluated pavement condition changes experienced in 2008. ➢ Refined project prioritization, protocols, and strategy procedures. ➢ Developed new budget strategies for: • A one time citywide improvement bond in 2009 • Limited 2009 Budget, with full budget in 2010 to 2014 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 2007 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS Table 1 summarizes the City's 2007 estimated annual street Maintenance & Rehabilitation (M &R) revenue distribution. Preservation includes work such as crack sealing, patching, shoulder repair, thin overlays, and pavement grinding. Major overlays are thick overlays and /or mill & overlays. Major reconstruction involves total reconstruction of the roadway, including the base material. This estimated revenue was the baseline for evaluating strategies for future recommendations in the 2007 report. Table 1. 2007 Annual City Streets M &R Anticipated Revenue Distribution 2007 City Revenue LOCAL STREETS Preservation $ 1,015,000 Major Overlay /Reconstruction 650,000 ARTERIALS /COLLECTORS Preservation 650,000 Major Overlay /Reconstruction 2,250,000 STEP (Sewer) 900,000 Total $ 5,465,000 The principle of pavement management strategy is to perform regular maintenance of the roadways at lower costs and retain a higher pavement condition, so that higher repair costs don't have to be consumed later. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is the agency that recommends historical pavement characteristics. The typical overall Pavement Deterioration Curve recommended by ASTM shows that $1 of preservation at 75% of its life will cost $8 to $10 if delayed until 40% of its life remains. Figure 1 depicts this relationship of condition over time. 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc Figure 1. Typical Pavement Deterioration Curve Excellent 40% drop — in quality Good 75% of life Each $1 of repair not done here . . ...will cost $8 Fair 40% drop to $10 if delayed in quality to here Poor 12% of life Failed 5 10 15 20 Year Results of the field inspections and computer analysis of existing roads in 2007 found that the overall OCI for all roads was 73, and would deteriorate to 58 within the next 6 years, using the 2007 estimated city M & R revenue. Figure 2 illustrates this preliminary result of analysis. 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 5 Figure 2. Predicted Six -Year OCI Using 2007 M & R Revenue 100 90 80 70 60 0% 40 30 20 10 0 72.79 70.58 68.24 Very Good e0.01 63.53 "Good 6 58.12 Fair Poor try Po Existing 1 2 3 4 5 6 Plan Year Several strategies were evaluated to find a future budget that would maintain the overall city roads at an average 70 OCI or better. The 2007 recommended need (local and arterial) to maintain a "very good" rating of >70 OCI is depicted in Table 2. This included a combined $3,400,000 for preservation, $5,600,000 for rehabilitation, and $900,000 annually for the STEP program, for a total annual M &R need of $9,900,000. Results indicated a funding shortfall of $4,435,000. Table 2. Option 1 — Total M &R Cost Projections 2007 Preservation Rehabilitation STEP Total Option 1 Need $3,400,000 $5,600,000 $900,000 $9,900,000 2007 Estimated City Revenue 2007 Unfunded $1,665,000 $2,900,000 $900,000 $5,465,000 $1,735,000 $2,700,000 -0- $ 4, 435, 000 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 6 2008 ANALYSIS AND UPDATE Updating the citywide PMP began with field inspection of two - fifths of the local streets and all of the arterial streets. The original recommendation was to inspect all of the local streets in a three year cycle and all of the arterials and collectors every two years. Initially we are using the ASTM recommended deterioration curves, since there was little historical data to work with. Once we can get good historical data on all of the city's streets, the information can be used to refine the pavement deterioration and OCI curves to fit actual conditions. Spring Road Condition Analysis City Staff identified nine specific streets that experienced trauma after the 2008 winter and spring thaw. After close review of the 2007 PMP treatment recommendations, it appears that the streets should have been selected for some type of treatment, but were not. These nine streets were further evaluated in an attempt to understand the reasons why the streets were not selected and what treatment analysis methods could be modified to allow them to be selected in the future. The nine streets identified were as follows: ➢ Appleway — Willow to Farr ➢ Dishman Mica — 32nd to 28th ➢ 32nd Ave — Skipworth to Bowdish ➢ Broadway — Felts to Raymond ➢ Montgomery — Argonne to Locust Dishman Mica — Thorpe to End ➢ 4th Ave — Howe to Fancher ➢ Euclid — Sullivan to Tolford ➢ McDonald — 29th to 28th Principle Arterial 2008 OCI — 44.08 Principle Arterial 2008 OCI — 50.95 Principle Arterial 2008 OCI — 47.58 Minor Arterial 2008 OCI — 68.90 Minor Arterial 2008 OCI — 65.99 Minor Arterial 2008 OCI — 72.85 Minor Arterial 2008 OCI — 94.04 Collector 2008 OCI — 40.9 Local Access 2008 OCI — 29.77 Each of the nine streets was re- inspected this spring in order to compare the 2006 and 2008 PMP results. Further evaluation of these streets found that the OCI for arterials is predicting the future road condition reliably, while the local streets are predicted to be in poorer condition than actual inspections showed. Figure 3 depicts the difference in ASTM recommended deterioration curves versus what the roads are experiencing in the field. It is too early to develop a conclusion from just two years of data, but it appears that the local streets are holding up much longer than predicted, as can be seen by comparing the Old OCI curve to the Fitting OCI curve. Our conclusion is that we will use the new Fitting OCI curve for local streets prediction of future OCI and retain the ASTM OCI curve for arterials and collectors. When we have more than five years of historical records, we'll be able to develop the City's own deterioration curves, which better predicts their future condition. 