Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2014, 07-22 Regular Meeting Amended
AMENDED AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday,July 22,2014 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 Mike Graef,Valley United Methodist 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 July 22,2014 Request for Council Action Form,Totaling:$2,156,154.17 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending July 15,2014: $325,090.66 c.Approval of June 17,2014 Council Workshop Meeting Minutes d.Approval of July 8,2014 Formal Council Meeting Minutes e. Approval of Traffic School Interlocal Agreement NEW isuainnL,S: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-008,Marijuana Regulations—Erik Lamb [public comment] 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-009, Noel Telecommunication Franchise—Cary Driskell [public comment] 4.Motion Consideration: Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects—Steve Worley [public comment] 5.Motion Consideration: Interlocal Agreement,WSDOT Operation and Maintenance—Eric Guth [public comment] 6.Motion Consideration: Interlocal Agreement,Public Facilities District—Erik Lamb [public comment] 7.Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Appleway Landscaping Project—Eric Guth [public comment] 7a. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Sullivan Bridge - Eric Guth [public comment] Council Agenda 07-22-14 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 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. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 8. Solid Waste Management Plan—Eric Guth 9.Advance Agenda—Mayor Grafos INFORMATION ONLY 10. Department Monthly Reports 11. Beekeeping CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2"—d and 4th Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats(the less formal meeting) are generally held the 03rd and 51 Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included,comments are permitted after those specific action items. 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 07-22-14 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 22, 2014 Department Director Approval: Al 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 07/08/2014 5760-5770 $966.00 07/09/2014 32706-32766; 630140034 $1,653,419.57 07/14/2014 32767-32820; 703140056 $399,540.19 07/14/2014 32821-32846 $25,483.81 07/14/2014 5771-5781 $1,007.00 07/16/2014 4850, 4851, 4853, 4854, 32847 $75,737.60 GRAND TOTAL: 52,156,154.17 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists 14001 - General Fund Other Funds 001.011.000.511 City Council 101 —Street Fund 001.013.000.513. City Manager 103 ---Paths &Trails 001.013.015.515. Legal 105—Hotel/Motel Tax 001.016.000. Public Safety 120—CenterPlace Operating Reserve 001.018,013.513. Deputy City Manager 121 —Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001.018.014.514, Finance 122—Winter Weather Reserve 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 123 --Civic Facilities Replacement 001.032.000. Public Works 204—Debt Service 001.058,050.558. Comm. Develop,-Administration 301 —Capital Projects (lst '/a%REET) 001.058.055.558. Comm. Develop.—Develop.Eng. 302—Special Capital Proj (2"d ' %REET) 001.058.056.558. Community Develop.-Planning 303 —Street Capital Projects 001.058.057.558. Community Develop.-Building 304--Mirabeau Point Project 001.076.000.576. Parks &Rec—Administration 307—Capital Grants 001.076.300.576. Parks &Rec-Maintenance 309—Parks Capital Grants 001.076.301.571. Parks &Rec-Recreation 310—Civic Bldg Capital Projects 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec-Aquatics 311 —Pavement Preservation 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 312—Capital Reserve 001.076.305.571. Parks &Rec-CenterPlace 402 —Stormwater Management 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 403 --Aquifer Protection Area 001.090.000.514. General Gov't-Finance related 501 —Equipment Rental &Replacement 001.090.000.517. General Gov't-Employee supply 502—Risk Management 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 Voucher List Page: 1 07108/2014 2:37:23PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5760 7/9/2014 003751 BAILEY, KRISTEN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER CAMP CANCELATION 130.00 Total : 130.00 5761 7/9/2014 003752 CANTU, LEO PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PA 52.00 Total : 52.00 5762 7/9/2014 003753 GARLAND VISION SOURCE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR ROOM 10E 52.00 Total : 52.00 5763 7/9/2014 003754 HARDWICK, CHARLES PARKS REFUND 001,237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00 Total : 52.00 5764 7/9/2014 003755 HOLDREN, CAROLYN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5765 7/9/2014 002478 LITTLE LEARNER CHILD, DEVELOPMEN. PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR VALLEY M 52.00 Total : 52.00 5766 7/9/2014 003756 LUPTON,JOSH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR FIRESIDE 210.00 Total : 210.00 5767 7/9/2014 003405 MANNING, DONNA 003405 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5768 7/9/2014 003757 MCNEELY, BRITTNEY PARKS REFUNDS 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 5769 7/9/2014 003758 WILLIAMS,ALEATA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT BROWN PARK 52.00 Total : 52.00 5770 7/9/2014 003138 YOUNG, RICHARD PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 11 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 966.00 11 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 966.00 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 0710912014 8:42:42AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 32706 7/9/2014 002988 ACE LANDSCAPING 4892 101.042.000.542 2014 LANDSCAPING RIGHT OF WA 9,211.41 Total : 9,211.41 32707 7/9/2014 003089 ALL WESTERN MACHINE WORKS 21152 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 845.99 Total : 845.99 32708 7/9/2014 001081 ALSCO LSP01485785 001.058.057.558 MAT SERVICE PERMIT CENTER 57.65 Total : 57.65 32709 7/9/2014 000135 APA 195827-1454 001.058.056.558 2014-2015 C.JANSSEN 195827 285.00 Total : 285.00 32710 7/9/2014 003496 ARGONNE 2000 LIMITED, PARTNERSHIF 45074.0139 303.303.060.595 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EA: 777.00 Total : 222.00 32711 7/9/2014 000843 ASFPM 35321 001.058.055.558 ANNUAL DUES AND CONFERENCE 920.00 Total : 920.00 32712 7/9/2014 002993 BROADWAY SPLICING SUPPLY 401404 101.000,000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 9.84 Total : 9.84 32713 7/9/2014 002517 BROWN BEARING CO INC 5919882 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 115.78 5922434 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 148.96 Total : 264.74 32714 7/9/2014 003748 BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY CRY WOLF 001.000.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VE 165.00 Total : 165.00 32715 7/9/2014 000101 CDW-G MP69421 001.090.000.518 ADAPTOR/CONVERTER 490.92 Total _ 490.92 32716 7/9/2014 000322 CENTURYLINK JUNE 2014 001.076.000.576 2014 PHONE SVCS:ACCT 509 Z14- 462.38 Total : 462.38 32717 7/9/2014 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE JUNE 2014 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION 5.00 Total : 5.00 Page: —1----- vchlist Voucher List Page: –2- 07/09/2014 8:42:42AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32718 7/9/2014 003319 CO-ENERGY, CONNEL OIL C097826-IN 101.000.000.542 OIL SAMPLES 88.05 Total : 88.05 32719 7/9/2014 001880 CROWN WEST REALTY LLC JULY 2014 101.042.000.543 COMMON AREA MAINT FACILITY C 224.16 Total : 224.16 32720 7/9/2014 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 560485 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENTAL PW 204.02 561261 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENTAL FOR PW 204.02 Total : 408.04 32721 7/9/2014 000235 DB SECURE SHRED 2721062314 001.090.000.518 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION CITY I- 66.12 Total : 66.12 32722 7/9/2014 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB40610064 101.042.000.542 STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT 6,109.99 RE-313-ATB40610066 101.042.000.542 SIGNAL& ILLUMINATION MAIN 8,489.98 Total : 14,599.97 32723 7/9/2014 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST JUNE 2014 001.076.304.575 ADVERTISING FOR SENIOR CENT( 39,00 Total : 39.00 32724 7/9/2014 003747 ELLERSICK, HANNAH AQUATIC REFUND 001.076.302.347 SWIM TEAM REFUND TERRACE VI 90.00 Total : 90.00 32725 7/9/2014 002507 FASTENERS INC 53964334.001 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 23.48 Total : 23.48 32726 7/9/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 42110 001.032.000.543 LEGAL PUBLICATION 99.20 42147 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 73.95 42148 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25.00 42149 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 114.75 Total : 312.90 32727 7/9/2014 003022 GARSKE,TRAVIS 45083.0262 303.303.060.595 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EA: 705.00 Total : 705.00 32728 7/9/2014 000825 GEOLINE INC 324969 402.402.000.531 REPAIR AND SURVEY SERVICES 154.39 Total : 154.39 Page: r2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4j .— 07/0912014 8:42:42AM Spokane Valley /J Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32729 7/9/2014 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 117.48 Total : 117.48 32730 7/9/2014 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD 810203 101.042.000.542 47362D: SERVICE 1,001.08 Total : 1,001.08 32731 7/9/2014 003177 GUTH, ERIC EXPENSE 001.032.000.543 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 41.44 Total : 41.44 32732 7/9/2014 002682 HAFNER, CHARLES EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 53.76 EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 63.76 Total : 117.52 32733 7/9/2014 003297 HIGGINS, LEWIS ROD EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 29.04 Total : 29.04 32734 7/9/2014 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 600417146 001.090.000.548 SCHEDULE 572E3651:6/11-7/10/14 830.28 600418367 001.090.000.548 SCHEDULE 572081 DD: 0617-7/6/14 550.02 600418457 001.090.000.548 SCDEDULE 5721:A494-7/19-8/18/14 839.80 600418458 001.090.000.548 SCHEDULE 572DD016:7/11-8/10/14 745.84 600418459 001.090.000.548 SCHEDULE 572E3651: 07/11-08/10/ 830.28 Total : 3,796.22 32735 7/9/2014 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 104416 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 14.72 Total : 14.72 32736 7/9/2014 002538 HYDRAULICS PLUS INC 18077 101.000.000.542 5-209:SERVICE 866.25 Total : 866.25 32737 7/9/2014 003362 INLAND GEAR 20241 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 7,29 Total : 7.29 32738 7/9/2014 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 MAY 2014 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: PARKS 166.00 Total : 166.00 32739 7/9/2014 000012 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS INC. 16562 001.032.000.543 2014-2015: S.ARLT 39.95 Total : 39.95 Page: _-3 vchlist Voucher List Page:,,------r 0710912014 8:42:42AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 32740 7/9/2014 001944 LANCER LTD 0446167 001.058.057.558 BUSINESS CARDS 83.00 Total : 83.00 32741 7/9/2014 003749 MEADOWRIDGE ASSOCIATES LLC 45103.0255 303.303.156.595 PORTION OF PARCEL PURCHASE 1,650.00 45103.0501 303.303.156.595 PORTION OF PARCEL PURCHASE[ 3,900.00 Total : 5,550.00 32742 7/9/2014 000662 NAIL BARRICADE&SIGN CO 83949 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: PW 41.31 Total : 41.31 32743 7/9/2014 001035 NDM TECHNOLOGIES INC 5928 001.090.000.518 WATCHGUARD TRADE UP TO XCS 3,812.03 Total : 3,812.03 32744 7/9/2014 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP INC. 92531 001.018.016.518 SLOTTED NAME BADGE 28.26 92549 001.018.016.518 SLOTTED NAME BADGE 16.85 Total : 45.11 32745 7/9/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 717016532001 001.076.301.571 SUPPLIES: PARKS AND RRC 35.21 Total : 35.21 32746 7/9/2014 001604 PACIFIC NW PAPER 151452 001.090.000.519 COPIER PAPER FOR CITY HALL 1,612.02 Total : 1,612.02 32747 7/9/2014 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 5898376 101.042.000.542 2014 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONT 530.46 5952517 001.090.000.518 SNOW REMOVAL CITY HALL 195.66 Total : 726.12 32748 7/9/2014 003746 SMARKET NORTHWEST 25 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 429.26 Total : 429.26 32749 7/9/2014 001140 SPECIAL ASPHALT PRODUCTS INVC064914 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 52.18 INVC065027 101.042.000.542 EQUIPMENT RENTAL PW 11,304.80 Total : 11,356.98 32750 7/9/2014 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE APRIL 2014 001.058.056.558 RECORDING FEES 893.00 MAY 2014 001.058.056.558 RECORDING FEES 558.00 Total : 1,451.00 Page: ---- vchlist Voucher List Page: -5-- 07/09/2014 8:42:42AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32751 7/9/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 42000046 001.016.000.554 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES JUL) 20,173.42 51502188 101.042.000.542 WORK CREW INVOICE MAY 2014 5,995.69 Total : 26,169.11 32752 7/9/2014 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES JUNE 2014 101.042.000.543 SPOKANE CO SERWER CHARGES 47.01 Total : 47.01 32753 7/9/2014 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#t3 JUNE 2014 001.076.300.576 WATER CHARGES FOR PARK ROA 414.16 Total : 414.16 32754 7/9/2014 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 376010 101.000,000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 99.85 Total : 99.85 32755 7/9/2014 000311 SPRINT 959698810-079 001.058.057.558 GPS PHONE JUNE 2014 70.30 Total : 70.30 32756 7/9/2014 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION, SOLUTI 140611173101 001.076.305.575 ANSWERING SERVICE FOR CENTI 54.00 Total : 54.00 32757 7/9/2014 003750 SULLIVAN, PATRICK B.AND AMY K. 45103.0415 303.303.156.595 PURCHASE PORTION OF PARCEL 1,050.00 Total : 1,050.00 32758 7/9/2014 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8080029314 402.402.000.531 40201D: OIL CHANGE 219.54 Total : 219.54 32759 7/9/2014 001464 TW TELECOM 06315372 001.076.305.575 INTERNET/DATA/PHONE LINES:JU 1,246.33 Total : 1,246.33 32760 7/9/2014 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 9727106248 001.016.000.521 AIR CARDS FOR POLICE DEPART% 803.20 9727133708 101.042.000.542 JUNE 2014 VERIZON CELL PHONE 1,060.93 9727265682 101.042.000.542 JUNE 2014 WIRELESS DATA CARE 427.21 Total : 2,291.34 32761 7/9/2014 002892 WALLS CONSTRUCTION CORP 11001229 001.237.10.95 SURRETY REFUND EMPIRE INDUS 1,700.00 Total : 1,700.00 32762 7/9/2014 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 2186476-2681-9 101.042.000.543 WASTE MANAGEMENT MAINT SHC 173.74 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 .-6-- 07109/2014 8:42:42AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32762 7/9/2014 000038 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKAN (Continued) Total : 173.74 32763 7/9/2014 002845 WEST COMPANY INC PAY APP 3 402.223.40.00 RETAINAGE RELEASE SULLIVAN B 12,675.16 Total : 12,675.16 32764 7/9/2014 002839 WIND WIRELESS INC. 85943 101.042.000.542 WIRELESS PHONE/INTERNET FOF 84.95 Total : 84.95 32765 7/9/2014 000541 WONDERLAND NORTHWEST INC. N/A 001,076.301.571 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 6/ 1,563.98 Total : 1,563.98 32766 7/9/2014 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW JUNE 2014 001.076.302.576 MANAGEMENT FEE/OPERATING E 16,489.60 Total : 16,489.60 630140034 6/30/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 9290200603 001.016.000.521 LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT.. 1,528,080.43 Total : 1,528,080.43 62 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 1,653,419.57 62 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,653,419.57 Page: 'S'--- vchlist Voucher List Page:8 --r- 07/14/2014 07/1412014 1:02:30PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 32767 7/14/2014 000648 ABADAN, REPROGRAPHICS&IMAGING 34385 311.000.202.595 PRINTED SPECIFICATIONS 229/0 Total : 229.70 32768 7/14/2014 002816 ABLE CLEAN-UP TECHNOLOGIES INC 15727 001.058.056.524 FENCE RENTAL 1,065.29 Total : 1,065.29 32769 7/14/2014 000197 AIRFACTZ 84568 001.018.016.518 CRIMINAL REPORTS FOR NEW HIF 140.00 Total : 140.00 32770 7/14/2014 002931 ALL WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 98640 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 66.95 Total : 66.95 32771 7/14/2014 003078 ALLWEST TESTING&ENGINEERING 73525 303.303.155.594 0155-MATERIALS TESTING(PARK 527.45 Total : 527.45 32772 7/14/2014 002517 BROWN BEARING CO INC 5948577 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 144.17 Total : 144.17 32773 7/14/2014 003762 BROWN, KELLY CRY WOLF 001.000.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VF 25.00 Total : 25.00 32774 7/14/2014 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOCIATES INC M14075-1 311.000.179.595 0179-MATERIALS TESTING SERVI 2,173.61 Total : 2,173.61 32775 7/14/2014 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 234296 101.042.000.542 2014 TIP SERVICES 1,481.45 Total : 1,481.45 32776 7/14/2014 000729 CH2MHILL INC 3868923 303.303.155.595 0155-SULLIVAN RD W BRIDGE SL 40,592.00 Total : 40,592.00 32777 7/14/2014 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION 606820480 101.042.000.543 SERVICE PW ACCOUNT 02384 148.47 606820661 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES PW ACCOUNT 02356 86.31 606821779 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES PW ACCOUNT 02356 86.96 606822743 101.042.000.543 SERVICE PW ACCOUNT 02384 206.39 606822931 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES PW ACCOUNT 02356 86.96 606824073 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES PW ACCOUNT 02356 100.40 Page: rta--- vchlist Voucher List Page: / -2- 07114/2014 1:02:30PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32777 7/14/2014 002572 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION (Continued) Total : 715.49 32778 7/14/2014 001888 COMCAST JULY 2014 00t090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICE CITY HALL 119.77 Total : 119.77 32779 7/14/2014 003611 COMPU COM SYSTEMS INC 62337085 001.090.000.518 SOFTWARE ASSURANCE RENEW/ 6,120.51 Total : 6,120.51 32780 7/14/2014 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 37320569 001.058.057.558 JUNE 2014: FLEET FUEL BILL 2,979.95 Total : 2,979.95 32781 7/14/2014 001157 COUNTRY HOMES POWER EQUIP 110729 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 316.98 476959 101.042.000.542 SUPPLES: PW 80.47 533674 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 21.72 Total : 419.17 32782 7/14/2014 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 77394274 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE 001-8922117-0( 1,006.63 77394941 001.090.000.548 COMPUTER LEASE 001-8922117-0( 1,087.48 Total : 2,094.11 32783 7/14/2014 000365 DEPT OF LICENSING LICENSING D81434 001.032.000.543 LICENSING FEES 2014 ESCAPE-D 47.75 LICENSING D81435 402.402.000.531 LICENSING AND FEES 2014 ESCAF 47.75 Total : 95.50 32784 7/1412014 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE 46 JG415 L001 001.032.000.543 REAL ESTATE TRAINING S.WORLE 2,072.90 Total : 2,072.90 32785 7/14/2014 003256 DISCOVERY BENEFITS INC, HRA PLAN 0000471001-IN 001.018.016.518 JUNE 2014 HRA SERVICE FEE 396.00 Total : 396.00 32786 7/14/2014 002385 DKS ASSOCIATES 55075 303.303.060.595 ARGONNE CORRIDOR SIGNAL&D 6,098.15 Total : 6,098.15 32787 7/14/2014 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 4225382 101.000.000.542 FUEL FOR MAINT SHOP 948.85 Total : 948.85 32788 7/14/2014 003392 EPICENTER SERVICES LLC 2014-28 001.090.000.513 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 619.50 Page: .2----- vchlist Voucher List Page: j6___a-- 07/14/2014 1&07/14/2014 1:02:30PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32788 7/14/2014 003392 003392 EPICENTER SERVICES LLC (Continued) Total : 619.50 32789 7/14/2014 002507 FASTENERS INC S3983537.001 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 7.52 Total : 7.52 32790 7/14/2014 003261 FEHR&PEERS 93854 303.303.159.595 0159-UNIVERSITY ROAD OVERPP 3,240.12 Total : 3,240.12 32791 7/14/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 42189 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 102.85 Total : 102.85 32792 7/14/2014 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD 10567 501.000.000.594 2014 FORD ESCAPE SE 25,842.88 10568 501.000.000.594 2014 FORD ESCAPE SE 25,842.88 Total : 51,685.76 32793 7/14/2014 003326 HORTON, DEANNA EXPENSE 001.058.050.558 EXPENSE REIMBURSMENT 201.01 Total : 201.01 32794 7/14/2014 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 105047 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 234.66 105049 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 85.09 105050 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 42.55 105051 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 115.49 105052 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 87.34 105065 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 11.48 105080 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 83.64 Total : 660.25 32795 7/14/2014 002538 HYDRAULICS PLUS INC 18119 101.000.000.542 SERVICE: PW 646.77 Total : 646.77 32796 7/14/2014 003697 INTEGRA 12145918 001.090.000.586 INTERNET SERVICE FOR SCRAPS 88.48 Total : 88.48 32797 7/14/2014 000265 JACKSON, MIKE JULY 2014 001.013.000.513 AUTO ALLOWANCE 300.00 Total : 300.00 32798 7/14/2014 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 0088127 101.042.000.542 TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND SUP 12,498.98 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: --t' 07/14/2014 1:02:30PM Spokane Valley // Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32798 7/14/2014 000864 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. (Continued) Total : 12,498.98 32799 7/14/2014 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY 124316 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 81.98 Total : 81.98 32800 7/14/2014 003185 LAMB, ERIK EXPENSE 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 41.34 Total : 41.34 32801 7/14/2014 001944 LANCER LTD 0446500 001.018.013.513 BUSINESS CARDS 59.24 Total : 59.24 32802 7/14/2014 003251 MDI MARKETING 9982 001.090.000.558 ADVERTISING FOR MAY 2014 21,286.00 Total : 21,286.00 32803 7/14/2014 003551 MICHAEL E PURDYASSOCIATES LLC SPV0614 001.032.000.543 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SEE 618/5 Total : 618.75 32804 7/14/2014 002948 NA DEGERSTROM PAY APP 1 101.043.000.542 BRIDGE 4501 GIRDER REPAIR 201, 26,837.50 Total : 26,837.50 32805 7/14/2014 001035 NDM TECHNOLOGIES INC 5981 101.042.000.542 MONTHLY MAINTENANCE 1,275.00 Total : 1,275.00 32806 7/14/2014 002289 NICKERSON, DEVEN 2ND PICTURE 001.018.016.518 "PICTURE IT'WELLNESS CAMPAI[ 15.00 Total : 15.00 32807 7/14/2014 003761 NIELSEN, LIZ AQUATIC REFUND 001.076.302.347 SWIMM LESSONS REFUND VALLE' 70.00 Total : 70.00 32808 7/14/2014 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP INC. 92566 001.018.016.518 SLOTTED NAME BADGE 16.85 Total : 16.85 32809 7/14/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 713935942001 001.090.000.519 SUPPLIES: GENERAL 20.44 714024120001 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 34.35 Total : 54.79 32810 7/14/2014 000058 OMA A500163 001.018.016.518 NEW HIRE PHYSICAL EXAMS 225.00 Total : 225.00 Page: --4 vchlist Voucher List Page: ---5--- 07/1412014 1:02:30PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32811 7/14/2014 002243 ORBITCOM 00769263 001.076.305.575 CENTERPLACE PHONE SERVICE 209.26 Total : 209.26 32812 7/14/2014 000881 OXARC R280625 101.042.000.542 CYLINDER RENTAL PW 90.98 Total : 90.98 32813 7/14/2014 003133 SHAMROCK MANUFACTURING INC 2576 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 1,154.39 Total : 1,154.39 32814 7/14/2014 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 8962 303.303.156.595 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SERA 1,100.92 Total : 1,100.92 32815 7/14/2014 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD JUNE 2014 101.042.000.542 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL SERVICE: 725.00 Total : 725.00 32816 7/14/2014 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO 195082 303.303.149.595 PLANT SEARCH 81.53 SM4154 303.000.201.595 PLANT SEARCH CIP 0201 81.53 Total : 163.06 32817 7/14/2014 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 395104 001.018.013.513 ADVERTISING ACCOUNT 8001932 171.14 SC0000109054 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION ACCOUNT 42 185.12 Total : 356.26 32818 7/14/2014 000854 SPW LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 1419.06 303.000.185.595 0185-LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 306.00 1488.01 303.303.156.595 MANSFIELD REALIGNMENT PROJE 375.00 Total : 681.00 32819 7/14/2014 000202 SRCAA 5201 001.090.000.553 3RD QTR 2014 LOCALASSESSMEP 28,978.75 Total : 28,978.75 32820 7/14/2014 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRISES LLC 6302014 001.011.000.511 BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTGS:: 1,092.00 Total : 1,092.00 703140056 7/3/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER JUNE 2014 001.016.000.512 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 175,849.86 Total : 175,849.86 55 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 399,540.19 Page: }.tib vchlist Voucher List Page: ._4- 07/14/2014 2:23:33PM Spokane Valley /,3 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32821 7/14/2014 001685 AICPA 00022574 001.018.014.514 CALHOUN 14/15 DUES 235.00 Total : 235.00 32822 7/14/2014 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 50084244 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 314.33 S0084450 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 92.82 Total 407.15 32823 7/14/2014 002615 BULLOCK, SUSAN EXPENSES 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 21.78 Total : 21.78 32824 7/14/2014 003300 CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL June 2014 001.011.000.511 SUPPLIES: COUNCIL 87.10 Total : 87.10 32825 7/14/2014 003760 CHILDRENS HOME SOCIETY OF WA 2014 001.090.000.560 2014 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI 3,050.69 Total : 3,050.69 32826 7/14/2014 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY June 2014 001.058.056.558 PETTY CASH: 10255, 56,57,58,59,61 30.37 Total : 30.37 32827 7/14/2014 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 June 2014 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: PARKS 765.32 June 2014 101.042.000.542 UTILTIES: PW 377.63 Total : 1,142.95 32828 7/14/2014 001881 DOMRESE, DAN 1st Picture 001.018.016.518 "PICTURE IT'WELLNESS CAMPAIC 10.00 Total : 10.00 32829 7/14/2014 000278 DRISKELL, CARY Expenses 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 27.85 Total : 27.85 32830 7/14/2014 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING [NC. 33659 001.076.305.575 RECYCLING COLLECTION: CP 35.00 Total : 35.00 32831 7/14/2014 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST#1 June 2014 101.042.000.542 WATER CHARGES: PW 1,194.24 June 2014 001.076.300.576 WATER CHARGES FOR EDGECLIF 886.01 Total : 2,080.25 32832 7/14/2014 002308 FINKE, MELISSA June 2014 001.076.301.571 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 120.90 Page: ,--a--- vchlist Voucher List Page: --2---- 07/14/2014 2:23:33PM Spokane Valley /G/ Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32832 7/14/2014 002308 FINKE, MELISSA (Continued) June/July 2014 001.076.301.571 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 990.60 May 2014 001.076.301.571 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 105.30 Total : 1,216.80 32833 7/14/2014 003500 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 622690 001.076.305.575 COFFEE SUPPLIES FOR CP 32.00 Total : 32.00 32834 7/14/2014 003136 GIBSON, CARLY Expenses 001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 22.40 Total : 22.40 32835 7/14/2014 002712 GTFX INC. 38452 001.076.305.575 SERVICE THE GREASE TRAP 111.96 Total : 111.96 32836 7/14/2014 000741 HONEY BUCKETS 1-941248 001.076.300.576 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PARKS 158.00 Total : 158.00 32837 7/14/2014 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 June 2014 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PW 94.31 Total : 94.31 32838 7/14/2014 001002 M& L SUPPLY CO INC S100171433.001 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 59.97 S100171715.001 001.016.000.521 SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT 47.78 Total : 107.75 32839 7/14/2014 003759 MCVAY BROTHERS CONTRACTORS INC Refund 001.058.059.322 PERMIT REFUND: PROJECT CANC 35.06 Total : 35.06 32840 7/14/2014 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 18468548 402.402.000.531 HYDRANT RENTAL 39.00 Total : 39.00 32841 7/14/2014 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 6106999 001.076.300.576 MISC PARK REPAIRS AT SULLIVAN 8,036.75 Total : 8,036.75 32842 7/14/2014 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 JUNE 2014 101.042.000.542 WATER CHARGES: PW 639.55 Total : 639.55 32843 7/14/2014 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM June 2014 105.000.000.557 2014 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMI 431.00 June 2014 105.000.000.557 2014 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 226.00 Page: i5— vchlist Voucher List Page: _3- 0711412014 2:23:33PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 32843 7/14/2014 000404 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSE (Continued) Total : 657.00 32844 7/14/2014 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 2035 309.000.195.594 DISCOVERY PLAYGROUNDCONSI 1,393.95 Total : 1,393.95 32845 7/14/2014 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 41765 309.000.203.594 POSTAGE SERVICES FOR BROWN 537.47 Total : 537.47 32846 7/14/2014 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0059484-1518-6 402.402.000.531 WASTE MANAGEMENT: PW VACTC 5,273.67 Total : 5,273.67 26 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 25,483.81 26 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 25,483.81 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 Page: vchlist Voucher ListPage: } 1----- 07114/2014 12:47:13PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5771 7/14/2014 003768 CARDWELL,SARA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL 52.00 Total : 52.00 5772 7/14/2014 003770 GILMORE, LAUREN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT EDGECLIFF PAI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5773 7/14/2014 003766 HASHIM, RONDA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREEN ACRES 52.00 Total : 52.00 5774 7/14/2014 003765 KLEMME,VICKY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY WI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5775 7/14/2014 003773 LUTJE,STEPHANIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND CANCELED SUMMER CAP 95.00 Total : 95.00 5776 7/14/2014 003763 MASTERS, SAMANTHA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND SUMMER CAMP 210.00 Total : 210.00 5777 7/14/2014 003771 MORRISON,JAIME PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELED SPORT CAMP REFUNE 65.00 Total : 65.00 5778 7/14/2014 003764 NORTH CENTRAL CLASS 1973 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 5779 7/14/2014 003767 SVOBODA,TERRY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5780 7/14/2014 003769 WEBB, SHELLY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5781 7/14/2014 003068 WEINGARZ, LAURA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND SUMMER CAMP 115.00 Total : 115.00 11 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total : 1,007.00 11 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,007.00 Page: I vchlist Voucher List Page: �� --4----- 07/16/2014 -ate0711612014 10:28:04AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 4850 7/18/2014 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401 A PLAN Ben55754 311.231.14.00 401A:PAYMENT 31,356.02 Total: 31,356.02 4851 7/18/2014 000682 EFTPS Ben55756 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES:PAYMENT 35,773.40 Total: 35,773.40 4853 7/18/2014 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PL.' Ben55758 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:PAYI 6,440.01 Total: 6,440.01 4854 7/18/2014 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC PE Ben55760 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN:PAYMENT 1,127.26 Total: 1,127.26 32847 7/18/2014 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben55752 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE:PAYMENT 1,040.91 Total: 1,040.91 5 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 75,737.60 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 75,737.60 Page: .