HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008, 04-29 Study Session
acENnA
CITY OF SPOKANE VAI,LEY
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET
S'I'UDY SE5SION
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:00 p.m.
CITY IiALL COUNCIL CTIAMBERS
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
(F'lcase Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting)
nISCUSSI0N LEADF.R SURJF.CT/ACTIVITY GOAL
1. Sean Lumsden (15 minutes) Auto RoNv/Spraguc Appleway Corridors Presentation/Discussion
2. Neil Kerstenlinga Note Accident Statistics Along Broadway Discussion/information
(15 minutes)
3. Neil Kersten/Inga Note Mirabeau Yarkway Speed I.imitsl'I ra(fic Discussion/information
( 15 minutes) Control Devices
4. Steve Worley (10 minutes) STA Cooperative 1=unding Project, Sprague Discussion:'Inf"ormation
and Bowdish
5. Mike Stone (15 minutes) Universal Park Contract, Architectural Services Discussion/Information
6. Dave Mereier (60 minutes) Transportation Financial SWO'1 rlnalVsis Discussiim;Tnformation
7. Mayor Munson Advance Agcnda Discussion.Intormation
8. Injormation Only.• (will not be discussed or reporled)
a. Greenacres Statistics
b. Cooperative Agreement for CDBG and Home Invesinrent Parlirer,shlp F'un&
c. List of Pending UDC Amendments
d. Recreation/Conservation (irant Resolution or Greenacres
9. Mayor Munson Council Check in Discussianllnformation
10. Dave Mercier C'ityManager CommcnLs I7ix;ussion/Information
ADJOURN
No1e: Unless otherwise noted abovc, there will be no public commcnts at Council Study Sessions. tlowever, Council always reservca the
right to reqnesi information from the public rnd sWRas appropriate. Uuring meetings held by lhc City of Spokane Vatley Coancil, thc Council
reserves the righl to telce "action" on eny item listed or subsequend}' added to the agenda. The term "aetion" meanc to deliberate, discuss, review,
consider, evalwue, or make a mllective positive or negative decision.
NOTICE Individuals planning te ettend the rteetdng who require special assismece to accumma3ate ph}sical, hearing, or other jmpair.nencc, please cont:kc the Cm
Clerk ot (4;00) 921_1000 as Sooa as Mssible 5o ihat arrangemrnts r.ia}l 6e macle
titud:i Seis:nn A.;cndz, April 2y, 2Ci78 Pac_ I of I
~TASHI.I.~TGT4DN ECONOMIC DEVE1:.Oi'1~~~NT
FlNANCE ATJTFIOR~~
~MIEDFA 1000 Secuird Aveiiue, Suite 2700 • Seattle, j-VA 981044046
~ (206) 587-5634 o FA.Y (206) 389-28.19
~ E-Mtcil: r1~eclfa@rvshfc.arg _
, Monday, Apri121, 2008
Mr: David Mcrcier
City TVlanager
City of Spakane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Avc., Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Re: Washington Econoulic Development Finance Authority (WEDFA) - Tax-Fxempt/Taxable
Economic Development Revcnue Bond 1'roo ams
$30,000,000 Waste ManabemenC, ]:nc. l'roject Dear Mr. Mercier:
Waste Management, Inc. is plaiming to purchase collection vehicles, containers and real estate to be used
as part of a solid waste facility at 11720 1`'r'lvenue East in Spokane Valley. T'hey intend to finance t}iis
project wid several ottie,rs [hraughnut the state tlu•ough ttie issuance af V1'E17FF1's tax-exempt nonrecourse
economic development revenue bonds.
It is the poliCy of the WEDFA board only to issue bonds in support of pmjects which would be welcomed
, by the local community. As part of the issumice process, t}ierc.Eore, we would lil:e the Spokacie Val.ley
City Council, as the jurisdiction witli planniriA authority over the project, to consider passage of a
"PIaIIIIllla Jurisdiction Approval kesolution", in fonn substanti2lly as attached, in behalf of the
Washington Economic 17eveloptnent I'inance Authority (WEDFA) to issue tax-c:cempt economic
develop►nent revcnue bonds to finance the project. .
We wish lo cmphasize that the only purpose of this resolution is to approve Waste Management's use of
WEDFA financing for this projeet. Tt claes not supplement or replaee any portion of the nonnal permitting
process. There is no liability ereated agunst the City of Spokane Valley, or any otlier political entity by
issuance ofNVEllFA's bonds.
We au-e planniilg to begin sale of the bonds in late May. It would greatly assist our tuning if the Spokane
Valley Ci[y Council could consider th.is approval at an carly meeting. I would appreciate it if you could
send me a copy of ttie approved resolution should the Council lcrok on our request favorably.
JOBS AND ECON4MIC .DEVEL OPMENT THRO UGH R,E VENUE B OND .FItVANCING
,c
. ~
Mr. David Mercier .
City Manager City of Spokane Valley Apri122, 2008 " Page two Please let me k.tiow how we can work together to facilitate this process. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to give me_a call. My telephone number is: (206) 587-5634. In my abscnce, you should a
also feel free to contact my assistant, Lura T-Iarrison, at (206) 254-5373.
I look foiward to Hrotking with you on this project.
Si_ncerely yours,
R.odney . e n d t
:
Executive Director
cc: D. LaPaul .
.
RCSOL;UTION NO. A RESOZ,UTZON OF .T.HE SPOK.AiNE VALLEY C1TY COUNCTL APl'Y20VllNG '!'IIE
AC'I'I0N OF THE STATE QF WASHIlNGTON ECONOVIIC 17EVELOPMEN'C FNANCE
AUTHpRITY AND THE ISSUANICE OF NON-RECOURSE RFVTNqJE B0NDS TO
FINTANCE AN ECONQMIC DEVELOpTvMNT FACILITY FOR NVASTE NJ.ANAGEMENT,
NC. ("the COMPANY"), ANI7 1'ROVTL7LVG FOR OTHER MATTER.S PROk'ER.LX
REL.A'TTNG THERETO.
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2008, the Washington Economic ]7evelopment I?inance
Authority ("WEDFA") had presented to it Resolution I`TO. W-2008-02 (tlie ".Resnlution"), a copy
of wluch is attached hereto as Fxhibit A, relaEing to the issuance of non-recotirse revenue bonds
wherein the proceeds of which woulcl be loaned to the Company for inter alia the purchase of
collection vehiclcs, containErs, and land withixi currently pennitteci acreage, located in the City of.
Spokane Valley at 11720 First Avenue East (the "Pzoject"), al] as authorized by the Economic
Developinent Finance Authority Act of 1989, R.C.W. Title 43, Chaptcr 163, as amendcd (the •
"Act"); and `VHEREAS; on January 29, 2008, WEDFA unauimously approved the Resolution; anci -
WI3ER.FA,S, it is the policy of the Washington Economic-Devclopment Finance Authority
not to issue revenue bonds cxccpt upon the approval of the county, city or town within whose planning jiu-isdiction the proposed iudustrial development facility lies; and WHEREAS, the Project lies withi.n the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County, Washi.ngton; , NOW, THERLFORE, IT IS HEREBY rOUND, DErE:f2M]NE17 ANI7 O]ZUEREI7 as
follows: '
Section 1: The Spokane Valley City Cvuiicil (the "Council"), pursuant to the request of the
Washington Economic Developmcnt Financc Authority, does hereby approve the issuance of
non-recourse revenue bonds (fhe "Bonds") by the Washington Economic Development Finance
Authority, for the putposes provided in the Act.
Section 2: The Bonds shall bc issucd in the aggregate principal sum of not to eYCeed
$30,000,000 piusuant to a Resolurion of `VEDFA. The proceeds of the Boncis a.re to be lent to
the Company, -pursuant to a loan agmcmcnt or other appropriate financing agreement, and used
for the pwpose of inter aliu constructinb and e,quipping the Project, including -the necessary
appurtenances, located within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley and to pay certain
costs of issuancc of the Bonds.
i . .
I ,
1
i
I
Si~ction 3; The Bonds sha1I not constitate an obligation o.f the State of Washington or of
the C.`ity of Spokane Valley, and no tax funds or re-venucs of the State of Washington or o£ the
City of $pokane Va]loy shall be used to gay the principal'or in#erest on the Bonds. Aleither the
faith and credit nor arEy taxing powe.r of the State of Washingtvn or of the City of Spokanc Va11ey .
sha11 be p1edged to pay the przrtcxpal ar interest on the Bonds,
, Section 4: 'Z`he Spokane Valley City Cauncil hereb}+ approves the issuauce of Bonds by
~ WET1FA for thc pwpose of financing the Project as descmibed heTeiz4 a qualified project under
' the, Act. However, snch approrral shall not waive a'my of the pcrmitting requirements
~ applicable #o this Project, nor in aQy- way zaodify the _City of Spnkane Valley's
governmental authority wi#h respect to the Project. .
Section 5; This Resolution is intended to const7tute apgxoval of khe issuance of revenue
bonds wiffiin the rneatvug of the palicy of thc Washington Ecanomic Development Finance .
Autharity. . .
Scction f; Upon passage and appr.oval of this Resolution, it shall take effect immediately, ~DAT,BD this day of , 2008.
_
A-YES; IVOES:
ASSENT:
SPOKANE VALLEY CI'TY COUNCII., .
, By_ .
Chair ATTEST:
Tktle: .
~
ALLyDA
Cl7'Y OF5('OKaNL•' V:1LI.f:I'
CIT1i' COCiN('[L WORk.51iEF..T
S7'CrDY SESSIUN
Tacsday. ,1pri1 29, 2008 b:QU P.M.
CITY 1iri1.L CniTNCIL ('HA.14BEl2S
11707 Fayt Sprafiue Avenue. First floor
(Ylrau Silcnce Yuur Crll Phun4N During thr Mecting,)
I)ISC[►StiIlIN I,FA-DF:R SL'li.lfA"1'lACI'IN"I'I'Y G()AL
l. Seun Qui►in l 1i minutes) :1uto Rw-v,'Sprnbu-. Appleway Corridars Pmcnwtiun'Discussion
? tiril Kersten/int;aN,,te -tc~iJent Stj►i,tics :11i ing I3roadr,•n% Dis;:ussioal tnfoi-mutirm
(I 5 minutesl
Nsil Kerb`ccNlnp Nute 4iirat►ceu FtuicN%ay Sperd 1 ITTIILSr"fraitic I.)Ik'ttS~tUfl~Itlft+Rli,lti~~t~
i 15 minutcs) Cpntrol Devict!~
•t titcve Wotlc}' (10 minutrs) STA Ccmpcrative Fu,idinz Pr..iczt, Spi-aguc Uiku~:~iu~trliilc~nnatic~+~
nnd Bowdish
~Stc~-c Wctirlrv (10 minut_•;) Mcmarnndutn ul Vndrrsiauding fur 240' Avenuc taisctis,iori'Intomnation
Krcnnsinx:tion E'rvjcct. Snnitary Sewrr Estrnsion
t;. h9i1.c Slonr 1 I~ niinutr~,l I'niversal F'arf: C'ontract. Architecturnl Servir« I)ii:1n'Ir~fisrinati, m
Mcr;,;Ic•r (nt) minute,i 1ha11sportntion Finuncial SNVC )T :\nnl}tiiti i)isc:l.~;~i~7n,'InfcTmu~tir~n
~ MAyor Munson Advance Agrncib nisciission/ln!'ormut1._~~1
o InrarMalivn Only_ (wiU no( be di5clr.5s<<I o,• repurrs:,i,
;,1. Greerrrxres Slruis[ics
h. C'UtyjJert7liti'e AgreCntt-u! /,)r ('1 )IH( ;,tp:l Name ln ve.sintci;! 1'ur;n, r;irip Fru:ch
C. L&Y ojPending C!Ch.' : tnn-nulmcnts
cl. Recrautiun`Cansewatiorr Circnit R2soluiicxr fw Gnenacrr.,
Ii) %i;syor titunson Cuunci[ Chccl► in UI5Cl15:;10T1 (f11itIT1iaT1oTl
H DiwC N"1C7L'ICf C It~ %d;i71i11!CI Co111111Cf11, 1)luu.~i~nilnlurn~sti„n
:V ).IOi`ELti
.1'uii: l ulms aliicrwise auled xDave, ihcrr NiN tre nu puhtic cummentr at ( auncil StuJy Svoimu. Hnwe%cr, l'ouncil alaays rswrvcs tMc
rkht ln rrqoru infnrmutlna frnm t6e paWlc aod staR as approprixia L)wintt tnecsin};+ hald b} the (::t7 af Syuiidne Vallcy Cauncil, the Cwnril
~es ttx riEW tn tnkr "acx:on" un aa)- ftrm listcd ur subseuuontlr &iJaJ to thE age»dn. Tho tmn °bctian" mesns ta defcbcr4rc. d'iww's. review.
Cocrsidcr, cvalimtz, Or mnke a cullerti.r pudilive or cwigntiva decesion.
Nt}TTCT. individuals pisru,uig ro atamA tAa naetml xbc mQurte spaid anfssame m soooentripdste phtswA1. r=cetuv_ ar atlrs vtquirmatsm pksee coew tho Clty
Cvk st S 509y')2 t.tOM rs socus ns pueeil,{r lo tlicf amn: nients mry L+e mndo
:t~!k~f7 ~~,__IU,L'4.4'yCII -"7. ~f_ii~S : ~ ~ _ 1 t• .
autoro~n~
MEN4BER
AL,~ T; ! I,:-,a-- E.R
Apri121, 2008
To: Spokane City Cuunsel
From: Spokane AutoRow Dcalers
Re: Sprague & Apple«ay ('orridors Subarea Plan
Spokane AutoRow dealcrs have reviewed the revitalization plan submitted by the
consultant team, and would like to reply.