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc Figure 3. Option 1 — Comparison of Local Streets Deterioration Curves 120 100 80 60 Fitting OCI V OLD OCI O PCI ONLY 40 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 35 40 -20 Age Pavement Performance Issues and Recommendations Modifying the deterioration curves to better reflect the life -cycle of Spokane Valley's roads is only one part of the problems experienced in the field. Roadways in the City of Spokane Valley appears to be deteriorating prematurely. An increase in traffic and the ever increasing cost to maintain road pavement surfaces to an acceptable level has created a challenge for city staff. There is a serious need to reserve dollars for maintenance and re- evaluate current design and construction standards to ensure future street pavements perform adequately for 15 — 20 years. A separate evaluation and report was prepared detailing these construction issues. This subsection will summarize those findings. The full extent of the report can be found under separate cover in "Pavement Performance Issues and Recommendations ", October, 2008. Significant pavement performance problems can be traced to the soil structure of the existing ground. One of the key factors in a pavement design is to identify the actual structural characteristics of the existing soils. The material used to construct the subgrade for a roadway is the foundation of the whole roadway pavement unit. Increased soil sampling by geotechnical investigations will help identify the soil 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc properties of the existing materials anticipated to be used for the construction of the roadway subgrade. In addition to identifying the material properties for design, the increased investigations will identify areas of material that is unsuitable for use. The unsuitable material must be removed. In addition to the examination of the structural properties of the existing soils, the pavement design process also incorporates an estimation of the volume and types of traffic anticipated to use the roadway. The pavement structure is designed to withstand a finite number of loads before it begins to show distress. Estimating both vehicle and truck traffic volumes is a major component in the design of the roadway pavement structure. Accurate traffic data is required for roadway design. Requiring a professional engineer to provide a pavement design will help ensure that proper care is exercised to develop a roadway structure that will provide expected pavement life and serviceability. Roadway structures require varying levels of detailed geotechnical investigations. Arterials and collectors should receive significant soils analysis. Many miles of local access pavement structures exist in the city. The conclusions of two separate and detailed geotechnical evaluations are included in this document. Past history reveals that some of those local access roads are not constructed with an adequate pavement or subbase thickness. The new road standards document has identified this as a potential problem and recommends that a minimum thickness of pavement and base course be required on new frontage improvements for development within the city. Stabilized subbase treatment should be considered in poor soils where over excavation will not ensure longevity. Pavement performance and life also depends upon the quality of materials used to construct the pavement and sub base layers. The Washington State Department of Transportation ( WSDOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have dedicated many man hours in an effort to develop material specifications that result in quality materials being produced. Pavement structures rely on strong structural components to carry the design loads through the pavement life. One component is the interlocking of the crushed base materials used in the pavement sub base course. The stronger the interlock between the crushed particles, the stronger the base course will be and the more it can resist movement caused by traffic and age. The FAA material specification for base course materials requires more fractured faces of the aggregate than the WSDOT specification. By using this material specification as an example, the base course materials are less subject to losing bearing strength because the materials interlock better. Stringent asphalt cement design mix procedures are warranted. Asphalt oils selected for mix design must be evaluated on their ability to perform in this climate under actual loading conditions. Poor construction practices are definitely a major factor in determining the pavement life and serviceability. There are many examples throughout the city where it is apparent that the asphalt joints were poorly constructed, resulting in serious premature pavement deterioration. The WSDOT has examined this pavement defect along with the temperature of the hot mix asphalt when placed. Construction personnel that observe 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc the contractor's construction techniques should be