2004, 09-21 Study Session MinutesAttendance:
Councilmembers:
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Rich Munson, Councilmember (excused)
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Study Session
September 21, 2004, 6:00 p.m.
Staff:
Dave Mercier City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Manager
Cal Walker, Police Chief
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
John Hohman, Senior Engineer
Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor DeVleming opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., welcomed all in attendance, reminded everyone
that this is a study session, and requested that all electronic devices be turned off for the duration of
the meeting.
1. Economic Analysis Charrette for Sprague Appleway Corridor - Marina Sukup
Community Development Director Sukup introduced Terry Moore, principal for ECONorthwest who has
been commissioned to prepare an environmental assessment of the Sprague Appleway Corridor; she
mentioned yesterday's community meeting was well attended, and tonight they will summarize that
meeting and provide Council with comments from the focus groups which discussed issues last night.
Below are notes from their presentation:
Terry Moore: gave an overview of the study; said that they decided not to give the same presentation
tonight as was given at last night's session with stakeholders and others but will summarize that
presentation. He said in order to determine the economic impacts of alternate developed packages in the
Sprague Corridor, we need to understand existing and future conditions; and to identify the development
packets concerning land use and transportation.
Overview of the process: they conducted research and drafted a report which will be available within a
week or two after today's council comments; they held workshops on existing conditions and meet with
stakeholders, and after tonight they will revise their draft report and comments into a final report which
will be available in October, which he mentioned is all on schedule according to contract.
Key factors in analysis: they need to know about couplets, bypasses and how our retail markets work
Couplets or two -way: consider and justify purpose
Now have excess capacity; impact and capacity will depend on business type
Couplets can support area development/redevelopment
Couplets usually result in Main Street being over congested so the couplet becomes the necessary
fix.
Bypasses are important. This is not a bypass study but it is important to look at those studies; many
comments about what might happen must be put in context of what's going on with the main bypass,
which is I90 which is being improved with north /south arterial connections.
Study Session Minutes 09 -21 -04 Page 1 of 6
Date Approved by Council: 09 -28 -04
Main points about retail markets: he mentioned there is retail strength in Spokane Valley and also
evidence for continued growth; they are not expecting retail to take a dive in the Valley; that
transportation is reflective of changes in the corridor and the Sprague corridors have strength; there are
some areas of specialization and a large percentage of Valley commercial land is in the corridor; but that
there is also evidence of decline; there is vacant and underused land; and he concluded these observations
are greater than he has seen in many other cities, and in some parts of the corridor there are relatively high
vacancies and a relatively low lease base. The implications for development options are, we must see the
big view for land use and transportation in the corridor. That last night they examined different scenarios
for the area such as a city center. The big view is that the couplet issue is about land use; what should the
corridor look like; and it should be driven by land use and any option must work in context of what we
want to achieve in the corridor; five and one -half miles is too much retail and there is evidence of that and
as a result we must build on the strength of corridor and rebuild at the weaknesses. The corridor has
healthy ends and a weak middle. Part two of the big view is a City Center. All the evidence they heard
and read is that citizens want a city center. A City Center could be in any number of places but definitely
not in some places; for example, not on the south side of 32n against the hills; but that many feel Sprague
would work well and it should be in the center of Sprague or at U -City.
The Couplet decision is not a question of we should do it because we have the money and if we don't do
it we are giving away money; their conclusion is we have to re- justify the need for couplet, and if we
don't change land use in the area he feels we won't be able to justify that need. Land use and
transportation should go together.
The strength of the couplet is the west end with the auto sales; those companies are doing well; there is
also nothing wrong with that part of Sprague coming down from the mall on Sullivan. The problem is in
the middle of the corridor, and opportunity for the corridor is in the middle, which is where the people say
they want a center. If you put a city center at U -City, there won't be a retail strip any more, but would be
an area as a gateway that informs people that have moved into the corridor. To make a city center
happen, the area needs to be more attractive and needs land use to be supported by transportation; that
five and one -half miles of commercial is too big; that people are too focused on the pros and cons of the
couplet and that should not be the focus.