-1--__----- CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 07-22-2014 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 July 15, 2014 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 275,810.33 $ - $275,810.33 Benefits: $ 49,280.33 $ - $ 49,280.33 Total payroll $ 325,090.66 $ - $325,090.66 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 SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL City Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley,Washington June 17,2014 8:30 a.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Dean Grafos,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Bill Bates,Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Rod Higgins,Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Ed Pace,Councilmember Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Michelle Rasmussen,Administrative Assistant Others Attending John Whitehead,Human Resources Manager Mike Huffman,Valley News Herald Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Tom Towey Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer John Pietro,Administrative Analyst Raba Nimri,Budget Analyst Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. Mayor Grafos welcomed everyone to the meeting and turned the meeting over to City Manager Jackson. Welcome and Overview: Mike Jackson,Mark Calhoun Mr. Jackson explained that this is a workshop setting, an informal meeting and good opportunity to go over the draft budget worksheets, and to take a first look at the draft business plan; he also noted that the budget figures are based on certain assumptions. Mr. Jackson explained that the worksheets have been prepared as if we were going to construct and move into a new city hall when the current building's lease expires March 2017; he said that assumption could change as we move through the process, but that the Finance Committee agreed to prepare the worksheets in that fashion. He said that the two new police officer positions are included in this budget, as are funds for the maintenance of the new Appleway Trail from University to Pines. He also brought Council's attention to the supplemental requests of department directors. Mr. Jackson said we started these budget workshops with the new council and current City Manager in 2010 and that this is the fifth such workshop, and that it has now become an annual event; he said the Business Plan started in 2006, that staff first prepares a draft plan as a working document to get the department heads started on the process, and as the budget worksheets get refined,the draft business plan is modified to complement the budget; and that once the budget is completed, we start all over again for the next year. Mr.Jackson extended his thanks and commendations to Michelle Rasmussen for getting all the documents into the final format. Mr. Jackson stressed that the documents are working documents that outline all the departments' functions, and include a narrative concerning suppositional three, six, and nine percent reductions. Mr. Jackson said the documents also include performance indicators. Mr. Jackson said today's focus is the budget notebook, and today's plan is to discuss the budget worksheets, including the supplemental requests, and said he will be looking for ideas and a general direction from Council. Workshop minutes:June 17,2014 Page 1 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Finance Director Calhoun explained the layout of the data under Tab #7 which includes actual budget figures from past years with proposed budget figures for 2015, and includes the budget reduction exercise of 3%, 6%, and 9%reductions.Mr. Calhoun said the direction was that the budget not increase more than 1%,not including payroll figures, and he said the 2015 proposed service level is the same level of service as 2014. City Manager Jackson said we started the 3, 6, and 9%reduction exercise four or five years ago and that reductions could come into play if council were to re-direct resources, or if the economy slowed; he said for example, 3% would be a reduction of one, full-time-equivalent(FTE); he said we have a tight budget across all departments, and these reductions would become devastating while striving to provide services.Mr.Jackson reminded everyone that this is a budget and not a spending plan; he said department heads spend only what they need to complete projects or services, and there is no policy that what you don't spend,you lose;but rather funds not spent go back into the general fund. Mr. Calhoun went over the three-paged General Fund summary,which shows proposed budget compared with last year's actual budget, and separates recurring and nonrecurring expenditures; and said that there will be a 2014 budget amendment transferring $2.4 million into the capital reserve Fund 312, which represents the 2012 year-end balance over 50%;he said that next year we will be looking at the year-end balance over 50% for year 2013; and after that transfer,the 2015 end fund would be $20.5 million,which means we will have met our two major goals: recurring revenues exceeding expenditures, and having an ending fund balance of at least 50%minimum balance. Mr. Calhoun said we keep those goals throughout the entire budget process to the actual budget adoption in late October. For revenue projections, Mr. Calhoun said he uses a six-year history to assist him; that he refrains from being overly optimistic or pessimistic in his projections and strives to be as conservative as possible. Mr. Calhoun said the property tax estimate assumes we do not take the 1% as permitted by law, but we do take the percentage of new construction; and said he hopes to hear from the County Assessor this fall on their estimated new construction figures. Councilmember Hafner asked about the effect on our budget of the Washington Supreme Court's edict for school funding as he anticipates state legislators will grab every financial source possible in order to come up with the necessary funds for education. Mr. Calhoun said the 2015 estimate for our state shared revenues is $1,769,000,compared to 2014 figure of$1,886,000; representing a drop of$116,000,which he said is not related to the McCleary case (the Supreme Court case referenced by Councilmember Hafner's comment above); he said we get funds from a variety of state revenue sources. Mr. Calhoun also mentioned the streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal justice disbursements are down from what was budgeted last year; and said we have to be flexible as we don't know the exact amounts of revenues. City Manager Jackson noted that we are preparing the budget to include our own city hall,but said that could easily turn around and come off the table and cause us to re- direct our priorities. Concerning sales tax revenue estimates, Mr. Calhoun said he feels his estimates are realistic and he briefly discussed other revenue sources like gambling tax. Mr. Calhoun also went over some of the other figures and the recurring expenditures; he mentioned the bond payment and what we think the additional cost would be if we constructed a new city hall of approximately 44,000 to 55,000 square feet; and said our current lease expires March 2017. Mr. Calhoun went over some of the figures under Tab#13: capital projects, which show a projection cost of$14.4 million for a city hall, adding that he assumes that the entire $2.4 million over 50% would go into the city hall fund, leaving $8 million that would need to be financed through a bond issue, and said we would have to budget additional funds to handle the cost of doing the bond as well. Mr. Calhoun said if we own a building, we would have to include maintenance costs; and we currently don't pay utilities, so there would be additional expenses of those items plus janitorial and snow removal. Mr. Jackson said if we were to build a city hall, it would commit other funds not currently dedicated to city hall; for example,if Balfour Park were to come up,we would have to look at grants and other sources as committing to a city hall would take all our capital reserve resources. Mr. Calhoun said that bonding costs are currently at historically low levels; so we if we don't want to extend the lease, we would start with the March 2017 lease expiration date and work backwards to begin Workshop minutes:June 17,2014 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT the process. Mr. Jackson noted that there would be more cost initially for a new city hall,but the savings would be realized once the bonds were paid, and Mr. Calhoun agreed that after thirty years, the bond payments would be finished and the City would own the building. Councilmember Higgins mentioned that another factor to keep in mind is that our lease payments will likely be greater over time.Mr.Jackson added that we would still have reserves but we wouldn't want to use those; and said if we were ever going to drop a principle,we would use our own reserves before borrowing money. Tab #1: Legislative Mr. Jackson went over some of the data, including the $92,400 for the Lobbyist Professional Services, and said that that addition accounts for this budget exceeding the 1% increase; in looking at the blue sheet, Mr. Jackson said travel and mileage have a total figure and any additional Washington, D.C. trips for Council or the City Manager have not been budgeted separately, but would be included as part of council travel. Mr. Jackson said if there is a need to go to Washington, D.C., we would go, but any time something is added to the budget, something else must be subtracted. Mr. Jackson said newly hired consultant Travis Lumpkin would like to see Mr. Jackson a few times in Washington, D.C. There was some discussion about council travel and of multiple councilmembers attending AWC (Association of Washington Cities) and/or NLC (National League of Cities) conferences, and mention that perhaps only Mr. Jackson and/or Mayor Grafos should travel to Washington,D.C. Mr.Jackson said that detailed travel expenses could include several trips and be built into the budget, but that he would have to take something out in order to do that. Council agreed that Mr. Jackson should include some D.C.trips. Mayor Grafos stated that he doesn't want to change the budget as there are enough discretionary funds to work in a trip or two to Washington, D.C., and that he likes the idea of examining what we get for our NLC dues. Deputy Mayor Woodard agreed with the need for Washington,D.C.trips and said there might be a little less travelling as some councilmembers near the end of their terms; however, Councilmember Wick said that next year will be a big federal year and he feels there is a need to plan trips. Councilmember Hafner agreed that it is more important to send Mr. Jackson and Department Heads to these national or state conventions and doesn't see the need to send several Councilmembers; and said he feels the travel budget needs to be revised. Councilmember Pace agreed. Mr. Jackson said the budget figures are fairly conservative, and he asked Council how they would like to consider revising their travel budget. Councilmember Pace suggested sending one Councilmember to each conference, and add staff as appropriate, with the focus on Mayor Grafos and Mr. Jackson going to D.C., and also suggested that Mayor Grafos and Mr. Hohman visit businesses. Councilmember Hafner said there are many local events and suggested keeping the funds in one lump sum and prioritize travel, and to send someone to a conference if it is important to do so. Councilmember Wick said he prefers to make his own choices based on what is allotted. Mayor Grafos said he feels the system has worked well and suggested we not make any changes but rather wait and see how this year's budget ends. Mr. Jackson also noted that the topic of travel can be addressed when the finance committee meets again. Legislative Agenda: Appleway Trail Project — Mr. Jackson said he will re-work that and continue to request funds for the unfinished portion of 2B, and sections 3 and 4, and include an update on what has been accomplished to date. Councilmembers concurred with the suggested revisions. Protect the Local-State Shared Revenues—no suggested change. Additional Lien Authority to Recoup Code Enforcement Costs—Mr. Jackson reported that this is an up- hill battle and we can't get any commitment from legislators as their concern is a potential tax burden on residents, and even though we explain that this wouldn't simply be due to a garbage problem but a much larger issue, legislators gave us a very cool reception. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that Senator Pam Roach is anxious for us to come back with a few revisions and that the lobbyists have some ideas on how to get local banks and realtors to support this idea. Long-Range Legislative Agenda Item: Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation — concerning the Barker Road Grade Separation, Mr. Jackson said we are moving ahead with the TIGER grant, and Council Workshop minutes:June 17,2014 Page 3 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT agreed to keep this as an agenda item. There was some discussion about bridging the valley with Councilmember Wick asking about adding that to this agenda item title. Mr. Jackson responded that the concept would be difficult to achieve, especially if United Pacific and Burlington Northern can't cooperate on combining the rail corridor. Councilmember Wick said that he is now part of a new ad hoc rail committee,that the story needs to be told of how many grade crossings we have, and that during the tour tomorrow with the joint legislative committee, he plans to show them the Barker Grade Separation and focus on those bridging projects. Mr. Jackson asked if there were any other ideas for the legislative agenda and none were offered. The meeting recessed at 10:00 a.m., and reconvened at 10:12 a.m. Tab 2: General Government Finance Director Calhoun explained that this tab includes the overall necessary city services, like the internet service, software and hardware maintenance and support, and city hall rent, and he went over some of the recurring and non-recurring activities. The Spokane County Air Pollution Authority (aka Clean Air Board) was mentioned and Mr. Jackson said while we don't know what they do for their $117,000 as we can't police other entities' budgets, we run our own budget very tight. Councilmember Pace asked about the Site Selector, Outside Agencies, and Economic Development line items and those were briefly discussed. Tab 3: Executive and Legislative Mr. Jackson said these figures include the City Manager and City Clerk's office; and he noted that all legal notices will now be shown as City Clerk expenses rather than splitting them throughout the departments. Tab 4: City Attorney As Deputy City Attorney Lamb highlighted the data, he noted that the "other services and charges" are necessary as we use outside counsel for complex litigation like shoreline regulations, or litigation connected with Hollywood Erotica and could also be used in connection with code enforcement litigation. Tab 5: Ops and Admin Services Mr. Jackson stated that this is the Deputy City Manager section and includes the position of Deputy City Manager as well as other associated items such as professional services, which he said had included a survey every other year with ICMA (International City/County Management Association), but said that service was discontinued as a cost savings. Mr. Jackson said we would like to re-instate that at a cost of about$11,000;he said it is a very structured survey, scientifically accurate, and enables us to compare our city to other cities; and said that the last survey we did was in 2011. He mentioned the PIO (Public Information Officer) budget which includes items such as the Hot Topics newsletter, rental of a TV for city hall at the mall, and a city booth at Valleyfest; and said the major item here is the hot topic newsletter which gets mailed to all residents once a year. Tab 6: Human Resources Human Resources Manager Whitehead explained the expenses associated with his department and discussed the supplemental requests of a new wellness activity geared to increase the frequency of exercise by City employees; mentioned an increase in professional services for the ongoing maintenance of the City's Mobile Apps and mentioned the increase to the health insurance cost;he noted the proposed classification change to establish an executive assistant to directly support the City Manager as some duties such as the business plan assigned to the administrative assistant, are outside that classification. He noted a position was created to manage the daily operations of CenterPlace, but said that has never been filled and therefore the proposal is to lower that pay level by one grade. Mr. Whitehead said that neither of these changes would mean any additional FTEs. Mr. Jackson added that Council adopts the budget and as part of that, also adopts the pay matrix, and that we would like to fill that coordinator position with someone one grade lower than presently shown; he said the position has not been filled and likely we will promote someone to that position. Mayor Grafos suggested that perhaps we need to refine the Workshop minutes:June 17,2014 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT requirements of each position and Mr. Whitehead explained that staff looks at those positions to ensure we are at a minimum; but added that we are not a training ground; that we expect to hire people who have had several years' experience of doing the same work; he said our training budget compared to other organizations is almost nonexistent, and said training can be very expensive. Mr. Whitehead explained that every time we fill a position we look at those qualifications to make sure we are not exceeding what we need; but he said, our expectations are high and we have a very efficient personnel system. Concerning the extra $1,000 for the Wellness plan, Councilmember Wick asked if that would be enough to take care of the difference, and Mr. Jackson said we have a pretty fit workforce and would like to be known as an employer who cares about fitness,and that we are a high performance organization that takes care of its people, and promotes a healthy and fit workforce. Tab 8: Public Works Public Works Director Guth explained that his increase includes adding one and a half vehicles for the construction improvement project group; he said when they purchased the previous vehicle, they began setting aside funds for that vehicle's eventual replacement. Mr. Guth said that the wages at the top reflect the new position of grants engineer. Mr. Guth noted that the topic of funding the street fund would be held later, but that the idea is to look at some other revenue to continue to provide the service currently provided; that for this year,they reduced the snow plow replacement allocation,but that means they will need to be re-allocated at some point. After Mr. Guth went over some of the proposed changes from this year to next, he talked about the supplemental requests as noted under Tab 12, including the pavement- marking grinder to remove pavement markings on City projects to help facilitate striping removal; and the VMS(variable message sign)trailer for public notification of construction and maintenance activities. Councilmember Pace asked about SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) fees and Mr. Guth explained that our dues are based on a tier program,with larger cities paying $18,000 per seat; he said we are allocated one seat; he explained that SRTC is a metropolitan planning organization that examines regional projects;he said they are the stewards and planning arm for WSDOT and for all state and federal funding that comes through the local programs through cities and counties, much like the STP Grant we applied for with the Appleway Trail;he said they are the ones who determine who gets how much money. Discussion continued concerning funding from WSDOT, SRTC, CMAC and other available sources for such things as traffic management/coordination, traffic cameras and coordination of traffic lights for special events. There was also brief discussion about snow services and that future contracts for road maintenance and snow services should be separate, which led to mention of the number of trucks we currently use, and Mr. Guth stating that from his experience, nine appears to be the preferred number for that fleet. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like future discussions about this topic,why nine trucks works best, and what it takes to fund the fleet. He also asked about what our industrial park dues are used for and Mr. Guth replied he would have to research that, but assumes it is used to take care of the common areas related to the sewer needs since we use their land. Mayor Grafos said he would like to see the number of FTE's or half-time employees above each department in order to make it easier to understand and read, and Mr. Calhoun said that should be easy to include. Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned he would like to consider changing the name of Community Development, to Economic Development and Community Development. Mr. Jackson said people identify with all aspects of community development,including engineering and code inspection; he said it is evolving, but all those aspects are also economic development, and said this can be a topic of a future discussion. The meeting recessed for lunch at noon,and reconvened at 12:45 p.m. Tab 9: Public Safety Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka went over the list of items under the "general fund public safety" spreadsheet; said the wages are associated with the maintenance of the precinct facility; and after Workshop minutes:June 17,2014 Page 5 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT going over some of the figures, explained that the funds under contingency are mostly due to the unknown bargaining negotiation with the Sheriff's Officers' Union, and said it does not include settle and adjust. Mayor Grafos said since we own the police precinct,maintenance should be a high priority,that it is listed as non-recurring but should actually be under recurring expenses. Mr. Koudelka agreed and said maintenance of the building is a reflection upon us, and that the City Manager has identified this as a top priority, adding that Mr. Stone's department has the resources to take care of these things. Parks and Recreation Director Stone said he has a list of twenty-two projects they are working on, and it is a challenge to manage the time and resources; said if there is a roof leak, we take care of the problem immediately, and that he is aware of the challenges of the precinct; he also mentioned there are seventy- five leaks at CenterPlace that still have issues related to finances. Mayor Grafos stated that he can't believe there are no discretionary funds to fix that building, and that he would like a copy of that list of twenty-two projects. Mr. Stone replied that the goal is to have those projects completed at the end of the year; that he has two maintenance people with limited time to devote to every single aspect, so they bring in expertise, and said they are working as quickly as possible and have been making progress. Mr. Stone noted that they are in the process likewise, of bringing someone in to assess the police precinct roof. Mr. Koudelka explained that the plan is to create a timeline and provide progress reports to the City Manager. Mayor Grafos mentioned his concern with the appearance of the front of the building; he said it shouldn't be a "high-tech deal" we just need a handyman to power wash and paint the front of the building as it needs to be presentable. Mr. Stone explained that they have been writing specs and getting bids and some of the work has been done, but explained that we can't just hire someone off the street; that we must comply with the state bid laws including the Davis Bacon Act; and said they have re-bid some of the items and are moving forward. City Manager Jackson said that we realize this is a critical need and the projects will get done. Discussion continued on the subject of law enforcement in general and police precinct repairs and supplemental requests in specific, including the annual increase in county costs. Mr. Koudelka added that staff has explored the idea and is working on a cost plan that would identify true costs associated with every line of business; said the work is involved and there are more costs than "meets the eye;" he said there will always be administrative costs and he has had discussions about the idea of assigning primary personnel whose duties would be associated with all those issues; and he noted that we get a lot of work accomplished from a small staff. Councilmember Wick asked about the public defender costs and Mr. Koudelka replied that the county has not hired anyone else yet but they are looking at their 2015 budget, and said we plan to have more meetings with the County to discuss how they measure their cases. Mr. Koudelka mentioned page 2 and the data for public defender; he said we made a correction in what we had seen in previous years and brought the figure down, but there are added caseload standards on top of that;he said staff is looking at the use of investigators to support the attorneys. Mr. Koudelka said that the public safety contract represents two-thirds of our general fund budget and he suggested getting a quarterly report in order to better project what we receive from the county specific to the public safety contract. Mr. Koudelka distributed copies of a "2014 City of Spokane Valley Public Safety Contract Quarterly Cost Projections" and said that John Pietro is responsible for the daily management of contracts. Mr. Pietro went over the cost projections handout,especially noting the table on the front page and the nine steps of the contracting cycle. Mr. Jackson stated that this will be included in the quarterly report from now on; and Mr. Koudelka agreed it is a useful tool and could be expanded in the future to examine trends over multiple years. Tab 10: Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that his department contains six divisions, and that the overall non-payroll increase is 1.11%, which includes $20,000 for the annual Centennial Trail maintenance fund; and said without that,his department would be mostly status quo. Mr. Stone noted he has a lot of interaction with the public and that staff works to accommodate those requests; he said this year the plan is to begin to replace some of the old Spokane County Park signs with new signs like our gateway signs; he said they Workshop minutes:June 17,2014 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT don't have the exact replacement and installation costs yet. Mr. Stone said there are no full time staff members in the maintenance program, and we contract with Senske to cover all the parks as well as some of the maintenance on city properties such as the gateway property,Centennial Trail,Appleway Trail, and Balfour Park. For the recreation division,Mr. Stone said they have one FTE;he said recreation programs including the summer day camps recover 100% of costs as they are paid for by user fees;and he said their overall budget is down from 2014. He explained that the aquatics program has no FTEs as that is all done through a contract with the YMCA, adding that revenue from aquatics is significantly less than budgeted and there is no way to recover costs; he said the cost to swim is $1.00, and if participants are unable to cover the fee, we have partnered with Spokane Valley Partners for scholarships and swim passes so we don't turn anyone away. Director Stone said the Senior Center has one FTE and the majority of the expenses are attached to that position, which staff member he explained, does an outstanding job. Mr. Stone said the Senior Center also has Meals on Wheels delivered five days a week. There are five FTE's for CenterPlace, Mr. Stone said, which includes two administrative assistants, and two maintenance people; he said the Center is open over eighteen hours a day, seven days a week, which poses some staffing challenges. He explained that the janitorial contract costs went down a little from their first year's bid, adding that the contractor also handles cleaning restrooms and carpets, and helps in the evenings when a room needs to be quickly turned around from one use to the next. Mr. Stone said that the supplemental requests under Tab 12 include Phase 2A of the Appleway Trail, which is from University to Pines; and a request for funding to replace the existing modem and dial-up communication at the three outdoor pools. Mr. Stone said the current technology is outdated and extremely difficult to service and repair and has caused numerous problems and customer service issues with the payments of pool patrons; he also noted the request for carpet replacement at the lounge to replace the ten-year old carpet. Mr. Stone mentioned that next year CenterPlace will celebrate its ten-year anniversary and they are working on plans now for an event perhaps in September. Other projects Mr. Stone mentioned included the volleyball courts at Browns Park and the pocket dog park at Valley Mission Park on the site of the former Senior Center. Councilmember Pace asked why have a ten-year celebration of CenterPlace since it's just a building; and Deputy Mayor Woodard replied that CenterPlace also includes the Senior Center, and it is more than a building as it is our community center, and said he thinks a celebration is a good idea. Councilmembers Pace, Hafner, and Deputy Mayor Woodard also said they like the idea of the dog park. Councilmember Wick said he likes the idea of being able to have Wi-Fi at the pools, and said perhaps the cost of the admission should be $2.00 with free Wi-Fi provided; and he expressed surprise that we still use a dial-up modem. Mayor Grafos asked if Comcast might be able to help with the Wi-Fi and Mr. Stone replied that he has been working with Comcast. Councilmember Pace said he thinks it would be nice to fund it without raising the entrance cost; and Mr. Stone said he would do everything possible to keep pool fees as they are and still have Wi-Fi. Councilmember Bates asked about parkland acquisition and Finance Director Calhoun said that is addressed in section 13. Mr. Jackson said parkland acquisition is a general request and depending on how we prioritize the City Center, the impact might show it is not even feasible; and said that parkland acquisition is more of a placeholder; he said we are not approving capital projects at this point; and depending on how the budget is prioritized,there is little chance we can afford most of those items. Tab 11: Community Development Director Hohman said his department experienced a big transition this year; that one of the long-time division managers resigned, so Mr. Hohman is taking the opportunity to look at possible different department configurations, although no decision has been made yet; he said the data sheets for his department and the business plan were done before that staff member's resignation;he said many changes were made since last year including incorporating the economic component; that they changed their goals and mission statement, and looked at measurables and work plan items in an attempt to integrate economic development into every division as well as keep that in mind as each project comes forward; Workshop minutes:June 17,2014 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT and said staff wants to further the economic development of the City. Mr. Hohman said that last year he designated Mr. Basinger as the Economic Development Coordinator, and since then determined since the job is large, that Mr. Basinger needs some assistance, and he chose part-time Development Engineer Gloria Mantz. Mr. Hohman said this is the start to what he hopes will be the Economic Development division. Director Hohman said they have created that separate group from the existing budget without exceeding the recommended 1% increase,with this representing a .89% increase. Mr. Hohman explained that means their capabilities are stretched and there is very little backup on any one position; he said he has witnessed some of the stress as they have tried to recruit a plans examiner for the past six months; and said they currently have four different openings. Mr. Hohman said some of the other agencies and jurisdictions are now hiring, making it difficult to find someone to "fit our mold." Concerning supplemental requests, Mr. Hohman said they are asking for a development engineer to try to accommodate for some of the vacancies, and he agreed a column on the spreadsheet showing an employee count would be beneficial; he said they went from a high staffing level of 36 in 2011, to the current 29.5 positions now; and are therefore doing a lot more with a lot less personnel. Tab 12: Supplemental Requests City Manager Jackson said that he and Finance Director Calhoun have discussed these requests with the department directors to determine what we can afford, and will be revising the general fund estimates. Mr. Jackson said that the requests are broken down as either recurring or nonrecurring; and mentioned the request for two scanners as part of the document management process. After Mr. Jackson went over the list,he explained that none of these items are currently included in the budget. Tab 13: Potential Capital Projects Mr. Jackson said unless there are further questions, this won't be discussed further since these projects have been discussed throughout today's meeting. Tab 14: Financial Objectives Mr. Jackson brought Council's attention to page 6 of the Business Plan, and said there have been no changes in fiscal policies. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like to talk about the three challenges on page 7; said there is also a potential increase as the Sheriff's Office union works toward settlement, which has a potential increase in their COLA (cost of living allowance); said he understands between 2014 and 2105 there is a best case scenario for us of about $650,000 extra, and a worst case scenario of about $2 million; and said he recognizes the law enforcement records management system (the CAD system [computer aided design software])needs to be able to work throughout all law enforcement. 15. Council Goals The 2014 Council Goals on page 28 of the Business Plan were discussed with the following results: 1.Monitor the Discharge Permit Process: there was Council consensus to remove this goal. 2. Solid Waste Alternatives: there was Council consensus to remove this goal. 3. Pursuing funding for Appleway Trail Project: this goal will remain as stated. 4. Economic Development Plan: Councilmembers briefly discussed this and determined the goal will remain as stated. 5. Street Preservation: it was agreed to have this focus beyond 2018, and to include something about the street fund. Although it was mentioned that Bridging the Valley is in the legislative agenda, Council determined it would be appropriate as a goal as well. 6. With the addition of the two police officer positions,there was Council consensus to remove this goal. After brief discussion concerning law enforcement, Mayor Grafos asked for a list of what is included for each officer, such as training, retirement, etc., and how we arrive at the figure of 100 officers. Mr. Jackson said the topic would be a good future agenda informational item. There were no other goal suggestions. The meeting recessed at 3:00 p.m. and reconvened at 3:10 p.m. Workshop minutes:June 17,2014 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT BRAINSTORMING: Mr.Jackson said this is an opportunity for Council to discuss whatever is on their mind. Staff and Council Coordination: Councilmember Pace said he is aware of the need to maintain a good boundary between legislative and executive,but said they also need to work as a team, and he would like to pair a councilmember and staff member to attend some of the various committee, board meetings and conferences. Mr. Jackson said some of the boards, like the Health District,want elected officials; he said that doesn't mean staff couldn't attend meetings, and said he could look at some of those committees and boards where that idea might be applied. Mr.Jackson also noted that this is one of the reasons he seeks to fill the Deputy City Manager position so that person can keep abreast of what is happening with other organizations,committees and boards. Community Events: Councilmember Hafner said this is the third year he has mentioned a farmer's market; he also suggested a carnival, and a one-day garage sale. Mr. Jackson said the farmer's market idea was brought forward previously but at that time, Council was not interested. Councilmember Bates said there is a lot of activity going on sponsored by others, like Valleyfest; and agreed with the idea of having community events as a gathering place for citizens. Councilmember Wick added that once the Balfour Park is developed,that would lend itself to those kind of events. Bridging the Valley (conversation with the railroads): Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would welcome interactions and/or round-table or other discussions with members of the two railroad companies or other groups. Expand Outside Agencies for Neighborhood Organizations' Events: In relation to offering grants to neighborhood associations, Councilmember Pace asked about including them in community events, such as the 4th of July Parade at Greenacres Park; and suggested inviting Greenacres Neighborhood group to apply. Councilmember Wick suggested that might prove difficult to include neighborhood groups with the outside service agencies. Old Mission Trailhead: Mayor Grafos said there is a lot of development on Indiana Avenue, and that we should make sure we complete the Old Mission Trailhead as soon as possible. Trent: Pines to Sullivan: Mayor Grafos suggested looking at that to see if perhaps through text amendments,we could initiate some changes of more appropriate uses on Trent. Land Acquisition: Councilmember Wick mentioned that now that the economy has improved,perhaps we could look for land to purchase for development or to develop pieces of land for parks. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that perhaps people who have land for possible neighborhood parks, aren't aware they could donate or bequeath the land; and Councilmember Higgins said that perhaps it would be an incentive to be able to name a park after a donor. Market Economic Development and Economic Development Tax Tools, or Incentives: Councilmember Higgins suggested having a team go out and market various places, like California. Councilmember Hafner suggested having some kind of tax breaks or other incentives to attract businesses here. Mr. Jackson said that Deputy City Attorney Lamb has gathered some information on what is available, and perhaps he can refine that into a report for Council. Mr. Lamb acknowledged that he has been working with Mr.Basinger on how to make those tools available to potential businesses. Historic Preservation: Mayor Grafos suggested adding historic preservation to this list to explain the heritage of the valley and who we are. Mr. Jackson said that topic is on our pending agenda list. Workshop minutes:June 17,2014 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT In reference to a city hall, Councilmember Wick asked how many years it would take to pay cash, and how much would we gain. Mr. Jackson said we would have to examine how much we would have each year to allocate to a city hall, and come up with a plan. Realizing we would have to account for inflation, Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like to have it by 2019. Councilmember Wick said if we wouldn't have paid for a couple projects, we would have several million more as at least a couple million has been removed from that fund for various purposes. Mr. Calhoun said time would work against us in terms of inflation, land cost and construction cost, but that current interest rates are remarkably low now; adding that at some point interest rates will reverse and the next two to three years could be dramatic. Councilmember Pack asked about grants and Mr. Jackson said those are difficult to come by as most deal with self-sustaining and"green"buildings. Concerning the McCleary decision, Mr. Jackson said that Deputy City Attorney Lamb has put together a synopsis of the potential impact. Mr. Lamb explained that this will represent a significant challenge for us; and said that the paramount duty of the state is to supply ample education to all its children; that formerly the funding methodology was based on how many students were enrolled, but said that has shifted now to a performance-based education model; but in 2005-2007, the state still had significant amounts of basic funding needs coming from local levies, all of which were subject to voter approval. Mr. Lamb explained that the McClearys were a family faced with horrible school conditions and terrible facilities, and that low-paid teachers brought a challenge to the state alleging that the state was not meeting its Constitutional duties; and in 2012 the court agreed. He said the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction since the schools hadn't done what was needed to be done for the last thirty years. Mr. Lamb said he understands that the legislature came up with about $1 billion but still needs at least another $4 billion, which would be 10% of the state's budget. He said that the Court required a report for a funding plan by 2018; that the state came out with a plan but the court blasted it as not being a real resolution to tackle significant funding issues. The court told the state that a direct plan was needed, and to come to the Court in September with a plan or show why the state legislators shouldn't be held in contempt and have the Court take over the budget. Mr. Lamb said there is a doctrine addressing separation of powers and said one power doesn't hold control over the other; that the legislature sets policy and the judiciary states the law; he said if the Court were to assume control of the budgeting process, it would likely cause a major fight between the court and the legislature. Mr. Lamb said he has not heard the State's rebuttal about having a plan in September; and said the State is looking for money, and that because so much is locked up in programs like basic education, that leaves cities as a prime area where they can make cuts. Mr. Lamb said the issue remains in a large state of flux. There being no further business, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Workshop minutes:June 17,2014 Page 10 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,July 8, 2014 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff: Dean Grafos,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Bill Bates, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Chuck Hafner,Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins,Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Ed Pace,Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Matthew Larson of the Advent Lutheran Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Council, staff and 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 COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Pace: said he attended the Health Board meeting and said he is starting to wonder if regional entities like this Board have expanded too far beyond their constitutional call and purpose and whether they are being good stewards of taxpayer's money, and said he would start asking about that; said he also attended the Greenacres Park July 4th celebration. Councilmember Hafner: said he also attended the Health District Board meeting and that they are still in the process of evaluating their officer, said the Board had an audit exit and appears to be fine financially; said he spoke with the head of the environmental division at the Health District and is amazed at how much they do concerning for example environmental health, and communicable diseases, and that they are examining the possibility of a governance committee to draft Board rules and regulations. Other Councilmembers had no report. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Grafos said he welcomed everyone to the Greenacres July 4th festival, and he thanked all the citizens who volunteered at that event. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comments. Bill Gothmann, Spokane Valley: invited everyone to the upcoming Spokane Valley Cycle Celebration set for July 27 at 8:00 a.m., beginning and ending at Mirabeau Meadows Park; he explained about the three different types of rides,from the more challenging 50-mile ride to the less challenging 10-mile ride. Justin Peterson, Spokane: said he owns the marijuana business "Ultimate" and was the number one pick for the lottery of Spokane Valley; said he got a letter from the Liquor Control Board about restrictions Minutes Regular Council Meeting 07-08-2014 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT concerning our Centennial Trail; said his current location on East Sprague is away from all schools and strip malls as he doesn't want to be near children; but it is frustrating now that he has to look for another location; and said his current location was approved by the state but this City's proposed amendment won't allow it since it would be next to the proposed location of the library's property. Margaret Cadwallader, 11119 E 26th: said she seeks more help from Code Enforcement to handle issues in her neighborhood such as junk cars, garbage, and homes which appear vacated but yet people are coming and going; said every time she calls Code Enforcement she is told they are very very"full up." 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 July 8,2014 Request for Council Action Form,Totaling: $1,703,458.08 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 30,2014: $437,469.11 c.Approval of June 24, Special Council Meeting Minutes d.Approval of June 24,2014 Regular Formal Council Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-007,Refunding 2003 Bonds—Mark Calhoun After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance #14-007 to a second reading. Finance Director Calhoun went over the history of this proposal as outlined on his July 8 Request for Council Action form,noting that he hopes to close on the bonds August 12. Deputy City Attorney Lamb described a few changes in the bond ordinance that were made since Council originally reviewed it, said the changes were primarily grammatical, and there was one change regarding temporary bonds which referenced the City Clerk instead of the City Manager, and that the form also changed to reflect that the City Manager would be signing the bonds. Mr. Lamb said that the underwriter, bond counsel, and financial advisor have all reviewed these documents, and that he encourages Council to read through everything. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafner, Pace, Higgins, and Bates. Opposed: Councilmember Wick. Motion carried. 3. Proposed Resolution 14-007,Local Government Investment Pool—Mark Calhoun It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Resolution #14-007 authorizing investment of City of Spokane Valley monies in the local government investment pool. After Finance Director Calhoun explained the proposal as noted in his Request for Council Action form, Deputy Mayor Woodard asked why these funds would be off-limits to the State's use; and Mr. Calhoun replied that this isn't the State's money, it is our money that we are investing and that the pool holds on our behalf; and said the State has no legal claim to the money. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 4.Motion Consideration: Browns Park Master Plan—Mike Stone It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve the Browns Park Conceptual Master Plan as presented. Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that the master plan can be viewed as a road map that represents the future vision of the park's development; it generates and builds community interest, and helps us meet any requirements for grant applications; and it provides guidance, direction and flexibility. Similar to master plans for other facilities such as Greenacres Park and Appleway Trail, Mr. Stone said that this plan was developed based on citizen input, adding that the volleyball program is expanding and is doing so without negatively impacting the citizens' use of the park. Mr. Stone said that Council is not being asked to commit to or approve any funding, but that this is a vision to pursue the Minutes Regular Council Meeting 07-08-2014 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT development of this park over time and to use revenue that might be generated from the Volleyball Association and/or grants,and said we can't start any of that without a master plan; he said staff will work to make this project a reality but it will take time. Director Stone said that while total development costs are estimated at $2.1 million, about one-third of that could be designated to cover the cost of the volleyball improvements with the rest of that for park improvements. Mr. Stone said that the actual costs would be determined once we get into the design and specifications phase, and said in his experience, once that starts,the actual costs are generally less than originally anticipated. Concerning the $76,000 annual maintenance cost, Mr. Stone said that implementing this plan won't significantly increase that cost; he also noted that the Volleyball Association will have a partnering agreement with the City, and he added that all maintenance, nets, and standards in the four courts have been provided solely by the Association; he said we will need a new agreement with the Association for maintenance and programming of the complex, and include terms and conditions of use in that agreement so that a percentage of their revenue will be returned back to the City and put back into improvements and/or maintenance of the park; he said all that expense and effort will be handed over to the Association and the City won't be responsible for any of those costs; he said the City will maintain the park as we do now, but the Volleyball Complex will be the responsibility of the Association. Mr. Stone noted that with the additional courts, there would be a reduction in turf, which reduces the cost of mowing, watering and fertilizing; and with the replacement of the restrooms and picnic shelters, since those facilities would be new, the maintenance cost will go down. Mr. Stone said currently there are old structures, but with the new structures, the vandalism will decrease as the best way to decrease vandalism is to make the place attractive to everyone. Prior to implementation of the plan, he said we will have a parking agreement between the City and Central Valley School District, and said the Association would allow us to work with them to specify where and when,their participants will park. Mr. Stone said that with any large event comes an increase in traffic; but he said the majority of these events won't take place during the morning or evening rush hours,but rather on the weekends during off peak hours; and he said a project is in the works to enhance the safety of the pedestrian crossing. Mr. Stone said that if volleyball is expanded,the softball won't exist; and said he spoke with one citizen at the March public meeting who had a concern about softball, but other than that one person, there have been no comments from individuals or associations regarding softball, and he said that reservations have decreased over the last three years. Based on lack of input and decreased usage,Mr. Stone said the people wanting to play volleyball outweigh the softball issue. Concerning whether there are other more appropriate locations,Mr. Stone said he feels this is the best location for this use as it already established the use of sand volleyball. Mr. Stone said there is only one undeveloped site in our entire system and that has long been considered for future development of a dog or skate park as it has no infrastructure and lacks both on-site and near-by off-site parking. Mr. Stone reiterated that this plan is in direct response to the citizen input,and that the neighborhood park element will be preserved and improved. Discussion included mention that the length of the season is about five months, or May through September; the courts require special sand and staff will be working with the association in that regard; mention that the park would be split with about three acres for neighbors, two for parking, and three for the volleyball and that over two-thirds of the cost will directly benefit the citizens and neighbors in the form of basketball courts, restrooms, playground and picnic areas; that volleyball is one of the fastest growing multi-generational activities available for everyone from young kids to seniors; and that the playground and picnic areas will always be available for the general public as they are now, even if there were a huge tournament taking place. The issue of the demand for courts was also discussed including whether to add another four, or sixteen. Mr. Stone said that on any night, there are groups waiting to access the courts; and when events are scheduled there is a waiting list of teams that want to participate; and he said that sixteen courts seems to be the reasonable number needed to accommodate a wide variety of programming needs as four would increase the usage, but wouldn't accommodate the Association's Minutes Regular Council Meeting 07-08-2014 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT programming needs. Mr. Stone also noted that the majority of people who previously spoke in favor of the park are residents of Spokane Valley, and said he feels the majority of residents feel the complex is important; that just adding a few more courts won't accomplish what is needed, and that this park needs improvement regardless of any volleyball courts. Mr. Stone added that as the planning processes and we get additional feedback from users and citizens,we might determine that we would need more or less than the planned sixteen courts; and said that without a master plan, the park will stay as it is. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Julie Rosenoff: spoke in favor of the plan and said she is happy to see all the players in the park as well as the partnership with the Association and the U-High parking lot; said she feels lighting at night would help discourage vandalism, asked if there would be a place for concession stands during major tournaments; and said she is pleased to see the plan and it is a"neat idea." Linda Mitrovich: spoke in favor of the plan; said she lives within walking distance to the park and in her experience, the park's use is minimal; said volleyball is very attractive and thinks this is a colorful and cool idea and thinks the idea of having people playing and having fun at the park is wonderful. Kyle Twohig: speaking as a member of the Association, said sand quality is important, and that they have a good supplier within the State; that it seldom needs to be tilled and the wind doesn't blow much away and actually lasts over the winter; said the courts are busy and there are significant wait times and the events have waiting lists; said the Association is a non-profit organization trying to grow the game; that all players are covered by the Region's insurance, and that this is the new growing sport and a great opportunity. Meredith Coupland: also speaking as part of the Association, said they want to make sure the neighbors know they are welcome and having more courts would allow the neighborhood to join in, and that they want the neighbors to join in. Kevin Twohig: said he lives in Medical Lake and is a member of the Regional Board; said this wasn't a strong sport twenty-five years ago; that the sport has been elevated and the demand grown and switched from a huge indoor to more of an outdoor emphasis; said he thinks there is a growth potential here; mentioned they were awarded a small Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) grant this year to track people who use Browns Park, and said by the end of the year they will be able to have figures of where these people are coming from; said if this facility were built-out, it would be the volleyball central place and they would be able to host large events. Devlin Daniel: said he works for Spokane County Parks and Recreation and is personally very involved with the community; that the sport is growing everywhere; said he started a Facebook page two years ago and now has over 300 people with 95% of those local; said he feels regardless of the season,there will be some people who will play as soon as the sun shines; said if we had more courts the leagues could spread out further and allow others to play on the courts who were not in the league; mentioned there is a potential to stir up a lot of dust but that won't happen with good sand; and said a lot of the maintenance is done by the players. Peggy Doering: said she initially came to tonight's meeting for another reason but listening to how people are talking about the masterplan, realizes this has the possibility of being a larger vision and that this reflects a growing need that some people want; that starting with a masterplan gives you the vision to work out the details and she supports the idea of voting yes to help leave a legacy for our kids. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Wick shared some information from the Orlando Sentential about the popularity of volleyball, and then referenced his map showing the Minutes Regular Council Meeting 07-08-2014 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT approximately 86 areas in our city where baseball or softball diamonds or fields are, and said there are six right across from Browns park; and said he feels that losing one baseball area won't have a negative impact; that there are no other sand volleyball courts in the vicinity; was excited that LTAC allocated funds to the Association, and is excited about the park. Councilmember Hafner said he likes the concept but his biggest concern is not taking space away from the neighbors. Councilmember Higgins mentioned Council is not funding or building anything at this point,just approving a plan that allows these ideas to move forward. Councilmember Bates said he spoke with some recreation people and that this is the fastest growing sport and feels this is a great opportunity to spruce up the park. Deputy Mayor Woodard spoke in favor of the plan, said he too wants to make sure the facilities will always be available for the neighbors, that partnerships are good, and maybe the Public Facilities District can give some money to help this as well as there are a lot of possibilities to draw people into our city. Mayor Grafos agreed and said he feels the partnership is in the best interests of the association and the citizens. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 7:31 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:42 p.m. 5.Motion Consideration: Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant—Sean Messner It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize staff to proceed with applying for the three City Safety grants for the projects as listed above. [The projects included (1) McDonald Road: Mission Avenue to 16th Avenue for corridor improvements; (2) Sullivan Road Safety Study: Mission Avenue to Sprague Avenue for a corridor study; and (3) Reflective signal backplates: Citywide traffic signal enhancements at high volume intersections.] Engineer Messner went through his PowerPoint presentation and explained that he is here tonight to ask for a motion to move forward for these specific projects, and he stressed that the purpose of this grant is to reduce fatal and/or serious injury collisions by using engineering countermeasures, that applications are due to WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation)by July 16,and that spot location projects must address fatal or serious injuries. Discussion ensued regarding past negative feedback about changing a segment of Broadway to three lanes;with Mr. Messner explaining that there has been a reduction in crashes in terms of severity and that more severe accidents occur when left-turns and angles are involved; and that adding a bike lane also promotes the bicycle and pedestrian master plan for safer bike travel, and that the number of crashes has gone down overall from thirty to twenty-four. Mayor Grafos invited public comment, and no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited general public comment;no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6.North Spokane Corridor Project—Eric Guth, and Keith Metcalf of WA. State Dept. of Transportation Public Works Director Guth introduced Mr. Keith Metcalf, Washington State Department of Transportation Regional Administrator. Via his PowerPoint presentation,Mr.Metcalf explained what has been accomplished on the North Spokane Corridor(US 395), the history of funding that corridor to-date, mentioned the needed unfunded $750 million to complete the drivable freeway from Freya/Francis to I- 90; explained a little about the area under construction and what's coming up in 2016; then briefly talked about pavement preservation and the ten-year outlook; mentioned the core assets at risk with declining revenues, the 2013-2015 Agency Highway Construction Program, and the limited and committed transportation fuel tax. Council thanked Mr.Metcalf for his presentation and information. 