experienced personnel who know the proper construction practices. Many pavement failures are caused in part, by the use of inexperienced or unengaged construction observers in the field during construction. Construction observers must enforce proper moisture and compaction compliance. This will require increased field testing beyond what is currently occurring. The use of experienced full time construction inspectors is a requirement for federal aid projects and should be standard operating procedure for the City of Spokane Valley roads. The full report describes the pavement performance issues experienced on Spokane Valley streets and the recommendations for improving the life of the pavements. The key recommendations presented herein are as follows: ➢ Street Standards Upgrade Recommendations • Increase geotechnical investigations for soil characterizations • Accurate assessment of truck traffic for pavement design • Require "Engineered" pavement section design • Stringent asphalt cement mix design procedures • Increase the minimum pavement section for Local Streets • Increase the fractured face in crushed rock specification • Verify moisture and compaction compliance through increased testing • Enhanced joint density testing • Improved asphalt temperature monitoring and placing techniques • Consider stabilized subbase such as Asphalt or Cement Treated Base • Trained or experienced construction observers ➢ Full -Time construction observation Evaluation of Repair and Maintenance Treatments A re- evaluation of Maintenance and Repair (M &R) treatments was also conducted to verify that the best methods to meet City expectations is being followed. One new treatment that is recommended is Severe Crack Sealing. This treatment is now recommended after noticing that there were significant cracks occurring in fairly good condition pavements. In other words the structural foundation of the pavement did not appear to be failing, yet the cracks were wide and deep. Figure 4 depicts an example of this deterioration. 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 10 Based on this observation the treatment types to be considered for Spokane Valley pavements are modified as follows: Preservation • Crack sealing • Fog sealing • Patching • Shoulder repair • Grading • MiG FG (deleted) • Severe Crack Sealing (added) • Rehabilitation o Reconstruct • Overlay • Mill and overlay 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 11 Figure 4. Option 1 — Dishman -Mica Road Severe Cracking Condition Budget Scenario Development The City was left with the task of developing opportunities for increasing the available funding after the 2007 report. To maintain all roads at a 70 OCI or greater, the city's estimated revenue was unfunded by $4,435,000, based on the 2007 report. While the city is aware of this shortfall, opportunities have been slim. In the current economic state, additional funding options are limited and not likely. This budget analysis update will attempt to keep the pavements from serious deterioration. As such, the 2008 update has stepped back and looked at a couple of options for funding the maintenance of streets with limited budget over the next six years, until a more focused program can be developed. Two options for limited funding were evaluated: ➢ Option 1 — Continue with 2007 revenue of $2,900,000 for Arterials and $1,670,000 for Locals. The OCI is expected to be lower than 70. ➢ Option 2 — Establish a budget that maintains a "good" rating greater than a 65 OCI for Local streets and a "very good" rating greater than a 70 OCI for Arterials and Collectors. Both options assume the city will continue with their current revenue program for Year 2009, with the addition of the planned Sprague Avenue project from University to Evergreen, completed as well, at a cost of $3,615,000. The projected economic stimulus package for 2009 is expected to at least cover the Sprague project and /or similar projects. The results of these options are presented herein for both the Arterial Streets and the Local Streets separately. These are separated since they now use different deterioration curves. Arterial Streets In general, the changes to the protocols and priorities have had the desired effect that the city wanted in determining projects. All of the high priority arterial roads have mill & overlay work scheduled within the six year forecast heading off more expensive reconstruction on those roads. The work on Sprague Avenue was set as nearly the top priority of all work with projects covering most of Sprague recommended in four of the six years. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the six year needs for both the Current Option and Option #2. Option #1 was not selected for Arterials because it does not attain a 70 OCI. Table 3. Option 1 - Six Year Need 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 12 Preventive Year Maintenance Overlays Reconstruction Total Ocl 2008 $2,900,000 67 2009 $90,000 $5,590,000 $0 $5,680,000 69 2010 $131,000 $1,500,000 $1,324,000 $2,955,000 68 2011 $265,000 $1,500,000 $1,090,000 $2,855,000 68 2012 $138,000 $1,500,000 $1,288,000 $2,926,000 67 2013 $175,000 $1,500,000 $1,225,000 $2,900,000 66 2014 $390,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $2,890,000 65 Total $23,106,000 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 12 Table 4. Option 2 - Six Year Need Reconstruction Preventative OCI Year Maintenance Overlays 2008 $5,682,000 69 2009 $92,000 $5,590,000 2010 $235,000 $1,821,000 2011 $148,000 $3,634,000 2012 $108,000 $3,568,000 2013 $379,000 $3,786,000 2014 $406,000 $2,578,000 Reconstruction Total OCI $2,900,000 67 $0 $5,682,000 69 $2,000,000 $4,056,000 70 $0 $3,782,000 70 $115,000 $3,791,000 71 $0 $4,165,000 71 $915,000 $3,899,000 70 Total $28,275,000 The existing arterial budget is not far off from the necessary funding level to maintain 70 OCI. The boost in funding for the Sprague Rehabilitation Project will raise the arterial network back to a 70 OCI but the ongoing funding must be increased to maintain that level. Figures 5 and 6 compare the budgets and OCI for Options 1 and 2. Figure 5. Arterial Streets Budget Comparison $6.0 $5.0 $4.0 U) o $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Budget Year ■2010 Option 1 02010 Option 2 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 13 Figure 6. Arterial Streets OCI Comparison 75 73 Year Maintenance Overlays Reconstruction 71 Ocl 2008 $1,670,000 71 2009 69 $500,000 $200,000 $1,670,000 70 2010 $970,000 $400,000 $300,000 67 67 2011 $970,000 $400,000 $300,000 $1,670,000 63 2012 UO 65 $400,000 $300,000 $1,670,000 59 2013 $970,000 $400,000 $300,000 63 56 2014 $970,000 $400,000 $300,000 $1,670,000 53 61 Total $11,690,000 59 57 55 Option 2 Option 1 L I I I I I I 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Budget Year Local Streets The tables and charts below show the existing funding level along with two budget options for maintaining the local street network at the 70 OCI level. There are some years in which the amount of work identified exceeds the budgeted amount in a budget category but the total combined budgets for Overlay and Reconstruction is not exceeded in any year. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the six year needs for Options 1 and 2. Table 5. Option 1 - Six Year Need 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 14 Preventative Year Maintenance Overlays Reconstruction Total Ocl 2008 $1,670,000 71 2009 $970,000 $500,000 $200,000 $1,670,000 70 2010 $970,000 $400,000 $300,000 $1,670,000 67 2011 $970,000 $400,000 $300,000 $1,670,000 63 2012 $970,000 $400,000 $300,000 $1,670,000 59 2013 $970,000 $400,000 $300,000 $1,670,000 56 2014 $970,000 $400,000 $300,000 $1,670,000 53 Total $11,690,000 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 14 Table 6. Option 2 - Six Year Need Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Preventative Maintenance Overlays $370,000 $340,000 $340,000 $640,000 $940,000 $1,300,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Reconstruction Total OCI $1,670,000 71 $200,000 $1,070,000 70 $500,000 $1,840,000 69 $500,000 $1,840,000 68 $500,000 $2,140,000 67 $500,000 $2,440,000 66 $500,000 $2,800,000 65 Total $13,800,000 Funding has been lacking for local street projects. Local streets make up approximately 2/3 of the city's street network. Typically the maintenance treatment costs for these streets is lower than that for arterials and collectors so money spent on local streets will go farther and last longer than money spent on the classified roads. Figure 7 compares the funding levels for each option. Figure 7. Local Street Budget Comparison $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 c $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Budget Year ❑ Option 1 ■ Option 2 Comparing OCI for each option in Figure 8, it can be seen that the local street network is in good condition now but its condition is dropping rapidly under the existing funding level. Each year of delay in increasing local street funding adds a significant cost to bring the local streets back to the 70 OCI and maintaining that level. 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 15 Figure 8. Local Street OCI Comparison Local Street OCI Comparison 75 70 65 U O 60 55 Option 1 Option 2 50 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Budget Year Most of the recommended local road work is focused in the area of the city south of Sprague between Dishman -Mica Road and Sullivan Road. Local street projects were grouped together by neighborhood as much as possible. This results in some streets being done ahead of others for the sake of efficiency over the identified priority of work. There may be situations where a street segment is omitted from work even when adjacent segments are done because it is in too poor of condition to be overlaid and there is not enough funding for reconstruction. It is possible some of these roads could have minor repairs done and then be overlaid rather than reconstructed but the decision must be made by city staff on case -by -case basis. 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 16 Recommendations Based on the state of the economy and the likelihood that only minimal funding can be obtained over the next six years, it is recommended that the City pursue developing a 2010 - 2014 Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation average budget of $7,300,000 for an increase of $4,200,000 annually. This budget increase can be developed over the next two years, while maintaining the current budget in 2009. This Option will provide for an average OCI of 70 or greater for Arterials and Collectors, and an OCI of 65 or greater for Locals over the next six years. Table 7. Recommended Funding Option — Total M &R Annual Budget Arterials Locals STEP Total Average Annual Need $4,000,000 $2,200,000 $1,100,000 $7,300,000 Revenue Included in TIP $2,000,000 $0 $1,100,000 $3,100,000 Unfunded $2,000,000 $2,200,000 $0 $4,200,000 A list of the proposed arterial and local street projects for the next six years is provided in the Appendix. 