Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvement Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan Commission unanimously recommends adding six‑year CIP to Spokane comprehensive plan
Summary
The Spokane Plan Commission voted 7-0 to recommend City Council approve a comprehensive plan amendment (file Z25499Comp) that incorporates the city’s six‑year Capital Improvement Program into the comprehensive plan appendix. Staff said the CIP lists funded and unfunded projects and highlights capacity‑changing projects for Plan Commission review.
The Spokane Plan Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend City Council approve a comprehensive plan amendment (file Z25499Comp) that incorporates the city’s six‑year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) into the comprehensive plan.
Kevin Freybot, speaking for planning staff, described the amendment as an administrative change to the plan’s appendix to “incorporate the 6 year CIP into the comprehensive plan itself.” He said the CIP lists both funded projects and projects for which funding is expected or not yet identified and noted the city intentionally includes unfunded projects “for transparency purposes.”
The staff presentation summarized the CIP as the list of major capital expenditures over the next six years for departments other than streets (streets projects, Freybot said, are adopted earlier and already went to council). Freybot highlighted projects that change system capacity — for example water and sewer projects — because capacity changes are the nexus to comprehensive plan policies on growth and service. He said the package adds nine water projects and five sewer capacity projects since last year’s CIP and displayed a six‑year cost figure discussed in the presentation.
Freybot told the commission that the proposed amendment was evaluated under Spokane Municipal Code (cited in the hearing as “Spokane Municipal Code 17 gs 20 0 3 0”) and that a SEPA/CIPA determination and public comment period were completed; staff received one written public comment (from Ms. Tomsyk) and “have not heard a peep” otherwise. He said the Planning Commission’s recommendation will produce findings of fact and that the commission president will be asked to sign those before the matter goes to City Council as part of the budget process.
Commissioners asked no substantive questions during the hearing and moved to recommend approval. The motion carried 7-0.
What the commission decided will now go to City Council for final action as part of the city’s budget and CIP adoption process; Freybot said his involvement with the item will end after the recommendation and referred follow‑up questions to Jessica Stratton, who was identified as the follow‑up staff contact.
