The URL can be used to link to this page

2014, 05-13 Regular MeetingAMENDED AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, May 13, 2014 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Fall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones Darin Council Meet(n, CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Gary Weber: Valley Fourth Memorial Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: ilia COMMIT "I'El' . I?O:1.IRI),1.IATsON IL'1i\'I. Its' REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PURI IC C:c)14I.1!IEItiTS: '? )i- is an ...trp 7rltlr,ily kir L.''C pontic to f•Jp..11c tln al,' pub cci i4;ccrl lll[>4i 1111 .Ili, :I w'1.j,1 : .,Pil:ll 'tn11;. fr ..t;c rl it '''; :I:El.lclLL 1`tlltil c hwtltirl Vis, .u1c'. ll'W1 .0 i'.'.311.ti 1.11111 Ni \\ I3I.'Sl 1, i'l.l li. 111114 (H01 i1 111ti Fir :E ii ;CCI. ) '\'11:11 you cornetut the poc1'l.I'1. JIlo3Sti; statC j[ L:' t1.1111G anti cirt Le ltiil:c 1i}1" Ilii' r::cc'I'{I :illi Iltlll::1:111x:.ts to tire...! 1. Ct)NS[NT AGI .g1)A: Consi.cs of i!%Tri :: ,1t14iti.k:' crl r1: ui.11 1>:'.I:ch aro ap,wto reel el .4 o group. An-_, C'•oLInc:L ?11iI ' iiwlti. 111111 ill? he'll) I'i' i "11[1x: LI I:'Cirr the t .71tscitt ri`:1[ l lo certsii1i`.: a•i til.1 :II r11 ly. Proirrr.c•ed Motion: 1.f no' L. tri l/^r i:1'(' 1(►c' Con veur 1 �+r Pular. 11, A.pirrcy';:11 4?t cl.f,i la '1'47 L1t 11,'" : May 19, 214 I?4.(1.tot- fell° { C111I1CIl Ac lo.l For.11 11-y' S:1,990,151.9 b..'lil,lr[3v111 clFlltyrc311 It:r i'.., I??;tjrr,l I :lillr {ll.7i1 ?CI. 9014: 12 5X* 16 of April 15, 2r. '~`c:tis°.I5l1 C'i:,uni.iI i.lillfl,' 9jllrlte: i1. Approval ofii.ptit 22, 201 Formal 1:1rintd..Con lici vleulitrL 1l::tu'cs lti3: 1' I•liISINF.S.S: .,",%..It:liciltl 1 .II•cc :,ries (1111lt [public comment] AmivoNisTRATARTF. REPORTS 3, Itcsu,tclalaoults Eric C.illlh, wk.,.::) 4, ('l`111t1ri:'Ili'-tsive. ]'I: n ;"01,1 1tt'lil, 11 . i{'I'A 2014) —Lori Barlow I efIc,°tt1 t'ci Isl.:Pllzilll Mike Jac i.:'..on 6. :'0clvelnc+ .1 , rlcia [#5,9. Solid Waste Update - (4r1•rke Jackson INFORMATION ONLY f'.1';1:' r;::rid' ,: , a or:•tt 7. Cc:llrr,illli,ll Trail Draft r grc.itic:it CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOUl wi!JNl_E T N(i'11C717,Ii, li' ':i 1 l I:IIiIIi1 all[; cJ llu In r l -G• .kl r: I- .;,ri �.Wr:ial a-i4r11nz: I, :1ctic!I 111 :[c `ty jC-.tl, 11C1615$, or other 11tip]lilnc•nts, pica:c-o171.7c_1 file- 4 il t i , l_:1: ;IL (7171^1 '.)2 1 :C10 ,s} :-.41r'-1 ::.3 .lam; A.)le Sn 111111 .tray 110 In,K1 L. Council Agenda 05-13-14 Formal Format Meeting Page I of 1 AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, May 13, 2014 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Gary Weber, Valley Fourth Memorial Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on May 13, 2014 Request for Council Action Form, Totaling- $2,990,351.59 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending April 30, 2014: $422,585.16 c. Approval of April 15, 2014 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes d. Approval of April 22, 2014 Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes NEW BUSINESS: 2. Motion Consideration: Stormwater Effectiveness Studies Consultant Agreement — Eric Guth [public comment] ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 3. Roundabouts — Eric Guth, Sean Messner 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA 2014) — Lori Barlow 5. Federal Consultant — Mike Jackson 6. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): 7. Centennial Trail Draft Agreement CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 05-13-14 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 13, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ['new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 10-08-2013 4505, 4522-4525; 4541; 30476-30480 $282,198.97 11/19/2013 2, 4579-4580, 4582-4583 $66,309.72 12/05/2013 4581, 4614-4618; 30944-30947 $253,760.76 12/19/2013 4631-4632, 4634-4635, 31061 $64,535.00 04/17/2014 32014-32029 $55,458.79 04/18/2014 32030-32096; 410140270 $422,060.05 04/18/2014 5713-5717 $818.00 04/23/2014 32097 $500.00 04/24/2014 32098-32120 $71,026.16 04/25/2014 32121-32140 $93,936.16 04/30/2014 32141-34142 $5,503.39 05/02/2014 32143-32167; 430140019 $1,673,987.59 05/02/2014 5718-5719 $257.00 GRAND TOTAL: 52,990,351.59 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists Other Funds 101— Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 120 — CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 123 — Civic Facilities Replacement 204 — Debt Service 301— Capital Projects (1st 'A% REET) 302 — Special Capital Proj (2nd'/4% REET) 303 — Street Capital Projects 304 — Mirabeau Point Project 307 — Capital Grants 309 -- Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 —Capital Reserve 402 — Stortnwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511 City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.032.000. Public Works 001.058.050.558. Comm. Develop.- Administration 001.058.055.558. Comm. Develop.— Develop.Eng. 001.058.056.558. Cornmunity Develop.- Planning 001.058.057.558. Community Develop.- Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't -Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director; ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist 10/08/2013 2:06:34PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 4505 10/4/2013 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben51430 4522 - 10/4/2013 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PL Ben51432 4523 - 10/4/2013 000682 EFTPS Ben51434 4524- 10/4/2013 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 4E Ben51436 4525 ' 10/4/2013 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EX Ben51438 4541' 10/4/2013 000682 EFTPS Ben51448 30476 10/4/2013 000120 AWC Ben51422 Ben51444 30477e- 10/4/2013 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben51424 30478 - 10/4/2013 000164 LABOR & INDUSTRIES Ben51420 Ben51446 30479 10/4/2013 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES 30480 10/4/2013 002574 WASHINGTON TRUST BANK 11 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Ben51426 Ben51428 '31-4 sSIV Fund/Dept 001.231.15.00 001.231.14.00 001.231.11.00 001.231.18.00 001.231.14.00 001.231.11.00 001.231.16.00 001.231.16.00 311.231.50.03 001.231.17.00 001.231.17.00 001.231.21.00 001.231.20.00 Description/Account Amount PERS: Payment 401A: Payment FEDERAL TAXES: Payment Total : Total : Total : 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: Total : Total: Total : 401 EXEC PLAN: Payment FEDERAL TAXES: Payment HEALTH PLANS: Payment HEALTH PLANS (COUNCIL): Payme Total IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: Payment Total : LABOR & INDUSTRIES: Payment LABOR & INDUSTRIES: Payment Total : UNION DUES: Payment Total : BERG20110-02-03952-4: Payment Total : Bank total : 68,467.31 68,467.31-A 28,477.62 - C) 28,477.62 32,295.71 -- 32,295_71 32,295.71 4,827.39 4,827.39 1,083.90 1,083.90 V 949.40 949.40 105,263.11 '- 8,540.69 8,540.69 113,803.80-" 1,322.70 1,322.70 27,631.25 240.87 . - 27,872.12 A 2,268.39 2,268.39 830.63 830.63 282,198.97 33 2 5 \\ Page: 1 vchlist 11/19/2013 3:03:38PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 2 , 11/20/2013 003256 DISCOVERY BENEFITS INC, HRA PLAN Ben52142 001231.28.00 HEALTH REIMBURSEMENTACCOL 650.00 Total : 650.00 4579 11/20/2013 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PL Ben52144 001.231.14.00 401A: Payment 28,297.80 , Total : 28,297.80 4580 - 11/20/2013 000682 EFTPS ' Ben52146 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: Payment 31,098.34 +X Total : 31,098.34 4582 , 11/20/2013 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 4. Ben52148 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: 1 5,136.32�� Total : 5,136.32 �Y/ 4583 • 11/20/2013 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EX Ben52150 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: Payment 1,127.26 Total : 1,127.26 5 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 66,309.72 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 66,309.72 k I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to a}theate and certify said claim. } ff; r �n 2 YY1l�l�� l� I�c1 (�� (Finance Director �i Date M yor Date Council Member Date 50-42D Page: vchlist 12/05/2013 2:37:251:111/1 Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: —/ Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 4581. 12/5/2013 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS • Ben52331 001.231.15.00 PERS: PAYMENT • 69,474.17 Total : - 69,474.17 • 4614 - 12/5/2013 000682 EFTPS Ben52321 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 949.40, Total : 949.40 4615 • 12/5/2013 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PL, Ben52333 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT ' 26,457.50 Total: ' 26,457.50 4616 • 12/5/2013 000682 EFTPS Ben52335 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT - 30,012.33 0 Total: • 30,012.33 4617 . 12/5/2013 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 4E. 8en52337 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: I , 4,906.16 • Total : 4,906.16 4618 • 12/5/2013 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EX Ben52339 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1,693.80 Total: 1,693.80 30944 - 12/5/2013 000120 AWC • Ben52319 001.231.16.00 ' HEALTH PLANS (COUNCIL): PAYME 8,540.64 Ben52323 001.231.16.00 DENTAL PLAN ADJ: PAYMENT 107,316.58 Total : ' 115,857.22 ✓ 30945 • 12/5/2013 002777 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION . Ben52329 402.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 1,270.13 Total: 1,270.13 ✓ 30946 • 12/5/2013 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben52325 001.231.21.00 UNION DUES: PAYMENT 2,307.89 Total : 2,307.89 30947. 12/5/2013 002574 WASHINGTON TRUST BANK . Ben52327 001.231.20.00 BERG20110-02-03952-4: PAYMENT 832.16 Total : 832.16 10 Vouchers for bank code : apbank { 0 49G Bank total : 253,760.76 , 1j3 .- 10 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 253,760.76 -5 = 3 •-3, 57• v - Page: �I� vchlist 12/19/2013 8:22:39AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: % • 4— Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 4631 12/20/2013 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A Pb Ben52573 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT' . 26,527.20 Total: 26,527.20 4632 - 12/20/2013 000682 EFTPS Ben52575 001.231.11.OD FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT ' w 31,730.45 Total : 31,730.45v -- 4634 1,730.45v-- 4634 • 12/20/2013 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 4: Ben52577 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: I 4,550.31 rT-1 • Total : 4,550.31 lJ 4635 ' 12/20/2013 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EX Ben52579 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1,127.26 V Total: 1,127.26 �1 31061 • 12/20/2013 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION • Ben52571 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 599.78 ,/ Total: 599.78 5 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 64,535.00 5 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that la luthorized au a ticate and certify said claim. ( InA1 L' ,t iZ iq /r v ---,3 Finance Director Date 1 Mayor Date Council Member Date 5Z, Z6--1:77 Total vouchers : 64,535.00 Page: 4 j/ vchlist 04/1712014 12:50:59 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 'I) --"Ir Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32014 4/17/2014 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 32015 4/17/2014 000030 AVISTA 32016 4/17/2014 003588 BATES, BILL 32017 4/17/2014 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 32018 4/17/2014 000388 IRV]N WATER DIST. #6 32019 4/17/2014 003587 PACE, ED 32020 4/17/2014 002592 PURE FILTRATION PRODUCTS 32021 4/17/2014 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS 32022 4/17/2014 002305 SAFEGUARD BUSINESS SYSTEMS 32023 4/17/2014 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES INV010038 April 2014 Expenses S0078171 March 2014 Expenses 19287 25405 029707660 April 2014 32024 4/17/2014 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 51869 51871 32025 4/1712014 001444 UNITED LABORATORIES Fund/Dept 001.016.000.521 101.042.000.542 001.011.000.511 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.011.000.511 001.076.305.575 001.011.000.511 001.076.305.575 001.076.302.576 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 1NV079162 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount PRECINCT JANITORIAL SERVICES Total : UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total: LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total : UTILITIES: PARKS Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total: NAME TAG Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS: API Total : WORK ORDER 24234: LABOR AND WORK ORDER 24341: LABOR AND Total : SUPPILES FOR CENTERPLACE Total 2,386.87 2,386.87 26,765.17 26,765.17 27.44 27.44 51.57 51.57 182.60 182.60 85.90 85.90 2,230.70 2,230.70 17.39 17.39 795.24 795.24 1,530.30 1,530.30 529.53 254.60 784.13 472.42 472.42 Page: 9� vchlist 04117/2014 12:50:59PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32026 4/17/2014 000167 VERA WATER & POWER March 2014 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: MARCH 2014 3,110.91 Total : 3,110.91 32027 4/17/2014 003175 VISIT SPOKANE 6072 105.000.000.557 2014 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 16,782.94 Total : 16,782.94 32028 4/17/2014 002651 WOODARD, ARNE Expenses 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 112.00 Total : 112.00 32029 4/17/2014 003128 YWCA OF SPOKANE March 2014 001.090.000.560 2014 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI 123.21 Total : 123.21 16 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 55,458.79 16 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 55,458.79 Page: vchlist 04/18/2014 2:52:07PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: J - Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32030 4/18/2014 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 51481 32031 4/18/2014 002816 ABLE CLEAN-UP TECHNOLOGIES INC 15617 32032 4/18/2014 002931 ALL WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 97923 32033 32034 4/18/2014 001081 ALSCO 4/18/2014 000135 APA 32035 4/18/2014 001540 ARNOLD, DARLA LSPO1450862 LSPO1456709 183514-1422 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 001.058.056.524 101.000.000.542 001.058.057.558 001.058.057.558 001.058.056.558 1ST PICTURE 2014 001.018.016.518 32036 4/18/2014 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 134716 32037 4/18/2014 002973 BEBOUT, BOB 32038 4/18/2014 000101 CDW-G 32039 4/18/2014 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 32040 4/18/2014 002419 CLARKS TIRES & AUTOMOTIVE 32041 4/18/2014 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY EXPENSE KX07274 234187 41033 46229 101.042.000.542 001.058.057.558 001.090.000.519 101.042.000.542 001.076.000.576 001.013.000.513 Description/Account Amount 2014 STREET SWEEPING CONTRA Total : Total : Total : FENCE RENTAL SUPPLIES: PW MAT SERVICE PERMIT CENTER MAT SERVICE PERMIT CENTER Total : 2014 M. PALANIUK 183514 Total : "PICTURE IT" WELLNESS CAMPAIC Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES: IT 2014 TIP SERVICES 06770D: TIRE MOUNT MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : 57,845.38 57,845.38 1,597.89 1,597.89 56.96 56.96 52.62 55.28 107.90 225.00 225.00 10.00 10.00 135.46 135.46 229.37 229.37 49.66 49.66 3,435.25 3,435.25 56.30 56.30 1,215.45 1,215.45 Page: -a- whilst 04/18/2014 2:52:07PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32042 4/18/2014 003611 COMPU COM SYSTEMS INC 62215911 32043 4/18/2014 001157 COUNTRY HOMES POWER EQUIP 108685 32044 4/18/2014 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 342150 32045 4/18/2014 003624 DEHN, SHELLY EXPENSE 32046 4/18/2014 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 77230165 32047 4118/2014 002236 DEPT OF COMMERCE REGISTRATION REGISTRATION 32048 4/18/2014 003256 DISCOVERY BENEFITS INC, HRA PLAN 0000451696 -IN 32049 4/18/2014 003615 DLT SOLUTIONS 32050 4/18/2014 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 32051 4/18/2014 003392 EPICENTER SERVICES LLC 32052 4/18/2014 001926 FARR, SARAH 32053 4/18/2014 001232 FASTENAL CO S 1251491 S 1251883 4222154 2014-15 EXPENSE D LEW95502 Fund/Dept 001.058.050.558 101.042.000.542 001.058.055.558 001.018.016.518 001.090.000.548 001.058.055.558 001.058.056.558 001.018.016.518 001.032.099.543 001.032.099.543 101.000.000.542 001.090.000.513 001.018.014.514 Description/Account Amount ADOBE ACROBAT UPGRADE FOR Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL SERI Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : LEASE CONTRACT 001-8922117-00 Total COMMUNITY SURVIVORS- G. MAN' COMMUNITY SURVIVORS- M. BAS1 Total : MARCH 2014 HRA SERVICE FEE Total : AUTODESK AUTOCAD CIVIL 3D 20' AUTODESK AUTOCAD CIVIL 3D 20' Total : OIL PRODUCTS FOR SNOW PLOW Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW Total : 490.29 490.29 271.74 271.74 986.50 986.50 26.88 26.88 1,053.19 1,053.19 150.00 150.00 300.00 396.00 396.00 8,094.61 1,445.31 9,539.92 3,224.56 3,224.56 247.80 247.80 75.60 75.60 42.22 42.22 Page: vchlist 04/18/2014 2:52:07PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32054 4/18/2014 002507 FASTENERS INC 32055 4/18/2014 003621 FAUROT, TAMARA 32056 4/18/2014 000106 FEDEX 32057 4/18/2014 003261 FEHR & PEERS 32058 4/18/2014 001993 FISCH, PETE 32059 4/18/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 32060 4/18/2014 003622 GLENN CONSULTING INC 32061 4/18/2014 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 32062 4/18/2014 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. S3893526.001 EXPENSE 2-611-11863 92703 1ST PICTURE 41764 128 MAR 14 1042 269171 269172 269430 269431 269843 269844 269845 269846 269849 269850 269853 269854 269857 269858 Fund/Dept Description/Account 101.000.000.542 001.058.057.558 001.018.016.518 303.303.159.595 001.018.016.518 001.058.056.558 101.042.000.542 001.011.000.511 001.058.050.558 001.058.050.558 001.058.057.558 001.058.057.558 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 001.018.016.518 001.018.016.518 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 Amount SUPPLIES: PW Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SHIPPING: HR Total : 0159 - UNIVERSITY ROAD OVERPP Total : "PICTURE IT' WELLNESS CAMPAI( Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : BST CONFERENCE- DANIELSON, (- Total : LOBBYIST SERVICES COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST COPIER COST Total: 13.73 13.73 235.18 235.18 4.76 4.76 4,604.82 4,604.82 10.00 10.00 71.40 7t40 220.00 220.00 3,181.95 3,181.95 96.87 49.23 38.43 4.50 135.59 64.42 176.21 15.32 295.90 57.83 280.72 27.57 160.53 28.86 Page: vchlist 04/18/2014 2:52:07PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: (t,, 4 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32062 4/18/2014 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. (Continued) 269869 001.058.057.558 COPIER COST 352.85 269870 001.058.057.558 COPIER COST 79.88 269873 001.011.000.511 COPIER COST 283.54 269874 001.011.000.511 COPIER COST 32.57 269920 001.076.000.576 COPIER COST 398.92 269921 001.076.000.576 COPIER COST 21.15 269953 001.058.057.558 COPIER COST 5.78 Total : 2,606.67 32063 4/18/2014 001296 H.D. FOWLER CO INC 13597673 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 84.71 13598224 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 36.52 Total: 121.23 32064 4/18/2014 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00137228-B 303.000.177.595 0177 - FURURE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 9,666.74 Total : 9,666.74 32065 4/18/2014 002684 HINSHAW, CARL EXPENSE 001.058.056.558 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 49.28 Total : 49.28 32066 4/18/2014 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 100007 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 277.35 99551 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 1,312.38 99889 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 137.58 CM98975 101.000.000.542 CREDIT MEMO: PW SUPPLIES -231.07 CM99105 101.000.000.542 CREDIT MEMO: SUPPLIES PW -131.80 CM99319 101.000.000.542 CREDIT MEMO: SUPPLIES PW -240.46 Total : 1,123.98 32067 4/18/2014 002538 HYDRAULICS PLUS INC 17778 101.000.000.542 SERVICES: SNOW PLOWS 841.86 Total : 841.86 32068 4/18/2014 003362 INLAND GEAR 23534 101.000.000.542 SERVICES: 5-209 1,349.53 Total : 1,349.53 32069 4/18/2014 002189 INTOXIMETERS INC. 462858 001.016.000.521 ALSCO- SENSOR FST FOR SVPD 481.00 Total: 481.00 32070 4/18/2014 003623 JCPENNY 2744-1 CRY WOLF REFUND 001.000.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT V," 35.00 Page: vchlist 04/18/2014 2:52:07PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32070 4/18/2014 003623 003623 JCPENNY 2744-1 32071 4/18/2014 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 32072 4/18/2014 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 32073 4/18/2014 000662 NAIL BARRICADE & SIGN CO 32074 4/18/2014 001035 NDM TECHNOLOGIES INC 32075 4/18/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 32076 4/18/2014 002243 ORBITCOM 32077 4/18/2014 000881 OXARC 32078 4/18/2014 002836 PALADIN DATA SYSTEMS CORP. 32079 4/18/2014 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 32080 4/18/2014 001204 POWELL, DOUGLAS (Continued) 0087031 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 492 303.303.060.595 511 001.013.015.515 Description/Account Amount Total : TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND SUP Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : 83008 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 5479 702575518001 702732803001 702767348001 703883757001 703884415001 703884416001 703922379001 00747850 R263013 34370 44081 EXPENSE 001.090.000.518 MONTHLY MAINTENANCE 001.018.014.514 SUPPLIES: FINANCE 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 001.013.015.515 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 001.013.015.515 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 001.013.015.515 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 001.018.016.518 SUPPLIES: HR 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.542 001.058.057.558 101.042.000.542 001.058.057.558 Total : Total : Total : CENTERPLACE PHONE SERVICE Total : CYLINDER RENTAL: PW Total : SMARTGOV FORMS AND REPORT; Total : 2014 STREETAND STORMWATER Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 35.00 15,706.52 15,706.52 5,852.05 22.50 5,874.55 57.07 57.07 600.00 600.00 8.16 68.24 15.37 64.13 13.58 4.33 101.92 275.73 203.09 203.09 93.85 93.85 320.00 320.00 83,889.46 83, 889.46 327.04 Page: vch l ist 04/1812014 2:52:07PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32080 4/18/2014 001204 001204 POWELL, DOUGLAS 32081 4/18/2014 003208 RODDA PAINT CO. 32082 4/18/2014 003619 S & L UNDERGROUND INC 32083 4/18/2014 003564 SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL INC 32084 4/18/2014 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE 32085 4/18/2014 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 32086 4/18/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 32087 4/18/2014 000862 SPOKANE ROCK PRODUCTS INC. 32088 4/18/2014 003346 SPOKANE VALLEY FARU 32089 4/18/2014 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE (Continued) 09418552 PAY APP 1 780481-R8-00501 782923-R8-00501 784752-R8-00501 MARCH 2014 50311095 110100030 51502081 DUI CFDA#20.601 PAY APP 4 V5996 CRY WOLF 3227946187 3227946188 3227946189 3227946190 3227946191 3227946192 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 403.000.173.594 001.090.000.513 001.090.000.513 001.090.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.018.013.513 303.303.181.595 101.042.000.542 001.016.000.521 311.223.40.00 101.042.000.542 001.058.050.558 001.058.050.558 001.058.050.558 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 Description/Account Amount SUPPLIES: PW Total : Total : CONSTRUCTION OF DECANT FACI Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : RECORDING FEES COUNTY IT SUPPORT Total : Total : ENGINEERING AND ROAD SERVIC MARCH WORK CREW INVOICE: Pu TARGET ZERO TEAM FEBRUARY 2 Total : CIP 12-017 FOR STREET PRESER\, Total : PERMIT V5996 PAYMENT ON BEHA Total : SUPPLIES: CD SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: CD SUPPLIES: COUNCIL SUPPLIES: COUNCIL SUPPLIES: COUNCIL Total : 327.04 228.31 228.31 82,554.82 82,554.82 11,127.52 7,740.00 5,020.00 23,887.52 1,222.00 1,222.00 12,366.92 12,366.92 34,968.49 6,178.35 1,210.96 42,357.80 37,439.79 37,439.79 35.00 35.00 55.73 84.42 37.40 36.20 68.10 52.14 333.99 Page: vchlist 04/18/2014 2:52:07PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 7 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32090 4/18/2014 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8080028069 8080028200 8080028304 32091 4/18/2014 003135 UNITED RENTALS, (NORTH AMERICA) II\ 118243857-001 32092 4/18/2014 003206 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP 32093 4/18/2014 000100 WABO INC. 32094 4/18/2014 002291 WALE 32095 4/18/2014 000676 WEST 32096 4/18/2014 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 110774 28703 MEMBERSHIP 829318213 MARCH 2014 MARCH 2014 B 410140270 4/11/2014 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-52 68 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 68 Vouchers in this report Fund/Dept Description/Account 001.058.057.558 001.058.057.558 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 001.013.015.515 001.018.016.518 001.058.056.524 001.013.015.515 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 001.016.000.521 Amount TIRE SERVICE: 32810D 32809D: OIL CHANGE/ SERVICE 47366D: OIL CHANGE/ SERVICE Total: EQUIPMENT RENTAL: PW PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : JOB POSTING PLANS EXAMINER Total : 2014-2015 MEMBERSHIP- W. SCHI Total : SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES HIGH SPEED INTERNET DARK FIBER LEASE Total : Total : CRY WOLF CHARGES- MARCH 201 Total : 134.43 289.22 204.98 628.63 513.68 513.68 715.50 715.50 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 722.00 722.00 556.99 410.91 967.90 4,41243 4,412.43 Bank total : 422,060.05 Total vouchers : 422,060.05 vchlist 04/18/2014 1:17:01 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: .� Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 5713 4/18/2014 003628 BISSELL, BEVERLY 5714 4/18/2014 003626 EWU MILITARY SCIENCE DEPT 5715 4/18/2014 003350 OVNICEK, CHRISTY 5716 4/18/2014 003627 ROCK PLACING COMPANY LLC 5717 4/18/2014 003625 SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS 5 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref 5 Vouchers in this report PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.237.10.99 REFUND FOR CANCELLATION: MIF Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND: GREE Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND: GRE/ Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND AUDIT Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND Total : Bank total Total vouchers 136.00 136.