First, the recommendaiions we support are:
1. Keeping AutoRow as a themed auto sales center (p.9. b).
2. Allowing civic and cultural facilities (p. 24, 2.2.2.2).
3. Allowing compatible medium box retail ( p. 24 "description).
4. Keeping AutoRow new caz focused (p.29, e, i, (1)
5. Encouraging auto themed restaurants (p.29, f, i, (1), (a) J.
6. Encouraging family entertainment (p.29, f, i. (2)).
7. Both vehicle display options (p.38, 12,13).
8. The Gaieway Commercial Sign (p. 93).
Next, the recommendations we don't support and would like changed are:
l. We do want hotels on AutoRow (p24, 2.2.2.4).
2. We do want non-themed, fiill service restaurants (p. 29, e, iii. 1.).
3. We do want boai, ATV, and motorcycles to be sold on AutoRow (:p.29, i).
4. V►-'e do want bars to be allowed on AutoRow (p.29, f, 2, b).
Finally, we have had discussions regarding an AutoRow overlay to the comprehensive
plan. If that is still an option, we would like to see the following in that proNision.
1. The city to mal:e provisions for manufacturets building and sign requirements.
2. 7emporary signs to be allowed for manufacturer requirements.
3. The light pole signs to be allowed under the sign code.
E.ach new caz dealer is beholden to the manufacturer they sen'e. Sign codes, and building
codes must allow the dealerships to be able to work for and wzth the companies they
represent. Please don't make the AutoRow dealers choose betwecn being fined bv thc
companies they are contracted to and the city in which they sell.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
rUTO OEALER PL^Eh98Er7
April 21, 2009
"I u: Spokane Cin Counsel
From: Spokane :'1utoRow nealers
Re: AutoRoxv ,appendix
Fun facts regarding AutoRow.
Did you know?
AutoRow dealers spend around 4 million per year adverlising the Spokane Valley. The-,
are also working on a partnership with local hotels and the Chamber of Comrnerce te, pay
tur hotcl rooms for peaple travclink itito 5pokaile Valley and buN ing a car.
AutoRo\\ dealers ernploN over 700 pruple. «'aurs titart frotli minimum \~alje lot hoN; up
to top salesmen making aver 1 UUk per year.
Every dealership generates taxes through the 5 businesses housed in each facilit\: nc%~
vehicles, used vehicles, parts, senice and financing.
Spokane Vallev', top sales tax ecnerator in 2-007 was :'lpplc~N aN l ovota.
ln 2 UU;. 4 of the ti,p 1;sales tax gciierating husine,ses ~kcrr :%utoKo,,N dealer,;.
Sale; tL\ n\ crtuc on one new car is cyual to tcn x ear, ofgas taxcs.
Car sales employment, offers equal oppartunity to all races, crceds and physical
limitations to earn over $100,000 per year.
AutoRow eapturing 15% of the de»nto,,vn dcalcrs' ne%j car marl.ct sharc. ~~ould create
cl~~sc to ' S5.(_l00.0(I0 in additic,n•.tl tax re',cnue.
Autohc>v, dealei-s arc alrcLid) ime•tinu ii1 Sl,rsruc hCLiutificatio».
Dishman Dodge spent 2.5 million on their new building.
Jazemko Nissan! Saab spent 2 million dollars in new buildings.
.Appleway is planning to spcnd 8- 13 million to build a new Toyota store and
remodel the Chevy and Mitsubishi store.
George Gee leavine to I_ibertv Lake cost Spokane Valley around $250,000 a vcar in
Iaxes.
AutoRow dealers are charged for point of purrhase signs and banners th3t they can't use
because of the sign code.
In 2003, Ford was going to give Gus Johnson a$50,000 sign for free. Ile couldn't accept
this because the sign code didn't allow for a second fi-ee standing business sign.
Sadly, all of Spokane Valley's porn outlets are also on AutoRow.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - - i -
- - ~
i
i
California Loves Dealerships
~
i Loca/ govemments woo auto retailers for tax revenues ,
F6_steve Finlay
ACRAtiiENTO, CA
- cJalifornians bve theiz I
c•ars, bu[ Glifornia dties I
kove their car deakiships.
'
1'he reuon: dealer-
shlps ase maiaa aaM
~ I of municipal revenues in
a sute whcre local governmencs can ]e"Y
their ov~-n sales tax with voter apvron'al. ' ' I
"We nced to let clrilers 1moH' m~ a
continuaus bass thnt they are laved and I
carai for,° says Nuui Kkin. carPo'rate I
ouurach maniger for the dry af San Jose's
ecanonuc devrJopment office. "We make ~
it clear thac w-e appreciate theiu bt~,"
cili{'arnii dcies once relied heavily on
property =Cs. Tha chmged in 1976, ~
when a refermdum capped ffiose levies•
T't]e bardCI1 Shlfted to SaiCS tdZeS, in
California has a s[az Caliixr~ •n~ne~ many cRies soeart,~`..~f z•1tr. .:~aionmerts.
common
ew-ide ules tax g;q e;gns hke mis ere "•u ~]d start a~lew ot rcq~es:s,'.a~g
taoe of 7.25°!0. Local suppkmentuY t'xM oe.s," she u7~ I
ran increase it w 8.7596. T'hat's why in '1'he dealrrshi ern ys 135 e, says-
Califcnnia items costing the same can cdlects )1000 to $1 million a yrar in Aloaig 1-80 in Fairfidd, CA- half+"'aY I
om sales [ax and v an anchwr scon tn an azra between Sacramesun and San Francicco, ts
car ry diStsent sales ta zes . dependiuB ru
at has declined and which Sacruz~ento aa aueo mall that stems froan a aucerced '
µ,h~e yau buy them. ch dty ef'Fo~c to sweesen iu ux cake
Cocnmuniries ln the srate loolc mame wants ta rer-i[alu,e. had a sanng inoeSest !n p~n-
md inore to sales taus to fill local cofTess. 7he dealership considtsed movin8 to a
s sell- new auzo mal! oucside the oounty, bin that cing cogc'-hez an auw mall." saYs Sean 1
I~c~equently. franchised deakrshiP inn. Fairfirld's comrnuniry dcvelop-
ing high-ticket iterns - more than 2_1 mul- f~!] Llurnigh. Sac~azi;ento nffered the $1 Qu
►ion new vrhides anmLdly "Deale~N make us a lat of r~wney, make
I ~al~ e~~ ~r
nes af fighting dcY ha11 in municipilities us happy end, Irankly, do a lot fnr the
Where dc"ersh'ps arr 'bou` az,""'`°rn"s
quali~y of-lifie 1n the cvmmunify"
a Plut~ium enriChmerit plan~ i
It's difkrr-rit in Califnrnia, wbcre laal ~ ~n ment dlrector.
governrneats Qo tc~ Qreat lenQths ~t miLlion to stay and significandy ~ Fairf'ield assembkd the parcel, starrin8
I and i~eep dealerships - such as pa~ng the Eacility. called fos I
~hem w stxY. 'The state legisliture crrer the y~ a t~23~~ ag ~ntes. SoQne re9den~s tn,c~j
Thc rnunry~ o( Sacramencn agreed to enacted laws that pROhibic kl g W~ ~ swicched to 3~
for dealcr- ~9
Pay $100,000 a ycar aver 10 years eo Mike mena frasn blacandy bactlinB
Daughe.rty Cbevrolet w suy pu4 says IrEs ships in what Yang calls "sales-tax wars auco maIl-
a colnmuni ts bued fr~oan "But ii u how vw raise saks ~aies,
Yang~ who was inwlved in the deal as an hOW'
aaamey an e~~isun dealership awdY fron Q°1~. ' Car sales ue the largest salcs
s~edalvin8 in land redevclop- enticing 8 ~rated
anahcr communiry. But a aty can waive 8e' forthedcy ofFurfirld
m~~' vtde incenaves to keep a deaf- Since the auco mall was ~trd
•,it gi~~es you an indication of how fe~s a~ PTO e the rst »~'s
impomrx the sales taz u to comsuuni• ership. w h ic h is w h a t S a c r a m e n zo ciid car sales have btcom ~'8
- - - - - - - - ••.~c,.,st ~;u_,
14 w,qaD•s oeaierausoe5•.
_ i
,
. ~
~
tax gene:ator for Lhe acy: vurpa`LnK Lax I
Irevenues fzom deputmenc storei I
The dry's new-vehicle stles tu rePenue
wrnt from $1.3 milliom in 1997 to $2 9 i
' milliom in 2006. ]t is prajected to rtach I
$4 milliaai in 2008 - 2256 of Fairfuld's
wtal saks-ux incame - as [he auto mall
cTands-
$tape,,j,de, Cabfo~s 1,b58 franc:Yisc-'.
desless oallect abwt $6 bdllioa in sales waes
Pa y,aT m amm chan $77 billion in rax-
able mles. woordin8 aD a California 1-40COr
Car L)ealers Asm eomarnic isnPaa lqx°TC.
D ~
Fairfield's assistance Coa the auto mall ealer
projccc cook various foc= right dawn to ' Ma
~~~~~z~y~ Yget
road ~n Magellus Road Thit faQSxd
~~~~~~t to --d S9ar paid to
be~g}J+ CT'CCt frCCM'i}' sk$ns saying CFh' offlcials NanCl lOein
"AuIO Mdll Pa[~"t~'." Qu1nI1 sa}s- wele:ome deslershlps to tMu cammuruties. a y P u~
~leven dale~sl~ips P~ ~ the fust Miisuhishi and Suzuki, is ao4uirin8 ~
p6yse, 'Phe o~pening of Fairfidd Fo~rd on a fcc anothe~' diealershiP as ~d repc~x s~on a F u11on Avc,
12-aae sioe in Mu~ch marbed the begin- buildin85 -~'`~8' ~ced mocd and ~nmsr+c u'o uJd tix ~ u re
ning aE a second phase, an old fire scatim - w e=cend ehe aum mzll verwd pia". ket S 1 m rl l i ~ n
tr°m cuuntY c011ers. dealerships are in [he wcxks, to [he northeasc-
~ a des-Beuz store to be run "Fairfidd is a good ~ m~ Y ~ af the b. I- r klcnr,
~ gmz U5A CEO Paul ncw deakrship beca~ ~ ics geognphic auco mall's M, . • w ~ z,,
by TLC17Cd MtlCtcies- kC1hOd bmveen Iyyp ITll]pT 2C5 D[2C5. san dealerships '~an• q ,y~", 3i~ ~t:~•ruwi
~a. S1n~.~..,i,.('.~
H1l1C3 1Ld ~115 90R IV~iI'k-
Francisco and Sacramenw,~ aumak s'ys'
Tt1C CJL m-~'_ v~,,,
••Wt dI'C tYC1LLd W~ MEIC'GdfS- ET0121 215C_ '~•e-►..,,'~k+! ~ r t,.~:,r.
dtikl S?~IH~ lIn~ i,~. Of Av, Benz to Falr6eld and antlcipaae a grea[ YS P~°' where in
{uture," s~~s Paul Halata. Fairfleld and half are ncw' R
~ yi~ of' Faiifuld also hu submitoed "Not amty does Fairf~ie]d hrn %i'~►'~
~ enrial. it hu a good pluinin$ and nu Fairficld ToY~ dauhle~S~ af[er
~{Q 1{~lity on a 3-arre spot Pa busi- relocaan t°
auto mall. rebcarin8 fr~ fwr miles ~~~t ~nt Lhac helps The crull's v~baluy locatiou almg
tfie
D~ [n gicyw, BunW~ says. ...I.he s~ Fairfleld
a~va~~. the freeway helps de~~ ~
Sim~~n BLnlak. own~s uf ~{dtn State has bccn ~mry hrlpfui" H~, Prie~ "And the [ax revemue
dudershipS geOm-am ceruidy hc'Ps `xue
a =,ng "InOmic base for Fairfield "
ln San Iose. 'we're blessed with two
auto raws w ere 2 oollecc
$1 I million to S 12 million a r~n sales
cazes ar cic}', srys Klcin-
Ten perc~t of 5an Jose's saia nxes
from new-car dealeis•
~hat s a bdg hdp, berause 'evu' though I
,.i : revemies are 80in8 vP. our msts are
gC,uig }►i~er;' R]ein says durin8 d P~~ discu.t°on ar n Glifornia New Motoff
Vehicle Bodrd rOUndtabe hem
- ~ ?anelisa also included Yang. Quinn and
!viichael Palombo, ernnomic manager fo:
• "i~ . r VdC1Y~it. iII0i~1CT dCliEf-{1'1CIldly QtY.
4 - ~ , ~J ~ , • To m~uam good rtlaia~s w-ith dealess.
San Jose aty affictals meet wich them seuii-
a: annually to see wbat problcsns we maY be
=S
thc naxt Ph= Mall_-
. - _ 4~ a, i i iaF . rn•s new ci°31r . - -
~ August 2D07
16 WARD'S Deejerf3usiness
p. . .
promote. and mointain
C„ ,
alut7o
iF lN' TUF Vil! ~ FV
• s O •
OPPORTUNITIES
W
Comentration: 18 bintide East Sprogm boks Hke a war tone. Leverage Ad Doftre
i
Central 0 minuta fmm mfflm Increase Market Shafe
Gpokon@=A M
2
OT Analysis SWO Analysle o' o • opo_
THREAlrB W N
•
_ t
nothing.
' dRiko
3
DRy~ F~r•.y o, • ' i p 11! o~~ #r ~ ~ 1 ~ ~k,~~ ~i ~
icd. . - t
• i
I
►,:r
' qF . '
~ i.
' 4. .
. . . .
'
-
'l
t'ir~ .
` +'r F op+i Auto`+I D "
ICT,
T~, ' - ~ ~r•~ ;
_
~o
i
. , ~ . _ , . .
