Roads Committee - 09/26/2002Roads Committee
Report to the City Council
City of Spokane Valley
September 26, 2002
Acknowledgements
This report could not have been prepared without the enthusiastic participation of citizens
of the new City of Spokane Valley who formed the Roads Committee. These include the
following: Eileen Allen, Kirk Appleby, Jay Bookhout, Jim Bowles, Bob Davis, Doug
Demmerly, Kerry Farrar, Bill Gothmann, Myrna Gothniann, Rod.Holmes, Regan Lane.,
Gae Ann Moffat, Hal Mollat, Randy Noble- James Olinger, Loyd Petersen, Rico Reed,
Chet Reilly, Gary Schinunels, Lance von Marbod, Robert Westby, and our able Chair,
Deanna Hormann.
We gratefully acknowledge the many hours of participation of the staff of the Spokane
County Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, including Ross
Kelley, P.E., County Engineer, James Haines, P.E., Assistant County Engineer, Phil Barto,
P.E., Maintenance and Operations Chief, Bob Brueggemaa, P.E., Traffic Maintenance and
Operations, and Pat Harper, County Office Administrator.
The Washington State Department of Transportation Regional Traffic Engineer, Ted
Trepanier, P.E., has contributed greatly to our understanding of the new City's relationship
with the State of Washington.
Bill Gothmann, P.E., Editor
Page 2
Section 1. Lntroduction
t-1. Purpose
1-2. Scope
1-3. Method used
14. Organization of report
Table of Contents
5
Section 2. Immediate Actions, Recommendations, Pitfalls and-Alternatives 7
2-1. Lntroduction
2-2. Immediate Actions
2-3. Recommendations)
2-4. Pitfalls
2-5. Short range alternatives
2-6. Medium range alternatives
2-7. Long range alternatives
Section 3. Introduction to Valley Roads 10
3-1. Introduction
3-2. Ownership and Maintenance Responsibilities
3-3. Present.Design and Construction of County Roads and Bridges
3-4. Maintenance of Roads
3-5. Administrative Services
0 Section 4. RC Ws. Boards, and Progams Applicable to Loads 17
4-1. Introduction
4-2. RC Ws
4-3. Boards, Programs, and Committees
Section 5. Financing for Roads 20
5-1. Introduction
5-2. Equipment Purchases
5-3. Roads Budget
5-4. Roads Budget Maintenance
5-5. Roads Budget Capital Projects
Section 6. Project Studies 24
6-1. Introduction
6-2. The Valley Couplet
6-3. Bridging the Valley
6-4. Bigelow-Forker Connector
6-5. Sullivan and Barker Bridges
6-6. Spokane Valley Transportation Projects Completed
6-7. Projects in Progress in Spokane County
6-8. Funded Projects That Will Not Be Completed Prior to Incorporation
6-9. Other High Priority Projects
Section 7. City Studies
7-l. Introduction
7-2. City of Burien
7-3. City of Yakima
37
Page 3
7-4. City of Coeur d'Alene
7-5. City of Post Falls
7-6. City of Liberty Lake
Section S. Contacts for Further Information
Section 9. Index of Subjects
0
45
47
Page 4'
Section 1.
Introduction
1-1. Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide itnfonnation to the new City Council of the
City of Spokane Valley so they can make effective decisions regarding roads' in the
new city.
.1.-2. Scope
This document is informational, rather than decisional. The City needs to know what
is required by them about the roads, and what. alternatives are available to them. Thus,
we present the background, alternatives, and what other cities have done. Where a
decision is controversial, we have tried to provide a variety of opinions.
This report is limited to the roads. There are other reports on such public works
facilities as sewers and solid waste disposal.
1-3. Method Used
The Committee on Roads first thoroughly investigated the extent of what will be our
road facilities, how they are presently maintained; and how they are being developed.
To do this, we received extensive presentations by the Spokane County Engineer and
his staff. These meetings also gave us a great window into the capabilities of Spokane
County and how these might be utilized by the City, and were extremely helpful to the
Committee.
Next, the Committee contacted a range of cities to determine how they served the
public through their roads. Through these varied contacts, we were able to identify
several strategies to meet the needs of the public.
1-3. Organization of Report
This report is organized with the "quick look" data up front, and the more detailed
reports toward the end of the report. Thus, section 2, presents an overview of actions,
recommendations, pitfalls, and alternatives available to the council for both
maintenance and construction of streets. Section 3, Introduction to Valley Roads,
introduces the reader to the roads as we presently know them what we Arill own and
the obligations this public trust involves. It also details what services the County now
performs on Valley roads.
l.n the city, these are called "streets." In the unincorporated areas, these are called "roads." Since this report
involves bath areas, we shall call them roads, for simplicity.
Page S
r % Section 4, RCWs, Boards, and Programs lists the major RCWs applicable to streets.
J This section also discusses the many boards and councUs that now exist for
transportation and roads. The City will wish to be apart of each of these.
Section 5, Financing for Roads, discusses the expenses and capital outlays the City
should expect.
Section 6, Project Studies, discusses road projects now in progress, those on the
drawing boards, and the long-range pladthe County has been using for roads in our
community.
Section 7, City Studies, details phone interviews the Committee had with several cities
about their roads.
Section A, Contacts for Further Information, provides a list of people who could be
contacted for further information on a wide list of subjects.
Section 9 is an index of subjects in this report.
Page 6
Section 2
Immediate Actions, Recommendations, Pitfalls and
Alternatives
2-1. Introduction
The purpose of this section is to discuss things the Council needs to know immediately:
immediate actions; recommendations, pitfalls; short range, medium range, and long
range alternatives.
2-2. Immediate Actions
A. Set up a separate street fund as soon as possible, so that revenues fbr the
improvement of streets can be received by the City fi•om the State. (RCW
47.24.040)
B. Set up a separate arterial fund as soon as possible, so that revenues for the
improvement of arterials can be received by the City fi-om the State. (RCW
47.26.270)
C. Develop at least an interim contract with the County lbr maintaining City Streets
(formerly County roads) beyond the grace period. The County is required by RCW
1 35.02.220(2) to maintain County roads for 60 days after incorporation or unti140%
J of the County Road Portion of the property tax has been received by CSV,
whichever occurs first. The contact at the County is Ross F. Kelley, P.F.
D. Develop at least an interim contract with the County for maintaining the State
roads, themselves, starting with the date of incorporation. The contact at the
County is Ross F. Kelley, P.F.
E. Develop at least an interim contract with the State for maintaining the signal fights
of the State .roads starting with the date of incorporation. The contact for the State
is Ted Trepaniei, P.E.
F. Determine disposition of the 30,000 road documents that the County will turn over
to the City on the day of incorporation.
2-3. Recommendations
A. At the present time, the County completely repaves a street that has been trenched
for utilities (See Section 3-3(A)]. The Comnnittee recommends the Council
continue this program.
B. The City should consider setting up a dedicated road fiind modeled after the level of
service we now receive from the County. This would assure adequate maintenance
Page 7
of the capital investment we now have in our road infrastructure. [See Section 3-
4(B)(1)J.
C. The City should meet with WSDOT' to initiate a design study of the l 6th/Pines/SR
27/Saltese intersection.
2-4. Pitfalls
The single, greatest pitfall that we found the new Council should avoid was shorting Road
Funds:
Balancing Construction and Maintenance
Expending Construction and Maintenance funds is a very delicate balancing act.
Construction funds are very attractive to the Council, since about $4 can be obtained in
grants for every $1 of City funds. Thus, it is very tempting to short maintenance funds in
favor of more glamorous construction projects. However, construction funds usually fund
arterials, a small part of the overall road miles maintained by the City. A small amount of
maintenance of a local road can result in extending its life, preventing massive
expenditures reconstructing that road later.
2-5. Short Range Alternatives
In the short ranee, all of the cities who have recently incorporated, have contracted
with the County for road services, at least on an interim basis. There are several
reasons for this:
A. The goals of the cities have not yet been determined by the date of
incorporation.
B. The staff is still being hired.
C. The large, expensive equipment required for maintenance has not been
acquired. "These costs are listed in Section 5-2.
D. The technical expertise is not yet available to the City
Thus would seem a logical choice for the City of Spokane Valley.
The City should also join and/or develop interlocal agreements with the Committees,
programs, and agencies listed in Section 4-3.
~l
2-6. Medium Range Alternatives
Once incorporation has been accomplished, the city needs to determine its goals. Out
of these goals AU come strategies to meet these goals, and one of these strategics will
be what to contract out and what to do themselves. Several choices are available:
' Washington State t?c;partment of Transportation
Page 8
1 A. Maintenance Except for targeted tasks, the County may be a better choice for
i maintenance. Experience from some of the cities we have investigated shows that
most private firms are not interested in doing the sanding, sweeping, plowing, and
deicing. These tasks require a large investment in equipment, but may vary
considerably from year to year, and, thus, not be a good business venture for
independent contractors. Thus, County resources may be a better choice.
However, striping would not vary from year to year, and would prove a good
investment. Thus, contractors are willing to do this task.
B. Engineering There are firms willing and able to do the design of city roads. In
addition, the County has this capability. Thus, the City will have to evaluate each
of these resources and make the appropriate choices.
C. Construction. Most construction work is now done by private contractors. This
would be a logical choice for the City.
Islote that, in each of these choices, the City is required to evaluate the resources,
negotiate contracts, administer these projects, and manage these projects. Thus,
strong engineering, contract administration, and project management skills are
required.
2-7. Long Range Alternatives
The City must adopt a City Alan, that embodies the philosophy of who we are and why
we are a city. This plan should have input ftom a wide range of citlZens. Out of this
plan will come the solution to which services we contract, and which we do ourselves.