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 52.00 52.00 210.00 210.00 818.00 818.00 Page: vchlist 04/23/2014 9:54:45AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: i-' 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32097 4/23/2014 003650 CROFF, MICHAEL DAMAGES CLAIM 2014 001.058.056.558 TIRE CLEAN-UP REIMBURSEMENT 500.00 Total : 500.00 1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 500.00 1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 500.00 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist 04/24/2014 12:55:13 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32098 4/24/2014 003652 BADASS BACKYARD BREWING LLC 32099 4/24/2014 000322 CENTURYLINK 32100 4/24/2014 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION CSV REFUND APRIL 2014 Fund/Dept 001.000.000.321 001.076.000.576 RE-313-ATB40415059 101.042.000.542 RE-313-ATB40415062 101.042.000.542 32101 4/24/2014 003614 DEVRIES BUSINESS RECORDS MGMT 13098 32102 4/24/2014 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 32103 4/24/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 32104 4/24/2014 002568 GRANICUS INC 32105 4/24/2014 003177 GUTH, ERIC 32106 4/24/2014 003533 HANSON INDUSTRIES INC 32107 4/24/2014 002201 HARBOR FREIGHTTOOLS 32108 4/24/2014 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY 32109 4/24/2014 001944 LANCER LTD APRIL 2014 41828 54036 EXPENSE 04.14.0301 4.14.0213 645138 998048 0444691 001.016.000.594 001.076.305.575 001.013.000.513 001.011.000.511 001.032.000.543 303.303.155.595 303.303.155.595 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount CSV ENDORCEMENT REFUND Total 2014 PHONE SVCS: ACCT 509 Z14 - Total : STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT SIGNAL & ILLUMINATION MAIN Total : WORK STATIONS FOR PRECINCT Total ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION Total ; BROADCASTING SERVICES- COUP Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total: STATUTORY EVACUATION ALLOW/ STATUTORY EVACUATION ALLOW/ Total : SUPPLIES: PW 5-210: SERVICE BUSINESS CARDS Total : Total : 13.00 13.00 465.98 465.98 25, 951.38 5,047.98 30, 999.36 14,480.00 14,480.00 225.25 225.25 25.00 25.00 719.59 719.59 57.36 57.36 750.00 750.00 1,500.00 58.65 58.65 581.59 581.59 73.75 Page: vchlist 04/24/2014 12:55:13 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32109 4/24/2014 001944 001944 LANCER LTD (Continued) 32110 4/24/2014 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS MARCH 2014 32111 4/24/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1674621517 704427755001 32112 4/24/2014 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 1428301-AP14 32113 4/24/2014 003651 SIGNATURE STITCH AUTO UPHOLSTE CSV REFUND 32114 4/24/2014 001140 SPECIAL ASPHALT PRODUCTS INVC064368 32115 4/24/2014 000311 SPRINT 959698810-077 32116 4/24/2014 003553 THE JOHN AND ROZALIA SIMON, FAMIL145103.0405 32117 4/24/2014 001464 TW TELECOM 06163010 32118 4/24/2014 003135 UNITED RENTALS, (NORTH AMERICA) IN 118732330-001 32119 4/24/2014 002291 WACE 32120 4/24/2014 000255 WFOA 23 Vouchers for bank code : apbank SPRING CONFERENCE 1428665-68213927 Fund/Dept 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount Total : SUPPLIES: PWACCOUNT 1640259 Total : 001.018.014.514 SUPPLIES: FINANCE 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 001.090.000.518 001.000.000.321 101.042.000.542 001.058.057.558 303.303.156.595 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.542 001.058.056.524 001.018.014.514 POSTAGE METER RENTAL Total : Total : CSV ENDORCEMENT REFUND Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total: GPS PHONE: APRIL 2014 Total : RELOCATION ASSITANCE VOUCHE Total : INTERNET/DATA/PHONE LINES: AF Total: EQUIPMENT RENTAL Total : SRING CONFERENCE: W. SCHULT Total : 59TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE- R. N Total : Bank total : 73,75 320.26 320.26 18.59 17.12 35.71 275.00 275.00 13.00 13.00 18,626.01 18,626.01 70.30 70.30 800.00 800.00 1,246.33 1,246.33 90.02 90.02 25.00 25.00 325.00 325.00 71,026.16 Page: vchlist 04/25/2014 11:43:11 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: / Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32121 4/25/2014 000030 AVISTA March 2014 32122 4/25/2014 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY ]NC 9529334 9531398 32123 4/25/2014 001169 C]TY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 32124 4/25/2014 000900 DEPT OF L & 32125 4/25/2014 000741 HONEY BUCKETS April 2014 157584 1-894392 32126 4/25/2014 003316 INLAND NW BUSINESS, TRAVEL ASSOC 2014 32127 4/25/2014 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 32128 4/25/2014 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT 721100 April 2014 32129 4/25/2014 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC May 2014 32130 4/25/2014 001860 PLATT ELECTIRCAL SUPPLY 32131 4/25/2014 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS INC. 32132 4/25/2014 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER B998672 33097 681969 Fund/Dept 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.011.000.511 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.018.013.513 Description/Account Amount UTILITIES: PARKS MASTERAV]STA 7,599.68 Total : 7,599.68 LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE ATC LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE FOR Total : PETTY CASH: MULTIPLE RECEIPT; Total: ELEVATOR OPERATING CERTIFICF Total: HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PARKS Total: 2014 ANNUAL DUES/PREPAY OF Ll Total : EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAi Total : OPERATING SUPPLIES: OPS/ADMI. Total : 001.090.000.518 CITY HALL RENT 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SHIRTS AND EMBROIDERY FOR CI Total : SUPPLIES FOR BRIDAL FAIR/TRAC Total : 205.94 185.69 391.63 16.88 16.88 129.00 129.00 193.00 193.00 425.00 425.00 263.39 263.39 248.19 248.19 34,000.00 34,000.00 59.74 59.74 380.99 380.99 31.12 31.12 Page: vchlist 04/25/2014 11:43:11 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: / Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32133 4/25/2014 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES Apri[ 2014 32134 4/25/2014 000451 SPOKANE REG SPORTS COMMISSION April 2014 32135 4/25/2014 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 51890 32136 4/25/2014 001911 THE GLOVER MANSION 32137 4/25/2014 003649 TROPHIES UNLIMITED 32138 4/25/2014 001444 UNITED LABORATORIES 32139 4/25/2014 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS CP1114 CP1206 480359 INV079360 8478152 8478153 8478154 8490220 8490221 32140 4/25/2014 003610 WEST PLAINS CHAMBER OF COMMERC 2014-299 20 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 20 Vouchers in this report Fund/Dept 001.076.300.576 105.000.000.557 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount NEW SEWER ACCOUNT CHARGE: Total : 1ST QTR 2014 LODGING TAX REIM Total : MARCH 2014: MONTHLY MAINTEN) Total : EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAi EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAC Total : NAME TAGS FOR CENTERPLACE Total: SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total: SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT Total : ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP/APRIL BRE. Total : 47.01 47.01 45,950.00 45,950.00 587.80 587.80 152.18 10.87 163.05 60.33 60.33 87.83 87.83 1,634.68 34.78 142.38 1,249.83 16.85 3,078.52 223.00 223.00 Bank total : 93,936.16 Total vouchers : 93,936.16 vchlist 04/30/2014 11:58:56AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 7 ' -1- Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32141 4/30/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 2223 MAR 2014 001.090.000.518 MAIL BOX CENTER 32.07 2223 MAR 2014 001.018.016.518 RADIOSHACK 21.73 2223 MAR 2014 402.402.000.531 CIRCLE M CONSTRUCTION 586.98 2321 MAR 2014 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP 20.00 2321 MAR 2014 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP 20.00 2321 MAR 2014 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP 20.00 2321 MAR 2014 001.011.000.511 ASSOCIATION OF WA CITIES 95.00 2784 MAR 2014 001.076.305.575 ORIENTAL TRADING CO 39.00 2784 MAR 2014 001.076.305.575 THE HOME DEPOT 123.99 2784 MAR 2014 001.076.305.575 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP 25.00 2784 MAR 2014 001.076.304.575 GONZAGA UNIVERSITY 30.00 2784 MAR 2014 001.076.305.575 FASTENERS INC 42.10 2784 MAR 2014 001.076.305.575 SILHOUETTE LIGHTS & STAGING 54.34 2784 MAR 2014 001.076.305.575 FUN EXPRESS 46.75 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.057.558 TWIGS BISTRO 26.73 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.057.558 KRISTALLS RESTAURANT 77.82 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.057.558 ENZIAN INN LEAVENWORTH 985.05 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.057.558 ULINE SHIP SUPPLIES 381.91 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.050.558 PAYPAL 30.00 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.050.558 PAYPAL 30.00 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.057.558 MARRIOTT - SEATTLE 25.00 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.057.558 WABO INC. 60.00 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.056.558 PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF WASI 150.00 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.056.558 PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF WASI 275.00 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.057.558 SHARPS ROASTHOUSE 31.00 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.056.524 WA STATE ASSOC OF FIRE MA 70.00 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.057.558 ROCK PLACING COMPANY LLC 125.00 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.057.558 MARIOTT - SEATTLE 669.88 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.056.558 PAYPAL 150.00 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.055.558 PAYPAL 150.00 7511 MAR 2014 001.090.000.519 TARGET 35.56 7511 MAR 2014 001.090.000.518 AMAZON 509.97 7511 MAR 2014 001.018.014.514 GRAYBAR 237.14 7511 MAR 2014 001.013.000.513 ICMA INTERNET 149.00 7511 MAR 2014 001.032.000.543 BEST BUY 54.34 7511 MAR 2014 001.032.000.543 AMAZON 34.94 Page: vchlist 04i3012014 11: 58: 56AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32141 4/30/2014 001606 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued) Total : 5,415.30 32142 4/30/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 2321 MAR 2014 001.011.000.511 GRETER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAM 20.00 2784 MAR 2014 001.076.305.575 DOLLARTREE 17.39 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.056.558 AMAZON.COM 17.75 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.056.558 DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT_COP 17.95 4064 MAR 2014 001.058.055.558 PAYPAL 15.00 Total : 88.09 2 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 5,503.39 2 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 5,503.39 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist 05102/2014 1:11:12PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 �t— Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32143 5/2/2014 002615 BULLOCK, SUSAN 32144 5/2/2014 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 32145 5/2/2014 000235 DB SECURE SHRED 32146 5/2/2014 000278 DRISKELL, CARY 32147 5/2/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 32148 5/2/2014 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN 32149 5/2/2014 000265 JACKSON, MIKE 32150 5/2/2014 001914 KIPP, RYAN 32151 5/2/2014 003185 LAMB, ERIK 32152 5/2/2014 000910 MANTZ, GLORIA 32153 5/2/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT [NC. 32154 5/2/2014 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER EXPENSE 342890 2721042814 EXPENSE 41832 41833 41834 41835 EXPENSE MAY 2014 2ND PICTURE EXPENSE 1ST PICTURE 704748358001 MARCH 2014 FundlDept 001.013.015.515 001.058.055.558 001.090.000.518 001.013.015.515 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 001.018.016.518 001.013.015.515 001.018.016.518 001.090.000.518 001.016.000.586 Description/Account Amount EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL SER\ Total: DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total: LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : AUTO ALLOWANCE Total : "PICTURE IT WELLNESS CAMPAIC Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : "PICTURE IT" WELLNESS CAMPAI( Total : SUPPLIES: IT Total : 11.45 11.45 2,365.00 2,365.00 165.30 165.30 37.84 37.84 25.00 59.50 101.15 93.50 279.15 66.64 66.64 300.00 300.00 15.00 15.00 26.51 26.51 10.00 10.00 6.51 6.51 STATE REMITTANCE 59,835.02 Page: vchlist 05/02/2014 1:11:12PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 ''T Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32154 5/2/2014 000307 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASUREF (Continued) 32155 5/2/2014 002925 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 1470148 32156 5/2/2014 001604 PACIFIC NW PAPER 32157 5/2/2014 003653 PARTSMASTER 32158 5/2/2014 002561 RICASHAY ENTERPRISES 32159 5/2/2014 003605 RIGGS, CHAD 32160 5/2/2014 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY 32161 5/2/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 149806 20774444 P5669-0314 2ND PICTURE MARCH 2014 14500611 42000032 51502066 51502091 DU] CFDA#20.601 32162 5/2/2014 003654 SPOKANE MALL LLC, SPOKANE VALLEY S0055320-1 32163 5/2/2014 002110 TARGET MEDIA N.W. PUBLISHING 46834 32164 5/2/2014 000087 VER[ZON WIRELESS 9723674167 9723683318 9723711203 9723843797 Fund/Dept 001.013.015.515 001.018.013.513 101.000.000.542 001.016.000.521 001.018.016.518 001.016.000.586 001.090.000.566 001.016.000.554 001.016.000.523 001.229.51.13 001.016.000.521 001.018.013.513 001.018.013.513 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUPPLIES: P/R SUPPLIES: PW Total : Total : Total : Total : LIVE ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE Total : "PICTURE IT' WELLNESS CAMPAIC Total : CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F Total : Q1 2014 LIQUOR EXCISE 1/2 ANIMAL DEBT SERVICES COSI MARCH 2014 HOUSING INVOICE 2013 SETTLE/ADJUST HOUSING IN TARGET ZERO TEAM MARCH 2014 Total: SPACE RENTAL AT VALLEY MALL Total : ADVERTISING- PRINTING COST Total : AIR CARD FOR POLICE CHIEF- API AIR CARDS FOR POLICE DEPARTh APRIL2014 VERIZON CELL PHONE APRIL 2013 WIRELESS DATA CARE 59,835.02 212.50 212.50 93.11 93.11 62.38 62.38 250.00 250.00 15.00 15.00 908.76 908.76 5,280.93 22,500.00 122,049.00 -75,705.48 2,055.91 76,180.36 500.00 500.00 750.51 750.51 40.01 803.20 1,608.37 480.14 Page: vchlist 05/02/2014 1:11:12PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: g_L/ Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 32164 5/2/2014 000087 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 32165 5/2/2014 000255 WFOA 32166 5/2/2014 002839 WIND WIRELESS INC. 32167 5/2/2014 002651 WOODARD, ARNE 430140019 4/30/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 26 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 26 Vouchers in this report (Continued) 1428665-68631736 14286665-68517251 84987 EXPENSE 9290200585 Fund/Dept 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 101.042.000.542 001.011.000.511 001.016.000.521 Description/Account Amount Total : 59TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE- S. V1 59TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE- C. T. Total : WIRELESS PHONE/INTERNET FOF Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : LAW ENFORCEMENT APRIL 2014 Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 2,931.72 375.00 325.00 700.00 84.95 84.95 99.45 99.45 1,528, 080.43 1,528, 080.43 1,673,987.59 1,673,987.59 vchlist 05/0212014 12:25:44 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 t Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5718 5/2/2014 003656 SPOKANE VALLEY VFW #1435 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT EDGECLIFF PAI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5719 5/2/2014 003655 TRENTWOOD CONGREGATION OF, JEH PARKS REFUND 00t237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR GREAT RC 205.00 Total : 205.00 2 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 257.00 2 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 257.00 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: `1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 5-13-2014 Department Director Approval : ❑ Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ['information ❑admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending April 30, 2014 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 263,576.82 $ 5,475.00 $269,051.82 Benefits: $ 148,688.99 $ 4,844.35 $153,533.34 Total payroll $ 412,265.81 $ 10,319.35 $422,585.16 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington April 15, 2014 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Eric Guth, Public Works Director Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. Mayor Grafos explained that tonight is a study session and that there would be no public testimony, but that a public hearing is set for May 6 for the comprehensive plan proposed amendments. He also announced that an Executive Session would be held at the end of tonight's meeting. 1. 2014 Legislative Update — Briahna Taylor Ms. Briahna Taylor and Mr. Alex Soldano of Gordon Thomas Honeywell gave a report on legislative issues. Ms. Taylor said that for the first time in the last five years, legislators completed their session on time; she said the legislators' purpose was to amend the biennium budget adopted in June. Ms. Taylor explained that the State has three budgets: Operating, Capital, and Transportation; and that they chose to adopt an operating budget with minor changes, chose not to make any amendments to the previously adopted budget on the capital side, and for the transportation budget, they only adopted maintenance and operation expenses. She said of all the bills introduced, this session had the lowest percentage passage rate since prior to 1975. Concerning our City's nuisance abatement proposal, Ms. Taylor explained that last minute concerns raised by the Community Bankers Association prevented the bill from passing; and after not being acted on in 2013, the bill was automatically carried over to 2014; she said that the Community Banks Association opposed cities having a first priority lien for any purpose, even though the Counties already have that ability; said although the bill did not pass, they are looking at steps for the next session, and suggested engaging the Community Banks Association so as not to have them at odds with our proposal. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if it would be helpful to gather signatures from banks, realtors and citizens for the next time and Ms. Taylor replied that the local banks don't have the concern, but collectively, a majority of the members of that Association chose to vote that the association should oppose the bill. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he was told Columbia Bank had applied a lot of pressure against the bill, but he said they don't do residential so he's not sure what their issue is as they appear to be influencing the Association. Ms. Taylor said she feels they would never agree to anything having a first priority lien, but Council Study Session 04-15-2014 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT we can explore how to go about doing that. Mr. Soldano discussed our capital funding request for Appleway Trail and said ultimately it was not included in the House or the Senate's capital budget, adding that no capital budget was passed out of either the House or Senate, so this simply helps us move forward for the 2015 session to refine the request and collect letters of support and submit the request to the Governor's budget in early fall. Ms. Taylor explained about the state shared revenues for liquor profits, liquor taxes, and marijuana revenues; said the liquor profits were capped at 2011 dollar amounts so whatever we received in 2011 and whatever growth that account might get, cities will not see any of it; she said the budget leadership prevented any hearings from occurring on the bills, that this is a supplemental budget year and they didn't want to commit to any changes for future years. Concerning liquor taxes, she said the legislators eliminated all cities' receipts in 2011, meaning there was a 100% cut; she said in 2013 there was a 50% restoration so we only got half of what we got in 2011; she said there was a request to restore the full amount of funding but the legislators selected not to; and the Senate suggested reducing the revenue even further. For marijuana revenues, Ms. Taylor said that each session included several bills, some of which would provide some level of revenue sharing, but not more than 15%, which she said is very limited and very disappointing. She mentioned that neither House Bill 2149 nor Senate Bill 5887 relating to merging medical and recreational marijuana, passed and said they will be taken up again next session. Ms. Taylor said the State is responding to the Supreme Court decision that requires them to invest in education, and one of the areas to address that is to reduce revenues; said she has doubts marijuana revenues or liquor profits would change, but part of future conversations about aligning medical and recreational marijuana will include revenue sharing. There was brief discussion about revenues, impact of the Affordable Care Act, the Appleway Trail support from legislators, and ongoing legislative discussion on the transportation revenue package, and mention that some issues won't be addressed until after next November's election. 2. Draft 2015-2020 Six Year Transportation Plan (TIP) — Steve Worley Engineer Worley explained that tonight is an opportunity to discuss the annual upcoming update of the six-year TIP and get ideas for different projects Council would like staff to consider to add to the TIP. Mr. Worley said state law requires we have a six-year plan and that it must be fiscally constrained, which means all desired projects must fit into revenue sources. Mr. Worley explained that the projects listed in the agenda materials represent projects from last year's Six -Year TIP; that completed projects have been removed and recently funded projects added, and he briefly described the added projects listed on the April 15, 2014 Request for Council Action form. There was discussion about project #6 Sprague/Barker Roundabout, and whether this was something the neighborhood wants, and what the rationale is for using roundabouts compared to traffic signals. Mr. Worley explained that roundabouts are not new to many areas and there has been extensive study done on the effectiveness in terms of reducing collisions or the severity of collisions as opposed to those collisions that occur when people run red lights, typically at higher speeds. Mr. Worley said it is easier to get sideswiped or T-boned coming through a signaled intersection, but that roundabouts force people to slow down as they enter. He also noted that sometimes the amount of right-of-way needed to build roundabouts is much less than what is needed for full signalized intersections. Mr. Worley acknowledged that there is confusion sometimes when people are learning how to drive through roundabouts, and that collisions do occur, but they generally occur at lower speeds; and he talked about the history of our City's roundabouts. Other general comments included notice of a typographical error under project 10 where it states that FY09 federal earmark is for $720K million (which is actually not in millions); question about that project receiving up to $10 million from FMSIB, with Mr. Worley explaining that the FMSIB commitment is based on total price, that more details will be forthcoming, but the amount FMSIB will contribute is 20% up to $10 million. Council Study Session 04-15-2014 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Discussion returned to the Sprague/Barker roundabout and the issue of pedestrian safety, especially in such a high traffic area. Mr. Worley said there have been studies conducted showing that roundabouts are safer than traffic signals; that the roundabouts have splitter islands on each leg which creates a refuge for pedestrians so they cross one leg at a time, waiting in the middle protected area until it is safe to proceed; and said with full signals, pedestrians have to cross all lanes at once. To clarify, Mr. Jackson asked if Council would like more information on roundabouts and if the preference is to leave the project in the TIP or have it removed. Several Councilmembers expressed their opinion to leave it in, but to have staff bring back more information for future discussion. Concerning traffic backing up on Barker, Mr. Worley said the current configuration is a four-way stop and said any improvement would be good, and said that future discussion would include possible improvements to include. There was some discussion about adding to the TIP, improvements to Barker to the south of Sprague, or improving the entire corridor, but that there are many projects and not enough money to fund them all and perhaps other projects would be a higher priority. Mr. Worley asked Council what they think are the City's highest priorities in terms of transportation network or areas upon which to focus. Councilmember Wick said the Barker area is one to examine, and then asked about the Sullivan Road extension and whether that is part of the County's Bigelow project. Mr. Worley said our City limit is north of Wellesley, so this was our portion of working with the County to pay for our part of the Bigelow project up to our north City limit line; which project he said is on the unfunded list (Sullivan Road North Extension [Bigelow Gulch]); and said he will research that project further and check the County's plan so the projects (ours and the County's) can be coordinated. Councilmember Higgins asked about the south boundary on Barker Road and some large developments further south and Mr. Worley said that years ago the County considered straightening out the south Barker Road to make it safer and that they were pursuing funding; he said we had agreed to partner with them but they haven't been successful in obtaining grant funds; he said he would check with the County on the status of that project. Councilmember Hafner said since staff has already looked at prioritizing these projects, perhaps it would be beneficial for Council to know what criteria were used in that process. Mr. Worley replied that he would prepare that information for the next discussion on the TIP, and explained that staff looks at all the accident data from previous years, capacity of streets, and traffic volumes and tries to identify areas that are having problems or areas where we see future growth; he said specific criteria would come with individual grants. Councilmember Wick mentioned that we have been working with the County on sewering the northeast corner of Barker, and suggested looking at road improvements at the same time; and Councilmembers agreed with that suggestion that Mr. Worley look at that NE section. Mayor Grafos said he feels this is a starting point for this TIP, thinks the priorities are correct, and realizes we are constrained by the amount of money we have or anticipate receiving in grants, and that he feels the plan is realistic. 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Lori Barlow Senior Planner Barlow and Planner Palaniuk gave a report on the proposed 2014 comprehensive plan amendments; said they are not seeking action tonight, but tonight's process is to allow Council to become more familiar with the proposals and to ask questions in preparation for Council's May 6 public hearing. Ms. Barlow explained that there are nine proposal amendments, six of which are City -initiated text amendments. Planners Barlow and Palaniuk then went over the proposals as shown in their accompanying PowerPoint presentation. In response to Council question, Mr. Palaniuk explained that the impetus of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-14, Mirabeau Park, came about when Pinecroft LLC contacted the City stating their desire to acquire the property; that they own some property north of the Parkway; that they wanted to acquire this parcel and that they owned a piece of property along Pines that the City was wishing to acquire, and they were hoping for some kind of agreement. City Manager Jackson stressed that Mr. Palaniuk's explanation is to show the impetus for this proposal, and that it doesn't mean we are Council Study Session 04-15-2014 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT contemplating a trade, but this is merely how this proposal came about; and said if we want to acquire property, we would simply acquire it, and if we wanted to sell property, we would sell it at the fair market value. Mr. Jackson again stressed that there would be no swap of property; and said the first question for Council consideration is, does Council want to re -zone it, and said the purpose of the explanation is in full disclosure of how this came about. Discussion turned to Comprehensive Plan Amendment 02-14, the SCRAPS proposal, and ideas of requiring an eight -foot brick wall along with landscaping to act as a buffer and noise -blocker, and whether those requirements could be part of an agreement, or as a condition of the change to Corridor Mixed Use. City Attorney Driskell said staff will research those ideas and bring back further information for the next discussion. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-14, Ms. Barlow explained, is the most controversial as it deals with changing five acres from low density residential to high density residential. As the map was being explained and discussed, the question came up concerning whether the property owner lives on parcel 55173.1018, which borders the acreage in question on one side, and high density residential on the other and which high density would allow up to twenty-two units per acre. Ms. Barlow said she was not certain who owned that parcel, but would verify whether it is the property owner. Ms. Barlow explained that the Planning Commission took public testimony for four hours on this proposal, and many questions/concerns were voiced from the public at that time about over -crowing schools, and increases in traffic and crime. Ms. Barlow said the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of this proposal. Mayor Grafos called for a short recess at 7:50 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m., after which Ms. Barlow briefly explained the remaining proposed amendments, adding that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of all the City initiated text amendments. 4. Public Notification Process — Scott Kuhta, Erik Lamb Planning Manager Kuhta explained that Council asked for a review of the City's adopted Public Participation Guidelines and notice requirements for Comprehensive Plan changes and applications; and he went over the procedures involved in notifying citizens concerning Comprehensive Plan updates and annual amendments, and Land Use Applications such as zone amendments, explaining that some of the processes include state noticing requirements. He explained that a question also came up about notifying property owners within 400 feet of a subject property when it concerns land use application permits that require a public hearing; and said that 400 foot requirement was as a result of past Council discussions when the initial notice requirement was changed from the idea of using 300 feet to increase that to 400 feet. Mr. Kuhta also explained the four different types of permit applications and associated notice requirements. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained the notification process from a state law perspective and noted that there is no specific foot limit under state law but the law does call for a reasonably calculated method to provide notice to property owners and other interested parties, such as posting notice on the property and publishing notice in the local newspapers, which we currently do. Planning Manager Kuhta said the intent of tonight's discussion is to present these issues to Council, and seek feedback if Council feels there is a need to do more; and said that staff also uses the SmartGov public portal as a means of notifying the public. Councilmember Hafner said he feel our process is reasonable, and no matter what methods we use, there will always be some people who will say that they didn't get notice. The idea of running display ads as opposed to only legal ads was also discussed; and Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned that he feels the best way to get the message out about a particular area is to post the notice on the property. City Attorney Driskell stated that staff looks for balance because if we "set the bar" too high, we will also be looking at increased workloads and cost; that state law doesn't mandate a 400 foot noticing requirement, but we do that. Council Study Session 04-15-2014 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT 5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 6. Council Comments — Mayor Grafos There were no Council Comments. 7. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson Concerning our bond rating and our 2003 bonds, City Manager Jackson said that Finance Director Mark Calhoun was approached by Moody's Investment Service to complete a survey and subsequent interview, and as a result, our bonds have been upgraded from Al to AA3, which Mr. Jackson explained, is very good news; and said that is moving from an upper medium grade to high grade bonds; he said Moody's noted our low debt burden and moderately sized tax base with potential for growth; and our large general fund balance as well as our reserve were all positive indicators lending to the higher rating. Mr. Jackson said the initial bond of $7 million was for CenterPlace, and get reimbursed from the Public Facilities District, and said the additional $2.4 million was for road improvements; he said we have an extremely low debt ratio, sound management practices, and a service level stabilization fund, all positive factors. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately sixty minutes to discuss potential litigation and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:50 p.m. At 9:50 p.m., City Attorney Driskell returned to Council Chambers and announced that the Executive Session would be extended to 10:15 p.m. At 10:14 p.m., Mayor Grafos declared Council out of Executive Session, at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session 04-15-2014 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, April 22, 2014 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Isaac Hebden of the Intersection Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a PROCLAMATIONS: Because of a conflict in schedules, the proclamations were read prior to the committee reports so that those accepting the proclamations could leave to attend another meeting. Mayor Grafos read the National Drug Endangered Children Awareness Day Proclamation, which was accepted with thanks and appreciation by Ms. Linda Thompson of the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council. Mayor Grafos then read the Workers Memorial Day Proclamation, which was accepted with thanks and appreciation by Ms. Kay McGlocklin on behalf of the Spokane Regional Labor Council. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Hafner: reported that he attended the Board of Health Staff Awards with awards given to those dedicated people who have served five, ten, fifteen, twenty, and some almost thirty years; mentioned that Visit Spokane, which is the hotel/motel organization that geographically represents all us of, is preparing for the marijuana rush of people dedicated to the smoking of marijuana, in booking rooms for marijuana conferences and weekends, and said he is hopeful there are enough restrictions to protect the kids; attended the Board of Health Executive Board Meeting which he explained sets out the agenda for the following week and said they will be dealing with the evaluation of a health officer as required by statute; he said the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board meeting continues to discuss possibilities of placing an additional sales tax measure on an upcoming ballot next year; and said he also attended a SCOPE Board meeting. Councilmember Pace: said that he also attended the Health Board Meeting and as part of his orientation, went on a field trip to Northwest Seed and Pet for a mock inspection so he could learn what they do, and said he was impressed with their professionalism and dedication; said he attended the STA Board meeting and went on a long bus ride with the Director of Planning Karl Otterstrom; said he went to the Providence Council Regular Meeting 04-22-2014 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Medical Center dedication which included hearing a history of the valley, which he said will be read at the beginning of the May 6 council meeting; and said he attended the Chamber of Commerce Breakfast meeting. Councilmember Higgins: said he went to the Fair Housing Conference, the Providence Open House, and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee meeting. Councilmember Bates: reported that he also attended the Fair Housing Conference, which was an all -day session with lots of governmental agencies in attendance, and said elected officials were there to get "up to speed" on some of the new legislation and rights concerning fair housing and zoning; said he also attended the Providence ribbon cutting ceremony, and went to a SCOPE Board of Directors meeting. Councilmember Wick: said he attended the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) Retreat where he learned about planning; said as part of that (SRTC) Monthly Report, they learned that the United States Department of Transportation Highway Trust Fund anticipates running out of funds by about July; said he attended a retirement celebration for outgoing GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc) Director Rich Hadley; and said he participated on the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) Quality Communities Scholarship Selection Committee; said they got 59 applications which would be narrowed down to four to each receive a $1200 scholarship, and said he was very impressed with the applicants. Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he went to the "Hope that Illuminates" interesting exhibit about the Depression, which is on display at the library on Hawthorne; said as a realtor he is a member of the Spokane Mortgage Lenders Association and they heard an interesting presentation from SNAP, which deals with HUD Certified Housing Consultants that help people in default or behind in their mortgage payments, and he gave some statistics on the percentage of foreclosed properties on the market. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Grafos said he participated in the welcome/ribbon cutting of Providence Medical Park; said their $44 million dollar facility was built in eighteen months and said representatives from Providence were very complimentary about the assistance they received from our community development staff; and said he also went to the GSI Board meeting and Mr. Hadley's last meeting, and said it appears Mr. Hadley's replacement has been chosen. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Michael Croff, said he spoke before Council several weeks ago about his "tire wall" situation, said the situation has been remedied and he thanked Council and several members of staff including Mr. Scott Kuhta and Mr. Cary Driskell for their assistance; and on a different subject spoke of the need for a stop sign at Greenacres and Boone Road, said a sign used to be there but isn't any more. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on April 22, 2014 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $2,277,017.72 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending April 5, 2014: $310,805.07 c. Approval of April 1, 2014 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes d. Approval of April 8, 2014 Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes e. Reappointment of Jody Sander to Tourism Promotion Agency In response to Mayor Grafos' question if any Councilmember wished to remove an item from the Consent Agenda, Councilmember Pace asked that item le be removed to discuss separately. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda minus item le. Councilmember Pace asked about the process for making this appointment as well as what the TPA has done for us as and their goals for next year. After brief Council discussion, it was decided that tonight's appointment and the issue of the goals and duties of the TPA were two separate issues, and that the latter issue could again be brought up under tonight's Advance Agenda discussion. Several Councilmembers mentioned Ms. Sander's dedication to the commission and of her past experience as a member. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to confirm Council Regular Meeting 04-22-2014 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT the Mayoral appointment of Jody Sander to the Tourism Promotion Area Commission for a three-year term effective May 1, 2014. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Ordinance 14-004 Adopting Marijuana Regulations Findings of Fact — Erik Lamb After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded, to approve Ordinance No. 14-004 adopting findings of fact and amendments to modify the interim marijuana regulations originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-002. Deputy City Attorney Lamb briefly went over the background of this process, said the Findings of Fact justify the regulations and that the ordinance allows for limited production for indoor only and limited processing for bagging in regional commercial and community commercial zones; and said there is a slight change from the first reading from amending section 19.120.010 to now amending 19.120.050 which he said reflects the change in the new consolidated use matrix; he said the maps, although not an official part of the ordinance, have also been updated to reflect the property that was purchased from the City in the last six months by the Library. There was some brief discussion about labeling and serving regulations and guidelines, as well as warning labels for the products. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Keith Peterson said that regarding a comment about kids going to school smoking pot, that they can do the same thing with alcohol as alcohol is right there in their home; said he doesn't see a big problem with that and it shouldn't be any more of a problem with marijuana; said he owns Greenacres Liquor Store, said he paid a lot of taxes to have the road widened, sidewalks, trees, and bike lanes added, and said he doesn't know why Council is even considering making a trail in addition to all that; said the place he wants to open is next to his liquor store; that it was formerly a bank so it has vaults, safes, and is very secure and that he doesn't think he'd have a problem with people trying to break in; and he mentioned some of the regulations set up by the Liquor Control Board; said he had intended to hire twenty people to help run his new business so it would bring jobs. There were no other public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 3. Proposed Resolution 14-004, Appleway Trail Grant — Mike Stone It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Resolution 14-004 authorizing staff to apply for an RCO Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program grant for the Appleway Trail Phase 2B. Public Works Director Guth, standing in for Parks and Recreation Director Stone, went over the background of this proposal as noted in the April 22, 2014 Request for Council Action form. Mayor Grafos invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Adams Road Resurfacing 4th to Sprague — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the Adams Road Resurfacing 4th Avenue to Sprague Avenue Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Spokane Rock Products in the amount of $196,315.85 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. After Mr. Guth explained the proposal, Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comments; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5. Noxious Weeds Board Assessment — Cary Driskell Via his PowerPoint presentation, City Attorney Driskell explained several components of the Spokane County Noxious Weed Control Board, including its authority, board composition, funding options, the effect of our City's and the City of Liberty Lake's incorporation on collections, the Board's current assessment formula, proposed assessment formula, and budget. Mr. Driskell also noted that the Board has scheduled a public hearing for May 21 to take testimony, and then deliberate on a proposed Council Regular Meeting 04-22-2014 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT assessment formula change, and said he plans to attend that hearing. Concerning the effect of our City's incorporation, Mr. Driskell explained that since 2003 the Board annually collected between $90,000 and $95,000 from our residents, which works out to approximately fifteen times more than what the City of Spokane pays; said the Board became aware of their lack of authority to charge our and Liberty Lake's residents around 2013. He also explained that since the County became aware of the lack of authority to charge us, they changed their code to expressly authorize assessing residents in Spokane Valley and in Liberty Lake, at the rate of $3.00 per year per resident. Mr. Driskell said that staff from both cities requested an equitable assessment system but were told that budgets had been set for 2014. However, he explained that staff met with the Board last February to urge their consideration of an equitable assessment beginning in 2015, and the Board agreed and on April 15, 2014, proposed keeping the per acre charge but to reduce it from $3.00 to $2.00, and have that applicable to every parcel in the County, whether or not in an incorporated area. Mr. Driskell said if the new formula is adopted, it would increase the Board's operating budget from $425,525 to about $485,000, or 16%, and that the funds would be used to purchase technology upgrades and to focus more investigating time in urban areas. Discussion ensued regarding the budget with Councilmember Wick stating that the figures don't seem to add up, and questioning the amounts for the City of Spokane, which he said is about twice the size of our City. Mr. Driskell mentioned that bigger parcels pay more, but he doesn't have the statistics on those figures. Mr. Jackson said staff could review that information and perhaps ask that the new total assessment not increase by more than $60,000; adding that staff will research this further. There was also discussion about what constitutes a parcel, what are the noxious weeds, enforcement issues or lack thereof, a desire that the assessment should be the same for all, and a request that staff get more data in terms of what was done in the past, to gather their maps and methods for weed control and eradication, and to get a copy of their 2014 budget. Mayor Grafos said he feels the program is a good one, but doesn't agree with our City paying a fee fifteen times greater than the City of Spokane. Concerning suggested input for Mr. Driskell when he attends the May 21 hearing, the main issue would be fairness in the agreement, and Mr. Driskell said since the Board has the authority under state law, they don't need an agreement from us; and he noted that there were no other representatives from other cities at the previous meeting he attended, so Board representation might also be an issue to address. 6. Gender Identity and Public Restrooms — Cary Driskell As per the April 22, 2014 Request for Council Action, City Attorney Driskell explained that a member of the public had previously commented regarding the legality of men dressed as women using women's public restrooms, and whether we could adopt a Code provision prohibiting that use. As noted in his PowerPoint presentation, he explained that such code provision would be in opposition to Washington's law against discrimination, which includes prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity. 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos Suggested topics for upcoming agendas included the TPA (Tourism Promotion Agency) as well as lodging tax distribution and process and the various aspects of the Interlocal Agreement along with the idea of requiring the fund recipients to include performance measures; solid waste was also suggested as a future topic, with Mr. Jackson explaining that the County had set April 30 as the deadline, which has since been extended to about mid-May; and another suggestion was to cancel the fifth meeting in July, and there were no objections to that idea. Information Only Items: The (8) Department Monthly Reports, (9) Appleway Landscaping Phase 1, and (10) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-14 (Mirabeau Parkway parcel) Staff Clarification were for information only and were not reported or discussed. Council Regular Meeting 04-22-2014 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Jackson had no additional comments. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 04-22-2014 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 13, 2014 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Eastern Washington Effectiveness Study Development - Phase 1 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.48, Chapter 173-200 WAC, Title 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376; Storm and Surface Water Utility: SVMC 3.80. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: December 10, 2013, Council concurrence to bring the project to a future Council meeting for motion consideration. BACKGROUND: The new Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Permit for stormwater from City municipal sources (Permit) calls for the City to work with other Eastern Washington jurisdictions to study stormwater program and system effectiveness. City staff, with concurrence from staff representing sixteen cities and six counties in eastern Washington, is leading the initial effort, receiving grant funding from Ecology for the first phase of studies development (see attached information item from October 8, 2013 Council Agenda Packet). The permit infers a multi-year and multi -phase project. Future phases will require other jurisdictions to take lead of various tasks and studies to be determined, and require commitment by all jurisdictions to fund the studies. The initial funding for the first phase, however, is 100% reimbursable for up to $300,000 and will be led by City staff under the direction of the City Manager. Project benefits to the City include: 1. Compliance with new Permit obligations 2. Shows partnership with other cities/counties in Eastern Washington 3. Allows City staff to help identify/recommend lower cost and higher value study options 4. Ecology will reimburse 100% of project for staff time, consultants, and expenses 5. Could find the tools needed to determine the "right amount" of sweeping, vactoring, public education, bmp sizing, etc. A request for engineering consultant qualifications was issued on April 2, 2014, with four firms providing statements of qualifications on April 21, 2014. A recommendation committee representing Eastern Washington municipal stormwater permittees including City staff, interviewed all firms, with Herrera Environmental Consultants selected as the most qualified. OPTIONS: Whether or not to approve proceeding with consultant service agreements, or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager to negotiate, finalize and execute a WSDOT Local Agency Agreement for consulting services with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the Eastern Washington Effectiveness Study Development — Phase 1 Project, for up to $270,000 for any or all activities in the proposed scope of work. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Staff time and expenses, including consultant, 100% reimbursable by Ecology funding up to $300,000 for this first phase. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, Public Works Director; Art Jenkins, Stormwater Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Proposed scope of work; Informational Item from October 8, 2013 Council Packet SCOPE OF SERVICES: Eastern Washington Effectiveness Studies Development — Phase 1 City of Spokane Valley May 2014 The Project activities will require Herrera Environmental Consultants (Consultant) to work with staff from the City of Spokane Valley (City) as the project lead, and a Project Advisory Group (PAG) consisting of representatives from cities and counties in eastern Washington with a Eastern Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit. The City will negotiate individual Task Orders with the Consultant, which may include any or all of the following listed activities: 1. Group Facilitation: Provide assistance to help the PAG develop, evaluate, and prioritize effectiveness study proposals and questions. The final study proposal list should clearly depict the top 12 to 15 studies that the PAG would endorse collectively or as sub -regional areas. 2. Literature Research: As directed by the City and the PAG, provide literature research on work applicable to study ideas in proving Program/BMP effectiveness. The Consultant shall recommend to the City individuals or entities with expertise in certain study fields that could provide sub -consulting services for the literature research work for each study idea approved by the PAG for further investigation. The City and/or PAG would have authority to approve any literature researchers prior to commencement of this work. Literature researchers will look to refine or uncover additional research questions that would help the cities and counties of eastern Washington effectively and efficiently determine Program/BMP effectiveness. Literature researchers shall provide a presentation of findings and draft a report for in person or on-line web -type meetings to interested members of the PAG. The Consultant will summarize these findings and reports for dissemination by the PAG. 3. Gap Analysis: Based on the results of the literature research, and with concurrence from the PAG, provide an evaluation and analysis of missing information that may guide the formation of effectiveness studies and/or ways to adapt existing studies to address local eastern Washington conditions and identify gaps in knowledge that would lend to measuring program and BMP effectiveness. 4. Concept Studies Formation: With concurrence from members of the PAG, develop narrowly -defined study questions and hypothesis based on literature research, and gap analysis. Present concepts of studies that would answer the defined questions and hypothesis to PAG for review and approval. 5. Cost/Benefit Analysis: Estimate the probable range of tangible and intangible costs and benefits to carry out conceptual studies through all phases, including final design, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), preparation, implementation, data collection, analysis, reporting periods. 6. Partnering Framework Development: If asked for by the PAG, assist in group facilitation to look at possible ways to fund proposed study work in eastern Washington, and assist in developing various options for individual permittees to discuss with the city(ies) or county(ies) that they represent. 7. Meeting facilitation and reporting: Generate applicable and appropriate meeting agendas, communicate with attendees, assist in scheduling and running project meetings, take meeting notes, and post appropriate PAG -approved materials to websites as directed. It is anticipated that four to six meetings will be held in person in a central location (such as Moses Lake), and the remainder of meetings will be held via an online web -type meeting arrangement. 8. Final Report: with concurrence of the City's project manager, assemble a final report compiling all deliverables, including prioritization methodology, literature research, gap analysis, concept formation, cost/benefit analysis, partnering framework(s), and meeting minutes, etc. This document should serve to support individual representatives in discussing various options with their respective city(ies) and county(ies). PROJECT SCHEDULE: Individual task schedules shall be developed during task order scoping, but all tasks shall be completed by January 30, 2015. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 8, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or Statewide Significance GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.48, Chapter 173-200 WAC, Title 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376; Storm and Surface Water Utility: SVMC 3.80. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: none BACKGROUND: The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) is soliciting grant proposals for projccts of regional or statewide significance to support implementation of the Municipal Stormwater General Permits for cities and counties. The S2.2 million dollars available for this purpose is can -y -forward funding provided by the Washington State Legislature to local governments to support stormwater permit implementation. This competitive grant program is available only to cities, towns, and counties covered by a municipal stormwater permit and is 100% up to 5300,000. Applications were due October 1, 2013. Staff is applying for a grant project, the EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1, that would be a collaborative effort between stormwater programs across Eastern Washington to collectively meet stormwater permit requirements. Recent permit changes require permitees to develop effectiveness studies for permitted programs before June 30, 2016 under Permit Section S8.B, paragraphs 1 through 3. The project would be of benefit to the City for the following reasons: it will help the City meet its Municipal Stormwater Permit obligations, we would collaborate with other Cities and Counties in Eastern Washington to identify and recommend lower cost options, and this phase of the project would cost the City no additional money. If the City receives notification of Grant award for this project, Staff will ask for a motion consideration to proceed with the project and hire consultant(s) at a later date. OPTIONS: NIA RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None — grant will pay for 100% of costs and both projects will be below $300,000 each. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, Public Works Director Art Jenkins, Stormwater Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Ecology Grant Proposal; Eastern Washington Phase 11 Municipal Stormwater Permit, page 46 EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 September 27, 2013 A. Cover Sheet 1. Project Title: EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 2. Local Government: City of Spokane Valley, WA 3. Tax ID Number: 71-0914!70 4. Staff Contact and Contact Information: Art Jenkins, Stormwater Engineer City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Ste 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5018 Email: ajenkins@spokanevalley.org 5. Certification and Signature: I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE INFORMATION 1N THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT I AM THE LEGALLY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OR DESIGNEE FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF THIS INFORMATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. Printed Name Signature Title Date Page 1 of 12 FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or State-wide Significance EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 September 27, 2013 B. Abstract Eastern Washington has 18 Cities and 6 Counties who are currently covered under a Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. The State issued a new Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Permit) that will go into effect August 1, 2014 that has new requirements in monitoring of stormwater quality. A question being asked is how effective these permits and programs are in reducing pollutants to waters of the State. To help address this question, the new permit requires the Permittees to developl2 to 15 effectiveness study ideas (See Permit section S8.B). The Eastern Washington Stormwater Coordinator Group (EWSCG), which represents staff from the Eastern Washington Stormwater Permit holders, met recently to discuss approaches to meeting the new S8.B permit requirements. The group decided to partner and seek an Ecology Grant of Regional or Statewide Significance (CRSS) to help outline, research, summarize, rank, and better define the required number of effectiveness study ideas and to put together a framework for possibly funding the studies in the future. This work will be accomplished through facilitated discussions with staff representing Eastern Washington permittees to brainstorm, formulate teams, write brief outlines of possible proposals, perform literature research of previously completed studies, provide a gap analysis to maximize study effectiveness, and developing a magnitude of costs for each study proposed. A partnership framework to fund future study work will be developed for discussion and possible approval from each permitted jurisdiction. Consultants will be utilized as needed to help in the facilitation of the work for the group. This project, the Eastern Washington (EW) Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 Project, would benefit all of the 24 Eastern Washington permit holders in assisting them in fulfilling a number of requirements of Permit section S8. C. Work Plan 1. Purpose The purpose of the project is to show how Eastern Washington Cities and Counties will meet the requirements of the Eastern Washington Phase Il Municipal Stormwater Permit sections S8.B.1 through 3. The project will develop a set of effectiveness study proposal outlines that could help Eastern Washington Permittees ascertain their Municipal Stormwater Program performance. The ultimate goal of these studies is to measure the success of their permitted programs in working to reduce or eliminate pollutants that may flow to waters of the State from Municipal Separate Stormwater Systems (MS4s). It will allow the staff from these Cities and Counties to start the process of collaborating with other Permittees to propose, develop, and select "Ecology - approved studies to assess on a regional or sub -regional basis, effectiveness of permit -required stormwater management program activities and best management practices." The group will begin development of a funding partnership framework identifying ways to support financially future group -prioritized studies. This project phase will establish the groundwork to perform subsequent phases of study design, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), and actual studies in future years. 2. Project Description This project phase will develop up to 15 effectiveness study proposals, each proposal looking for ways to show how successful Eastern Washington Cities and Counties are in their treatment of stormwater before discharge from their MS4's . The major goal of the studies is to show evidence of pollutant reduction or elimination from the MS4's to surface waters of the State. Page 2 of 12 FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or State-wide Significance EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 September 27, 2013 The project will develop a partnership framework to fund future studies in Eastern Washington. The developed ideas will facilitate progress to the next phases of final selection for design and then on to actual study work including data collection and analysis. 2.1 Project Objectives This project will: 1. Organize a group of the EWSCG interested in collaborating and studying the effectiveness of Permit requirements; and measure the success of Eastern Washington Municipal Stormwater programs. (fulfills 1st paragraph of Permit section S8.B) 2. "Review the individual study ideas that were proposed in Permittees' annual reports due March 31, 2010 and add new ideas for collaborative studies of permit -required programmatic, operational, or structural best management practices". (fulfills permit requirement S8.B1) 3. Compile, summarize, rank, and prioritize a final list of up to 15 study proposals for Eastern Washington. (fulfills part of permit requirement S8.B2) 4. Estimate the financial cost for each proposed study. if possible, identify effectiveness study Permittees that would lead each study effort. (assists in fulfilling permit requirement S8.82) 5. Develop a partnering framework to share in possible study costs. (funding will be key in fulfilling remaining requirements in S8.B) 2.2 Project Activities and Tasks In order to accomplish the purpose and objectives of this project, we propose the following activities: Activity 1— Grant Administration and Project Management The City of Spokane Valley will provide grant administration for this project. Project management for this effort will be provided by the City of Spokane Valley in collaboration with the EWSCG. The EWSCG consists of representatives from Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permittees. Interested members of the EWSCG or their assigned representative(s) will meet monthly from December to June and September to December (or as determined) throughout the project as the "Effectiveness Studies Group" (Group). Activity 2 — Selection of Consultant(s) The Project Manager shall work with the EWSCG to determine any assistance and scope of work for consultants that the project will require. The Project Manager will work with the EWSCG to develop a selection criteria for consultant work to be performed. A selection committee will be formed from interested members of the EWSCG to evaluate consultant proposals and scopes of work. The City of Spokane Valley will negotiate scopes of work and execute contracts directly with those consultants as selected by the committee. Page 3 of 12 FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or State-wide Significance EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 September 27, 2013 Activity 3 — Meeting Facilitation This activity will cover the scheduling and organization of monthly Group meetings, facilitation of project agenda item(s), and development of meeting notes for the project. This activity may also cover light refreshments, as allowed by the grant, for the monthly collaboration meetings. Activity 4 — Effectiveness Study Initial Proposal Development and Cost Estimates This work will deliver: 1. the compiling of former (as listed in Permittee's annual reports due to Ecology March 31, 2010) and newly proposed study ideas as generated through Group meetings 2. a group approved study funding proposal format, starting with the "Research Proposal Template" refined with the Roads and Highways Subgroup of the Puget Sound Area Stormwater Working Group. (See Exhibit A on page 12 of 12) 3. efforts to engage EW Permittees in defining and refining questions that would need to be answered in potential study efforts, using as a starting point the US EPA's document "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Municipal Stormwater Programs", dated January 2008, document #EPA 833-F-07-010 4. the writing, discussion and refining of preliminary rough proposal outlines using the Group's version of the "Research Proposal Template" 5. the performing of literature reviews of comparable studies completed or which are currently in progress 6. a gap analysis for proposals, as necessary, based on study work already performed to better determine what question(s) should be answered for Eastern Washington regions 7. the generation of conceptual design outlines of how the data could be gathered to answer proposal question(s) 8. a conceptual cost estimate to complete each proposed study Activity 5 -- Partnering Framework Development (to fund future study work) We propose to deliver with this activity the following: 1. A proposed list of various intergovernmental options to fund the proposed study work. 2. A facilitated group work effort to determine a reasonable funding strategy and report for discussion with Eastern Washington City and County officials. This strategy would include a partnering framework by which individual permittees may choose to participate in funding future study work. Activity 6 — Final Report This work would include the compilation of a project report for review by the project team, EWSCG, and Ecology. The report would summarize the activities of the project and deliverables achieved. It would also give an indication of next steps for Permittees to meet remaining S8.B requirements. Page 4 of 12 FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or State-wide Significance EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 September 27, 2013 2.3 Project Outcomes At the end of this project, Permittees from Eastern Washington should be able to point to 12 to 15 ranked study proposal outlines, which will include the conceptual work and cost estimate for each proposed study. Permittees would be identified that are anticipated to lead each proposed study on a regional or sub -regional basis. This will help individual permittees and the group to discuss proposal options and priorities before moving ahead with formal study design proposals, and opens a greater understanding and opportunity in forming partnerships to perform certain studies. There also should be at least one developed idea for a partnership framework to work at funding future studies. 2.4 Proposed Project Schedule: See next page for the project schedule 2.5 Project Deliverables Proposed deliverables that this project would produce include: 1. Invoicing, quarterly and project reporting as required per Grant agreement. 2. Meeting notes for up to 12 Group Meetings 3. Partnering Framework Ideas and at least one preferred recommended option 4. Up to 15 Individual "ranked" study ideas, in "Research Proposal" Format (study funding proposal format) that would answer appropriate questions for Eastern Washington, include literature reviews and gap analysis as appropriate, a conceptual idea of how data collection might be performed to perform the studies, and a magnitude of cost to collect data and study each question. 5. Final Report summarizing and compiling Project deliverables. Page 5 of 12 FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or State-wide Significance EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 September 27. 2013 2.4 Proposed Project Schedule EW EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES DEVELOPMENT DEVELOP EW EFFECTIVENESS STUDY PROPOSALS Group Meeting Facilitation Consultant Selection Develop RFP Consultant RFP Ad/Selection Committee Formation Consultant Selection Process City Council Approval Consultant Negotiation Execution of Agreements Effectiveness Study Initial Proposal Development Draft Research Questions Draft Research Proposals Research Proposal Literature Review Research Proposal Gap Analysis Draft/Revise Research Questions and Proposals Decide: Proposals to Recommend Review/Revise Period Review of Final List of Proposals Ecology 7 Day Review DEVELOP PARTNERING FRAMEWORK Project Report Project Closeout 2013 2014 N D F M A M J J A 5 0 N 2015 D J F Page 6 of 12 FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or State-wide Significance EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 3. Partnerships THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY is well positioned to lead this grant -funded project. In a recent meeting of the EWSCG, there was overwhelming agreement and support for the project. To support Spokane Valley, the following partners will provide project support and technical expertise. Note that a number of the partners listed also are representatives for other Eastern Washington Permittee holders, for example. Asotin and Yakima County, and Wenatchee. have inter -governmental. agreements for storm water permit management with other jurisdictions. Organization Contact email City of Richland City of Kennewick Asotin County City of Wenatchee City of Ellensburg Spokane County City of Pullman City of Moses lake Yakima County City of Pasco City of Spokane WA Stormwater Center City of Walla Walla Nancy Aldrich na Id richAci. rich la nd.wa. us Martin Nelson martinnAci.kennewick.wa.us Cheryl Sonnen cson nenAco. asoti n.wa. us Jessica Shaw Jon Morrow Russ Connole Matt Zarecor Rob Buchert ishawe,wenatcheewa.gov morrowj(a ci.ellensburq.wa.us rcon no le(�spokan eco u nty.orcq mzareco rAs pokaneco unty.orq rob.buchert(a pullman-wa.gov Bill Aukett bauketta_cityofml.com Brian Cochrane brian.cochraneAco.vakima.wa.us Teresa Reed - Jennings reed-jenningstt pasco-wa.gov Lynn Schmidt 1schmidt(a spokanecity.orq Tanyalee Erwin terwinAwsu.edu Brad Daly bdaly(c_ci.walla-walla.wa.us Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permittees: 6 Counties, 18 Cities PACIFIC OMAN Ire ua Ca— kCY ate: 9/27,a r Page 7 of 12 FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or State-wide Significance EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 September 27, 2013 4. Project Management 4.1 Project Team Structure and Internal Controls Grant Administration and Management of the Project will reside with the City of Spokane Valley. The City's Project Manger will work with the EWSCG to coordinate and communicate project needs and requirements to EW Permittees. All interested members of the EWSCG, representing the EW Permittees will be invited to be a part of an "Effectiveness Studies Group" (Group). The Group will meet on a monthly basis throughout the Winter, Spring, and Fall in 2014 and part of the Winter of 2015. The Project Manager, Project Technical Leads, and the EWSCG will support the Group. Consultants or other partners will be selected as agreed upon by the group. The Group will consider findings and make recommendations to the Project Manger on final deliverables to report to the EWSCG and to Ecology. Representatives (EWSCG) Effectiveness Studies Group City of Spokane Valley mi: 1 Project Manager/Grant Admin The City of Spokane Valley will work directly with Ecology and provide grant administration for this project. The City will provide a Project Manager, Art Jenkins. In coordination with the interested members of the EWSCG, the Project Manger will provide grant administration, draft RFP's for consultants as required, negotiate scopes of work with consultants, and route consultant agreements for original signatures. The Project Manager shall work with the hired consultants to ensure delivery of assigned work products to the Group. The Project Manager will be responsible to ensure delivery of project outcomes. The City of Spokane Valley will also use the professional expertise of Saydee Wilson, CPA for project controls and grant financial admi ni strati on. Project Technical Leads Project technical leads will offer their expertise and assistance in developing effectiveness study proposals. These leads will work with the Project Manager to ensure that proposals are feasible to implement; show programmatic, operational, or structural BMP effectiveness, and would have a reasonable range of costs estimated. Two leads have offered their assistance to date, Lynn Schmidt from the City of Spokane, and Brian Cochrane from Yakima County. Page 8 of 12 FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or State-wide Significance EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 September 27, 2013 4.2 Staff Qualifications and Experience Art Jenkins Qualifications: Art Jenkins has over 19 years of Civil Engineering design and construction experience, including road, bridge, stormwater design, and project management. He has over 11 years of direct stormwater experience designing, managing, and implementing NPDES permit and UIC requirements, programs, and projects. He has managed several projects with State funding. Art is a registered Civil Engineer and an APWA Certified Stormwater Manager. Responsibilities: Art will be the main contact lead for this project on behalf of the City to Ecology, performing grant administration tasks and manage the project in collaboration and coordination with representatives of the EWSCG and team -hired consultants. Time on project: 15-20% of his time. Brian Cochrane Qualifications: Water Resources Supervisor Brian Cochrane first worked in effluent and stormwater monitoring in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1980's and since then in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and at the U.S. Army Yakima Training Center. At Yakima County he oversees the stormwater program, including its MS4 permit work, coordinating the regional MS4 partnership, and has led the development of a Regional Stormwater Design Manual and the Yakima County LID Guidance Manual. Responsibilities: Brian will be one of the technical leads on the project, providing input on effectiveness study technical details and reviewing project deliverables. Time on project: 5% of his time Lynn Schmidt Qualifications: Lynn Schmidt is the Stormwater Permit Coordinator in the City of Spokane Wastewater Management Department, where she addresses compliance activities under the Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit. She is involved with the City's stormwater and CSO monitoring efforts to support the Integrated Plan development as well as PCB source identification and reduction. Prior to joining the City, Lynn worked as a hydraulic engineer for both public and private entities gaining experience in the water resources field including surface water and groundwater quality, hydraulic design, and environmental remediation. She holds an M.S. in Environmental Engineering and a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Washington State University and is a registered Civil Engineer. Responsibilities: Lynn will be one of the technical leads on the project, providing input on effectiveness study technical details and reviewing project deliverables. Time on project: 5% of her time Saydee Wilson Qualifications: Saydee Wilson has a B.A. in Business Administration w/Majors in: Accounting, Finance, Human Resources, and Business Management. She's a licensed CPA in the state of WA since 2007. She has a total of 8 years of experience in accounting, with 5 of those years at the City specializing in grant management. Responsibilities: Saydee will be our project accountant controlling the financials on this project. She will provide regular invoices to Ecology and will check that Project staff follow City accounting protocols. Time on project: 2% of her time Page 9 of 12 FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or State-wide Significance EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 September 27, 2013 D. Budget 1. Budget Table EW Effectiveness Study Proposal 'Development Budget Estimate Description Salaries: Project. Manager Qty Units Unit Cost Total 300 HRS $50 $15,000 Project Accountant 4(] HRS $50 $2,000 Contractual: Lit Reviewer/Gap Analysis #1 5 EA $15,000 $75,000 Lit Revicwcr/Gap Analysis #2 5 EA $15,000 $75,000 Lit Reviewer/Gap Analysis #3 5 EA $1.5,000 $75,000 General Consultant/Facilitator 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 Supplies: Light Refreshments for Group Mtgs 12 EA $25 $300 Equipment: nla Travel: Group Meetings in Moses Lake 12 EA $150 $1,800 Meeting @ WSU Pullman 3 EA $150 $450 Meeting WSU Puyallup 3 EA $400 $1,200 Other: nla Indirect: (Up to 25% of Salaries & Benefits) 340 HRS $12.50 $4,250 TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE: 2. Budget narrative $300,000 Salaries (which include benefits) -- will cover most costs of the City of Spokane Valley to administer this project on behalf of the EWSCG. Hourly costs shown are an estimate. The number of hours listed equates to about 5 hours per week throughout the project duration, estimated real time is about 8 hours/week on average to complete all activities associated with this proposal for a 15 -month period. Contractual --- due to the intensive amount of time to perform literature reviews, and the nature of the work, the project manager proposes to work with consultants, academic partners, and others to assist with the work, which may require multiple contracts. One of the first tasks for the Group will be to determine how consultants will be utilized to complete this project. If the Group decides to assign all activities to one consultant, the "Lit Reviewer/Gap Analysis" line items would summate under the General Consultant/Facilitator. In any case, the Contractual total for this project will be at or less than $275,000. Supplies — to support each meeting, it is proposed that light refreshments be furnished for the Group. This will not exceed $50/meeting nor will it exceed $300 total. Page 10 of 12 FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or State-wide Significance EW Effectiveness Study Development, Phase 1 September 27, 2013 Travel — is estimated for the maximum number of potential in-person meetings. Up to 12 meetings in Moses Lake are anticipated to be required with the Group. When appropriate, project meetings at institutions and/or consultant locations around the State may be necessary. Most meetings will be handled via conference call or interne to reduce the need for in-person meetings. Indirect — it is anticipated that the City will absorb many costs associated with this project including phone conference calls, photo copies, cost of maintaining office space and computer equipment. Indirect costs are limited to 25% of the salaries and benefit costs estimated above. Equipment and Other budget categories are not anticipated for this project or will be covered by indirect. Page 11 of 12 FY2013 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or State-wide Significance EXHIBIT A Research Proposal Template Roads & Highways Monitoring Committee Subgroup of the Stormwater Working Group 1. RESEARCH PROPOSAL TITLE Provide a title that briefly and immediately conveys to the reader the intent of the proposed study. 2. RESEARCH PROBLEM DESCRIPTION In one or more paragraphs, provide background to .set the context and explain the reason for the research by stating the general problem or need. Be explicit about the significance and scope of the problem. Explain the consequences, if any, of not doing this work. 3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Describe in very brief terms how the expected benefits/products of the research will be used and by whom. 4. LITERATURE SEARCH AND RESEARCH IN PROGRESS SUMMARY Summarize literature and ongoing research found on the topic. Describe any shortcomings or deficiencies in the current body of research and how this project will address them. 5. Geographic Scope and Urgency of Research How broadly will the results of this research apply? Nationally Pacific Northwest WA Only Eastern WA Western WA Puget Sound Basin How quickly will you need the results of this research? ASAP Within 6 months Within 1 year Within 2 years Within 5 years Ongoing 6. Conceptual Research Approach Summarize what the proposed research involves. Identify any potential technical, institutional, or political barriers to its implementation. 7. ESTIMATED COST AND TiMiNG (Optional) Identify: 1) The funds required; 2) How long the project will take; and 3) Whether the project depends on another action before it can proceed. 8. CONTACT INFORMATION Provide specific contact information for the person(s) involved in developing the research proposal. Page 12 of 12 were reported to the Permittee during the reporting period, a brief description of the type of information gathered or received shall be included in the annual report. Annual reporting of any monitoring, studies,or analyses conducted as part of S&.B below must follow the recruirements specified in the approved Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs). B. Stormwater Manaaement Program Effectiveness Studies. Each city and county Pennittee listed in S1.T).2.a.i and SI .D.2.a.ii shall collaborate with other Permittees to select, propose, develop. and conduct Ecolo17v-approved studies to assess. on a regional or sub-regional basis, effectiveness of permit-required stormwater management program activities and best management practices. Permittees shall: 1. Review the individual study ideas that were proposed in Permittees' annual reports due March 31. 2010 and add new ideas for collaborative studies of permit-require proararnmaticdoperational: or tructural hest management'. practices. For each study idea, discuss: what data are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the practice: how Permittees` stormwater management programs might be improved based on the findings of a study: and potential partnerships between Permittees whereby data can be collected efficiently and effectively. 2. Rank the study ideas and compile a final list of twelve to fifteen study ideas for Eastern \k'ashinuton. For each of these twelve to fifteen study ideas. identify a single Permittee as lead entity and also identify the sub-region or other grouping of Permittees that will participate. 3. On or before June 30, 2016. submit the ranked list of twelve to fifteen study ideas for Eastern Washington to Ecology. Include a brief summary of the data collection that will be necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the practice, For each study idea. list the lead entity and the other Permittees that will participate. 4. Lead entities shall develop detailed study design proposals for a combined total of no fewer than et.'1intrid'i firri�ore t an twcly of the top-ranked ideas.- For each study. describe the purpose. obiectiyes. design, and methods: list the Permittees that will participate, and their roles and responsibilities; describe anticipated outcomes; identify methods to report the results; and describe expected modifications to the Permittees' stormwater management programs. 5. On or before June 30, 2017. lead entities shall submit the detailed proposals to Ecology in both electronic and paper form. 6. Lead entities shall submit a Quality Assurance Project Plan ({.)APP) for each study within six monthseof Ecolouy's written approval of each detailed') 7 o!posaDA combined total of no fewer than eight and no more than twelve QAPPs shall be submitted from all lead entities. All QAPPs shall he submitted in both electronic and paper form. If Ecology does not request changes or provide written approval within 90 days of the QAPP submittal. the QAPP is considered approved as submitted. Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit ---August 1, 2014 Page 46 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 13, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Roundabouts GOVERNING LEGISLATION: n/a PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At the Council Meeting on April 22, 2014, Council voiced concerns with roundabouts. BACKGROUND: Recent discussions have occurred on City projects involving roundabouts. Several questions have been generated through the discussions related to traffic flow, safety, acceptability, and viability of roundabouts within the City of Spokane Valley. Spokane Valley currently has three single lane roundabouts that accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. Many communities throughout the country have successfully installed single lane and multi -lane roundabouts for many years. The Public Works Department has been asked to prepare a presentation to Council on roundabouts. The presentation will describe what roundabouts are and why they are considered as an alternative traffic control device at intersections. OPTIONS: Discussion Only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None. Discussion Only. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer Eric Guth, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Presentation ay 13, 2014 Sean Messner, PE A compact circular intersection in which traffic flows counter- clockwise around a center island Entering traffic yields Center apron allows for larger vehicles (buses, trucks) Channelized approaches to deflect traffic into a proper entry path dsigned to slow the speed of vehicles! If .qr Traffic Circle Rotary Neighborhood Circle Mansfield / Montgomery Flora/Barker Flora / Mission F Improve Safety Increase Intersection Performance Reduce Pollution Better Accommodate Accesses Save Money Vehicular Conflict Points Crossing (0) E Diverging (4) Converging (4) Crossing (16) Diverging (8) Converging (8) Roundabout Convert signalized intersection to roundabout All crashes Pedestrian crashes Injury crashes 90% Fatal crashes Source: FHWA & IHS f Vehicle -Pedestrian Conflict Points of Reduction Crossing (16) Roundabout Typical 20 - 18 16 600 700 804 000 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Total Major Street Volume (veh /h) Signal (10% left turns) f Signal f Teff tunas) Roundabout {1 I% left turns} am1. Roundabout {50% left turns) Signal Roundabout Idling Delay Efficient during peak and off-peak Flexibility in splitter island design to accommodate existing driveways Less blocking of driveway than with stop or signal control 11 1101.1 I Roundabouts cost less for power consumption Roundabouts long term maintenance costs are less Roundabouts cost less to public (less crashes, less delay) Roundabouts generally have higher initial costs !Ot1ri Intersections with high crash/severity rates Intersections with complex geometry Replacement of all -way stop controlled intersections Replacement of signalized controlled intersections Replacement of 2 -way stops with high side street delay Intersections with closely spaced intersections Intersections with high left-turn/u-turn volumes Intersections with higher speed approaches Proper Design Public Involvement Public Education Stakeholder Support Proper Design = Proper Design o45' Typical LEGLND d Entering stream distance d, CI mulating Eves— distance S (1 .13 raj EstactEible wamIng surfsze Detail "A" 20° to 4E° Typle al R31-41 dawn oir IJF 1:11.cyclo 5011 m1. -16 5"0$ Froirnp .1p far lAcycli. ISea Denali 'A': — 7:1 I.A0431. 