Michael Freedman:
Following are highlights of his PowerPoint Presentation:
Members of the consulting team focused on land use development, capital improvements; they
specialized in kinds of problems and opportunities found in the Sprague Corridor. The preliminary ideas
for consideration from yesterday's meeting included: a desire to draw on their experience doing corridor
revitalization in similar circumstances around the country, and address part of what they learned in other
communities faced with similar circumstances, and what are their thoughts on how those lessons might
apply to the opportunities and challenges of this corridor in terms of what they found in their research and
field work. Commercial corridors have entered a period of accelerating transition, and can be found
everywhere; retail is concentrating at major intersections and freeway off - ramps. Anywhere you go
commercial corridors put together similar scenarios to what we have. He sees areas replacing what used
to be linear patterns of commercial development, increasing concentrations of heavily anchored retail and
entertainment at power centers and off - ramps. Retail is responding to the existence of a highway; and the
concentration of major retail power can be seen at off ramps which removes a tremendous amount of
buying power over to the freeway. These crossroad located centers are draining economic vitality from
properties located everywhere else in and out of the city. This is happening everywhere in America. As
you drive down our corridor you get a sense of the history of the corridor, but also a sense of dilapidation,
which gives a negative identity associated with the City. Many buildings have outlived their economic
life. They found in other communities that now they have to pay attention to where the major crossroads
Study Session Minutes 09 -21 -04 Page 2 of 6
Date Approved by Council: 09 -28 -04
are as those are the places where there is new net retail. To restore property values and vitality to
corridors, land use and development and the design of the thoroughfare must be significantly restricted to
reflect investor preferences and to respond to the real pattern of demand in the locality.
To optimize the corridor's land values again and make it a highly visible and successful piece of the City,
they suggest the following strategies:
1. significantly reduce the amt of land intended for commercial development along the corridor.
2. go with the marketplace: provide retail concentrations at major crossroads (in amounts that do
not overwhelm market demand) in compact, walkable, lifestyle town center configurations.
3. corridor restructuring must be planned in relation to the envisioned pattern of retail in the City
and in the region and the comprehensive plan is a major opportunity to plan the healthy co- existence of a
pattern of commercial centers.
4. look for opportunities to redevelop grayfield malls no longer advantageously developed;
promote the development of a town center at the U -City mall. Geographically, U -City is at the center, is
at a crossroads and is ready to go.
5. modify land use and development policies to focus high quality residential, workplace and
lodging investment like a mixed use grand boulevard, which will lend to a very successful retail work
place, and have residential domination. As part of the comp plan, focus on land use decisions that
consider transforming the most damaged segments away from retail, and redevelop them into housing,
offices and residences which would all support a town center itself. What form should the residential
segments take? Single family homes, or zoned for higher densities like multi family, townhouses?
Longer setbacks, larger masses; bigger planting strips; or multi - family that looks similar to large homes to
fit in well with neighborhood, that all works well. We also need to figure out how to do that with the
corridor, and to do that plus meet market demands for homes without the need for having large mansions.
As resources allow, focus capital improvements on setting the stage for residential development in
targeted segments where it is damaged, and use capital improvements to create green leafy developments
to create what is desired in that area.
6. neighborhood serving retail and services should be planned in limited clusters at strategic
locations (facing the corridors).
7. promote continued success of the specialist segments of auto sales and services; and cluster
such specialized uses whenever possible. He recommends we bolster the area for the auto sales and build
on the best of what's already there.
8. focus street improvement resources to reconfigure each segment to create environments that
are supportive of the enhanced market focus of the desired forms of investment; that is; each segment's
development types must be paired with the appropriate form of street design. We need to focus
improvements on the gateway to create, identify and make highly visible the city's commitment to
revitalization, we want to send a positive message and not a negative message. The hardest thing to do
and most necessary is to re- envision the corridor as a series of segments with their own market areas of
focus and different right -of -way treatments.. Design must match the needs of development for the area
next door.
Question and Council discussion (paraphrased):
Councilmember Taylor: How do you sell this as a City center if it takes seven to ten minutes to get there
from the nearest highway exit?
Michael Freedman: the mall is made up entirely of national retailers which creates a certain kind of
environment. The opportunity we have is to pick a local crossroads where land is available and which is
geographically central to the town itself, and to create a different kind of place, not to compete with the
mall but more of an anti -mall conglomeration with shared parking, walking orientated, cafes, town green,
new town hall, a kind of place where the community gathers and where people go to lunch. We have to
keep in mind that the life -style retail is the now the hottest thing; major investors want to be inside urban
environments; he looked at single family housing in this area and stated we should keep in mind that the
Study Session Minutes 09 -21 -04 Page 3 of 6
Date Approved by Council: 09 -28 -04
baby boomers are now moving out in greater numbers and want to live by cafes, bookstores, art galleries,
and theatres.