Page 9
Section 3
Introduction to Valley Roads
34. Introduction
The purpose of this section is to provide basic infbrmation about Spokane Valley
Roads a kind of tutorial do roads. We like to call it ROADS 101. As in any field of
endeavor, there are buzz words. These are defined in the footnotes, where used. You
will find considerable discussion about the role of Spokane County. This is done for
two reasons: (a) it provides the reader with a great example of tasks that need to be
done by the City of Spokane Valley, and (b) it provides the reader with an idea of the
capabilities of Spokane-County, should the Council choose to contract services with
theta.
3-2. Ownership and Maintenance Responsibilities
A. County Roads
Upon incorporation, the County of Spokane will transfer title of about 450 miles3
of County roads to the City of Spokane Valley (CSV). The County retains
J ownership of those areas that are not yet considered road rights of way. For
example, they could, if they chose to do so, retain title to the future couplet
extending from University Rd. east to Appleway.
The County is required to maintain County roads for 60 days alter incorporation or
until 40% of the County Road Portion of the property tax has been received by
CSV, whichever occurs first. CSV will then be totally responsible for maintenance
and construction of these roads. Maintenance includes the following services:
1. Snow removal from streets
2. Sanding and deicing of streets
3. Street cleaning
4. Maintenance of 20,000 street signs
5. Maintenance of sigma] lights at 70 signalized intersections
6. Maintenance of 115 road miles of traffic stripe representing 325 lane
miles°
7. Pay the power bill for 1,930 street lights'
' A mile of road includes all lanes. Road length can also be measured in lane miles: one lane for one mile is
one lane mile.
Striping can either be totaled in road miles or in lane miles. One stripe for one mile is one lane mile.
s The utility companies own most of the luminaries (street lights) and perform the maintenance. All charges
are included in the flat rate for the electricity. Luminaires installed after 1991 (about 20 to 30) that are on
traffic signal poles are County owned and we do the maintenance. Electricity is metered on these lights.
Page 10
8. Street drainage (some shoulders, ditching, culvert repair, drywells,
--J stormwater swales and ponds)
9. Vegetation, litter, guard rail, and sidewalk repairs.
10. Pavement repair (includes pothole patching, crack Flling, pavement
removal and repair, chip seal6, and thin overlays
All the costs of maintenance of public roads are borne by the CSV. In general, no
grants are available for this purpose.
All costs of construction o f public roads are also the responsibility of CSV.
However, there are grants available for this purpose. Presently, Spokane County
spends approximately one dollar of County funds for every four dollars it receives
in grants from state and federal agencies. The CSV should strive to emulate this
model.
B. State Roads
CSV will be responsible for maintaining (but not construction ot) two state
highways: 4.55 miles of State Route 27 (Pines Rd) and 8.54 miles of State Route
290 (Trent). The State permits the CSV a one year grace period before the CSV
must maintain State Roads. CSV is then totally responsible for maintenance of
these roads. Unlike present County roads, pavement repair remains the
responsibility of the State. All other maintenance becomes the responsibility of the
~..1 CSV. This includes the following:
1. Snow removal
2. Sanding and deicing
3. Street cleaning
4. Street signs
5. Signal lights at ten signalized intersections
6. Striping? of roads
7. Maintenance of 122 street lights
8. Street drainage (some shoulders, ditching, culvert repair, d.rywells)
9. Vegetation, fitter, guard rail, and sidewalk repairs.
It should be noted that the State and the County differ in the types of traffic signals
they use. Therefore, it would be more logical to contract with the State for the
repair of such signals (since they have the proper test gear), and contract with the
County for other road maintenance.
New construction to increase capacity of a State Road is done by the State. New
construction that does not increase capacity is the responsibility of the CSV. Many
times developers, the State, and other agencies share in this expense.
C. Interstate Highways
6 Chip seal is when the road is oiled, and gravel-type material is then laid do„m.
' One stripe for one mile is one stripe mile. .
Page 11
The. Washington Department of Transportation will continue to be responsible for
maintenance of I-90.
D. Bridges
The CSV will assume ownership, maintenance, and operation of the County's .15
bridges. In addition, the Trent bridge over the Spokane River will be the property
of the CSV. Bridges over 1-90 are the responsibility of the agency that controls the
roadbed of the bridge. Overpasses on state highways are part of the State highway
system. The CSV is responsible for the maintenance, and the State is responsible
for the structure.
E. Railroad Crossings -
In general, the railroad is responsible for the 40 rail crossings within the CSV.
However, where damage occurs in which the culprit is unidentifiable or where he is
identifiable but uninsured, the City would share costs with the railroad.
3-3. Present Design and Construction of County Roads and Bridges
In this and the next sub-section, we will present the details about the design ,
construction, and maintenance of our roads. We should note that this is a discussion of
only County roads it excludes the State roads. However, we believe that an
understanding of the process is essential to an understanding of our roads.
A. The Engineering Phase
Note: The City of Spokane Valley is required by statute to have and maintain a
six year road plan. This plan must be completed by July 1 of each year, and must
include the.following costs: (a) engineering, (b) acquiring the rights of way, and
(c) construction. The County has supplied us with the plan they were using
before the incorporation vote. This plan can be used as a starting point in
developing our own plan. This plan is available from the Roads Committee as a
separate document, "City Of Spokane Valley, Interim Transportation
Improvement Program for the Years 2003-2008"
The County has a revolving, progressive, 6-year plan that is available for the public
to view on their web page. Their Plan is being continually updated for the next six
years. Whenever they plan a project, they project traffic counts out 20 years. Their
present plan excludes valley streets for the years 2003-2008, because these will be
the responsibility of the CSV. The CSV may choose to contract with'the County
for development and maintenance of their plan.
Once a project has been proposed, the County does engineering and traffic studies
f to determine the solution. (The County does over 400 traffic counts per year).
_ There are established design criteria as to when such items as traffic lights and
Page 12
signs are appropriate for a road. Criteria also exist for when it is appropriate to
install what type roadway.
The County must then seek funds for the project. To do this, they apply for grants
from both the Federal and State governments. These grants provide the bulk of
new construction funds: the County is able to receive about four dollars in grants
for every dollar it expends in thatching funds. Successful grant writing is a MUST
for the new city.
The County also does its own surveying of property, and works with local
surveyors to lay out the job. All of this data is entered into the County's database
for roads. It should be noted that counties within Washington State do a much
better job than cities in documenting their roads.
The County must also obtain rights of way either through direct negotiation with
the property owner, or through the courts.
Part of the design process is to obtain input from the residents of the area. Thus,
multiple public meetings can be held. These meetings can get quite heated, so it is
important to have a CSV representative who is cool under fire.
The County has an aggressive sewer construction program. Grants pay for
1 repaving the street above the trench IJowever, the County has a practice of
repaving the entire street, and they bear this extra cost $1.8-2.OM per year.
Bridges are assigned a rating system, with 350 being the top score. When the score
falls below 50, the bridge needs to be replaced. Those approaching this score are:
(a) the west half of the Argonne bridge over the river, and (b) half of the Sullivan
bridge over the river, and (c) the Barker Road bridge over the river. The County
has its own engineering section for bridge design.
B. The Construction Phase
Most road construction within the County is done by contractors. These
contractors bid on jobs proposed by the County malting use of road standards used
by the county. These road standards are available on the County's web page.
Note: The City of Spokane Valley must develop road standards and
make these available to contractors in order to assure the continued
quality of our roads.
Once a bid has been accepted, the County has its own inspectors that assure
adherence to the contract. The County is certified such that they can do their oven
inspections which are accepted by the State or the Feds.
Page 13
0 3-4. Maintenance of Roads
Again, we wish to note that this discussion involves only County roads. State roads
will also be maintained by the new city. The costs that are stated in this sub-section
are very preliminary cost estimates given to the Committee at an early stage in its
investigation. They are useful for ball-park estimates and for comparisons of various
County activities. Subsequent data, presented in the section on "Financing for Roads"
is considered more recent data and accurate data. However, that data is not as detailed
as in this sub-section.
A. Introduction to Maintenance
In this section, we shall discuss the maintenance of our roads as it is presently
being done. This maintenance includes (a) keeping the road surface in sound
repair, (b) keeping the road surface and right-of way clean, and (c) maintenance of
the signals and signage. The County estimates that this will. require 60,000 labor
hours per year, or about 30 full-time employees with a budget of $3.5-4.5M per
year.
B. Keeping the Road Surface in Sound Repair
Some time ago, the County realized that tar dollars could better be spent if officials
developed and executed an orderly surface maintenance program one that
provided routine repair of the surface, rather than waiting until the surface
deteriorated into a state requiring total reconstruction. They hired a consultant and,
as a result. developed their Smart Maintenance Program. "Through this program,
roads are routinely maintained through such techniques as routine inspection (each
road is inspected every two years), crack repair, chip seals (these last an average of
seven years), and overlays. Such a program has two very important outcomes:
The prevention of more serious deterioration as evidenced by potholes. To
quote Phil $arto, P.E., Maintenance and Operations Chief of the County, "if
you have a big pothole program, you are doing something wrong."
Shorting the road maintenance program will show up in five years as
very serious deterioration requiring, not repair, but reconstruction,
thereby wasting scarce taxpayers dollars.
2. The goal of the County is to focus dollars on new construction, where they can
obtain matching dollars. They do this by doing proper maintenance of roads,
preventing more serious problems, which would drain the treasury.
The County estimates that the City of Spokane Valley will spend $1.0-1.5M per year for
roadway surface maintenance.
