2004, 04-06 Study SessionAGENDA
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 6:00 p.m.
CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
Please Turn OIT All Electronic Devices During the Meting
DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT /ACTIVITY
Proclamation: Public Health Week April 5-11, 2004
1 _
Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
Letter of Support for Washington Economic
Development Finance Authority (WEDFA)
Industrial Revenue Bonds — Dave Mercier
2. Marina Sukup (5 minutes) Motion Consideration: Authorizing Formation of
Ad lioc Committee to Review Sign Code
3. Marina Sukup (5 minutes) Motion Consideration: Establishing Priorities for
the Enforcement of Sign Regulations
4. Kevin Snyder (5 minutes)
Proposed Resolution Setting Public Hearing Date
for Planning Commission re Street Vacation 0104
5. Ken Thompson (10 minutes) Proposed 2004 Budget Amendments
6. Cary Driskcll (10 minutes) Utility Franchise Policy Points
7. Neil Kersten (15 minutes) Couplet Option 2A
8. Neil Kersten (30 minutes) Capital Facilities Funding 2005, 2006. 2007
9. Marina Suk Kersten Development Related Policy Issues
130 minutes)
10. Marina Sukup (10 minutes) Economic Analysis — Scope of Work
11. Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes) Advance Agenda Additions
12_ Dave Mercier (5 minutes) Council Check -in
13. Dave Mercier (5 minutes) City Manager Comments
Study Session Agenda 03 -06414
COAL
44/f eci
Approve Letter
Approve Motion
Approve Motion
Approve Resolution
Discussion/Information
Discussion/information
Discussion/Information
Discussion /Information
Discussion/Information
Discussionllnformatinn
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Informntion
Disc ussi o Win formation
Nate: At Council Study Sessions, there will be no public comments, except Council reserves the right to
request information from the public and staff as appropriate.
NOTICE Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to aaommodate physical. hearing. or other
impairments. please contact the City Clerk at (5091 92 1- 1 000 as goon as possible so that arrangements may be made
Pop 1 of 1
OCLA,WATION
BGIC 1EALZ91 WEEK
CITY OT STCYKAVE VALLEY, WAS ING TON
WHEREAS, public health advances the health of our population by preventing disease, injury and
disability and promoting healthy behaviors and environments; and
WHEREAS, public health is dedicated to eliminating health disparities; and
WHEREAS, public health is commined to increasing the quality and years of healthy life; and
WHEREAS, public health assures access to population -based health services by all; and
WHEREAS, public health advocates policies based on the best available science balanced by open
political discourse; and
WHEREAS, public health collaborates to mobilize and build health communities; and
WHEREAS, public health professionals are passionate and dedicated to preventing disease and injury
and promoting health; and
WHEREAS, National Public Health Week provides an opportunity for the public to lesarn about public
health concerns and successes that are vital to healthy communities, such as immunizing against
infectious disease., maintaining good nutritional standards, providing good prenatal care and other
preventive health services; and
WHEREAS, the National Public Health Week theme for 2004 of eliminating health disparities seeks
to engage our community in advancing this important Healthy People 2010 goal;
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, MAYOR MICHAEL DEVLEMING, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, PROCLAIM APRIL 5-
11, 2004 AS
"PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK"
Dated MICHAEL DEVLEMING, MAYOR
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 6, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business x new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Letter of Support-- Lawrence B. Stone Properties #11, LLC Project
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: The Washington Economic Development Finance Authority (WEDFA) is
a source of tax - exempt economic development revenue bonds for qualifying private
sector investments. WEDFA is a self- supporting state agency that serves as the conduit
for certain revenue bond lending for business activities located within communities that
are willing to go on record as being in support of specific local investments. WEDFA has
requested City Council consideration of their intended issuance of tax- exempt non -
recourse economic development revenue bonds to the Lawrence B. Stone Properties #
11, LLC Project. The bonds would provide $2,631,000 of financing for the renovation and
construction of buildings to be leased to SCAFCO Inc. for use for the manufacture of
corrugated steel storage systems at 5316 and 5400 East Broadway Avenue in Spokane
Valley.
OPTIONS: Issue a letter of support; opine against the proposed financing package or
decline to issue a statement either for or against the financing,
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None known
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Mercier
ATTACHMENTS
Draft letter of support, a list of Frequently Asked Questions, and a spreadsheet of
previous WEDFA financing decisions.
Stio lane
April 6, 2004
Jonathan Hayes, Executive Director
WEDFA
1000 Second Ave. Suite 2700
Seattle, WA 98104 -1046
Dear Mr. Hayes:
Sincerely,
11707 E. Sprague Ave. • Suite 106 • Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 921 -1000 • Fax (509) 921 -1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org
Re: Washington Economic Development Finance Authority (WEDFA)— Tax -
Exempt/Taxable Economic Development Revenue Bond Programs
S2,631,000 Lawrence B. Stone Properties #11, LLC project
1 am in receipt of your letter of March 24, 2004 regarding WEDFA's proposal to assist: the
Lawrence B. Stone Properties #11, LLC project with financing through your Revenue Bond
Programs. The project will provide leased space for SCAFCO, Inc. You have explained that the
issuance of these bonds creates no relationship, obligation, liability or indebtedness of the City of
Spokane Valley, but that it is the policy of the WEDFA board to issue bonds only for "projects
which would be welcomed by the local community." You have requested an expression of
approval from City of Spokane Valley as the "planning jurisdiction" since the SCAFCO, Inc.
plant for manufacturing corrugated steel storage systems is located at 5316 and 5400 E.
Broadway Avenue in Spokane Valley.
The Spokane Valley City Council is pleased to support the project and the financial assistance
from the WEDFA board through the issuance of tax - exempt revenue bonds. Spokane Valley
wants to be "business friendly" and the City recognizes the role of tax - exempt bonding in
stimulating economic development. This project is a prime example of the type of activity the
City Council contemplates in achieving regional economic development goals. It conforms to
those goals by strengthening an existing business and helping it locate in an area where it will
benefit from the infrastructure and appropriate zoning. As the business grows and prospers with
your assistance it will provide more job opportunities and contribute to the health and vitality of
the community. Therefore, Spokane Valley welcomes the Lawrence B. Stone Properties 411,
LLC project and economic activity it generates.
Mike DeVleming, Mayor
On behalf of the Spokane Valley City Council
Note; The following information is intended to be general in narare. it Js nol a
statement oftax. securities or other law and should not be construed a either a statement
of law or as constituting legal advice.
What Is An IRB?
An Industrial Revenue Bond (IRB) is the common name for tax - exempt economic
development revenue bonds issued by the Washington Economic Development Finance
Authority (WEDFA) to finance industrial development. .Bond proceeds are loaned to a
private concern which is then solely responsible for payment of interest and principal to
the bondholders. There is no state or other governmental financial support, either direct
or indirect for any WEDFA bonds.
Since WEDFA is a governmental agency of the state of Washington, the interest on its
qualifying bonds are free from federal income tax which results in a lower rate for the
borrower.
Why Use Industrial Revenue Bond Financing: Tax - exempt industrial
revenue bonds have, in the past, had an all -in annual borrowing cost (including all letter
of credit fees) of several percent below prime! For a qualifying project, it's the cheapest
money around!
What Are the Negatives of IRB Financing: Due to the necessity of
ensuring compliance with tax law requirements as well as the greater number of required
participants associated with a bond issue versus a bank loan there are higher upfront costs
than conventional financings. Although up to 2% of bond proceeds can be used for
issuance costs, for smaller financings the borrowing company may have to pay some
closing costs from other than bond sources. If the term of the bonds is relatively short,
amortization of these costs may outweigh the interest -rate advantage.
Rapidly growing companies may find the $10 million capital expenditure limitation (see
_below) and other Federal tax law limitations are too restrictive.
"Taxable Tail" Financing: Most projects will have cost
elements - warehousing requirements, used machinery, planned expansion space, etc. -
which will not qualify for tax - exempt financing. Financing of these costs through
issuance of WEDFA's "Taxable Tail" bonds in conjunction with the tax- exempt
portion can provide an efficient means of completing the total project financing in a
single package with the savings associated with the blended rate. Also, prime -based
borrowers will often find the interest rate on a "Taxable Tail" bond issue to be lower
than conventional bank financing.
"Taxable Tail" financing will commonly be used only in conjunction with a
companion tax - exempt financing. Very large ($60 million +) projects may also want to
explore straight taxable bond financing through WEDFA as an option. Since WEDFA is
legally a governmental entity, WEDFA's bonds are classified as "municipal bonds" and
may therefore be purchased by a wider market than would be available for normal
corporate debt. There is an approximate 10 basis point trading advantage to this
approach. It must be emphasized, however, that this approach is only cost effective for
large projects.
What Projects Are Eligible For IRB
Financing?
The proposed financing must be for a manufacturing or processing project. Retail, non -
manufacturing, real estate, commercial and service projects are not eligible.
Bond proceeds may be used to:
o Acquire land,
o Construct new facilities,
o Purchase and rehabilitate existing facilities, and
o Purchase new machinery.
If an existing facility is purchased, used equipment that is part of the facility may be
included in the bond issue. An amount equal to 15% of bond proceeds must be spent for
rehabilitation within two years, however.
Inventory, warehousing and working capital are not eligible uses for tax - exempt bond
proceeds. WEDFA's "Taxable Tail" taxable bonds should be used in combination
with the tax - exempt IRBs for these costs.
Project Size L Bs can be used for up to $I (J million for a single industrial
project. However, there is also a restriction of $10 million on the total capital
expenditure by the company in the local jurisdiction in which the financed project is
located. This $10 million cap includes all expenditures which can be capitalized under
generally accepted accounting principles, even if they are expensed rather than
capitalized, and including those funded from sources other than bond proceeds. The
period over which these capital expenditures are measured begins three years before and
ends three years after the sale of the bonds.
The only exceptions to this capital expenditure limitation are replacements for property
and casualty losses and project elements under a FASB 13 operating lease (not a capital
lease). While leasing of part of the project's equipment requirements may be an attractive
option in a marginal situation, companies must be careful not to "let the financing tail
wag the business dog ".
While there is not a stated minimum project size for participation in the Program, projects
less than $1 —1.25 million often find that the cost of the letter of credit and other issuance
costs, relative to the size of the borrowing, makes other financing options more attractive.
Creditworthiness Each borrower stands upon their own creditworthiness; it is
important to emphasize that there is no governmental financial support, either direct or
indirect, provided by WEDFA. or any other governmental entity. State securities laws
require all industrial revenue bonds sold on the public markets to have credit
enhancement, which will usually consist of a direct pay letter of credit for the full amount
of principal plus 125 days' interest from an investment -grade rated bank.
As an alternate to issuance of a letter of credit to support the sale of the bonds on the
national tax- exempt markets, the borrowing company may arrange a "private placement"
of the bonds with an institutional investor. WEDFA staff can provide a listing of firms
which have shown an interest in purchasing industrial revenue bonds in the past.
What Is An "Exempt Facility" And How
Does It Differ From An IRB?
"Exempt facilities" is sort of a catch -all term for projects for which tax - exempt bonds
may be issued, but which don't fit neatly in other categories. Some of the more important
are solid waste disposal, sewage treatment, docks and wharves, local furnishing of
electricity and mass commuting facilities. The most important difference between IRBs
and "exempt facility" bonds is that the $10 million capital expenditure limitation does not
apply to "exempt facilities" projects. There are, however, other special rules applicable to
certain of these categories. Please contact WEDFA for more information.
Since other aspects of "exempt facility" bond financing - creditworthiness requirements,
financing team participants and the financing process are the same for "exempt facilities"
as for LRBs, they are not separately discussed.
Who Are The Participants In The
Financing Process?
Key participants on the financing team include:
o Borrowing company,
o Letter of credit bank or institutional investor purchasing the bonds,
o WEDFA, as issuing authority,
o Bond counsel,
o Underwriter (for public sales and some private placements),
o Trustee (if applicable).
The roles of each of the participants are:
Washington Economic Development Finance Authority
(WEDFA) WEDFA acts as the issuing authority for the bond issue. WEDFA
approves the Initial Action Resolution, which allows the project being financed to be
started prior to bond issuance, as well as the bond resolution and other documents
required for bond sale. WEDFA will also perform certain required actions, such as
scheduling and conducting the required public hearing, obtaining planning jurisdiction
approval and the required allocation from the state's volume cap.