7. Spokane Transit Authority Interlocal Agreement for Fiber—Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth said the purpose of this Interlocal Agreement is to provide the terms for our City to permit the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) to use one pair of dark fiber for the purpose of their communicating between the Pence Cole Valley Transit Center at 4th Avenue and University Road, and their other facilities; that the other facilities are already connected to the regional ITS (Intelligent Minutes Regular Council Meeting 07-08-2014 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Transportation System)infrastructure, and that this would allow for better communication. There was no objection from Council to staff bringing this agreement back next week for a motion consideration. 8.McMillan Road—Gabe Gallinger,Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained the history of how, when and why this road was closed, and said the only way to re-open it, is by resolution of this Council; and after showing the area in question on the aerial map, Council concurred that this come forward as a resolution next week for approval consideration. At 9:53 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting for one hour. 9.Marijuana Regulations Proposed Amendment—Christina Janssen,Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb went through his PowerPoint presentation,which included some background on the laws and codes of recreational marijuana; explained possession and use of legalized marijuana and of the Liquor Control Board(LCB)License types and the regulations and rules concerning each; he noted the January 16,2014 Attorney General Opinion that the new regulations contain no clear indication that it was intended to preempt local authority to regulate recreational marijuana; and he also went over the highlights of the interim ordinance adopted earlier this year,mentioned the Council's public hearing, and spoke about the amended regulations, and ended with an explanation of the proposed amendments. There was discussion and questions concerning the regulation of infused products with Mr. Lamb explaining that the LCB placed a moratorium on infused products and that the only allowed product would be that placed in baggies; he said the LCB is working on regulations for any infused product and that it must be approved separately by the LCB, must have child resistant packaging and meet the federal guidelines for poison prevention; must not be kept under a heat lamp or refrigerated in cold storage; and would be prohibited in any product that might be viewed by children, such as gummies or pop tarts. There was also discussion about the need for eliminating any ambiguity in our regulations; and Mr. Lamb said that we can adopt reasonable zoning and land use regulations, but if we move into regulating certain product types, it would be "stepping on the state's toes." Councilmember Pace asked if these regulations address the liquid placed in an e-cigarette, and Mr. Lamb said he would have to check as that would not be infused into goods, but rather inhaled; and said he would have to see if that is included in the state's approved products.Mr.Lamb also mentioned that enforcement of illegal consumption is a police issue. Mayor Grafos asked about including vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by the City of Spokane Valley and designated for construction of municipal buildings of multiple uses; and Mr. Lamb said he would research that issue as well, and in response to a question about Balfour Park, said the park would fall under state regulations. Mr. Lamb said he would have to research what other city property there is,that it could not include rights-of-way or stormwater buildings; and Mr. Jackson added that if the state covers park property,that perhaps we could point that out as we don't want to pass something in our own code if it is already covered by state law; and said that we consider the designation of that property of Balfour Park as a park. Mr. Lamb said our definition will track what is allowed under state law, and Mr. Jackson said we will do what it takes to have as strong regulations as possible. Planner Janssen went over slide 24 and 25 addressing the proposed amendments and how they would be added to our City Code. There was other discussion about infusion and extraction and Mr. Lamb said the State will be working through the rule making process, and will further examine that issue as well. In regard to vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by the City, Mayor Grafos suggested adding that to all three sections, and Mr. Lamb agreed with that suggestion. Councilmembers also agreed to have this come to the July 15 meeting as a first reading of the ordinance. Minutes Regular Council Meeting 07-08-2014 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT 10.Advance Agenda—Mayor Grafos Mayor Grafos said he would like to add the topic of beekeeping, and to compare what we allow with that is allowed by Spokane County and the City of Spokane. INFORMATION ONLY The (11)Transportation Improvement (TIB) Call for Projects; (12) Wa. State Dept. of Transportation Interlocal, Traffic Operation and Maintenance; (13) Parks and Recreation First Quarterly Report; and (14)Noel Telecommunication Franchise were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Jackson stated that we are working with Green Solutions in the development of our own solid waste management plan; he said Public Works Director Guth has been the lead on that project and that we anticipate having a draft for Council very soon,possibly for the July 22 council meeting; and he said that a public open house is scheduled for July 31 and that we are on schedule to submit the necessary documents prior to November 17,2014. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting 07-08-2014 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 22,2014 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance No. 14-008, adding definitions for recreational marijuana uses, adopting zoning buffers for undeveloped school, library and certain-City property for recreational marijuana uses, and repealing interim marijuana regulations. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; RCW 69.50 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council heard an administrative report the proposed amendments on July 8, 2014. City Council had the first reading of proposed Ordinance No. 14-008 on July 15,2014. Numerous other presentations regarding marijuana updates. BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") 19.120 and Appendix A to provide definitions for and zoning restrictions upon the production, processing, and retail sales of state-licensed recreational marijuana. Additionally, the proposal would adopt a new SVMC 19.85 to provide limitations on certain marijuana production and processing uses and to create 1,000 foot buffers between state-licensed production, processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana and the Centennial Trail, Appleway Trail, undeveloped and vacant public school property and undeveloped and vacant public library property. The proposed amendments largely track the previously adopted interim regulations. However, based on comments received from Council during the administrative report, proposed SVMC 19.85 will now also create a 1,000 foot buffer between state-licensed production, processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana and certain undeveloped City property, City Hall, and CenterPlace. The buffer to undeveloped City property will prevent nonconforming uses from establishing near undeveloped property owned or leased by the City for various municipal purposes, including a future City Hall or future park property,prior to development of such property. Additionally, undeveloped stormwater facilities and rights-of-way are not buffered as those types of uses do not create the same need for buffering. Finally, since Council has previously discussed and allowed indoor production and bagging and labeling of dried useable marijuana (no edible products or concentrates) within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail, those uses are continued to be allowed as part of the new additions to the amendments. Proposed Ordinance 14-008 also repeals the interim marijuana regulations previously adopted by City Council. Recreational marijuana was legalized within Washington State with the passage of Initiative 502 in November 2012. The state has worked over the last year and a half to develop extensive regulations for licensing and permitting of production (growing), processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana. All recreational marijuana facilities must be licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board (the "LCB"). The LCB has been accepting and processing applications since November, 2013, and issued the first production and processing licenses within Spokane Valley in March 2014. Recently, the LCB conducted a lottery to select the three retail sales outlets that will be allowed within Spokane Valley. Under state law,there cannot be more than three retail sales outlets within Spokane Valley,but there is no restriction on the number of production and processing facilities allowed, although production facilities are limited to a maximum of 21,000 square feet of growing space. One issue discussed during the administrative report was the State's limitations on marijuana-infused products versus THC(the active hallucinogen)-infused products. After further review of applicable State law and discussions with the LCB, current laws and regulations do govern both marijuana-infused products and THC-infused products. In fact, the term "THC-infused" is somewhat of a misnomer because the oil,butter, or other compound that contains THC is in fact a marijuana extract that is derived as a result of the extraction process. Additionally,whether marijuana-infused or"THC-infused", the end product is an infused edible product containing THC. The extraction process and all infused products are governed by strict regulations under RCW 69.50 and WAC 314-55. For extraction, a processor must receive certification for the actual device and extraction process (such as pressurized butane or other processes) prior to receiving their license. Additionally, infused edible products (whether using marijuana leaves or THC extract) must receive prior approval by the LCB, must be prepared in an approved kitchen, must be scored to show individual servings, cannot require hot or cold storage, and cannot be appealing to children. Further, all edible infused products are limited to ten total servings of THC,with each serving limited to a maximum of ten milligrams active THC. Thus,whether infused with marijuana leaves or extract (such as oil or butter), the maximum THC is 100 milligrams per infused product. State law provides 1,000 foot buffers between recreational marijuana and several sensitive uses,including schools, libraries, and public parks, but excludes trails and undeveloped school or library property. The LCB enforces the state buffers through the state licensing process. On January 16, 2014, a Washington Attorney General Opinion was released that provided that local jurisdictions were not preempted by I-502 from adopting local regulations and restrictions on state-licensed recreational marijuana uses. The City's buffers would be in addition to the state-mandated buffers and would be enforced by the City. As proposed,the amendments will supplement the buffers provided under State law to further limit access by minors and to prevent later nonconforming marijuana uses. All marijuana uses remain illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. However, the United State Department of Justice has released a policy memo to not prosecute licensed marijuana providers in states which have legalized marijuana and which have a strong enforcement and regulatory scheme. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on this item on June 12, 2014 and a public hearing on June 26, 2014. No public comment was received at the public hearing. After deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of CTA 2014-0002 to City Council. The staff report and Planning Commission recommendations were presented to the City Council in an Administrative Report on July 8,2014. OPTIONS: Move to approve Ordinance No. 14-008, with or without further amendments; take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 14-008, adopting defmitions for recreational marijuana uses, adopting zoning buffers for undeveloped school, library and certain-City property for recreational marijuana uses,and repealing interim marijuana regulations. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen,Planner; Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Ordinance No. 14-008 B. Staff Report to Planning Commission C. Planning Commission Findings of Fact D. Planning Commission Minutes from June 26 public hearing and deliberations DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 14-008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE APPENDIX A, SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.120.010, AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 19.85 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH ZONING FOR RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA USES, TO ESTABLISH BUFFER ZONES BETWEEN RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND RETAIL USES AND UNDEVELOPED SCHOOL, LIBRARY AND CERTAIN CITY PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS TRAILS, REPEALING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCES 14-002 AND 14-004,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana as a Schedule I drug,based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a"high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005), Controlled Substance Act (CSA), 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq; and WHEREAS,on November 6, 2012,voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative Measure No. 502 (I-502), now codified in chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21, and 46.61 Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which provisions, (a) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (b) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (c) established a regulatory system licensing producers, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older, and required the Washington State Liquor Control Board (the LCB) to adopt procedures and criteria by December 1, 2013 for issuing licenses to produce,process, and sell marijuana; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the rules established in chapter 314-55 WAC, the LCB opened a 30-day application period and is currently processing license applications received for marijuana producer, processor, and retailer licenses; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, on February 11, 2014, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 14-002 adopting interim development regulations adopting findings, adopting definitions for recreational marijuana production, processing, and retail sales, adopting zoning for such marijuana uses, setting buffers between recreational marijuana uses and the Centennial Trail, Appleway Trail, and vacant school and library property, setting a public hearing, and setting a term for such interim regulations of six months; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, on March 25, 2014, City Council conducted a public hearing on the interim development regulations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, on April 22, 2014, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 14-004 adopting findings for the interim development regulations and adopting amendments to the interim development regulations; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106,providing a 60-day notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and Ordinance 14-008 Page 1 of 9 DRAFT WHEREAS,on June 12,2014,the Planning Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2014, and June 13, 2014, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation followed by deliberations and provided a recommendation; and WHEREAS,on July 8,2014,City Council reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on July 15,2014, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments;and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2014, City Council considered a second ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the amendments below bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, and welfare and protection of the environment. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes and adopts the following findings and conclusions: A. Growth Management Act Policies — The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. Compliance with Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 17.80.150(F): 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: LUP-1.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. LUP-1.2: Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Land Use Goal LUP-10.2: Encourage a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. Ordinance 14-008 Page 2 of 9 DRAFT Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable,cost-effective, and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. 2. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: a. Since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a "high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005), Controlled Substance Act (CSA), 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. b. On November 6, 2012, voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative Measure No. 502 (I-502), now codified in chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21, and 46.61 Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which provisions, (A) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (B) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (C) established a regulatory system licensing producers, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older, and required the Washington State Liquor Control Board (the LCB) to adopt procedures and criteria by December 1,2013 for issuing licenses to produce,process, and sell marijuana. c. On August 29, 2013, the United States Department of Justice issued a memo providing updated guidance on marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of I- 502. Several ongoing federal enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime and preventing distribution of marijuana to minors. Further, the memo provided that the Department would not seek ongoing prosecution of marijuana providers, users, and local officials in states that authorized marijuana, provided that those state and local governments "implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety,public health, and other law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice." d. On October 16, 2013, the LCB adopted rules pertaining to the licensing of marijuana producers, processors, and retailers, as set forth in chapter 314-55 Washington Administrative Code (WAC). e. Pursuant to the rules established in chapter 314-55 WAC,the LCB opened a 30- day application period and is currently processing and approving license applications received for marijuana producer,processor,and retailer licenses. Ordinance 14-008 Page 3 of 9 DRAFT f. Pursuant to RCW 69.50.331(8) and WAC 314-55-050(10), the LCB is prohibited from licensing any marijuana producers, processors, and retailers within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility, child care center, public park, excluding trails, public transit center, library, or any game arcade admission to which is not restricted to persons aged twenty-one years or older. g. The Centennial Trail and Appleway Trail are trails that are and will be regularly used by the citizens of the City, including minors, and adopting the proposed amendments will be consistent with the identified federal enforcement priorities and especially in preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors. h. Allowing marijuana uses near undeveloped school, library, and certain City- owned properties may create nonconforming uses when those properties are developed in the future that would be inconsistent with the identified federal enforcement priorities. i. Pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws,"which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City. j. On January 16,2014,the Washington Attorney General issued Attorney General Opinion No. 2, in which he stated that "[a]lthough Initiative 502 (I-502) establishes a licensing and regulatory system for marijuana producers, processor, and retailers in Washington State, it includes no clear indication that it was intended to preempt local authority to regulate such businesses. We therefore conclude that I-502 left in place the normal powers of local governments to regulate within their jurisdictions." k. I-502 does not preempt the City of Spokane Valley from exercising and administering its constitutional and statutory land use regulatory authority to allow and regulate land uses within the City limits. 1. Modifications to the recreational marijuana buffers and zoning established in SVMC 19.85 will continue to protect the City's citizens, including minors, and will be consistent with the identified federal enforcement priorities and especially in preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors. m. The proposed amendments will allow compliance with state law and allow state-licensed recreational marijuana businesses to locate within the Spokane Valley while separating such uses from identified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future residential uses. Section 2. Amendment. Appendix A of the SVMC is hereby amended with the following additions,to be added alphabetically: Manufacturing,petroleum and coal products: The manufacture of asphalt paving,roofing and coating and petroleum refining. Marijuana processing: Processing marijuana into useable marijuana,marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates,packaging and labeling useable marijuana,marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates for sale in retail outlets, and sale of useable marijuana,marijuana-infused products,and marijuana concentrates at wholesale by a marijuana processor licensed by the State Liquor Control Board and in Ordinance 14-008 Page 4 of 9 DRAFT accordance with the provisions of chapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Industrial, light use category. Marijuana production: Production and sale of marijuana at wholesale by a marijuana producer licensed by the State Liquor Control Board and in accordance with the provisions of chapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Agricultural and animals,use category." Marijuana sales: Selling useable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates in a retail outlet by a marijuana retailer licensed by the State Liquor Control Board and in accordance with the provisions of chapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Retail sales,use category." Market, outdoor: A temporary or seasonal location where produce and agricultural products including,but not limited to,pumpkins, Christmas trees and firewood, as well as crafts and other items are offered for sale to the public. Section 3. Amendment. SVMC 19.120.050 is hereby amended with the following additions: Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R-R-R- R-MF-MF- I- I- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 Agriculture and Animal Animal processing/handling Animal raising and/or SSSS S S S S SVMC 19.40.150. Keeping of keeping swine is prohibited Animal shelter S P P SVMC 19.60.080(B)(6) Beekeeping, commercial Beekeeping, hobby S S S SVMC 19.40.150(C) Produce may be sold Community garden SSSS S S S S S pursuant to RCW 36.71.090 as adopted or amended Greenhouse/nursery, P P P P commercial Kennel S S S S S P P See zoning districts for conditions Marijuana production S S S S Chapter 19.85 SVMC Orchard, tree farming, P P commercial Ordinance 14-008 Page 5 of 9 DRAFT Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R-R-R- R-MF-MF- I- I- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 *** Industrial, Light Assembly, light P P P PP PP Carpenter shop P P PP Machine shop or metal PP fabrication Manufacturing, light P PP Marijuana processing S S S S Chapter 19.85 SVMC Plastic injection P P P P PP molding, thermoplastic Processing, light P P Industrial Service Carpet/rug cleaning, dry cleaning, laundry, linen P P supply plant, commercial Contractor's yard P P Laboratories (bio safety P P P P level 2) *** Retail Sales Antique store P P P P P Retail sales may be accessory in industrial Appliance sales/service P P P P S S zones, only if manufactured/assembled on premises Floor area limited to 10%of Bakery, retail P P PPPPP S S gross leasable floor area (GLFA) not to exceed 1,000 sq. ft. Building supply and Floor area limited to 50,000 home improvement and P P S S P PP hardware store sq. ft. or less Candy and P P PPPPP P P Ordinance 14-008 Page 6 of 9 DRAFT Permitted Use Matrix Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Use Category/Type Supplemental Conditions Districts Districts R-R-R- R-MF-MF- I- I- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 confectionery Clothes retail sales P P P P P Convenience store P P SSPPP P P SVMC 19.60.020 Department/variety P P S P P Floor area limited to 50,000 store sq. ft. or less Educational and hobby P P PAPPP A A store Equipment sales, repair, P P P P P and maintenance Florist shop P P AAPPP P Food sales, specialty/butcher P P S P P SVMC 19.60.040(6)(3) shop/meat market/specialty foods General sales/service P P AAPPP P P Gift shop P P AAPPP A Grocery store P P S P P SVMC 19.60.040(6)(3) Office supply and P P APPP P P computer sales Landscape materials sales lot and P P P P P P greenhouse, nursery, garden center, retail Manufactured home P P P sales Marijuana sales S S S S Chapter 19.85 SVMC Market, outdoor P P PP P P *** Ordinance 14-008 Page 7 of 9 DRAFT Section 4. Adoption. That SVMC Title 19 be amended by adding a new chapter, to be designated"19.85" as follows: 19.85.010 Marijuana production standards. A. Marijuana production shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana production facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW: 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under this section: (a) any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document,plan or program adopted by the City Council, and(b)the Appleway Trail; or 4. (a) Any facility, building, campus, or collection of buildings designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City Council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities, buildings, campus, or collection of buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location,or(b)CenterPlace. B. Marijuana production in the regional commercial and community commercial zones shall only be permitted indoors. 19.85.020 Marijuana processing standards. A. Marijuana processing shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana processing facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW: 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under this section: (a) any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document,plan or program adopted by the City Council, and(b)the Appleway Trail; or 4. (a) Any facility, building, campus, or collection of buildings designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City Council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities, buildings, campus, or collection of buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location, or(b)CenterPlace. B. Marijuana processing in the regional commercial and community commercial zones shall be limited to packaging and labeling of useable marijuana. Ordinance 14-008 Page 8 of 9 DRAFT 19.85.030 Marijuana retail sales standards. Marijuana sales shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line,measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana sales facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: A. Centennial Trail; B. Appleway Trail; C. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; D. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; E. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided any stormwater facility or right-of- way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document,plan or program adopted by the City Council shall be excluded from consideration under this section; or F. (1)Any facility,building, campus, or collection of buildings designated or identified in any document,plan, or program adopted by the City Council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities,buildings,campus, or collection of buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location,or(2) CenterPlace. Section 5. Interim Development Regulations Repealed. The interim development regulations adopted pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 14-002 and 14-004 are hereby repealed and shall be without any force or effect as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 6. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Appendix A and Title 19 SVMC not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this of July,2014. ATTEST: Dean Grafos,Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Date of Publication: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 14-008 Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION SÔkane V lley STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2014-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 3, 2014 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 26, 2014, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to amend SVMC 19.120 and Appendix A and adopt SVMC 19.85 to provide definitions and regulations for the zoning and buffering of production, processing, and retail sales of state-licensed recreational marij uana. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment. STAFF PLANNER: Christina Janssen,Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to amend SVMC 19,120 and Appendix A,and adopt SVMC 19.85 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Ordinance 14-002 passed, adopting interim definitions 2/11/14 and regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana Ordinance 14-004 passed, adopting amendments to the 4/22/14 interim regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana SEPA Threshold Determination TBD Published Notice of Public Hearing: 6/6/14 & 6/13/14 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: 6/6/14 PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.120 and Appendix A to providing definitions for and zoning restrictions upon the production,processing, and retail sales of state-licensed recreational marijuana. Additionally,the proposal would adopt a new SVMC 19.85 to provide limitations on certain marijuana production and processing uses and to create 1,000 foot buffers between state-licensed production,processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana and the Centennial Trail,Appleway Trail, undeveloped and vacant public school property and undeveloped and vacant public library property. The City Council previously adopted interim regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana uses in addition to the state buffers described below to further protect and prevent distribution of marijuana to minors. The proposal tracks the interim regulations as adopted by the City Council. Pursuant to state law, the interim regulations terminate in August, 2014 and final regulations must be adopted prior to such termination. Recreational Marijuana Background: Recreational marijuana was legalized within Washington State with the passage of Initiative 502 in November 2012. The state has worked over the last year to develop extensive regulations for licensing and permitting of production(growing),processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana. All recreational marijuana facilities must be licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board(the "LCB"). The LCB has been accepting and processing applications since November, 2013, and issued the first production and processing licenses within Spokane Valley in March 2014. Recently,the LCB conducted a lottery to select the three retail sales outlets that will be allowed within Spokane Valley. Under state Iaw,there cannot be more than three retail sales outlets within Spokane Valley,but there is no restriction on the number of production and processing facilities allowed. State law provides 1,000 buffers between recreational marijuana and several sensitive uses, including schools, libraries, and public parks, but excludes trails and undeveloped school or library property. The LCB enforces the state buffers through the state licensing process. On January 16, 2014,a Washington Attorney General Opinion was released that provided that the Attorney General's opinion was that local jurisdictions were not preempted by I-502 from adopting local regulations and restrictions on state- licensed recreational marijuana uses. The City's buffers would be in addition to the state-mandated buffers and would be enforced by the City. All marijuana uses remain illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, However, the United State Department of Justice has released a policy to not prosecute licensed marijuana providers in states which have legalized marijuana and which have a strong enforcement and regulatory scheme. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT I. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria I. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive plan goals by protecting residential areas, encouraging diversity among commercial uses, maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and promoting compatibility between adjacent land uses. Page 2 of 4 Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: LUP-1.1 Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. LUP-1.2 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's Iand use regulations and joint planning. Land Use Goal LUP-10.2 Encourage a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory enviromnent that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction, Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning, (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow compliance with state law and allow state-licensed recreational marijuana businesses to locate within the Spokane Valley while separating such uses from identified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future residential uses. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-2014-0002 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. Page 3 of 4 D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria, recommends approval of the regulations for the production, processing, and retail sales of state-licensed recreational marijuana. Page 4 of 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CTA-2014-0002 June 26,2014 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. Background: 1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28,2007. 2. CTA-2014-0002 is a City-initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to amend SVMC 19.120 and Appendix A and adopt SVMC 19.85 to provide definitions and regulations for the zoning and buffering of production, processing, and retail sales of state-licensed recreational marijuana. 3. The Planting Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on Jutie 26, 2014 and voted four to zero to recommend approval of the amendment to City Council. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F)Approval Criteria a. The proposed City-initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): LUP-1.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning, LUP-1.2: Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent noir-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Land Use Goal LUP-10.2: Encourage a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective,and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's Iand use regulations and joint planning. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Finding(s): i. Since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana as a Schedule I drug,based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a"high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14(2005), Controlled Substance Act(CSA), 84 Stat. 1242,21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ii. On November 6, 2012,voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative Measure No.502(I- 502),now codified in chapters 69.50,46.04,46.20,46.21, and 46.61 Revised Code of Washington (RCW),which provisions, (A) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (B)amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana;and(C)established a regulatory system licensing producers,processors,and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older,and required the Washington State Liquor Control Board(the LCB)to adopt procedures and criteria by December 1,2013 for issuing licenses to produce,process,and sell marijuana. iii. On August 29,2013,the United States Department of Justice issued a memo providing updated guidance on marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of 1-502. Several ongoing federal enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime and preventing distribution of marijuana to minors. Further,the memo provided that the Department would not seek ongoing prosecution of marijuana providers, users, and local officials in states that authorized marijuana, provided that those state and local governments"implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety,public health, and other law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice." iv. On October 16,2013,the LCB adopted rules pertaining to the licensing of marijuana producers, processors, and retailers, as set forth in chapter 314-55 Washington Administrative Code (WAC). v. Pursuant to the rules established in chapter 314-55 WAC,the LCB opened a 30-day application period and is currently processing and approving license applications received for marijuana producer,processor, and retailer licenses. vi. Pursuant to RCW 69.50.331(8)and WAC 314-55-050(10),the LCB is prohibited from licensing any marijuana producers,processors, and retailers within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of the grounds of any elementary or secondary school,playground,recreation center or facility,child care center, public park, excluding trails,public transit center, library, or any game arcade admission to which is not restricted to persons aged twenty-one years or older. vii. Pursuant to SVMC 19.20.050, City staff made an administrative interpretation and determination based on similar current permitted uses to permit licensed marijuana producers in light industrial and heavy industrial zones and for indoor-only production in regional commercial and community commercial zones. viii. Pursuant to SVMC 19.20.050, City staff made an administrative determination based on similar current permitted uses to permit licensed marijuana processors in light industrial and heavy industrial zones. ix. Pursuant to SVMC 19.20.050,City staff made an administrative determination based on similar current permitted uses to permit licensed marijuana retailers in mixed use center,corridor mixed use, community commercial,and regional commercial zones. x: The Planning Commission finds and determines that the Centennial.Trail and proposed Appleway Trail are trails that are and will be regularly used by the citizens of the City, including minors,and Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of ATTACHMENT A adopting the regulations identified in CTA-2014-0002 will be consistent with the identified federal enforcement priorities and especially in preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors. xi. Pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution,the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to"make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws,"which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City. xii. On January 16, 2014, the Washington Attorney General issued Attorney General Opinion No. 2, in which he stated that"[a]lthough Initiative 502(I-502)establishes a licensing and regulatory system for marijuana producers,processor,and retailers in Washington State,it includes no clear indication that it was intended to preempt local authority to regulate such businesses. We therefore conclude that 1-502 left in place the normal powers of local governments to regulate within their jurisdictions." xiii: On February 11,2014 the City Council adopted interim development regulations for the production,processing and retail sales of marijuana. On April 25, 2014 the City Council amended the interim regulations to include buffers for vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public schools and library districts. The interim regulations expire on August 11,2014. xiv. The Planning Commission finds and determines that I-502 does not preempt the City of Spokane Valley from exercising and administering its constitutional and statutory land use regulatory authority to allow and regulate land uses within the City limits. xv. Modifications to the recreational marijuana buffers and zoning established in SVMC 19.85 will continue to protect the City's citizens,including minors,and will be consistent with the identified federal enforcement priorities and especially in preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors. xvi. The proposed amendment will allow compliance with state law and allow state-licensed recreational marijuana businesses to locate within the Spokane Valley while separating such uses from identified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future residential uses. xvii. The Planning Commission finds that the land use limitations and buffering requirements established by CTA-2014-0002 are necessary for the preservation of the public health,public safety, public property and public peace. 2. Conclusion(s): a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. b. The Growth Management Act stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Recommendations: • The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt SVMC 19.85 and approve the proposed City-initiated code text amendments to SVMC Appendix A and SVMC 19.120. Approved_this 26r1(lay of June,2014 / y it >.up. •- Christina Carls ,Vice Chairman ATTEST Y --(14-1/Mafhaiki Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 DRAFT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, June 26,2014 Vice Chair Carlsen called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms.Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson John Holtman, Community Development Director Christina Carlsen Cary Driskell, City Attorney Robert McCaslin,Absent Excused Lori Barlow,Senior Planner Mike Phillips Christina Janssen,Planner Steven Neill,Absent,Excused Tadas Kisielius, Special Council Joe Stoy,Absent-Excused Deanna Horton, Secretary Sam Wood Hearing no objections, Commissioners McCaslin, Neill and Stoy were excused from the meeting. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 26, 2014 amended agenda. Motion passed four to zero. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 12, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed,four to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Phillips and Wood reported they attended the June 24, 2014 City Council meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Mr. Hallman welcomed new Commissioner Sam Wood. Mr. Hohman also discussed the Planning Commission advanced agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Public Hearing Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Amendment CTA-2014-0002. Vice Chair Carlsen opened the public hearing at 6:27 p.m. City Attorney Cary Driskell gave an overview of Initiative 502, (I-502) regarding the regulations adopted by the state for the producing, processing and retail sales of recreational marijuana. He said the state law 1-502 decriminalized the use and possession for recreational use, established a regulatory system for licensing producers, processors and retailers and named the Washington State Liquor Control Board(WSLCB) as the governing authority for these regulations. The federal administration has determined it will not interfere with states who have voted to legalize recreational use of marijuana as long as those states can govern it appropriately. Mr. Driskell stated the Attorney General issued an opinion in January of 2014 that determined that 1-502 contains no clear indication it was intended to preempt local authority to regulate recreational marijuana. On February 11, 2014 the City adopted interim regulations governing recreational marijuana. Interim regulations are only good for six months and then permanent regulations need to be adopted. The interim regulations follow the state regulations, however the City determined it would be appropriate to buffer the Centennial Trail and the proposed Appleway Trail along with any vacant and undeveloped public school land and library property. The interim regulations will expire in August 2014, so the final regulations need to be adopted prior to the interim regulations expiring. Staff identified some issues with the interim regulations. The buffer for the Centennial Trail extended to industrial properties on the north side of the river, which could be used for processing and growing. Also staff considered that processing included a variety of activities from just bagging the raw marijuana to complex chemical extractions. After reviewing the processing options, it may be appropriate to allow for the bagging only in zones other than industrial. On April 22, 2014 Council adopted amendments to the interim regulations. 06-12-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 DRAFT The current interim regulations are: • Allow Recreational Marijuana Production in CC,RC, and both Industrial zones; but in CC and RC zones, only indoor grow operations are allowed. • Allow Recreational Marijuana Processing in CC, RC and both Industrial zones; but in CC and RC zones, only packaging and labeling of useable marijuana is allowed. • Allow Recreational Marijuana Retail Sales in MUC, CMU, CC, and RC zones;provide buffers from Centennial Trail and Appleway Trail. • Buffer all Recreational Marijuana from undeveloped public school and public library property. The proposed amendments would: • Mirror Existing Interim Regulations. • Amend Appendix A-Definitions: Add definitions for Marijuana processing,production, and sales. • Adopt SVMC 19.85: Development regulations for the processing,production and sales of Marijuana. • Amend SVMC 19.120,050-Permitted use matrix to include Marijuana uses. Ms. Christina Janssen then explained that the amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)would be under Chapter 19.85. She explained the def-tuitions would be in Appendix A, where all the definitions for the SVMC are located. In the Permitted Use matrix,marijuana production would be listed under Agriculture and Animals,Processing would be listed under light industrial, and retail sales would be listed under the retail sales section. All of these listings have a reference to the code section for more information. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City would be issuing a license for the marijuana Mr. Hohman explained the City does not issue a business license, only an endorsement, The State would be handling all of the licensing requirements. Commissioner Carlsen asked if the City would be able to approve who would be receiving a license. Mr. Hohman said the City can register an objection with the state, and we believe they are taking those objections into account, however the City does not have any approving authority regarding who will receive a license. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a Iist of who had received a Iicense. Mr. Hohman explained it was a dynamic process with many people inquiring, two to three a day, about the different aspects of starting each type of license on a regular basis. Having no one who wished to testify, Commissioner Carlsen closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CTA-2014-0002 to the City Council. Commissioner Phillips stated he was opposed to any use of marijuana, and even opposed to voting in favor of these regulations. He said he would vote for it, however he would rather not have any marijuana in the City. Commissioner Wood said he understood Commissioner Phillips statement, but felt there were good buffers in place for the uses. Commissioner Carlsen said she feels the City has made a good attempt with the regulations laid out for the legalized uses, and the buffers will protect future uses. Commissioner Anderson voiced lie felt the regulations were approving where legal operations would be allowed. He said he felt the legislature would be changing the rules because people did not vote on infused products. Motion passed four to zero. B. Deliberations Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP),Draft Regulations. Senior Planner Lori Barlow stated that Mr. Kisielius was present to assist with guidance for a couple of items which staff needed direction before bringing back the Planning Commission draft of the regulations for review. Ms. Barlow handed out the comment matrix,which she offered had a response to each of the comments received at the public hearing along with a letter received 06-12-14 Planning Conunission Minutes Page 2 of 4 DRAFT from the Department of Ecology (DOE). Commissioner Anderson asked if the letter from DOE was appropriate after the close of the public hearing. Mr. Kisielius responded that DOE had a special role in the Shoreline Master Program. As the approving agency and a partner in the regulations, they have the authority and ability to provide more input than would normally be allowed in other circumstances. The Commissioners reviewed the comment matrix and changes were noted. Ms. Barlow said that at the last meeting, the question was asked how many privately owned parcels and structures would be impacted by the buffers, After an analysis, there were 92 privately owned parcels that would be impacted. Only 30 of those parcels would be impacted greater than one to two feet, 30 would be impacted by one to two feet and only two structures would be impacted. Those parcels impacted greater than one to two feet, the buffer might go up to the property line, but residential uses do not have a setback so it would have little effect on the property. The two structures which have been impacted are located on the north side of the river, on Kaiser property, which are pump houses. The buffers in the Orchard Avenue area have not changed, a straight 50 feet, which is the same as what it was before, The buffer in the Coyote Rock area is a straight 75 feet. Other areas will have a buffer which will follow the Shoreline Vegetation Report. 21.50.030(D) DOE is asking to have the language changed to state that the director will consult with DOE. "Shall"will be inserted for"will" and the change will be made. 21.50.110(F) DOE would like the whole definition from the WAC used.The definition will be updated. 21.50.110(0) Amending to update the new threshold for replacement docks, from $10,000 to $20,000. 21.50.260(B)(2)(c) DOE is asking for standards for paths and trails. Standards will be added to the regulations. 21.50.340(B)(2) will modify this section to remove the reference to permanent in-stream structures not impeding normal ground and surface water. Also, Table 21.50-2 will be changed to allow groins and weirs as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the environments which allow in- stream structures. 21.50.430, where docks will be allowed on the river. There has been considerable discussion by both user groups about where docks should be allowed on the river. Ms. Barlow pointed out the standards for allowing docks and said they are not allowed in free flowing portions of the river. DOE and Futurewise both commented that the regulations should state specifically where docks will be allowed. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners the City would not be the only reviewing agency in regard to docks on the river and that there are more stringent regulations from some of the other agencies. Mr. Holtman commented that lie and Mr. Driskell had taken a tour of the river and the river at Coyote Rock is very shallow and the red band trout do indeed like to live in this area, as well as their predators. According to SVMC motorized boats are allowed to the Centennial Trail Bridge. Mr. Holtman said additional analysis should be required to have a dock at the location of the Coyote Rock area because previously two docks had been placed in this area and they had come loose and floated down the river. There are safety issues with a dock based on the structure of the river, such as the need to have a longer dock to get to a depth needed for a boat, and the problem of rafters running into the dock. The decision is to allow docks in the Orchard Avenue Area; and to allow docks in the Coyote Rock area provided the dock meets set criteria and shows that structural and habitat issues are addressed, and the dock must also meet the permitting regulations of all other required agencies. One of the options to address this issue will be some type of regulation regarding joint use/community docks. 21.50.480(C)(4)(a) request to modify Ianguage to say "legally constructed existing irrigation and drainage ditches..." This will be modified. 06-12-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 DRAFT 21.50.510(B)will add"consistent with appropriate state and federal guidelines." 21.50.510(D)(f)(i) Commissioner Anderson said he had an issue with the language because it seemed there is a changing time line for monitoring the compensatory mitigation. Mr. Kisielius noted he would have the consultant biologist Noah Herlocker review the language. 21.50,520(C)(1)will modify to remove the exception for category III and IV wetlands. 21.50.520(E)(1)(c)(v)will remove the "or." 21.580.310 will wait to see how the language is drafted in regard to docks and then determine how to proceed. 21.50,420 modify to acknowledges the Department of Natural Resources has jurisdiction over projects on state owned land. 21.50.430 will be a place holder waiting on piers and dock language to be coming soon. Avista requested less stringent regulations from the City to perform maintenance duties around their power lines. City staff is not recommending any changes based on their request, but suggests a new foot note to the table 21.50-1 to clarify conditions when a Letter of Exemption would be required. Ms. Barlow said she felt the current allowances in the proposed regulations would take care of a majority of the maintenance work. Anything greater would require a permit and the City would like the ability to review any major work, 21.50.110(L)(4) Commissioner Anderson asked about this section and Avista having this section deleted. Staff stated after Avista explained the project, it could be determined it would not be necessary, however the language is from the WAC (Washington Administrativ Code) and it would be necessary depending on the project to require the Shoreline Development Permit or the surety bond. Commissioner Carlserr moved to extend the meeting to 9:15 p.rrt., motion passed four to zero. Staff is not recommending any changes based on Futurewise's comments except those which have already been addressed by DOE, Staff will be returning at the next meeting with a marked up version of the draft regulations for the Planning Commission's review. C. Findings of Fact for Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) Amendment CTA-2014-0002. The Commission reviewed the findings for CTA-2014-0002, Marijuana regulations. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Commission's Findings of Fact for CTA-2014- 0002. Vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against, motion passed. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners welcomed Mr. Wood to their group. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Christina Carlsen, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 06-12.14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 22, 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: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-009 granting a telecommunications franchise to Noel Communications, Inc. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: This proposed franchise agreement with Noel Communications, Inc. (Noel), would grant a non-exclusive franchise to construct, maintain, and operate telecommunication facilities within the public rights-of-way of the City. Noel does not currently have any fiber optic facilities in the rights-of-way. This agreement would grant a franchise for a period of 10 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below the public rights-of-way and public places located in the City, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise. Similar to other franchises with private utility companies, the City would collect no fee from this agreement. The cost of any new construction or maintenance of Noel's facilities shall be solely Noel's expense. The City would require Noel to maintain insurance through the entire period of this agreement. The City will publish at Noel's cost a copy of a summary of the franchise in the newspaper following adoption prior to it becoming effective. Staff recommends approval of the proposed franchise. OPTIONS: (1) advance to a second reading, with or without modifications; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to advance Ordinance 14-009 granting a telecommunications franchise to Noel Communications, Inc., to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 14-009 granting a telecommunications franchise to Noel Communications, Inc. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 14-009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON,GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO NOEL COMMUNICATIONS,INC.TO CONSTRUCT,MAINTAIN AND OPERATE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service"; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body,nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective"; and WHEREAS,this Ordinance has been submitted to the city attorney prior to its passage;and WHEREAS,the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "City Manager"means the City Manager or designee. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging, excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility. "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 1 of 14 DRAFT "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). "maintenance,maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "overbuilding" shall mean adding additional fiber capacity to an existing conduit housing fiber optic cable. "overlashing" shall mean the act of lashing new fiber optic cable to an existing aerial fiber optic cable. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit by the permitting authority. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights-of-way. "product" shall refer to the item,thing or use provided by the Grantee. "public property" shall mean any real estate or any facility owned by the City. "Public Works Director" shall mean the Spokane Valley Public Works Director or his/her designee. "relocation" shall mean any required move or relocation of an existing installation or equipment owned by Grantee whereby such move or relocation is necessitated by installation, improvement, renovation or repair of another entity's facilities in the rights- of-way,including Grantor's facilities. "right-of-way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above, and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City. "streets" or "highways" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, road, alley or highway, within the City used or intended to be used by the general public,to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean any of the plant, equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, and other facilities necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services, including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables, communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to remove the same from this definition. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation(hereinafter the "City"),hereby grants unto Noel Communications, Inc. (hereinafter "Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 10 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 2 of 14 DRAFT install, construct, operate, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications facilities in,under, on, across, over,through, along or below the public rights-of-way and public places located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). This franchise does not permit Grantee to use such facilities to provide cable services as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(ff). Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise,if any,between the parties. Section 4. City Use. The following provisions shall apply regarding City use. 1. Grantee agrees to reserve to the City the right to access four dark fiber strands (two pair) along the route identified in Exhibit A as adopted or amended, within the boundaries of the City, for sole and exclusive municipal, non-commercial use or designation (the "City Reserved Fibers"). City agrees that it shall not use the City Reserved Fibers as a public utility provider of telecommunications business service to the public. 2. The City has the right to access by connection to the City Reserved Fibers at existing Grantee splice points or reasonably established access points within the City limits; provided that all splicing shall be sole responsibility of the Grantee. The City shall provide at least 30 days' written notice of intent to access the City Reserved Fibers. Upon any access or use of the City Reserved Fibers, City shall pay Grantee a recurring monthly charge of$20.00 per fiber pair per mile in use by the City (the "City Fiber Rate") unless otherwise specifically agreed by both the parties in writing and shall negotiate and enter into a "Fiber License Agreement" which shall govern the terms and conditions for use of the City Reserved Fibers, except cost, which is set forth herein. Said recurring monthly charge shall not be imposed until such time as the fiber is put into use by the City. 3. In the event the City Reserved Fibers are the last fibers remaining in Grantee's fiber bundle,then the following shall apply: A. If the City is using the fibers,then the rate the City shall pay Grantee will change from the City Fiber Rate to Grantee's standard commercial rate. B. If the City is not using the fibers,the City shall have the option of abandoning the City Reserved Fibers in lieu of paying Grantee's standard commercial rate. If Grantee installs additional fiber capacity, the City's right to use four dark fiber stands as set forth in subsections 1 and 2,immediately above, shall again be in effect. 