Page 14
C. Cleaning the Road and Right-of Way
,j
Because of our weather, winter maintenance is one of our greatest challenges. The
basic rule for winter maintenance is that you cannot please everybody. In fact; the
hardest decision the County has to make is when and how much to plow the roads
in winters. ]wring a full-blown snow campaign, it takes five days and 35 pieces of
equipment to plow every road in the County. This translates into 12, twelve-hour
shifts for each of six plows, totaling 450-500 man-hours for plowing the City of
Spokane Valley. The County estimates that winter maintenance will cost $450,000
per year for CSV. However, this could vary from $100K for a light snow year to
S I.OM for a heavy snow year. This would also require three sadder trucks and 2
liquid deicer trucks, to distribute the estimated 400,000 gallons of liquid deicer and
6000 cubic yards of sands. The liquid deicer trucks can also be used to distribute
herbicides.
Cleanup is started in- the spring as soon as possible, with their goal being June 1 for
completion. Some pine needle sweeping is done in the fall to clear drywells and
culverts. The Cotuity estimates the cost for cleanup for the CSV at S 150K per year.
There is also some ditching, shoulder repair, and bridge maintenance required.
D. Maintenance of Signals and Signage
J The County receives many requests from citizens about providing more signs
because of speeding motorists. The CSV will take over the following maintenance
responsibilities from the county:
1. 20,000 signs, costing $120K. per year
2. 70 signalized intersections, costing $220K. per year f'or maintenance and
electricity 9
3. 115 miles of arterial striping at a cost of $90K per year 10
4. Street pavement markings at a cost of $35K per year 1
5. 1930 street lights at a cost of $300K per year
3-5. Administrative Services
The CSV would be responsible for the following services now performed by the
County:
A. Land use actions. For example, how would rezoning a particular parcel affect
road tragic?
s The County has two stockpilers of sand; one at Flora Road, and one at Carnahan [till. These stockpiles
contain 75 pounds of salt per cubic yard of sand.
9 In addition, there are 10 signals on State roads we are required to maintain
J 10 Will take two to three weeks with one striper
1 Two months, three-person crews
Page 15
B. reviewing development projects. For example, what traffic would be generated
by a particular development?
C. Arranging to receive surety bonds for improvements. By requiring these bonds,
the County prevents a project from bein; abandoned, uncompleted due to
inaction of the contractor.
D. Arranging for insurance. The County insures itself and, in addition, is part of a
mutual insurance pool with other counties.
Note: The City must develop an insurance program for casualty and
liability. This could involve (a) self=insurance, and/or (b) pooling ,%rith
other cities.
E. Processing citizen road complaints. The County received over 5100 of these
last year. Each must be investigated and processed.
F. Requests from a wide variety of people for road files and maps.
Note: The County is making arrangements to transfer over 30,000 road
file documents to the CSV on the day of incorporation. The CSV needs to
determine disposition of these records.
G. Creating Local Improvement Districts'2 when citizens want a particular
improvement.
H. Road vacations'' and road closures14
1. License agreements (agreements to lease city property which can be recalled
within 30 days)
J. Franchises (long term commitments, especially-for water, sewer, electrical, and
telecom that give the utility the right to be in a City road right of way). The
City of Spokane charges franchise fees; the County of Spokane does not.
12 These can be done for water, sewers, roads, drainage, and lighting.
13 Title of the road is given up by the countyand acquired by another person or group
" The road is closed to traffic, but title remains with the county. This could be a temporary event.
Page 16
Section 4.
~J1 RCWs, Boards, and Programs.Applicable to Roads
4-1. Introduction
The State of Washington has its set of laws known as the Revised Code of Washington
(RCWs). In addition, each department has adopted administrative codes to implement
its mission. These are known as Washington Administrative Code (WACs). In this
section, the RC%Nfs applicable to roads are presented.
In addition, there are many committees and boards that involve transportation and,
certainly, justify involvement by the City of Spokane Valley. Each of these is
discussed in this section.
4-2. RC Ws
The following are some of the RCWs applicable to city streets:
RCW 47.24
RCW 47.24.040
RCW 47.26.270
RCW 35A.47
RCW 35.02.220
RCW 70.94
RCW 70.94.527
City Streets as a Part of State Highways
Street fiend Expenditures on streets forming part of state
highway.
Matching Funds Requirements [for arterial funds]
Highways and Streets [of cities]
Duty of county and road, library, and fire districts to
continue services during transition period Road
maintenance and law enforcement services.
Clean Air Act
Transportation demand management Requirements for
counties and cities. [Commute Trip Reduction Plans]
4-3. Boards, Programs, and Committees
A. Commute Trip Reduction Program
The City of Spokane Valley must "adopt by ordinance and implement a commute
trip reduction plan for all major employers" who are affected by the Commute Trip
Reduction Law [RCW 70.94.527]. Major employers are affected if
• 100+ employees arrive at single worksite
Work is scheduled to begin between 6a.m. and 9:00a.m.
• Work is scheduled 35+ hours per week (Monday-Sunday)
• Work is scheduled on 2 or more weekdays (Monday-Friday)
• Work is scheduled in a position that will last for 12 continuous months.
The City of Spokane Valley has eighteen CTR-affected employers. And, the City
of Spokane Valley also becomes a CTR-affected employer (RCW 70.94.527 (4)
(d)]•
Page 17
Spokane County, as the lead agency, contracts with all five local jurisdictions to
administer and implement the CTR Program. This seamless system allows for
consistent implementation of CTR county-wide, efficient use of public funds,
revenue-neutral agreements, with administrative requirements fulfilled by Spokane
County stall": Because of this arrangement, Spokane County employers have one of
the highest success rates in the entire state.
B. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC)
1
The SRTC is a regional planning organization, set up under federal law to develop
a coordinated transportation-plan for the Spokane region. All of the new city is
within this region. This planning includes all transportation options within our
region: rail, auto, bicycle, and so forth, for both people and products.
The SRTC is governed by a board, which appoints its director. This board consists
of two each from the City of Spokane, County of Spokane, WSDOT, the private
sector, and the small cities within Spokane County. Interlocal agreements cover
both representation on the board and cost of joining SRTC. At the present time,
both the City of Spokane and the County of Spokane contribute $45,000 each year
in dues. The City of Spokane Valley will have to work out an interlocal agreement
with the Board covering both dues and representation.
SRTC advises Spokane County on regional transportation issues. Their
Metropolitan Transportation Plan identifies projects that we wish to do over the
next 25 years. Each of these projects must be regionally significant. That is, it
must have an impact on the region. Examples include light rail, Bridging the
Valley, and arterial development. Unless projects are listed in the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan, they will not be approved. That is, a recommendation will not
go forward to the Federal Government for approval of funds. For example, the
extension east of the Valley Couplet is not yet in the plan. Therefore it is not yet
eligible for Federal funds.
At a meeting with the Roads Committee, the Director of SRTC, Glenn Miles,
pointed out that fight rail is a desirable community asset. Developers look upon
fight rail stations as a permanent addition to the infrastructure, and are more willing
to invest their assets in developments around these stations. Light rail gives people
an additional choice.
C. Regional Transportation Management Center (RTMC).
This center, located at the Spokane bus/train terminal, monitors (or ultimately will
monitor) traffic throughout the greater Spokane region. By monitoring, the Center
will be able to readjust signals and traffic flow to meet needs that arise throughout
the day. For example, if there were an incident blocking the freeway, they could
f~ adjust the signals on the Valley Couplet to account for the higher flow of trallic.
Page 18
The Operators of the center are WSDOT employees. Each has a workstation that
J accesses the cameras on the arterials. The operators will be able to both monitor
and control traffic signals in the greater Spokane area.- The cities themselves will
be able to monitor all cameras, but would only be able to control the signals within
their jurisdiction. These field devices (cameras, signals, etc) belong to the agency
within which they are located; cameras are purposely aimed to prevent individual
identification, and these images are available on the web. At the present time, the
center operates 6AM-9:30 PM, M-F. They would eventually like to see it grow to
24 hours a day, 7 days g week.
The RTMC is governed by representatives from STA, the State, the County, the
City of Spokane, and others through interlocal agreements. Presumably, the City of
Spokane Valley could also participate through such an agreement. It is funded
through the Spokane Regional Transportation Council using mostly Congestion
Management Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Presently, there is an annual charge of
$20,000 to the participating agencies
D. In addition to the above comnuttees, we should seek membership on the following
roads-related boards and councils:
a. Spokane Transit Authority
b. One Call [This is the consortium of all utilities whom you would call when you
wish to dig. They will come out and identifj, underground utilities].
c. Airport Board
d. Growth Management Steering Committee
Pate 19
Section 5.
Financing for Roads
5-1. Introduction
Tlvs section presents data on expenses and capital outlays of the new City.
5-2. Equipment Purchases
This section presents two lists of road maintenance equipment that the CSV could
choose to purchase. Table 5-1 lists the equipment required for basic maintenance of
the streets. The table assumes that we would contract out such things as signs, signals,
and pavement markings. Based upon utilization, the County recommended that there
be a mix of new and used equipment.
Table 5-2 lists the equipment required to do major asphalt maintenance, such as
repairing larger areas of pavement failure.
Table 5-l
Equipment Required for Basic Road lvlaintenancels
QTY.
DESCRIPTION
1
SEDANS
6
PICKUPS
2
GEN. PURPOSE TRKS.
5
DUMP TRUCKS
5
MOTOR GRADERS
1
FRONT END LOADERS
1
TRACTOR BACKHOES
2
FLUSH TRUCKS
5
STREET SWEEPERS
1
KICK BROOMS
1
ASPH. PATCH TRUCK
1
CRACK FILLER MACH.
1
AIR COMPRESSOR
1
SHOP REPAIR TRUCK
1
EQUIPMENT TRAILER
1
VACTORS
MISC. SMALL TOOLS
TOTAL
PURPOSE
AGE
COST
ADMINISTRATIVE
NEW
$20,000
SUPERV./ WORKER X-PORT./ TRAFFIC
NEW
$120,000
WORKER X-PORT. / HAUL MATERIALS
NEW
$80,000
HAUL MATLS. /SNOW REMV./ SAND
USED
$150,000
SNOW REMV./ GRAVEL ROAD MAINT.