11 o3), m - 2Oltt CIS • SO rn) rnin. Laridacpplrig drip 10fi 11130 m} min. 16 Public Involvement & Education CHRP REPORT 572 Roundabouts in the United States 11 hr.d{r Youitchibotl:•. M.:s eaundaanut5 are SWI retatnaly neve to our arta, and are gaining in po polarity. Roundahhuts hely more tratft smoothly and safety th yugh the me s Gtlpn, aver.Ing the stops and starts d traditional tra1fif Signals. For a ample, ufamg a roundabout may take a feta seccnas, but stopping ata red ugh1 can take 30 seconds or mart. With an tars traveling in the saroedirect.ca, ror adaborK reduce head-on and t-bpre coaroans. as WO as left turns, one of the most dangerous moves In an intersectwn- wall no traffic lights to divert 4r .ers' atteatana upware, rdDndabWts keep ngton5t5 focused an the cars and peck:Woes around them. Cars eutennu a rocadabct4 most yeti to arose already ,e the circle. Spokane Valley has three roundabouts tRAsse( ,,Pc" R€SEARCH aQARU Cay d Spokane Valles' t1707 F. Sprague Avenue, Swte 104 Spokane Valley, WA 94206 f>l5: $Ob-9jl.100 FA%: 559•921-1018 ceyhall Cspdkanerralley.org sMvw.spmka ae•.aaer_prg Roundabouts in the City of Spokane Valley D u TS a� cr t,R!- Roundabouts A Safer Choice PLIH. AURAS DEPARTMENT 17 Public Involvement & Education Public Attitude Towards Roundabouts (Before and After Construction) 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% % Very Negative Neutral Negative Before After Positive Very Positive 18 Source: NCHRP Synthesis 264 Stakeholder Support Navigation Slow down as you approach the roundabout, and watch/yield for pedestrians in the crosswalk. Continue toward the roundabout; look to your left as you near the yield sign and dashed yield line at the entrance to the roundabout. Yield to traffic already in the roundabout. Once you see a gap in traffic, enter the circle and proceed to your exit. If there is no traffic in the roundabout, you may enter without yielding. Look for pedestrians and use your turn signal before you exit, and make sure to stay in your lane as you navigate the roundabout. 1 Roundabouts are not always the solution Roundabouts are a tool in our toolkit to enhance an intersection by relieving congestion, providing traffic calming, improving safety, and lowering costs Roundabouts allow for aesthetic treatments to enhance the community above and beyond those at standard intersections CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 13, 2014 Department Director Approval Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ unfinished business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed 2014 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Admin Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Admin Report — April 15, 2014; Public Hearing May 6, 2014 BACKGROUND: The Community Development Department received two privately initiated requests for site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. In addition, the City is proposing one site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. The Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to six Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 - Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services, Chapter 6 — Private and Public Utilities, Chapter 7 — Economic Development, and Chapter 11 - Bike and Pedestrian. The proposed amendments also entail minor changes to other elements referencing the proposed amendments, such as a single reference to the City Center in the Comprehensive Plan Introduction. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on February 27, 2014 and continued the hearing to the March 13th meeting. The Planning Commission recommendations on each amendment are as follows: Project # Applicant Location Map Text Planning Amendment Amendment Commission Recommendation CPA 01-14 CPA 02-14 CPA 03-14 City of Spokane Valley Mirabeau Park Trailhead x SCRAPS Bradley Road x Whipple Engineering Barker and x Sprague CPA 04-14 City CPA 05-14 CPA 06-14 CPA 07-14 CPA 08-14 CPA 10-14 CPA 09-14 City Deny Forwarded without a recommendation Deny x Approve x Withdrawn 1 of 2 An Administrative Report was presented to City Council on April 15th, and a public hearing was conducted on May 6th. Significant public comment was provided at the hearing on CPA -03-14; Staff will be available to answer Council questions. OPTIONS: Council should deliberate on each of the proposed amendments and direct staff to prepare a motion for consideration at the May 20, 2014 meeting. Council options include approve, deny, or modify each proposal, or direct staff otherwise. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Power Point Presentation from May 6th meeting will be available for reference. No new material presented. 2) See separate yellow notebook provided April 15, 2014: Contents include 2014 Comprehensive Plan amendments with individual Staff Reports, Planning Commission Meeting minutes, and comments received. Please note that the yellow notebooks will be used throughout this entire process, and at the end of the process they should be returned to Community Development for use in subsequent year's Comprehensive Plan amendments. 2 of 2 Proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Admin Report May 13, 2014 Proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1 Project Number CPA -01-14 City -Initiated Map Amendment Applicant: Application Description City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Change City -owned parcel 45101.9068 from Parks/Open Space to Mixed Use Center Proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments j::�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPOKANE VA\LLE %;r Proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 3 SOka COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ....do Val ley 45034.9044 45101.9068 5105.9010 Centennial -I 1. tin.] 1 i.1IIuJ1 Proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Privately Initiated Map Amendment Project N umber Applicant: CPA -02-14 Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS) 2521 North Flora Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Application Description Change parcel 35124.0813 from Low Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use Proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments . f s1•'s F V R 1-t 11 C .!°44riddligla N to AO, IViansfield Av—Mansfield'Av.= E _ x ' P, ni ![nox AvT �, a dal ui I IINIINI 3,0 JI P' —IJI'yi F ald win-Av Y , Boone Avv B 0 .00 . 4. 4 ik —Stia1rp-Av 0 pyV H o - C 1 0 MM f M Carlisle IN I CC -73 tC Jo A 3 0 LLL, 1 7_ 11 11101111A 1� u OM 1M imolom Montgomery=Av a z-¢„ 1- 0 s POKIANE } AL ii`Av Proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments fro O▪ . m a Carlisle A f Ems II WWI CYC t1 u' CI I)� Shannon 13- Indiana bIndiana na`ena-ILII r-Batdwin'iAv -cs 0 ▪ 7,1 a- s � I I florae ri 1~i i 1 11 Av Av 111!111 fSaldtivin AV rim 111111 11 11111111_ —Max,,veltAv: c carp Av CI •.}. f®Boone_Av • Sharp O. fp _ r n AN 111 Av Av_ 1111111111 Augusta Av BEIM 1*■■ - Maxwell Av nto_Av @ R — = a— Boone Ayit= 6 j::�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �-I 0 ict et. 4.i Proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 7 Privately Initiated Map Amendment Project Number Applicant(s): Property Owner(s): Application Description CPA -03-14 Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Teresa and Wendell Olsen Change parcel 55173.1005 from Low Density Residential Designation to High Density Residential Designation Proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 8 j::�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3rd Av 4th Av 5th Av 1 352g- 2 _�00I 55192.9063 — Rkh..Av — i ! DesmetyAvlM taldo Av Cataldo Av'- o. .010 0 to 1 z o. Olive Ln Springfield "Av 0- - 7 - OA I: Pv ,,fey Alk TAV:, rl NEW 11 -Broadwa h • lf� ar4 a Pv II \,Na`l SPOKANE—V A1 L L E -Y No 1 N r. N 3rd Av:� n Cataldo Av 55171.1302 Fes/ 55172 0420 / 551?5 ° 55161'9145 Broadway Av 4 4_. , t—"`-�-�- 55117 37�OI L1BE.RTY LAKE 0 • Oveci doom C' Arbo<`; a\\eyNaYcc' 2nd Ln ° 3rd Ln r 0. L ark 4th Av - 6th-Av ue_ 2nd Av_ 0 o. fo f J 55174.9035 55174.9007 55174.9022 Main -AV 'T9 Riverside AV Av o.r v 1st Ai .! • a ■ ■n ¥'j 6. th-AV v, z_ Cecili 1 Av0 x io o' o a a _ �1 I 4 6t;hh Avg i- au 1 8th AT� Proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments ti v 1 N 0 m 40 ro TFT1st Av1st PSF 0 R Micaview Dr o. 0 6th-Av- 11111 9 j::�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 10 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 13, 2014 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑information ® admin. report ❑pending legislation ❑executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Federal Consultant GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: With the development and application of the TIGER Grant application for the Barker Overpass, staff has considered the possibility of hiring a federal legislative analyst to assist the City in creating awareness and support for this project and other future Bridging the Valley projects to separate rail and vehicle traffic, thereby increasing safety and improving the flow of surface transportation. Additionally, the construction of the overpass would provide necessary transportation infrastructure for the development of vacant industrial property in the NE area of the City. The City Manager has met with Travis Lumpkin of Gordon Thomas Honeywell and is recommending a contract for the remainder of 2014 with future renewable options to retain Mr. Lumpkin as a legislative consultant at the federal level. Mr. Lumpkin would provide a range of services as denoted in the attached draft contract. Travis Lumpkin, who was a former Capitol Hill aide and former Senior Economic advisor to the U.S. Senator Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, has joined the firm's Washington, D.C. office as Vice President. According to PR Newswire, Travis became a "national expert in several critical federal funding and policy areas, including transportation and infrastructure, housing, community development, economic development, finance, taxation and trade. As Senior Economic Advisor to Murray, he advised on a broad range of domestic and international economic issues including the financial crisis, the Dodd -Frank Wall Street Reform legislation, economic stimulus policy, jobs bills and housing finance reform. Travis also advised Murray on federal budget issues, including the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction or "Super Committee" in 2011." OPTIONS: Consensus for the City Manager to move forward and finalize and execute a contract with Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell and acknowledgement that a future budget amendment will be forthcoming to cover these expenses. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff recommends approval. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approval will result in additional $84,000 - $97,000 in expenses on an annual basis and approximately $58,800 - $67,200 for the remainder of 2014. A budget amendment will be necessary later this year to cover these expenses. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: Proposal GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Spokane Valley and any other party hereto, as is identified in the consultant's signature block below (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), upon the following terms and conditions: A. Scope of Work. Consultant will advise and assist the City of Spokane Valley in accordance with Consultant's Scope of Work, described in Attachment "A" hereto and incorporated herein, and Consultant will do and produce such other things as are set forth in the Scope of Work (the "Services"). Consultant's Services will be in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, rules, orders, licenses and permits, now or hereinafter in effect, and Consultant shall furnish such documents as may be required to effect or evidence such compliance. B. Compensation; Expenses. The City of Spokane Valley will pay Consultant for satisfactorily rendered Services in accordance with the specific terms set forth in Attachment C. Invoices; Payment. Consultant will furnish the City of Spokane Valley invoices at regular intervals, as set forth in Attachment "A". D. Term. Consultant shall promptly begin the Services hereunder on the date set forth in Attachment "A" and shall terminate same on the date set forth in Attachment "A", unless earlier terminated by mutual agreement. E. Confidentiality. In connection with the Services to be performed herein, the City of Spokane Valley may disclose technical or other information, which is confidential, proprietary, and constitutes valuable trade secrets of the City of Spokane Valley. Consultant agrees to hold all such information in strict confidence, to neither use, nor to disclose any such information to third parties, and to indemnify and hold the City of Spokane Valley harmless against and from all damages, injuries and losses arising out of the unauthorized use/disclosure of such information by the Consultant. F. Ownership of Work Product. The product of all work performed under this agreement, including reports, and other related materials shall be the property of the City of Spokane Valley or its nominees, and the City of Spokane Valley or its nominees shall have the sole right to use, sell, license, publish or otherwise disseminate or transfer rights in such work product. 1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 2100 Tacoma, WA 98401 Phone: (253) 620-6500 Fax: (253) 620-6565 www.gth-gov.com 203 Maryland Ave., NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 544-2681 Fax: (202) 544-5763 G. Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor and nothing contained herein shall be deemed to make Consultant an employee of the City of Spokane Valley, or to empower Consultant to bind or obligate the City of Spokane Valley in any way. Consultant is solely responsible for paying all of Consultant's own tax obligations, as well as those due for any employee/subcontractor permitted to work for Consultant hereunder. H. Release of Claims; Indemnity. Consultant hereby releases, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Spokane Valley from and against all claims, liabilities, damages and costs arising directly or indirectly out of, or related to, Consultant's fault, negligence, strict liability or products liability of Consultant, and/or that of any permitted employee or subcontract or Consultant, pertaining to the Services hereunder. I. Assignment. Consultant's rights and obligations hereunder shall not be assigned or transferred without the City of Spokane Valley's prior written consent; subject thereto, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' heirs, and successors. J. Governing Law; Severability. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, USA (excluding conflict of laws provisions). If any term or provision of this Agreement is determined to be legally invalid or unenforceable by a court with lawful jurisdiction hereover (excluding arbitrators), such term or provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any remaining terms or provisions of this Agreement, and the court shall, so far as possible, construe the invalid portion to implement the original intent thereof. K. Arbitration. Any dispute between the parties related to or arising out of the subject matter of this Agreement shall be resolved exclusively through binding arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association in Washington State. L. Injunctive Relief; Dispute Costs. Notwithstanding the agreement to arbitrate disputes in Section J above, if at any time the City of Spokane Valley should be required to seek any form of immediate injunctive or equitable relief or remedies to enforce or protect any of its interests hereunder, such issue may be first resolved through court action. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that Consultant's breach of this Agreement may cause the City of Spokane Valley irreparable injury for which remedies other than injunctive or equitable relief are inadequate; that Consultant will not contest the City of Spokane Valley's entitlement to obtain immediate injunctive or equitable relief; and that the City of Spokane Valley would not engage Consultant without this assurance. The prevailing party in any dispute arising hereunder shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. M. Entire Agreement; Etc. This Agreement, and its incorporated attachments hereto, state the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof and supersede any prior agreements or understandings pertaining thereto. Any modification to this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties. Any provision hereof which may be reasonably deemed to survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement, in particular, but without limitation, Sections E and G, shall so survive, and remain in continuing effect. No delay or failure in exercising any right hereunder shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any right granted hereunder or at law by either party. Consultant: Gordon Thomas Honeywell City of Spokane Valley by: Governmental Affairs Sign: Sign: Travis Lumpkin, Vice President Date: Print Name: Title: Date: ATTACHMENT "A" TO CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY'S CONSULTING AGREEMENT A. Scope of Work: Consultant shall provide the City of Spokane Valley with the following governmental affair services: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT— Research and lobby Congress and any relevant federal agencies for federal resources and for other purposes that benefit the City of Spokane Valley. Activities will include, but are not limited to: • Research federal transportation infrastructure funding options. Make recommendations to the City of Spokane Valley on what federal funding options should be pursued and how they should be presented to relevant decisions makers. • Identify, develop and lobby for the City of Spokane Valley's TIGER application and other grant opportunities, including those with partners, both private and public sector, identified by the City of Spokane Valley and Consultant. • Work to gain on -the -record Congressional support for the City of Spokane Valley's grant applications and other federal priorities, where appropriate. This support will come in the form of Congressional letters of support and direct communications with federal agencies, including USDOT, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Economic Development Administration and others. • Develop agendas, communication strategies, and meeting schedules for elected officials and staff of the City of Spokane Valley during their visits to Washington, DC. This includes meetings with Congressional offices, USDOT and FRA and trade associations. • Identify, develop and lobby for the City of Spokane Valley's legislative priorities on the surface transportation reauthorization bill and other policy issues (i.e. rail grade separation and related mobility and safety funding.) This would likely include a funding request for a "Projects of Regional and National Significance" designation in this legislation to support "Bridging the Valley" project elements. • Strengthen and maintain relationships between the Washington State congressional delegation and the City of Spokane Valley. • Develop a federal communications strategy, and related materials, that promotes the City of Spokane Valley's federal agenda and highlights its federal priorities among key decision makers in Congress and within USDOT and the Federal Railroad Administration. • Identify, develop and lobby for other federal government opportunities for the City of Spokane Valley as they develop. This includes but is not limited to economic and community development funding through programs such as the Economic Development Administration's Public Works programs. • Work with trade association groups (i.e. National League of Cities et. al.) on issues related to the City of Spokane Valley's federal transportation priorities. • Engage in lobbying efforts to further the City of Spokane Valley's agenda, at the discretion of the City of Spokane Valley and Consultant. This includes meeting with the legislative delegation, legislative leadership, identifying stakeholders, and developing a strategic plan. INFORMATION/INTELLIGENCE — Consultant will identify all government and media activity related to federal and state government issues for the City of Spokane Valley. Consultant will produce detailed intelligence based on this information and help position the City of Spokane Valley to capitalize on emerging opportunities. Consultant will also conduct all necessary research to understand relevant government entities and processes. Activities will include, but are not limited to: • Daily searches of all federal legislation and regulations relevant to City of Spokane Valley's federal priorities. • Weekly media searches of all news articles and government reports relevant to City of Spokane Valley's federal priorities. • Produce periodic reports for City of Spokane Valley, identifying all relevant news articles and government reports. • Conduct intelligence screens on all relevant information discovered. This activity will help determine if new information, such as new legislation should be pursued. • When necessary, conduct research on government entities to determine contacts and processes, particularly for federal funding programs for transportation projects and infrastructure related to economic development. B. Compensation: City of Spokane Valley shall pay Consultant $7,000.00 each month during the months of May 2014 through April 2015. City of Spokane Valley and Consultant will then have a yearly option to extend the Agreement under the current terms through April 2016. Any extension of the Agreement will be memorialized by the City of Spokane Valley and Consultant. The City of Spokane Valley and Consultant will have the option of increase the compensation by mutual consent at any time during the Agreement. Such negotiations will preferably be performed at the beginning of each calendar year and will be memorialized by the City of Spokane Valley and Consultant. C. Expenses: The City of Spokane Valley shall reimburse Consultant for all governmental affairs expenses directly related to the City of Spokane Valley during the term of the contract. Expenses are broken into two categories: 1) out-of-pocket expenses, including charges for transportation, meals, printing of project information, and other expenditures associated with your account; and 2) overhead charges covering communications expenses and the production and duplication of materials relating to lobbying and advocacy efforts. The total cost of expenses during the term of the contract shall not exceed 10 -percent of the total amount of fees paid to Consultant. D. Invoices/Payments: (a) Consultant shall furnish the City of Spokane Valley with invoices for services performed on a monthly basis, and (b) the City of Spokane Valley shall pay each of Consultant's invoices within thirty (30) days after the City of Spokane Valley's receipt and verification. E. Term of Agreement: Consultant's services shall commence on May 1, 2014 and shall terminate on April 30, 2015. The City of Spokane Valley and Consultant will then have a yearly option to extend the Agreement under the current terms through April 2016. Any extension of the Agreement will be memorialized by the City of Spokane Valley and Consultant. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 5/13/14 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Solid Waste Transfer Station/Transport/Disposal GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020 Powers vested in Legislative Bodies of Code Cities; RCW 35A.13 — Non -charter code city; RCW 35A.21 Provisions affecting All Code Cities; RCW 70.95 — Solid Waste Management — Reduction & Recycling; RCW 70.105 — Hazardous Waste Management; Interlocal Agreement between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley — RE: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, expires November 16, 2014. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council has adopted goals related to solid waste in the 2012, 2013 and 2014 budgets. The 2014 goal adopted by Council is to "Implement solid waste alternatives for collection, transport and disposal in the best interest of the City of Spokane Valley." Council has been briefed and/or discussed solid waste on a number of occasions. The following is a synopsis of those meetings but not all inclusive: On January 22, 2013, Council approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Spokane, and Spokane County, to jointly conduct the Solid Waste Analysis; on February 6, 2013, Council participated in a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to discuss alternatives; on February 26, 2013, Council discussed solid waste in detail at the Council Workshop; on August, 28, 2013, Council attended the presentation of an analysis of solid waste alternatives completed by HDR; On September 3, 2013, Council discussed the draft solid waste study completed by HDR; on September 4, 2013, Council hosted a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to discuss alternatives and make a specific proposal to the County; on October 3, 2013, Council discussed solid waste alternatives and approved sending Spokane County Commissioners a letter re-emphasizing Spokane Valley's position to reconsider the specific option offered by Spokane Valley at the joint meeting; on February 24, 2014, Council hosted a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to continue discussions on solid waste alternatives and to review/discuss Spokane County's proposed draft of the Interlocal Agreement for joining its system; on February 27, 2014, Council attended the Regional Solid Waste meeting at CenterPlace; and on February 28, 2014, Council attended the Council of Governments where solid waste was one of many topics. On March 11, 2014 Council discussed three primary topics including development of a solid waste plan and continuing to pursue public private options as well as reviewing Spokane County's draft Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste. Council reviewed the proposed Interlocal and discussed talking points to provide to the County Commissioners. On March 20, 2014 the City sent a letter to the County Commissioners enumerating the City's concerns. On March 31, 2014, the Commissioners responded with a letter speaking to the City's concerns and providing a revised draft Interlocal addressing some, but not all of the City's points. Staff continues to communicate with Spokane County on revisions. Staff anticipates bringing a final draft of the Spokane County Interlocal and a final draft contract with the only available private option (Sunshine Recyclers) back to Council on May 20, 2014 or shortly thereafter for consideration by Council. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has been actively pursuing options for solid waste disposal since the extension of the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane and Spokane County was approved by our City Council on October 25, 2011. The purpose of the extension was to allow time for the various cities and Spokane County to determine solid waste alternatives. The various alternatives have evolved over the last 3 years from the possible continuation of the existing solid waste system, to Spokane being a vendor only, to the current status where an Interlocal Agreement was signed between the City of Spokane and Spokane County and Spokane County is proposing to own and operate a solid waste system. Spokane Valley had formally offered to partner with Spokane County (September 4 and October 3, 2013) prior to Spokane County moving independently to negotiate with the City of Spokane and making a decision to purchase the Colbert and Spokane Valley transfer stations from the City of Spokane and continue to send waste to the City of Spokane's waste to energy incinerator. The City of Spokane Valley received a proposed Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Services from Spokane County on Monday, February 24, 2014. On that same day the City met in joint session with Spokane County Commissioners to discuss solid waste. This was followed by a meeting of County Commissioners, Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, Airway Heights, Deer Park and other stakeholders on Thursday, February 27, 2014 at CenterPlace to further discuss the proposed Spokane County solid waste system and Interlocal agreement. The City of Spokane Valley is now faced with decisions regarding solid waste. As highlighted by the Department of Ecology at the February 27, 2014 meeting, the November 16, 2014 termination creates some very time -sensitive decisions which the City of Spokane Valley has addressed. 