Cmr
5
CENTER D • " • DISTRICT:
W(1= .1H- T-: , a. 11. 1. ~Mif A~t I~i~ll I~ ; . .
-
RISTAURANT :tOi
a autorovy
irar
,
O
WPikr,
~
i
6
Butoro N/ .
INLUL3bL
7
- :w . .
' ~ ,
/ .
e
=;.~'r`~;x,, ` ~
~~=~f
1 `L'.'r'~il'~ • ~ ~
4~~v ~
^ R
V
~ r
AutaRow DISTRICT:
Cl . ~
O .
_ A
0
J
RECRUIT . AutoRow . RECRUIT . AutoRow D .
~
,
10
RECRUIT . AutoRow t . AutoRaw DISTRICT
~ eutOr'oW
11
AutoRow's Recluest: A / ow Auto^ ow
Every dolor ktmted kft AutoRaw Batton line- Softom line.
lmrages: Solving our flnentlel problems ofmrt Either retail or property 1
(DN
12
iSPRArt JE !N THE VALLEY
1 :
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Dabe: April 29, 2008 CHy Manager Sign-off:
Item: CheCk ail that apply: ❑ consent I] oid business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ mformaGon ' admin_ report ❑ pendmg legislation
AGENOA ITEM TITLE: Accident Statlstlcs Broadway Avenue (3-lane Conversion Collision
Summary)
GOYERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Brosdway Avenue 3-lane conversion in
June 2006
BACKGROUND:
In the summer of 2006 the City converted Broadway Avenue between Pines Road (SR 27) and
Sullivan Road from 4-lanes to 3-lanes_ This report summarizes the changes in volumes and
collision rates as a result of the conversion.
The chart below shows the traffic volumes on this segment from 2001 to 2008. The yellow and
orange show tfie 41ane condition. The orange counts were taken while 1-90 was under
canstruction. The green counts were collected after the conversion of Broadway to 3-lanes.
The volumes taken in 2006 and later may be influenced by the completion of the I-90 widening
io Sullivan, which reduced the freeway travel times. School year counis taken during 2047 and
2008 may be lower due to tfis relocation of the 350 student Summit School from the oid Biake
Elementary building. The building currently houses the 130 stutlent Barker High School.
'I ❑ 7/30/2001
Broadway Volumes 07~16/2001
❑ 7l16J2001
14000 i : ❑ 4l29/2002
12000 , _ ' ■ 7/29/2003
! . ■ 7/29/2003
- - - ■ 8/31/2004
161
10000 `
! ■ 8/31 /2004
H- 8000 ■ 7/14/2004
Q 6000 _I D 4/19/2006
■ 10/11 /2006
4000 - ■ 11 /2/2006
2000 _ ■ 4/18/2007
~
■ 5124/2007
0 ■ 3/19/2008
Pines to SuIINan ■ 3/27/2008
■ 3/27/2008
The results of the collision analysis between the 4-lane and 3-lane striping are inconclusive.
There has been insuffcient time to generate statisticaHy signrf'icar►t results. Because of the
extremely high volumes using Broadway during the Sullivan Interchange closure, those three
weeks in July have been exduded from the analysis. The corridor had shown a consistent
accident reduction for most of the year. Through November 2007 the oollision rate was down by
17%. However, the winter weather contributed to several accidents in December and January,
so when analyzed through mid-April the monthly collision rate has decreased by only 5°r6.
4-lane 34ane
~ Total Collisions Analyzed 71 24 ~
Time Period ' Mar 2003 - May 2006 Feb 2007 - mid-April 2008
excludin 3 weeks in Jul
Avg Collisions / Month 1.82 1.73
- ,
Severity 66% PDO / 34% InJury ' 65°k PDO /35°i6 Injury
~
Snow/Slush/ice refated 2 collisions (3%) ' S collisions (23%)
Fixed Object - 1°r6 Fixed Object - 17%
Rear End - 17q6 Rear End - 25%
~ Angle - 23°,6 Angle - 21 %
Collision Types Driveway - 20°i6 Driveway - 8%
Bicycle -1 % Bicycfe - 8%
Left-tum - 30% Left-tum - 1396
Sideswipe - 6°,6 Sideswipe - 8% ~
Other - 3% Other - 0°!0
1 sleeping driver 1 heart attadc
Collision anomalies 1 tire blow out 1 passed out driver
2 bicycles an sidewalk
' SubJecl to change. AMssFng severity and road surtace data for 4 colfisions
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOT10N: Monitor collision history, type, and severity along 3-
lane section of Broadway Avenue for another year
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director, Inga Note, Traffic Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: None
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: Apnl 29, 2008 City Manager Sign-offi
ftem: Check all that appiy: ❑ consent ❑ o1d business ❑ rtew business ❑ publc hearing
❑ information Q admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Mirabeau Parkway Speed Limit
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: fV/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACT10N TAKEN: N/A
BACKGROUND: This memorandum discusses a proposal to implement a 25 mph speed limit
in the vicinity of the Mirabeau Park crosswalks.
Mirabeau Paricway currently has a 35 mph speed limit. The Centennial and Mirabeau Meadows
crosswalks are iikely the bus~est in the city, with over 50 pedestrians per hour / per crasswalk on
sunny fall aftemoons. Concems about pedestrian visibility and high speeds have been raised
by the Parks Department and Spokane Valley Police. A Universal Playground will be buitt this
summer adjacent to the Centennial Crosswalk
• ~ ~ ` ~~t~•, _
, ' , ~'h , a ► . !
; r . ~ ~ I ~ _ ~ • - '-yT', X*
. ~ + •
, ♦
- ~
T ` ~ ~
Mi;abeau Meadaws Crosswaix ~nx;.nj Centennial Crosswalk (sa;j:i",;
To address these c:flncems we propose to establish a 25 mph speed limit from appro)dmately
300 feet south of the Centennial crosswalk to 300 feet notth of the Mirabeau Meadows
crosswalk. This will create a speed zone of approximately 2000 feet in length The remainder
of Mirebeau Parkway will stay at 35 mph.
In addition, the Public Worics Department is worfcing on an applicaUion ior the WSDOT
Pedestrian and Bicyde Safety Grants 2008 Call for Projects. We are asking for funds to install
push-button actuated flashers for the crosswalks to improve awareness of pedestrians crossing
the raad. Applications are due in eariy May and funding reapients will not be announced until
2009.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOT10N: Staff wi11 prepare a resolution if requested
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS Soma speeo limrt signing would be changed through the
Gounty maintenance con4rad
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten. Public Works Direictar, Inga Note, Traffic Enginerr
ATTACHMENTS
1 None
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
~ .1
Meeting Date: April 29, 2008 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ~ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: STA Cooperatnre Funding Project - SpraguelBowdish Concrete
Intersection Project
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: -
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: June 26, 2007, Adoption of the 2008-2013 TIP; February
6, 2007, Informational Memo regarding SRTC 2007 Call for Projects - FTA Section 5307 Funding;
February 20, 2007, Study Session discussion of list of project applications for SRTC's 2007 Call for
Projects - FTA Section 5307 Funding; February 27, 2007, Council approval of project applications for
FTA Section 5307 Funding and authorization for Mayor to sign each application.
BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley submitted a funding application for the
SpraguelBowdish Concrete Intersection Project to SRTC back in March 2007. Funding was originally
planned to come from the Federal Transit Administration (FfA) Section 5307 funds. However,
funding for this project has been switched to, and approved by the Spokane Transit Authority (STA).
From results of traffic counts completed at this intersection, approximately 35,000 vehicles per day
travel through this roadway. The existing roadway is in poor condition. The majority of the pavement
~ distresses at this intersection occur on Sprague Avenue and this area exhibits rutting in the range of
1" to 1-1I2" in depth which poses a safety hazard to all vehicle traffic.
The intersection will be reconstructed with Portland Cement Concrete to ensure long term durability.
This project will also upgrade the sidewalk curb ramps to meet current ADA standards to provide safe
access for wheelchairs and visually-impaired pedestrians.
We have entered into the preliminary engineering/design phase of this project and anticipate
construction beginning in July 2008 and completion by September 2008.
Spokane Transit Authority requests that a Cooperative Funding Interlocal Agreement be executed for
this project. The agreement outlines the terms of receiving these grants funds. Attached is a copy of
this'agreement along with a copy of the Project Application.
OPTIONS: 1) Consensus to advance to the next regular Council meeting a motion to authorize the
City Manger to execute the STA Cooperative Grant Agreement, or 2) provide staff additional direckion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Authorize staff to advance to the neact regular Council
meeting, a motion to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the STA Cooperative Grant
Agreement for the SpraguelBowdish PCC Project. ,
BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: The project estimate at the time of grant application was
. $892,000, of which $709,100 would be reimbursed by STA. This estimate will be updated as design
of the project is completed. The 2008 Budget included this project in Fund 307, Capital Grants Fund.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
ATTACHMEPITS: Draft STA Cooperative Funding Interlocal Agreement
After Recording, please return document to
~ Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
C+ty of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99216 •
Cooperative Funding .tntertocaf Agreement -
1) Agency: Gt of S okane Valle
2) Contact Person: Steve M Worlev Senior Caqital Prolects Enqineer
3) Telephone: 509-921-1000
4) Fax: 509-921-1008
5) Address: 11707 E SDraque Avenue. #106
Spokane ValleY WA 99206
6) Project Description: S ra ue & Bowdish Intersection - Intersection to be reconstructed with
Portland Cement Concrete_
7) Project Gosts:
PE: $90.172
RW: $ 0
CE: $ 90.400
Construction S711,428
Total Cost: $892 99.~ '
8) Project Revenues by Source:
STA Cofl erative Grant $ 709,100
Sqokane Vallev S182"-9m .
TOTAL REVEIdUE:`~$.~2 OQR
'
~ ~1
Page 2 of 2
. 9) Project Construction Year: 2008
10) Fund Demand: Anticipa#ed date(s) of reimbursement:.
Request: October 2008 Amount $ 709,100
$
STA will pay after tfie work has been completed and certified by the respective agency's engineer.
Billing should be limited to a single reimbursement request or $709,100 (total award) or may be
requested for completion of each phase.
This agreement is entered into this day of , 2008
between Spokane Transit (S7A) and the Citv of Sqokane Vallev in an amount not to exceed S 709.100 or.
80 percent of the project total, whichever is less. The Ci of Spokane Vallev agrees to follovw all local,
state and federal requirements for the project and certify same to STA upon project closeout. All projects are subject to prior STA approval of final design and location. .
By: BY:
Name:
Susan Meyer, Chisf Executive Officer David Mercier
Agency_ Citv of Spokane Valley
Date:
Its: City Manager
Date:
.
~
i
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
~J Request for Council Action
Meeting Dabe: April 29, 2008 ' City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ informabon 0 admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 20 Avenue Reconstruction Project - MOU for Sanitary Sewer
Extension
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: June 26, 2007, Adopted the 2008-20013 Six Year
TIP which included funding for Street Preservation Projects; March 25, 2008, Council review of
Draft Amended 2008 TIP; April 15, 2008, Informational Memo regarding proposed 24'h Avenue
detour route; April 22, 2008, Public Hearing on Proposed Amended 2008 TIP which included the
24'" Avenue Reconstruction Projec# BACKGROUND: The City plans to reconstruct 24h Avenue between Sullivan Road and 22nd
~ Avenue this summer.
Rem-Rock Corporation owns a parcel of land adjoining fhe south side of 24th Avenue aetween
Sonora Drive and 23rd Avenue Court. This land will eventually be developed into the proposed
Timber Lane Terrace Subdivision. Several lots within the proposed subdivision require
construction of 315 linear feet of sanitary sewer within 24th Avenue ROW. See attached map.
It is mutually advantageous for the City and Rem-Rock Corporation to include the construction
of the sanitary sewer line for the Timber Lane Terrace lots within the 24th Avenue
Reconstruction project. Rem-Rock Corporation avoids the cost of road reconstruction and the
. City avoids damage to the newly constructed roadway if #he sewer was constructed at a later
date.
The attached MOU has been prepared for the developer to rzimburse the City for the estimated
$24,288.00 cost associated with the sewer line construction.
OPTIONS: 1) Consensus to move ahead with the approval of the MOU with REM-Rock
Corporation for the reimbursement of costs associated with the extension of a sanitary sewer
line in association with the City's 24Eh Avenue Reconstruction Project, or 2) Provide additional
direction to staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to place on the May 13, 2008
Consent Agenda the approval of the MOU with Rem-Rock Corporation for the reimbursement of
~ costs related to the extension of a sanitary sewer line in association with the City's 24'" Avenue
'I Reconstnaction Project
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There wiil be no cost impact to the 24'h Avenue
Reconstruction Project with the execution of this MOU. If the MOU is not executed, the sanitary
sewer extension will be deleted from the 24t' Avenue project.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. VWorley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Map
,
.
~ MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
AND Rem-Rock Cotporation
FOR THE DESIGN, BIDDING & CONSTRUCTION OF THE
24'' AVENUE SEWER MAIN
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 24T" AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
WHEREAS, as a part of its Transportation IM rovement Program, the CITY OF SPOKANE
VALLEY (the CITY) intends to construct the 24 Avenue Reconstruction Project ~the ROAD
PROJECT). The work includes the full-width, curb to curb, reconstruction of 24 " Avenue,
between Sullivan Road and 22"d Avenue; and
WHEREAS, as a part of its development of the proposed Timber Lane Terrace, Rem-Rock Corporation, P.O. Box 989, City of Spokane Valley, WA 99037 (the DEVELOPER), intends to
construct a project known as the 24'" Avenue Sewer Main Project, and a segment of that sewer
project, hereinafter referred to as the SEWER PROJECT, is located within the limits of the
ROAD PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, the CITY and DEVELOPER agree that the installation of the SEWER
PROJECT in conjunction with the ROAD PROJECT would benefit the ratepayers, taxpayers
O and the traveling public;
NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY and the DEVELOPER do hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 - JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES
Plans and specifiicafions for the ROAD PROJECT will be prepared by the CITY, and the CITY
intends to construct the ROAD PROJECT in 2008. DEVELOPER will prepare plans, stamped
by a Civil Engineer licensed in.the State of Washington, for the SEWER PROJECT, together with technical specifications and an associated schedule of bid items. The CITY will include
those plans, technical specifications, and the associated bid schedule with the bid documents
for the ROAD PROJECT. The pians and specifications for both the ROAD PROJECT and the
SEWER PROJECT shall be based on the 2008 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and
Municipal Construction as published by the Washington State Department of Transportation.