Bond Counsel Bond counsel is a legal farm with special expertise in municipal
bond and federal tax law. Bond counsel provides the legal opinion that interest on the
bonds is tax - exempt under federal law, that the transaction is legally sound, and that the
bonds are valid and binding obligations. Bond counsel also prepares much of the bond
documentation.
:Bond counsel is selected by the borrowing company, subject to WEDFA's approval.
WEDFA staff would be happy to provide a listing of eligible finis.
Underwriter The primary role of the underwriter is to purchase the IRBs from
WEDFA, and to resell them on the national bond market. In order to qualify for
exemption from SEC Rule 15c2 -12 (see "What Else Do I Need To Know" below), bonds
sold through an underwriter on the national bond markets will usually have a short-term
variable interest rate..
If the bonds are being purchased by institutional investors, the services of an underwriter
would not usually be required.
Trustee The trustee is a financial institution which provides fiduciary and
accounting services for the bondholders, and is charged with generally representing the
bondholders' interest. The trustee will handle all funds associated with the bond sale,
receiving all the monies generated from the bond sale and passing them on to the local
bank for disbursement to the borrowing company. The trustee receives all principal and
interest payments from borrowing companies and makes payment to the bondholders on
predetermined dates.
If an institutional investor purchases the bonds for their own portfolio, they may act as
their own trustee.
Letter of Credit Bank (LOC) The LOC bank is one whose long -term
unsecured credit is rated investment -grade by either Moody's or Standard & Poor's. The
LOC would normally be either the borrowing company's regular primary commercial
bank, or have a correspondent relationship with the borrowing company's regular primary
commercial bank. Through its letter of credit to the individual borrowing company, the
LOC bank provides the credit enhancement, and bears the credit risk of the borrowing
company. The LOC bank also acts as loan servicer after the bond proceeds have been
disbursed.
If the bonds are placed with an institutional investor, a letter of credit may or may not be
required.
Institutional Investor As an alternative to a letter of credit and sale
through an underwriter on the national bond markets is a private placement with an
institutional investor as a portfolio investment. This "institutional investor" must be an
Accredited Investor(s) as such term is defined in 17 CFR 230.501(a).
An institutional investor will apply the same credit standards a bank would in considering
issuance of a letter of credit. Since the number of required participants is fewer than for a
public offering, issuance costs for a private placement will generally be less. Also,
because private placements are not subject to the secondary market disclosure
requirements of Rule 15c2 -12, fixed rates may be available. The interest rates will
generally be higher than can be achieved by a public sale, however.
What Does All This Cost?
The following are the cost elements which will typically occur in an 1RJ3 financing. Each
financing is an individual transaction, and the dollar amounts may vary considerably,
depending on the details of each individual transaction.
Issuer Fees WEDFA charges a $750 non - refundable application fee and an issuance
fee equal to 3/10s of 1 %, or $9,500, which ever is higher, of the principal amount of the
bonds. There is no annual fee.
Bond. Counsel This is usually an hourly plus expense quotation. Depending on
the complexity, this will usually vary between approximately $7,500 and $20,000, but
may be higher. .
Underwriting /Placement Fee Usually about 1% or less of the principal amount
depending on whether it is fixed or variable rate and publicly sold or privately placed.
Bond Cap Allocation Fee 0.000277 times the tax- exempt bond par or $500,
whichever is greater.
Legal Notice Fees These are paid by WEDFA from application fee monies.
Printing Costs If the bonds are sold publicly, there will be a printing
charge for the Official Statement. While this varies, it should be approximately $3,000 -
$5,000.
Trustee Fee If the bonds are sold publicly, a trustee fee of approximately 'A % will be
charged at closing. A privately placed issue, depending on the details of the transaction,
may not require a trustee.
Remarketing Agent Fee If the bonds are publicly sold as variable rate bonds, a
Remarketing Agent will be. required. The usual closing fee should not exceed 1 /10 - 1/8
of 1% of the issuance amount.
In addition to the costs listed, the borrowing company will incur the following costs,
which should be taken into consideration:
o LOC costs and . fees(if applicable): These will normally consist of a
letter of credit issuance as well as the bank's legal and out -of- pocket
costs. As these are negotiated directly between the borrowing company
and the LOC, they will depend upon the company's overall relationship
with the LOC bank, as well as the bank's policies in this regard. In the
past, LOC issuance fees of 1% have not been an unusual level.
o Borrowing company internal costs: As in any financing, decisions and
due diligence requirements specific to the individual borrowing
company will require management time and there will be an
opportunity cost associated with this.
o Legal and Accounting: As in any financing the company will require
these professional services from its regular legal advisors and
accountants.
Annual Costs WEDFA does not charge an annual fee. The borrowing company
will be responsible for the following annual costs:
o Borrowing company internal and other direct costs.
o Annual LOC fee (negotiated directly between the LOC bank and the
borrowing company).
o Annual bond expenses, which would include:
* annual Trustee fee and expenses (if applicable),
* remarketing and paying agent fee (as applicable),
* miscellaneous costs.
How Long Will It Take To Get The
Money?
The length of time the financing process will take is dependent on the Project's progress.
WEDFA does most of it's bond - related work by special meeting via telephone conference
call. These meetings are scheduled on an as- needed basis; there is no need to conform to
any preset WEDFA meeting schedule.
Historically, the two factors which have determined the pace of the fmancing process
have been the LOC bank/placement source due diligence underwriting process and any
unusual permitting requirements (e.g., Shoreline permit). The shortest time between
application to WEDFA and bond closing has been seventeen days; the longest 2 '/4 years.
WEDFA can move as fast as the project can
What Are The Steps in The Process?
Following is an outline of the steps that a borrowing company will go through in the
issuance process for an industrial revenue bond financing. Although these are listed as
discrete steps, in actual practice many of them will occur simultaneously_ The time
period between the initial contact between WEDFA and the potential borrower and actual
bond sale will vary depending upon the status of the project planning as well as other
factors. While it could take as little as rwo months, this time frame would probably be
longer, depending upon the progress of the project being financed.
1 Preliminary Discussion and .4pp!icarion Representatives of the
company seeking funding should contact WEDFA to discuss details of
the proposed project. Contact with WEDFA staff can be made through
the company's local economic development organization, banker, bond
counsel, or directly, as appropriate_ If the project appears to meet
eligibility requirements, the company should then submit an application
to WED.FA with the application fee. WEDFA will then schedule a
special meeting to consider adoption of an initial. Action Resolution,
2. Credit Enhar cemeni ln. hi . stor Concurrently, the company
should begin negotiations for either the issuance of, a letter of credit from
an investment grade bank in support of the bond issue or the purchase of
the bonds by a qualified institutional investor. k commitment letter from
the LOC banklinstitutional investor will be required before the issuance
process can be started.
3. Initial Action Resolution At the special meeting of the WEDFA. board
following submission of the application to the Authority by the company,
the board will consider passage of an Initial Action Resolution. This is a
very important step. It sloes not commit the company to anything;
however, all eligible costs incurred after a date. 60 days prior to the Initial
Action Resolution's approval may be funded through a tax - exempt bond
issue. Costs incurred before that date cannot be so recouped.
4. "All Hands" Meeting As soon as practicable after passage of the Initial
Action Resolution and receipt of the LOC/institutional investor
commitment letter. either WEDFA or the underwriter will schedule an
"all hands" conference call to discuss what needs to be done by each of
the participants and set a timetable_
5. Documentation Bond counsel and underwriter /institutional investor's
counsel will start working on the bond documents - the loan agreement,
trust indenture, bond purchase agreement and others - and circulating
them to the participants for comments.
6. Bond Cap Allocation and Local Approval WEDFA will submit an
application for required bond cap and request an approving resolution
from the local planning jurisdiction. WEDFA will also arrange for
publication of the legal notices for the required public hearing.
7. Bond Resolution and Closing At the WEDFA board meeting scheduled
in the financing timetable, the board will conduct the required public
( "TEFRA ") hearing. Following that hearing, the board will consider the
Bond Resolution approving the sale of the bonds. Closing occurs as
soon after the bond sale as practicable. - usually within two weeks. At
closing, the funds for the loan to the borrowing company are obtained
and placed on deposit with the Trustee (if applicable) for further
disbursement.
What Else Do I Need To Know That I
Haven't Asked?
Incurrence of Costs The first step in the bond issuance process is the
issuance of an Initial Action Resolution (frequently known as an "Inducement
Resolution ") in support of the project by WEDFA. Issuance of this Resolution does not
commit either the company to proceed further with the project or WEDFA to ultimately
issue the bonds. It's basically a date stamp. All eligible costs which are incurred after a
date 60 days prior to the issuance of an Initial Action Resolution can subsequently be
recouped from bond issuance. Costs incurred before that date cannot. Because of this
"date stamp" effect, it's important to have the Initial Action Resolution issued as early in
the process as possible.
Bond Cap Allocation Federal tax law only pen a limited dollar
volume of certain types of tax - exempt bonds to be issued in the state in a given year.
This dollar amount of "permission" for the state is generally referred to as bond cap.
Please note this is only an authorization to issue bonds on a tax - exempt basis; there are no
actual dollars involved.
In addition to IRBs and "exempt facilities" bonds issued by WEDFA, bonds issued by the
state and local housing authorities, student loan bonds and certain bonds issued by the
mid - Columbia public utility districts must get an allocation of the state's bond cap.
WEDFA has always been able to get a full allocation of its IRB bond cap requests.
Required Disclosures Amendments to Rule 15c2 -12 of the federal
Securities Exchange Act unposed new disclosure requirements on issuers of municipal
debt, including industrial revenue bonds. These amendments require the continuing
annual disclosure of key financial and operating data and timely disclosure of certain
material events when they occur.
WEDFA recognizes that most of its clients will not wish to make disclosures of this
nature. There are certain exemptions from these requirements, however, and WEDFA
bond issues are usually structured to take advantage of these exemptions.
Other Types of Financings Although WEDFA's focus is on 1RBs and
"exempt facility" projects, the Authority is not a "one trick pony ". WEDFA has done
other types of bond finance in the past and expects to do more in the future.
Provided that a project is within our statutory authority, is legally and financially sound
and provides a public benefit to the state, WEDFA is open to consideration of other types
of financing. WEDFA staff can provide further information.
Year Close Date Par Amount
1996
Totals:
1997
Totals:
1998
Totals:
1999
Totals:
2000
Totals:
8 -Jul $575,704 Spokane Bayou Brewing
23 -Oct S5,00(0.0 King Farwest Steel
$5,575,704
25 -Feb
3 -Apr
13 -Jun
30 -Sep
8 -Oct
29 -Oct
13 -Nov
24 -Feb
26 -Feb
11-Jun
19-Jun
4 -Sep
16 -Oct
21 -Oct
27 -Oct
12 -Nov
22 -Apr
I5-Jun
25 -Aug
30-Sep
24-Mar
5 -May
I6-May
1-A ug
7-Au g
17 -Aug
5 -Oct
7 -Dec
8 -Dec
13 -Dec
29 -Dec
$7,000,000
85,000,000
S4,200,000
$1,500,000
$3,780,000
$6,965,000
$3,725,000
532,170,000
$461,786
$5,000,000
$3,600,000
S6,000,000
$10,785,000
$3,500,000
53,500,000
$3,250,000
$6,200,000
542,296,786
51,250,000 King
$2,300,000 Whatcom
$6,500,000 Clark
54,300,000 King
514,350,000
S2,400,000
$1,000,000
54,125,000
S 1,400,000
S4,660,000
$7,000,000
S27,300,000
S13,900,000
$1,000,000
57,235,000
$2,815,000
572,835,000
WEDFA BOND TRANSACTIONS
County Beneficiary
King
Snohomish
King
King
Spokane
Whatcom
Skagit
Yakima
Cowlitz
Clark
Whatcom
King
Yakima
King
Snohomish
Pierce
Spok /Doug.
Spokane
Snohomish
Spokane
King
Yakima
Statewide
Grant
King
Statewide
King
Hunter Douglas
• Tonkin, Inc.
Mercer Is. Part. (BioControl)
Tntracel, Corp.
Lyn -Tron, Inc.