USED
$200,000
LOAD MATERIALS/ SNOW REMV.
USED
$50,000
DRAINAGE MAINT./ LOAD SAND
USED
$30,000
CLEAN STREETS/ LIQ. DEICER
NEW
$280,000
CLEAN STREETS
NEW
$650,000
CLEAN STREETS
NEW
$35,000
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE
NEW .
$100,000
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE
NEW
$30,000
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE
NEW
$20,000
EQUIPMENT REPAIR
USED
$30,000
HAUL EQUIPMENT
USED
$15,000
DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
NEW
$180,000
NEW
$150,000
$2,140,000
is Data courtesy Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 9-9-02.
Page 20
Table 5-2
Equipment Required to do Major Asphalt Maintenance 16
QTY.
DESCRIPTION
AGE
COST
1
PAVER
NEW
$80,000
1
ROLLER
USED
$50,000
1
GEN. PURPOSE TRUCK
NEW
$40,000
1
PICKUP
NEW
$20,000
1
SMALL GRAgER
USED
$30,000
3
UPGRADE DUMP TRK.
USED
$60,000
TOTAL
$280,000
5-3. Roads Budget Reporters: Eileen Allen and Bob Davis
A. Introduction
The roads budget has two primary components: (a) Maintenance & Traffic and (b)
Capital Projects (new construction). The following two sections present the
estimated costs over the first 12 months of CSV operation.
B. Dedicated or Non-dedicated Funds
The city must choose to allocate dedicated or non-dedicated funds for road
maintenance. Dedicated funds allow for more reliable funding and projected
maintenance programs.
C. State Roads
Washington State statute mandates that a city with a population of over 22,500 is
responsible for the maintenance of the state roads within its cite limits.
D. Sewer Repaving
The past practice of repaving the roads, curb to curb; after the sewer has been laid
allows the city to repave and upgrade older roads at a fraction of costs, because the
sewer project pays for repaving over the sewer line.
5-4. Roads Budget --Maintenance
Table 5-3 presents the road maintenance budget, and Table 5-4 details the Roadway
Maintenance line item of the budget. These figures reflect the first year estimate of
costs to maintain a level of service at, 70% of the optimum level, or roughly $10,000
per mile per year. (Paving over three-quarters of an inch is considered new
construction) There are two factors that can play an important part ui determining the
cost of maintenance for a particular }rear: (a) the weather, and (b) the level of service
requested by the CSV.
16 Data courtesy Spokane County Public Works, Division of E:n&eering and Roads, dated 9-9-02.
Page 21
~J
Table 5-3
Preliminary Budget Estimate
Maintenance Budget
Activity
DOT
Estimate
CSV
Estimate
Estimated
Budget
Roadway Maintenance
235,320
1,591,000
1,826,320
Storm Drainage
432,000
432,00
Structures
8,000
8,00
Sidewalks
4,000
4,00
Street Lighting
29,315
203,000
232,315
Traffic Control
59,207
498,000
557,207
Snow& Ice control
832,000
832,000
Street Cleaning.
710,000
710,000
Roadside Development
106,000
106,00
Road Operations Total
323,842
4,384,000
4,707,842
Table 5-4
Breakdown of Roadway 'Maintenance
Breakdown of
Roadway
Maintenance
Break-
down of
Estimate
Pothole Patching
230,000
Asphalt Prelevel
226,000
;,rack Sealing
74,000
Full Depth Pvt. Repair
571,000
Chip Sealing
350,000
Fog Sealing
20,00
Shoulder Maintenance
68,000
Gravel Road Maintenance
36,000
Dust Palative Preparation
16,000
Total
1,591,000
Page 22
5-4. Roads Budget Capital Projects
The capital projects budget, Table 5-5, reflects those projects that have been
designed, and grant monies acquired. The City need only contribute the necessary
matching funds of less than $1 for every $5 received through state and federal grants.
Table 5-5
Preliminary Budget E-'stunate
Capital Projects
Major Capital Projects
Grants
CSV
Total
Evergreen Rd - 16th Ave to 2nd Ave
1,641,800
660,500
2,302,300
16th Ave - Evergreen to Sullivan
2,083,191
775,460
2,858,651
Mission Ave - Evergreen to Sullivan
2,418,543
600,868
3,019,411
16th Ave - Dishman-Mica to SR 27
2,351,503
366,998
2,718,501
Park Rd - 8th Ave to 2nd Ave
929,200
232,300
1,161,50
Valley Couplet - Univ. to Evergreen
4,680,200
2,335,800
7,017,000
Major Projects Total
14,104,437
4,972,926
19,077,363
Total of funded Projects
9,680,768
Sewer Project Repaving - Yearly Est. 1,800,000 1,800,000
Preliminary Budget Total
See Note Below
11,480,768
Note: Research is being undertaken to determine whether additional capital projects
should be included in the above Budget Total.
Page 23
Section 6.
Project Studies
6-1. Introduction
This section presents the various road projects completed, in process, or contained in
plans by the County for the fixture of the portion of the Valley occupied by the City of
Spokane Valley. We will first discuss several large, future projects that have been part
of the County's long range plans, sections 6-2 through 6-5. These are summarized in
Table 6-1. Neat, we will discuss what projects have been completed, section 6-6, then
those projects that are now in progress, but 'are expected to be completed by the date of
incorporation, section 6-7. Projects that will not be completed, but for which funding
is available, are detailed ul section 6-8. The CSV will have to decide whether to
complete these. However, they may have to return the funding if they decide not to
complete them. Section 6-9 discussed three projects that are important to the Valley,
but are not funded completely.
Table 6-1
Major, Long-term Valley Transportation Projects 17
(Thousands
of Dollars)
Grants
Local
Total
Valley Coupet
11,650
3,204
14,854
Bridging the Valley
49,730
2,456
52,186
Bigelow Gulch/Forker
17,983
4,871
22,854
Sullivan Rd River Bridge
3,374
844
4,218
Barker Rd River Bridge
5,810
1,453
7,263
SubTotal
88,547
12,828
101,375
6-2. The Valley Couplet
The Valley Couplet was designed to carry traffic from T hierman (1-90 and Sprague
area) to Country Vista Rd. just west of Liberty Lake. Thus far, the County has
completed the Couplet from 1-90 to University Road. When completed, the total cost of
the project will be $14.85M, with $3.20M coming from local funds. With what has
been expended so far, the remaining cost of the project is $7.02M, with $2.34M
coming from local funds.
Data courtesy of Spokane Count, .1 Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 8-23-02
Page 24
The Committee devoted one meeting to a discussion of the couplet. The comments
from that meeting are discussed in the Paragraph (A). Subsequent to the meeting,
additional data was obtained from the County about the cost of alternatives. These
three alternatives (discussed in Paragraphs.B-D) are:
1. Leave Sprague and Appleway as they are.
2. Convert both Sprague and Appleway into ttivo-way arterials
3. Convert Sprague into a two-way arterial and convert Appleway into a limited.-
high-speed expressway with intersections every mile.
A. Comments fTom the Roads Committee Meeting
Some citizens have expressed concern about the couplet, and the Conlin ittee
devoted one meeting to these type of projects. Characteristics of and arguments
for the couplet were stated as follows:
1. The reasons for the valley couplet were: (a) the high traffic volume, (b)
collisions, and (c) congestion.
2. The original design was for a limited access expressway on Appleway with
traffic two way on Sprague. However, many of the businesses on Sprague
were concerned about loss of business on such a road. Therefore, the
engineers were instructed to design the couplet to meet these concerns.
3. Appleway is two lanes narrower than Sprague, making it easier for
pedestrians to cross.
4. The couplet is funded to go to Evergreen.
5. The specie of trees used for Sprague has been selected to prevent visibility
problems.
6. One-way streets permit lights to be timed. reducing stop and go traffic.
7. Two-way streets have a higher incidence of collisions than one-way streets.
Thus, one-way streets are inherently safer.
The major concerns stated by participants about the couplet relative to business
were:
1. The rental price of business establishments has decreased by 25%-75%
2. The volume of vacant business establishments has increased substantially.
3. Crary ScUnmels, on a recent Sunday, tallied empty businesses along
Sprague; based upon vacancy signs. Ilis results were as follows:
Page 25
Sprague, Havana to Fancher
7 vacant properties
Sprague, Fancher to University
27
Sprague, University to Pines
16
Sprague, Pines to Sullivan
23
Sprague, Sullivan to Barker
6
Appleway, Fancher to University
1
Total, Havana to barker
80
From this data, it would appear that the number of vacancies per mile along
the one-way portion of Sprague was less than the number of vacancies per
mile along the two-way portion of Sprague.
Comments from participants concerning the couplet:
1. The new city council needs to evaluate the couplet relative to its long range
plans. We need to develop our oven comprehensive plan and then see how
the couplet fits within those plans.
2. The new council needs to consider the needs of business as it develops a
plan for the couplet.
3. We need to stay on course, and take the couplet to Evergreen
4. There is a parallel along "Trent, where there is no business on one side.
Businesses on the other side have a difficult time of being successful.
5. Businesses are moving into the couplet corridor. The Display House and
Dakota Direct are two examples. A mattress store has outgrown its facility
and is expected to expand.
6. We need not only to consider businesses, but those who use the couplet.
Perhaps we could do a survey by phone.
7. One alternative would be to extend Appleway east as planned, but leave
Sprague two-way from University east. 14owever, this has the
disadvantages of (a) an unequal number of cast and west lanes, and (b) no
possibility for signal synchronization along the two-way portion of Sprague.