The CITY and DEVELOPER agree to accept the lowest responsible bidder for the combined
project. A bidder may be disqual'rfied only in accordanoe with the attached American Public
Works Association General Special Provision (APWA GSP) Section 1-02.14 supplementing the
WSDOT Standard Specifications. The costs in the bid shall be allocated between the ROAD
PROJECT and SEWER PROJECT with the City paying for the ROAD PROJECT and the
DEVELOPER paying for the SEWER PROJECT.
,
Memorandum of Understanding, Rem-Rock Corporation Page 1 of 4
AR71CLE 2 - RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE C4TY
'4
1. The ClTY, upon awarding a con#ract for the RDAD PROJECT and the SEUVER PROJECT, -
shall have full control over the resultant construction contrac# and sha11 be tfne admjnistratar #or
the combined project,
2, The CITY shaH be responsible for all aspects of the design, construction, and construction
management relative to the RDAD PRO.3ECT, incGuding, but not limited to, removal and
replacernent of asphalt and road base down to subgrade within the 24 Avenue Reconsteuctron
Projec# construction fimits, The CIlY will be responsible for cornpaction testing of the suhgrade
and asphalt replacement within the boundaries of the ROAD PROJECT.
3. The CITY shall rnake payments to the contrac#or in accordance wi#h the contract terms, in oeder that worlc will proceed according to schedule,
ARTICLE 3 - RESPONSIBILITIES OF the DEVELOPEFt
1: The plans and specifications for the canstructton of the SEWER PROJECT wili be prepared
by the DE1fELOPER ir~ a=ordance with the current Spokane County Sewer design Standards_
7he DE1fELOPER +n+ill obtain County approval of the plans and specifications by Aprt1 1, 2008.
The DE1lELQPER will coordinate plan development vvath the CiTY and wi#h lfera Vlfater and
Power and take reasonable rneasures to ensure that the SEVVER PROJECT p1ans are
cornpat! ble with the scope af work contemplated under the ROAD PROJECT,
2_ The DE1fELOPER shall designate a responsible person who shall represent the
DE1fELOPER's interest during the canstruction of the SEVVEft PROJECT, and shaH cOordinate
any modffi cat'tons or crianges needed by the DEVELO PE R in canjun otion with the work,
3. The DEIIELOPEF2 shall be responsible for the inspection and #esting of all work and
materiaks which are solely related to #he construction of the SE1NER PROJECT, including
compaction testing and soils testipg within tne SEWER PROJEGT trench area below the final
subgrade eleva#ion of #he reconstructed 24" Avenue_ The DEVEl.OPER shall provide a
represen#ative to perform inspection du#ies relative to the constructian of the SEWER PROJECT
that meets tE~e approva€ of Spokana Coun#y, The DE1IELOPER's represet~tative shaH provide
tabuRations~of pay quaritities #o the CITY upon 48 hours notice to facilitate the preparation af pay
estimates by the CIIY.
4_ Any rnodifir:ations or changes #o the SEWER PROJECT shall be caordina#ed by #he
DE1lELOPE R and shall be coordinated with and approved by the C ITY prEOr to implementation.
ARTICLE 4 - ALLOCATION OF COSTS
1. This Memarandum af Unders#anding, onoe fu11y executed, shall establish a carnmitrnent b}r
the DEVELOPER to reirnburse #he CITY for all constructian costs assocrated with #he SEVVER
PROJECT. AH addi#ional costs associa#ed wi#h the DEVELOPER's change orders for #he
S EVVER PROJECT shall be the responsibifity of the DEVELOPER.
-
. ,
Memorandum of Understanding, Rern-Rock CorporatiiDn Page 2 of 4
2. Payment by the DEVELOPER shall be in the following manner.
~ A. The Totai Project Cost of the SEWER PROJECT will be estimated by the
Developer's engineer in an Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost, broken out by bid
item, including applicable state sales tax, and a 15% contingency. The DEVELOPER
will provide cash, a letter of credit, savings assignment, set-aside letter, or other
appropriate financial instrument to the CITY, with a signed copy of this Memorandum,
giving the CITY a unilateral right to access funds up to the "Total Project Cost" amount,
from a financial institution. The SEWER PROJECT will not be included in the ROAD
PROJECT bid documents unless this signed MOU and a financial instrument are both
received one week prior to the date of advertisement currently scheduled for Thursday,
April 10, 2008.
B. The CITY and the DEVELOPER recognize that the estimated Total Project Cost for
the SEWER PROJECT is for planning purposes, and that the final cost will be based
upon final quantities, awarded unit bid item prices, and associated change orders.
C. The CITY shall prepare monthly pay estimates for the SEWER PROJECT based
upon the tabulations of pay quantities provided by the DEVELOPER. The DEVELOPER
shall have one working day to review each pay estimate prior to the City presenting the
estimate to the Contractor for final payment. If review comments are not received by the
CITY from the DEVELOPER's designated representative within one wortcing day, the
CITY wrill proceed with payment of the pay estimate to the Contractor.
~ D. Upon completion of the ROAD PROJECT, the CITY will tabulate all Final Cost
associated with the SEWER PROJECT. This Final Cost will be compared to the
estimated Total Project Cost described in Section 2.A. above. If the Final Cost exceeds
the estirnated Total Project Cost, the DEVELOPER agrees to pay the CITY the
difference within 30 days. If the Final Cost is less than the estimated Total Project Cost,
the CITY agrees to either reimburse the DEVELOPER the difference (if the
DEVELOPER paid cash) or the CITY agrees to request from the letter of credit, savings
assignment, set-aside letter, or other appropriate financial instrument only the Final Cost
of the SEWER PROJECT.
ARTICLE 5 - DURATION
The agreement shall terminate upon the completion of the construction project provided for
hereunder and completion of payments under the prevailing wage laws, pravided that any
warranties from the contractor to the CITY or the DEVELOPER shall continue in full force and
effect. ARTICLE 6 - APPROVAL
This Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the City of Spokane Valley City
Council on , 2008 and by the DEVELOPER on
, 2008.
l\ ~
IUlemorandum of Understanding, Rem-Rock Corporation Page 3 of 4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: • -
'i
gy: Date:
David Mercier
City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ' gy. ' Date:
Office of the City Attorney
DEVELOPER:
gy: Date:
James R. Fox, President
Rem-Rock Corporation
~ .
.
Memorandum of Understanding, Rem-Rock Corporation Page 4 of 4
r . . .
, .
2 OTH
L I
T ~
ND 22
O C'
Rl~ 2 0 ~i 7
. ~
SEWER
EXTENSION
315 L.F.
~ PROJECT
t" z q LIMITS
:127TO
REM-R4CK CORP. SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTIDN Spoane
e
24T CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ~
I- A~VE RE
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 29, 2008 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business (9 new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Children's Universal Park (CIP #0086) - Draft Design Proposal
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: February 26, 2008, Memorandum to Council on
Children's Universal Park - Consultant Selection.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with Council's direction to proceed with the development of
the Children's Universal Park staff issued a Request for Proposals on November 28, 2007.
Four proposals were received from the following consultant teams:
1. David Evans & Associates, Spokane, WA
~ 2. EcoPlan and Design Concspts, Wenatchee, WA/Lafayette, CO
3. Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG), Portland, OR
4. Sherry Pratt Van Voorhis, Spokane, WA
Interviews were held and staff identified the EcoPlan and Design Concepts team as the most
highly qualified firm for this project.
Upon completion of reference checks, staff worked with EcoPlan and Design Concepts on the
development of the attached draft scope of work and fee.
Staff would like to review this proposal with Council. Staff will then incorporate any comments
received and bring back for approval the final contract.
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to move item forward to regular
Council meeting for motion consideration.
BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: The proposal from the Eco Plan/Design Concepts team is
for $131,460. The Parks Capital Projects Fund (Fund 309) in the 2008 budget includes
$1,000,000 of which $800,000 is from a Washington Legislative Direct Appropriafion.
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director
\ . .
ATTACHMENTS: Revised Draft Proposal from Design Concepts
DESTGN C O_N C E.P T S
- _ ' Cemwnnity saA 4andscapr Ar~hitr?i~
• ' s ,
April 14, 2008 (revised)
3, .
, , . ; Steve M. Worley, P.E.
• . . Senior Engineer - Capital Improvement Program
I'ublic VJorks 11707 East Sprague Avenue
Suite 106
- - - Spokane Valley, `Vashington, 99206
211 Nonn Pubuc Rd. Re: Children's Universal Park at AZirabcau Point Park
sune zvo
Lalayane, CO 60026 tel. 303.654.5301
Dear Steve:
tax 303.664.5313 We are pleased to subrnit our proposal for Landscape A.rchitectwal services for
conceptual design through constructiori document services for the Children's
Universal Park in Spokane Valley.
Ow design team for this project will include Thom Vetter, Principal-ui-Charge
EcoPlan Design, Carol Henry; Project Principal and Trish Kurnilc, Project
Manager, Design Concepts.
~
Other Consultants on tlus project include r!Iichael Hansen; Physic.al Therapist
Biosports. Additional consultants will be detailed for your review and approval
with our fee proposal.
Basic Services
We will provide the follo«ring services:
Task 1: Froiect Kick-Off and Information Cathcring
• Kick-off Meetiog N,.rith City staff - Scope and budget discussion,
prelimuiary scheduling, identify agencies and stalceholders involved as
listed in the RFF, and others. Diseuss developing final purposc and mission
statement for Cluldren's Universal Park. .
• L7ata Collection - Obtaui and revietv the mate.rials available, as outlined in
the RFP including thc previous Design Development document.
Determine need for additional information.
• Site Visit - Inventpry; analysis, photos, and documcntation.
• Frogress Updates with Client - As needcd, via phonc; cmail; faa
~EcoPlan/Dcsign Concepts' team coordination meetuigs aud
correspondence.
~
~ .
i
1~.._ Produc.ts:
o Base map o Site analysis
o Meeting notes
o Survey '
Task 2: Existing Dcsign Development Review and Evaluation
• Review Design Development Plan per current necds and standards.
• Re-evaluate plan bascd upon current pazk conditions and input from staff and stakeholders.
Products:
o Brief written Dll review and analysis
Task 3: Stakehnlder's Meeting #1
• Facilitate Stakeholders Meeting #1 Nvith identified stakeholder's group (parks and recreation
staff, mauitenance staff, Guild School; local school districts, Shruier's Hospital, Harvard Park
Children's Center; sports medicine groups, Ronald McDonald House Charities, Setuor
Center/CenterPlace, YMCA, Children's Home Society, St. Luke's; Eastern Washington Center
for Taeaf and Hard of Hcaring, Greg Bever and Diana «ilhite). The goal of this meeting is to
inform, listen and generatc input, and to create an widerstanding of the stakeholder's physical
and program nesds. Thcre may be a series of ineetulgs Nvith interested groups over a 2-day
period.
• Design team vvill assist v-i developing invitations to thc meetings. City to provide addresses and
mail flyers.
• Iinage boards will be used to achieve a better understanding of the groups' preferences.
Products:
o Ivleeting invitations o Image boards
o Park site plan, existing conditions only
o Meeting notes
Task 4: Stakeholder's Meetinp, 42
•Facilitate Stal:eholders Meeting 92 with identified stakeholder's group (as iridicated in Task 3).
. Prepare 3 bubble diagram layauts of the three potcntial sites (if City and desigii team agree that
a113 aze viable).
• Review concepts with stakeholders to obtain comments on locations and rough layouts.
Products:
0 3 bubUle diagrams
o Park sitc plan witll site analysis
o Meeting notes Task 5: Concept Plans
• Prepare 3 conceptual design altErnatives based on uiput from Tasks 2 thru 4. The plans will
incorporate the identified project goals and program elements with graphic presentation
drawings to support the plans aiid project vision.
• Concepts to include imagery boards showing materials and elements to begin defuung park
character and theming. ;
• Prcpare prelinunary cost estimates for each plan.
• Review meeting with City staff to discuss designs.
~ Projress Updates with Client - As needed, via phone, email, fax.
•.EcoPlanlDesiga Concepts' team coordination meetings and correspondence.
• Investigate criteria for potential awards for inclusion in design decisions. Products:
0 3 preliminary plans sent in time for inserting into Council informalion packet .
0 3 cost estimates
o Meeti.ng notes '
o List of potEUtial awards e•riteria
'I'ask 6: Public MeetinQ 41
• Facilitate Public Meeting 41 ,Arith stal:eholder's group and general public. The goal of this
meeting is to inform, listen and eeaeratE input, and to creatc consensus towards a final plan.
The public meeting will be open house format A7th the following items presented and
discussed:
o Present previous plan and sketches.
o Issues, opportunities and constraints for development of the park.
• Present 3 preliminary design alternatives to the stakeholders, general public and special ulterest
groups. 'f'he purpose is to gather comments on the plans "rith the ultimate goal of creating one
acceptable plan.
• Present imagery boards to furtlier define Children's Universal Fark chazacter and theming.