Ferry Bros. Inc.
Linda] Cedar Homes
Johnson Fruit
Hamilton Materials LLC
Nordic Enterprises, Ltd.
Nature's Path Foods USA
Pioneer Human Services
Bay Zinc Company, Inc.
Skills, Inc.
TJI, II LLC (Damar Mach.)
Ace Tank & Equipment Co.
Pentz Design
Nature's Path Foods II
Pacific Coast Shredding
Fletcher's Fine Foods
Wilbert Precast, Inc.
Calbag Metals
AMI Monroe LLC
MEDCO Mfg., Inc.
Seadrunar Reeyc.
Canam Steel
Waste Mngmt
Earth Tech, Inc.
Pac. Coast Feath.
Waste Mngmt. 11
KCTS
Jobs
21
4A GE Capital
62
300
183
41
36
11
95
Z
736
30
50
316
54
193
29
77
35
91
875
17
20
70
107
Placement
• United Security Bank
SunTrust Capital Mkts.
US Bank Capital Mkts.
US Bank Capital Mkts.
Transamerica Bus. Credit
US Bank Capital Mkts.
Key Bank Capital Mkts.
US Bank Capital Mkts.
AT &T Capital
Seafirst Capital Mkts.
AT &T Capital
GE Capital
US Bank Capital Mkts
Newcourt Financial
Key Bank Capital Mkts.
Wells Fargo
US Bank Capital Mkts.
GE Capital
GE Capital
US Bank/Piper Jaffray
McDonald Invest.
13 Washington Trust
5 GE Capital
46 Newman Assoc.
45 Washington Trust
4 Newman Assne.
165 Bank of America
11 Westhoff Cone/Banc America
9 First Commerce
103 GE Capital
Westhoff Cone
_ GE Capital
401
Bond Counsel
'Ater Wynne
Ater Wynne
Preston Gates
Preston Gates
Ater Wynne
Ater Wynne
Preston Gates
Ater Wynne
Preston Gates
Ater Wynne
Ater Wynne
Ater Wynne
Preston Gates
Preston Gates
Foster Pepper
Preston Gates
Preston Gates
Preston Gates
Ater Wynne
Preston Gates
Ater Wynne
Preston Gates
Perkins Coie
Ater Wynne
Foster Pepper
Perkins Coie
Preston Gates
Foster Pepper
Ater Wynne
Preston Gates
Ater Wynne
Ater Wynne
Preston Cates
Year Close Date
2001
Totals:
2002
Totals:
2003
1 -Feb
28 -Feb
4 -A pr
16 -Aug
30 -Aug
14-Sep
25 -Sep
10 -Oct
5 -Nov
25-Apr
13-Jun
24 -Jul
1 -Oct
4 -Oct
10 -Dec
20-Mar
30-Jun
I -Oct
28 -Oct
14 -Nov
Par Amount
52,400,000
$22,000,000
S4,955,000
57,375,000
55,000,000
55,000,000
53,300,000
$2,240,000
51,000,000
553,270,000
52,100,000
$15,245,000
$20,000,000
52,225,000
520,000,000
53,265,000
562,835,000
52,355,000
557,415,000
517,895,000
S2,700,000
S1,790,000
582,155,000
Total to Date: $365,487,490
WEDFA .BOND TQNSACTIONS
County Beneficiary Jobs
Spokane
Statewide
Grant
Yakima
King
Thurston
Grant
Yakima
Yakima
Spokane
Thurston
Statewide
Snohomish
Statewide
Pierce
Whatcont
Pierce
Kittitas
Pierce
Snohomish
Proto Mfg./Half Diamond
Waste Management
Royal Ridge
West Farm Foods
RAP Investors
LOTT Wastewater Alliance
Smith Brothers Farms
Art Mensonides
West Farm 11
U.S. Pies Realty, LLC
LOTT Wastewater Alliance
Waste Management2002 - I
B &H Dental Laboratory
Waste Management2002 - TJ
Hillstrom Ventures LLC
Absorption Corporation
Correctional Services Corp.
MountninStar Resort
Belina Interiors
Berry Neon (Jacoshop, LLC)
14
20
175
32
41
5
287
17
87
85
47
236
155
134
415
19
8
731
3,435
Placement
Farmer & Merchants
Westhoff Cone
W. R. Taylor
W. R. Taylor
Wells Fargo
115 Bank
W. R. Taylor
W. R. Taylor
W. R. Taylor
Bank of America
Lehman Bros.
Banc of Amer. Secur.
Newnan & Assoc.
Banc of Amer. Secur.
Newman & Assoc.
GE Capital
Morgan Keegan
US Bank/Piper Jaffray
Gates Capital
Wells Fargo
Bond Counsel
Perkins Coie
Ater Wynne
Hemmer, Spoor
Hemmer, Spoor
Preston Gates
Preston Gates
Hemmer, Spoor
Hemmer, Spoor
Hemmer, Spoor
Perkins Coie
Preston Gates
Ater Wynne
Preston Gates
Ater Wynne
Lukins & Annis
Preston Gates
Preston Gates
Preston Gates
Kutak Rock
Kutak Rock
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 6, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent
❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report 0 pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Consider a Motion authorizing formation of an Ad Hoc
Committee to review the Sign regulations
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 14.804 Signage Standards Interim Zoning
Regulations
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council was briefed on the Interim Sign
Regulations on March 30, 2004.
BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted Chapter 14.804 of the Zoning Code of Spokane
County as interim regulations governing signage. The provisions were adopted by Spokane
County in 2002 following a multi -year effort, which included a study group which submitted
recommendations for action.
In order to provide a balanced review of regulations, an ad hoc Sign Committee should include
representatives from the sign industry as well as concerned citizens and business interests.
The following issues may be considered:
Safety Community appearance & character
Definitions • Enforceability
Permit requirements Specific requirements /proposals associated with
specific land uses (e.g. Auto Row)
It is possible that certain amendments suggested by the review should be considered in
conjunction with the development of the Comprehensive Plan, while others may require more
immediate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: City Council approval of a motion establishing an Ad
Hoc Sign Committee with the responsibility of reviewing sign regulations and enforcement within
the City of Spokane Valley and with recommending amendments to the City Council. The
Committee shall consist of seven members including two representatives from the sign industry
actively engaged in the installation of commercial signage, two representatives from the
Spokane Valley Business community, two neighborhood representatives, and one member of
the Planning Commission. The meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public. The
Committee may solicit and receive testimony which shall be included in the minutes of the
meeting. The Director of Community Development shall be an ex- officio member of the
Committee with the responsibility of recording the meetings, providing information requested by
the Committee, and providing notice of meetings.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 6, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ 'pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion consideration establishing priorities for the enforcement
of Sign regulations
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 14.804 Signage Standards Interim Zoning
Regulations
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council was briefed on the Interim Sign
Regulations on March 30, 2004.
BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted Chapter 14.804 of the Zoning Code of Spokane
County as interim regulations governing signage. Following incorporation, City Council directed
the staff to place a low priority on the enforcement of sign regulations, given other code
enforcement needs. At the March 30 meeting, Council directed staff to work on cleaning up the
illegal signs and violators, and address right -of -way and safety issues. The following may be
considered as one approach to identify priorities:
1. Respond first to formal complaints, assigning priority to enforcement action on the same
basis as is the case with other complaints.
2. Provide notice to area businesses that the City intends to enforce the provisions of the
ordinance with relation to signs that are both prohibited and un- permitted, with priority
given to those located within the public rights -of -way or those which obstruct visibility.
3. Provide notice to sign contractors that permits will be required for inflatable signs limited
to 30 days (with a single 30 day extension). Enforcement will be initiated for those that
remain un- permitted following a thirty day grace period identified in the notice.
4. Provide Notice of Violation to owners of abandoned signs, requiring removal of the
structures.
5. Absent a threat to public safety, assign low priority to existing signs which appear legal,
but for which no permit has been issued.
6. Identify signs requiring repair and maintenance for possible future action and follow up
with written notice to the owners of the sign.
7. Notify persons required to secure Temporary Use Permits (produce and seasonal sales)
that permits will be required for temporary uses and signage.
A phased approach to full enforcement is recommended to encourage voluntary compliance at
this time.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: City Council approval of a motion establishing
priorities for the enforcement of sign regulations.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City will utilize up to 25% of the second Code
Enforcement Officer's time in enforcing priority sign regulations, at least initially.
, STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
� 1
CITY O.F. SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 6, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: [ ] consent [ ] old business [ ] new business [ ] public hearing
[ ] information [ ] admin. report [ ] pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 04 -008: Establishment of Public Hearing late and
Time for Street Vacation Request (STV) -01 -04
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: ROW 35.79 (Streets - Vacation); Ordinance. No. 04 -002
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: There has been no previous Council action taken on
this matter.
BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has received a Street Vacation request (City Reference
No. STV- 01 -04) from Kurt and Mandee Vigessa, 1420 South Bettman Road, Spokane Valley,
Washington 99212 (Parcel No. 35243.1041) and Gene and Lana Balch, 1506 South Beaman Road,
Spokane Valley, Washington 99212 (Parcel No. 35243.1014) requesting the City to vacate a portion of
Fifteenth Avenue, a public street. RCW 35.79.010 specifies that the legislative authority shall establish by
resolution the time when a Street Vacation application shall be considered by the legislative authority or a
committee thereof. The City Council approved Ordinance No. 04 -002 establishing regulations and
procedures for the processing of vacations of public streets. Section 10 of Ordinance No. 04 -002 specifies
that the Planning Commission shall conduct the public hearing required pursuant to RCW 35.79.010; and
shall develop and forward a recommendation for a requested Street Vacation to the City Council.
OPTIONS:
1. Approve Resolution No. 04 -008 establishing the Planning Commission public hearing date and time
for STV- 01 -04.
2. Deny Resolution No. 04 -008 thereby not establishing the Planning Commission public hearing date
and time for STV- 01 -04.
3. Postpone consideration of Resolution No. 04 -008 and direct staff to conduct additional research and
bring the Resolution back for future Council consideration at a future scheduled meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve Resolution No. 04 -008 establishing the Planning
Commission public hearing date and time for STV- 01 -04, for May 13, 2004, at 6:30 p.m..
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are no budget or financial impacts for the City Council's
consideration of Resolution No. 04- 008. .Resolution No. 04 -008 only establishes the public hearing date
and time for the Planning Commission's consideration of the requested street vacation. Following the
close of the Planning Commission's public hearing for the request, the Commission will develop a
recommendation that will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. At the time of the City
Council's consideration, the Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 04 -002 and RCW 35.79 may consider the
option of charging for the return of publicly owned land to private ownership.
STAFF CONTACT: Kevin Snyder AIC Current Planning Manager
Attachment: Resolution No. 04 -008
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND TIME FOR
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER STREET VACATION
REQUEST STV -01 -04 PURSUANT TO RCW 35.79.010.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has received a Street Vacation request (City Reference
No. STV- 0I -04) from Kurt and Mandee Vigessa, 1420 South Bettman Road, Spokane Valley,
Washington 99212 (Parcel No. 35243.1041) and Gene and Lana Balch, 1506 South Bettman Road,
Spokane Valley, Washington 99212 (Parcel No. 35243.1014) requesting the City to vacate a portion of
Fifteenth Avenue, a public street; and,
WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 specifies that the legislative authority shall establish by resolution
the time when a Street Vacation application shall be considered by the legislative authority or a
committee thereof; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 04 -002 establishing regulations and
procedures for the processing of vacations of public streets (hereafter referred to as "Street Vacation ");
and;
WHEREAS, Section 10 of Ordinance No. 04 -002 specifies that the Planning Commission shall
conduct the public hearing required pursuant to RCW 35.79.010; and shall develop and forward a
recommendation for a requested Street Vacation to the City Council; and,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County, Washington, as follows:
Section 1. Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV- 01 -04. The required
public hearing for Street Vacation Request STV -01 -04 shall be conducted on May 13, 2004 beginning at
6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at the City Hall of the City of Spokane Valley, 11707 East
Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206.
ATTEST:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 04 -008
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect April 6, 2004.
Adopted this 6" day of April 2004.