B. Alternative 1 Leaving the couplet as it is.
Under this alternative, no additional capital funds would have to be expended upon
the completed portion of the Couplet. The capacity of this system is about 60,000
vehicles per day for the year 2010 according to traffic studies performed for the
Supplemental 1S 18
18 Environmental Impact Study
Page 26 -
C. Alternative 2 Converting Appleway and Sprague into two, two-way arterials
Under this alternative, the present one-way portion of Sprague (Thierman to
University) would revert to a channelized, five-lane road. Appleway would also
become a channelized, five-lane road. A preliminary cost estimate for this
alternative is in the $4.84 M range, see Table 6-2. Note that Appleway, as
presently designed, is not wide enough to support the five lanes necessary for an
arterial. Therefore, more land would have to be purchased, at a cost of $1.5M. A
snore detailed cost estimate of this project would probably fall in the $3.5-6M
range. The capacity of this system would be less than 50,000 vehicles per day
(vpd). For year 2025 and a volume of 50,000 vpd, the operation of the following
uitersections would be considered unacceptable: Thiennan/Sprague,
Thierman/Appleway, Sprague/ Park, and SpragueNista. This system would also
have a higher incidence of collisions, because one-way roads are inherently safer
than two-way roads. Grants would probably not be available because of the
newness of the present roads.
D. Alternative 3 Converting Appleway to a high-speed expressway.
Under this alternative, Sprague would be converted into a two way arterial and
Appleway would be converted into a limited access expressway, with exits spaced
about one mile apart. A rough estimate of the cost of this alternative is in the $10-
15M. range, and a bottleneck would be createdui the Sprague/Thierman area.
i There would be an increase ui air pollution because of congested intersections,
causing an environmental problem. Grants would probably not be available
because of the newness of the present roads. Carrying capacity of such a system
would be 75,000 vehicles per day if the facility could be widened to seven lanes.
Page 27
Table 6-2
Valley Couplet Conversion to Two, Two-Way ArterlalsN
i'
Widen Appleway 9 feet to provide a 14' two-way, left-turn lane
$680,000
Remove curb and sidewalk
Const. new curb and sidewalk
Pavement and base
Purchase right-of-way on Appleway to accommodate wider road and modified
$1,500,000
intersections. Special areas of right-of-way concern:
Vista Mobile Home Park
Rose Haven Mobile Home Park
Pring /Appleway- buy right-of-way on north side from Sargent To David.
Light rail right-of-way should be reserved.
Remove drainage inlets and install new inlets at curb line to accommodate extra
$12,000
width.
Reconstruct drainage swales on A lewa
$50,000
Modi signals
$520,000
Restri a both arterials for two-way traffic.
$270,000
Modi UPRR railroad signals and gates
$60,000
Add si na a for two way operation.
$10;000
Construct islands on both Sprague & Appleway to channelize signalized
60,000
intersections.
Widen Thierman to 5 lanes to store additional vehicles.
$260,000
Remove and replace 10' and 20'radius curb returns at each intersection on
$80,000
Sprague and Appleway and reconstruct to 35' radii.
Remove and replace short road tapers in westbound direction on Appleway at
$120,000
University, Dishman Road, and between Girard and Park Road.
Delete bike lane on Sprague. Road width between gutters would be
0
14'+12+14+12+14 = 66', thus deleting the bike lane.
Modify Dishman Landfill site for added roadway width.
$100,000
Contract Total
$3,722,000
Preliminary Engineering @10%
.$372,200
Construction Engineering @10%
$372,200
Contingency
$372,200
rota I
Scope:
Restripe Sprague Avenue to five lanes.
Eliminate bike lane on Sprague.
Install concrete island channelization on both arterials.
Reconstruct curb returns to 35 feet on both arterials.
Add signal equipment at signalized intersections and modify to a two-way
operation.
Widen Appleway to provide for 14 +11+14+11+14=64 feet
Modify UPRR gates and signals on Appleway
Revise curb tapers for westbound traffic on Appleway
Widen Thierman to 5 or 6 lanes
Modify Dishman Landfill site for widening of Appleway
44,838,600
iv Data courtesy of Spokanc County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 8-21-02
Page 28
6-3. Bridging the Valley
Spokane County and Kootenai County have a long range program for Bridging the
Valley. This project consists of abandoning the Union Pacific (UP) railroad tracks
(except for siduigs), and moving trawl traffic onto the present Burlington Northern &
Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks. The BNSF tracks are those which are just to the south of and
run parallel to Trent Ave. The UP track presently runs from just west of Playfair,
along the south of Felts Field, crosses Trent at about Woodruff; continues along
Shannon and .Indiana, then crosses to the north side of the Spokane river just west of
the Sullivan Bridge, and continues east about a mile south of the BNSF tracks. This
project would also move the UP yard from its present site between Sprague and the
Fairgrounds, Fancher and Havana, to some as yet unidentified site in Northern Idaho.
R should be noted that the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe
:Railroads have been very cooperative in this project and are partners in this process.
The project would provide bridges over each of the major railroad crossings similar to
the bridge at Argonne and Trent. "Thus, cars and trains would be separated, and
collisions between the two greatly reduced. The bridge with the highest priority, due to
the number of trains and auto traffic would be constructed over the tracks at Park Road.
Table 6-3 details the source of funding for this Park Road Project. Note that some of
the grants have not yet been received.
Table 6-3
Funding for the Park Road Bridge Over the Railroad 20
i
Project Engr. Right-of-Way Construction Total Progress
FMSIB21
$257,000
$335,570
$4,407,430
$5,000,000 Grant applications to TIB22 and
FMSIB submitted
STP(U)23
$315,500
$211,745
$2,627,755
$3,155,000 Communication With RR initiated.
Tpp24
$400,000
$268,456
$3,331,544
$4,000,000
Railroad
$74,500
$50,000
$620,500
$745,000
City
$200,000
5134,228
$1',665,772
$2,000,000
Total
$1,247,000
$1,000,000
$12,653,000
$14,900,000
20 Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads: dated 8-23-02
Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board
22 Transportation Improverrrent Board
23 Surface Transportation Program, Urban (a federal program)
"'Transportation Partnership Program
PaEe 29
6-4. Bigelow-Forker Connector
One of the higher traffic counts has been traffic that wishes to go from the valley to the
north side. Bigelow Gulch now handles 18,000 vehicles per day, with 15% of them
being trucks. This project would provide a 5-lane road from Havana to Forker to
Progress to Sullivan Roads.
6-5. Sullivan and Barker Bridges
One-half of the Sullivan Bridge over the "Spokane River was built around 1915-20 and
is in need of replacement. The Barker Road Bridge is also in need of replacement.
6-6. Spokane Valley Transportation Projects Completed
Table 6-4 lists the Spokane Valley transportation projects that are completed. Funds
are still bong sought for the Park Road/BNISF Grade Separation Study. This is part of
the overall plan for Bridging the Valley.
Page 30
Table 6-4
Completed Construction Projects for City of Spokane Valley`s
Project Name
48th Avenue - UPRR Crossing
Sprague Avenue Rehabilitation
Central Valley School Signals
Chronicle Sewer Paveback
Eight Avenue Sewer Paveback
Walnut Sewer Paveback
Woodlawn Sewer Paveback
Spokane Area Stormwater Quality Study
Sullivan Road Voluntary CTR26
Sprague Avenue Rebuild
Beverly Hill Sewer Paveback
12th Avenue RID
12th Ave. (Park to-Coleman) RID 27
Location
Sands & Dishman Mica
Park Road to Dishman Road
32nd & Pines
Valley Area (West)
Valley Area (SW)
Valley Area (West)
Valley Area (SW)
Valley Area
SR 90 to SR 290
Havana to Fancher
Valley Area (SW)
Valley Area (SW)
Valley Area (SW)
Status
Under Contract - Completion 2002
Under Contract - Completion 2002
Completed
Under Contract - Completion 2002
Under Contract - Completion 2002
Under Contract - Completion 2002
Under Contract - Completion 2002
Under Contract - Completion 2002
Under Contract - Completion 2002
Completed
Under Contract - Completion 2002
Under Contract - Completion 2002
Under Contract - Completion 2002
Yardley Central Sewer Phase II Paveback
Knox, Dollar Rd., Mansfield RID
Mission Avenue - Project 1
Sprague Avenue
Valley Couplet - Stage 2
Valley Couplet - Stage 3
Valley Couplet - Stage 4
Sprague Ave.
Argonne/Mullan
32nd
Pines Road Sidewalk
Dishman Mica Overlay
Fancher Road Overlay
Progress Road
Sullivan Road
University Road
Wellesley
Mansfield
Skyview Pave back
Woodlawn, Sinto, Dean
Skipworth, Johnson
Valleyway, Motler Sprague
Valley Area
Valley Area
Argonne Road to Herald Road
Sullivan Road to Tschirley Road
Dishman Rd. to University Road
Thierman Rd. to Dishman Road
Thierman Rd. to Argonne Rd.
Havana to Fancher
Sprague to Mission
University to Pines
24th to 32nd
16th Ave. to Appleway Blvd
Trent to Broadway
Wellesley north 1180 feet
16th to 32nd
Main to Mission
Progress to Sullivan
Trent to Fancher
Valley (south)
Valley (north)
Valley (north)
Park Road/BNSF Grade Separation Study Indiana to Montgomery
Spokane Regional Bicycle Enhancements Valley Area
Project being closed out'a
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Project being closed out
Seeking funding
Project completed
2S Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated May 30, 2002
1 u Commute Trip Reduction
27 Road Improvement District
" PrajCct is completed and file in process of being closed out.
Paue 31
6-7. Projects in Progress in Spokane Count)'
Table 6-5 lists all those projects that Spokane County is in the process of doing. The
table lists two classes of projects:
A. Under Construction, Completion 2002
This class of projects consists of those projects that are now being constructed
and will be completed within the 2002 calendar year.