1. Selection of an option regarding development of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan. The City's options per RCW 70.95.080 are a. Prepare and deliver to the county auditor of the county in which it is located its plan for its own solid waste management for integration into the county plan; b. Enter into an agreement with the county pursuant to which the city shall participate in preparing a joint city -county plan for solid waste management, or c. Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city's solid waste management for inclusion in the comprehensive county plan. The City of Spokane Valley selected option a above. Staff is working with the consulting firm of Green Solutions to develop a Solid Waste Plan for the City of Spokane Valley. Staff is working with the Department of Ecology and the consultant in the development of the plan. 2. Discuss and develop terms and conditions that the City of Spokane Valley would like to see in Spokane County's proposed Interlocal Agreement if the City should choose to sign an agreement with Spokane County. Staff worked with Council to develop terms and conditions and conveyed those concepts to Spokane County. The County has responded to the City and has made a number of changes to the Interlocal Agreement. However on some significant points, the County has determined not to make changes and has conveyed those to the City as well. 3. Continue to investigate public-private partnerships if found to provide adequate service levels and reduce the cost of services to Spokane Valley residents. Staff has continued to investigate public private partnerships and has narrowed down the list of potential private transfer station operations that can be in place by November 16, 2014 to one, which is Sunshine Recyclers Inc. with an existing transfer station located in Spokane Valley at University and Montgomery. Staff has been working to develop a draft service contract with Sunshine, the details of which we anticipate providing to City Council next week, May 20, 2014 or May 27. OPTIONS: Discussion/provide feedback on these issues to City Manager. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: At this time no formal motion is requested. Formal motion consideration will come to City Council at a meeting either May 20 or perhaps on May 27. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City currently does not have a revenue source for solid waste other than the general fund. Costs to date include the HDR study developed through an MOU with Spokane County and the City of Spokane, follow-up work by City Manager with solid waste consultants Shaw Environmental and Green Solutions. The City potentially could recover administrative or other costs through various means in its final solid waste system. This would be a topic for future discussion. The reduction in rates, if any, would directly benefit the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. The City itself would not benefit directly because we would not pay directly for transfer, transport and disposal of solid waste services. STAFF CONTACT: City Manager - Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: Letter from City of Spokane Valley to Spokane County Commissioners Re: City of Spokane Valley Comments to proposed Interlocal agreement. Letter from Spokane County to City of Spokane Valley Re: Responses to City of Spokane Valley Comments Proposed Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement. 5/13/2014 Solid Waste 2014 Council Goal "implement solid waste alternatives for collection, transport and disposal in the best interest of the City of Spokane Valley" Council CORE BELIEFS Section 8: We solicit the City Manager's support in conducting the affairs of the City with due regard for: (d) Seeking creative ways to contain or impede the rising cost of governmental services, including examination of private sector alternatives in lieu of governmentally provided services. Timeline 2/2011 10/2011 • RPpional Solid Wastr. C'vrrnancl Slirr�mit, • Ii{:Ikane Cat's they :'iili'll to I?C' i_F'fcncor. J • City of Spokane Valley suns 3 year a ,i ec.rrlent with City of Spokane & Spokane County Regional Solid Waste System for coitir. {;d bperati[,I, v 1, 1e w determine alternative ❑peratiorts for solid waste transfer si':iil ::i tranSpOl1 11i:5w:+,"I. • City of Spokane Valley, City of Spo cane, Spokane County and Cheney work together on an RFP to study alternatives to solid waste disposal including looking at more eFicient operation of Waste to Energy Plant. • No response to R*P 1 5/13/2014 Timeline ▪ City of Spokane indicates that Spokane will make best business decision for Spokane. * Cty of Spokane Valley presses for IFP to determine casts of alternatives for solid waste disposal so we can make an informed decision. + Joint meeting with City of Spokane. Spokane would examine all assets. • Three major services, recycling, transfer station, transportation services, and a burner, 1/2013 Timeline • MCU for Solid Waste .Alternatives. Collaboration between Spokane Valley, City of Spokane & Spokane c jnty icy dete.rrinine solid wstr? rrii•inageni it pin is ',a,. i he region, aUhieh may consist of the use of erdsting or nevi solid wv7st _ reel ides and 5° r, ic: s and wnich may be offered and en`ered into jointly or separately as determined in the best interest of each of the parties. + City of Spokane (Spokane Solid Waste Sstem) agrees to fund up to 545,000 Spokane Valley and Spokane County would pay 50% of the balance, or about $4/,000 each. 1 Council participated in a joint meeting with Spokane County and Jim Wa ieda of Department of Ecology to discuss alternatives for solid waste. Received handout detailing solid waste planning. • Extensive workshop agenda item for City Council. 2 5/13/2014 8/2013 Timeline • Council atter-ictud the presentation at CenterPlace regarcfn an -rn lysis of solid waste alternatives co-np eted Iby HDR. • City of Spokane and Spokane County favored option to Utili„ , 111v7 vy I )long • Spokane Valley disagreed, Supported outright purchase of tr& ii: r st_Ll c.n and putting transferstation operation, transport & disposal cut to bid. • Council discussed the draft solid viaste study completed by I -IDP. ▪ Caurrci! hosted a meeting with Curnmissicners to discuss our solid v.dste • H'irec Shat+. EnkeironrnentaI for review of/assistance with solid waste planning & consultwion on r.liernatives. .. _ t.0:iJl1%II CfI�L`k155ed sok waste dltLl n tives and approved sending Seca.. ne County Crrnnrissioners a letter, prior to public hearing, re-ernphasiaing Spokane Valley's position ra reconsider the specific option offered by Spokane valley at the joint meeting F CCW receives letter from Spokane County. RE; Regional Solid Waste Pvianagernent noting 13c::irc: 'voted for option in hest interest of all parties, and that ail invitation to formally join new regional system would be se -it out to municipalities soon, Timeline • Contract .' itli ;:'eer7 Solr..tions to aswist I1 de,joloprr.ent of Comprehensive fk+tar.agement Solid vkiaste Flan • CoSV receive letter from Spokane County for Parti:_ipation In Spokane County Regional SW System & City of Spokane surpluses transfer stations and approves Interlocal with Spokane County in 2 separate actions. Interlocal terminates the 19139 agreement for Spokane Solid Waste S. cern, • Spokane County approves Interlocal between Spokane County and City of Spokane regarding tra •sfer and disposal of solid waste and formally terminating the 19$9 areement as of November 16, 2014. a 3 5/13/2014 Timeline • Spokane Cot my issues RFP -or operation of Transfer Stations • Council hosed a joint meeting :Writ l Spokane County Col71rr1issloner5 to c„anriir.rt discussions on solid 'v s,e alternatives a1cf to review/discus{ Spokane County's Interlocal Agreement to join its solid waste system. • Council attended Spokane County's Regional Solid Waste meeting at CenterPlace. 4 Council attended the Cour c i of Rive rn [Its where Solid Waste was one of many topics. CoSV pursues own Slee pian; nvestigation of public/private partnerships; and continues to work en IrtnrlocaI .ilii Spokane Cont'__i • Council conducted a discission can the proposed Inter!ocai Agreement. • Staff continues to communicate with County. • Co5V sent letter of comments discussed by Council on the proposed Interlocal to PoCC Timeline • Proposals dune to Spokane County for Transfer S' ,ti,in Operations_ The tentative schedule for evaluation of the pros:u. ils is: Anvil ,F, 2014 -Evaluation Committee meets to review proposals: April 22, 01.4 -Interviews conducted, if necessary; May 19,2014 -Selection Committee completes review of qualifir.aticnsi proposals/inte.rvieert. and prepares recommendation(s) to the Board of County Commissioners; May 27, 2014 -Commissioners consider recommendation(sy and ajthorizes staff to commence negotiations; June 2, 2014 - County commences neptiatiorls. 4/2014 • Staff continues to communicate with County. 5/2014 • Staff continues to discuss Interlocal with Spokane County. • Staff explores public -private partnerships 4 5/13/2(114 Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY 9 Factor Sunshine Contract County Interlocal Agreement Services Transfer, transport & disposal of trash, organics)green waste, construction /demolition waste, recyclables, moderate risk- household hazardous waste, & white goods. Self -bout. Transfer, transport & disposal of trash, organicsfgreen waste, construction /demolition waste, recyclables, moderate risk— household hazardous waste, & white goods. Self -haul. Service dee ($/ton) Will Provide Not known if we will have a cost, Escalation Will Provide Not known. WIE compolent will increase at CPI. Transfer station operations may increase based on CPI and labor index. Transport costs may increase based on CPI and fuel index. Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY Factor unsifIr eaContraayt County Interlocal Agree Control over rate Increases Pricing dependent on tannage? Term Rate increases as specified in Not known. City will only contract and are automatic have opportunity to review and comment on proposed County rates. SWAC committee will provide recommendations. No Not knov'n. I'ricirg may depend un number of cities that sign ILA, Terre to be determined 7 years — 3 year out 5 5/13/2014 Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY 11. Factor,. Sunshine Contract County Interlocal Agreement Renewals Early opt -out of contract? Pooling of tonnage with other regional cities Mutually agreeable extensions RFP for Tong -haul transport and disposal Not likely Won't impact City's pricing After end of contract term Four 5 -year extensions, mutually agreeable After 3 years (but alternate option would have to be identified and evaluated) Depends an number of cities that sign ILA; impact on pricing unk-twin. Potentially v,fithin 3 years (but 4xaii:rr.sc:t fc}r kr l:l i'r tatiS:ri c :lc''tic)n5 i°i 10 years) Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY 12 Factor Sunshine Contract County Interlocal Agreement Full control and management responsibility for solid waste Revenue City Ownership of transfer stations Possible road impact fee County Sharing of utility tax revenues based on proportionate tonnage delivered by Cities/County. Sunshine County 6 Spokane Valley® 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall®spokanevaltey.org March 20, 2014 Honorable Chairman Al French and Board of County Commissioners Spokane County Courthouse 1116 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 Re: City of Spokane Valley comments to proposed interlocal agreement To the Board of County Commissioners: Thank you for providing the proposed interlocal agreement to join and participate in the Spokane County Solid Waste System. The City received the proposed interlocal on February 24, 2014, and participated in several meetings with Spokane County during the week of February 24 on the County's new solid waste system. The City of Spokane Valley City Council conducted a discussion on the proposed interlocal agreement at its March 11, 2014 regular meeting. Additionally, City staff has reviewed the proposed interlocal agreement. As you previously indicated, the proposed interlocal agreement is a starting draft and you are seeking comments and input into the draft and for the establishment of the County's proposed system. Based on City Council discussion and staff review, I met with Chairman Al French to discuss Spokane Valley's comments and offered to provide those in writing. As discussions progress some comments may be revised or new issues may develop. The City of Spokane Valley has identified the following comments, concepts and issues of importance to our consideration for participation in the County's proposed system: 1. Given the time constraints on all parties, the City desires to work to general agreement on the concepts below. The City believes that the parties already concur on many of the issues and anticipates that those will be incorporated into the next draft of the proposed interlocal agreement by the County. The City desires to enter into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") on resolving the others. After the MOU is executed, the parties may then work through details to include the other concepts in the proposed interlocal agreement once they are resolved. 2. The City of Spokane Valley (the "City") desires to have an actual rate or guaranteed rate ceiling incorporating all costs (capital costs, operating costs, program costs, and overhead costs) prior to executing the proposed interlocal agreement. 3. The City believes that combining transfer station operations with transport and disposal will result in the lowest cost overall for the system. In order to do so, the City desires the County to issue an immediate Request for Proposals for combined transfer station operations, transport services, and disposal services to allow transition in three years to the lowest cost option. The City recognizes that the County is seeking a contractor to operate the transfer stations under a 10 -year term and that an early termination clause will be included in the operating contract. 4. The City desires to have future handling of solid waste tonnage from the West Plains area clearly delineated, including what transfer station, transport and disposal options will be utilized. The City has concerns about what may happen if the new County system pays off the transfer stations after three years and utilizes an option other than the City of Spokane's Waste -to -Energy facility. Specifically, the City believes a new West Plains transfer station is not necessary as there are alternatives (use of the existing transfer stations) and a new West Plains station would result in excessive additional costs for the entire system. In any case, the City of Spokane Valley does not believe that all system users should support the development of a West Plains transfer station. 5. The City desires to establish a governing body with authority to set rates, service levels, and other operational authority and control for the regional system, including local jurisdiction participation on such body. Other issues for consideration include possibly setting a rate ceiling, setting or removing the minimum load charge for self -haulers, and possible ownership issues. The City has remained consistent in regards to governance as it is critical to the City's commitment of representing our citizens through rate setting and cost control authority. 6. The City requests a commitment from the County to always seek and obtain the lowest price option, with an opt -out available for the City if the County pursues higher -priced options. If ownership is part of the agreement, the City would seek either buy-out or recovery of the City's portion towards the capital investment. The City also seeks dialog on recovery of operational and other enterprise fund reserves should the City withdraw at any time. 7. The City requests that if an intermodal facility or rail transloader is developed related to solid waste, it must have direct access at the same location to both Burlington Northern and Union Pacific rail lines in order to take advantage of competition for landfill disposal. Also, future competitive bids should not be restricted to a specific transport mode or specific intermodal system. System users should not directly fund the development of rail facilities. These facilities should be funded by the private sector or other public/private partnerships. 8. The City desires a clear and transparent accounting of all aspects of operation, including any interfund transfers or other comingling of County resources, revenues, or expenses. 9. The City requests the County to give consideration to local jurisdictions and their ability to provide certain services such as recycling or education in order to allow local jurisdictions more control over rates. 10. The City desires the gate rate to be reduced by the amount of the capital payment when the transfer stations are paid off. Specifically, the City desires that the 2 interlocal agreement will clearly show a direct correlation between capital purchase payoff and rate reduction (e.g., if capital payment amount is equal to $11 per ton, upon pay off, the gate rate will be reduced by $11 per ton). 11. The City desires to discuss the possibilities for ownership and equity in system facilities. The City would like clarification on what ownership, buy-in, and buy- out would mean, how it could be accomplished, and how it would work for rate payers of various jurisdictions. Additionally, the City would like to understand how system control would be tied to ownership. 12. The City desires to have strict limits on any rent, lease, or depreciation costs included for the period of the agreement, including limits on what may be imposed after the facilities are fully paid. Additionally, the City desires to clearly identify any equipment or facility replacement or maintenance funds that may be required throughout the term of the agreement. Finally, the City desires to identify how future capital costs, including any reserve funds, will be applied to the gate rates. 13. The City desires to see the final rates (or rate estimates) with (1) all County, City and other local jurisdiction waste, and (2) all waste except for the City in order to understand the impact of the City joining the system. 14. The City desires to have revenue sharing options included in the interlocal agreement, in the event there is ever a utility tax or revenue component. Additionally, the City desires clarification on how revenue sharing would work with any revenues distributed by the City of Spokane under the County's interlocal agreement with Spokane. 15. The City desires that the County or system will enforce all flow control requirements. Another possibility may be for the system to pay for all flow control enforcement. 16. The City must have the ability to submit an RFP prior to termination in the event that it desires to go with a non -system alternative. In that RFP, the City would contemplate siting of a new transfer station. The City would require that section C(1)(ii) be amended to allow this. 17. City will want to discuss mutual indemnification further depending on its involvement in and level of control and responsibility for system. If the City has no or little control over the system and rates, it should not be required to indemnify the County. 18. The City desires to get reports of City of Spokane Valley tonnage going forward. 19. The City requests clarification on how the County envisions flow control working with the City of Spokane, especially if there are price differences and the Waste- to-Energy facility is cheaper than the system. Further, how much of the City of Spokane's waste goes to the transfer stations currently, and has the City of Spokane committed to continuing such deliveries? 20. The City desires clarification on how the County would make the required balloon payment in the event it opts-out at the end of three years and what impact it would have on signatory cities. 3 21. The proposed interlocal agreement broadly defines solid waste to include materials such as industrial wastes, sewage sludge, abandoned vehicles, and contaminated soils. Will such materials be accepted at the transfer stations? 22. The City intends to develop and adopt its own comprehensive solid waste management plan. 23. The City desires information on the status of the legacy landfills, including projected costs for ongoing closure maintenance, projected rate impacts, and projected final closure date. 24. The City requests a term of three years, although depending on County's agreement to implement cheaper alternatives at the three year opt -out, the City may be willing to discuss a possible longer term. Further, the City desires ability to exit without mutual agreement by providing reasonable advance notice. The City would consider possible limits on when this might be allowed (e.g., at the three-year buy-out period). 25. The City desires to discuss equity issues if the City of Spokane desires to join the County system in the future. As indicated, these are issues identified by the City specific to the handling of City of Spokane Valley solid waste. It is my understanding the County is revising the draft interlocal to be re -sent to prospective members. I encourage you to incorporate the City's comments or contact me for discussion/clarification. I believe we already concur on many of the comments and issues while some comments will require negotiation and discussion. The City would be happy to meet and discuss these with you. Finally, the City of Spokane Valley has made the determination to develop its own Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan. This plan will be developed with alternatives for inclusion in the County's system and possible public/private partnerships. Our objective is to develop an interlocal that will allow for final comparison and timely decisions on our part as soon as County rates are provided. Sincer Mike ckson, City Manager c: Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Bill Bates, Councilmember 4 SP OK ANE OUNTY Okl lcl OF COUNIY COMMISSIONERS T1ERs TODD MIELKE, 1ST DISTRICT • SHELLY O'QUINN, 2ND DISIRIOT • Al. FRENCH, 3RD DISTRICT March 31, 2014 Mr. Mike Jackson, City Manager City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA. 99206 RE: Responses to City of Spokane Valley Comments Proposed Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement Dear Mr. Jackson, Thank you for your letter of March 20, 2014, wherein you present the City's comments, concepts, and issues of importance relative to consideration of participation in the County's Regional Solid Waste System. We have made a number of modifications to the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) in response to the comments that we received at the meeting at CenterPlace on February 27th and the comments presented in your letter. Updated versions of the ILA are enclosed for your consideration. Note that we have included a version in "track changes" format, as well as a "clean" version. Modifications to the ILA include the following: 1. We have modified "SECTION NO. 2: DURATION/TERMINATION" to allow for termination of the agreement by the City after 3 years, without penalty. 2. We have modified ATTACHMENT "C" to clarify the purposes of the solid waste enterprise fund, and to address the disposition of assets in the unlikely event that this fund is ever dissolved. 3. We have modified ATTACHMENT "C" to expand the responsibilities of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee to include participation in the budgeting process for the system, and providing recommendations regarding Gate Fees. 4. We have modified ATTACHMENT "C" to clarify the County's intent to further investigate alternatives for solid waste disposal during the term of the ILA, including the issuance of an RFP in approximately May of 2016. 5. We have added language to ATTACHMENT "C" clarifying that any utility taxes paid to the County by the City of Spokane pursuant to the City/County Agreement will be distributed to the participating jurisdiction proportionately based on tons of solid waste. Below, we have provided responses to each of the comments and questions included in your letter. We believe that these responses will clarify the County's position. As evidenced by the ILA modifications noted above, we have agreed to some of the City's proposals. However, there are some proposed changes to which we remain philosophically opposed. 1116 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (509) 477-2265 Mr. Mike Jackson March 31, 2014 Page 2 1. Given the time constraints on all parties, the City desires to work to general agreement on the concepts below. The City believes that the parties already concur on many of the issues and anticipates that those will be incorporated into the next draft of the proposed interlocal agreement by the County. The City desires to enter into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU) on resolving the others. After the MOU is executed, the parties may then work through details to include the other concepts in the proposed interlocal agreement once they are resolved. RESPONSE: The County believes, in light of the mounting time constraints, that it is more appropriate to resolve all issues and include them with the ILA as opposed to the MOU/ILA concept. 2. The City of Spokane Valley (the "City') desires to have an actual rate or guaranteed rate ceiling incorporating all costs (capital costs, operating costs, program costs, and overhead costs) prior to executing the proposed interlocal agreement. RESPONSE: The County is more than willing to provide the City with an "estimate". At present, we believe that the gate fees will be at or below the present fees. It is not appropriate to provide a guaranteed fee to the City of Spokane Valley. This would place all the risk on the County and the other participating jurisdictions. The gate fees finally adopted will take many factors into account, and will depend in large part on the commitment of flow from the various jurisdictions. 3. The City believes that combining transfer station operations with transport and disposal will result in the lowest cost overall for the system. In order to do so, the City desires the County to issue an immediate Request for Proposals for combined transfer station operations, transport services, and disposal services to allow transition in three years to the lowest cost option. The City recognizes that the County is seeking a contractor to operate the transfer stations under a 10 year term and that an early termination clause will be included in the operating contract. RESPONSE: The County respectfully disagrees. We believe that other disposal options will be available within a 3 to 5 year time frame, which will provide a more competitive bidding climate. We further believe that a 1.0 -year term will provide for more competitive rates for operation of the transfer stations. 4. The City desires to have future handling of solid waste tonnage from the West Plains area clearly delineated, including what transfer station, transport and disposal options will be utilized. The City has concerns about what may happen if the new County system pays off the transfer stations after three years and utilizes an option other than the City of Spokane's Waste -to -Energy facility. Specifically, the City believes a new West Plains transfer station is not necessary as there are alternatives (use of the existing transfer stations) and a new West Plains station would result in excessive additional costs for the entire system. In any case, the City of Spokane Valley does not believe that all system users should support the development of a West Plains transfer station. Mr. Mike Jackson March 31, 2014 Page 3 RESPONSE: The County is responsible for providing a regional system. The rates will be comparable for all customers. For example, the County's agreement with the City of Spokane stipulates that the City of Spokane will continue to deliver historical flows to the Colbert Transfer Station, and will pay the same gate fees as any other customer, including the component that pays for the transfer stations. Similar to the way in which landfill closure costs are paid for by all rate payers, capital costs for new or existing transfer stations (including the Valley Transfer Station) will be paid for by all rate payers on a system wide basis, 5. The City desires to establish a governing body with authority to set rates, service levels, and other operational authority and control for the regional system, including local jurisdiction participation on such body. Other issues for consideration include possibly setting a rate ceiling, setting or removing the minimum load charge for self haulers, and possible ownership issues. The City has remained consistent in regards to governance as it is critical to the City's commitment of representing our citizens through rate setting and cost control authority. RESPONSE: The approach described here is essentially the "Alliance" approach. This approach was unsuccessfully pursued several years ago. At this juncture, the County has decided to own and operate the regional system in a conventional fashion, in the same manner as other systems are set up throughout the state. The County does not agree that a separate governing body should be established. However, in the revised ILA, we have expanded and further clarified the role of Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). 