• Present preluninary plaiLS to City Council, along ~-sith previous public input.
~ • Arogress Updates A7kh Client - As needed, via phone, email, fax.
• EcoFlan/Design Concepts' ceam coordination meetuies and correspondence.
Products
o Public meetino displays - plans and image boards
o Comment form tor public
o Meeting notes
Tack 7• Final Design Aevelonmcnt Plan and Presentations
• Based upon the preferred and approved concept, one final plan vvill be prepared and rendered.
Also included will be presentat.ion-level graphics with sketches, perspectives; elevations,
visionuig imagery and preliminary details.
• Prepare final cost estiuiate Nvith pbasing recommendations; if necessary.
• Present plan to City Council.
• Progress iJpdates with Client - As neetled, via phone, email, fax.
•EcoF1an/Design Concepts' team coordination meetings and correspondence.
Products:
o Final Design Development Plan
o PrEliminary details
o Presentation graphics
~ ~ o Cost estimate Task 8: Construction Documents
• Prepare two submittals (50% and 95%) construction documents bascd on input from approved -
Design Developmcnt plan. The plan Aill incorporate the identified project goals and program
elements with graphic presentation dravvuigs to suppori the plans and project vision. - ~
• Submittals will be prepared adhcring to City standards.
• Obtau-i Front Fnd Documents from City for inclusion in submittals.
• Update cost estimate.
• Revicw meetuig with City si.aFf to discuss each submittaL
• Progress Updates with Client - As needed, via phone, email, fax.
• llesign Concepts' team coordination meetings and correspondence.
Products:
oExisting Conditions and Demolition Plan
o Site Plan
o Grading and Drainage Plan
a Layout Plan
o Plan Enlargements
o Site Details
o Landscape Plan .
0 lrrigation Plan
o Irrigation Details o Product List and Cut Sheets
o Specifications .
o Updated Cost Estimate t
o Meeting notes ~
o Hard copies (4 half size scts) of above documents
Task 9: Final Bid Package
• Prepare / Revise Final Bid DocumEnts per City cominents from 95% sei. Set to includc plans
listed above, and including:
- Update Final Cost Estimate
- Frepare Technical Specifications, inciuding Bid Form
• Subnut to Ciiy for rcproduction and disti-ibution to contractors. Praducts:
c Sce Task 8 above
o ElectroTUC copy of bid set
Task 10: BiddinF,
• Attend Pre-Bid Mccting.
• Address Contractor's questions.
• Prepare Addenda., as needed.
• Evaluate bid results.
Products:
o Adcienda ~
o Bid tabulation form
o Pre-bid meeting minutes
'1'ask 11: Construction AdministraHon
• Attend construction observation mcetings as requested by Cit}, (8 are included in proposal,
additional meetings will bc providcd at our normal hourly rates) witih follow-up documentation.
City staff- to provide day-to-day observation.
• Review subrnittals, shop drawings and R.F1s.
• Review, contractor's requests for payments.
• Attend walk-through and generate Punch L•ist items.
Subconsultants
Civil Engineering will be pro-Oded by Torrence Engineering, 5930 Sunburst Lane, Suite B
Cashmere; WA 98815. Fees will include grading review of plaiis by EcoPlanlDesign Concepts, utilit}=
connections for restroom and drainage report.
Electrical Engineering will be provided by Z Engineering, One Sth Street, Suite 310, Wenatchee, VVA
98801. Services will include desi;n for site lighting (parking and pedestrian) and running service tp
the restroom. •
St'ructural Engineering vvill be provided by Pacific Engineerine, 200 South Columbia Strcet; Suite
300, Wenatchee, Wf198801. Services Nuill include structural engineering for retaining walls,
specialized design features and structure footuigs. They Nvill provide 4 site visits to inspect the work.
Any additional site visits will be billEd at $935.00 pe.r trip.
Survcyiog vvill be pro~~ided b}~ I~jW Geodi.mensions, 15 North Chelan StreEt, ~Venatchee, WA 9$801.
Survey vvill include selected area for Children's Universal Park and connection path from Mirabeau
Springs to Alirabeau Meadows.
Therapeutic Consulting will be provided by Biosports, 18 North Worthen Street, Wenatchee, WA
95801. Biosporis will provide eaperfi5c in providing the most effective therapeutic exercise
opportunicies possible lo our custom play opportunities.
Climbing walt design Nvill be provided by Monolitluc Sculptures, Ine. The Boulder-based company
will design a custom climbing wall for the project. They lArill also install the wall for an additional
lump sum fee. If the design team deternvnes that there will not be a clunbuig wall, this fee may be
ontitted.
:Fees• .
EcoYlan Design and llesign Concepts
Preliminary laesign and Public vteetings S 23;430.00
Coiistruction Doctunents $38,935.00
Bidding $ 2,840.00 -
Construction Observation $ 16,370.00
~ Reimbursable Expenses - $ 9,500.00
Total EcoPlan Desi ;n and Design Concepts $91,075.00
Subconsultants
Civil Enguleering s 10,000.00 '
Structural Engineering $ 8;740.00 ~
Electrical Lngineering $ 5,000.00
Biosports s 900.00 .
Surveying (Playground Site) $ 6.830.00
Surveying (Meadows Trail Connection) $ 3,775.00
Monolithic Sculptures, Inc. S 5,140.00
Total Subconsultant Fees $40,385.00
Total All Fees 5131,460.00 EcoPlan T)esign and Design Concepts will Provide substantial support as site plan,ners aild Laudscapc
Architects for this site. Wc are expericnced educational and municipal facility designers with a
successful record of consensus building. We loak fonvard to being a part of this project.
Sincerely,
Thomas D. Vetter, RLA , Carol Henry,
Founding Frincipal Principal
, EcoPlan llesign Design Concepts
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 29, 2008 . City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information (D admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Transportation Financial SWOT Analysis
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
- BACKGROUND: City Manager Mercier will lead the Transportation Financial SWOT- '
analysis/discussion
~
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGETlFINANCIAL IMPACTS: - STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
~ ~i
7une 13, 2007 ~
~
IT t
' i ~ I•, -1i `'7
- -
, . _ -
=F:.IaAh! CGUN7r ;=ZIJ41r1QU.`,E
Spokane County
2007 Pavement Management Plan
Executive Summary
Spokane County is at a crucial point in determining tr►e direction for improving, maintaining and
preserving our roads into the future. Lack of adequat2 fUnding, increased traffic, increased
weight of vehides and aging of our roads have begun to degrade certain aspects af our road
network requfring new measures in order to keep our sys#em in a servfceable concfition for the
tax payers of Spokane County.
30% of the urban major ar[erials and 33 96 of the urban residential roads are in need of serlous
repairs. Significant portions of the rural arterial system are no longer capable of sh-ucturally
handling the increased traffic and addltional truck weights.
Rural development has degraded the safety and quality of life for taxpayers Ifving on gravel
roads. Widi tfie inrnease of degradatlon af our road systern comes additJonal mafntenance
costs, the need for more man hours and a backlog of deferred maintenance and presenration.
With the programs Ilsted in this document, Spokane County wiil be able to achleve a road
sysbem that addresses the needs of tfie dtizens. Additlonal ded(cated funds for the programs
needed bo improve and preserve aur road system is approximately $7,500,000 per year.
Adding dedfcabed funds foc- the pavement mairrtenance and preservation plan aliows Spokane
County to free up grant funding for reconstructing or adding capadty to our road sysbem.
Included in tfiis document Is a process for paving grav2l roads as a jo(nt devefoper, RID and
Spokane County program.
1
Introduction:
Spokane County's roadway system has been evaluated to deteRnine an optlmal pavement
maintenance and pre.senration program based on a detailed pavement dlstress survey and input
parameters provfded by the Spokane County Pavement Management Department. With the
increased weight of trucks, increased amount of traffic, increased consbvctlon costs, lack of
construction funds and public perception, managing and maintaining our mad system is
becomfng extremely diffitult. We can however, overcome these obsbcles with programs that
address all of our rehabilitation and preservation needs into tfie future. Not addressing these
needs now will result in our road system degrading over time to a point of no retum and
increasing costs to the taxpayer In tfie future.
The primary objecdve of th(s report is to present a comprehensive long-term maintenance and
preservatlon p(an for maintaining and preserving our pavements and show the need for
dedicated funds for specific programs tD accompllsh this.
The majority of Spokane County's rural arterial network was buift as farm to markel roads with
no pavement design or construttton practices. These roads have sucoessfully moved our trafflc
for years. However due to Increased traftic, heavier vehicle loads and aged paved raads tfiey
have become structurally inadequate over time. In addition, the width of the roadways have
narrowed due to edge break up or the road was bullt too narrow. Of these roads, 8496 are in
"good to excellent" visual condition. This is mainly due bo an extensive chip seal program that
hides many of the structural and vtsual defidendes. Because af inadequate structure and othpr
defects, maintaining a good condition of these roads has beoome Increasingly difficuft and
costly over the years. By Improving the structure on these roads, we would decrease the
frequent need for repairs, uttimately saving tax doilars over time. Safety is becoming more of an
issue due to pavement damages and loss of road width that is occumng. Spring weight
restricdons are imposed yeariy on the.se roads and the resMctlons are lastJng longer every year
cutting into the ability for commerce to move safely and productivety over county roads.
6y improving the structure of the ►-oads, we would create all season roads and road structures
that are able to be maintained at a lesser cost to the taxpayer. We have identified 107 miles of
roads In need for tfifs wortc tfirough 2017. Future strucrtural testing will determine addidonal
work needed on other roads.
Of 143 mlles of Urban ArUerials, 20% are In "poor to failed" cQndition. With an arterial
preservatlon program, we would repair the worst roads with structural overlays and preserve
1he better roads with tliin overlays and surFace treatments. Defemng tfiis prograni will resulc in
additional miles falling into t#iIs category.
Our abllity to keep up with the przservatian of our Urban Arterial Network Is becoming a
chatlenge due to lack of dedicated funding. For every road we allow bo fall from a"fair to good"
oond{tion bo a"poor to failed" candltion our rnsts coutd increase by 6596 over time.
Our Urban resldential roads have not been niaintained adequately over the years due to lack of
personnel and money for local aaess roads. Utillty companles have had a negatlve impact on
many residential neighborhoods from failed patches. Our maintenance praetices have Emproved
over dme on these roads and newer roads, standards are In plac$ for developers to improve
road constructlon and we now have a utility cut policy in place to insure proper patches.
Of 81 mlles of urban residenttal roads 3296 are in a"poor bo fatled" candition. Some of these
roads are beyond normal mafntenance repairs and now are requiring a full grind and overlay. A
residential improvement and preservatlon program would repair the worst roads wlth structural
overfays and preserve the better roads with th(n overlays and surface treatments.
2
Our gravel raad system is requiring more maintenance due to increased Uaffic levels. Property
owners are deafing wfth (ncreased dust and other defects on thefr roads. Citizen complainis are
increasing yearly, as is the frequency. We have 243 mfles of gravel roads that are carrying 150
to 650 cars a day (See Fgure 8 fvr the number of graveJ miles). These gravel roads are acdng
as paved arteria(s. Pav(ng these roads has a cost benefit by reducing the yeariy mairitenance.
Gravel roads begin to have higher mafntenance costs over paving when tfie average daily traffic
reaches 150 cars a day. Paving these roads wauld improve the qualfty af road sysbem for the
traveling public. We are in the process of getting current traftic counts on all of the gravel
roads. With this information and other criteria, we w(II create a priority list for paving these
raads.
Nobe - A 396 annual inAadanary cost should be added yearfy to eadi program Oo continue to
support inveaes in rnnstructlon oosts. This w(11 allow us to keep the programs from dlgressing
in the future.
Recommendations:
The programs IEsted belaw are intended ba improve our road network and preserve it into the
future. This will result In cost savings and safety for the taxpayers of Spokane County. Failure
to implemerrt tfiese programs shall result in fiurther degrading roads, (ncreased cests and
increased Public complaints. The programs hav+e a cost of $7,500,000 per year. Some of the
program wsts will be reduced over time as we catch up with the immediate needs. Some of
the costs can be absorbed by the maintenance department over time due to the ►ncrease in
design Iffe's and reduced costs on maintenance treatments County wide.
Proaram 1
Implement a strvctural improvement program for the rural roads. Cement tr2ated base is tfie
main too( used Cor structurally improving tlhese roads, but other treatrnents could be used. The
estimated per mile cost is $220,000. With thls program, tfiere could be a width impravement or
2- 4 feet. I am suggestlng a program of $2,500,000 per year. ThIs would do approximately 11
mile5 per year. Currentty, Spokane County is in need of 108 mi(es of repairs.
Prcwram 2
Implement a residential improvement program us+ng full depth overlays and thin overlays.
Cement treated base cAUld be used in neiqhborhoods which are structuralfy defiaent (This
process requlres additional funding and woiic). The estlmated cost per mile is $300,000 per
mile depending on the process used. I am svggesting $2,000,000 per year. This would do
approximately 6.0 miles per year. Eventualiy tfiis program will be reduoed to a smaller
preservation program when we catch up. This will take approximately 13 years to work
through the worst ar?as. Cur2ntly, Spokane County Is in need of 81 miles of repairs.
Prnaram 3
Impiement an urban and rural arterial overiay program with full depth overlays and thln
overiays. I am suggestng $1,500,OQO per year. Thls would do approxlmabeiy 2.5 miles per
year. This program would strucbarally fmprove our arterial roads and preserve the hlgh
investment we have in our arterial network. Currentfy we have a need of 49 miles.
9Mram 4
Implement a preservation program for urban arterials and urban res(dential roads that arz in
falr to good condfdon. Th(s would Indude tfiin ovetlays, surface treatments (slurry seals, micro
seals, diip seals) and cradc sealing. I am suggesting $500,000 per year. Thls would complete
approxlmately 6 mlles per year. Currentiy, Spokane County is in need of 124 miles of repairs.