Terry Moore: you only need a small amount of multi - family residences; other areas generally show a
60//40 split, and with that split we will only need less than five percent of the multifamily market into this
type of unit.
Michael Freedman: says in connection with transportation issues, it is essential to work with a good
economic study and a good economist, so the community is not dreaming of an investment it can't get.
He feels the land use pattern must be developed within realistic frameworks, but that there are limits;
configuration of a roadway should be set to follow, serve and instigate what the market could deliver; we
don't want people to cross five lanes of traffic, it would be better to have office or housing on one side so
those people can be customers of the downtown uses on the other side.
Tina Fueston: integrating transit depends on what people want; with greater densities we don't want a lot
of connecting roads and so transit doesn't make a lot of sense, but with multi - family, transit does make
sense.
Michael Freedman: In response to Councilmember Denenny's question about not having overhead wires;
this should be a prioritization issue; that up to a certain point it is not worth doing undergrounding
because it's not just wires making the condition; and with the first five to ten million, you can get more
for the buck to develop in ways to hide most wires; and later have it more of a priority to do
undergrounding. Now undergrounding would be very expensive, usually newly incorporated cities
should probably not do undergrounding because it would blow the whole pot. Additionally, suicide lanes
are very dangerous and you don't get much from them. He found he could put in a narrow landscape
medium down the middle of the street, and steal 16' from the middle to get eight foot parking on both
sides, and add parallel parking curbside. The dealership communities tell him there is a segment of their
customer base that buys cars on impulse so curbside parking would be advantageous.
Dave Mercier: where are the next most likely nodes along the corridor that could benefit from a similar
approach?
Michael Freedman: said there are several options: if you divide the area into three - thirds, one seems to be
a pretty strongly established commercial development in old- fashioned traditional forms in boxes, parking
lots and big signs like up from Sullivan to the mall, and in the area of Sullivan to Pines. That is an area
that can be improved because it is not flattering to business. The City can invest to improve signage,
street improvements, or even have a business improvement district. On the other side are the auto sales
and services. He suggests we try to find a way that the community can partner with them to make sure
this is marketed as a growing and continued strong regional center to come buy a car.
Terry Moore: said they have a legal requirement to get a plan done and a process is going that is part of
the comp plan, to make a decision of where do you want to start and where you want things to go; and it
is not clear that the first investment should be the middle; that maybe working at the two ends to make
sure auto and retail ends are right would be a better start, or maybe start with the gateway improvement to
show this is the start of something big.
Deputy Mayor Wilhite: asked about one way or two -way.
Michael Freedman: said that the street design should serve the development; this site is a site already in
ownership and has visibility on both sides; and the most important place to be is where someone does not
have to go across traffic on the way home. Turning into two -way would be problematic, and the evening
commuters would have to turn across traffic to get in.
NEXT STEPS:
Terry Moore: explained that the next steps are to have a draft report to council, that the report is almost
written and includes everything up through the history, existing conditions, and retail,. He feels they
could have a draft report to Council within a couple weeks; allow council time to examine the report and
to get comments back to the consultants, and then return the report back to council within a few more
weeks with the hope of having a final report the end of October or early November.
Study Session Minutes 09 -21 -04 Page 4 of 6
Date Approved by Council: 09 -28 -04
Tina Fueston: having the couplet one or two ways is not the major issue as either way works. Part of the
basic question is we need to decide what is the function; we inherited that structure with the intention of
having it as a primary commute through this valley. The couplet one way or two or not is not the central
question: we need to decide on land use and let the infrastructure support it.
Council thanked the consultants for their presentation. It was Council consensus to move forward with
preparing the draft report. Mayor DeVleming called for a recess at 7:55 p.m., and reconvened the
meeting at 8:12 p.m.
2. Presentation of Traffic Impact on Couplet — Evan Marques
Terry Lynch of the Spokane Valley Business Association, introduced Evan Marques, Gonzaga student to
give his presentation on his study of the couplet. Evan Marques thanked the Mayor and Council for the
opportunity to speak, and then went over his PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Marques added that in his
study, professional offices were not affected by the traffic patterns so most of his contacts were with
retailers. Council thanked him for his presentation.