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Resolution No. 04 -008: Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV -01 -04 Page 1 of 2
i
l �
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action -
Meeting Date: 04 -06 -2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: 0 consent 0 old business • new business 0 public hearing
0 information 0 admin. report 0 pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Amendments to 2004 Budget
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State law requires an amendment to our budget and a public
hearing when we believe we will exceed our budget appropriations.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The City budget for 2004 was adopted in December
of 2003.
BACKGROUND: Amendments to the 2004 budget are needed to pay for tourism promotion
and capital projects which were budgeted in 2003 but not fully completed until 2004. Several
street capital projects, funded by grant proceeds, need to be budgeted for 2004 as well. Staff
would also like to appropriate $15,000 in the Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund. This
vehicle purchase was budgeted in the General Fund in error when the budget was prepared.
Staff has also added $500 for Student Advisory Council approved by Council on 03/30/04.
These costs will be paid by existing fund balances, transfers from other funds, a small amount
of unexpected sales tax dollars and grant proceeds.
Staff is closely monitoring the Business Registration Project ($34,400) and the Fiber to the Law
Enforcement Facility Project ($15,000), but budget amendments for these two projects are not
necessary at this time. Staff will also be reducing General Fund revenues (specifically property
taxes) and expenditures (revenue adjustment, service level stabilization and contingency) to
more closely reflect current experience.
OPTIONS: Amending the budget is the only real option. The City could decide not to make
these corrections to the budget, but the construction and tourism promotion costs will still be
incurred due to prior obligations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: A motion to forward this item to the April 13
Council meeting for a public hearing is recommended. -
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Passage of this ordinance will provide the budget
authorization to move ahead with tourism promotion expenditures and street capital projects carried
over from 2003, street projects funded with grant proceeds and an adjustment to the Equipment
Rental & Replacement Fund for a code enforcement vehicle budgeted originally in the General Fund.
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance :Director
Project Name
General Fund
HotelMMotel Fund
Sewer Fund
CD Block Grant Fund
Capital Grants Fund
City of Spokane Valley
Exhibit A
2004
Budget Funding
Amendment Source
$ 175,000 Fund Balance
S 238,607 Sewer Fund Balance
$ 504,000 Street Bond and Block Grant Proceeds
$ 1,348,000 TIB Grant & Transfers from Arterial Street Fund
Barker Road Bridge Recon. Fund $ 702,000 BRAC Grant Proceeds
ER &R Fund S 15,000 Interfund Transfer- General Fund (Already Budgeted)
$ 2,983,107
500 Unexpected Sales Tax Revenues
CD
Project Name
General Fund:
Student Advisory Council
Total General Fund
Hotel/Motel Fund:
SCVB
SRSC
SV Soccer
SV ¥MCA
Spokane County Fair
Valley Fest
SV Heritage Museum
Total Hotel /Motel Fund
Sower Fund:
Hiliview Acres Sewer Paveback
PinecrofUMansfield Sewer Paveback
Harrington Sewer Paveback
Total Sewer Fund
CD Block Grant Fund
WeatherwoodlOwens (STEP) $
Camahan (STEP)
Total CD Block Grant Fund
Capital Grants Fund
Barker Road Reconstruction
24th Avenue Project
Total Capital Grants Fund
Barker Road Bridge Recoil. Fund
Barker Road Bridge Reconstruction $
ER &R Fund
Capital Outlay - Code Enf. Vehicle $
Total ER &R Fund
City of Spokane Valley
2003 Capital Projects Rollover
3/11/2004
2003
Appropriation
2003
Actual
Expenditures
$ $ S $
$ 83,700.00 $ 16,168.79 $ 67,531.21 $
52,200.00 - 52,200.00
24,800.00 5,422.36 19,377.64
18,000.00 18,000.00
17,500.00 17,500.00
2,800.00 2,800.00
1,000.00 1,000.00
200,000.00 25,391.15 174,608.85
$ 480,000.00
200,000.00
279,000.00
959,000.00
$
$ 423,729.60
59,666.28
236,997.00
720,392.88
$
2003
Remaining
Budget
$ 56,270.40
140,333.72
42,003.00
238,607.12
2004
Budget Funding
Amendment Source
67,531.00
52,200.00
19,378.00
18,000.00
17,500.00
174,609.00 Fund Balance
238,607.12 Seaver Fund Balance
$ 394,000.00
110,000.00
504,000.00
$ 1,150,000.00
198,000.00
1,348,000.00
500 Unexpected Sales Tax Revenues
Street Bond and Block Grant Proceeds
Street Bond and Blocs Grant Proceeds
TIB Grant & Transfers from Arterial Street Fund
TIB Grant & Transfers from Arterial Street Fund
$ 702,000.00 BRAC Grant Proceeds
$ 15,000.00 Interfund Transfer - General Fund (Already Budgeted)
Budgeted originally in wrong fund
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 4 -6 -04 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business x new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Policy points for discussion on utility franchises
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: The Council has adopted several telecommunication franchises. We are
currently working with Avista on an electrical and natural gas transmission franchise. There are
several issues that came up in the initial discussions,with Avista that were not at issue with the
prior franchises. Staff wanted to alert the Council to these policy issues early so they could be
discussed and decided in a timely fashion.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Begin discussions on these issues.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None on the discussions. Implementation of the ideas could
result in undetermined impacts
STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell
ATTACHMENTS: One page paper on policy points.
S pokane ~
jUalley
Memorandum
To: Dave Mercier, City Manager; City Council
From: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Date: April 1, 2004
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall®spokanevalley.org
CC: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager; Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Re: Policy points for discussion on utility natural gas and electric transmission franchises
This memo is to provide the City Council with an opportunity to discuss several issues related to
franchises with natural gas and electrical transmission utilities. The discussions with Avista are
still in the early stage, but these. were new issues that staff wanted Council input on at an early
stage.
1. Tree trimminglremoval of trees — Avista would like full discretion to develop and
administer a policy on trimming and removal of vegetation that may interfere with their
facilities. The exact language being suggested by Avista is as follows:
The right of Grantee to maintain its lines, facilities and appurtenances shall include
the right, as exercised in Grantee's sole discretion, to utilize an integrated vegetation
management program, including the right to cut, trim or remove any and all trees,
brush or shrubs growing in, on, or hanging over any City roads, rights -of -way,
streets, alleys or City property that interfere with or may interfere with Grantee's
facilities, including wires, poles, conduits or other apparatus of Grantee, its
successors and assigns.
Staff wanted to bring this to Council's attention for several reasons. First, the Council has not
addressed this issue in relation to franchises to date. Second, the requested language gives very
broad discretion to act within the City right -of -way. Third, the City may want to have input on
what aesthetic results come from such cutting. A utility company is likely to approach trimming
and removal of vegetation from the standpoint of what is cost - effective, not necessarily what has
the best aesthetic result. That is understandable, but staff wanted to make sure the Council
wanted to go that direction.
2. Possibility of undergrounding wires — Many communities are at least studying whether
they want to require undergrounding of power lines. This is very expensive if approached from
the standpoint of moving them all underground in one massive project. In granting a franchise
such as this, the City may want to consider several matters. First, whether the Council wants to
consider putting a requirement in the franchise, that the Grantee will participate in a feasibility
study on undergrounding. This could arguably be a topic of discussion in relation to the
development of the Comprehensive Plan. Second, if the City does want to begin this process,
rather than requiring a massive switch in one long project, the City could consider requiring that
the wires be undergrounded in the event a street surface is completely removed over some set
distance (as a threshold). For instance, 16 is being completely re -done this summer. That
would be a good example of an opportunity to underground for about a one mile stretch.
Similarly with Evergreen from Sprague to 16` This would result in a much lower cost to the
utility and its customers than would doing it pretty much in a continuous manner Over a
number of years, the lines would for the most part disappear from view.
Cary P. Driskell
Deputy City Attorney
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 6, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent (0 old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Couplet Option 2A
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At the joint Council /Planning Commission meeting on
February 23, 2004 three couplet alternatives were selected for further study by Public Works
staff.
BACKGROUND: At the joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting on 2/23/2004 Public
Works staff presented five options for completing the couplet project. After discussing each
option and based on a suggestion from one Councilmember a sixth option (2A) was added. The
options were as follows:
Opt 1. Transition existing Appleway back to Sprague (2 -way) east of University
Opt 2. Extend existing Couplet (Appleway eastbound, Sprague westbound) to Sullivan
Opt 3. Extend Appleway 2 -way east of University, leave Sprague 2 -way
Opt 4. Return Sprague to2 -way, change /extend Appleway to 2 -way with limited access
Opt 5. Extend Appleway 1 -way east to Sullivan, existing couplet and Sprague as -is
Opt 2A Extend Appleway 1 -way east to Sullivan, Sprague 1 -way west w/ frontage road east
Public Works staff has developed two conceptual plans for Option 2A; a 1 -way and a 2 -way
frontage road on the south side of Sprague. The frontage road is created using a landscape
median to separate traffic flows.
There are several engineering design challenges that would have to be considered to make
Option 2A safe for traffic. Some of these challenges include:
• Right turns only onto frontage road at major intersections (University, Bowdish, Pines, etc.)
• Right turns only from frontage road at major intersections (no straight- through movement)
• Stops along frontage road required at each mid -block intersection to allow turning
movements from Sprague Avenue
• Limited room for mid -block U -turns to /from frontage road (no truck U -turns allowed due to
inadequate turning radius)
• Limited access for large trucks to enter businesses from frontage road due to limited turning
radius
• Complex turning movements that may create safety concerns
OPTIONS: 1) Continue developing Option 2A to address design challenges, 2) Drop Option 2A
from any further consideration due to engineering challenges and risks to the public
0 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Recommend Alternate 2A be dropped from further
consideration due to safety concerns and engineering challenges within existing right -of -way.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten
ATTACHMENTS
1) Map of Option 2A (2 -way and 1 -way sample sections)
2) Typical Road Section for Option 2A — both 2 -way and 1 -way access
3) Aerial Photos of Couplet area from Park Road to Flora Road (3 pages)
' . WL IE TAFC TAFC TAFC TAFC LN
t zMI *W,
o
b 2 L 1 L I.
7'
6'
WALK
2' 4'
BIKE
L ANE
4�
12 '
TRAFFIC
12 '
1RAFFIC
1 2 .
TRAFFIC
110'
110'
12 '
TRAFFIC:
OPTION 2A - 2 -WAY ACCESS
TYPICAL SECTION - LOOKING EAST
IV
OPTION 2A - 1 -WAY ACCESS
TYPICAL SECTION - LOOKING EAST
11' -2.3'
LANDSCAPED MEDIAN
17'
1 ANfSCAP[[ MEDIAN
12'
TRAFFIC
4 ! _ ! s.
1 -_J
?`rill
12'
TRAFFIC
b'
2' 6'
WALK
2 ' 6'
WALK
IMMO
tilt
S1�kne
Val ley
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
• Al -
• "' • • "..""".
Nr,"•••••■ 1 =3Nr ap;,
111WSOWSWMINONAL■
W WW1W1W
1141 'If 1 •
■
IM•111.' • —
I •,
, ..a.lo•PMNIEUMM■
•
Valley Couplet
Segment 1 - Park to University
, t111 ( 1 15 1 1;;; 441141111 1ftft
,„OValle)
PIAILIC WOWS CWAIM111•41•1
I
ILI Iry
1 r,
•
I, ) 4
j
4- i E
I
fi
__ �>� "
-;�yy .
_i 1 ..AA -... _ 1
IS r� 1 - - I
C
r --
., •.
,. -
• -
�1�P11 •`'�' 1�r 'p
• • j� i
• r1 I
•
tee
• i 1 l
, 4. ..5 --11 ' 4 it
•
4 .
•
•
•
l I .''r
• - -
ay
•
• 1►
• . •
air
•
r
▪ •
1
wit{ , "- Y' --
✓ `y .[ I i �.:...-
li ii. _ ':
�1. '
t
t
M
t d•
0 43
INNEN
.• • r♦ +. •
v ',
1 '
f r i �
• .. • 1./{12'.'
• • g. ; , ___
as 14, '. r ''''
'-' , 70.-70-,:ili.v...: ▪ ._ • ,
104 ow,
r
■
ulart
Fir V „yr
1 4.