B. In Design/ROW - 2002 Completion
This second class of projects within Table 6-4 consists of those projects that are
now in the design and right-of-way acquisition stage. That is, construction has
not yet started. However, those ui this second class are expected to be
completed by the end of the 2002 calendar year.
The Broadway restriping project is one which is designed to convert roadway from a
four-lane road to a three lane road (two one-way lanes, a center turn lane and bicycle
lanes) between Park Road and Sullivan Road. There are an inordinate number of
collisions on Broadway, with more than half occurring between signal intersections.
The project is designed to reduce the number of collisions while maintaining the
capacity of Broadway. A similar project on Mission resulted in a 50% reduction in
collision while maintaining the same traffic volume. However, at a meeting between
the County Engineers and the local residents, there was vocal opposition to the project.
The objections stated by residents at the meeting were: (a) it would slow down traffic
on Broadway, (b) backing out of driveways would be more difficult, and (c) traffic
would back up at intersections. As a result, the County is turning the project over to the
CSV for action. All of the funds have been approved and are available; however, the
grants will expire in 18 months.
6-8. Funded Projects That Will Not -Be Completed Prior to Incorporation
This class of projects, Table 6-6, consists of those projects in which the design is
completed and the right-of-ways are available. However, the County will not be able
to complete these projects by the time the CSV will have been incorporated.
Therefore, the County will turn the design and the right-of-way over to the CSV for its
action.. The CSV can choose to complete the projects, or it can choose not to complete
the projects. However, if it chooses not to complete the projects, it may have to return
the grant money allocated for that project.
Table 6-7 lists the source for holding these projects.
Page 3 2
J Table 6-5
Construction Projects in Progress for Spokane galley to be Completed in 2002'9
FEDERAL STATE SPOKANE
Proiect TOTAL AID AID COUNTY Status
Under Construction - Completion 2002
16th Ave., SR 27 to Evergreen
2,094,000
630,000 903,000
561,000
Under Contract
10th Ave, 13th Ave. Warren, Marigold RID30
239,000
119,500
119,500
Under Contract
Mission Ave., McDonald to Evergreen
782,000
625,700
156,300
Under Contract
Mission Ave., SR 27 to McDonald
721,000
721,000
Under Contract
In Design/ROW' - 2002 Completion
Broadway Restripe, Park to Sullivan
350,000
270,000
80,000
Transfer to City
Broadway School crossing at Pierce
70,000
52,500
17,500
Awarded to Colvico
Centenial Mid. School crossing at Ella
70,000
52,500
17,500
Awarded to Colvico
Pines Road Overlay, 32nd to 40th
221,200
221,200
Completed
Sullivan Overlay, Trent east bound ramp
171,700
171,700
Under Construction
to Wellesley
Sullivan Rd. at SR 290 Signal
275,000
247,500
27,500
Under Construction
Transit passenger Waiting Areas on Sullivan
20,000
15,000
5,000
Under Construction
Montgomery Avenue Sidewalks,
161,200
129000
32,200
Bid Awarded
Locust to UPRR
Sullivan Road Overlay, 16th to Sprague
550,000
550,000
Under Contract
Dishman-Mica Road, 40th to University Rd.
400,000
400,000
Under Contract
Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated July 30, 2002
30 Road Improvement District
3' [tight of Way
Page 3 3
Table 6-6
Projects the Cotunty Nvill Turn Over to
The City of Spokane Valley.
for Completion 32
In Design/ROW'S - 2003 Completion Total Fed. Aid State Aid Local Status
16th Ave. , 1,866,350- 848,861 610,290 407,199 Ready to bid in 2003
Evergreen to Sullivan
Evergreen Road,
3,302,500
2nd. To 16th.
Mission Ave.,
2,514,151
Evergreen to Sullivan
Burns Road RIDS` -
(Mission bet. Evergreen & Sullivan)
Marcus Road RID -
(Mission bet. Evergreen & Sullivan)
Paris Road.
1,161,500
8th. To Appleway
Valley Corridor Environmental Study,
University to Appleway
Valley Couplet,
l University to Evergreen
16th Ave.,
2,718,500 2,351,503
Dishman-Mica to SR 27
- 50% completed
Awaiting Environmental
Completion
366,997 Fed Aid ROW approved
Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 7-30-02
33 Right of way
'a Road improvement district
2,641,800 660,700
2,013,834
500,317
0
0
Condemnation on
each end
Design 90% completed
RID terminated
RID terminated
929,200 232,300 Being surveyed
Page 34
Table 6-7
Sources for Funding for The Project
s In Table 6-63'
Project
Right of
Construction
Total
Engineering
Way
Evergreen Road Al p16
$158,800
$992,000
$1,491,000
$2,641,800
16th. Ave. to 2nd Ave37 City
$39,700
$248,000
$372,800
$660,500
Total
$198,500
$1,240,000
$1,863,800
$3,302,300
r
16th Ave, AIP
$236,990
$322,545
$610,290
$1,169,825
Evergreen to Sullivan Fed
$64,505
$848,861
$913,366
City
$64,505
$303,756
$407,199
$775,460
Total
'$366,000
$626,301
$1,866,350
$2,858,651
Mission Avenue, AIP
$244,509
$160,200
$2,013,834
$2,418,543
Evergreen to Sullivan' City
$60,751
$39,800
$500,317
$600,868
Total
$305,260
$200,000
$2,514,151
$3,019,411
16th Ave, STP(U)41
$147,050
$898,303
$1,306,150
$2,351,503
Dishman Mica to SR 2741 City
$22,950
$140,198
$203,850
$366,998
Total
$170,000
$1,038,501
$1,510,000
$2,718,501
Park Rd, AIP
$90,000
$213,600
$625,600
$929,200
8th Ave to 2nd Ave42 City
$22,500
$53,400
$156,400
$232,300
Total
$112,500
$267,000
$782,000
$1,161,500
Valley Couplet, TPp41
$240,900
$780,000
$3,189,300
$4,210,200
University to Evergreen" STP(U)
$ -
wsoar5
$470,000
$470,000
City
$160,600
$520,000
$1,656,200
$2,336,800
Total
$401,500
$1,300,000
$5,315,500
$7,017,000
Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works,
Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 8-23-02
36 Arterial Improvement Program
Design 80% complete, right of way acquisition 20%
3" Design 95% complete, right of way 98%
39 Design 95% complete, right of "may complete
40 Surface Transportation Program, Urban (a federal proorwn)
Design 5001a complete, right of way 30%
a'- Design starting, right of way 0%
4' Transportation Partnership Program
Environmental assessment 75% complete; shou
ld be complete in
January
45 Washineton State Department of Transportation
Page 35
6-9. Other High Priority Projects
The following three projects are considered high priority, but need to be designed and
grants have yet to be requested:
2
3.
32nd. Ave., SR 27 to Sullivan $3.7M, with $498K from CSV
Barker, I-90 to Trent $3.5M, with S479K from CSV
This would also include adding a new, $7M bridge. Preliminary design
work has been done and it is expected that the -grants will be available by
the time the new city is incorporated.
SR 27 (Pines) - Indiana, Montgomery, Mansfield
This project is a cooperative effort anion, the WSDOT, CSV, developers,
and grants. Total cost of the project is $3.23x1, with $2.59M in grants,
$50,000 from the CSV, $50,000 fi-om WSDDOT, and $547K.1Tom private
developers. It is expected to greatly improve traffic flow in this area. Table
6-8 details the funding for the project. Note that funds are not yet available.
Table 6-8
Funding for the SR 27/lndiana/Montgomery/Mansfield Project'16
TPPa7
WSDOT"
Private
City
Total
$216,000 $324,000 $2,048,174 $2,588,174 Grant applications submitted to TI 645
$50,000 $50,000 WSDOT and private funding committed.
$4,000 $81,000
$270,000 $405,000
$462,044 $547,044
$50,000 $50,000
$2,560,218 $3,235,218
46 Data courtesy of Spokane County Public Works, Division of Engineering and Roads, dated 8-23-02
'7 Transportation Partnership Program
18 Transportation Improvement Board
'19 Washington State Department ofTransportation
Page 36
Section 7
~ City Studies
7-1. Introduction
Members of the Roads Committee researched a number ofeities to obtain their views
and answers to the following questions. Each member then wrote a report based
upon the responses he/she received. These reports are included as individual sub-
sections to this section. r
A. Where are they now?
B. How did they get there?
C. NVhat were your goals and pitfalls?
D. Date of incorporation
E.
How does your experience apply to us?
F.
Number of miles (or lane miles) of roads
G.
What was your starting organization?
H.
How did the organization progress from that point?
1.
Cost per mile (or unit) or roads for maintenance
I
Population
K.
Number of city employees
L.
What services do you contract out?
M.
Do you buy or lease your equipment?
J N.
Does the city have a dedicated road fund?
0.
Do you have a roads management program?
7-2. City of Burien, Reporter: Myrna Gothmann
The city of Burien was incorporated on Feb. 28, 1993 with a population of 29,000.
Current population is 31,810. The goals for incorporation were: (1) to oppose the third
runway at Sea-Tac., (2) to do their own planning and have more control, and (3) to
improve the economic tax base for developmental revitalization.
Burien began with an interim council of seven, elected at large by a special election on
Sept. 15, 1992. They took office in October. The interim council hired an interim city
manager. The interim city manager contracted with other cities for finance manger,
city clerk, department assistant, and a couple other positions. These people worked iii
the position and helped the interim city manager hire permanent employees. As this
was accomplished the temporary employees went back to their other jobs.