3. Budget Discussion- David Mercier, Nina Regor, and Ken Thompson
City Manager Mercier explained that this is another in a series of budget considerations for the 2005
budget, and staff wants to propose the following for council consideration:
1. Need to brief council on stormwater utility and get direction to move forward with multi -year financial
plan
2. Hope to come to conclusion of what to do with the list of theoretical predictions for 05 budget
3. Hope to prompt council consensus of what would be the gross amount of money to be allocated for
outside agencies
4. Direction as to what next we can assemble and present for council information and consideration
Deputy City Manager Regor explained the stormwater utility and background information section of the
presentation; and added that any changes would need to be reflected to certify any assessment roll with
enough time to submit information to the County by the appropriate deadlines. After discussion of the
rates as shown on slide #2, Council instructed staff to begin work on the necessary Resolution. City
Manger Mercier explained the details of slide 6, which shows the general fund looking forward; and
pointed out the significant and annually increasing deficits on each forward looking year; he mentioned
he feels it is important to have a reasonable view of the financial trends so as budget decisions are made
in the current year, they are done so in context of these economic trends, and said that the major financial
concerns are not for 2005 but for years beyond that. Finance Director Thompson discussed the 1 % limit
listed on slide 7; and highlighted page 9 concerning staff's recommendation to reduce the budget. Deputy
Mayor Wilhite stated that based on what the Finance Committee looked at, she appreciates taking a look
at this so council can begin to determine where to conserve. There were no council objections to pull the
amounts indicated and to prepare revised sheets for further consideration.
In reference to the accompanying information concerning outside agencies, after Council review of what
was allocated last time, and discussion on the allocation amounts for the upcoming year, it was Council
consensus to leave the total allocation at $100,000, and for each Councilmember to go through the
material and give recommendations to Deputy City Manager Regor who will give a summary of all
recommendations at the October 19 Study Session. Councilmembers should attempt to get information to
Ms. Regor by next Tuesday.
City Manager Mercier then discussed the slide on page 14, and stated there are two problem statements:
deficits in the general fund in the second column per year, and deficits in the street fund in the next
column. He mentioned we have the lowest number of full time employees of all Washington cities with
populations over 50,000, and our workforce numbers put us at one step below the lowest community. He
Study Session Minutes 09 -21 -04 Page 5 of 6
Date Approved by Council: 09 -28 -04
stated he feels we are at shoe - string level for all programs being offering at the moment, that the options
are to either select programs to reduce like code enforcement or the aquatic program, or if no programs
are eliminated, we would have to turn attention to the largest segment of the budget which is public
safety; and within that largest expense is law enforcement; and that we would have to do programmatic
cuts to stay within the limited amount of revenue for each preceding year.
It was moved by Mayor DeVleming, seconded by Councilmember Denenny, and unanimously approved
to extend the meeting 30 minutes.
Deputy Mayor Wilhite, speaking for the Finance Committee, stated that they have looked at the projected
forecast to see where to reduce in 2005 to have the balance budget; that for the long term decline, we need
to look at how to solve that problem, inform the public where our funds come from, and ask staff to look
at an increase in sales tax and how much that would help to close the gap; or other alternatives to
accomplish that goal. After further council consideration and discussion concerning the financial plan, it
was Council consensus to come back to re- examine the options in order to bridge the budget gap.
4. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming
Councilmember Flanigan asked that we add Mayoral Appointments to the September 28 agenda to fill a
vacant position in the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee; and also asked City Clerk Bainbridge to post
the ad concerning the Lodging Grant RFP and mail the RFP to those as has been done in the past.
5. Council Check -in — Dave Mercier
City Manager Mercier said staff has been working with representatives from the State Auditor's office as
they perform their audit, and because this is the first time working with us, they have looked at our
policies, practices and procedures and will provide a preliminary report within the next few weeks; that
they met last week and there are no findings, no problems, and we anticipate a clean audit report. In
reference to the following year's estimated $96,000 cost to perform that audit, Finance Director
Thompson said the auditors have left that determination open for conversation as why the audit should be
Tess, which we will argue based on the number of transactions, ordinances, resolutions, and employees,
and we feel we can build a good case for a lesser fee.
6. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier
No Comments.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
m /
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk,
Study Session Minutes 09 -21 -04
Date Approved by Council: 09 -28 -04
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Page 6 of 6
David Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
September 21, 2004
City of Spokane Valley
2005 Preliminary Budget
Spokane County Service Area
2005
2006
2007
Glenrose
$49
$58
$63
North Spokane
31
37
40
West Plains
38
45
48
Remainder of service area
17
20
21
Stormwater Utility
Background Information
• Stormwater utility established to develop and maintain storm
drainage systems, which protect the aquifer
• City currently charges $10 annual fee per ERU; generates
approx. $750,000
• Spokane County recently enacted a revised annual stormwater
fee structure to implement its program in unincorporated area:
2005 Preliminary Budget 9/21/04
2
Street cleaning; winter sweeping
and clean -up
$569,755
Drywell repair and cleanout
116,064
Culvert repair and cleanout
12,202
Swale maintenance
4,613
Curb, gutter and inlet repair
11,867
Other
24,422
Total
$738,923
Street Maintenance Costs Appropriately
Charged to Stormwater Fund 402
YAIWICGOIPKU
Salaries, Wages and Benefits
$151,112
5160,179
5169,789
$179,977
5190,775
$202,22.2
City Overhead
552,458
$55,605
$58,942
$62,478
$66,227
570,201
Public Works
555,140
$58,448
$61,955
565,673
$69,613
573,790
Supplies
$22,700
$24,970
$27,467
530,214
$33,235
536,559
Stormwater Project
5200,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
5400,000
$400,000
Transfer to Street Capital Fund
5150,000
$150,000
$150,000
5150,000
5150,000
$150,000
IT Support
52,000
52,020
52,040
$2,061
$2,081
$2,102
Consulting Services
$30,000
$30,300
$30,603
530,909
$31,218
531,530
Stormwater Maintenance Contract
5738,922
$775,868
$814,662
S855,395
$898,165
5943,073
Engineering Services
555,680
566,816
580,179
$96,215
$115,458
5138,550
Legal
52,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
S2,500
$2,500
Contract Services
522,500
S22,725
522,952
$23,182
$23,414
$23,648
Training/Travel /Mileage
57,500
$7,575
$7,651
$7,727
57,805
$7,883
Transfer to GF
589,700
$91,494
$93,324
$95,190
$97,094
$99,036
Capital Outlay
520,000
SO
SO
$0
$0
SO
Total Expenditure
$1,600,212
$1,848,501
$1,922,065
52,001,520
$2,087,585
$2,181,092
ERU's
74,750
76,245
77,770
79,325
80,912
82,530
Rate
524
524
$24
$24
$24
524
Revenue
51,794,000
51,829,880
$1,866,478
S1,903,807
$1,941,883
51,980,721
Stormwater Utility
6 -Year Plan
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Stormwater Utility: Six Year Forecast
(9/21/04)
(Fund Balanance
5978,7881 $960,1671 $904,580 $806,867 5661,165 $460,794
2005 Preliminary Budget 9/21/04 4
Stormwater Utility Fee: Assumptions
and Implementation Timeline
xacac •,.›..wwxj
3:,
• Assumptions —
■ Stormwater Fund pays for related maintenance costs
currently paid by Street Fund
• Stormwater fee increases from $10 to $24 per ERU per
year
• Change effective January 1, 2005
• Timeline —
■ City enacts a fee resolution by December 2004 and
forwards to Spokane County
• County amends assessment rolls by January 15, 2005
2005 Preliminary Budget 9/21/04 5
General Fund Six Year Forecast (9/14/04)
Problem Statement #1
General Fund Revenues:
Sates Tax
Property Tax
Gambling Tax
Leasehold Excise Tax
Franchise Fees
State Shared Revenues
Planning & Building Fees
Fines & Forfeitures
Recreation Program Fees
Interfund Transfers
tnvestment Interest
Total General Fund
General Fund Expenditures:
Legislative
Executive & Legislative
Public Safety
Deputy City Manager
Finance
Legal
Human Resources
Public Works
Planning
Guiding
Library
Parks Admin
Recreation
Aquatics
Senior Center
CenterPlace
General Government
Total General Fund
2005
Estimate
$ 12,400,000
10,055,316
800,000
5,000
620,000
1,035,340
1.293.000
1.200.000
90.000
80.000
36,000