70 -07- 076 \SV 2008 PMP Update Report 1- 12- 09.doc 17 Appendix 1. Arterial Projects 2. Local Projects Arterial Projects Arterials and Collectors City of Spokane Valley 2009 -2014 Preservation Projects Map Overlays and Reconstruction Only I Mission AV w v 0 1 m C �Cert PJ w a Mission Av T7, m ? 3 � . C a / 2 t '29' a , s Euclid AV a December 11, 2008 Legend 2009 Treatments 2012 Treatments 2010 Treatments 2013 Treatments 2011 Treatments 2014 Treatments 2009 Proposed Budget - Arterials and Collectors - Preservation Program DRAFT City of Spokane Valley December 23, 2008 Pavement Management Plan Update Project No. Route From To OCI at Treatment Treatment Pavement Area (SF) Estimated Cost Suggested Budget Over /Under Suggested Budget 1 Year 2009 Overlay Projects ISprague University Evergreen 37 Mill & Overlay 1721613 $ 3,615,386 2 Sullivan Euclid SR -290 WB Ramp 57 Mill & Overlay 365000 $ 766,500 3 32nd Dishman -Mica Pines 53 Mill & Overlay 293990 $ 617,380 4 Flora Euclid Euclid 45 Mill & Overlay 17741 $ 37,256 5 Schafer Cimarron Dishman -Mica 29 Overlay 98233 $ 171,908 6 Euclid Sullivan Flora 39 Mill & Overlay 181673 $ 381,514 Subtotal 5,589,943 4,300,50 $1,289,943 Reconstruction Projects Subtotal 1,260,000 ( 1,260,000) Maintenance Projects Crack Seal $ 69,936 Patching - Full Depth $ 11,039 Severe Crack Repair $ 10,075 Shoulder- Fill & Grade $ 1,193 Subtotal 92,243 100,000 ($7,757) Total 5,682,186 5,660,000 $22,186 Year 2010 Overlay Projects 7 Euclid Flora Barker 45 Overlay 133162 $ 293,621 8 Fancher Frontage Sharp Mission 28 Overlay 17952 $ 32,987 9 24th /25th Vercler Tall Tree 40 Mill & Overlay 38016 $ 83,825 10 Bowdish Sands 32nd 33 Mill & Overlay 85536 $ 188,607 11 Farr 8th Sprague 39 Mill & Overlay 80150 $ 176,731 12 Sprague Evergreen Sullivan 38 Mill & Overlay 473933 $ 1,045,022 Subtotal 1,820,793 2,000,000 179,207 Reconstruction Projects 13 Park Broadway Indiana 32 Reconstruct 1463621 $ 2,010,130 Subtotal 2,010,130 1,665,000 1 345,130 Maintenance Projects Crack Seal $ 92,033 Patching - Full Depth $ 3,839 Severe Crack Repair $ 137,944 Shoulder - Fill & Grade $ 1,309 Subtotal 235,125 135,000 100,125 Total 4,066,048 3,800,000 266,048 Page 1 of 3 Project No. Route From To OCI at Treatment Treatment Pavement Area (SF) Estimated Cost Suggested Budget Over /Under Suggested Budget Year 2011 Overlay Projects 14 JUniversity 8th Dishman -Mica 43 Mill & Overlay 417269 $ 966,082 15 Sullivan Indiana Euclid 45 Mill & Overlay 234643 $ 543,258 16 Pines 16th 32nd 42 Mill & Overlay 274665 $ 635,918 17 Appleway Argonne University 40 Mill & Overlay 298531 $ 691,174 18 Fancher Sprague Railroad 42 Mill & Overlay 344467 $ 797,528 Subtotal 3,633,960 2,000,000 $1,633,960 Reconstruction Projects Subtotal 1,520,000 ( 1,520,000) Maintenance Projects Crack Seal $ 75,927 Patching - Full Depth $ 9,807 Severe Crack Repair $ 59,381 Shoulder - Fill & Grade $ 2,496 Subtotal 147,611 280,000 ($132,389) Total 3,781,571 3,800,000 ($18,429) Year 2012 Overlay Projects 19 Park Sprague Broadwa 45 Mill & Overlay 95779 $ 232,840 20 Saltese /Blake 24th 16th 39 Mill & Overlay 88969 $ 216,285 21 Dishman -Mica 16th University 59 Mill & Overlay 446899 $ 1,086,418 22 Bowdish 4th Main 42 Mill & Overlay 88704 $ 215,641 23 Indiana Evergreen Sullivan 58 Mill & Overlay 370181 $ 899,914 24 Indiana SR -27 /Pines Evergreen 40 Mill & Overlay 377362 $ 917,371 Subtotal 3,568,468 2,000,000 $1,568,468 Reconstruction Projects 25 Barker City Limit 8th 32 Reconstruct 7603 $ 115,126 Subtotal 115,126 1,650,000 ($1 Maintenance Projects Crack Seal $ 39,839 Patching - Full Depth $ 14,707 Severe Crack Repair $ 47,109 Shoulder - Fill & Grade $ 5,939 Subtotal 107,594 150,000 ($42,406) Total 3,791,187 3,800,000 1 ($8,813) Page 2of3 Project No. Route From To OCI at Treatment Treatment Pavement Area (SF) Estimated Cost Suggested Budget Over /Under Suggested Budget Year 2013 Overlay Projects 26 IBroadway Park Vista 44 Mill & Overlay 111513 $ 284,645 27 Sprague Dishman University 48 Mill & Overlay 382431 $ 976,180 28 Sullivan 4th Valleyway 45 Mill & Overlay 204706 $ 522,524 29 Euclid Barker City Limit 45 Overlay 52800 $ 112,313 30 Carnahan 8th Kahuna 42 Mill & Overlay 63360 $ 161,730 31 32nd Pines 45 Mill & Overlay 323974 $ 826,963 32 Barker Euclid SR -290 38 Mill & Overlay 146536 $ 374,042 33 Barker Spokane River Euclid 38 Mill & Overlay 95040 $ 242,596 34 Flora Euclid Trent 38 Mill & Overlay 111514 $ 284,646 Subtotal 3,785,638 2,000,000 $1,785,638 Reconstruction Projects Subtotal 1,605,000 Maintenance Projects Crack Seal 1 $ 109,785 Patching - Full Depth $ 44,558 Severe Crack Repair $ 196,907 Shoulder - Fill & Grade $ 27,923 Subtotal $ 379,173 $ 195,000 $184,173 Total 4,164,811 3,800,000 364,811 Year 2014 Overlay Projects 35 Sharp Fancher Thierman 46 Mill & Overlay 83530 $ 223,875 36 Sprague Howe Vista 56 Mill & Overlay 568075 $ 1,522,550 37 4th Bowdish SR 27 /Pines 45 Mill & Overlay 72653 $ 194,723 38 4th Pines McDonald 35 Mill & Overlay 88169 $ 236,310 39 4th McDonald Evergreen 36 Mill & Overlay 89549 $ 240,008 40 Vista/Mission Elton Trent 47 Mill & Overlay 59770 $ 160,195 Subtotal 2,577,662 2,000,000 $577,662 Reconstruction Projects 41 Sullivan Well sley City Limits 25 Reconstruct 27879 $ 364,657 42 Progress JWellesley Crown 30 Reconstruct 32947 $ 550,013 Subtotal 914,670 1,385,000 1 470,330 Maintenance Projects Crack Seal $ 127,637 Patching - Full Depth $ 31,977 Severe Crack Repair $ 224,746 Shoulder - Fill & Grade $ 21,610 Subtotal $ 405,970 $ 415,000 $9,030 Total 3,898,302 3,800,000 $98,302 Need Addational Funds Real Total- Planned Total $ 724,105.21 Page 3of3 N Arterials and Collectors W E City of Spokane