3
Proaram 5
Impiement a countywide gravel paving program for aur priority roads with highes* traffic, worst
conditlon and high mafntenance oosts. These particular roads would not be induded in the RID
process. I am suggesting $500,000 per year. This would do approximately 3 miles per year.
Currentty, Spokane County Is in need of having 21 mlles of high-prfority roads improved with
gravei-pavf ng.
PsQyram 6
Implement a countywide RID/Developer gravel pavfng supplernental program. This pragram
weuld suppiement the RID and Developer paving program with $540,000 per year (25% of the
cost would be County funded). This wouid do approximatefy 10 miles per year. Currentiy,
Spokane County has 36 miles to be improved with ttie RID grav2l paving supplemental
progra m .
Rgure 1- Pavement Conditlon Summary
PAYEMENT CONDIT}ON SUMMARY
3 kana Coun - Mn 22.2007
Condftion of Paved Road Network 8 FuncUon Ciass and Total Miles
Pavemerit rban rban rban Urban Rural Runi Rurel Avarsge
care Riding Major Ninor Collactor local IAa}or Minor local Cante►tlne Pavement
Ranpes Cateflory Artrrtal Artertal Arbrial Access AMrtal ARerlal Access Mpes Scores
00-95 Encellont 12 26 21 100 183 153 390 888 94
86-70 Good 5 10 14 38 84 45 71 267 78
70-53 Falr 7 11 8 30 38 12 27 132 33
55-40 Poor 8 5 4 22 18 11 18 92 48
40-25 ory Poor 3 2 2 22 T 1 9 48 35
25-10 Part Fallsd 7 1 1 18 4 2 4 31 18
10-0 alMd 0 1 2 19 1 2 8 31 2
Cernarline 1Allei by
Functton Ctass 35 58 53 250 334 226 523 1~476
Line Mlles by Functlon
Class 95 119 106 499 672 452 1,D47 Total 2,990
'1.Of System Poor to Falis 30 15 1B 33 9 T 7 Total 13%
'f+. Of 3 am Fair to Good 36 38 42 27 38 25 19 YaW 274/.
Ye Of Syststn ExGSllen! 34 e7 A0 40 55 Bfi 74 T_;a1
N~twort[
Pavert+enl
Averogo Pavament Scores ~ 7a 73 68 8/ 84 e7 scOf1
Figure 1- Represents the condition of the road system by functional dass and the total mlles
in each class. Our over ali network at a score of 81 is very good. Part of this average networlc
score 1s skewed because of our extensive chip-seal program in tfie rural network that hides
many defects. This chip-seal program is only intended to be a temporary fix wIth a design life
or 3-7 years depending on the traffic volume. The design life is reduced due to tfie structural
deficiencies that have developed over t1me.
Two things to note rnnceming the urban major arterial network (30% poor) and urban
residential roads (3311/o poor) is the need for repairs and the backlog of work will continue to
worsen over time.
4
Figure 2- Condition af Road System by °k of R;oad Mlles
Average Pavement Scores of Network
96 Ot System
Poor to Falied
' 1396
T % Of System Fair
% Of Syste to Good
Excellent 27%
60% ~
1 it i
Figure 2- Repre.sents the condibon of our entire paved 5ystem. The % of roads in the
excelient condition are skewed due to the extenstve chip seal program we have whtch hides
many defects. 40°!0 of the paved roads in our system are in need of some kind of repair.
Figure 3- Cenberline Miles in Each Score Range
Centerline Mlles For Each Score Range
1.WD • 6H6 ~ - - _
-j---
900
80U .
700
I -
r 60i . - -
$ 50!,
~ 407 - - -
3~',:i r 26T
~
2C~~J - i3? -T-
,
=xcn(~E Go,! Fair Poor Very P!Y~r Part F,led FaileD I
i
10a$5 I 85-70 70-55 ` 5540 44-25 25-1 U 1 0-0
Scon Ranpa
s Centerline Miles I
~
Figure 4- Ltfe Cyde Curve
Ptvemnnt
cllud~ I Typiral N:R&R
Actione I
~ -
-100 t L-tcellUo 1~achmg
Good S Ptev~tauveMamtma~:-
Yea
C }r1e O L_fe ' TLia Asphth Q"cI,
_ sU;a Lk~ w
r
Qhcnlity
p Ittirk Aophall Overkay
- - - ~
i=0.aof ifc
f e laf P xzansttuct
0 I
Yean Fxpecmd I..ifo of I
tifP.,4R.~:~-n Figure 4- Represents the distribution witli time of the th►•ee key networic perfornance
parameters assocfated with optlons analyzed in this report. Note that at 75% of the life of the
pavement the remaining life drops off very quickly resulting in higher costs to reconstruct the
roads. EaHy recommended maintenance and preservatlon programs listed below can extend
tfie I'rfe and reduce future costs.
Figure 5- Pavement condition and associated rehabilitation and preservation
Pavement Conciiuuu
Scorr.s
I
Fxc~llent ~'effy Crood Crood i Fair Pa~r Very Poor I Failod
Tbi:.k ~New
I Do Nothing sew Cou Sea! Cu:t Thin~ Madi=
Ovcriay (.hcrlnv OvcrtaY I Cc.+cs,truciinn
h
Figure 6- Total Miles in Each Functlon Gass
Paved Centedino Mi{es by Functlon Class
I ■ 35
ss
-0 53
0260
E334
■ 226
■ Urban Major Arierlal ■ Urban Mtnor Arteriai 0 Urben Copedor Artwfa! i
D Urban Local Access ■ Rural MaJor Arterfaf ■ Rural Minor Artsriat ~
■ Rural Local Acces9
Figure 7- Average pavemerrt condltlon score by functlon dass.
Avarape Pavemn! Condtlon Score by Functbn Ciass
,m ; - - - -
rG
I Ot '
Be
• ~ I
~ 71D ~
a 60 ~
c~ ~ I
~ AOi ~I
~ 30I
a
I Fr::': x C,::.s :
sUftn Ma~or Jlrtwial ■ Umcs Minor Artmsal D lhben Cokctmkftdd O UrDsn !-ral Aocsss I
aitual 6LWArtar4al ■Rurd Mnor /VIm1d • Rtssl Lxst Aceast
Note: The urtfan major arberiats and tfie urban local access roads do not
have an aooeptable pavement 9oore.
7
Figure 8- Average Daily Traffic per Centerline of Gravel Road Miles
Averags Daily Traific Per CenMriine Grevot Mifas i
160 - - - - -
157
160
- - _ ' -
140 i
~ 120 '
I ~ 100 - - ~ _
s 84 - _
~ 8rJ 54
40 / :
za ~ - ,
i
0=- -
>>o-~:,~ -7-3 350 Avarags Daliy TraHic
I■ Gravai CenlwSlne Mlies
Figure 8- Represents 3 ranges of traffic and the associated miles in each category. Note that
we have 3 number ot" roads acting as paved artzrials.
Figure 9-% of Paved Roads in a Poor to Failed Condition by Function Ciass
°Y. Oi 9ystnm Poor fn Faiiod CondFtlon By Funcllon Ckss
- - R
~ - -
~r ~
n ' I - -
PuntAiwt Clm DacrlDiiGSt
• Utan Msjw .ti•a-is ■ Uttan War AAerW O U►hen CopxauJ.ttaral O Urbvi Ltcat Ac: esi
■ Rurd I.Otgr A'Isnat ■?urd Mnor 4braf ■ R.3aei Loca +ticau
Figure 9- Represenfis the c/o of paved roads in the poor to failed condition by function class.
The Urban area shows the highest % of failed roads.
R
l.A51, n d4 c,fi► ~'w►z,.~. Pi'ob;.~ek~
. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Sfructural Im rodament Program
Total Lenqth Cost aer
Construction Year Raad Name F~om Location From MP To Location To MP miles Total Cost mile
2008iEIk-Chattaro Rd US2 0.40 Blanchard Rd 12.01 12.01 $2,161,800 $180 000
2009 Elk-Chattaro Rd 8lanchard Rd 12.01 Elk-to-H Rd ~ 15,151 3.14 $565,2001 $180,000
2009 Elk-taHa Rd US 2 0.00 Elk-ChattaroRd ~ 3.44 3.44 S619,2001 $180,000
2009 Milan Elk Deer ark Milan 0.00 Elk-Chattaroy Rd 3,96 3.96 S712,8001 $180,000 ,
2010 Milan Weshvood 0.00 Milan Elk 4.80 4.80 $864,000$180 000
2010EIkCamden ~ElktoH O.OOCoun Line 2.77 2.77 $498,600 $180000
2011 Peone Bruce 4.02 Hl 206 5.74 1.72 $309,6D01 $180 000
2011 Nroifat Peone 1.72 2006 CTB ' 5.74 4.02 . $723 600 5180,OOD
2011 Cedar Road North rd I O.OOIDee ark Milan 4.02 4,02 5723 600 $160,000
2012 Monroe H 335N 399 Dartford ~ O.OOIH 395 tLAy 389 Dee ark 11.72 11.72 $2,109600 $180,000
2013 Blanchard Rd Elk- ChetfaroRd 0.4011daho Staie Line 11.02 91.02 $1,983,600 $180,000
2014 S an le Waveri Rd Old 195 0.00 Prairie View Rd 8.47 8.47 ; $1,524 600 $180,000
2015 Praine View Rd 14th Av Wavert CL 0.00 Jackson Rd 4,35 4.351 $783 ODO $180,040
2415IS rin Valle Rd lPro'ect Chan e 3.05 Latah Ci l.rmiis 7.461 4.411 $793,806 5180,000
20160EIder Rd SR 27 0.00 Idaho Rd 5.891 5.89 S1,060,2041 S180 000
2016 Saln3vs Rd Brooks Rd 0.00 Chene Ci Limits 4.721 4.72 $849 6901 $184,000
2017Valle Cha el PafouseH ~ OAO~H 27 16.66 1$.66 $29988401 $180,000
Other Candidate Pro'ects As Ca aci Increases.
Peryy LitUe S okane Dr to Chattaro Rd ~ ~ .
Bi Maadows Elk Chatfaro to Da M S okan? ~
Stale Mflnroe to H 395 ~ ~ .
Da f~~ 5 4kane Bruce to Bi meadows
Shorf Deer Park GUmits to Coun Line ~
Hzlf moon Rd Ausfin to Pe I • ~ ~
Austin Dartford to V►'ildrose Rd
Dartofrd AGill Road to Monroe Rd
. . I
~
~
~
~
ti 611 Vzoo~ CTB pra)ect totaas 2005-201 6.As
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN Coun Gravel Raad Paving Program $1,000,000 Per Year
Construction Total Len th Cost er
Yaar Road Name From Location From MP To Location To MP miles Total Cost mile
2008 Sillman Da Mi S okane ~ 0.00 A4adison 0.49 0."9 $98,000 $200,400
2008 Nelson Be in As halt ~ 1.05 Chanman 3.62 2.57 S514 000 $200.000
2008 Cha man 8lanchard 0.00 North end Of Road 0.46 0.46 $92,400 $200,000
2009 Bnd es Elk Chattaro 0.00 Jackson 4.44 4.04 $848 406 $200,000
2010 Madison End Of Pavement 0.14 Tallman 2.25 2.15 $430 000 $200,000
2010 Jackson Nelson 0.00 Or on 2.24 2.24~ $448,0001 $200,000
2011 Linke Belmont . 0.00 Cha man 3.07 3.67 a614,0001 S200,000
2011 Euclid Carstens 0.00 Coulee Nite 2.05 2.05 $410 000 S200 000
2012 Fanche Pnase 1 Stan land 0.00 End OF Gravel 4.59 4,591 $918,000 S200 000
RIDICoun Gravel Road Paving Pro ram $500,000 Per Year
50% County 50% RID
2008 Harvard I5r-290 2.60 Moms 5.03 2,431 $364,540 $300,040
20081Lowe End OF Pavement 0.85 D2 Mt S okane 1.91 1.06 $159,000 $300 000
2009 Fride er End OF Pavement 0.44 Ore on 0.811 0.37 555,500 $300,000
2409 Sfevens Creek IPalouse H%r 0.00 Jason Hill Ln 2.07 2,07 5310,500 $304,ooo
2010 Hazard End Of Pavement 1.71 End 0F Gravel 3,59 1.88 $282,000 $300 000
2010 Bi Rack WilowS rin s 0.00 East End'OF Road 2.1151 2.15 S322 SDO $300,000
2011 Da ~Da Mi S akane ~ 0.00 East End Oi Road ~ 14101.10 $165,000 $300,000
2011 Jacobs Christensen 5.28 Rambo 7.28 2.00 S300,000 $300,000
2012 Hardes End Of Pavement 3.74 Start df Pavement ~ 5,66 1.92 $288 400 300 DOQ
2012 Keene Stutler ~ 0.41 Paradise ~ 0.93 0.52 $78,000 $300,000 .
2013 Mont ome ISherman ~ 3.65 East End of Road 5.67 2.021 $343,0001 S300,000
2014~Han man Valle 'Rd Valle Cha el Rd I O,OOIStart OE Pavement 0.64 0.641 $96 000 $300 000
2014 Gordan Dover 0,00 Eudid 1.29 1.29 193,~40 S300,040
2014 Fairoiew iStoneman 0.04 Peone 0.50 0.501 $75,~00 $300,000
2015IStou hton Dunn ~ 0.00 Sr•27 4.00 4.061 $600,0401 S300 OUO
2016 Sands (Da NiS okane O.OOIWoolard 1.48 1.48 $222,000 S300,000
2016 Sands lEnd OF Pavement 2.39 A4adison 5.35 2,961 $A44,0001 S300,000
2017 Sands Sovth End i o Elder 0.00 Elder 2.25 225 $337,500 S300 000
2017 Stutler Keene 0.00ISr-195 1.34 1.34 $201000 5300 000
2018 Ore on Freide er 0.001 Jefferson 2.341 2.30 $345,000 S304,000
2018 Kron uist INe ler 1.73 Madison 2.21 0.481 $72,0001 S300,000
2059 Gilbert Cam bel 0.00 End OF Gravel 4.26 0.26 $39 000 $300 000
2019~Fruithill End Of Pavement 0,81 lEnd OF Gravel 1.76 0.95 a142 500 5300 000
2 611312007 CTB projecttotais 2005-2016A5
PAVEMENT MANACEMENT PLAN
Residential Im rovement Program $1,000,000 ~
I ~
Year IResidentfal Area
2007 Cameiot Phasse 2 .$1,000 000~
~
2008 Lower Gleneden ~ $1,000,000,
2009 Meadow Uew $1000,400
2010 North Wood $1000,000 ,
2010 Pinedver ~
2011 Han man HillS .
' Saddle Hill
Little S okane
'
2011 ~U er Gleneden $1,000,000
2012 Glennaira $1000,004 ~ 2012 Bslltere $1,000,ooo . I
2093 Peone Pines $1 000,000
Lberty lake
2014 Fairwood $1,000 004~
2015~Brentwood $1,000,000
To ether iNawfhome ~ ( .