27,614,656
2006 2007
Estimate Estimate
$ 12,750,000 $
10,255,869
800,000
5,000
626,200
1,061,224
1,293,000
1,200,000
90,000
42,500
50,000
2008
Estimate
12.877,500 $ 13,150,000
10,458,428 10,663,012
800,000 800,000
5,000 5,000
632,462 638,787
1,087,754 1,114,948
1,293,000 1,293,000
1,200,000 1,200,000
90,000 90,000
42,500 42,500
50,500 51,005
28,173,793 28,537,144 29,048,252
2009 2010
Estimate Estimate
S 13,281,500
10,869,642
800.000
5,000
645,174
1,142,822
1,293,000
1,200,000
90,000
42,500
51,515
Surplusl(Deficlt) $ (1,127,646) $ (2,082,409) $ (3,804,866) $ (6,060,213) $ (8,514,674)
290,305 313,529 338,612 365,701 394,957 426,553
460,369 497,199 536,974 579,932 626,327 676,433
15,652,488 16,904,687 18,257,062 19,717,627 21,295,037 22,998,640
268,942 290,457 313,694 338,789 365,893 395,164
440,269 475,491 513,530 554.612 598,981 646,900
207,300 223,684 241,795 261,138 282,029 304,592
121,462 131,179 141,673 153,007 165,248 178,468
756,202 816,698 882,034 952,597 1,028,804 1,111,109
954,681 1,031,055 1,113,540 1,202,623 1,298,833 1,402,740
721,760 779,501 841,861 909,210 981,947 1,060,502
2.100,000 2,268,000 2,449,440 2,645,395 2,857,027 3,085,589
1,070,262 1,155,883 1,248,354 1,348,222 1,456,080 1,572,566
158,215 170,872 184,542 199,305 215,250 232,470
255,818 276,283 298,386 322.257 348,038 375,881
126,592 136,719 147,657 159,469 172,227 186,005
321,299 380,000 410,400 443,232 478,691 516,986
3,708,692 3,450,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,916,000 3,149,280
$ 27,614,656 $ 29,301,438 $ 30,619,553 $ 32,853,118 $ 35,481,367 $ 38,319,876
S 13,414,315
11,078,339
800,000
5,000
651,626
1,171,392
1,300.000
1,200,000
90,000
42,500
52,030
29,421,153 $ 29,805,202
2005 Preliminary Budget 9/21/04 6
Theoretical Reductions: 1% Limit
Legislative Branch Amount
Travel/Training (2,079)
Executive & Legislative Support Amount
Professional Services (14,000)
Travel/Training (2,000)
Office Supplies (202)
Small Tools & Minor Equipment (500)
Publications (800)
(17,502)
Public Safety Amount
3 SRO & 3 Traffic Officers (446,497)
Finance Amount
Small Tools & Minor Equipment (1,000)
TravellTraining (1,300)
Subscriptions (100)
Printing (100)
Registrations (500)
Operating Supplies (300)
1/2 Administrative Assistant - Vacant (20,900)
(24,200)
Legal Amount
Professional Services (4,993)
2005 Preliminary Budget 9/21/04 7
Theoretical Reductions: 1% Limit,
continued
Human Resources Amount
Professional Services (2,079)
Public Works Amount
Small Tools & Minor Equipment (8,550)
Engineering & Architectural (20,000)
Office Supplies (200)
Publications (2,412)
Copier Maintenance (1,800)
(32,962)
Planning Amount
Professional Services - CHAS (20,675)
Building Amount
Transportation (15,000)
Publications (3,000)
Clothing & Uniforms (650)
Engineering & Architectural (1,000)
Printing & Binding (1,500)
Office Furniture & Equipment (2,051)
Computer Software/Hardware (2,000)
Code Enforcement Abatement (15,000)
(40,201)
GRAND TOTAL $ (591,188)
2005 Preliminary Budget 9/21/04 8
Legislative Branch
$(2,079)
Executive & Legislative Support
(17,502)
Public Safety
0
Finance
(3,300)
Legal
(4,993)
Human Resources
(2,079)
Public Works
(32,962)
Planning
(20,675)
Building (retains $15,000 code enforcement
abatement)
(25,201)
Total
$(108
Summary of Available Reductions
(non - personnel)
2005 Preliminary Budget 9/21/04
r^a �r� �kwi> »• :j
9
Year
General
Fund
Shortfall
FTE Staff
Reduction
2005
--
--
2006
(1,128,000)
(11.2)
2007
(2,100,000)
(20.2)
2008
(3,805,000)
(35.5)
2009
(6,060,000)
(54.9)
2010
(8,515,000)
(74.9)
Six -Year General Fund Projected Shortfall:
Impact on Law Enforcement Staffing —
Service Level Outcome
• Assumes 3% annual growth
in cost of FTE
• Does not assume potential
off - setting revenues, e.g.,
grants
• Scenario reduces 2005 law
enforcement workforce by
74% by 2010
2005 Preliminary Budget 9/21/04 10
Street Fund
6-Year Plan - Service Level Maintained