•
•
•
•
AV
Valley Couplet
Segment 2 - University to Evergreen
., ne
PI. UL W011$ UE ►Alt 1 /4 al
Valley Couplet
Segment 3 - Evergreen to Flora
T ,
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 6, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
❑ new business ❑ public hearing
X information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent d old business
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Capital Facilities Funding 2005, 2006 & 2007...
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: Capital Facilities Funding was discussed during the Council retreat in
February. This briefing will provide the current status for 2004 and updated projections for
future years.
OPTIONS:
- RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten
ATTACHMENT:
Sp okane
V alleJ 2004 Capital Improvement Projects
Reviesed 3130104
Work to bo
I Completed
Pro osed Funding for Current Year
TIB 1 SRTC BRAC
(State) (Federal) (Federal)
Sewer
Program
City
Funds
Other Funds
Total Current
Year Cost
Road Construction Projects
Evergreen Road
Park Road - Project 2
1 Gth Avenue - Project 2
24th Avenue Sidewalk Project
Sullivan Road & 4th Ave. Signal
Road Design Projects
PinesfMansfield
Balker Road Reconstruction
Barker Road Bridge Replacement
Sewer Projects
Carnahan
Weatherwood
Sipple
Owens
Veradale
Burns Road
Misc. Projects
Miscellaneous
Valley Couplet
Road Preservation Projects
- Broadway Avenue
- Broadway Avenue
- University Road
- Argonne Road
Consultant Contract
Protect Location
16th Ave. to Sprague Ave.
8th Ave. to 2nd Ave.
Dishman-Mica to SR 27
Bowdish to Pines
Sullivan & 4th
Wilbur Rd. to Pines Rd., Pines to 190
Boone to Barker Rd. Bridge
Barker Rd. at Spokane River
1 -90 to 8th, Havanna to Eastern PE. RW. CN
McDonald to Mamer, Mission to Mallon PE. RW, CN
Dalton to Rutter, Bradley to Vista PE. RW, CN
Vercler to Mamer, 1 -90 to Boone PE. RW, CN
Calvin to Sommer. Springfield to Main PE. RW, CN
South of Mission CN
. CN
Subtotal $
University to Flora
1 -90 to Park Road
Fancher to Thierman
Dishman Mica to 16th Ave
Mullah to Montgomery
Revised Total
2004 Budget
Savings
CH*
CN
CN
PE, CN S 146,000
CN
Subtotal
PE. RW $ 565,000
PE, RW $ 401,000
PE, RW
Subtotal $ 966,000 5
EA
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
PE, RW
Subtotal $
$ 1,557,343
S 980,000
$ 1,865,200
$ 106,000
$ 2,683,343 $ 1,971.200 $
S
S 294,000
$ 177,000
S 494,000
5 274,000
S 702,000
$ 702.000 $
S 1,239,000 $ - 5
$ 3,649,343 $ 3.210,200 $ 702,000
$
$ 348,000
$ 195,000
S 260,000
S 52,000
S 15,700
5 870,700 $
$ 15,000
$ 635,000
S 46,000
5 28,000
S 77,000
S 43,000
$ 60,000
S 905,000 $
$ 1,905,343
$ 1,175,000
$ 2,125,200
$ 198,000
$ 121,700
$ 5,525,243
S 55,000 S 55,000 $ 675,000
5 238,000 $ 639,000
$ $ 702,000
S 293,000 S 55,000 $ 2.016,000
$ 2,459,000 S 1,838 S 108,162 $ 2.569.000
$ 3,265,000 S 126,197 S 267,803 $ 3,659,000
$ 2,773,000 S 141,000 $ 2,914,000
$ 424,000 $ 424,000
$ 2,701,000 S 264,000 $ 2,985,000
$ 31,000 $ 31,000
S 50,000 $ 50,000
$ $ 11,622,000 $ 634,035 $ 375,965 $ 12,632,000
$ 15,000
$ 636,000
$ 340,000
$ 205,000
$ 571,000
$ 317,000
$ 60,000
$ 2,144,000
S 11.622,000 $ 2,702,735 $ 430,965 $ 22,317.243
$ 3,219,700
$ 516,965
S pokane
V alley DRAFT
2005 Capital Improvement Projects
Road Construction Projects
Barker Road
Barker Road Bridge
Pines/Mansfield
Road Design Projects
Appleway Road
Park Road
8th Avenue
Sewer Projects
Orchard Avenue
Inland
Johnston
Mica Park
Sherwood Forest
Parks Road
Edgerton
Road Preservation Projects
Broadway Avenue
Wellesley Avenue
Park Road
Dishman Mica Road
Miscellaneous
Road Preservation Projects
Contingency
Project Location
Boone Ave. to Spokane River Bridge
at Spokane River
Wilbur Rd. to Pines Rd., Pines to 190
Tshirley Road to Hodges Road
Broadway Ave. to Indiana Ave.
Havana to Park Road
Vista to Park, Liberty to S. Riverway
East of Park Rd., Sprague to 190
4th Ave. Farr to Felts, Appteway to 6th
West Dishman Mica, Nina to 16th
East Dishman Mica, Archery to 15th
190 to Trent, Bradley to Park
Trent to Utah, Elizabeth to Park
Bates Road to Sullivan Road
Sunnyvale Road to Flora Road
Sprague Ave to Broadway Ave
1st Ave to Sprague Ave
Nole: Sewer Projects ere estimates only. Plans have not been developed
Work to be
Completed
Pro posod Fundin for Current Year
Total Current
Year Cost
( TIB I SRTC r BRAC r Sewer I City !Other Funds
(State) (Federal) I (Federal I Program Funds
RW, CN $ 891,000
PE, RW $ 234,000
PE, RW, CN $ 1,060,000 $ 424,000
Subtotal $ 1,951,000 $ 424,000 $ 234,000 $
PE, RW
PE, RW $ 292,000
PE, RW
Subtotal $ 292,000 $ 1,169,000 $
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
Subtotal $
PE, CN
PE, CN
PE, CN
PE, CN
Subtotal $
Subtotal $
$ 186,000
$ 983,000
$ $
$ 702.000
$ 297,000
$ 142.000
$ 34,000
$ 1,175,000 $
$ 2,350,000 $
Total
2,997,000
706,000
1,176,000
798,000
1,008,000
1,496,000
3,607,000
11,788,000
215.000
30,000
73,000
153,000
$ 8,000
28,000 $ 265,000
243,000 $ 273,000
$ 1,114,000
$ 234,000
$ 1 ,777,000
$ 3,125,000
$ 216,000
$ 365,000
$ 1,136,000
$ 256,000 $ $ 1,717,000
$ 129,433 $ 3,126,433
$ 136,449 $ 842,449
$ 25,808 $ 1,201,808
$ 798,000
$ 322,491 $ 1,330,491
$ 127,016 S 1,623,016
$ 172,362 $ 3,779,362
$ 913,559 $ $ 12,701,559
$ 110,000 $ 812,000
$ 47,000 $ 344,000
$ 22,000 $ 164,000
$ 7,000 $ 41,000
$ 186,000 $ $ 1,361,000
$ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
$ 300.000 $ 300,000
$ 1,800,000 $ - $ 1,800,000
$ 2,485,000 $ 273,000 $ 8,003,000
3/30/2004 3:25 PM
Spokane
.. . jVa1ley DRAFT
2006 Capital Improvement
Work to be
Completed
Pro osed Fundln for Current Year
T1B
(State)
SRTC I BRAG r Sewer
(Federal) (Federal) Program
City
Funds
Other Funds
Total Current
Year Cost
Road Construction Projects
Pines /Mansfield
8th Avenue
Appleway Road
Barker Road
Valley Couplet - Project 2
Road Design Projects
Barker Road Bridge
Barker Road
Evergreen Road
Bridging the Valley - Park Rd
Sullivan Road West Bridge
Sewer Projects
Veradale Heights
Vera Terrace
Electric RR
Project Location
Wilbur Rd. to Pines Rd., Pines to 190
Havana to Park Road
Tshirley Road to Hodges Road
Boone Ave. to Spokane River Bridge
University to Evergreen
at Spokane River
Spokane River to Euclid Ave.
32nd Ave. to 16th Ave.
Indiana Ave. to SR290
at Spokane River
Miscellaneous
Flora Road /SR 290 Minor Intersection Improvements
Road Preservation Projects
Contingency
Nixon to Mission, Evergreen to Warren
Merrier to Burns, 2nd to 7th
Trent to Utah, Park to Bessie
Note: Sewer Projects are estimates only. Plans have not been developed
Projects
CN
CN
PE, RW, CN
CN
PE, RW
Subtotal
PE. RW
PE, RW $ 122,000
PE, RW $ 400,000
PE, RW $ 2,204,000
PE, RW
Subtotal $ 400,000 $ 2,326,000
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
Subtotal $
PE, RW, CN
Subtotal $
$ 778,000 $ 466,000
$ 1,575,000
$ 1,151,000.
$ 1,115,000
$ 480,000
$ 2,373,000
$ 292,000
$ 3,484,000
$
- $ - $
Total
$
$ 234,000
$ 435,000
$ 669.000
$ 262,000
$ 245.000 $
$ 180.000 $
$ 253,000 $ 26,000 $
$ 50,000 $
$ 728,000 $ 288,000 $
1.506,000
1,820,000
1,331,000
1,394,000
822,000
6,873,000
$ $ 234,000
$ 18,000 $ 140,000
$ 100,000 $ 500,000
$ 246,000 S 2,450,000
$ $ 435,000
S 118,000 $ 246,000 S 3,759,000
4,414,000 $ 397,260 $ 4,811,260
2,325,000 $ 209.250 S 2,534,250
3,431,000 $ 308,790 $ 3,739,790
10,170,000 $ 915,300 $ $ 11,085,300
$ 2,000 $ 11.000 $ 13,000
$ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
$ 300,000 $ 300,000
- S 1,802,000 $ 11,000 S 1,813,00D
$ 3,563,300 $ 545,000 $ 23,530,300
3/30/2(;:.4 's:25 PM
0
aY ��
pr`�kan�
.000Valley DRAFT
Work to be
Completed
Pro osed Fundin for Current Year
TIB SRTC BRAG I Sower
(State) (Federal) (Federal) Program
I City 'Other Funds
Funds
Total Current I
Year Cost
Road Construction Projects
Bridging the Valley - Park Rd
8th Avenue
Appleway Road
Evergreen Road
Barker Road Bridge
Sullivan Road West Bridge
Road Design Projects
Valley Couplet - Project 2
Barker Road
Barker Road
Flora Road
Sewer Projects"
Spaldings
Grandview Acres
Rockwell
Trentwood
Miscellaneous
Road Preservation Projects
Contingency
2007 Capital Improvement Projects*
Project Location
Indiana Ave. to SR290
Havana to Park Road
Tshirley Road to Hodges Road
32nd Ave. to 18th Ave.
at Spokane River
at Spokane River
University to Evergreen
Spokane River to Eudid Ave.
8th to Broadway Ave.
Sprague Ave. to Mission Ave.
Note: Sewer Projects are estimates only. Plans have not been developed
PE,RW, CN
CN
CN
RW, CN $
CN
CN
Subtotal $
PE, RW $
RW
PE, RW $
' PE
Subtotal $
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE. RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
Subtotal $
Subtotal $
$
720,000
720,000 $
480,000 $
$
$
S
480,000 $
$
6,343,000
1,575,000
1,427,000
$ 3,649,000
$ 3,783,000
9,345,000 $ 7,432,000 $
292,000
163,000
447,000
173,000
1,075,000 $
$ - $
Total
$
S 194.000
$ 4,454,000
$ 2,954,000
$ 3,431.000
$ 11,033,000
$ 245,000
$ 223,000
$ 400,000
5 7,047,000
$ 1,820,000
$ 1,650,000
$ 1,120,000
S 3,649,000
5 3,783,000
868,000 $ 704,000 $ 19,069,000
50,000
25,000
70,000
27,000
172,000 $
17,460
400,860
265,860
308,790
992,970 $
$ 1,500,000
$ 300,000
S 1,800,000 $
S 3,832,970
$ 704,000
n
822,000
188,000
517,000
200,000
1,727,000
211,460
4,854,860
3,219,860
3,739,790
12,025,970
$ 1,500,000
S 300,000
$ 1,800,000
$ 34,621,970
3/3012004 3:25 PM
a7�
pokane
V alley DRAFT
2008 Capital Improvement Projects
Work to bo
Completed
Pro osed Fundin for Current Year
TIB
(State)
SRTC BRAC Sewer
(Federal) (Federal) Program
City 'Other Funds
Funds
Total Current
Year Cost
Road Construction Projects
Bridging the Valley - Park Rd
Valley Couplet - Project 2
Evergreen Road
Barker Road
Barker Road Bridge
Sullivan Road West Bridge
Road Design Projects
Barker Road
Flora Road
Valley Couplet - Project 3
Bowdish Road
Sewer Projects
Sutters
Sumrnerfield
West Farms
White Birth
Miscellaneous
Road Preservation Projects
. Contingency
Project Location
Indiana Ave. to SR290
University to Evergreen
32nd Ave. to 16th Ave.