The interim council served until the general election in Nov. 1993; at which time all
but two of the seven retained their seats. In this initial election some were elected for a
two year term and some for f.'our years. Now, council members serve in a staggered
four year term. `three are elected on one odd year and R)ur are elected on the next odd
year. The council's job is to set policy through debate, approval of motions, laws and
resolutions. They hold business meetings on the first and third Mondays of the month
and study sessions on the second and fourth Mondays. A mayor is elected from within
Page 37
the council and serves for two years. He presides over city council meetings and
J performs ceremonial duties.
The permanent city manager was hired by the permanent city council. The city
manager oversees city operations, implements council's policies through the
preparation of the city budget and capital improvement program. The council has fnial
approval.
The City of Burien contracts for all services so, it neither owns nor rents equipment.
They contract with both county and private contractors. They select the one that is best
for that particular job. They believe that multi contractors help to keep providers
honest and the cost down. They also contract for new design. They have limited ui-
house services. The philosophy is, we (the city) are the project managers and have
100% project management. They stressed that they must have staff to manage these
contracts. The city currently has 45 employees, nine of which are in the public works
department. They recommended that there be a traffic engineer dedicated to safety.
There are 200 lane miles in Burien. $700;000 is budgeted for maintenance. The city
has a pavement damage system to evaluate what kind of work is necessary to keep
roads in good condition. Burien has a three-past dedicated roads fund: (1) arterials
fiind,-(2) street fluid, and (3) capital transportation Rind.
The new city experienced two pitfalls: (1) The city manager spent a lot of time
educating the council members about their role, since many were becoming involved in
government for the first time. It was hard for the council to work as a group. They
had to learn that no one's own, interest is above serving the best interest of the
community. (2) The initial road money received from the County looked like a lot,
but it really wasn't. It did help the city get started with a strong revenue base.
Lessons from 13urien:
1. Hiring professional interim staff from surrounding communities worked very
well for them.
2. The City Manager may, initially, spend a g -eat deal of time educating the
Council in their role.
3. Contractuig all services works very well for them.
4. Some services were better contracted with the County, whereas some services
were better contracted with private parties.
5. The City needs adequate support staff fbr project management and contract
administration.
Information provided by the following City of Burien personnel:
Jan Hubbard, City Clerk, 206-241-4647
Page 38
Steve Clark, Director of Loads, 206-248-5514
Phyllis Dickey, Secretary, 206-248-5515
7-3. City of Yakima, Reporter: Doug Demmerly
1.
Date of incorporation - 1886
2.
Poptilation - 73,040 (updated)
3.
Miles of roadway - 348.4
4.
Number of city employees - 623
5.
Land area. - 19.26 sq. mi.
6.
Loads employees - 32
7.
Do you buy or lease equipment? We purchase a majority of our own equipment.
8.
Do you contract for any services? Yes, street sweeping and small patching areas.
9.
Cost per year for roads maintenance; $600,000 per year. Snow affects cost
10.
Do you have a road management program? Yes-roads are rated EVERY year
11.
Does the city have a dedicated roads fund? YES-imrentory all roads from bad to
good, and number of cracks and size every 100'
12.
What was your starting organization? Mr. Adams has been with the city for 2.5
years and has no information in this area.
13.
Where is your city roadway program now? We have almost no potholes and keep
up with our maintenance program strictly while not borrowing from other funds.
14.
How did your organization progress from that point? We require a safe driving
surface to the public. We annexed 17 mi. of expanded roads from the county w/o
curb and gutter or sidewalks.
15.
What were your goals and pitfalls?
Keep ahead of the high maintenance roads. Example: gravel roadway. The cost in
maintenance after three years oversbadows the cost of pavement, which has an
average life often years.
Challenges include the financing issues. I strive to make one dollar do the work of
five if possible. This is done by utilizing federal matching fiunds: one-half percent
interest loans and grants. We have learned that public hearings bring out the more
vocal citizens. In order to get a complete view of the community, we also send
interviewers to the neighborhood to get a true representation of opinion for any
roadway changes or proposals.
Contact: Kay Wendall Adams, City Engineer
Interviewed by Doug Dernmerly Aug. 12, 2002
ti.. i
Page 39
7-4. City of Coeur d'Alenc, R porter: Kirk Appjeby
A, Where are they now?
Coeur d'Alene 11 as a :full Service Road Departmnt
.B- How did they get these?
EstoTIC
C. What were your goals and pitfalls? r
Historic
D, Date of incorporation
1887
F- Ho does your experience apply to us?
There are thr(-,e areas iii which citizens can see the benefit cftheir tax dollars.
1) o ad s
) Fire protection
) Police
Gas taxes fund their capital improvenxe~nts- Jmpaut fees fii ad 0% of their new
roads, They have a progressive General fund to make additional improvements
(reconstruction and overlays
F. Number ofmi.lesor lane miles of roads.
Coeur d'Alene has about 200 road miles.
G. What was your startivng organization?
I4istoric
H. Now did the organization progress from that point?
Historic
.1- Cost per mile (or unit) for road Tn intenance
$13;000 per road mile includes maintenacce reconstruction per year.
Their annual cost of their roads department is $2.100,000 maintenance, salaries,
overhead, equipment, etc- plus $600,000 fnr improvements.
I Population
About 34,000
K. Number of city employees
The City of Coeur d'Alene has 250 full time employees, 3 are street department
plus seasonal employees.
( I' - ghat services do you contract out?
Page 40
Coeur d'Alene contracts the construction of new roads. Everything else except in
special cases is done by City staff.
M. Do you buy or lease your equipment?
They buy on 4 to 5 _year contracts.
N. Does the city have a dedicated road Rand?
Funds from gas tax are dedicated to. street maintenance and construction
($1,500,000) In additiop to gas tax fhe City Council has allocated $600,000 for
upgrading and running the Street Department.
0. Do you have a roads management program?
Yes, they use the same pavement management program as Spokane County but
with Just visual inspection. They rate their roads annually.
Contact: Gordon Dobler, Coeur d'Alene City Engineer
7-5. City of Post Falls, Reporter: Kirk Appleby
A. Where are they now?
They are slowly gaining ground on years of an under funded road system. Their tax
base is low because it is mainly residential.
r~
They chip seal on a 5-7 year rotating schedule.
B. How did they get there?
Developer funded road improvements, impact fees, L T.D.'s; urban renewal districts
within the city, funds from their general fiord, and Tax Increment Financing were
all used to finance their improvements.
Their main binding source for capital improvements has been from grants.
C. What were your•Doals-and pitfalls?
Historic
D. Date of incorporation
1591
E. ]=low does your experience apply to us?
I . The reconvnendation was to search for and hire quality management (City
Manager, Public Works Director, Engineering Manager and Street
Superintendent) and compensate them and retain their.
2. They felt we should contract with our current service providers until service
starts to break down.
3. Contracting out striping, signing, mowing and flushing streets and catch basins
is very expensive and more economically done by city stall.
face 41
0 4. Emphasize guarding road funds.
5. Tax Increment financing is one of the best tools for making road
improvements.
Tax Increment Financing is an urban renewal tool. The developer of either a
deteriorated area or a border community can apply for an area to be declared an
urban renewal district. In Idaho, if the 5-member Urban Renewal Board (appointed
by the city) approves the application, the taxes to the agencies who receive the tax
(such as schools, fire departments, cities) are frozen for a period of time (year or
years). Once the area is improved, the assessment will, naturally, go up, and the
owners of the area will pay their usual (now increased) tax. The difference
between what the owners pay and what the agencies receive is used by the Urban
Renewal Board to increase the infrastructure of the area (including roads). Post
Falls has used it for Harpers Furniture, their downtown area, and the business area
around Jacklin and the Outlet stores.
The Washington State version permits a City Council or County Commissioners to
declare a Tax Increment Financing District. The Counc111Commissiotiers act as the
Urban Renewal Board. Experience indicates this tax method will yield about 5%
of the increase in assessment for infrastructure.
F. Number of miles (or lane miles) of roads.
About 100 miles with a wide variety o.f.road conditions from surface treated gravel
roads to newly constructed 5 lane arterials. Many of their roads are old.
G. What was your starting organization?
Historic
H. How did the organization progress from that point?
Historic
1. -Cost per mile (or unit) for road maintenance
They feel they would like to spend 50 cents per square yard for chip seals, crack
seal, patching, curb and sidewalk replacement. This is somewhat high but their
roads are old. For new road construction projects Post Falls uses a 20 year design
life. On older residential chip scaled roads they rehabilitate using a 10-12 year
design life because of lack of funding. Lack of funding can be attributed to lack of
public support of L.I..D's.
Their annual cost of their roads department is as follows:
Salary & Benefits -$315,000
Operating Expenses $356,000
Capital expense $235,000 including Street construction
J. Population
About 18,000 (their population has doubled in the last 10 years)
Paee 42
K. Number of city employees
Total number of city employees is 200-240 depending on season. The street
department has 9 frill time plus up to 5 temporary summer employees (not
including Engineering and fleet maintenance). Engineering has full time
employees and fleet maintenance has 2 employees.
The water and waste water department has 17 employees
T What services do you contract out?
Chip Sealing, Large Projects and Traffic Signal Maintenance (Thorco) are
contracted out. Nothing is contracted out to other agencies but sometimes they
swap labor with the highway district. i.e. they will plow a county road and the
county will plow a city road.
Consultants do most of their design work. When consultants are used they need to
be managed as though they are city staff. Post.Falls has had good and bad
experiences using consultants.
The majority of construction work is contracted out. They sometimes will do the
paving work on small projects once curbs, gutters, storm water systems and base
has been done by contractor. Their employees' experience is not specialized in
construction and paving but maintenance, and their time is limited. Therefore larger
projects are left for contractors.
The city also contracts out garbage collection and final sewer sludge disposal.