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Salaries, Wages & Benefits
$198,354
$214,222
$231,360
$249,869
$269,859
$291,448
Supplies
$13,280
$14,342
$15,489
$16,728
$18,066
$19,511
Spokane County Engineering Contract
$ 400, 000
$ 432,000
$466,560
$503,885
$544,196
$587,732
WSDOT Street Maintenance - SR 290 & SR 27
$ 350, 000
$ 378, 000
$ 408,240
$440,899
$476,171
$514,265
Spokane County Street Maintenance Contract
$2,185,364
$2,360,193
$2,549,008
$2,752,929
$2,973,163
$3,211,016
Minor Road Maintenance
$300,000
$324,000
$ 349,920
$377,914
$408,147
$440,799
Street Lighting/Signal Power
$300,000
$324,000
$349,920
$377,914
$408,147
$440,799
Consulting Services
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SRTC
$36, 000
$38,880
$41,990
$45,349
$48,977
$52,895
Interfund Transfers - Replacement
$18,645
$20,137
$21,748
$23,488
$25,367
$27,396
Total Expenditures
$3, 801, 643
$4,105,774
$4,434,235
$4,788,975
$5,172,093
$5,585,861
Revenue
$1,226,342
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
Surplus/Deficit
($2,905,774)
($3,234,235)
($3,588,975)
($3,972,093)
($4,385,861)
Street Fund: Six Year Forecast (9/21/04)
Problem Statement #2
2005 Preliminary Budget 9121104
,;, • era. �,.v,•,�• -�X -�� ��
11
Salaries, Wages & Benefits
$198,354
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Supplies
$13;280
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Spokane County Engineering Contract
, $400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
VVSDOT Street Maintenance - SR 290 & SR 27
$ 350, 000
$ 350, 000
$ 350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
Spokane County Street Maintenance Contract
$2 185, 364
$ 599, 820
$ 599,820
$599,820
$599,820
$599,820
Minor Road Maintenance
$300,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Street Lighting/Signal Power
- $300,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
Consulting Services
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SRTC
$36,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Interfund Transfers - Replacement
$18,645
Total Expenditure
$3,801,643
$1,199,820
$1,199,820
$1,199,820
$1,199,820
$1,199,820
Revenue
$1,223,312
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
Street Fund
6 -Year Plan Based on Current Revenues
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Street Fund: Six Year Forecast (9/21/04)
Service Level Afforded by Current Revenues
:1
'Fund Balanance
$1,5151 $1,6951 $1,8751 $2,0551 $2,2351 $2,4151
2005 Preliminary Budget 9121104 12
Six Year Projected Shortfall Summary (9/21/04)
Operations:
General Fund $
Street Fund
Capita Needs:
Parks est.
Streets
Other?
2005
2006
$ (1,128,000)
( 2,905,000 )
( ( 425 , 000 )
( 700 , 000 ) (900,000)
(100,000)
Total Capital (850,000) (1,425,000)
Total $ (850,000) $ (5,458,000)
2007
$ (2,100,000)
(3,235,000)
(100,000)
(1,450,000)
$ (6,785,000)
2008
$ (3,805,000) $ (6,060,000) $ (8,515,000)
(3,590,000) (3,975,000) (4,385,000)
2009 2010
( 500 , 000 ) (550,000)
( 900 ,0 00 ) ( 950 , 000 )
(100,000) (100,000)
( 1 , 500,000 ) ( 1 , 600 , 000 )
$(11,535,000) $ (14,500,000)
2005 Preliminary Budget 9/21/04 13
Projected Shortfall Summary: Operations (9/21/04)
General Fund
Street Fund
Total
2005
$0
0
$0
2006
$(1,128,000)
(2,905,000)
$(4,033,000)
2007
$(2,100,000)
(3,235,000)
$(5,335,000)
2008
$(3,805,000)
(3,590,000)
$(7,395,000)
2009
$(6,060,000)
(3,975,000)
$(70,035,000)
2010
$(8,515,000)
(4,385,000)
$(72,900,000)
Projected Shortfall Summary: Operations (9/21/04)
2004 2005
Allocation Request
International Trade Alliance $14,000 $35,000
Chase Youth Commission 2,000 10,000
Economic Development Commission 55,000 175,000
Project Access 25,000 25,000
Valley Community Center 4,000 14,283
Spokane Valley Meals on Wheels 0 8,200 0
$100,000 $267,483
Amount Proposed in 2005 Budget: $100,000
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Outside Agency Requests
2005 Proposals
Salaries, Wages and Benefits
T $151;112!