Spokane River to Euclid Ave.
at Spokane River
at Spokane River
8th to Broadway Ave.
Sprague Ave. to Mission Ave.
Evergreen Road to Sullivan Road
32nd Ave. to 8th Ave.
Note: Sewer Projects are estimates only. Plans have not been developed .
CN
CN $ 1,914,000
CN $ 880,000
CN
CN
CN
Subtotal $ 2,794,000
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
Subtotal $
Subtotal $
$ 4,766,000
$ 850,000
$ 830,000
$ 3,649,000
S 3,783,000
$ 6,448,000 $ 7,432,000 $
$ 908,000
RW $ -
RW $ 892,000
PE, RW $ 194,000
PE, RW $ 527,000
Subtotal $ 1,219,000 $ 1,102,000 $
$ - $
Total
$ 3,107,000
$ 2,469,000
$ 2,895,000
$ 2,943,000
$ 11,414,000
$
$ 530,000
993,000 $ 470,000
129,000
1,122,000
142,000
108,000
80,000
132,000
462,000 $
279,630
222,210
260,550
264,870
1,027,260 $
1,500,000
300,000
1,800,000 $
4,411,260
$ 5,296,000
$ 4,227,000
$ 880,000
$ 959,000
$ 3,649,000
$ 3,783,000
$ 1,000,000 $ 18,794,000
S 1,050,000
$ 800,000
$ 274,000
$ 659,000
$ 2,783,000
$ 3,386,630
$ 2,691,210
$ 3.155,550
$ 3,207,870
$ 12,441,260
$ 1,500,000
$ 300,000
$ 1800,000
$ 35,818,260
3J30t2t;& 25 PM
elm
W alley DRAFT
Road Construction Projects
Valley Couplet - Project 2
Valley Couplet - Project 3
Barker Road
Flora Road
Bowdish Road
Road Design Projects
Valley Couplet - Project 4
Park Road
Euclid Road / Flora Road
32nd Avenue
Sewer Projects
Green Haven
Valley View
Rotchford Acres
West Ponderosa
Clement
M iscellaneous
Road Preservation Projects
Contingency
2009 Capital Improvement Projects
Project Location
University to Evergreen
Evergreen Road to Sullivan Road
8th to Broadway Ave.
Sprague Ave. to Mission Ave.
32nd Ave. to 8th Ave.
Sullivan Road to Appleway Road
Broadway Ave. to Indiana Ave.
Flora to Barker / Euclid to Euclid
SR27 to Best Road
Note: Sewer Projects are esUm ales only. Plans have not been developed
Work to be
Com . leted
CN
RW, CN
CN
CN
RW, CN
Subtotal
PE, RW
PE. RW
PE
PE. RW
Subtotal
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE. RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE. RW, CN
Subtotal $
Subtotal $
TIB
Slate
$ 1,276,000 $
$ - $
$ 1,297.000
$ 838,000
$ 3,411,000 $
$ - $
$ 292.000
$ - $
$ 292.000 $
Proposed Fundin
SRTC BRAC
Federal Federal
567,000
$ 947,000
1,732,000
3,246,000 $
350,000
184000
534.000 $
for Current Year
Sewer City
Pro ram Funds
$ 662,000
$ 148,000
$ 271,000
$ 203,000
$ 210,000
$ $ 1,494,000
$ 4,600,000
$ 2,937,000
$ 2,164,000
$ 6,399,000
$ 2,680,000
$ 18,780,000
54,000
73,000
50,000
29,000
206,000 $
414,000
264,330
194,760
575,910
241,200
1,690,200 $
1,500,000
300,000
1,800,000 $
5,190,200
Other Funds Total Current
Year Cost
$ 2,505,000
$ 1,095,000
$ 2,003,000
$ 1,500.000
$ 1,048.000
$ $ 8,151,000
404,000
365,000
50,000
213.000
1,032,000
5,014,000
3,201,330
2,358,760
6,974,910
2,921,200
20,470.200
1,500,000
300,000
1,800,000
31,453,200
3/30/2004 3:25 PM
Sp�iU e.
j Valley DRAFT
Valley 2010 Ca pital Improvement Projects
Road Construction Projects
Valley Couplet - Project 3
Bowdisb Road
Park Road
Euclid Road 1 Flora Road
32nd Avenue
Ferret Avenue
Road Design Projects
Valley Couplet - Project 4
Sullivan Road
Sewer Projects
Miscellaneous
Road Preservation Projects
Contingency
Note: Sewer Projects have not been identified yet.
Project Location
Evergreen Road to Sullivan Road
32nd Ave. to 8th Ave.
Broadway Ave. to Indiana Ave.
Flora to Barker 1 Euclid to Euclid
SR27 to Best Road
Ponderosa Dr. to [Ashman Mica Road
Sullivan Road to Appleway Road
Euclid Ave. to Wellesley Ave.
Work to be T1B
Completed (Stale)
CN
CN $ 1.021,000
RW, CN $ 712,000
CN $
RW, CN
PE,RW,CN
Subtotal $ 1,733.000
RW S
PE
Subtotal $
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, CN
PE, RW, GN
Subtotal $
Subtotal $
Pro osed Fundin for Current Year
SRTC BRAC Sewer
(Federal) (Federal) i Program
$ 1.671.000 S
S
$
5 - $
$ 512.000 $
$
$ 1,671,000 $ - $ $
$ 324,000 $
$
$ 324,000 $ S - $
$
$ - $
Total
$
City Other Funds
Funds
261,000
256,000
178,000
550,000
80,000
710,000
2.035,000 $
51,000
93,000
144,000 $
$ 1,500,000 S
$ 1,500,000
$ 300,000
$ 1,800,000 $
�$ 5,479,000
Total Current
Year Cost
$ 1,932.000
$ 1,277.000
$ 890.000
$ 550.000
$ 592,000
$ 710,000
$ 5,951,000
$ 375,000
$ 93,000
$ 468.000
$
$
$
$ 1,500,000
S 300,000
$ 1,600,000
$ 8,219,000
3/30/20,' �i':25PM
2004
Project
1 16th Avenue - Project 2'
2 Park Road - Project 2'
3 Evergreen Road'
4 Pines/Mansfield
5 Barker Road'
6 Barker Road Bridge'
(Note: costs basal
2005
Project
1 Bridging the Valley - Park Rd.
2 Pines /Mansfield"
3 Barker Road'
4 Appleway Road
5 Park Road
6 Barker Road Bridge'
7 32nd Avenue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2006
Project From
Bridging the Valley - Park Rd.
Barker Road"
Appleway Road
Barker Road
Evergreen Road
Park Road
32nd Avenue
Sullivan Road West Bridge at Spokane River
Barker Road Bridge' at Spokane River
Flora Road /SR290 Minor Intersection Improvements
Barker Road /SR290 Minor Intersection Improvements
2007
Project
1 Bridging the Valley Park Rd.
2 Appleway Road
3 Barker Road
4 Evergreen Road
5 Park Road
6 32nd Avenue
7 Sullivan Road West Bridge
8 Barker Road
9 Flora Road
2008
Project
1 Barker Road
2 Evergreen Road
3 Sullivan Road West Bridge
4 Barker Road
5 Valley Couplet - Project 3
6 Valley Couplet - Project 2
7 Flora Road
8 Bowdish Road
2009
Project
1 Barker Road
2 Valley Couplet - Project 3
3 Valley Couplet - Project 2
4 Flora Road
5 Bowdish Road
6 Valley Couplet - Project 4
7 Sullivan Road
8 Euclid Road/Flora Road
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Public Works
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
2004 -2009
From
Dishman Mica Rd.
Bth Avenue
16th Avenue
Wilbur
Pines & Indiana
Boone
at Spokane River
on adopted TIP. Total dollar amounts may have been revised based on 2003 activity.)
From
Indiana Avenue
Wilbur
Pines & Indiana
Boone
Tshirley Road
Broadway Ave.
at Spokane River
SR 27
Indiana Avenue
Boone
Tshirley Road
Spokane River
32nd Ave.
Broadway Ave.
SR 27
From
Indiana Avenue
Tshirley Road
Spokane River
32nd Ave.
Broadway Ave.
SR 27
at Spokane River
8th Ave.
Sprague Ave
From
Spokane River
32nd Ave.
at Spokane River
8th Ave.
Evergreen Rd.
University Rd,
Sprague Ave.
32nd Ave.
From
8th Ave.
Evergreen Rd.
University Rd.
Sprague Ave.
32nd Ave.
Sullivan Rd.
Euclid Ave.
Flora Rd.
• Grant funds approved ^ Additional grant funds required
To
SR 27
2nd Avenue
2nd Avenue
Pines Road
West Bound Ramps
Spokane River Br.
#5503
To Primary Source
Montgomery Ave.
Pines Road
West Bound Ramps
Spokane River Br.
Hodges Road
Indiana Ave.
#5503
Best Road
Montgomery Ave.
Spokane River Br.
Hodges Road
SR 290
16th Ave.
Indiana Ave.
Best Road
#4511 -S
#5503
SR 290
16th Ave.
#4511 -S
Broadway Ave.
Sullivan Rd.
Evergreen Rd.
Mission Ave.
8th Ave.
Broadway Ave.
Sullivan Rd.
Evergreen Rd.
Mission Ave.
8th Ave.
Appleway Rd.
Wellesley Ave.
Barker Rd.
Primary Source
STP(U)
AIP
AIP
TPP
AIP
BR
Other State
TPP
AIP
STP(U)
AIP
BR
STP(U)
To Primary Source
Other State
AIP
STP(U)
STP(U)
AIP
AIP
STP(U)
BR
BR
Other State
Other State
To Primary Source
Montgomery Ave. Other State
Hodges Road STP(U)
SR 290 STP(U)
16th Ave. AIP
Indiana Ave. AIP
Best Road STP(U)
#4511 -S BR
Broadway Ave. STP(U)
Mission Ave. TPP
To Primary Source
STP(U)
AIP
BR
STP(U)
STP(U)
TPP
STP(U)
AIP
To Primary Source
STP(U)
STP(U)
TPP
STP(U)
AIP
STP(U)
City
City
Amount
$ 1,932.000
$ 782,000
S 831,000
S 675,000
$ 502,000
$ 702
$ 5,424,000
Amount
$ 2.450,000
S 2.459,000
$ 993,000
$ 438,000
S 365,000
$ 3,649,000
$ 213,000
$10,567,000
Amount
$ 7,046,000
$ 1,059,000
$ 1,876,000
$ 418,000
$ 500,000
S 890,000
S 592,000
S 435,000
S 3,649,000
$ 13,000
$ 12,000
$16,490,000
Amount
$ 5,296,000
$ 2,813,000
$ 562,000
$ 1,120,000
$ 1.460,000
$ 667,000
$ 3,783,000
$ 517,000
$ 200,000
$16,418,000
Amount
S 2,858,000
$ 880,000
S 3,783,000
S 1,050,000
$ 274,000
5 822,000
$ 800,000
$ 659,000
511,126,000
Amount
$ 2,003,000
$ 1,095,000
$ 822,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,048,000
$ 404,000
$ 93,000
$ 50,000
$ 7,015,000
2005
Project
1 Barker Road
2 Barker Road Bridge
3 Pines/hAansfield
4 Appleway Road
5 8th Avenue
6 Broadway Ave. Rehab.
7 Wellesley Ave. Rehab.
8 Park Road Rehab.
9 Dishman Mica Road Rehab.
2006
Project
1 Barker Road
2 Barker Road Bridge
3 Pines/Marrs0eld
4 8th Avenue
5 Appleway Road
6 Valley Couplet - Project 2
7 Evergreen Road
8 Bridging the Valley - Park Rd
9 Barker Road
2007
Project
1 Barker Road Bridge
2 8th Avenue
3 Appleway Road
4 Valley Couplet - Project 2
5 Evergreen Road
6 Bridging the Valley - Park Rd.
7 Barker Road
8 Sullivan Road West Bridge
9 Barker Road
10 Flora Road
2008
Project
1 Barker Road Bridge
2 Valley Couplet - Project 2
3 Evergreen Road
4 Bridging the Valley - Park Rd
5 Barker Road
6 Sullivan Road West Bridge
7 Barker Road
8 Valley Couplet - Project 3
9 Flora Road
10 Bowdish Road
2009
Project
1 Valley Couplet - Project 2
2 Barker Road
3 Valley Couplet Project 3
4 Flora Road
5 Bowdish Road
6 Valley Couplet - Project 4
7 Park Road
8 Euclid Road / Flora Road
9 32nd Avenue
2010
Project
1 Valley Couplet - Project 3
2 Bowdish Road
3 Park Road
4 Euclid Road / Flora Road
5 32nd Avenue
6 Ferrel Avenue
7 Valley Couplet - Project 4
8 Sullivan Road
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Public Works
DRAFT Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
2005 -2010
From
Boone
at Spokane River
Wilbur
Pines & Indiana
Tshirley Road
Havana
Bates Rd.