6. The City requests a commitment from the County to always seek and obtain the lowest price option, with an opt -out available for the City if the County pursues higher priced options. If ownership is part of the agreement, the City would seek either buy-out or recovery of the City's portion towards the capital investment. The City also seeks dialog on recovery of operational and other enterprise fund reserves should the City withdraw at any time. RESPONSE: The County shares the City's desire to keep rates as low as possible. At this point in time, the County will retain ownership and risk for the entire regional system and joint ownership is not contemplated. 7. The City requests that if an intermodal facility or rail transloader is developed related to solid waste, it must have direct access at the same location to both Burlington Northern and Union Pacific rail lines in order to take advantage of competition for landfill disposal. Also, future competitive bids should not be restricted to a specific transport mode or specific intermodal system. System users should not directly fund the development of rail facilities. These facilities should be funded by the private sector or other public/private partnerships. RESPONSE: It is not contemplated that the Regional Solid Waste system will own or operate an intermodal facility. If private industry builds an intermodal facility, then private industry will determine its location. Mr. Mike Jackson March 31, 2014 Page 4 8. The City desires a clear and transparent accounting of all aspects of operation, including any interfund transfers or other comingling of County resources, revenues, or expenses. RESPONSE: Funds from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund will not be co -mingled with any other County funds. The ILA has been revised to provide: "COUNTY shall provide a statement of County Regional Solid Waste System income and expenses to the SWAC at the end of each fiscal year or on such other periodic basis as necessary for the SWAC to make a recommendation..." 9. The City requests the County to give consideration to local jurisdictions and their ability to provide certain services such as recycling or education in order to allow local jurisdictions more control over rates. RESPONSE: The Regional Solid Waste System will provide services on a regional basis. It is not in the best interests of the Regional Solid Waste System for the system to offer an "a la carte" approach from which member jurisdictions would choose various services/program(s). However, this is an example of a topic which could be brought before SWAC. 10. The City desires the gate rate to be reduced by the amount of the capital payment when the transfer stations are paid off. Specifically, the City desires that the interlocal agreement will clearly show a direct correlation between capital purchase payoff and rate reduction (e.g., if capital payment amount is equal to $11 per ton, upon pay off, the gate rate will be reduced by $11 per ton). RESPONSE: Clearly, once the transfer stations are paid for, the transfer station payment component will not be included in the calculation of the gate fees. However, the "cost of service" rate -setting approach will consider all anticipated capital costs and replacement costs for the regional solid waste system, as is typical. 11. The City desires to discuss the possibilities for ownership and equity in system facilities. The City would like clarification on what ownership, buy -in, and buyout would mean, how it could be accomplished, and how it would work for rate payers of various jurisdictions. Additionally, the City would like to understand how system control would be tied to ownership. RESPONSE: It has been determined that the County will own all regional solid waste system facilities. All funds and equipment of the regional solid waste system will be held in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. The Solid Waste Enterprise Fund will not be co - mingled with any other County funds. Although the County hopes that all jurisdictions will initially join the regional solid waste system, in the event some do not, then an equitable buy -in will need to be negotiated with any jurisdictions that join later. Mr. Mike Jackson March 31, 2014 Page 5 12. The City desires to have strict limits on any rent, lease, or depreciation costs included for the period of the agreement, including limits on what may be imposed after the facilities are fully paid. Additionally, the City desires to clearly idents any equipment or facility replacement or maintenance funds that may be required throughout the term of the agreement. Finally, the City desires to idents how future capital costs, including any reserve funds, will be applied to the gate rates. RESPONSE: The ILA has been revised in Section C. 2 to provide for SWAC's recommendation(s) relative to financial matters regarding the County Regional Solid Waste System. 13. The City desires to see the final rates (or rate estimates) with (1) all County, City and other local jurisdiction waste, and (2) all waste except for the City in order to understand the impact of the City joining the system. RESPONSE: There are numerous factors that affect gate fees. At this point in time, the County has not calculated gate fees for the various scenarios associated with participation in the regional solid waste system by certain jurisdictions. Some of the components of the gate fee can be adjusted by scaling back services on a geographical basis, and changing hours of operation for the transfer stations. 14. The City desires to have revenue sharing options included in the interlocal agreement, in the event there is ever a utility tax or revenue component. Additionally, the City desires clarification on how revenue sharing would work with any revenues distributed by the City of Spokane under the County's interlocal agreement with Spokane. RESPONSE: The County has added language to Section C. 3 of the ILA addressing this item. 15. As a participant of the regional system, each jurisdiction is required to adopt and enforce the County's flow control ordinance. The City desires that the County or system will enforce all flow control requirements. Another possibility may be for the system to pay for all flow control enforcement. RESPONSE: The County is not opposed to regional flow control enforcement. However the costs of regional flow control enforcement could have an effect on the gate fee. 16. The City must have the ability to submit an RFP prior to termination in the event that it desires to go with a non -system alternative. In that RFP, the City would contemplate siting of a new transfer station. The City would require that section C(1)(ii) be amended to allow this. RESPONSE: The County revised Section C: 1 of the ILA to address this concern. However, it should be noted that the siting of a transfer station is subject to the Essential Public Facilities siting process. Mr. Mike Jackson March 31, 2014 Page 6 17. City will want to discuss mutual indemnification further depending on its involvement in and level of control and responsibility for system. If the City has no or little control over the system and rates, it should not be required to indemn the County. RESPONSE: The liability language in the ILA is self- limiting. That is to say, the City is only liable to the extent it negligently or intentionally performs or fails to perform any of its obligations under the ILA. 18. The City desires to get reports of City of Spokane Valley tonnage going forward. RESPONSE: The County is happy to provide this information to the extent that it is available. The tonnages may not be exact as collection routes do not necessarily conform to individual City corporate boundaries. 19. The City requests clarification on how the County envisions flow control working with the City of Spokane, especially if there are price dffferences and the Waste -to - Energy facility is cheaper than the system. Further, how much of the City of Spokane's waste goes to the transfer stations currently, and has the City of Spokane committed to continuing such deliveries? RESPONSE: The City of Spokane has mandatory garbage collection. The ILA between County and City of Spokane includes the following language address these concerns: G. Municipal Flow Control Interference: Both the CITY and the COUNTY recognize flow control to the Transfer Stations and to the City Waste To Energy Facility provides consistency to the CITY and the COUNTY and should not be intentionally disrupted by either the CITY or the COUNTY. The CITY and the COUNTY agree not to intentionally interfere with the other's attempt to meet all solid waste flow control requirements established within this Agreement. Specifically, neither party will intentionally interfere with Interlocal Agreements executed with other jurisdictions both within Spokane County and outside Spokane County during the term of this Agreement. The CITY and the COUNTY further agree to continue to cause the solid waste delivered to the Transfer Stations and to the Waste To Energy Facility respectively by the PARTIES to remain at historical volumes to the extent practicable through the term of this Agreement. (Emphasis added.) O. Gate Fees: For the purpose of transparency to the citizens of Spokane County, it is the intent of the CITY and the COUNTY to charge similar gate fees at the Transfer Stations and the Waste To Energy Facility Mr. Mike Jackson March 31, 2014 Page 7 throughout the term of this Agreement; however, both PARTIES understand that this subsection is not binding on either Party. The PARTIES shall give each other at least sixty (60) calendar days advance written notice in the event either determines to charge a gate fee which is not similar to the gate fee of the other party. 20. The City desires clarification on how the County would make the required balloon payment in the event it opts -out at the end of three years and what impact it would have on signatory cities. RESPONSE: There are several options. One option would be for the County to sell bonds to make the balloon payment. Debt service on the bonds would then replace the monthly transfer station payment to the City of Spokane. Another option would be for the County to borrow money from the Spokane County Investment Pool. A third option might be a combination of the above options. Clearly the County would only be implementing one of these options if it would result a reduction in the gate fee. 21. The proposed interlocal agreement broadly defines solid waste to include materials such as industrial wastes, sewage sludge, abandoned vehicles, and contaminated soils. Will such materials be accepted at the transfer stations? RESPONSE: Although the items mentioned are identified as solid waste under the County Flow Control Ordinance, the transfer stations are not equipped to handle them, since they are not municipal solid waste. However, the SCCSWMP identifies where these types of solid wastes are properly handled. 22. The City intends to develop and adopt its own comprehensive solid waste management plan. RESPONSE: This is the first official communication wherein the City has notified the County that it intends to develop and adopt its own comprehensive solid waste management plan. Based on this information, the County is not intending to plan for the City in conjunction with preparing our Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Note that the County must move forward with the extensive preparations for the new system, including, among others, the negotiations for a comprehensive planning contract and an operations contract, selection of a consultant for a rate study, hiring of staff, and agreements for various services. The scope and costs of all these activities will be directly affected by the extent to which jurisdictions opt to join the regional system. Therefore, in the interest of time and resources, we must require that all jurisdictions joining the system sign an ILA with the County by April 30, 2014. At this time, the County has made no provision within its planning process to accommodate the addition of any other jurisdiction after April 30, 2014. 23. The City desires information on the status of the legacy landfills, including projected costs for ongoing closure maintenance, projected rate impacts, and projected final closure date. Mr. Mike Jackson March 31, 2014 Page 8 RESPONSE: Long term closure activities for the legacy landfills continue. The County's annual Operation & Maintenance (O&M) budget for our 3 legacy landfills is approximately $700K/year. Assuming the O&M was fully funded by the gate fees, the impact would be $5/Ton. It is difficult to predict a closure date for any of the sites due to the fact that the refuse remains buried on-site. Additionally, we are continuing to manage landfill gas, impacted groundwater, landfill cover systems and storm water. The County operates under the assumption that we will continue these activities for 20 years. Every 5 years EPA and Ecology perform a review of the remedial actions at each site and can adjust the site requirements. 24. The City requests a term of three years, although depending on County's agreement to implement cheaper alternatives at the three year opt -out, the City may be willing to discuss a possible longer term. Further, the City desires ability to exit without mutual agreement by providing reasonable advance notice. The City would consider possible limits on when this might be allowed (e.g., at the three-year buy-out period). RESPONSE: The County has modified SECTION NO. 2 of the ILA to allow the City to terminate any time after November 16, 2017 without any penalty and without receiving any payment from the County. The City will be required to provide a 12 -month notice prior to such termination. 25. The City desires to discuss equity issues if the City of Spokane desires to join the County system in the future. RESPONSE: The City of Spokane is a participant in the Regional System through their ILA with the County. By the end of April, the County must fmalize the list of participating jurisdictions and move forward, in order to stay on schedule with the development of the new system. We understand that the City of Spokane Valley has hired a planning consultant to prepare a comprehensive solid waste management plan. However, we intend to meet Ecology's time frame and cannot delay. At this time, the County has made no provision within its planning process to accommodate the addition of any other jurisdiction after April 30, 2014. Please review the changes that the County has made to the ILA. We encourage the City of Spokane Valley to execute the document by the end of April. We would welcome the City's participation in the Regional Solid Waste System. Sincerely, Al Fren 'hair Enclosures (2) d Mielke, Vice -Chair A Oa Q�1 f 'Quin Commissioner rk DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of May 8, 2014; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings May 20, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Lori Barlow NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Admin Report: Stormwater CIP 2015-2020 — Eric Guth 3. Draft 2015-2020 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley 4. Appleway Landscaping Phase I — Eric Guth 5. Centennial Trail Draft Agreement — Mike Stone 6. Advance Agenda [due Mon, May 12] (20 minutes) (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 85 minutes] May 27, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Comp Plan Amendments — Lori Barlow 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Comp Plan Map — Lori Barlow 4. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Appleway Resurfacing — Eric Guth 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 6. Info Only: (a) Browns Park Master Plan; (b) Dept Monthly Reports June 3, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Browns Park Master Plan — Mike Stone 2. Advance Agenda [due Mon, May 19] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] [due Tues May 27] (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] June 10, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Amended 2014 TIP — Steve Worley 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015-2020 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley 3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Comp Plan Amendments — Lori Barlow 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Comp Plan Map — Lori Barlow 6. Motion Consideration: Approval of Draft Centennial Trail Agreement — Mike Stone 7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda June 17, 2014: Budget Workshop, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Spokane Valley City Council Chambers No evening meeting June 17, 2014 Draft Advance Agenda 5/8/2014 9:28:02 AM [due Mon, June 2] (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 minutes] [due Mon, June 9] Page 1 of 4 June 24, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Proposed Resolution Amending 2014 TIP — Steve Worley 3. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2015-2020 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley 4. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement — E.Guth 5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Sprague Resurfacing, Vista to Herald — E.Guth 6. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Stn Ave Reconstruct; McKinnon to Fancher —Guth 7. Motion Consideration: Browns Park Master Plan — Mike Stone 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 9. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports July 1, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda July 8, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda July 15, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda [due Mon, June 16] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 80 minutes] [due Mon, June 23] (5 minutes) minutes] [*estimated meeting: [due Mon, June 30] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] [due Mon, July 7] (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] July 22, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Appleway Trail, University to Pines — E. Guth 3. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Mansfield Ave Connection — E. Guth 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 5. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports July 29, 2014 no meeting August 5, 2014 No Meeting - National Night Out [due Mon, July 14] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 30 minutes] August 12, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Argonne Corridor Upgrade — Eric Guth 3. Admin Report: Estimated Revenues and Expenditures 2015 budget — Mark Calhoun 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda August 19, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda [due Mon, Aug 4] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 35 minutes] [due Mon, Aug 11] (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] August 26, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015 Budget — Mark Calhoun 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes, motion to set 9/23 Budget hearing) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [due Mon, Aug 18] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 25 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 5/8/2014 9:28:02 AM Page 2 of 4 September 2, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Aug 25 1. Outside Agencies Presentations [5 min each]: (a) Economic Development, (b) Social Service) (— 90 min) 2. Admin report on proposed ordinance adopting 2015 property taxes (20 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 115 minutes] September 9, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Community Development Block Grant Proposed Projects — Scott Kuhta 3. Admin Report: City Manager presentation of 2015 Preliminary Budget 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda September 16, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda [due Tues, Sept 2] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (30 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] [*estimated September 23, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CDBG Proposed Projects — Scott Kuhta 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015 Budget — Mark Calhoun 3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 4. First Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance — Mark Calhoun 5. Motion Consideration: CDBG Proposed Projects — Scott Kuhta 6. Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Allocations for 2015 — Mark Calhoun 7. Admin Report: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment — Mark Calhoun 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 9. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports September 30, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda October 7, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda [*estimated [due Mon, Sept 8] (5 minutes) meeting: minutes] [due Mon, Sept 15] (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 95 minutes] [due Mon, Sept 22] (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] [due Mon, Sept 29] (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] October 14, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment — Mark Calhoun 3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 4. Second Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance — Mark Calhoun 5. First Reading Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment — Mark Calhoun 6. First Reading Proposed 2015 Budget Ordinance — Mark Calhoun 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda [*estimated October 21, 2014, Studv Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda [*estimated Draft Advance Agenda 5/8/2014 9:28:02 AM [due Mon, Oct 6] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 80 minutes] [due Mon, Oct 13] (5 minutes) meeting: minutes] Page 3 of 4 October 28, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment — Mark Calhoun 3. Second Reading Proposed 2015 Budget Ordinance — Mark Calhoun 4. Admin Report: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports November 4, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Admin Report: 2015 Fee Resolution —Mark Calhoun 2. Advance Agenda November 11, 2014 — no meeting — Veteran's Day [due Mon, Oct 20] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) —M.Calhoun (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] [due Mon, Oct 27] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 20 minutes] November 18, 2014, Formal meeting 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution for 2015 — Mark Calhoun 3. Advance Agenda November 25, 2014 — no meeting — Thanksgiving week December 2, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda December 9, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations for 2015 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda December 16, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda December 23, 2014 no meeting December 30, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda 2. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [due Mon, Nov 10] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 25 minutes] [due Mon, Nov 24] (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] [due Mon, Dec 1] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 30 minutes] [due Mon, Dec 8] (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] [due Mon, Dec 22] [*estimated meeting: minutes] OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: ADA Transition Plan SEPA/NEPA Process — Eric Guth Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Economic Incentives Fire and Life Safety Code Future Acquisition Areas Historic Preservation Interim Marijuana Regs [expires Aug 11, 2014] Noxious Weed Board Stormwater Swales, care of Street Vacation/Connectivity Process Tourism Promotion Agency (TPA) Urban Agriculture (animals, bees, etc.) *time for public or Council comments not included Draft Advance Agenda 5/8/2014 9:28:02 AM Page 4 of 4 errs (31 Spokane 1.�Valley Memorandum Parks and Recreation Department 2426 N. Discovery Place • Spokane Valley, WA 99216 509.688.0300 • Fax: 509.688.0188 • parksandrec@spokanevalley.org To: City Council Members; Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Michael D. Stone, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: May 13, 2014 Re: Centennial Trail Draft Agreement The Spokane Centennial Trail comprises 37 miles of natural beauty following the historic Spokane River from the Idaho state line to Nine Mile Falls, WA. The Trail has something for everyone. Walk or run, bike or in-line skate, or simply enjoy nature. Picnic on the river's edge, launch a canoe, or just sit and contemplate the rhythmic flow of the river. Designed for use by people of all ages and physical capabilities, the Trail is fully paved, so it is ADA accessible. It is used for commuting to both work and pleasure, and wildlife observation. The trail is marked by sites of historic and archaeological interest. With its metropolitan center section in downtown Spokane, the Centennial Trail branches out to more rural west and east endpoints, reaching into Idaho, for a total of 61 miles. It mostly follows the contours of the Spokane River and joins up with Lake Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, connecting along the way with the Liberty Lake Trail, Plantes Ferry Link Trail, and Cheney -Fish Lake Trail. There are over 2 million uses per year on the Trail. It is not only a free resource for the community, but a destination location. The Trail provides a great venue for family events, youth involvement such as school planting projects and Boy Scouts helping with the annual Unveil the Trai/clean up, and fundraising by nonprofit groups. The Centennial Trail has an interesting history. In 1979, Spokane County Parks proposed a bicycle/pedestrian pathway along the Spokane River. In 1984, the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce formed a Parks and Recreation Committee to explore this recreational possibility. In 1986, this group proposed a 10.5 -mile recreational trail in the valley, naming it a Centennial Trail to coincide with Washington State's 100th birthday in 1989. In 1987, the internationally recognized architectural team, Jones & Jones, was selected to develop a master plan for the Centennial Trail. It took a community to build the trail system - fundraisers, volunteers, and local businesses. In 1991, the Friends of the Centennial Trail was created, a nonprofit Washington corporation, dedicated to the ongoing support of the public sector for the development, operation, maintenance, and enhancement of the Spokane Centennial Trail. With the cooperation of the entire community, roughly 30 miles of class 1 trail were completed by 1992. The remaining seven miles consists of class 2 and 3 trail to create a contiguous trail system. The Trail is maintained via a cooperative agreement between the Washington State Parks & Recreation 1 Commission and the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley through their respective parks departments with assistance by the Friends of the Centennial Trail. The original cooperative agreement did not involve the City of Spokane Valley since we did not become a City until 2003. However, since 2003, the City of Spokane Valley has been managing and maintaining our portion of the trail just as if we were a signatory on the original cooperative agreement. The City has budgeted resources and included the trail maintenance in our maintenance agreement with our outside contractor. Believe it or not, the four Parties have been attempting to update and revise the original agreement for over seven years. A variety of circumstances have taken place that postponed the update for years. A renewed effort in 2011 to update took place but it too stalled. Finally, in 2013 all Parties agreed to an ambitious schedule to complete the revised update by years end. One of the critical reasons for this revised update was to include the newly formed City of Spokane Valley. The City needed to become an official party to this cooperative agreement. Staff is pleased to be able to bring this new revised and updated draft agreement before the City Council for your review and consideration. This new draft agreement not only includes the City of Spokane Valley but it has been updated to reflect current maintenance trends, costs, trail conditions and responsibilities. The draft agreement contains a management plan exhibit and a trail maintenance fund exhibit. From staff's perspective, the draft agreement is consistent in maintaining the role and responsibilities that Spokane Valley has been fulfilling since 2003. In fact several changes have been made to clarify responsibilities and provide our City with a new level of protection. This draft agreement has been reviewed by the Legal staffs of the State, Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley. The one main