$160,179
$169,789
$179,977
$190,775
$202,222
City Overhead
, ,, $52,453
$55,605
S58,942
$62,478
$66,227
$70,201
Public Works
, $55,1401
$5B,448
561,955
$65,673
$69,613
$73,790
Supplies
:,f, $22;700.
$24,970
$27
$30,214
$33,235
$36,559
Stormwater Project
, S200,000.
$400,000
$400
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
Transfer to Street Capital Fund
._ - , - $150X100
$160,000;
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
IT Support
'-
$2,020
$2,040
S2,061
$2,081
$2,102
Consulting Services
' $300(10,
$30,300
$30,603
$30,909
$31,213
$31,530
Stormwater Maintenance Contract
'$738,922
$775,865
$814,662
$855,395
$898,165
S943,073
Engineering Services
, ::- $65,680
$66,815
$80,179
$96 215
$115,458
$138,550
Legal
"2 142500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
Contract Services
; $22,500
$22,725
$22,952
$23,182
$23,414
$23,648
Trainingriravel/Mileage
_ ' ,‘$7,500
$7,575
$7,651
$7,727
$7,805
$7,883
Transfer to GF
, ‘ - $89,700
$91,494
$93,324
$95,190
$97,094
$99,038
ipital Oil tlay ,
$20
_ $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Expenditure
- S1,600i212
$1,848,501
$1,922,065
$2,001,520
$2,087,585
$2,181,092
ERIJ's .
-; -74,750
76,245
77,770
79,325
80,912
82,530
Rate
c ,, :$24
$24
- $24
$24
$24
$24
Revenue
$1
$1,829,880
$1,866,478
$1,903,807
$1,941,883
$1 980,721
Stormwater Utility: Six Year Forecast
(9/21/04)
Fund Balanance
11178788!
$960,167
2005 Preliminary Budget 9121104
$904,580 $806,867
$65115I 460 r 794
6-Year Plan
Stormwater Utility
' e 1
2005'
2008
2007
2008 1 2009
2010
Stormwater Utility: Six Year Forecast
(9/21/04)
Fund Balanance
11178788!
$960,167
2005 Preliminary Budget 9121104
$904,580 $806,867
$65115I 460 r 794
Human Resources
Professional Services
Theoretical Reductions: 1% Limit,
continued
Public Works
Small Tools & Minor Equipment
Engineering & Architectural
Office Supplies
Publications
Copier Maintenance
Planning
Professional Services - CHAS
r�r f da"rrg
Tfansportation
Publications
Clothing & Uniforms
Engineering & Architectural
Printing & Binding
Office Furniture & Equipment
Computer Software /Hardware
Code Enforcement Abatement
GRAND TOTAL
Amount
(2,079)
Amount
(8,550)
(20,000)
(200)
(2,412)
(1,800)
(32,962)
Amount
(20,675)
Amount
(15, 000)
(3,000)
(650)
(1,000)
(1,500)
(2,051)
(2,000)
(15, 000)
(40,201)
$ (591,188)
2005 Preliminary Budget 9/21/04 8
2004 2005
Allocation Request
International Trade Alliance $14,000 $35,000
Chase Youth Commission 2,000 10,000
Economic Development Commission 55,000 175,000
Project Access 25,000 25,000
Valley Community Center 4,000 14,283
Spokane Valley Meals on Wheels 0 8,200
$100,000 i $267,483
Amount Proposed in 2005 Budget: $100,000
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Outside Agency Requests
2005 Proposals