Sunnyvale Rd.
Sprague Ave.
1st Ave.
From
Boone
at Spokane River
Wilbur
Havana
Tshirtey Read
University Rd.
32nd Ave.
• Indiana Avenue
Spokane River
10 Sullivan Road West Bridge at Spokane River
11 Flora Road @ SR290 Minor Intersection Improvements
From
at Spokane River
Havana
Tshirley Road
University Rd.
32nd Ave.
Indiana Avenue
Spokane River
at Spokane River
8th Ave.
Sprague Ave.
From
at Spokane River
University Rd.
32nd Ave.
• Indiana Avenue
Spokane River
at Spokane River
8th Ave.
Evergreen Rd.
Sprague Ave.
32nd Ave.
From To Primary Source
University Rd. Evergreen Rd. TPP
Sth Ave. Broadway Ave. STP(U)
Evergreen Rd. Sullivan Rd. STP(U)
Sprague Ave. Mission Ave. STP(U)
32nd Ave. 8th Ave. AIP
Sullivan Rd. Appleway Rd. STP(U)
Broadway Ave. Indiana Ave. AIP
Flora to Barker Euclid to Euclid TPP
SR27 Best Rd. STP(U)
From
Funded Projects Added Projects hAoved Projects
To
Spokane River Br.
85503
Pines Road
West Bound Ramps
Hodges Road
Park Road
Sullivan Rd.
Flora Rd.
Broadway Ave.
Sprague Ave.
To Primary Source
Spokane River Br. AIP $ 253.000
#5503 BR S -
Pines Road TPP 5 -
Park Road STP(U) 5 245,000
Hodges Road STP(U) $ 180,000
Evergreen Rd. TPP S 50.000
16th Ave. AIP $ 100,000
Montgomery Ave. Other State
Euclid Ave. STP(U) $ 18,000
#4511 -S BR $
Other State $ 2,000
$ 848.000
To Primary Source
#5503 BR S
Park Road STP(U) 5 245,000
Hodges Road STP(U) S 223,000
Evergreen Rd. TPP $ 50,000
16th Ave. AIP S 400,000
Montgomery Ave. Other Fed. $ -
Euclid Ave. STP(U) S 25,000
04511 -S BR $
Broadway Ave. STP(U) 5 70,000
Mission Ave. STP(U) $ 27,000
S 1,040,000
To Primary Source
85503 BR $ -
Evergreen Rd. TPP $ 993,000
16th Ave. AIP $ -
Montr0eunery Ave. Other Fed. $ -
Eudid Ave. STP(U) $ 129.000
#4511 -S BR $ -
Broadway Ave. STP(U) $ 142,000
Sullivan Rd. STP(U) $ 80,000
Mission Ave. STP(U) $ 108,000
8th Ave. AIP $ 132,000
$ 1,584,000
To Primary Source
Evergreen Rd. Sullivan Rd. STP(U)
32nd Ave. 8th Ave. AIP
Broadway Ave. Indiana Ave. AIP
Flora to Barker Euclid to Euclid TPP
SR27 Best Rd. STP(U)
Ponderosa Dr. Dishman Mica Rd. City
Sullivan Rd. Appleway Rd. STP(U)
Euclid Ave. Wellesley Ave. City
Primary Source City Amn1
AIP $ 215.000
BR $ -
TPP $ 28.000
STP(U) $ 30,000
STP(U) $ 153,000
STP(U) $ 11,000
STP(U) $ 47.000
STP(U) $ 22.000
STP(U) $ 7.000
$ 513,000
Total Project
$ 1,114,000
$ 234,000
$ 1,777.000
S 216,000
$ 1,136,000
$ 812.000
$ 344,000
$ 164.000
$ 41.000
S 5,838,000
Amount
$ 1294.000
$ 234.000
$ 1,506.000
$ 1,820,000
5 1,331,000
$ 822,000
$ 500,000
$ 2,450,000
$ 140,000
$ 435,000
$ 13 ,000
510,645,000
Amount
$ 3,649,000
$ 1,820,000
$ 1,650,000
$ 822,000
$ 1,120,000
$ 7,047,000
$ 188.000
$ 3,783,000
$ 517,000
$ 200,000
$20,796,000
Amount
$ 3,649,000
$ 4227,000
$ 880,000
S 5.206.000
$ 959.000
$ 3,783,000
$ 1,050,000
$ 274.000
$ 800.000
$ 659.000
$21,577,000
Amount
$ 622,000 5 2,505,000
$ 271,000 S 2.003,000
$ 148,000 S 1.095,000
$ 203,000 $ 1.500,000
$ 210,000 S 1,048,000
$ 54,000 S 404,000
$ 73,000 $ 365,000
$ 50,000 5 50,000
S 29,000 $ 213.000
$ 1,660,000 S 9,183,000
Amount
$ 261,000 5 1,932,000
$ 256,000 S 1,277,000
$ 178,000 S 890,000
$ 550,000 $ 550,000
$ 80,000 5 592,000
$ 710,000 $ 710,000
$ 51,000 $ 375,000
5 93,000 $ 93.000
$ 2.179.000 $ 6,419,000
3/30/2004 3.18 PM
City of Spokane Valley
Planning Session — Updated April, 2004
Five -Year Projected Shortfall Summary — Capital Projects
Capi needs:
Parks
Streets
Other?
2005
$ 350,000
1
1,700,000
2006
2007
375,000 $ 400.000
1.6 0,000 1
000000
100,000 1 100,000
1,900,000 2.1 2
�- $ 3.500,0P0
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 6, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business 0 new business ❑ public hearing
Z information [ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Engineering and Planning Development Issues Presentation
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Ordinance No. 03 -53; Ordinance No. 03 -33, Ordinance Nos. 03-
40-42, and Ordinance No. 04 -010
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: There has been no previous Council action taken.
BACKGROUND: At time of the City's incorporation on March 31, 2003, the City Council
adopted Ordinance No. 53 comprising the City's zoning regulations and Ordinance No. 33
comprising the City's road and sewer regulations. The regulations adopted by these ordinances
are based on Spokane County regulations in effect at the time of ordinance adoption. In
addition, the City Council also approved Ordinance Nos. 40 -42 that establish the City's Building
Code regulations. The City Council recently approved Ordinance No. 04 -010 establishing the
International Code Commission building standards as the City's standards effective July 1,
2004.
As the City Council is aware from previous discussions with staff, one of the anticipated
outcomes of the Comprehensive Plan Project will be updates to City development related
regulations. In order to assure consistency with this Project for the updates, staff have not
anticipated the development of potential substantive changes to current development
regulations before completion of the Project. However, staff have identified a limited number of
development standards that contain unclear or vague language, do not provide appropriate
guidance to City staff or customers as to when the standards apply, or do not provide staff with
inadequate authority to administer the•standards. Staff believe that potential modifications to
these standards in advance of the completion of the Comprehensive Plan project will provide
better guidance to staff and applicants in the development review process, provide increased
levels of certainty on the meaning and intent of development regulations, and enhance current
customer service levels.
The Public Works Department will present information to the City Council on Road Standards
Issues. These issues will address: 1) the need for guidance on the development of public
versus private streets; 2) the potential for revised design criteria for residential streets; 3)
neighborhood /business connectivity standards; and 4) requirements for frontage improvements.
The Community Development Department will present information to the City Council on: 1)
issues for the City's current Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations; 2) issues for the City'
current building setback requirements; 3) issues concerning the City's current regulations for
Administrative Variances and Administrative Exceptions; 4) enforcement issues between
requirements for completion of public improvements and the issuance of a building permit; and
5) brief explanation of concurrency. Regarding the last item, the Community Development
Department intends to only introduce the subject matter. The Department anticipates bringing
more information on concurrency back to City Council at a future date.
OPTIONS: 1) Provide requested direction to staff on identified engineering and planning
development issues; and 2) Identify any other issues or concerns for staff to research and /or
address.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: There is no recommended action or motion from staff
for the April 6, 2004 study session. Staff is seeking Council guidance on whether and to what
extent staff should develop potential policy options for the Planning Commission and City
Council to consider for the attached identified engineering and planning development issues.
Staff is also seeking City Council identification of key issues or concerns related to any direction
on potential policy development.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No budget or financial impacts are anticipated with the City
Council's direction on identified policy issues.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director / Neil Kersten,
Public Works Director, John Hohman, P.E., Senior Development Engineer, Kevin Snyder, AICP,
Current Planning Manager
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A: Public Works Development
Road Standard Issues Presentation
Attachment B: Community Development
Department Development Related Policy
Issues Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
SPane
1 ey
Development Related
Road Standards Issues
Public Works D
April 6, 2004
Amendments To Consider
. Guidance for development of public versus
private residential streets
. Revised design criteria for residential
streets
. Neighborhood/business connectivity
standards
. Requirements for frontage improvements
Residential Street Design Criteria
. Should public and private streets be designed
and constructed to the same criteria?
• Current County public road standard can be
difficult to apply to some City developments
• Private roads are constructed to a lesser
standard — allowed to be narrower, steeper, no
curbs or sidewalks
. Proposed amendment would identify new
residential street designs
Purpose
. Brief the Council on possible amendments
to the adopted County Road Standards
that should be considered prior to the
completion of the comprehensive plan
Public Streets or Private Streets?
• Current County Road Standards does not provide
guidance for whether residential streets should be
publicly owned or privately owned
• The dedston is typically Icft to the developer
• The developer often chooses private due to reduced
carwtruction costs (Le., no curbs or sidewalks, reduced
width)
• Future homeowners are responsible for maintenance and
replacement of infrastructure
• Proposed amendment would define when private streets
are appropriate and what measures are necessary to
ensure longterm maintenance
Neighborhood /Business
Connectivity
• County standards are not
specific regarding
connecting ecting new streets with
existing streets
. Results in numerous cul -de-
sacs and dead -end streets
• No ability to efficiently
travel between
neighborhoods and/or
commercial developments
• Proposed amendment
would provide guidance for
connecting City streets
1
/
�J
Typical Examples
Frontage Improvements
. Current practice requires developers to improve
the pub9c streets that "front" their proposals to
current standards — curb, sidewalk, street
widening
. County standards are vague and do not provide
guidance for smaller developments (creation of
2 to 9 Tots) or building permits
. Proposed amendment would set thresholds and
clarify requirements for all projects
Typical Examples
:JP Wirt eq,
eft
Summary of Proposed Amendments
• Street Designations — Public vs. Private
• Residential Street Design Standards
• Neighborhood Connectivity
. Frontage Improvements
2
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING
DEVELOPMENT RELATED
POLICY ISSUES
Community Development Department
April IL 2004
n-p
Spukane
j Val ley
PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS (PUDs)
• Chapter 14.704 (Planned Unit Development
Overlay Zone)
• ?UDs currently allowed in all zoning districts
• Intent — "Foster creative. efficient and
comprehensive site design'
• Two -stage approval process — Preliminary PUD &
Final PUD
PUDs (continued)
Staff Observations:
• PUDs are often used by applicants to address
perceived problems In Interim Zoning Code (e.g. lot
area requirements. street frontage requirements)
• PUDs are used to build private streets because of
reduced design standards presenting connectivity &
design adequacy issues for the City
• Current PUD designs generally do not foster creative,
efficient and comprehensive site design
• Other jurisdictions have created PUD regulations that
encourage use of PUDs to create mixed use/density
. development
Purpose
• Brief the Council on certain Development Regulations
which should be considered prior to completion of the
Comprehensive Plan
PUDs (continued)
• Allows modification to zoning standards &
street standards (e.g. minimum lot area,
minimum frontage, street widths, curbs,
gutters and sidewalks)
• Density bonuses allowed for certain design
actions (e.g. common open space, integrated
parking and circulation)
• Minimum 1O% common open space
requirement
Pedestrian petivway on one side
of the pRaate street
i i� t %;-.1
I
rt6 •
Closed street pedant - no
possibility for future street
connection to lOn Avenue
Examples
All lots in tins
prefect exceed U -7
mielnnmax lot sixes —
PUD because of
— �I • Ir applicant's dee m
..
for prhate Street 8
no through street
tLL. I F
.