To ether 57th
To ether ~Painted Nills ~Msad
Monte Qel Ra
ChattaroHills
4ff MeJville
_ I . .
Tha residentiai improvement program will include avement re airs, thin li#t grind and inlays, slur seals,
chip seals, thin lift overiays end crack seafing. ~ I
_ ~ .
•
3 811312007 CTB grojrct totals 2005-2016sJs
nR.aFr
ADVAN('F AGF.'VDA
For P1ann.ing lliscussion Purposes Only
as o[ Apri123, ZOUiR; 1:341 p.m.
f'lease note this is a work in progress; items sirrc tentative
To: Council & Staff
From: City hfanager
Re: Draft Schzclule for Upcoming Council Meetings
Miv 6.1098. 5tedv Snsian 6:00 p.m. [dne datc Mosday, Apri128]
1. Comp Plan Sehadule - Greg McCormick (20 minutcs)
2. Proposed 2009 7TP - Stevc Worley (20 minutes)
3. Custamer Service Improvement Plans/Permit Process (CiP af PV1) - SLevc Worley 1Nci1 Kersten (20 minutcs)
4. Cooperative Agrxment for CDBG 8c Hame [nvcstmcnt Partncrship Funds - G. McGarmick (15 minutes)
Councit's Six-Year Transportation FinanciaJ Goats - I?ave INercier (60 minutes)
b. info Qnly: STA Cooperativc Funding Project, Sprague 8t Bowdish - Stcvc Worlc)•
7. lnfo Only: Bariter Rosd Bridgc Did Award - Stcvo Worlcy
8. Advance Ageoda, Council Check-In, City Manager Check-in (10 minutes)
TUTAL MLNU'TES:134-ninaics
11bv 13 200$. ReEalar Merting. 6:00 p.m. (due date Mooday, May SJ
I'rOC/Q1/1QIlO)t: .tfcry as Older.lmerlccros .4fonth
1. P(.BLIC HEARING: Staie Performanccs Audit Repart re Puhlic Rccorcis [ 10 minutes]
2. Con_sent Agenda: Claims, Minutes, Pa}roll, atian Gtant Resoludan (Gtoemcres~
24°`' Ave Sewer Lhw lhilit}'ABreemw r) minute:]
3. Second Reading Amposed Ordinance 08409 Amending 2008 Budget - Ken Thompson [5 mintttcs]
4. Proposvd Resolution Amending 2008 7'IP - Steve Worley [10 minutesj
5. Motion Cansideratian: Berker Road Bridgc Bid Award - Steve warley [5 minutcs]
6. Motion Cvnsiderauon: STA Cooperativc Funding Projeci. Spraguc A Bavvdish - Steve Worky [S minutes]
7. Motion Consideration: Coop.Agrmt CDBG 6c Nome Investment Parmership Funds - G. McCmmick [15 min]
8. Motion Consideration: Universal Perk Contract for Architactural Sen+ices - Mike Stone [ 10 minutesJ
9a- Arca W ide Rezone (UDC Lot Sirx) Public Comment [60 minutes]
9b. Area Wide Rezone (UDC I.ot Size) Council Discussian [60 minutes]
FXECU'I'IVE SESSIOti: [*estimatcd meetimg: 1~ mi■ntesl
Mav 20. 2008. Stodr Scs.tao 6:00 p.m. (dee date Moaday. May 121
1. Afl'ordable Housing-Councilmember Taylar, ei al (20 minutr.s)
"Smart Route3" - Lunell Ilsught (tm"lve) (15 minutcs)
3. TraivJortation Financial Gap Analysis: Finnncial Qptions fi. FACts - Davc Mcn;icr (60 tninutcs)
4. Firsmnn's Fraternal Associatian (15 minutes)
5. Swrm Drainage Easancat - Cary Drisktll (10 minutes)
6. Wcbcasting - Gteg Bingaman (20 minut,es)
7. Advance Age-oda. Cauncil Check-ln, City Manager Check-in (10 minutcs)
TOTAL MINUTES: 150 minutes
May 17. 20Q8 (no nieeting Memnrial nu►-)
June 3, 2008, Stndv Session 6:00 p.m. (due date Toesday.lNay, 271
1. Camp I'lan :lmendmenls Discussion - Greg McCarmick (30 minutes)
Argonne and lndiana Road Discussion - Neil Kersi.en (15 minutes)
3. Info Only: Pines/Mansfield Contract Award - Steve Worley
a. AdvF►nce Agenda, Counc:il Chcck-In, City Manager Check-in (10 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTE5: SS eaiautes
f1r-aft Advance _lernda 4"23e'2008 1:27:04 PM Pagc 1 ul 3
Jane 10. 2Q4$, Kceular MeedaQ. 6:00 n.m. (dae date Moaday, Jnne 21
l. PtBI.IC UEAR1riG: 2009-2014 TIP [15 minutrs]
2. Cunscnt Agencb: Clairns, Payroil, Minutes, SYorur DrabWa Easemait [5 minute.,]
3. First Re:ading Proposed Ordinance Amrnding Cvmp Plan -Greg McCormick 115 minutcs j
pe,opcsed Resolutian Delegating Signature Authority for lftility MOU - Mike Jackson [10 minutes)
i. Motion Considerstian: Pines/Munsfield Contract Award - Steve Worley 15 minutesJ
FXECUTIVE SESSION [•estfmsted wtecdag: 50 minntesl
Satardav. Juae 14: 9 a.m, to annrox 3 p.m. CoQncil/Staff Retreal l Uick Drnennv's CarinNdae Moo. Jane 21
'I'entatny 7opics:
Shorelinc Master Program: Transpartation Funding; 1Jpdated Finnncial forecast;
2009 Cauncil Goals; City Center [nitiative
on-line permitting progress report; Law Enforcemccft Services:
June 17, ?008: No Meeting or Stady 5ewioe (June 17 - 20, A W( Annual Conference - Yakima i
Jnse 24. 2Q4S, Regular Mcetine. 6:110 aro. (dne dxte Monday, June 161
1. Consent Agonda: C laims, Pa}Toll, Minutcs 15 minutes]
~
Second Reading Prnposed Ordinance Amending Comp Plan - Greg McCormick (20 minutes
Pmposed Raotutian Adopting 2009 -2014 TIP - Steve Warley [ 15 minutcs]
4. Motion Considcration: Sales Purchase Agreement - Mike Connclly/Scott Kuhta [I5 minutes~
i. Mo[ion Consideration: Parks and Recreation Ad Hac Committee - Mikc Jackson [ 15 minute5 ~
6. Infa Only: Dcpt Repc+rts
F}iFClJ7'!N'E SFStiIOti (`estimatcd mceting: 70 minutes)
Julv ls 2008. Stadv tiessinn 6:00 n.m. (dnc date Mooday, .1uoe 23 J
Jplv $21108. ReEutar Niceting. 6:00 p.m. Idne dnte MoQda}.. Jaec 301
1. ('onsent Agendn: Claims, Palvn)ll. tilinutes 15 minutr;j
Juiv 15. 2008. titudv timslon 6:00 p.m. [dae date Monda%. Jul~ 71
1. Comp Plan Amrndmeat (jusnerly Updatc - Greg McCurmick (20 minutes)
2 . SVategic Fitsancisl Plan - Dave Mercier (60 minutr;)
3. Street MristerPlan l'pdate Neil Ker-tcn (30 minute,~>
TnTAL MLN-LITES: 110 minutes
Jntv 22. 2008. Regalar Mecting. 6:00p.m. [dae date Monday. Jaty 141
1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes [5 minutes]
7. Info Chily: Dept Repc.tirue (•estimatrd meet[ag: minutesl
Jah 29. 2008, Stadv Smion 6:00 o.m. (dne date Monday, Jaty 211
August 2048. Nn MeetloQ Ipresumed Nutionul ,ti'ight llut)
4ngYSt 12. 200& RMular Meedne. 6:00 p,m. (dne date Monday, Angust 41
1. Consent Agends: Claimc, Pa)-roU.N4inutes [5 minutes]
2. lnfo Only: Mpt Reparts ~'estimAtrd rneetiug: mliMesJ
llra2t Advancc :1grtlcla a!2±^_0(iR I:27:04PM P:s_s,e'_ of :
Prlmuvy Elcctlort AnWut 19
Auonst 19. 2008, Stndy Syssic►a 6:00 a.ta. idae date Maoday, Angnst 1 l J
1. Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP) Discussion - Scoti Kuhta (60 minutcs)
2. titreet Ih>i¢n Stand.uds -\eil Krr:tcn (00 rninutes)
AuEast .16, 20(rd, t2cp-ulxr Meetine. 6:00 p.m. (dnr datc !Moodxy, 4ngust 181
1. PIBI.IC HFAk1NG: SARP - Scott Kuhta [60 minutes]
Conunt Aic:tdu: Cl:~ims, 1'ayroll,N1inutcs [5 minutcs]
3. First Rcading Ptvpoxd Ordiiunoo Adopting SARP
4. Infu Only: Dept Reparts I `estimated meeting: minetcsi
Scat 2. 2008 (no meeting, Labor Dn,
Secitember 9, 2008, Regalu Meetiire. 6:04 ip,m. [dnr datc Monday. Scpt 1~
l. Consrnt Agcnda: ClAims, Pavroll, Minutes minutcs]
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting SARP [20 minutes]
3. Admin Repon: Airpoct Overlny 7one - Mike ConneltylKathy McClung [20 minutcsJ
4. Info Unlv: Depi Reparts ['estimated meeting: sinutesl
OTHER PENllLtiG A.NU/OR UPCOMING 15SUFSPNiF.fTINGS:
Aquifer ProtectiadWatar Consezti•ation (Post Falls, SrxikAne)
t rty Ceotec Report to Council
Cc>dc Complisncc Amcndmenis (UDC.)
C:omp Plan Amend-Qrcriy Update ( Oci, Jan, April. July)
Comp Plan UpdattJUGA/JPA
E<zst Gateway Manument Swcture
Gencral Elcciion November 4
Graffiti Update
Impact Fee Requcsi Central Vall4y 5ch(x)l District
IT Specialist Classificatioo Resolution
Joint Meeting vvlCity of Spo}:ane
Law F:nforcement Anah-sis
I aw Enfatcentent Contract
Library Bonrd Updatc
NLC Meeting Nov i l-1 5, Urtandv, I' Illf1d3
Northeast Housiag Solutians Gity Memtic:rship
OverweigfiVover size vehicle ordinanrc
Transporiation [mpacts
Use Agreemcnt (Cary Driskeil)
Trasaoortatioo BcnrBt District fTBDI (JyacIJWr)
a. Estnbtish ordinaitce; (b) sct public bcaring; (c) draR resdotian: (d) ballot hngnagc
l:niversal E'ar1:l)e,ig►Contract
Docs nnt includc timc for pnhiic commcnts. J
[haR Advancr Agznda 4;23r'2(N)8 I:27:0=3 PM Pakc 3 uf ?
Spo"]~ane
VAley
l l; ~17 F. 5prague Ave Suite 106 = 5pokane Valley Wa99'_LK,
509.9211000 E Fax: 5(?4.921.1008 - cityhaildspokanevnUey.org
Memorandum
To: David Mercier, City Manager and h'Iembers af Citv Cuuncil
I'rom: Mike Basinger, AICP, Savor Planner
CC: Kathy McC'ung, Community Development Dirtctar
Greg McCormick, AICP, Planning Manager
Date: Apri12-1, 2008
Re: Greenacres I.and Quandty Analysis
Please 6nd the attached analy sis for Greenacres. Greenacres is primarily zoneci
Single-Family Residential District (R-3) with a minimum lot size of 7500 square
feet. City Council requested staff to analyze the Greenacres area appl3*ing the
Single-Family Residential Suburban District (R-2) with a minimum lot size of
10,000 square feet. The table below identifies potendal drvelIings and potential
population for R-2 and R-3 zoning designations based on 2008 Land Quantit-v
Analysis (I.QA).
Lonin cla.ssification Potential DA-ellin s Potential Po ulation
R•2 504 1,259
R-3 _5 76 1,439
Actac}unents:
Extubit l: Analysis for R-?
Exhibit 2: Malysis for R-?