4. All access, interconnection and maintenance to and on the City Reserved Fibers shall be performed by Grantee. The City shall pay all costs associated with such work to the City Reserved Fibers. The City Reserved Fibers shall have a term that matches the duration of this franchise Ordinance. 5. Consistent with and subject to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way, the Public Works Director may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost,necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal,non-commercial purposes. Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 3 of 14 DRAFT A. The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. B. This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. C. Grantee shall notify the Public Works Director at least 14 days' prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non-Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights- of-way. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights-of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non-Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of- way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of the Grantee, unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the Public Works Director's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities,public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of the Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to the Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes, wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities,the Grantee shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations,laws and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision,condition, and quality of the work done,whether it is by itself or by contractors,assigns or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 4 of 14 DRAFT Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done,whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan,to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise,the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and(2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro-rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. The Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at the Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. The Grantee shall, within 30 days of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency 24-hour on-call personnel and the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to immediately respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event the Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property and the Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 12. One-Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122,Grantee is responsible for becoming familiar with, and understanding, the provisions of Washington's One-Call statutes. Grantee shall comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the One-Call statutes. Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities for Others. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, Grantee, upon at least 14 days' written notice from the City, shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided, that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities, as determined by the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee,the City may require more than 14 days' notice to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way,or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, the Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 5 of 14 DRAFT whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take all necessary actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions,or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action,the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, adjacent public or private property,or street utilities,or to maintain the lateral support thereof,and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare; and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent caused by Grantee. Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind,whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise,or be caused by,or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws,rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee,whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060,provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then- existing telecommunications facilities,the City shall: a) At least 60 days prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; and b) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 6 of 14 DRAFT facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project. c) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications, Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 (2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section. The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated or maintained facilities,provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee,then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre-removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility; (b)the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c) the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights-of-way; or (d) the abandoned facility has collapsed,broke,or otherwise failed. Grantee may delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b)or(d) above applies. When(b)or(d) applies,Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of-way as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs,including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 7 of 14 DRAFT Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City,at no cost to the City: 1. A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types,number of fibers or cables, electronic equipment, and service lines to individual subscribers. The Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System ("GIS") program. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1,annually. 2. In connection with the construction of any City project,Grantee shall provide to the City,upon the City's reasonable request,copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. 3. Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area.The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1,annually. 4. In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section,the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. 5. Public Disclosure Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Disclosure Act codified in RCW 42.56. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide the Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non-disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non-disclosure,the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, the Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then-adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the Public Works Director that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 8 of 14 DRAFT herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any telecommunications facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Municipal Code and this franchise,City Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. Any relocation of telecommunications facilities resulting from a street vacation shall require a minimum of 180 days' notice as provided in section 37. Section 27. Indemnification. 1. Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: a) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; b) By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; c) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights-of-ways or other public property; d) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control, pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; e) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right-of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise; or Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 9 of 14 DRAFT f) Based upon radio frequency emissions or radiation emitted from Grantee's equipment located upon the facility,regardless of whether Grantee's equipment complies with applicable federal statutes and/or FCC regulations related thereto. 2. Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. 3. Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. 4. In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter),to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees, the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. 5. Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents,employees,or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. 6. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City-owned property from activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to,business interruption damages and lost profits,brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City,its officers, agents,employees or contractors. Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 10 of 14 DRAFT 7. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its agents,representatives or employees. Applicant's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned, non-owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under the Applicant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured-State or Political Subdivisions-Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury,bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground(XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. The Grantee's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled, except after 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the City. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements,including the additional insured endorsement,evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City,its officers,officials,employees or volunteers. Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 11 of 14 DRAFT Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall,upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed $25,000, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets,or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given Grantee by the City under the provisions of this franchise, and an adequate opportunity to cure the violation or non-compliance has been given in writing to Grantee, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect,in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City to, any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee,by merger, sale,consolidation or otherwise. Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, the Grantee must accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60-day period, absolutely cease,unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause or Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 12 of 14 DRAFT phrase of this Ordinance. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated by the City. Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified,in writing: The City: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Grantee: Noel Communications,Inc. Attn: Contracts Manager 901 E. Pitcher Street Yakima,WA 98901 Phone: (509) 575-4780 Facsimile: (509)457-5008 Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts,in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 39. Non-Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance,nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 13 of 14 DRAFT PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2014. Mayor, Dean Grafos ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Accepted by Noel Communications,Inc.: By: The Grantee, Noel Communications, Inc., for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has signed this day of_ 2014. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of ,2014. Notary Public in and for the State of residing in My commission expires Ordinance 14-009 Noel Communications,Inc.Telecommunications Franchise Page 14 of 14 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 22, 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: 2014 TIB Call for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: June 24, 2014; Adoption of 2015-2020 Six Year TIP and July 8, 2014; Info RCA; Admin Report, July 15, 2014. BACKGROUND: The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) issued a 2014 Call for Projects on May 30, 2014 for allocation of funding for the Urban Arterial Program (UAP) and Urban Sidewalk Program (SP). Approximately $75M is available statewide for funding the UAP, a decrease of about 11% from 2013 and $5M for the SP, for no change from 2013. The anticipated regional funding levels have decreased to $8.3M from $9.3M from last year for UAP for the Northeast Region; and remain the same as last year, $1.1M for the East Region SP program. Project applications are due Friday, August 22, 2014. At the March 2013 board meeting, the TIB adopted new criteria to evaluate grant applications for urban agency construction projects. Criteria were redeveloped to make a stronger connection to statewide transportation priorities and with the intent of giving agencies clearer guidelines for competitive projects. The scoring is performed in bands that emphasize Safety, Growth and Development, Physical Condition, and Mobility. Previously, a project would need to score well across several categories in order to rank well. The effect of averaging scores sometimes meant that the top projects in a single category (like safety or growth and development) were not selected. Under the new criteria, a project that scores well in a particular category such as congestion relief or accident prevention/mitigation can now score well enough to be selected. Staff has evaluated the TIB grant criteria and worked to identify projects that will have the highest potential to receive funding. We have also reviewed the adopted 2015-2020 Six Year TIP, the Pavement Management Program, accident hot-spots, and other elements of the City's transportation network. Based on this evaluation, staff recommends the following preliminary list of projects for submitting to TIB for the 2014 Call for Projects. UAP Projects: 1. University, 161 to Dishman Mica: This will be a pavement preservation project with an opportunity to restripe the existing roadway from a 4 to 3 lane street, providing one lane in each direction and a center-turn-lane from 16th Avenue south to Dishman Mica Road. Current traffic volumes of 5,300 vehicles per day in the new 3 lane section will be a LOS (Level of Service) A; 2040 traffic models for the City show the future volume to be 5,900 vehicles per day and remain a LOS A. New bike lanes will be installed from 16th to 32nd Avenue along University Road to comply with the guidance shown in the City's "Recommended Bikeway Network" plan. University Road is an ideal location for bike lanes. University Road connects the southwest section of the City to the proposed Appleway Trail, the Spokane Valley Transit Center, and commercial and retail businesses along Sprague Avenue. On the south end, University Road connects to 32nd Avenue, allowing bikes good east-west access across the southern portion of the City. This project should score well because it offers enhancements in Safety and Mobility and the street is a prime candidate to meet the TIB Physical Conditions criteria. 2. Sullivan, Sprague to 81' Avenue: Sullivan Road south of Sprague has high traffic volumes and the asphalt surface has come to the end of its useful life. Any further deterioration will affect the structure of the road. This project will mill and inlay about three inches of asphalt. Also, between 4th and 8th Avenues on the west side of Sullivan Road, a new sidewalk will be installed. This new sidewalk completes a gap between the existing sidewalk at the signalized intersection at 8th Avenue across from the high school to sidewalks both east and north at 4th Avenue, meeting the City of Spokane Valley's Street Standards. This sidewalk will better serve pedestrians along this busy arterial who live, work, go to school, and shop in this mixed-use area. This area of the City serves high and low density residential, a high school, and commercial/retail businesses. 3. McDonald — 16th to Mission Avenues: Currently, McDonald is a four-lane road from Sprague north to Mission Avenue. South of Sprague, McDonald is a two-lane road to 16th Avenue. This project will restore the pavement using a mill and thin inlay. McDonald Road is designated as a road with bike lanes in the "Recommended Bikeway Network" plan. Once the road has been repaved, the section north of Sprague will be restriped from a four-lane to a three-lane section with bike lanes. Today, the daily traffic north of Sprague is 7,100 vehicles and with the three lane it will operate at a LOS B. In 2040, daily traffic volumes are predicted to be about 8,500 vehicles. The 2040 level of service will remain a LOS B. McDonald Road south of Sprague is a two lane roadway with adequate width already to stripe bicycle lanes. The TIB Board has made increases in sidewalk funding over the past three years in an effort to fund more complete streets and benefit sidewalk projects. While the total funding available is still not significant, staff feels that the City has a good candidate in the 32nd Avenue, SR-27 to Evergreen project. SP Projects: 1. 3211 - SR-27 to Evergreen: This project will address pedestrian access across SR-27 and 32nd Avenue by providing sidewalks, barrier free accessibility across the highway, and sidewalks to three transit stops along 32nd Avenue. Currently, on the north side of the roadway pedestrians are forced to walk along the narrow shoulder between traffic and a guard rail. This project serves several residential and commercial developments and connects to recent improvements along Evergreen Road. TIB has placed an emphasis this year on using recycled materials in projects they help fund. Staff is investigating recycled pavement techniques, warm mix applications, etc. that can be used in an urban environment that will provide a quality project and a long life. All proposed projects will be evaluated to see if these technologies can be used. OPTIONS: 1) Approve the list of recommended projects for TIB grant applications as presented, 2) Revise the list of projects for TIB grant applications, or 3) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize staff to proceed with applying for TIB grants for the four projects listed above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City's match on TIB funded projects is typically 20% of the total project cost. As the proposed TIB applications are developed, staff will coordinate with the Finance Department to ensure there are sufficient City funds to provide the needed match for the proposed TIB projects. Right-of-way is not an eligible cost for sidewalk projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric P. Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Project Maps ' 16TH' _4 ' 1111111W All ' 9" - -- _ .., Ii F c' 0 .moi®! im 'v : ,,Ij 19TH = 7 ®! u \ e �1!' �, T PROJECT z LOCATION 0 '' � 22ND CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY i Lr 1 , I r r RW RW t 1 P: "1 A '' . BBL LANE TWLTL LANE BBL PROPOSED I, I SW LANE LANE LANE LANE SW EXISTINC Z 1' UNIVERSITY AVE 32ND AVE TO 16TH AVE TYPICAL SECTION Q '` Mr NTS RW RW 23 N LANE TWLTL LANE f !i y r PROPOSED • 1 5W LANE LANE l ANI LANE SW EXISTING I i UNIVERSITY AVE DISHMAN MICA TO 32ND AVE 0 TYPICAL SECTION c �. NTS Cit1, 600;; �y� ' 32ND Spokane ' I Valleys ., It 1 B 1• r UNIVERSITY : 1 DISHMAN MICA TO 16TH AVE -"•i;, f TWLTL = TWO WAY LEFT TURN LANE TIB 1 ,l ' SW = SIDEWALK DRAWN BY: DATE: i`, - BBL = BUFFERED BIKE LANE, RW = RIGHT OF WAY MJH 7/15/2014 35TH NIS CHECKED BY: DATE: RJW 7/15/2014 PROPOSED 5' EXISTING R/rr SIDEWALK 8TH SIDEWALK R/tY AVE TO 4TH AVE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION 3 —11 2X_ 1 T,,re rtias87. - -- E. "I_ �— �- SULLIVAN RD SECTION - SPRAGUE_ f � f 6 ! • 1. Tf • "gyp - - '/ ' - II! .- _� k t _ F i•`-.. 5.':.4i4E 5.4ck r / " - 'i Ile Llia a...r f i } " r rpt ■ = re aa, �om■ I IA rr + rEmmignmimmEmm f - iii! *a 1 8amm a J I '/ . >I �, € / c I' I f4 ,, : 4. . , I. j t a 1 `' S'_ _ PROJECT ' 4TH LOCATION E ' ,, , I i,., CITY OF t I ` ` -' ` 1 I I I SPOKANE VALLEY u 1I ° 1 j '' i. - - - - - CITYOFPROPOSED i 1 nnn' 1r ne SIDEWALK �iliiiii ey CENTRAL VALLEY "1 HIGH�SCHOO�. 1 t � i I t SULLIVAN `, III1 SPRAGUE TO 8TH AVE t i i d7 _ TIB 8TH DRAWN BY: DATE: :1 MJH 7/15/2014 3 NOT TO SCALE CHECKED BY: DATE: 1 RJW 7/15/2014 MISSION PROJECT . LOCATION r - , __ I nv.'s ' II-ImmiZmfti ' 11 i.„ • '9 , All: rmi {I M k Illiiiiiii 11 a : Iii ll II CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY I.I L . BROADWAY BL LANE TWLTL LANE BL , 11 111 !'� [ _ �I , PROPOSED 11 " ' ' SW LANE LANE LANE LANE SW { -- .-L4 ,_i_. 1-1 •-"-• EXISTING ANSECTION lipNTS MILL AND INLAY ff A '' BL LANE LANE BL : --N- . - PROPOSED 1t ' I J SW LANE LANE SW I. �:, •J .I4 I. EXISTING 1 .SPRAGUE ' ` , iii..� SECTION t 1 _ I 4 �� NTS MILL AND INLAY 1 1 , 1',I PAVEMENT PRESERVATION Spokane 40,01FValley I , McDONALD ROAD ' 1., . ' , I. I TWLTL = TWO WAY LEFT TURN LANE I I I' I SW - SIDEWALKI MISSION TO 16TH AVE B DL = DIKE LANE J TIB BRAWN BY: DATE: �� MJH 7/15/2014 + 16TH AVE `' '" 1 NOT TO SCALE CHECKED BY: DATE: RJW 7/15/2014 2' r ''—"...)1 .rr% R/W TYPE 's nr r "B" CURB .ax�E inKW m - PROPOSED nam - m w w•��� I 5' ROADWAY EXISTING �� SIDEWALK VARIES ROADWAY MT[MSTA-,C -� ME • 6 YL•',n-. AIK GMOtIupr . «.y . ... a .e4S1� - q tltl mc 3 > w i 1 2% {�rxk � n CITY OF � `� — J '7{ c�7:66. SPOKANE VALLEY - - , " Y 32ND AVE 32ND AVE - SIDEWALK SECTION SR-27 TO EVERGREEN. - - . . 1 " APARTMENTS Q ..: NOT TO SCALE . COMMERCIAL CENTER- - _ _- - - — _ "_� �� 32ND AVEC _ _ _ _. — _ ..__. ...- __ . _ ._ _ - _ SNAP rA,ll ° BANK FITNESS " v1--411- BUS STOP BUS STOPS TO UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL 32ND AVE SIDEWALK N w SR-27 TO EVERGREEN e —-. TIB e s _. .: asst r DRAWN BY: DATE: G ALBERTSONS 4 ,,: * -• MJH 7/15/2014 _ .. ,� :_ �.__.. ._...,._. CHECKED BY: DATE: 2 RJW 7/15/2014 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 22, 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: WSDOT Interlocal Agreement— Traffic Operations and Maintenance GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: WSDOT signal and illumination maintenance contract approval in 2003 and contract renewal in 2009; WSDOT intelligent transportation systems (ITS) contract maintenance contract in 2008, Info memo on WSDOT Interlocal Agreement, July 8, 2014, Admin report on WSDOT Interlocal Agreement, July 15, 2014. BACKGROUND: The City first signed a contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to maintain traffic signals and street lighting along Trent Avenue (SR 290) and along Pines Road (SR 27) in 2003. The contract did not include provisions for adding new traffic signals or for increasing the maintenance costs to adjust for inflation, nor did it include overhead charges. This contract was then renewed in 2009 (WSDOT contract number GM-01508) which accounted for inflation and overhead charges as well as minor revisions to the scope of work. The City then signed a contract with WSDOT for intelligent transportation systems (ITS) maintenance in 2008 (WSDOT contract number K237). The purpose of this new interlocal agreement is to combine the maintenance contracts for traffic signals, illumination, and ITS devices into one agreement. City traffic engineering staff maintains close communication and coordination with WSDOT maintenance staff for routine and emergency maintenance, as well as new installation and upgrades to traffic signal, street lighting, and ITS equipment. The services will remain the same. The new interlocal agreement will be a one (1) year contract automatically renewed on a calendar year basis expiring in 2024. OPTIONS: 1) Approve the interlocal agreement with WSDOT, or 2) take other action as deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the WSDOT interlocal agreement for traffic operations and maintenance. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No change to yearly budget. STAFF CONTACT: Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer Eric Guth, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: New interlocal agreement (WSDOT contract number GMB 1044) GMB 1044 STATE MAINTENANCE OF CITY OWNED TRAFFIC SIGNALS, ILLUMINATION, AND INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS This Agreement is made and entered into between Washington State Department of Transportation, hereinafter the "STATE," and the City of Spokane Valley,hereinafter the "CITY," collectively referred to as "Parties," and individually, the "Party." WHEREAS, the CITY does not have sufficient staff and adequate equipment to perform the work described herein, and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2009, the CITY and STATE entered into Agreement GM-01508, which provided for STATE operation and maintenance of certain traffic signal systems (Signals) and illumination systems (Illumination) at city streets that intersect with State Route (SR) 290 and SR 27, and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2008, the CITY and STATE entered into Agreement K237, which provided for STATE operation and maintenance of certain city-owned Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) located on city streets, and WHEREAS, the CITY and STATE desire to combine the Agreements to meet current practices and update the estimated annual costs, and WHEREAS, the Parties have terminated K237 and will terminate Agreement GM-01508 upon execution of this Agreement which will provide for STATE operation and maintenance of the Signals, Illumination, and ITS now covered under Agreements GM-01508 and K237 and any future signal, illumination, and ITS additions or deletions, including repair or replacement of existing signal, illumination, ITS, as well as supplemental work, and WHEREAS, it would be to the mutual benefit of the STATE and the CITY for the STATE to perform the operation and maintenance of certain Signals, Illumination, and ITS to the extent set forth in this Agreement, and to establish, in writing, each Party's responsibility, NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to RCW 47.28.140, the above recitals that are incorporated herein as if fully set forth below, and in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performances contained herein, and the attached Exhibits A, B and C which are incorporated and made a part hereof, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. GENERAL 1.1 The STATE agrees to perform, at CITY expense, certain maintenance and operation activities on identified city-owned Signals, Illumination, and ITS as listed in Exhibit A. GMB 1044 Page 1 of 8 1.2 The CITY and STATE will meet as necessary to coordinate system changes and address maintenance and operations issues for certain city-owned Signals, Illumination, and ITS. The CITY shall retain ownership of said Signals, Illumination, ITS. The STATE will coordinate review of proposed modifications of these systems with the CITY prior to implementation, unless extraordinary circumstances require the STATE to modify such systems without the CITY's concurrence. In the event a condition exists resulting from storm damage, third party damage, or other extraordinary reasons, the STATE may remove any obvious and immediate traffic hazards before notifying the CITY. The STATE is responsible for implementing and maintaining necessary traffic control from the point at which the condition is identified, at CITY expense, until the CITY has had time to respond with its own traffic control after notification. 2. STATE RESPONSIBILITIES Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the STATE, at CITY expense, agrees to operate and maintain the Signals, Illumination, and ITS by performing the tasks following: 2.1 Provide Routine Maintenance and Operation: a. Signal phasing and timing plans and adjustments. The CITY's Public Works Director or designee shall review any proposed revision before signal timing or phasing is implemented. b. Removal and replacement of failed components (i.e. load switches, loop amplifiers, conflict monitors, etc.). The components installed by the STATE shall be furnished by the CITY, or the STATE may elect to furnish the components and be reimbursed by the CITY. c. Routine preventative maintenance Signal systems, including controller equipment (inside the controller cabinet) and display and detection equipment (including, but not limited to, signal heads, lamps, etc.) and the illumination, and ITS systems consistent with the STATE's current preventative maintenance standards. d. Maintain all associated Signals interconnects. e. Perform locates for underground infrastructure including ITS fiber optic cable and associated infrastructure. f. Maintain accurate maintenance records, as to the time and materials used in completing the various tasks for Signals, Illumination, and ITS. g. Day to day observation of camera and VMS sign operations and performance. h. Maintenance of communications end equipment located at each device location cabinet, communications end equipment located in shared use hub located on I-90 at Sprague Ave. Interchange, and communications end equipment located at Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center (SRTMC) transmitting/receiving video/data from ITS systems identified in Exhibit A. GMB 1044 Page 2 of 8 2.2 Provide Emergency Maintenance. Perform emergency maintenance at CITY expense for damage caused by accidents, vandalism, adverse weather or unanticipated forces or actions on the Signals, Illumination, and ITS. Emergency maintenance includes repair or replacement of Signals, Illumination, and ITS, or components thereof, and the necessary traffic control for STATE workers to perform the work. The STATE shall notify the CITY within twenty-four (24) hours of the emergency work and include any information the STATE may possess if the damage was caused by a third party. 2.3 Standards. Work to be performed by the STATE will be consistent with current STATE practices for the operation and maintenance of Signals, Illumination, and ITS, as follows: a. Components employed in Signals, Illumination, and ITS or any other electrical installation will conform to requirements of WAC 296-46B-010 General, Traffic Management Systems (15)-(22). b. The STATE shall document Signals, Illumination, and ITS work performed in Signal Maintenance Management records. The STATE will maintain the records for a period of three (3) years from the date the work was completed. 3. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 The CITY agrees to reimburse the STATE for the actual direct and related indirect costs of the work to be performed under this Agreement. 3.2 The CITY agrees to be responsible for the payment of operational power costs of all Signals, Illumination, and ITS covered by this Agreement. 3.3 The CITY shall provide maintenance, operation, repair and replacement work for the Signals, Illumination, and ITS that are not the responsibility of the STATE as defined under Section 2. 3.4 CITY shall be responsible for recovering the costs of damages caused by a third party pursuant to Section 2.2. 