Closed street pattern - no
passibility for future of-sue street
c•nnestions
•
Per
UR•7 caning reradres�
6.000 square foot lot
size 'wYe PUD overlay.
Average lot she wfPUD
overlay is Just over
5,000 square foot
1 PrNate street systmn -5
100t wide pedestrian path
on 1 sid0 of roads
BUILDING SETBACKS
• Current building
setback requirements
- 'rural' vs. urban'
• Significant customer
and staff time spent
figuring out building
setback requirements
• Customer service
issue for planning 8
buildin• staff
rogtrreaen b
kt• 35 r�, : ' L a per vary -
?i Is tub
second scry?
55' rrom Ino rcwavoy
Centerline Or 25' trmt tie
trent 101 ine. vwhl01Ovrr
groat0^.rt - where O toe
respray ccntcrine2
AO' ' � ' , S Z Mrcaropa \
sirr
enre eis
pep•ny kro
nails airs the
ett.t
pommy
sir• no tauso if
two story - mr
eel have o 5'
awtmrk
on ere
side and • iv
.031.41 an tee
yaws? This Is
tale tb County
Rat •hw•p
•1•n 0.
Setbacks Modified (AE & AV)
• Although the language of tho ordinance
does not support the interpretation. County
requires the SYstcry ally on that portion of
the structure that Is two stories
• If sebacks are reduced by 10%, a 5' side
yard setback is reduced to 4'-6". if 25% it
nay ro reduced to 3'.9' O 35% to 3'.6'
• NOTE; oaks, cornices. Precipices etc„
may extend 2' litte the set back
• Field eridorcctncnl of vmiaWO setbacks Is a
probeem with volume censtnr tion
• elating Codes require a mininnim 3'-0'
separation
• A gat 5'-0 side end 20r25'front setback
from the aroaerty One is a stancard urban
set back BUT pro'.ision for 'Border
Easements' shculd be made if appropriate
5treet
PUDs (continued)
Policy Questions:
• Should City encourage PUDs that are unique and
create value to community beyond current
regulations?
• Do changes 10 the PUD regulations need to be
made now before the Comprehensive Plan effort
Is done to address development occurring now
under these regulations?
• If City Council directs changes should be made,
does the Council have any particular issues it
wants addressed?
Administrative Exceptions (AE)
& Variances (AV):
• Variances (Section 14.:04)� it n;.Gco and 1wtaring for
amendments because of specie orcumstances where tho strict
application 01 the code wottd'deprive the pcaperty et the rights and
pnvtie9ea acslhealim en oyed by Omer properties m 1l Nanny and sim3ar zone
el
• Section 34.506 tAdmin Exceadon) does riot rewire notice and
allows < to 10%. fE1LL
• Sect on 34.404. 090 (Adnlin Variance) - Val Dan of County Code -
passed by City Caunca as pert of eooptlon of Ordnance too. 53
aaowoupte2 %
• Spokane County used the'ex:euuan" description expressty to avoid
the linitaaons Imposed by 14.404
• RCWS require variances re,.lewed and approved bye hearings
body
AE & AV (continued)
• 2003 = 25 AE Applications & 17 AV Applicalions
• 2004 (So Far) = 5 AE Applications & 2 AV
Applications
• Fees = Adnenistral■ve Variance 53001
Administrative Exception = 50
Po•.cy Ouestlon: Did Council intend only to expand the
'exception' or to allow variances in addition to the exception? If
the tatter, are notice and hearing required. and can it be done
admtntstrallveIy?
2
ENFORCEMENT
• The current regulations do not make
provisions prohibiting the issuance of a
building permit unless or until public
improvements are made
• It the Building Official is to deny the
issuance of a permit, the regulations must
be specific
• Most jurisdictions require acceptance of
public improvements by the City prior to the
issuartice of a permit
Concurrency
• Required by GMA
• Adopted by the City as part of Phase
Development Regulations
• Facilities must be available (within 6 years)
and adequate to serve the development
without decreasing LOS below established
minima
• New development must be denied if
oonct'rrency requirement not met
3
r
Meeting Date: March 30, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business
❑ public hearing
information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Update on Comments concerning Economic Analysis Scope of
Work
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: NA
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council was briefed on the proposed Scope of
Work on March 23, 2004, with an update on March 30, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
City Council has directed staff to proceed with an Economic Analysis on the Sprague /Appleway
extension. A draft scope of work has been sent to the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce,
the Spokane Valley Business Association, Dr. Philip Rudy and Mr. Dick Behm, requesting
distribution to all interested persons, and soliciting suggestions and comments by April 5, 2004.
A similar request has been posted on the City's website.
Responses received to date include: 1) Traffic orientation (one - way /two -way) should be
included; 2) Businesses should be surveyed; 3) Day time traffic flows should be analyzed; and
4) Take as much time as is necessary to complete the analysis; and 5) Scope of the study
should be extended to cover a broader area.
Eastern Washington University and Professor Brad Sago at Whitworth College may have an
interest in working on the project. In the event that neither is able to undertake and complete
the project within the necessary time frame, a Request for Proposal will be issued to hire a
consultant.
OPTIONS: Not applicable.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Provide additional direction to staff concerning
proposed Scope of Work on April 6, 2004, if applicable.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Estimated cost $50,000.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Director of Community Development
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of April 1, 2004 4:00 p.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council &. Staff
From: City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
April 13, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date April 2J
Proclamation: May as Small Business Montle
Proclamation: National Youth Service Day
i. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Tabled item: 2' Reading Proposed Towing Ordinance [15 minutes]
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2004 Budget Amendment — Ken Thompson [ 10 minutes]
3. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sigmagc — Marina Sukup [30 minutes]
4. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance 40 & 41 - Tom Scholtens [5 minutes]
6. First Reading Proposed 2004 Budget Amendment Ordinance — Ken Thompson [5 minutes]
7. Proposed Resolution: Alcohol Use on Public Property — Mike Jackson [5 minutes]
8. Proposed Resolution Setting Public Hearing Date for Street Vacation 0204 — Kevin Snyder [5 minutes]
9. Proposed Resolution Adopting New Governance Manual — Mayor DeVleming [5 minutes]
10. Motion Consideration: Approval of Economic Analysis Scope &. Allowing Contract — Marina Sukup [5 min]
11. Motion Consideration: Approval of Towing Contract Form — Cary Driskell [ 10 minutes] •
12. Motion Consideration: Authorizing Increase in FTE —Nina Regor [10 minutes]
13. Motion Consideration: City to Sponsor Small Business Month [5 minutes]
13. Administrative Report:
a. Essential Public Facilities interlocal Agreement —Cary Driskell /Marina Sukup [10 minutes]
b. Spokane Regional Convention & Visitor's Bureau Report (coi?firred) [15 minutes]
[estimated meeting time: 135 minutes *]
April 14, 2004, 3:00 p.m. Conversation with the Community, Senior Center
April 20, 2004, State of the City Address, Decades, Noon
April 20. 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date April 91
April 27, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date April 16]
1. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
2. Second Reading Proposed 2004 Budget Amendment Ordinance — Ken Thompson [5 minutes]
3. First Reading Proposed Grading Ordinance —Tom Scholtens [15 minutes]
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Municipal Code — Chris Bainbridge [5 minutes)
5. Proposed Resolution Designating Change Order Authority — Cary Driskell/Neil Kersten [10 minutes]
6. Motion Consideration: Set Public Hearing for 5111/04 to Adopt Municipal Code — Chris Bainbridge [5 mins]
7. Weed and Seed Grant —Cal Walker [10 minutes]
8. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
a. Archery Regulations Report — Cary Driskell [15 minutes]
9. Information Only: [no public comment]
a. Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
c. Departmental Monthly Reports [estimated meeting time: 70 minutes* ]
Advance Agenda— Draft Rcviscd: 4/1 /2004 4:05 PM Page 1 of 3
May 4, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date April 23]
1. OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS: Couplet (45 minutes)
2. Consultant Presentation of Community Survey Results — Greg McCormick (15 minutes)
3. Business License Program Discussion — Ken Thompson (20 minutes)
4. CenterPlace Construction Status — Mike Jackson (10 minutes)
5. Managed Competition Discussion — Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes)
6. Precinct Lease Agreement Discussion — Cal Walker (15 minutes)
7. Adult Entertainment Hours of Operation — Cary Driskell (15 minutes)
8. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
9. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
10. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES: 150
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
May 11, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date April 30J
1. PUBLIC BEARING: Adoption of Municipal Code [10 minutes]
2. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Municipal Code — Chris Bainbridge [5 minutes]
4. Second Reading Proposed Grading Ordinance — Tom Scholtens [ 10 minutes]
5. Motion Consideration: CenterPlace Change Orders —Neil Kersten [10 minutes]
6. Library Advisory Committee Update — Nina Regor [ 10 minutes]
7. Proposed Resolution Aquifer Protection Area Program Reauthorization — Mike Jackson [5 minutes]
8. Administrative Report:
a. International Trade Alliance Presentation — Roberta Brooke [10 minutes]
(estimated meeting time: 65 minutes*]
May 18, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date May 7]
TENTATIVE: Media Relations Training
May 25, 2004 Regular Meeting 6 :00 p.m. [due date May 14]
1. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
2. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
a. Review of Contracts Inventory —Nina Regor [20 minutes]
3. Information Only: [no public comment]
a: Status of Previous Public Comments/Concerns
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
c. Departmental Monthly Reports [estimated meeting time: minutes* ]
June 1, 2004 Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date May 21]
1. Administrative Report Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance — Neil Kersten (15 minutes)
2. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
3. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
4. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES:
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
June 8, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. ]due date May 28]
June 15 —18, 2004 AWC Conference Ocean Shores (No Council Meeting June 15 2004)
Advance Agenda — Draft Revised: 4f1/20Q4 4 :05 PM Page 2 of 3
June 22, 2004 Re: ular Meeting 6:00 p.m.
Saturday, June 26, 2004 -Half Day Council Retreat
1. Update Five –Year Financial Forecast
2. Options for Closing Budget Gaps
June 29, 2004 Study Session 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda Additions – Mayor DeV Leming
2. Council Check in – Dave Mercier
3. City Manager Comments – Dave Mercier
July 6, 2004 Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date June 25]
July 13, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date July 2]
July 20. 2004 Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date July 9]
July 27, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date July 16]
OTHER PENDING A.ND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES:
09/21/04 Study Session: Overview of Draft Comprehensive Plan – Marina Sukup /Greg McCormick
Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -007 Stormwater – Stanley Schwartz (first reading 02- 24 -04)
Second Reading Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance 04 -012 – Stanley Schwartz (first reading 02- 24 -04)
First Reading Proposed Sewer Ordinance –Neil Kersten
MEETINGS TO BE SCHEDULED
3 open houses – wastewater issues
[• estimated meeting time does not include time for public comments]
[duc date June 11]
[duc date June 181
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES:
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
Advance Agenda — Draft Revised: 4/1/2004 4:05 PM Page 3 of 3