Exhibit 3- Anah•sis for Vscant and P:vtialtv Used Land
~ Exhibit 1: Greenacres
_ ~
2008 LQA Anatysis
10,000 SF (R-2)
,
cRFeNnc-aFC x-z (inM)
~
, 0rt
I PONI1.A'flt1V
1.~
- . u - - "t
~ - ~ I ~ ~q;fute ' en~ RI, - L •?tl
r~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ . - 1 I • ab
~ _U9? ReLdennd I~amm
, g
- X~'_' ' ' ' ' ~ .,.atl._, •.-y~ _ ' ° ~ n1YC1~~ltJjd «11
0,4, "P,.
~r
. ' ~ . • ~ t -
• j ~ I~ f, . ~
~ I
TT
•,,.~~~a _ ~ .
1 .4 ~ r I ; ~
IJNI 1.1~Oh1t
- 1 1 1 1
~~w~~ 1I IbW++•~ ~~~M~«.~.fr.~~
l , -~I I~. ~ ' ~ - ' I . r~r.w~1 id/1~1 ~ w~•~ tY~ IwMl.wia~~
•t -M ~ I - I- . rww.w~I~r1►w~+~~..~~x✓r.rr~w~
~ ...rw wr~~.~..~ r • ~ . ~ .~n
~--'1 - - . ~a:. 1 ~:rd~- - • - - - _ C..w.. ~.ti..1~N.~.. n...,.~. ~ e: ~ . i ~r
Exhibit 2: Greenscres
` •
; 2008 LQA Anatyais
7500 sF (t-3)
i
.
LlgCIId
.
~ I (:RP.P_!~,~('RFC RJ ~ (7500)
` mr~ ~i_►~nnm
~ir ~ i ' ' . _ ~ ; ° ~ u • i:
-:cr
. " _ . y ' ' ' , ~ - ~►Yl
I
i3 1J... - . 1{I
.I.. _ I~ 1 _`~JO? RcsuMnnJ I'nnu1.
_
i
Orcll/ryp ;'A
" _ ~ ' i'! - - ~ • 1'nrufatltln 1,439
t`i
I
I.nunton
.rr+ _ • ~
_ -
" ItU M 1 filt 1 "Iw!
t , . 1 --Un.wl -1 _ _ . . l ♦ 1 . 1 . 1
► ~ ~I ~ ~
~ . ~ . f . t►~W~ww.ti~wwA.~~.+~v~ll~+.wy
~ ` t~~~ r..M w. ~.w~ ~.ww.• M w..~
i ~ r~~ w ~rnw+ 1 M 4_00T",..Aw-
...~v: ~rrww : ...~.IA.~~ , fN~
• ~ ~r ) ..r' . ~ .h
1 . • ' - - - . -1 ~~w '~f~+
~~'i.~,_ ry - I:xhibit 3: Grecnacres
" j ~ ' •
'_(lOR LQA Anaiysis
A► Varani ~c T'ertinlle Used I.aad
'i~~'' ~ .c yA ~t`"• ~ . I.cgcad
r-- - • - ~ n,
, ~ ' * • i~•'! ' IL-1" ' ~I~ort Plst ,~~Nnliun~
~i ~ ~ ~ • - ~ ~ ~A~hc~Mnm
t Io nE Pls t Applkatiua~
+ f rY•; + n~~cai~n
~ ~l - ~ ~ _ • ` ~ ° .
4r~.r. ~ ^ ~ , ~ ~ f , +1► ~ N."..+~ _ I {4clidueuy lMat
« Tr4
~ ~ . r ~ ~ e - t~r,.Il~ t •.wf t~r~l
♦ . r: ~ ~~1 = ~~~1/ 1 r f a ' . I. - mfl]II't L11fiJ
• ~y ' ~ ~ ~~w .~V •
. ~ ~a'~ . _r~ N~•.~.~~ i - K. T~r ~Y•
~ ^ s J~7 ~ g~'=YT' ~ ;i~ ~-~~1!;, l •y ,
I •r r' h,..
'!k r • ,~I,
~ ~
sQ
~i i " ~ ~ ~~?~1 . ~ ss~,~~ d
t~ ~ w ~ ~ f~,
0(
~ ' ~ _ i.~ ~ !~1, r,~"~{)(~ ~ ' ~~ii ♦w L ~
♦ - . ~i ~ ~~Yt~. ~ LK. {.y~,:~j 4. ~ _ ' • ~ Ml- ~Vr.1t ~try i ~cuw~.
4 ~ ~1' ~'G7~ r. •~j' r
tr'1~✓ _
t J ~ ~ '1'f~~. . = ~•,~I'~i-•♦~~ , ' -
{r, T l ~ ~R'Pu1- .~yr n.v 1^_.f:lqN r
~ ' ' `a S • ~~Y~ - ~ ~ ~ .
r- ~ ♦ ~ ~ t! ~ • ~ i '
~ ~ - s.' «~~~~~i~_-~~,_1' f~ ~I `a'...
~ ~u~~ 1 IMI ~iro rw
) W
. , ' _s; ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ l ~ 1 . 1 . ~
_ .~I.r~...l~rr..... 1~.~..y'~1~..f ~~M~IlI•I~Mt
SOUa.ne .
O Valley .
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhaftspokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Greg McCormick, AICP - Planning Division Manager
CC: Dave Mercier, Katfiy McClung
Date: April 16, 2008
Re: Spokane County CDBG/HOME Consortium Participation .
Background:
As a new city, Spokane Valley has the opportunity to directly receive Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds to help in the development of a viable urban community and expand economic
opportunities for principally low and moderate-income persons. Prior to incorporation these
programs and funding allocations were administered by Spokane County.
At the time of incorporation Spokane Valley had only one option to participate in the County's CDBG
program. That was to join the County CDBG Consortium and compete for County CDBG funds with
other agencies and service providers within the County. The City received notice from the Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) headquarters in 2005 that the City was eligible for tldirect entitlement"
status. This meant that the City would receive an annual a►location from the federal government, but
then would be responsible for the full administration of a CDBG program. HUD estimated that the
City's CDBG entitlement would be approximately $530,000 annually based on HUD's formula.
In 2005 Spokane County was required to "re-qualify" as an Urban County consistent with HUD
guidelines. After considering the alternatives, the City opted to continue participating in the Spokane
County CDBG Consortium for the three year period 2006 through 2008. Spokane County is now due
to re-qualify in 2008 for fiscal years 2009 through 2011, the City is again the position to decide
whether to renew its participation in the CDBG/HOME Consortium or become a direct entitlement
recipient from HUD. In order for Spokane County to meet its obligation under the HUD requirements
the City must provide written notice of the City's decision by May 23, 2008.
Discussion: During this re-qualification period for Spokane County, the City must select one of the following four
options relative to its participation in the CDBG program: 1. Accept entitlement status and receive CDBG funds directly from HUD;
2. Accept entitlement status and enter into joint agreement with Spokane County;
3. Defer entitlement status and participate through the State CDBG program; or
4. Defer entitlement status and participate as part of urban county with Spokane County (current
option that Spokane Valley is participating).
1
The following table indicates the amount of CDBG funds the City has been awarded since
participating in the County Consortium:
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
HCDAC recommended
Total - 096,465` Total - $457,319*' $207,815 $77,706 $244,022
Ca ital - $375,965 Ca itat - $439,850
" included $20,500 in economic development planning funds.
included $17,469 in economic development planning funds.
The City has received a total of $1,345,358 in CDBG funds for capital projects (including the HCDAC
recommended 2008 funds) for an annual average of $269,072. The total City award over the past
five years has been $1,383,327 for an annual average of $276,665. The annual award has
fluctuated significantly over the past 5 years from a high of $439,850 in 2005 to a low of $77,706 in
2007 or a difference of $362,144. It is critical for the C'rty to stabilize the annual funding avaitable to
the City from this program primarily to allow the City plan projects out to six years with some certainty
in funding rather than the year-to-year approach that City has had to use due to uncertainty in
funding levels through this program.
City staff has engaged in discussions in the past with County staff regarding identification of a
specific "set aside" amount from the County's CDBG, which uvould be non-competitive funds, for the
City of Spokane Valley. Having a pre-determined dollar amount would allow the City can take a
longer term look at capital projects. This option would be a hybrid option of Option 4 above. The
County has generally been receptive to the concept and City staff's opinion is that this option would
provide the County with stability for the Consortium and at the same time provide the City with some
level of surety on annual funding from this program. The City would have to enter into an interlocal
agreement with -the County to proceed with this option.
2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: _April 29. 2008 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
. AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Draft Potential Code Amendments to zoning and subdivision sections
of Spokane Valley City Code GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
~ BACKGROUND: The attached list is a very rough draft of items the Community Development
Staff has developed for the first batch of code amendments that will eventually go to the
Planning Commission and City Council. Please note that changes to the Subdivision Code are
on a separate track and have already been reviewed once by our outside survey consultants.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None, information only.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS Draft List of Potential Code Amendments
i ~
DRAFT POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS (4/23/08) _
Chapter 19- .
19.40.020 Height of structures and roof structures need to add some exceptions like Ganopies
over drive thru facilities and fuel islands can extend in rront of flanking street tietbacks under
certain cnnditions.
19.40.120 Manufacturcd Housing- Removc pitched roof requiremcnt to be consistent with slate
law. IZeview requirements for replacing existing manufactured homes that do not meet "new"
definition.
19.40.140 Home Occupations- Does not state a Fermit is required, criteria is not clcar, especially
"exceeding traffic arid solid waste assdeiated ~rith a typical residential unit". Need a separate
seclion Fnr in-hoine child and aciult daycare, owner oecupied.
19.40- chart- minimum site dimensinns are 50 X$0 but minimum lot size is 3600.
19.50 Planned Rcsidential Developments
050 #2 lot size reyuirement too large
060 #3 definition of active npen space
19.60.070, 080 fee in lieu needs lo be explained better, how calculated, etc. 19.140 Administralive exceptions- nced t4 be tightened up.
Okher- Zero lot line development
Duplex lot minimum lot size
Chaptcr 22- Landscaping- point system Fpr landscaping how does it work in phase development?
Need to clarify that building plarits are the site points, parking lot pts are f'or parking lots and the
rest of thc plants on site ft the site critcria.
Signs- Clarify that existing wa.ll signs need to be shown on sign permit application.
Clarify non-conforrning sign seetion..
Use- Add continuum care as permitted in thc garden oFfice zone.
l,,oading requirements- Why do we require loading areas for ccrtain uses? Required truck park.ing
has flaws.
Subdivision Code- nll of the survey reyuircmcnts are being reviewed by the city's survey ,
consultant who will recommend changes. Also, rcmove the requirement that outside agencies
and the Hearing Exauuner must sign the plat documents.
` CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 29, 2008 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
0 information ❑ admin. report E) pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Recreation/Conservation Resolution for Greenacres Park
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTIOId TAKEN: Approved Greenacres Development grant proposal
to Washington Legislature 2008.
BACKGROUND: The City is applying for a grant request for Greenacres Park Development.
Pursuant to that, a resolution is required by the Washington Recreation and Conservation
Office. The 2006 grant for acquisition funding was approved. Regarding the development of
the park project - The City received $300;000 from the 2008 Legislative Session and we may be
seeking an additional $200,000 from the Legislature in 2009. In accordance with CounciPs
direction to proceed with the development of the Greenacres Neighborhood Park staff is
preparing the submittal of 6 $500,000 development grant request in 2008.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMEPVDED ACTION OR MOTIOPI: Advance to the consent agenda for May 13, 2008.
BUDGET1FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total City commitment for this project is $200,000 which
will be budgeted in Parks Capital Projects Fund through the annual budget process.
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Authorization Resolution
~ .
Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program .
Authorizing Resolution
Local Agenaes and Nonprofit Organizations
You may reproduce on your own paper, text may not change.
Organization Name City of Spokane Valley Resolution No. 48-006
Project Name(s) Green Acres Neighboritood Park
A resolution authorizing applica6on(s) for funding assistance for a Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP)
project to the Interagency Commitee for Outdoor Recxeatian (1.4C) as provided in Chapter 79A15 RCNF, for aoquisitian,
develapment, or restoration of habita# conservagon and outdoor reaeation lands and facilities.
VdFiERcAS, our ag?ncylosganiza6on has approved a compr2hensive plan that includes this project area; and
1NHERAS, under ths provisians of W1NRP, state funding assistance is r2quesied fo aid in finandng tte cosi of land
acquisition andlor facility developmenUrestoration: and
WNEREAS, our o7ganization oonsiders it in fihe besf public interest to oomplete the insurance, land aoquisition, andlor
development project described in the applicaiion;
PIOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
1. The Parks and Recseation Director be authorized to make iarmal applicafion to 1,4C far funding asa9siance;
2. Any fund assistance received be used tor implernentation of the project ref2rDnced above;
C-J\
f 3. Our organization hereby cerfifies thai its share af project funding is committed and will be derived firom City of Spakane
Valley Parks Capital Funds as adopted in th2 2008 Final Ciiy Budget;
4. 1Ne acknotivlaJge that we are responsible for supporting aU non-cash commitments to the sponsor share should they
. not maierialize; [ii applicable]
5. Wz acknovrledge fhat any property aoquired of iacility developed with 1.4C financial aid must be placed in use as an
outdoor recrea6on facifity and be re;ained in such use for a minimum of ien years from final reimbursQment unless
othenvise provided and agre-ad to by our arganization and IAC [ifi applicable];
6. This resolution beoomes part of a formaf application to IAC; and
7. We provided appropriate opportuniry for publirc comment on this appficaton.
This resolufion was adopted by our organization during the meeting held:
Locatian Spokane Vallsy CiRy hia11, 11707 E. Sprague, Ste 106, Spokane Valley 99206 Date
Sagned and approvad by the follovrmg authorized representative:
Signed
7itie Date
Attest
Approved as 'to form
~