4. SUPPLEMENT: REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL/ILLUMINATION/INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 4.1 Supplement: Should the CITY request the STATE to perform work not otherwise covered by this Agreement, the STATE may agree to perform the extra work at CITY expense. In this event, the Parties will supplement this Agreement by describing the work and executing the Supplement as provided by Exhibit C. The CITY agrees to fill out the Supplement in the form of Exhibit C, sign the Supplement and provide it to the STATE. The STATE will review the request, and if it agrees to perform the extra work, the STATE will sign and number the Supplement, returning a copy to the CITY. 4.2 The CITY agrees, upon satisfactory completion of the work performed pursuant to a properly executed Supplement under Section 4.1 and receipt of a STATE Notice of Physical Completion of the work, to deliver a letter of acceptance which shall include a waiver and release of the GMB 1044 Page 3 of 8 STATE from all future claims or demands of any nature resulting from the performance of the repair or replacement work under the applicable Supplement. 4.3 Prior to Supplement work acceptance, the STATE and CITY will perform a joint final inspection. 4.4 If a letter of acceptance is not received by the STATE within ninety (90) days following the Notice of Physical Completion of the repair or replacement work, the work shall be considered accepted by the CITY, and the STATE shall then automatically be released from all future claims and demands of any nature resulting from the performance of the repair or replacement work under the Supplement. 4.5 The CITY may withhold acceptance of work by submitting written notification to the STATE within ninety (90) calendar days following the Notice of Physical Completion of the repair or replacement work. This notification shall include the specific reason(s) for withholding the acceptance. 5. AMENDMENT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL/ILLUMINATION/INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION ADDITION OR DELETION 5.1 Amendment. Exhibit A of this Agreement may be amended to add or delete city-owned Signals, Illumination, and ITS by the CITY completing and providing the Amendment to the STATE, using the form as provided by Exhibit B. The Amendment shall include, at a minimum, a description and location of the Signals, Illumination, and/or ITS to be added or deleted. The effective date of coverage or deletion shall be agreed to by the Parties and stated in the Amendment. 5.2 The Signals/Illumination/ITS Addition or Deletion Amendment shall be approved by STATE by the signature of the Assistant Region Administrator for Maintenance and Operations or designee. A request for additional work shall be in the STATE's sole discretion to accept. The CITY shall review the Amendment, associated Exhibit B Worksheet Bl, including the estimated costs and indicate concurrence by authorized signature, returning one copy of the Amendment with original signatures to the STATE. The STATE will provide to the CITY a revised Exhibit A valuation cost for the Signal, Illumination, and ITS after the costs have risen over ten percent(10%) of the original estimated costs or upon mutual agreement of the Parties. 5.3 A Signals, Illumination or ITS may be deleted from this Agreement at the sole discretion of the STATE upon thirty (30) days written notice to the CITY. 6. MODIFICATION 6.1 This Agreement may be amended or modified only by the mutual agreement of the Parties. Such amendments or modifications shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by persons authorized to bind each of the Parties. GMB 1044 Page 4 of 8 7. PAYMENT and RECORDS 7.1 The current estimated actual direct and related indirect costs of routine maintenance and operation under this Agreement is shown in Exhibit A. It is anticipated that the identified costs will rise in subsequent years as materials, wages and other costs increase. 7.2 The CITY agrees to reimburse the STATE for the actual direct and related indirect costs of work covered by this Agreement, including additional work provided for under Sections 2.2, 4, and 5, and including all Supplements to and/or Amendments of this Agreement. The STATE shall provide the CITY with a detailed invoice, and the CITY agrees to make payment within thirty (30) calendar days after the date of each invoice. 7.3 The CITY agrees that if it does not make payment within ninety (90) calendar days after the date of a STATE invoice, the STATE may deduct and expend any monies to which the CITY is entitled to receive from the Motor Vehicle Fund as provided by RCW 47.24.050. 7.4 During the progress of any and all work performed by the STATE, and for a period of not less than three (3) years from the date of payment to the STATE for that work, the records and accounts pertaining to said work and accounting therefore are to be kept available for inspection and audit by the CITY. 7.5 Upon request by the CITY, at CITY cost, copies of all records, accounts, documents, or other data pertaining to the work will be furnished. 7.6 If any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced, the records and accounts along with supporting documentation shall be retained until all litigation, claim or audit finding has been resolved even though such litigation, claim or audit continues past the three (3) year retention period. 7.7 In the event that it is determined that an overpayment has been made to the STATE by the CITY, the CITY will invoice the STATE for the amount of overpayment, including the records that support the overpayment. The STATE shall pay the CITY for any overbilling amount within thirty (30) calendar days after the STATE receives such billing from the CITY. The STATE agrees that if payment for overbilling is not made within ninety (90) calendar days after the STATE has been billed for any overbilling amount, the CITY may deduct any overbilled amount from progress payments due to the STATE until such overbilled amount is satisfied. 8. RIGHT OF ENTRY 8.1 The CITY grants the STATE a right of entry upon all city-owned right of way and/or property for the purpose of performing all work authorized under this Agreement and any Supplements and/or Amendments thereto. 9. TERM OF AGREEMENT GMB 1044 Page 5 of 8 9.1 The term of this Agreement shall be for up to one (1) year, beginning on the executed date, and ending on December 31 of that year. This Agreement shall automatically be renewed on a calendar year basis unless written notice of termination is given by either Party by the preceding November 1 of any such year. Failure of either Party to notify the other of such termination on or before November 1 of any such year shall cause this Agreement to automatically be renewed for the next ensuing calendar year. This Agreement renewal process shall expire in 2024. 9.2 Either the STATE or the CITY may terminate this Agreement for any reason with written notice to the other Party at the end of sixty (60) calendar days following receipt of notice. Termination of this Agreement shall constitute termination of all associated Signals, Illumination or ITS Supplements and/or Amendments. Upon such notice and except as set forth in Section 11 herein, the STATE and/or CITY shall have no further responsibility of any kind or nature regarding the city-owned Signals, Illumination or ITS, including any systems that were added to this Agreement by Amendment. 10. DISPUTES 10.1 The Parties shall work collaboratively to resolve disputes and issues arising out of, or related to this Agreement. Disagreements shall be resolved promptly and at the lowest level of hierarchy. To this end, following the dispute resolution process in Sections 10.1a through 10.1d shall be a prerequisite to the filing of litigation concerning any dispute between the Parties: a. The Representatives designated in this Agreement shall use their best efforts to resolve disputes and issues arising out of, or related to this Agreement. The Representatives shall communicate regularly to discuss the status of the tasks to be performed hereunder and to resolve any disputes or issues related to the successful performance of this Agreement. The Representatives shall cooperate in providing staff support to facilitate the performance of this Agreement and the resolution of any disputes or issues arising during the term of this Agreement. b. A Party's Representative shall notify the other Party in writing of any dispute or issue that the Representative believes may require formal resolution according to Section 10.1d. The Representatives shall meet within five (5) working days of receiving the written notice and attempt to resolve the dispute. c. In the event the Representatives cannot resolve the dispute or issue, the CITY Public Works Director, and the STATE's Eastern Region Administrator, or their respective designees, shall meet and engage in good faith negotiations to resolve the dispute. d. In the event the Parties cannot resolve the dispute or issue, the CITY and the STATE shall each appoint a member to a disputes board. These two members shall then select a third member not affiliated with either Party. The three member board shall conduct a dispute resolution hearing that shall be informal and unrecorded. All expenses for the third member of the dispute board shall be shared equally by both Parties; however, each Party shall be responsible for its own costs and fees. GMB 1044 Page 6 of 8 11. LEGAL RELATIONS 11.1 The Parties shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless each other and their employees and authorized agents, while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and /or awards of damages (both to persons and/or property), arising out of, or in any way resulting from, each Party's obligations to be performed pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The Parties shall not be required to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the other Party if the claim, suit, or action for injuries, death, or damages (both to persons and/or property) is caused by the negligence of the other Party; provided that, if such claims, suits, or actions result from the concurrent negligence of(a) the STATE, its employees or authorized agents and (b) the CITY, its employees or authorized agents, or involves those actions covered by RCW 4.24.115, the indemnity provisions provided herein shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of each Party, its employees and/or authorized agents. 11.2 Section 11.1 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 11.3 In the event that either Party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the Parties agree that any such action or proceedings shall be brought in the superior court situated in Thurston County, Washington. 11.4 All claims brought which arise out of, in connection with, or incident to the work to be performed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement will be forwarded to the CITY for initial processing. Any such claims believed to be caused by the concurrent or sole negligence of the STATE will be formally tendered to the Office of Financial Management/of Risk Management Division for processing pursuant to RCW 4.92.100. 12. AGREEMENT REPRESENTATIVES 12.1 The Parties have designated the following Representatives for all communications under this Agreement. CITY STATE Public Works Director Eastern Region Traffic Engineer 11707 East Sprague Avenue 2714 N. Mayfair St. City of Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Spokane,WA 99207-2090 509-720-5000 509-324-6550 13. WORKING DAYS 13.1 Working days for this Agreement are defined as Monday through Friday, excluding Washington State holidays per RCW 1.16.050. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Party's date last signed below. GMB 1044 Page 7 of 8 WASHINGTON STATE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: By: City Manager Larry Chatterton, Assistant Region Administrator for Maintenance and Operations Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM By: By: City Attorney Ann E. Salay, Assistant Attorney General Date: Date: GMB 1044 Page 8 of 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 22, 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: First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Development of Regional Center Projects. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 39.34, RCW 36.100.030(2), RCW 35.59, RCW 67.28. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report on July 15, 2014. BACKGROUND: In 2003, the City of Spokane Valley entered into the Interlocal Agreement for Development of Regional Center Projects (the "Interlocal Agreement") with the Spokane Public Facilities District (the "District") and Spokane County in which, among other things, the District agreed to cooperatively make certain distributions to the City towards financing of CenterPlace. In conjunction with the execution of the Interlocal Agreement, the City issued $9,430,000 of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (the "2003 LTGO Bonds") for the purpose of constructing CenterPlace and making necessary road and street improvements surrounding the facility. The CenterPlace portion of the project accounted for $7,000,000 of bonds issued at rates ranging from 2% to 5% that are to be repaid in 30 annual installments running from 2004 to 2033. The City makes the annual payment on this portion of the bond issue with distributions we receive semi- annually from the Spokane Public Facilities District. The outstanding balance on this portion of the 2003 LTGO Bond issue is currently $5,990,000. The City is currently in the process of refunding the 2003 LTGO Bonds, which will result in a savings to the City and reduction in the annual debt service payments. Accordingly, this will also result in a reduction in the amount of distributions required from the District. To allow for the reduction in payments, Bond counsel for the City has prepared a draft First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement that reflects the reduction in distributions required as a result of the City's refunding. OPTIONS: Move to approve the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Development of Regional Center Projects and authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment upon receipt of the Attachment to replace Exhibit C-2 which will occur after the bond pricing, currently anticipated to take place the week of August 11; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Development of Regional Center Projects in substantially the form as attached and authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment upon receipt of the Attachment to replace Exhibit C-2. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The First Amendment will result in a decrease in distributions from the PFD to the City. However, the decrease will correspond directly to the savings effected from the refunding of the 2003 LTGO Bonds, resulting in no net impact to the City's General Fund. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun and Erik Lamb ATTACHMENTS: Draft First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Development of Regional Center Projects OHS DRAFT DISTRIBUTED: 07/10/14 AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO: Angela Trout Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600 Seattle, Washington 98104 FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL CENTER PROJECTS Grantor(s): Spokane Public Facilities District Spokane County,Washington City of Spokane Valley,Washington Grantee(s): Spokane Public Facilities District Spokane County,Washington City of Spokane Valley,Washington Reference No. of Related Document: Interlocal Agreement for Development of Regional Center Projects Recording No. 4962628, Spokane County,WA FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL CENTER PROJECTS This First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Development of Regional Center Projects (the "First Amendment") is entered into this day of , 2014, by and among the SPOKANE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT (the "District"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington (the "State"); SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON (the "County"), a class A county duly organized and existing under the laws of the State; and the CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON (the "Valley City"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. The entities executing this First Amendment are each referred to below as a "Party," and are collectively referred to as the "Parties." Unless otherwise defined in this First Amendment, each capitalized term used in this First Amendment shall have the meaning given in the Agreement. RECITALS A. The District is authorized under RCW 36.100.030(1) to "acquire, construct, own, remodel, maintain, equip, reequip, repair and operate sports facilities, entertainment facilities, convention facilities or regional centers as defined in RCW 35.57.020, together with contiguous parking facilities." B. The Parties entered into an Interlocal Agreement for Development of Regional Center Projects, dated August 19, 2003 (as subsequently supplemented by the Approval and Acknowledgement of Exhibit C-2 Insertion to Interlocal Agreement for Development of Regional Center Project, dated November 25, 2003, the "Interlocal Agreement" and together with this First Amendment, the "Agreement"), by and among the District, the County and the Valley City, for the purpose of memorializing the agreements between each Party in connection with the development of three regional center projects within the boundaries of the District, consisting of the Convention Center Project, the Fair & Expo Center Project and the Mirabeau Point Project (collectively, the "Regional Center Projects"), and for the provision of financial assistance by the District in the form of intergovernmental payments to the Valley City (the "Mirabeau Point Payments"). C. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 03-084 adopted by the City Council of the Valley City on October 28, 2003, the Valley City issued its Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2003 (the "2003 Bonds"), in an aggregate principal amount of$9,430,000 in part to provide financing for a portion of the costs of undertaking and accomplishing the Mirabeau Point Project. D. In order to achieve debt service savings on its outstanding limited tax general obligations bonds, the Valley City approved pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-007, adopted by the City Council of the Valley City on July 15, 2014, the issuance and sale of its Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 2014 (the "2014 Bonds"), in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $7,900,000 for the purpose of redeeming and refunding all of the outstanding 2003 Bonds, including the portion of the 2003 Bonds issued to finance the Mirabeau Point Project. E. In connection with the issuance of the 2014 Bonds, the Parties wish to amend certain provisions of the Interlocal Agreement, including amending the Mirabeau Point Payment schedule to reflect lower Mirabeau Point Payments. F. Section 5.7 of the Interlocal Agreement provides that the Interlocal Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written instrument executed by all parties to the Intergovernmental Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual representations, covenants, promises and agreements hereinafter contained, the District, the County and the Valley City mutually represent, covenant, acknowledge and agree as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. 1.01. Amendment to Section 1 of Interlocal Agreement. (a) The following definition in the Interlocal Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows (additions shown in bold underline format and deletions shown in strikethrough format for convenience): 1.38 Valley City Bonds means an issue of Valley City limited tax general obligation bonds authorized by the Valley City Bond Ordinance to be issued in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $7,000,000 to finance a portion of the cost of the Mirabeau Point Project and any issue of Valley City limited tax general obligation bonds issued to refund the initial issue of Valley City Bonds, provided that the aggregate principal amount of any such issue of refunding bonds allocable to refinancing the costs of the Mirabeau Point Project does not exceed $6,500,000 and that such refunding bonds mature no later than December 1, 2033. (b) The following definition is hereby added to Section 1 of the Interlocal Agreement: 1.39 MSRB means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board or any other entity designated or authorized by the Securities and Exchange Commission to receive reports pursuant to the Rule 15c2-12. Until otherwise designated by the MSRB or the Securities and Exchange Commission, filings with the MSRB are to be made through the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website of the MSRB, currently located at http://emma.msrb.org. 1.02. Amendment to Section 4 of Interlocal Agreement. The following subsection of Section 4 of the Interlocal Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows (additions shown in bold underline format and deletions shown in strikethrough format for convenience): 4.04. Financing of Mirabeau Point Project. The Valley City shall issue the Valley City Bonds to finance a portion of the cost of the Mirabeau Point Project. The Valley City Bonds shall be payable from and secured by a pledge of the full faith and credit of the Valley City (within the constitutional and statutory tax limitations provided 3 by law without a vote of the electors of the Valley City); shall be payable on June 1 (interest only) and December 1 (principal and interest) of each year; shall finally mature no later than June December 1, 2033; and shall have such other terms as provided in the Valley City Bond Ordinance. The District acknowledges and agrees that, although the Valley City Bonds will be limited tax general obligation bonds pledging the full faith and credit of the Valley City (within the constitutional and statutory tax limitations provided by law without a vote of the electors of the Valley City), the Valley City may at its sole option (but is not required to) apply the proceeds of the Mirabeau Point Payments to the payment of the Valley City Bonds. The Valley City Bonds and any disclosure documents related to the Valley City Bonds shall contain the following statement (or substantially similar language): "The [Valley City Bonds] are not obligations of the Spokane Public Facilities District, Spokane County, the City of Spokane, the State of Washington or any other political subdivision of the State of Washington other than the City. All liabilities incurred by the City with respect to the [Valley City Bonds] shall be satisfied exclusively from the tax revenues, credit and other legally available sources of the City and no owner of the valley City Bonds] or other person shall have any right of action against or recourse to the Spokane Public Facilities District, Spokane County, the City of Spokane, the State of Washington or any other political subdivision of the State of Washington, or any of their respective assets, credit, revenues or services on account of any debts, obligations or liabilities relating to the [Valley City Bonds]." Furthermore, the District acknowledges that its obligation to make the Mirabeau Point Payments as required by Section 4.5 of this Agreement and described in the Intergovernmental Payment Schedule may be material to the offer and sale of the Valley City Bonds, and may be disclosed to potential purchasers and purchasers of those Valley City Bonds. At the City's request, the District will make an appropriate continuing disclosure undertaking in respect of the Valley City Bonds to the same extent as if the District were treated as an "obligated person" (within the meaning of SEC Rule 15c2-12) in respect of the Valley City Bonds. The Valley City shall covenant in the Valley City Bond Resolution Ordinance to maintain the tax exemption for the Valley City Bonds, and shall provide to the other Parties copies of annual financial information and operating data and any material event notices filed by the Valley City with NRMSIRs the MSRB pursuant to its continuing disclosure undertaking under SEC Rule 15c2-12 in respect of the Valley City Bonds. 1.03. Amendment of Schedule C-2 of Interlocal Agreement. The Exhibit C-2 setting forth the scheduled Mirabeau Point Payments currently included in the Interlocal Agreement is hereby replaced with the amended Exhibit C-2 attached to this First Amendment. SECTION 2. MISCELLANEOUS. 2.01. Effectiveness of First Amendment. This First Amendment shall be effective with respect to each Party upon execution by that Party and filing of the executed First Amendment with the Spokane County Auditor as required by the provisions of RCW 39.34.040. 2.02. Ratification and Confirmation. Except as expressly amended by this First Amendment, the Agreement is in all respects ratified and confirmed and the terms, provisions and conditions thereof are and shall remain in full force and effect. From and after the date 4 hereof all references to the Agreement shall mean such Agreement as amended by the terms of this First Amendment. 2.03. Captions. The article and section captions used in this First Amendment are for convenience only and shall not control and affect the meaning or construction of any of the provisions of this First Amendment or the Agreement. 2.04. Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed in counterparts, and each such counterpart shall be deemed to be an original instrument. All such counterparts together will constitute one and the same First Amendment. [Signature pages follow] 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this First Amendment by their duly authorized officers and representatives this day , 2014. COUNTY: SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON BY THE BOARD OF COIVIIVIISSIONERS SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON Al French, Chair Todd Mielke, Vice-Chair Shelly O'Quinn, Commissioner ATTEST: Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners SIGNATURE PAGE - COUNTY DISTRICT: SPOKANE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT [Chair/Chief Executive Officer] ATTEST: [Clerk of the Board] SIGNATURE PAGE - DISTRICT VALLEY CITY: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney SIGNATURE PAGE—VALLEY CITY ATTACHMENT REPLACEMENT EXHIBIT C-2 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT MUWISFI2C22)-2-MIRABEAU POINT PAYMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 22, 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: Appleway Landscaping — Phase 1 — Bid Award GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.48, Chapter 173-200 WAC, Title 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376; Storm and Surface Water Utility: SVMC 3.80; Aquifer Protection Area Fund: RCW 36.36. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: 21 May 2013 Council consensus to start design work for Phase 1, Dora to Park Road; Ordinance 13-016, Adoption of 2014 Budget on 22 Oct 2013; 20 May 2014 Council consensus to separate sidewalks and pay for extra work from 402 Stormwater Budget. BACKGROUND: The Appleway Landscaping Phase 1 project improves landscaping along Appleway from Dora to Park Road, where feasible. The work includes retrofits of existing commercial approaches to keep stormwater flows from crossing at the intersections with the sidewalk, modifications to existing sections of sidewalk, modifications to existing swales, and the installation of low pressure underground irrigation, sod and trees. The project design was completed the last full week of June and the City advertised for public bids on June 27th and July 4th, 2014. The bid opening was moved to July 18th at 10:00 to accommodate an addendum that was issued on July 14, 2014. A copy of the bid tabulation will be provided at the Council meeting. The current schedule for this project is to follow the Appleway Blvd. Street Preservation Project that will begin construction just after Labor Day and continue until the end of October. OPTIONS: 1) Award the Appleway Landscaping — Phase 1 Project to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, 2) not award the contract, or 3) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Appleway Landscaping — Phase 1 Project to in the amount of$ and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $268,000 from account 312 and additional funding for stormwater improvements of$180,000 to $200,000 from account 402. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth — Public Works Director Art Jenkins — Stormwater Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulations to be provided at the Council meeting CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 22, 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: Solid Waste Management Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: With Council's decision to contract for solid waste management services, staff contracted with Green Solutions to assist in preparation of a Solid Waste Management Plan. This Plan is intended to provide guidance for the solid waste system within the City of Spokane Valley. The solid waste system includes garbage collection and disposal, and programs for waste reduction, recycling, organics, special wastes and the administration of these programs. This Plan is intended to provide guidance on program development and implementation for these activities for the next five to six years, while also attempting to anticipate the needs of the solid waste system 20 years from now. State law (Chapter 70.95 RCW) provides the authority for the City to adopt this Plan and also lists the requirements for the contents of the Plan. In preparing this Plan, the City is exercising its authority to "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 comprehensive county plan" (RCW 70.95.080). The City will conduct a public input process for the review of this Plan from mid-July to August 31, 2014. When the draft plan is released in July, a digital copy of the draft plan will be placed on the City's website and a hard copy will be placed at the City Clerk's office and at the public library. Notices will be provided to City residents and businesses as to the availability of the draft plan and the process for providing comments. Opportunity for public comment will occur at a public open house scheduled for July 31, 2014, conducted for the specific purpose of receiving public input. After the deadline for public comments, City staff will prepare a response document to the State Department of Ecology (DOE) that lists every comment received and any revisions we are proposing to the Plan. The review process for the DOE consists of two parts: a 120-day draft plan review and a 45-day final review and approval. During DOE's final review process, staff will request Council's adoption of the Plan through a resolution. The draft plan is anticipated to be submitted to DOE on Wednesday, July 16, 2014. Staff anticipates bringing the final version of the Plan before Council in November, 2014 for adoption. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Solid Waste Management Plan, Power Point Presentation Spokane Valley DRAFT nt Plan is w t m Solid July 2 2 , 2 0 1 4 Overview Guidance Document - Program Development Authority (State Law RCW Chapter 70. 