addition to the cooperative agreement is the addition of Exhibit 2, the Trail Maintenance Fund. The Parties felt a need to address the continuing maintenance challenges that we all could be facing as the trail continues to age. The Trail Maintenance Fund for the Spokane River Centennial Trail to be jointly administered by the Parties was created for the maintenance of the Spokane River Centennial Trail. This fund is primarily intended to address preventative maintenance needs that Parties cannot cover as part of the routine maintenance specified in the Interagency Cooperative Agreement and to address capital repairs. Each Party will be required to make an annual lump sum payment of $20,000 to the Trail Maintenance Fund by February 1 of each year beginning in 2015. All expenditures from the Trail Maintenance Fund shall be unanimously approved by the Parties prior to disbursement. Staff will be presenting the draft plan at the May 20 City Council meeting. At that meeting, staff will be seeking input and comments from the City Council. Staff is anticipating bringing the draft plan back on June 10 for a motion consideration to approve the cooperative agreement. If you have any questions or need additional information please let me know. Thank you. 2 Spokane River Centennial Trail Interagency Cooperative Agreement Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission City of Spokane Spokane County City of Spokane Valley Page 1 of 20 THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered this day of , 2014, by and between SPOKANE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at West 1116 Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260 ("COUNTY") and the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 808 West Spokane Fall Boulevard, Spokane Washington 99201 ("CITY"), the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of busi s at 11707 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 ("SPOKANE VALLEY"), anshington State Parks and Recreation Commission, having offices for the transaction of business at 1111 Israel Road, P.O. Box 42650, Olympia, WA 98504 ("COMMISSION"). Collectively, the COUNTY, CITY, SPOKANE VALLEY and the COMMISSION are referred to as the "PARTIES." WITNESSgH: WHEREAS, the PARTIES are owners of land wit the Spokane River Centennial Trail ("Trail") corridor as described in Section 3 of this Agreemen ,and WHEREAS, the Spokane River corridor is ecologically impoWn, has significant potential for interpretive purposes, • outstanding scenic beauty, tranquil surroundings and valuable historic and prehistoric features, is uniquely held public ownership for the more than 39 miles of its length, is the common thread that ks ' ernments, communities and neighborhoods together, s has, any thousands of years, been the corridor for commerce in the area and provides si ificant recreational opportunities; and WHE ' the PART desire to provide for the development and operation of a multi- purpose trail syste i s . e intent and authority of RCW 79A.05.030 and RCW 39.34.030 (2); and WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree that the primary development objective should be to preserve the river environment and provide facilities for public access, recreation, education and ecological and historic interpretation; and Page 2 of 20 WHEREAS, the COMMISSION is authorized under RCW 79A.05.030 and RCW 39.34.030 (2) to cooperate with the COUNTY, SPOKANE and SPOKANE VALLEY in accomplishing the program herein referred to and to enter into this Agreement to that end; and WHEREAS, the COMMISSION at its May 19, 1989 meeting authorized the Director or designee to enter into a long-term cooperative agreement with multiple governmental entities for the development and operation of the Spokane River Centennial Trail corridor (Trail); and WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree that the Trail can mo vantageously be managed by the Commission with shared operation, maintenance and 1. en o cement responsibilities; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual bens to be derived, the PARTIES hereby agree as follows: Section 1: Term The term of the Agr 11 be for 2014Ers commeing on the date last below written. This Agreement may be renewed 10 -year increments upon expiration of the original 20 -year term by mutual agreement of the parties. The COMMISSION will be given the first right to renew the Agreement before any other party is given the opportunity to manage the Trail under agreement with the COUNTY, SPOKANE and SPOKANE VALLEY. Section 2: Development and Management (a) All development and management of the Trail shall be the responsibility of the COMMISSION, unless otherwise provided herein, and the COMMISSION shall be the lead agency in preparing future development plans. Operation, including maintenance and law enforcement, shall be as set forth in Exhibit 1 - Management Plan ("Management Plan"), which Page 3 of 20 is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Each jurisdiction shall be responsible for all costs related to providing ordinary Trail operation, maintenance and law enforcement activities as outlined in the Management Plan. In the event of a capital repair or project (a project that falls outside of the parameters of ordinary maintenance as outlined within Exhibit 1 - Management Plan and/or exceeds $25,000 to complete) he underlying property owner or lease holder shall assume full responsibility (financiand otherwise) for project completion, barring any other agreements in place that may sede. (b) In the event of a capital repair or project i I . cting the Trail anssociated buffer lands, the responsible party may elect to petitio • er parte for evaluation portunities for cooperative funding in accordance with Exhibit 2 — Maintenance Fund ("Maintenance Fund") which is attached hereto and incorporated herein alteration or repair to the trail that is paid for require the unanimous approval of all Parties. responsible for carrying out the work including p s r-ference. Construction, ole arties wil the liability asjated with such activities. m the Maintenance Fund will so agree to which entity will be g, permitting, contracting, spending, and such work will begin without the written approval of the plans by all Parties. Written approval can be in letter form or electronically by e- mail. In the event of an e r ency�quiring immediate action to protect persons or property, the Parties may c a special Meeting or communicate by phone or e-mail to approve emergency spending. All construc or reconstruction must comply with applicable state and local laws. In the absence of c• •perative funding, the responsibility for capital repairs shall fall to the underlying land owner or lease holder for the section of Trail in need of repair. The Parties shall meet every three years for the life of this Agreement to review the capital funding threshold (currently at $25,000 — which is presently the state threshold for capital funding). Page 4 of 20 Section 3: Coordinating Council A Coordinating Council comprised of one (1) representative of each of the PARTIES, as well as a non-voting representative of the Friends of the Centennial Trail, shall be established to carry out all its responsibilities as outlined in the Management Plan and Maintenance Fund. The Coordinating Council representative from each party to this Agreement shall be as follows: • Washington State Parks: Riverside State Park ManagN Designee • Spokane County: Parks, Recreation & Golf D. for or esignee • Spokane- Parks and Recreation Director or Des • Spokane Valley: Parks and Recreation Director or Des • Friends of The Centennial Trail (nn -voting): Executive Directo* or Designee Each representative shall have responsibility for disseminating information to other individuals and parties in his/her group and for coordinating matters for the administrative working group. The designated representative shalrliave the autho *p vote on fund spending priorities on behalf of the organization they represent. Section 4: Areas of Jurisdiction i. The COMMISSION is primarily responsible for management of the entire 39 mile length of the Trail and maintenance and law enforcement on or within the Trail corridor and adjacent buffer lands within Riverside State Park from Nine Mile Recreation Area to the TJ Meenach Bridge. The COMMISSION is not precluded, however, from conducting maintenance or law enforcement on the entire Trail corridor and buffer lands to protect safety and recreation on the Trail, including those areas where the COMMISSION is the Page 5 of 20 underlying property owner but another jurisdiction is responsible for management, maintenance and law enforcement per this Agreement. ii. SPOKANE is responsible for the management of adjacent CITY -owned or leased buffer lands and maintenance and law enforcement on or within the Trail corridor located within the existing and future municipal boundaries of SPOKANE from the south end of the TJ Meenach Bridge to Centennial Trail Mile Marker 16 near "Boulder Beach" beyond the eastern municipal boundary of SPOKANE. iii. The COUNTY is responsible for management adjacc nt COUNTY -owned or leased buffer lands and maintenance and law enforcem t on o ithin the Trail odor from Centennial Trail Mile Marker 16 near "Boulder Beach" to the Idaho border minus any portion of the trail corridor and adj . . uffer lands th. . locted in SPOKANE VALLEY'S municipal boundaries (c e) — . minus any other portions of the Trail corridor and adjacent buffer 1. in this str: that become located within an existing or city(s) m cipal limits (i. nexation, incorporation). iv. SPOKA E VALL his responsible for management of adjacent city -owned or leased buffer lands an maintenance and law enforcement on or within the Trail corridor within its municipal boundaries (current and future). Section 5: Rules and Regulations The Trail is to be managed consistent with the provisions of chapter 79A.05 RCW and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder, unless otherwise exempted by the Director or COMMISSION. Page 6 of 20 Section 6: Permits Development and maintenance along the trail corridor shall be done in full possession of all necessary permits and licenses and in accordance with all applicable codes and regulations — including SEPA — and consistent with the overall development plans prepared by the COMMISSION. Obtaining permits will be the responsibility of the in . ting party. Section 7: Cooperative Management This Agreement allows management by the COUNTY, SPOKANE an. 'KANE VALLEY of COMMISSION -owned lands; and, by the COMMISSION of CO SPOKANE, and SPOKANE VALLEY -owned buffer lands within the Trail corridor. Any modifications or uses of this property for ther than buffer shall be consistent with Trail development, preservation of the river corridor, and approved by COMMISSION staff prior to use, modification or construction. Use of these lands for recreation, education or river access purposes may be granted by amendment to this Agreement upon approval of the proposed plans for said property by COMMISSION staff and approval of use by the COMMISSION, and in accordae with all applicable Federal, state and local laws. Section 8: Jurisdiction App All new facilities and improvements made by the COMMISSION shall be consistent with Trail development, preservation of the river corridor, and approved by the applicable jurisdiction prior to construction. The COMMISSION shall be in possession of all necessary permits and licenses and shall carry out all development, maintenance and operation in accordance with all applicable Federal, state and local laws. Page 7 of 20 Section 9: Hamilton Street Bridge The Hamilton Street pedestrian bridge is located on SPOKANE -owned property. Routine maintenance of this bridge will be the responsibility of SPOKANE. Any repairs relating to the structural integrity of the bridge; and, if necessary, replacement will be e responsibility of SPOKANE. Section 10: Denny-Ashlock Bridge The Denny Ashlock pedestrian bridge is located on both COMMISSION and SPOKANE VALLEY -owned property. Routine maintenance of this will be the responsibility of the party in whose jurisdiction the bridge resi sently the C • ' Y fer the northern half of the bridge, and Spokane Valley for the sout ha .ridge) Any repairs relating to the structural integrity of the bridge d, if necessa, eplaceme will be the responsibility of the COMMISSION. Section 11: Entire Agree ent i Agreement grants on permission to allow the COMMISSION to use the COUNTY, SPOKANE and OKANE LLEY-owned property and to allow the COUNTY, SPOKANE and SPOKANE VALL use the COMMISSION -owned property for the purposes and on the terms and conditions herein stated. No legal or equitable title is conveyed hereby. Title to the subject property shall remain with the landowner throughout the term of this Agreement and renewal thereof. Page 8 of 20 Section 12: Indemnification To the extent permitted by law, the COUNTY and/or SPOKANE and/or SPOKANE VALLEY shall defend and hold harmless the COMMISSION and the State of Washington, its officers, agents, employees, successors or assigns against any and all claims suffered or alleged hi to be suffered on the property, except such claims which arise out of th ctivities of the COMMISSION, its officers, agents or employees, for which claims e COMMISSION will defend and hold the COUNTY, SPOKANE and/or SPOKA Section 13: Signs The COMMISSION shall erect and maintain a sign( identifying the COUNTY, SPOKANE and SPOKANE VALLEY as cooperting agencies. Any de elopment authorized in accordance with Section 8 herein shall be si_�m ed by the applicableil sdiction identifying the ^/ COMMISSION as a cooperating • ency. The ' . MISSION will be the primary focal point ALLEY harmless. and contact for signing. Section 14: Termination This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual written consent of all PARTIES hereto. Section 15: Modification The provisions of this Agreement may be modified at any time by the mutual consent of all PARTIES hereto. Page 9 of 20 Section 16: Assignment of Rights No rights under this Agreement may be assigned without the prior written consent of the other parties. This does not preclude third -party agreements which are in compliance with the Management Plan. Section 17: Tree Removal Any tree removal shall be in accordance with landowner rules and regulations. Section 18: Non -Compliance The Trail and adjoining buffer lands are to be used b COMMISSION for public Trail corridor purposes. Except as otherwise provided for herein, thiee ent may be terminated P YPby byanyart in the event of non-compliance any other party wi he terms and conditions hereof, providing that the terminating party allow the non -complying party no less that ninety (90) days written notice of violation in which to correct any situation which is not in compliance with the terms an conditions of this Agreement. If correction is not made to the satisfaction of the terminating party within the ninety (90) days, this Agreement will automatically terminate without further notice. Section 19: Removal of Improvements Unless otherwise4greed, upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, all improvements placed on property under this Agreement shall be disposed of in compliance with applicable provisions of the Revised Code of Washington. Page 10 of 20 Section 20: Discover Pass SPOKANE, SPOKANE VALLEY, and the COUNTY have agreed to contribute towards the operation, care and maintenance of portions of the Trail and associated buffer lands as outlined herein. In recognition of this investment, the COMMISSION agrees NOT to impose any parking or visitor fees (i.e. Discover Pass) for ordinary visitation and use of tho trailheads and other areas commonly used for parking along portions of the Trail co and buffer lands for which SPOKANE, SPOKANE VALLEY, and the COUNTY have maintenance responsibility. Section 21: Trail Realignments and Connecti (a) Trail realignments which may be completed to as . safety hazards, to separate the trail from stretches of roadway, to elimina - or to otherwi ec the Trail shall become part of this Agreement and the Party whose area inclu. ' . the new trail element(s) shall assume jurisdictional responsibility for the w trail element(s) unless otherwise determined by the Parties through modification o , e greement. (b) Future c.nnections to the Trail such as neighborhood access points, local commuter trails, or regional trail conn ction . Fish Lake Trail) are a stated goal in the adopted Spokane County Regional Trails Pla rail c ections shall be encouraged to be completed, but any trails which have been conned to the Centennial Trail shall not become part of this Agreement nor extend maintenance responsibilities by the Parties under this Agreement, unless otherwise determined by the Parties through modification of the Agreement. Section 22: Entities No new entities are created by this Agreement. Page 11 of 20 Section 23: Agreement to be Filed The PARTIES shall record this Agreement with the Spokane County Auditor. Section 24: Personal/Real Property/No Joint Board There shall be no common ownership of any real or personal property under the terms of this Agreement. Each party to this Agreement shall separately ow property. The Coordinating Council referenced in Section 3 w Agreement, as well as the Management Plan and Trail -n.,' ce Fun and personal ter the provisions of this Page 12 of 20 DATED this day of , 2014 SPOKANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION By By Shelly O'Quinn, Chairperson [NAME], Director Date Date ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By [NAME] Daniela Erickson, Clerk Attorney General Date CITY OF SPOKANE By y [NA Senior A t Attorney General Date CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY By [NAME], City Manager Mike Jackson, City Manager Date ' Date APPROVED AS TO FORM Assistant City Attorne APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney ATTEST: ATTEST: By By City Clerk Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Date Date Page 13 of 20 Exhibit 1 Management Plan A - PURPOSE The purpose of this Management Plan ("Plan") is to establish min management, maintenance and law enforcement along the Spo ("Trail"). B - PARTIES INVOLVED m standards for the er Centennial Trail This Plan is part of the Interagency Cooperative Agreement entered into by the W. ington State Parks and Recreation Commission ("COMMISSION"), the City of Spokane ("SP 1 KANE"), Spokane County ("COUNTY") and the Qity of Spokane Valley ("SPOKANE VALLEY"). C - GENERAL MANAGEMENT 1. Overall management o'f the entire 39 -mile length of the Trail will be done by tVIMISSION through the Riverside State Park Manager's office. 2. Tll special activities along the Trail corridor will be coordinated through Riverside State Park via Specialecreation Event permits. Special activities on the Trail within other jurisdictions will be coordinated by the COMMISSION, who will notify the parks administrative staff and the law enforcement department for the affected jurisdiction. 3. The COMMISSION may collect Special Activity Permit fees and may requi insurance binder with a minimum coverage of $1 million for parties 20 or more people, or a damage deposit or a bond. 4. en ial Trail Use, Approved Activities and Prohibited Activities shall tablished by the Coordinating Council subject to applicable laws and all be kept on record with the COMMISSION. 5. The Trail facility will be open to the public on existing COMMISSION posted hours. 6. Each agency is responsible for obtaining fire protection for their jurisdiction. Page 14 of 20 D- GENERAL MAINTENANCE STANDARDS 1. Each agency will be responsible for general maintenance in their respective areas of the Trail as set forth in "Section 4: Areas of Jurisdiction" of the Interagency Cooperative Agreement. 2. Corrective action necessary to protect the public will be taken as soon as possible following report of damage to the jurisd. tion responsible. Temporary emergency Trail closure will be i if necessary, until hazardous condition is corrected (i.e. fire, floo , washout, leaning trees). Signs showing appropriate detour routes shall be placed accordingly, and notification given to the Riverside State Park Manager's office. Permanent repair or replacement, where n9t possible due to weather or other circumstance, will be acc plished subject to the limitations set forth in "Section 2: Develop nt and Management" of the Interagency Cooperative Agreement. de 3. Subject to the limitations set forth in "fiction 2: Development and Management" of the Interagency Cooperative Agreement, each jurisdiction will be responsible for routine sphalt maintenance of the Trail as deemed necessary by the jurisdiction providing the maintenance. Routine maintenance shall include patching potholes, cutting out and/or patching large cracks or heaved pavement, sealing smaller cracks in asphalt with tar and trail shoulder repairs. Shoulder repairs include placing asphalt on trail edges where old asphalt is cracking and breaking away and placing gravel along the shoulders where erosion has occurred. Seal coating o the Trail shall be considered a capital repair. Maintenance Fund moneymay "e used for routine asphalt repairs with the mutual agreement of all parties if included within the 6 -year trail capital improvement plan as outlined in Exhibit 2 — Trail Maintenance Fund. 4. COMMISSION, SPOKANE, SPOKANE VALLEY and COUNTY will Nstrive to use tht same standardized amenities and replacement amenities, including but not limited to signs, benches, picnic tables, bollards, mile markers and bulletin boards as determined by the Coordinating Council. The Coordinating Council will develop and may periodically update a list of options for these standardized amenities. Each agency shall bear the cost of repair and replacement of amenities as necessary, subject to the limitations set forth in "Section 3: Development and Management" of the Interagency Cooperative Agreement. 5. No amenity, other than replacement of existing amenities, shall be placed along the Trail corridor without the approval of the jurisdiction responsible for maintenance of that particular stretch of trail corridor. Page 15 of 20 6. A comprehensive record of maintenance will be kept by Riverside State Park. SPOKANE, SPOKANE VALLEY and the COUNTY agree to provide a summary of maintenance performed on the trail for the calendar year by January 31St of the following year. E- SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE ITEMS Following is a listing of specific maintenance items wit omments as needed: 1. Amenities — interpretive and informational ' s, benches, picnic tables, bollards, water fountains, trash receptac arkers, hitching posts, rest stations and bulletin boards. 2. Bridges 3. Fencing 4. Guardrail 5. Handrail 6. Litter Control — litter and adjacent buffer area ar -� - pt ed to ensure that the trail 7. Mile Markers — both posts and large mile numbers painted on asphalt will be maintained. 8. Signs — an inventory of rep ! cement signs may be requested. 9. S w . Plowg — no snow plowing will be required on the Trail. Trail head pa ' lots lowed, depending upon user demand and resource avai ": ity by jurisdiction responsible. 10. Sweeping — entire Trail length will be swept or blown off as needed to ensure that the trail surface is safe for use by bicycles, skates, skate boards and other non -motorized trail uses. 11. =Trail heads including facilities, parking lot and entry road — inspected and cleaned as needed to ensure that these areas are clean and safe. 12. Vandalism — the parties shall notify local enforcement and strive to inform the Commission of incidents of vandalism. 13. Weed Control — in compliance with Spokane County Noxious Weed Control Board requirements, a control program along the Trail will be Page 16 of 20 developed and accomplished, the cost borne by the individual jurisdictions within parameters of the Interagency Cooperative Agreement. 14. Trail shoulders will be mowed or sterilized as needed and overhanging vegetation cut back for a minimum of two feet on each side of the trail. Vegetation will be cut back to maintain line -of -sight necessary for safety on curves. F- LAW ENFORCEMENT 1. Primary responsibility for law enforcement/patrol in the Trail corridor is as follows: in SPOKANE, with the Spokane City Police; in SPOKANE VALLEY, with the Spokane Valley Police; in the COUNTY, with the COUNTY Parks Ranger and/or the Spokane County Sheriff; and, within Riverside State Park, with the S to Parks Ringers. 2. The COMMISSION will assist within the city and County jurisdictions in normal park patrol and enforcement along the Trail. 3. Upon request of the COMMISSION, SPOKANE, SP KANE VALLEY or the COUNTY will respond as backup during an enforcement situation beyond park rule violatio 4. SPOKANE, SPOKANE VALLEY and th OUNTY will provide documentation of all law enfo1 cement activities related to the Trail on a yearly basis to the Riverside State Park office. 5. Law enforcement violations attributable to the Trail are specified through WAC (Washington Administrative Code), RCW (Revised Code of Washington) or SMC (Spokane Municipal Code) and include fines if convicted. Page 17 of 20 Management Plan Attachment "A" Maps Maps shall be developed cooperatively by the parties, periodically updated as needed due to municipal annexation, trail development/re-routes or other reasons, and kept on file with the Coordinating Council. Page 18 of 20 Exhibit 2 Trail Maintenance Fund A MAINTENANCE FUND FOR THE SPOKANE RIVER CENTENNIAL TRAIL SHALL BE CREATED. STATEMENT OF MUTUAL INTEREST AND BENEFIT WHEREAS, the Parties desire to work together to create a Trail Maintenance Fund in order to preserve the recreational values of the Centennial Trail and to bring additional recreation and economic value to the area; and WHEREAS, the Centennial Trail is a valued regional resource linking communities from Coeur D'Alene, Idaho to Nine Mile Falls; and WHEREAS, the Trail Maintenance Fund shall become a component of the Interagency Cooperative Agreement to cooperatively manage and maintain the Trail; and WHEREAS, the Interagency Coo i . tive Agreement spells out the obligations of the parties related to routine maintenance and rcement; and WHEREAS, the Trail is over 20 years the Trail ages; and ntenancbligations are increasing as WHEREAS, the Trail is in need of capital . • airs to maintain current trail usage; NOW THEI1EFOE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived, the Parties hereby agree to create a Trail Maintenance Fund for the Spokane River Centennial Trail to be jointly administered by the Parties for the maintenance of the Spokane River Centennial Trail. This fund is primarily intended to address preventative maintenance needs that Parties cannot cover as part of the routine maintenance specified in the Interagency Cooperative Agreement and to address capital rairs. I. PARTIES In addit o the Parties to the Interagency Cooperative Agreement, a representative of the Friends of Centennial Trail (FCT) shall be invited to participate in a non-voting capacity when the Parties meet to carry out the responsibilities of the Trail Maintenance Fund outlined herein. FCT is a non-profit corporation under the laws of the state of Washington, has pledged to contribute to the Trail Maintenance Fund as resources allow, and has consistently supported the construction and maintenance of the Trail. II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL PARTIES All Parties to the Interagency Cooperative Agreement shall: 1) Meet not less than twice a year to coordinate the management, operation, and maintenance activities for the Trail. Page 19 of 20 2) Discuss upcoming anticipated expenses and maintenance needs. 3) Develop a six (6) year trail capital improvement plan for utilization of the Trail Maintenance Fund taking into account capital needs not covered under the terms of the Interagency Cooperative Agreement, Exhibit 1 - Management Plan. 4) Annually review, update and approve the six (6) year trail capital improvement plan. 5) Make an annual lump sum payment in the amount of $20,000 to the Trail Maintenance Fund by February 1st each year the Interagency Cooperative Agreement is in place, beginning in 2015. 6) All expenditures from the Trail Maintenance Fund shall be unanimously approved by the Parties prior to disbursement. This may occur through unanimous approval by the Parties of the annual review, update and approval of the six (6) year trail capital improvement plan or on a case-by-case basis. 7) Inspect the trail within their area of jurisdiction annually to determine maintenance needs in order to bring these issues to the semi-annual meetings for prioritization and/or funding. 8) Send a representative to each meeting with the authority ft) vote on spending priorities. III. SPOKANE COUNTY SHALL: 1) Establish a Trail Maintenance Fund for the colle contributed by the Parties as outlined herein in Sect 2) Be responsible for bookkeeping a the Trail Maintenance Fund. 3) Prepare an Annual Report of the acc Maintenance Fund. IV. CONTACTS The Trail Maintenance Fund shall be administered the Coordinating Council. he disbursement cement of mckies , subsection 5. funds approved by the parties from venues and expenditures of the Trail Page 20 of 20