M. Do you buy or lease your equipment?
They like to buy new equipment. "New equipment is more reliable and requires
less maintenance than used equipment." They feel they have equity in purchased
equipment. In the past they purchased used equipment and found it to require a lot
of maintenance. They also own their own new sweeper truck that bought with
CMAQ hinds. They also like the freedom of being able to deploy their own
equipment when it is needed for unexpected emergencies rather than having to find
a rental or get a contractor at a moment's notice.
14. :Does the city have a dedicated road fund?
Yes. But previously their roads were funded out of a general fund.
0. Do you have a roads management program?
Yes, two to three years ago they did a visual inspection of the roads and scored
them from 1 to 10. From the scoring they created a five year plan. They feel it is
time to re-inspect and reevaluate.
Contacts: Bill Melvin, Post halls City Engineer, 208-773-4235
Jerry Basler, Planning Department, 208-773-8708
Page 43
Make Cady, Consultant on Tax Increment Financing, 509-979-2933
Marshall Farrell, Spokane County, 477-2600
7-6. City of Liberty Lake, Reporter: Gary Schimunels
1. Date of Incorporation: 2001
2. Population: 4.600
3. Miles of roadway: Unknown
4. Number of employees: 13 (Including golf course)
5. Land area: four square miles, 1 1/2 miles presently under annexation
6. Road maintenance: Private contractors and Spokane County
7. Budget for 2002: $276,000
3. Road management program: Drew, being formatted
9. Road plan: Formulating Six-Year Plan
10. What was your starting organization: Private contractors
11. Does your city have a dedicated road fiend? No, it is general Rind monies.
1.2. 'Where is your city roadway program now? Patching crack scaling, shoulder
maintenance and striping. Spokane County contracted for pavement striping, signals,
and siUm.
13. What -,vere your goals and pitfalls? To new, planning and zoning.
Page 44
Section 8.
Contacts for Further Information
1. Spokane County Public Works; Division of Engineering and Roads:
County Engineer
Ross E. Kelley, P.E. 477-3600 rkelley a spokanecounty.org
Assistant County Engineer
James S. Haines, P.E. 477-7467 jhaines a pokanecounty.org
Traffic Nfaintenance and Operations
Bob Brueggeman, P.E 477-3600 bbrucggema.n a spokanecounty.orb
Maintenance and Operations Engineer
Phil Barto, P.G. 477-3600 pbarto a •pokanecounty.org
Director of Administrative Services
Marshall Farnell 477-2600 cnfarnell@spokanecotmty.org
2. Washington State Department of Transportation
Regional Traffic. Engineer
Ted Trepanier, P.F. 324-6550 trepant@wsdot.wa.gov
Highways and Local Programs, Operations Engineer
At King; P.E. 360-705-7375
3. Boundary Review Board
Susan Winchcll
4. City ofBurien
City Clerk
Jan Hubbard
Director of Roads
-Steve Clark
Secretary
Phyllis Dickey
5. City of Yakima
City Engineer.
Kay Wendall Adams
6. City of Coeur d'Alene
City Engineer
Gordon Dobler
7. City of Post Falls
City Engineer
Bill Melvin
swinchell@spokanecounty.org
206-241-4647
206-248-5514
206-248-5515
208-773-4235
Page 45
Planning Department
:ferry Basler 208-773-8708
Consultant on Tar Increment Financing
N1.1ke Cady 509-979-2983
9. King County
Ntary Coltrane 206-296-3724 mary.coltrane a metrokc.oov
Mary works with other cities in de`velopin,g local contracts between them
and [wing County
10. Spokane Regional Transportation Committee
Glenn Miles, Director 343-6370 srtransportation@gwest.net
11. Liberty Lake
Lewis Griffin. City Manager
Page 46
Section 9.
Index of Subjects
air pollution, 27
Airport Board, 19
alternatives, 3, 5, 7, 25
Appleway, 10, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 34
arterial, 15, 25, 27, 28 -
arterial fund, 7
arterials, 7, 8, 19, 25, 27, 28, 38, 42
Barker .Bridge, 30
bicycle, 18
Bigelow-Forker Connector, 3, 30
bike lane, 28
Boundary Review Board, 45
bridge, 12, 13, 15, 29, 36
Bridging the Valley, 3, 18, 24, 29,30
Broadway restriping; 32, 33
budget, 14, 212 23, 38
Burien, 3, 37, 38, 45
Burlington Northern & Santa e, 29
business, 9, 25, 26, 37, 42
cameras, 19
capital projects, 23
carrying capacity, 27
channel, 27, 28
chip seal, 11, 14, 41
City Council, 1, 5, 41, 42
city manager, 37, 38
City of Spokane Valley, 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9,
10; 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, 31,
34
City Plan, 9
CMAQ 19,43
Coeur d'Alene, 40, 41; 45
collisions, 25, 27; 29, 32
Commute Trip Reduction, 17
complaints, 1.6
construction, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11; 12, 13; 14;
32, 41, 42, 43
County of Spokane. See Spokane County
County roads, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14
couplet, 3, 10, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31,35
comments, 25
culvert, 11, 15
deicer trucks, 15
deicing, 9, 1.0, 11
design, 9, 12, 13, 32, 36, 38, 42, 43
l7ishman Landfill, 28
ditching, 11, 15
documents, 7, 16
drauiage, 11, 16, 28
drywells, 11, 15
engineering, 2, 9, 12, 13, 24, 28, 29, 31,
33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 43
equipment, 8, 9, 15, 20, 28, 37, 38, 39,
40, 41, 43
Evergreen Rd., 25, 26, 33, 34, 35
expressway, 25, 27
Fairarounds, 29
Felts Field, 29
fuiancing,, 3, 6, 14, 20, 41, 42, 44
Tax Tncrement, 42, 44, 46
five-line road, 27
franchises, 16
goals, 8, 37, 392 40, 41
grant, 11, 13, 32, 36, 39, 41
grant writing, 13
gravel, 11, 39, 42
herbicides, 15
incorporation, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 24, 37, 39,
40,41
insurance, 16
interim council, 37
interlocal agreements, 8, 1.8, 19
King County, 46
L.1.D.. See Local Improvement District
contacts, 45
land use actions, 15
contract administration, 9, 38
lease, 16, 37, 39, 41, 43
contracting, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20,
Liberty Lake, 44
37:38,39,40,41,43,46
license agreements, 16
contractors, 9, 13, 38, 43, 44
fig-lit rail, 18, 28
Page 47
1
Local Jrnprovement District, 16, 41
road fund, 7, 37, 41, 43, 44. See street
Luminaires. See street lights
fiend
maintenance, 2, 3; 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
road management program, 37, 39, 41,
14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 37, 38, 39, 40, 413
43.44
42, 43, 44, 45
road maps, 16
matching dollars, 14
road money, 38
matching funds, 13, 39
road standards, 13
Metropolitan Transportation Plan, 18
road surface, 14
One Call, 19
road vacations, 16
one way streets, 25
Roads Committee, 1, 2, 12, 18, 25, 37
overlays, 11, 14, 40
sand, 15
overpass, 12
sander trucks, 15
Park Rd., 28, 29, 30, 31, 32; 33, 34, 35
sanding, 9
Park Rd./BNSF Grade Separation Study,
Sea-Tac., 37
30
sewers, 5, 13, 16, 43
pavement markings, 15
sidewalk, 11, 28, 42
pavement repair, 11
signal lights, 7, 10, 20
Pines Rd., 8, 11, 26, 31, 33, 36
signalized intersections, 10, 11, 15, 28
pitfalls, 5, 7, 8, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44
signs, 10, 13, 14, 15, 20, 25
Playfair, 29
six year road plan, 12
plow, 15, 43
Six-Year Plan, 44
plowing, 9, 15
Smart Maintenance Program, 14
ponds, 1 l
snow, 15
Post Falls, 3, 41, 42, 43
Snow removal, 10, 11
pothole, 11, 14
solid waste, 5
project management, 9, 38
Spokane City, 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14,
projects, 6, 9, 16, 24, 25, 30, 32, 36, 42,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 31, 34
43
Spokane County, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18,
completed, 24, 30, 31
24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41,
future, 24
44,45
high priority; 36
Spokane County Engineer, 5, 45
in progress, 32, 33
Spokane Regional Transportation
major long term, 24
Council, 18, 19
uncompleted, 24, 32, 34
Spokane Transit Authority, 19
public hearings, 39
Spokane Valley. See City of Spokane
public works, 5, 38
Valley
railroad, 18
Sprague Rd., 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31,
railroad crossing, 12, 29
33
R.CW, 7,17
SR 27, 8, 11
reconstruction, 14, 40
SR 290, 11
Regional Transportation Management
State roads, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15
Center. 18
stormwater, 1 l
repair, 11, 14, 15
street fund, 7. See road fund
right of way, 10, 12, 13
street fights, 10, 1 l , 15.
road closures, 16
striping, 9, 15, 41, 44
road files, 16
Sullivan Bridge, 30
Page 48
Sullivan Rd., 3, 13, 24; 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, Union Pacific, 29
33, 34, 35, 36 University Rd., 10, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31. 33,
surety bonds, 1.6 34,35
survepulg, 13 urban renewal, 41; 42
swale, 11, 28 Urban Renewal Board, 42
sweepingg, 9, 15, 39 vacancy sins, 25
Tax Increment Financing, 41, 42 Valley Couplet. See couplet
telecom, 16 Washington State Department of
traffic light, 13 Transportation. See WSUOT
traffic signals, 11 ; 19 waste water, 43
traffic studies, 12 water, 16, 43
trench, 7, 13 WSDOT, 8, 12, 19, 45
Trent Rd., 11, 12, 26, 29, 31, 33, 36 Yakima, 3, 39, 45
two way streets; 25
Page 49