Valley ` - -i 2009 -2012 Preservation Projects Map Preventative Maintenance Only I =f i Ig = December 15, 2008 o_ r x� I . z 4 s .n 5�s Legend 2009 Treatments 2010 Treatments 2011 Treatments �� ;n 2012 Treatments ARTERIALS & COLLECTORS ROADS - SIX YEAR PLAN 20092014 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROJECTS 12/29/08 City of Spokane Valley PMP Update Plan Year Activity ID Route Route Back Route Ahead Estimated Cost Areas Age OCI 1 AC - Crack Seal 25 BROADWAY AV STANLEY RD HOWE ST 507 31 680.00 ft2 9.00 80.14 1 AC - Crack Seal 27 BROADWAY AV WILLOW RD LOCUST RD 520 32 524.80 ft2 7.50 87.16 1 AC - Crack Seal 55 ARGONNE RD KNOX AV MONTGOMERY AV 791 49 420.80 ft2 9.51 75.75 1 AC- Crack Seal 56 ARGONNE RD MULLAN RD KNOX AV 593 37 065.60 ft2 9.51 73.50 1 AC- Crack Seal 59 ARGONNE RD RIVERSIDE AV SPRAGUE AV 61 3,801.60 ft2 21.51 68.85 1 AC- Crack Seal 60 ARGONNE RD MAIN AV RIVERSIDE AV 304 19 008.00 ft2 121.51 63.16 1 AC- Crack Seal 61 ARGONNE RD MAIN AV MAIN AV 122 7 ft2 121.51 60.57 1 AC- Crack Seal 62 ARGONNE RD VALLEYWAY AV MAIN AV 243 15 206.40 ft2 121.51 64.10 1 AC- Crack Seal 63 ARGONNE RD ALKI AV VALLEYWAY AV 395 24 710.40 ft2 1 7.50 81.93 1 AC- Crack Seal 64 ARGONNE RD BROADWAY AV ALKI AV 395 24 710.40 ft2 1 7.50 81.92 1 AC- Crack Seal 65 ARGONNE RD CATALDO AV BROADWAY AV 365 22 809.60 ft2 1 7.50 76.81 1 AC - Crack Seal 66 ARGONNE RD BOONE AV CATALDO AV 395 24 710.40 ft2 7.50 76.32 1 AC- Crack Seal 67 ARGONNE RD SINTO AV BOONE AV 365 22 809.60 ft2 7.50 78.85 1 AC- Crack Seal 82 BROADWAY AV HEACOX AV LILY RD 296 18 480.00 ft2 0.27 99.07 1 AC- Crack Seal 88 ARGONNE RD MISSION AV SINTO AV 395 24 710.40 ft2 7.50 77.81 1 AC - Crack Seal 89 ARGONNE RD 475 ft before MISSION AV 274 17 107.20 ft2 16.00 64.76 1 AC - Crack Seal 93 ARGONNE RD ARGONNE RD INDIANA AV 37 2 ft2 9.51 79.69 1 AC- Crack Seal 112 BROADWAY AV YARDLEY RD STANLEY RD 549 34 320.00 ft2 16.00 68.91 1 AC- Crack Seal 115 BROADWAY AV DARTMOUTH RD FELTS RD 223 13 939.20 ft2 9.51 77.16 1 AC - Crack Seal 116 BROADWAY AV JOHNSON RD WOODWARD RD 446 27 878.40 ft2 8.50 72.61 1 AC - Crack Seal 156 BROADWAY AV 160 ft before I -90 EB I -90 EB ON OFF 127 7,920.00 ft2 0.27 99.07 1 AC - Crack Seal 157 BROADWAY AV I -90 EB ON /OFF HEACOX AV $338 21,120.00 ft2 0.27 99.07 1 AC - Crack Seal 161 BUCKEYE AV DICK RD VISTA RD 223 13 939.20 ft2 3.00 93.63 1 AC - Crack Seal 199 BROADWAY AV HERALD RD DARTMOUTH RD $223 13,939.20 ft2 9.51 82.83 1 AC - Crack Seal 200 BROADWAY AV PIERCE RD JOHNSON RD 260 16 262.40 ft2 8.50 85.81 1 AC - Crack Seal 240 BROADWAY AV HAVANA ST FAIRGROUNDS 380 23 760.00 ft2 19.00 69.59 1 AC - Crack Seal 242 BROADWAY AV FAIRGROUNDS YARDLEY RD $2 142 560.00 ft2 16.00 72.90 1 AC - Crack Seal 250 BUCKEYE AV ELLA RD DICK RD 242 15 100.80 ft2 3.00 93.63 1 AC - Crack Seal 340 BROADWAY AV GLENN RD PIERCE RD 483 30 201.60 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 395 BROADWAY AV BOWMAN RD PARK RD 260 16 262.40 ft2 0.27 99.07 1 AC - Crack Seal 398 BUCKEYE AV PARK RD CENTER RD 223 13 939.20 ft2 3.00 93.63 1 AC - Crack Seal 399 BUCKEYE AV CENTER RD ELLA RD 223 13 939.20 ft2 3.00 93.63 1 AC - Crack Seal 443 BROADWAY AV 210 ft after VAN MARTER RD 186 11 616.00 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 444 BROADWAY AV VAN MARTER RD GLENN RD 112 6,969.60 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 445 BROADWAY AV WILBUR RD Change to PCC 688 42 979.20 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 480 BROADWAY AV GIRARD RD BOWMAN RD 223 13 939.20 ft2 0.27 99.07 1 AC - Crack Seal 508 BOWDISH RD MAXWELL AV MISSION AV $372 23,232.00 ft2 8.50 185.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 516 BROADWAY AV BATES RD WILBUR RD 223 13 939.20 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 560 BOWDISH RD SHARP LN SINTO LN $135 8,448.00 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 563 BROADWAY AV BROADWAY AV GIRARD RD $149 9,292.80 ft2 0.27 99.07 1 AC - Crack Seal 581 BROADWAY AV LOCUST RD FARR RD 446 27 878.40 ft2 7.50 87.16 1 AC - Crack Seal 582 BROADWAY AV RAYMOND RD 265 ft before $297 18,585.60 ft2 9.51 79.39 1 AC - Crack Seal 583 BROADWAY AV BOWDISH RD BATES RD 223 13 939.20 ft2 8.50 71.68 Page 1 of 25 Plan Year Activity ID Route Route Back Route Ahead Estimated Cost Areas Age OCI 1 AC - Crack Seal 610 BROADWAY AV LILY RD BROADWAY AV 84 5,280.00 ft2 0.27 99.07 1 AC - Crack Seal 1156 HERALD RD BROADWAY AV BOONE AV 549 34 320.00 ft2 9.51 87.72 1 AC- Crack Seal 1187 EMPIRE AV PIT RD CEMENT RD 439 27 456.00 ft2 2.00 95.52 1 AC- Crack Seal 1189 EMPIRE AV STEGNER RD PIT RD 152 9 ft2 2.00 95.52 1 AC- Crack Seal 1190 EMPIRE AV LOCKWOOD AV STEGNER RD 439 27 456.00 ft2 2.00 95.52 1 AC- Crack Seal 1191 EMPIRE AV WILLIAMS ST LOCKWOOD AV 406 25 344.00 ft2 2.00 95.52 1 AC- Crack Seal 1192 EMPIRE AV MILLWOOD CITY WILLIAMS ST 422 26 400.00 ft2 2.00 95.52 1 AC- Crack Seal 1310 HERALD RD SPRAGUE AV MAIN AV 264 16 473.60 ft2 21.51 72.62 1 AC- Crack Seal 1312 HERALD RD 265 ft after MAIN AV VALLEYWAY AV 176 10 982.40 ft2 9.51 89.40 1 AC - Crack Seal 1313 HERALD RD VALLEYWAY AV BROADWAY AV $549 34,320.00 ft2 9.51 90.20 1 AC- Crack Seal 1343 HEACOX AV THIERMAN ST BROADWAY AV 791 49 420.80 ft2 16.00 61.05 1 AC- Crack Seal 1365 FARR RD VALLEYWAY AV SPRINGFIELD LN $378 23,654.40 ft2 7.50 90.24 1 AC- Crack Seal 1384 FANCHER RD BALDWIN AV SPOKANE CITY 44 2,745.60 ft2 16.00 61.78 1 AC- Crack Seal 1385 FANCHER RD 370 ft after BR 3502 BALDWIN AV 483 30 201.60 ft2 16.00 62.58 1 AC- Crack Seal 1388 FANCHER RD SHARP AV 370 ft before BR 3502 $747 46,675.20 ft2 16.00 64.31 1 AC- Crack Seal 1389 FANCHER RD BOONE AV SHARP AV 176 10 982.40 ft2 16.00 63.06 1 AC- Crack Seal 1390 FANCHER RD DESMET AV BOONE AV $264 16,473.60 ft2 16.00 60.22 1 AC- Crack Seal 1391 FANCHER RD 420 ft before DESMET DESMET AV 351 21 964.80 ft2 12.98 76.61 1 AC- Crack Seal 1399 FANCHER RD ALKI AV BROADWAY AV EXT 651 40 656.00 ft2 16.00 71.06 1 AC- Crack Seal 1640 HERALD RD BOONE AV MISSION AV 549 34 320.00 ft2 9.51 85.88 1 AC- Crack Seal 1730 KNOX AV HUTCHINSON RD ARGONNE RD 203 12 672.00 ft2 10.51 81.62 1 AC- Crack Seal 1731 KNOX AV MARGUERITE RD HUTCHINSON RD $132 8,236.80 ft2 10.51 83.05 1 AC- Crack Seal 1732 KNOX AV DALE ST MARGUERITE RD 176 10 982.40 ft2 10.51 83.63 1 AC- Crack Seal 1733 KNOX AV SARGENT RD DALE ST $110 6,864.00 ft2 10.51 83.63 1 AC- Crack Seal 1734 KNOX AV SARGENT RD SARGENT RD 22 1,372.80 ft2 10.51 83.63 1 AC- Crack Seal 1735 KNOX AV LAURA RD SARGENT RD 132 8,236.80 ft2 10.51 83.63 1 AC- Crack Seal 1736 KNOX AV BESSIE RD LAURA RD 132 8 ft2 10.51 83.63 1 AC- Crack Seal 1737 KNOX AV SIPPLE RD BESSIE RD 132 8 ft2 10.51 83.63 1 AC - Crack Seal 1738 KNOX AV VISTA RD SIPPLE RD 132 8,236.80 ft2 10.51 83.63 1 AC - Crack Seal 1771 MISSION AV GLENN RD PIERCE RD 439 27 456.00 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 1781 MONTGOMERYAV UNIVERSITY RD VAN MARTER RD $260 16,262.40 ft2 11.50 82.55 1 AC- Crack Seal 1782 MONTGOMERYAV VAN MARTER RD JACKSON AV 456 28 512.00 ft2 11.50 82.55 1 AC- Crack Seal 1829 MISSION AV HERALD RD FELTS RD $527 32,947.20 ft2 8.50 85.86 1 AC - Crack Seal 1830 MISSION AV BESSIE RD 315 ft after BESSIE 152 9 ft2 7.50 87.18 1 AC - Crack Seal 1841 MONTGOMERYAV ARGONNE RD SIGNAL AT ARGONNE 659 41 184.00 ft2 9.51 73.08 1 AC- Crack Seal 1842 MONTGOMERYAV SIGNAL AT ARGONNE 315 ft after SIGNAL 304 19 008.00 ft2 0.27 99.07 1 AC- Crack Seal 1889 MISSION AV UNIVERSITY RD GLENN RD 703 43 929.60 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC- Crack Seal 1915 MISSION AV FARR RD WOODRUFF RD 439 27 456.00 ft2 7.50 87.16 1 AC- Crack Seal 1923 MISSION AV CENTER RD ELLA RD 203 12 672.00 ft2 11.50 82.52 1 AC- Crack Seal 1928 MONTGOMERYAV OBERLIN RD UNIVERSITY RD 304 19 008.00 ft2 11.50 82.55 1 AC- Crack Seal 1956 MISSION AV WILBUR RD UNION RD 659 41 184.00 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC- Crack Seal 1988 MISSION AV WOODRUFF RD HERALD RD 571 35 692.80 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC- Crack Seal 1996 MONTGOMERYAV DARTMOUTH LN OBERLIN RD 836 52 272.00 ft2 11.50 77.91 1 AC- Crack Seal 1997 MONTGOMERYAV 210 ft after INDIANA W BOUND FREEWAY 651 40 656.00 ft2 3.00 93.63 1 AC- Crack Seal 1998 MONTGOMERYAV W BOUND FREEWAY SR -27 325 20 328.00 ft2 9.00 85.39 1 AC- Crack Seal 2020 MISSION AV BATES RD WILBUR RD 308 19 219.20 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC- Crack Seal 2022 MISSION AV OBERLIN RD UNIVERSITY RD 351 21 964.80 ft2 8.50 85.98 Page 2 of 25 Plan Year Activity ID Route Route Back Route Ahead Estimated Cost Areas Age OCI 1 AC - Crack Seal 2059 MISSION AV LOCUST RD FARR RD $615 38,438.40 ft2 7.50 87.16 1 AC - Crack Seal 2060 MISSION AV ELLA RD ELTON RD 41 2,534.40 ft2 11.50 79.97 1 AC - Crack Seal 2064 MISSION AV CENTER RD CENTER RD $41 2,534.40 ft2 11.50 82.52 1 AC - Crack Seal 2067 MONTGOMERYAV INDIANA AV 210 ft after INDIANA 149 9,292.80 ft2 2.00 95.52 1 AC- Crack Seal 2084 MISSION AV 105 ft before SARGENT RD 51 3 ft2 7.50 87.18 1 AC- Crack Seal 2085 MISSION AV SARGENT RD MARGUERITE RD 177 11 088.00 ft2 7.50 82.65 1 AC- Crack Seal 2088 MISSION AV MARGUERITE RD 55 ft before ARGONNE 329 20 592.00 ft2 7.50 87.18 1 AC- Crack Seal 2101 MONTGOMERYAV MONTGOMERY AV UPRR CROSSING 380 23 760.00 ft2 0.27 99.07 1 AC- Crack Seal 2122 MISSION AV VISTA RD BESSIE RD 304 19 008.00 ft2 7.50 82.92 1 AC - Crack Seal 2140 MISSION AV BOWDISH RD BATES RD 264 16 473.60 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 2141 MISSION AV RAYMOND RD OBERLIN RD 176 10 982.40 ft2 8.50 81.09 1 AC - Crack Seal 2146 MONTGOMERYAV WOODRUFF RD MONTGOMERY AV 380 23 760.00 ft2 0.27 199.07 1 AC- Crack Seal 2147 MONTGOMERYAV UPRR CROSSING INDIANA AV 223 13 939.20 ft2 2.00 195.52 1 AC- Crack Seal 2155 MISSION AV 315 ft after BESSIE 105 ft before 161 10 032.00 ft2 7.50 87.18 1 AC- Crack Seal 2156 MISSION AV WILLOW RD LOCUST RD 439 27 456.00 ft2 7.50 87.16 1 AC- Crack Seal 2159 MISSION AV ELLA RD ELLA RD 81 5 ft2 11.50 82.52 1 AC- Crack Seal 2161 MISSION AV FANCHER FRONTAGE THIERMAN ST 993 62 092.80 ft2 1.49 96.57 1 AC- Crack Seal 2163 MISSION AV PARK RD CENTER RD 243 15 206.40 ft2 11.50 77.13 1 AC- Crack Seal 2177 MISSION AV MARGUERITE RD MARGUERITE RD 127 7,920.00 ft2 7.50 86.35 1 AC- Crack Seal 2206 MONTGOMERYAV FARR LN WOODRUFF RD 418 26 136.00 ft2 0.27 99.07 1 AC- Crack Seal 2213 MANSFIELD AV WILBUR RD 105 ft before SR 27 $1 93 772.80 ft2 0.31 98.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 2223 MISSION AV WOODWARD RD BOWDISH RD 308 19 219.20 ft2 8.50 85.95 1 AC- Crack Seal 2224 MISSION AV FELTS RD RAYMOND RD 571 35 692.80 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 2225 MISSION AV PIERCE RD WOODWARD RD $791 49,420.80 ft2 8.50 85.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 2240 MISSION AV 105 ft before WILLOW WILLOW RD 88 5,491.20 ft2 7.50 84.50 1 AC - Crack Seal 2247 MONTGOMERYAV 315 ft after SIGNAL LOCUST RD $228 14,256.00 ft2 0.27 199.07 1 AC- Crack Seal 2248 MONTGOMERYAV LOCUST RD FARR LN 532 33 264.00 ft2 0.27 99.07 1 AC- Crack Seal 2249 MONTGOMERYAV JACKSON AV 315 ft after JACKSON 182 11 404.80 ft2 3.00 93.63 1 AC- Crack Seal 2376 MULLAN RD 55 ft after 190 ARGONNE RD 426 26 611.20 ft2 9.51 69.34 1 AC- Crack Seal 2379 MULLAN RD 370 ft before I 90 105 ft before I 90 177 11 088.00 ft2 16.00 66.18 1 AC- Crack Seal 2380 MULLAN RD SINTO AV MISSION AV 395 24 710.40 ft2 7.50 77.19 1 AC- Crack Seal 2381 MULLAN RD BOONE AV SINTO AV 365 22 809.60 ft2 7.50 74.07 1 AC - Crack Seal 2382 MULLAN RD CATALDO AV BOONE AV $395 24,710.40 ft2 7.50 78.40 1 AC- Crack Seal 2383 MULLAN RD BROADWAY AV CATALDO AV 365 22 809.60 ft2 7.50 77.98 1 AC - Crack Seal 2384 MULLAN RD VALLEYWAY AV BROADWAY AV $760 47,520.00 ft2 7.50 76.81 1 AC - Crack Seal 2387 MULLAN RD DISHMAN -MICA RD MAIN AV 487 30 412.80 ft2 21.51 63.72 1 AC - Crack Seal 2532 PARK RD SR -290 55 ft after SR 290 41 2 ft2 3.50 78.15 1 AC - Crack Seal 2545 PARK RD BALDWIN AV INDIANA AV 122 7 ft2 11.50 60.42 1 AC - Crack Seal 2547 PARK RD NORA AV BALDWIN AV 274 17 107.20 ft2 11.50 77.83 1 AC - Crack Seal 2551 PARK RD MAXWELL AV MISSION AV 243 15 206.40 ft2 11.50 82.43 1 AC - Crack Seal 2552 PARK RD SINTO AV MAXWELL AV 122 7 ft2 11.50 82.54 1 AC - Crack Seal 2564 PARK RD 105 ft after UPRR SPEAR AV $122 7,603.20 ft2 7.50 71.65 1 AC - Crack Seal 2827 THIERMAN ST MALLON AV DEAN AV 172 10 771.20 ft2 1.42 94.32 1 AC - Crack Seal 2887 SHARP AV FANCHER RD FANCHER FRONTAGE $54 3,379.20 ft2 12.98 73.32 1 AC - Crack Seal 2888 SHARP AV 265 ft after HOWE ST FANCHER RD 203 12 672.00 ft2 3.00 90.56 1 AC - Crack Seal 2889 SHARP AV HOWE ST 265 ft after HOWE ST 101 6 ft2 9.00 88.72 1 AC - Crack Seal 2890 SHARP AV STANLEY RD HOWE ST 243 15 206.40 ft2 3.00 90.56 Page 3 of 25 Plan Year Activity ID Route Route Back Route Ahead Estimated Cost Areas Age OCI 1 AC - Crack Seal 2891 SHARP AV YARDLEY RD STANLEY RD 264 16 473.60 ft2 3.00 90.20 1 AC - Crack Seal 2920 UNIVERSITY RD MONTGOMERY AV BUCKEYE AV 203 12 672.00 ft2 11.50 76.90 1 AC - Crack Seal 2921 UNIVERSITY RD PICKET LN GRACE AV 68 4 224.00 ft2 11.50 82.55 1 AC - Crack Seal 2981 UNIVERSITY RD 210 ft after BOONE AV 781 48 787.20 ft2 8.50 85.97 1 AC- Crack Seal 2982 UNIVERSITY RD BOONE AV SHARP AV 112 6,969.60 ft2 8.50 85.97 1 AC- Crack Seal 3094 SPRAGUE AV THIERMAN ST APPLEWAY BV 689 43 084.80 ft2 12.50 61.81 1 AC- Crack Seal 3098 SPRAGUE AV BRADLEY RD ELIZABETH RD 426 26 611.20 ft2 12.50 65.72 1 AC- Crack Seal 3102 SPRAGUE AV COLEMAN RD DORA ST 426 26 611.20 ft2 12.50 62.50 1 AC- Crack Seal 3123 SPRAGUE AV VISTA RD PARK RD $2 161 568.00 ft2 7.50 65.25 1 AC - Crack Seal 3135 UNIVERSITY RD SPRINGFIELD AV 210 ft after 149 9,292.80 ft2 3.00 93.63 1 AC - Crack Seal 3143 SPRAGUE AV SIPPLE RD VISTA RD 632 39 494.40 ft2 7.50 71.06 1 AC - Crack Seal 3146 SPRAGUE AV BESSIE RD SIPPLE RD $172 10,771.20 ft2 7.50 69.95 1 AC - Crack Seal 3147 SPRAGUE AV SARGENT RD BESSIE RD 689 43 084.80 ft2 7.50 70.65 1 AC - Crack Seal 3148 SPRAGUE AV DISHMAN RD SARGENT RD $912 57,024.00 ft2 7.50 69.12 1 AC - Crack Seal 3150 SPRAGUE AV BR 4594 UNDERPASS DISHMAN RD $329 20,592.00 ft2 7.50 70.71 1 AC - Crack Seal 3158 SPRAGUE AV WALNUT RD SUNDERLAND RD 517 32 313.60 ft2 21.51 60.60 1 AC - Crack Seal 3159 SPRAGUE AV HERALD RD WALNUT RD $345 21,542.40 ft2 21.51 62.54 1 AC - Crack Seal 3161 SPRAGUE AV U -CITY ENTRANCE DARTMOUTH RD 517 32 313.60 ft2 21.51 61.05 1 AC - Crack Seal 3162 SPRAGUE AV BALFOUR RD U -CITY ENTRANCE 287 17 952.00 ft2 21.51 61.78 1 AC - Crack Seal 3164 THIERMAN ST 160 ft after MALLON AV 86 5 ft2 1.42 94.32 1 AC - Crack Seal 3173 UNIVERSITY RD BNSF CROSSING SR -290 51 3,168.00 ft2 3.00 93.64 1 AC - Crack Seal 3190 THIERMAN ST SHARP AV MISSION AV 532 33 264.00 ft2 1.42 96.71 1 AC - Crack Seal 3203 UNIVERSITY RD SPRINGFIELD AV SPRINGFIELD AV 74 4 ft2 8.50 85.97 1 AC - Crack Seal 3204 UNIVERSITY RD MAXWELL AV MISSION AV 335 20 908.80 ft2 8.50 85.97 1 AC - Crack Seal 3219 SPRAGUE AV DYER RD 55 ft after DYER RD 72 4 ft2 12.50 68.97 1 AC - Crack Seal 3220 SPRAGUE AV END PCC START ACP DYER RD 287 17 952.00 ft2 12.50 60.77 1 AC - Crack Seal 3249 THIERMAN ST DESMET AV SHARP AV 304 19 008.00 ft2 1.42 96.71 1 AC- Crack Seal 3257 UNIVERSITY RD MAXWELL AV MAXWELL AV 37 2 ft2 8.50 85.97 1 AC- Crack Seal 3258 UNIVERSITY RD BNSF CROSSING BNSF CROSSING 51 3 ft2 3.00 93.64 1 AC- Crack Seal 3281 UNIVERSITY RD VALLEYWAY AV SPRINGFIELD AV 558 34 848.00 ft2 8.50 85.97 1 AC- Crack Seal 3289 SPRAGUE AV HOWE ST FANCHER RD 879 54 912.00 ft2 6.51 63.72 1 AC- Crack Seal 3301 UNIVERSITY RD FAIRVIEW AV BNSF CROSSING 34 2,112.00 ft2 3.00 93.64 1 AC- Crack Seal 3306 SPRAGUE AV MCKINNON ST HOWE ST 659 41 184.00 ft2 6.51 71.33 1 AC- Crack Seal 3310 SPRAGUE AV CARNAHAN RD MCKINNON ST $1 66 528.00 ft2 6.51 72.72 1 AC- Crack Seal 3317 SPRAGUE AV CHRONICLE RD CARNAHAN RD 659 41 184.00 ft2 6.51 74.69 1 AC- Crack Seal 3322 SPRAGUE AV CUSTER RD CHRONICLE RD 608 38 016.00 ft2 6.51 77.11 1 AC- Crack Seal 3329 UNIVERSITY RD MAIN AV NIXON LN 297 18 585.60 ft2 21.51 72.20 1 AC- Crack Seal 3330 UNIVERSITY RD NIXON LN VALLEYWAY AV 149 9,292.80 ft2 8.50 85.97 1 AC- Crack Seal 3331 UNIVERSITY RD SINTO AV MAXWELL AV 260 16 262.40 ft2 1 8.50 85.97 1 AC- Crack Seal 3333 SPRAGUE AV DEARBORN RD CUSTER RD 659 41 184.00 ft2 6.51 77.39 1 AC- Crack Seal 3340 SPRAGUE AV HAVANA ST DEARBORN RD 608 38 016.00 ft2 6.51 76.52 1 AC- Crack Seal 3348 THIERMAN ST 210 ft before DESMET DESMET AV $101 6,336.00 ft2 1.42 96.71 1 AC- Crack Seal 3373 UNIVERSITY RD SHARP AV SINTO AV 186 11 616.00 ft2 8.50 80.61 1 AC - Crack Seal 3374 UNIVERSITY RD GRACE AV FAIRVIEW AV $101 6,336.00 ft2 11.50 82.55 1 AC - Crack Seal 3441 VISTA RD FREDERICK AV UTAH AV 132 8,236.80 ft2 3.00 71.18 1 AC - Crack Seal 3446 VISTA RD JACKSON AV MARIETTA AV 132 8 236.80 ft2 3.00 80.92 1 AC- Crack Seal 3449 VISTA RD 105 ft after BNSF SR -290 $44 2,745.60 ft2 3.00 90.20 Page 4 of 25