95) Approval (Department of Ecology) City Council Adoption (Resolution) Inclusion in County Comprehensive Plan (RCW 70.95 .080) Update every 5 years 2 Chapter 1 - Introduction Purpose Authority Required Plan Elements Relationship to Other Plans Public Participation 3 Chapter 2 - Background Demographics Economy Current Waste Generation Waste composition Recyclables Municipal solid waste 4 Chapter 3 - Waste deduction Existing Activities ► Planning Issues ► Alternative Strategies ► Evaluation of Alternatives ► Recommendations Chapter 4 - Recycling & Organics Collection Existing Programs Designation of Recyclable Materials ► Planning Issues ► Alternative Strategies ► Evaluation of Alternatives ► Recommendations Chapter 5 - solid Waste Collection Existing Activities Haulers Regulations ► Planning Issues ► Alternative Strategies ► Evaluation of Alternatives ► Recommendations Chapter 6 - Transfer and Disposal Existing Activities Overview Transfer Stations ► Planning Issues ► Alternative Strategies ► Evaluation of Alternatives ► Recommendations Chapter 7 - Special Wastes Biomedical Construction & Demolition Moderate Risk Wastes Street Sweeping & Vactoring Existing Management Practices ► Planning Issues ► Alternative Strategies ► Evaluation of alternatives ► Recommendations 9 Chapter 8 - Administration Existing Activities Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Health District a Department of Ecology Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ► Planning Issues ► Alternative Strategies ► Evaluation of alternatives ► Recommendations �y�;`� ai 10 V'\11,,\'1\\\ Chapter 9 - Implementation Plan Lists all of the recommendations 6-Year Implementation Schedule Implementation Responsibility Funding Strategy 20-Year Implementation Schedule Procedures for Amending the Plan Next Steps DOE Review of Draft Plan Public Participation Process Public Comments submitted to DOE DOE Comments / City Response SEPA Checklist Approval Final Plan submittal to DOE City Council Resolution Adopting Plan DOE Approval of Final Plan 1Z Questions ? • S`pokane4.000 . . _. %àlley 1!., SPOKANE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY DRAFT PLAN JULY 2014 This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing. GREEN SOLUTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SPOKANE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY DRAFT PLAN JULY 2014 Prepared by: Green Solutions PO Box 680 South Prairie, WA 98385 rick@green-solutions.biz (360) 897-9533 This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Introduction E-1 Overview of Recommendations E-1 Waste Reduction Recommendations E-2 Recycling and Organics Recommendations E-2 Solid Waste Collection Recommendations E-3 Transfer and Disposal Recommendations E-3 Special Waste Recommendations E-3 Administration Recommendations E-4 Implementation Details for the Recommendations E-4 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1-1 1.2 Planning Area 1-1 1.3 Planning Authority 1-1 1.4 Required Plan Elements 1-1 1.5 Planning Goals 1-2 1.6 Solid Waste Planning History 1-3 1.7 Relationship to Other Plans 1-3 1.8 Public Participation in the Planning Process 1-4 2 Background of the Planning Area 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Demographics 2-1 2.3 Economy 2-2 2.4 Criteria for Siting Disposal Facilities in the Planning Area 2-4 2.5 Current Waste Generation 2-4 3 Waste Reduction 3.1 Existing Waste Reduction Activities 3-1 3.2 Waste Reduction Planning Issues 3-2 3.3 Alternative Waste Reduction Strategies 3-3 3.4 Evaluation of Waste Reduction Alternatives 3-7 3.5 Waste Reduction Recommendations 3-8 Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan i Table of Contents by Green Solutions 4 Recycling and Organics Collection 4.1 Existing Recycling and Organics Programs 4-1 4.2 Designation of Recyclable Materials 4-6 4.3 Planning Issues for Recycling and Organics 4-8 4.4 Alternative Recycling and Organics Strategies 4-8 4.5 Evaluation of Recycling and Organics Alternatives 4-9 4.6 Recycling and Organics Recommendations 4-11 5 Solid Waste Collection 5.1 Existing Waste Collection Activities 5-1 5.2 Waste Collection Future Planning 5-3 5.3 Alternative Waste Collection Strategies 5-3 5.4 Evaluation of Waste Collection Alternatives 5-4 5.5 Waste Collection Recommendations 5-5 6 Transfer and Disposal 6.1 Existing Transfer and Disposal Activities 6-1 6.2 Transfer and Disposal Planning Issues 6-3 6.3 Alternative Transfer and Disposal Strategies 6-3 6.4 Evaluation of Transfer and Disposal Alternatives 6-5 6.5 Transfer and Disposal Recommendations 6-5 7 Special Wastes 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Biomedical Wastes 7-1 7.3 Construction and Demolition Wastes 7-3 7.4 Moderate-Risk Wastes 7-5 7.5 Street Sweepings and Vactor Wastes 7-9 7.6 Evaluation of Special Waste Alternatives 7-10 7.7 Special Waste Recommendations 7-11 8 Administration 8.1 Existing Administration Activities 8-1 8.2 Administration Planning Issues 8-3 8.3 Alternative Administration Strategies 8-4 8.4 Evaluation of Administration Alternatives 8-4 8.5 Administration Recommendations 8-5 Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan ii Table of Contents by Green Solutions 9 Implementation Plan 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Waste Reduction Recommendations 9-1 9.3 Recycling and Organics Recommendations 9-2 9.4 Solid Waste Collection Recommendations 9-2 9.5 Transfer and Disposal Recommendations 9-2 9.6 Special Waste Recommendations 9-3 9.7 Administration Recommendations 9-3 9.8 Six-Year Implementation Schedule 9-3 9.9 Implementation Responsibilities 9-5 9.10 Funding Strategy 9-6 9.11 Twenty-Year Implementation Schedule 9-6 9.12 Procedures for Amending the Plan 9-7 Attachments Glossary A. Environmental Checklist B. Resolution of Adoption LIST OF TABLES Executive Summary E-1, Implementation Summary for Recommendations E-6 2 Background of the Planning Area 2-1, Population of Spokane Valley 2-1 2-2, Size of Businesses in Spokane Valley 2-3 2-3, Types of Businesses in Spokane Valley 2-3 2-4, Estimated Composition of Solid Waste Disposed in Spokane Valley 2-6 2-5, Recycled and Diverted Materials 2-7 2-6, Projected Solid Waste and Recycling Quantities for Spokane Valley 2-7 3 Waste Reduction 3-1, Rating of the Waste Reduction Alternatives 3-8 Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan iii Table of Contents by Green Solutions List of Tables, continued 4 Recycling and Organics Collection 4-1,Materials Collected for Recycling by Waste Management 4-3 4-2, List of Designated Recyclable Materials 4-7 4-3, Rating of the Recycling and Organics Alternatives 4-10 5 Solid Waste Collection 5-1,Waste Collection Service Providers in Spokane Valley 5-1 5-2, Rating of the Waste Collection Alternatives 5-5 6 Transfer and Disposal 6-1, Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regional System 6-4 6-2, Rating of the Transfer and Disposal Alternatives 6-6 7 Special Wastes 7-1, Rating of the Special Waste Alternatives 7-11 8 Administration 8-1, Rating of the Administration Alternatives 8-5 9 Implementation Plan 9-1, Implementation Schedule for Recommendations 9-4 9-2, Implementation Responsibilities for Recommendations 9-5 9-3, Funding Strategies for Recommendations 9-6 LIST OF FIGURES 2 Background of the Planning Area 2-1, Population Distribution for Spokane Valley 2-2 4 Recycling and Organics Collection 4-1, Price Paid for Baled Aluminum Cans 4-5 4-2, Prices Paid for Select Recyclable Materials 4-5 6 Transfer and Disposal 6-1, Solid Waste Facilities in Spokane Valley 6-2 Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan iv Table of Contents by Green Solutions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for the SPOKANE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION The Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan (the "Plan") is intended to provide guidance for the solid waste system in the City of Spokane Valley. The solid waste system includes garbage collection and disposal, and programs for waste reduction, recycling, organics, special wastes and the administration of these programs. This Plan is intended to provide guidance on program development and implementation for these activities for the next five to six years,while also attempting to anticipate the needs of the solid waste system 20 years from now. State law (Chapter 70.95 RCW) provides the authority for the City to adopt this Plan and also lists the requirements for the contents of the Plan. In preparing this Plan, the City is exercising its authority to "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 comprehensive county plan" (RCW 70.95.080). OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS The most significant recommendations in this Plan deal with the new programs and activities that will be necessary for the City of Spokane Valley to create its solid waste system. The City recently contracted with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. ("Sunshine"1) to provide solid waste transfer, transport, and disposal services for the City. This Plan designates the Sunshine Disposal & Recycling Transfer Station ("Sunshine Transfer Station") as the disposal facility for all solid waste from the City. An administrative fee paid by that facility will provide funding for the public education and other additional activities that the City will need to perform in support of the new system. This Plan also incorporates the changes resulting from the contracts with the waste haulers in the City (Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal). The process of contracting for waste collection services was already underway before the development of this Plan, and is a logical step for the City to take to ensure the appropriate services for their residents and businesses. 1 Sunshine Recyclers,Inc.operates a number of businesses providing transfer,disposal,and collection services. For the purposes of this Plan,"Sunshine"refers to that entity providing transfer,transport,and disposal services to the City pursuant to its recent contract,while"Sunshine Disposal"refers to the entity providing solid waste and recycling collection services. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-1 Executive Summary by Green Solutions All of the recommendations made in this Plan are listed below and are also summarized in Table E-1. Note that the recommendations are not listed in any particular order within each group (for instance, the three high-priority recommendations shown for waste reduction are not listed in any particular order, such as schedule or cost,within that group). WASTE REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste reduction programs (see Chapter 3 of the Plan for more details): High-Priority Recommendations WR1) The City of Spokane Valley will evaluate product stewardship programs as these are proposed on a statewide or national level, and support those if appropriate to the interests of their citizens and the business community. WR2) The business community in Spokane Valley may be encouraged to reduce waste through a recognition program that publicizes success stories. WR3) The City of Spokane Valley will adopt policies and practices to encourage City departments to reduce waste. Medium-Priority Recommendations WR4) Public education materials distributed by the City of Spokane Valley will include information on alternative handling methods for yard waste, the value of"smart shopping" methods,how to avoid wasting food, and the availability of volume-based garbage collection fees. Low-Priority Recommendations WR5) A ban on the disposal of yard waste within solid waste disposal containers may be considered in the future if public education and outreach efforts are not effective in diverting most of this material from the waste stream. RECYCLING AND ORGANICS RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for recycling and organics collection programs (see Chapter 4 for more details): Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-2 Executive Summary by Green Solutions High-Priority Recommendations R1) Curbside recycling will continue to be included with garbage collection services for residential customers in Spokane Valley. R2) City residents and businesses will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for yard waste and organics ("Clean Green") drop-off services. Medium-Priority Recommendations R3) Weekly curbside recycling will be evaluated as part of the waste collection system changes expected to be implemented by Spokane Valley in 2018. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste collection programs (see Chapter 5 for more details): High-Priority Recommendations C1) When the City fully assumes control of collection services, anticipated to be in 2018,various options will be considered for providers and service levels, including negotiating versus bidding for haulers and collection frequency for recycling. Medium-Priority Recommendations C2) Educate the public on the benefits of curbside collection services and the comprehensive costs related to self-haul to transfer station. TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for transfer and disposal programs (see Chapter 6 for more details): High-Priority Recommendations D1) The Sunshine Transfer Station is designated as the disposal system for all solid waste from Spokane Valley, effective November 17, 2014. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-3 Executive Summary by Green Solutions SPECIAL WASTE RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for special waste programs (see Chapter 7 for more details): High-Priority Recommendations SW1) Proper disposal options for residential sharps (syringes) will be promoted through a cooperative effort between the City of Spokane Valley, the Spokane Regional Health District ("Health District"), and the waste collectors. SW2) Green building practices will be promoted by distributing brochures and publicizing other sources of information. SW3) City residents and businesses will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for moderate-risk waste ("MRW") services. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for administration programs (see Chapter 8 for more details): High-Priority Recommendations Al) The additional services and programs needed by the City to support the City's solid waste system will be performed by contracted services to the extent feasible and appropriate. Existing City staff will be used to monitor the contracts and programs for solid waste in the City of Spokane Valley. Medium-Priority Recommendations A2) The additional funds needed to implement the City's solid waste system will be collected through surcharges on tipping fees collected at the Sunshine Transfer Station. IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS Table E-1 shows a summary of the recommendations, including the following information: • Lead agency (or company): each recommendation requires an agency or company to verify that it is implemented in a timely fashion. The City of Spokane Valley is Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-4 Executive Summary by Green Solutions the lead agency for most of the recommendations,but in some cases this responsibility is shared with other parties. • Priority: the level of priority is shown for each recommendation in case limited resources should prevent the implementation of all of the recommendations in the future. • Cost: cost information is shown where available, and the cost figures shown are only the costs to the City. In some cases, there may be additional costs to others in terms of user fees and other expenses. For many of the recommendations, the primary expense is staff time. • Funding sources: the proposed source(s) of the funds to pay for recommended activities is shown in the last column of Table E-1. The funding source for several of the recommendations is shown as "Fee/CPG," which is an abbreviated way of saying that the funds would come from the fees charged to Sunshine (the administrative fee and the right-of-way maintenance fee, collectively referred to as a "disposal surcharge" throughout this Plan) and/or Coordinated Prevention Grant ("CPG") funds when those become available to the City in mid-2015. Additional details for most of the recommendations can be found in the appropriate chapters of this Plan. The recommendations are numbered according to the chapter where they are discussed for easier cross-referencing to other parts of the Plan. Recommendation #WR1, for instance, is the first recommendation shown in the Waste Reduction chapter (Chapter 3). Note that many of the recommendations are shown in an abbreviated form in Table E-1 due to space constraints. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-5 Executive Summary by Green Solutions Table E-1 Implementation Summary for Recommendations Recommended ActivityillrLead Agency Priority Annual Cost Funding Source Waste Reduction WR1) Support product stewardship programs as appropriate City High Staff time NA WR2) Business waste reduction recognition program City High $25K Fee/CPG WR3) Adopt city waste reduction policies City High Staff time NA WR4) Promote waste reduction City Medium $100K* Fee /CPG WR5) Consider yard waste disposal ban City Low Staff time NA Recycling and Organics R1) Continue to include curbside recycling with garbage City High Staff time NA service R2) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for Clean City High Staff time** Fee /CPG Green R3) Evaluate weekly curbside recycling City Medium Staff time NA Solid Waste Collection C1) Contract for collection service City High Staff time NA C2) Increase curbside collection subscriptions City Medium Staff time NA Transfer and Disposal D1) Designate Sunshine Transfer Station as the disposal site City High NA NA for all waste from Spokane Valley Special Wastes SW1) Promote proper disposal of residential sharps Health District High $25-$50K Fee /CPG SW2) Promote green building City High $5K Fee /CPG SW3) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for MRW City High Staff time** Fee /CPG Administration Al) Use existing staff City High Staff time NA A2) Disposal surcharge as funding source City Medium Staff time NA Notes: NA= Not Applicable. *The cost for Recommendation WR4 includes other public education. ** Includes expenses for public education, the cost of which are included in the cost shown to Recommendation WR4. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-6 Executive Summary by Green Solutions CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 .1. PURPOSE This Plan is intended to guide the solid waste system in the City of Spokane Valley. The City's solid waste system (the"City's System") includes garbage collection and disposal, as well as programs for waste reduction, recycling, organics, special wastes, and for the administration of these programs. This Plan is intended to provide guidance for the implementation of the City's System for the next five to six years, while also attempting to anticipate the needs of the City's System for the next 20 years. 1 .2. PLANNING AREA This Plan primarily addresses programs and activities for the incorporated area of the City of Spokane Valley, although a few of the activities extend beyond City limits. There are no known Tribal properties in the City,but there are eighteen federally- owned properties that could potentially choose to manage their solid waste separately from the City's System. The federal properties range in size from 0.15 to 21.1 acres. Figure 6-1 shows a map of Spokane Valley and local solid waste facilities. 1 .3. PLANNING AUTHORITY State law (Chapter 70.95 RCW) provides the authority for the City to develop and implement this Plan. In preparing this Plan, the City is exercising its authority to "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 comprehensive county plan" (RCW 70.95.080(3)(a)). 1 .4. REQUIRED PLAN ELEMENTS RCW 70.95.090 establishes requirements for solid waste management plans. These requirements include the following elements: • An inventory and description of existing solid waste handling facilities including any deficiencies in meeting current needs. • The projected 20-year needs for solid waste handling facilities. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 1-1 Chapter 1: Introduction by Green Solutions • A program for the development of solid waste handling facilities that meets all laws and regulations, takes into account comprehensive land use plans, contains a six- year construction and capital acquisition program, and contains a plan for financing the capital costs and operational expenses of the proposed solid waste system. • A program for surveillance and control (to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts of improper waste handling). • An inventory and description of solid waste collection operations, including the identification of collection franchise holders, municipal operations, population densities by service area, and the projected waste collection needs for six years. • A comprehensive waste reduction and recycling element that provides programs to reduce the amount of wastes generated, provides mechanisms and incentives for source separation, and establishes recycling opportunities. • A review of potential areas that meet the criteria for land disposal facilities (RCW 70.95.165). 1 .5. PLANNING GOALS The goal of this Plan is to develop and maintain a solid waste management system that protects public health and the environment in a cost-effective manner. The specific goals of this Plan are to: • Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste. • Promote the use of innovative and economical waste handling methods. • Encourage public-private partnerships where possible. • Emphasize waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy. • Encourage the recovery of marketable resources from solid waste. • Assist the State in maintaining its goal of a 50 percent recycling rate. • Ensure compliance with state and local solid and moderate-risk waste regulations. • Assist those who sell and use products containing hazardous ingredients to minimize risks to public health and the environment. • Provide customers information and education to promote recommended waste management practices. • Support the State's Beyond Waste goals, especially for the five key initiatives: increased diversion of organic materials; increased use of green building methods; improved management of small-volume hazardous wastes; improved management of industrial wastes; and measuring progress. One of the six major goals of the Spokane Valley City Council for 2014 is to "implement solid waste alternatives for collection, transport and disposal in the best interest of the City of Spokane Valley." Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 1-2 Chapter 1: Introduction by Green Solutions 1 .6. SOLID WASTE PLANNING HISTORY The City of Spokane Valley incorporated in 2003. Since that time, representatives of the City have participated in the Spokane County solid waste plan through an Interlocal Agreement effective July 15, 2003 through November 16, 2014. Since 2003, City representatives have participated in planning efforts through membership on the Spokane County Solid Waste Advisory Committee ("SWAC") and the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Liaison Board. Both of these groups were instrumental in the review and adoption of the Spokane County 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 1 .7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS This Plan is designed to be consistent with a number of other plans. The most significant of these plans are described below. Spokane County Solid Waste Management Plan To date, the City of Spokane Valley has participated in the development of the Spokane County 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and has implemented programs consistent with that plan. Hence, the City is starting this planning process from a point that is consistent with the Spokane County plan. While future programs in the City may diverge from the County programs, the use of regional service providers and facilities will help ensure consistency for most programs. Washington State Solid Waste Management Plan In 2004, the Washington State Department of Ecology ("Ecology") prepared a statewide solid waste management plan, commonly referred to as the"Beyond Waste Plan." The Beyond Waste Plan adopted a vision that states that society can transition to a point where waste is viewed as inefficient and most wastes have been eliminated. This transition is expected to take 20 to 30 years or more. In the short term, the Beyond Waste Plan recommends actions that can be undertaken to achieve specific goals in five areas: • Increased diversion of organic materials; • Increased use of green building methods; • Improved management of small-volume hazardous wastes; • Improved management of industrial wastes; and • Measuring progress. The Beyond Waste Plan was updated in 2009 to refine the goals and recommendations of the 2004 plan. The 2009 update also addressed additional solid and hazardous waste Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 1-3 Chapter 1: Introduction by Green Solutions issues. The Beyond Waste Plan is discussed in greater detail in several sections of this Plan as appropriate to the topics in each chapter. City Comprehensive Plan The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan ("SVCP") provides a 20-year vision for the future of Spokane Valley. The vision statement adopted by the SVCP is that Spokane Valley will be"a community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and businesses will flourish and prosper." The SVCP was adopted April 25, 2006, and revisions to the SVCP are considered annually. The SVCP provides a significant amount of detail for policies and programs for related topics (land use, transportation, utilities, etc.), and as such it should be considered to have precedence over this Plan in those matters. Programs proposed in this Plan, especially those that might impact capital facilities, land use and transportation, should be checked against the SVCP to ensure consistency. 1 .8. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS The City will use its standard adoption process for the final Plan. This process includes three steps: an informational memo to the City Council, an administrative report and work session, and a formal meeting where the Plan will be approved and adopted. Public comment will be accepted at the formal meeting of the City Council prior to adoption,which is anticipated to occur in November 2014. The City will also provide additional opportunity for public comment prior to consideration of the Plan by City Council. The City will conduct a public input process for the review of this Plan from mid-July to August 31, 2014. When the draft plan is released in July, a digital copy of the draft plan will be placed on the City's website and a hard copy will be placed at the City Clerk's office and at the public library. Notices will be provided to City residents and businesses as to the availability of the draft plan and the process for providing comments. The public will have an opportunity to comment on this Plan at an open house/public meeting conducted for the specific purpose of receiving public input as well as through the SEPA review process. Comments can also be submitted through the City's website,www.spokanevalley.org. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 1-4 Chapter 1: Introduction by Green Solutions CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND OF THE PLANNING AREA 2. 1. INTRODUCTION This chapter of the Plan provides basic information that is used in later chapters, including information on demographics, economic factors, and the amount and composition of waste generated in the City. It also discusses the criteria for siting disposal facilities (landfill or incinerator) in the City. 2.2. DEMOGRAPHICS Total Population The population of Spokane Valley has increased steadily since the City's incorporation in 2003 (see Table 2-1). Based on population, Spokane Valley is the tenth largest city in Washington State, and it is more populated than two-thirds (26 out of 39) of the counties in Washington State. Table 2-1 Population of Spokane Valley Year Total Population Annual Increase 2003 82,985 0.5% 2004 83,436 0.5% 2005 84,465 1.2% 2006 86,601 2.5% 2007 87,894 1.5% 2008 88,513 0.7% 2009 88,969 0.5% 2010 89,755 0.9% 2011 90,110 0.4% 2012 90,550 0.5% 2013 91,490 1.0% Projected Figures 2014 92,600 1.2% 2020 96,657 0.7% 2025 100,175 0.7% 2030 103,820 0.7% Source: Data for 2003-2013 is from the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM). Data for 2014 through 2030 is from the Spokane Valley Planning Division. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 2-1 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area by Green Solutions Housing Based on the most recent census, in 2010 there were 89,755 people occupying 36,558 households. There were another 2,293 households that were vacant at that time. Over half (62%) of the households were owner-occupied. Two-thirds (67.4%) of the housing in 2010 was single-family homes,with another 5.0% in duplexes through quadplexes, 21.4% in multi-family units (five or more units per building), and 6.2% in mobile homes. Age of Population The population distribution for Spokane Valley according to age is illustrated in Figure 2-1. Compared to the age distribution for Washington State,Spokane Valley's population contains a slightly higher percentage of young children (ages 0-4), slightly fewer middle-aged residents (ages 30-44), and a slightly higher percentage of senior citizens (ages 65 and up). Figure 2-1 Population Distribution for Spokane Valley 8.0% 7.0% - 7.0 6.0% 1- 5.0% 4.0% c 3.0% Washington 2.0% State 1.0% Spokane Valley 0.0% i G1 Ol 01N 01 4' 01 01 01 + rl rl N m m uI uI l0 l0 f� f I 00 - O u1 O u1 O u1 O u1 O u1 O u1 O u1 O 00 rI rI N N m m u1 u1 l0 l0 N N 00 Age Groups Sources: Data is from the Washington Office of Financial Management(OFM). 2.3. ECONOMY The City of Spokane Valley has a stable business environment and recognizes the importance of businesses in providing a strong local economy. The City provides relatively more assistance to businesses than other areas, especially in permitting new businesses and developing new sites. The City has a large industrial park (one of the Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 2-2 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area by Green Solutions largest industrial parks in the country). Tables 2-2 and 2-3 show basic information about businesses in Spokane Valley. For Table 2-3, this information is organized according to Standard Industrial Classification ("SIC") codes, which is a federal system of organizing businesses by type of activity. Table 2-2 Size of Businesses in Spokane Valley (2013) Business Size Number of Percentage Businesses 1-4 Employees 2,754 58.3% 5-9 Employees 909 19.2% 10-19 Employees 496 10.5% 20-49 Employees 361 7.6% 50-99 Employees 121 2.6% 100-249 Employees 69 1.5% 250-499 Employees 10 0.2% 500-999 Employees 4 0.1% 1,000+ Employees 1 0.02% Total 4,725 Source: Data is from the Spokane Regional Site Selector and is for 2013. Table 2-3 Types of Businesses in Spokane Valley (2013) Business Type Number of Percentage Al Employees Agricultural, Forestry and Fishing (SIC 1-9) 640 1.2% Mining (SIC 10-14) 50 0.1% Construction (SIC 15-17) 2,647 5.1% Manufacturing (SIC 20-39) 5,825 11.1% Transportation and Communications (SIC 40-49) 3,187 6.1% Wholesale Trade (SIC 50-51) 4,045 7.7% Retail Trade (SIC 52-59) 12,820 24.5% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (SIC 60-69) 2,599 5.0% Services (SIC 70-89) 19,146 36.6% Public Administration (SIC 90-98) 1,189 2.3% Unclassified (SIC 99) 210 0.4% Total 52,359 Source: Data is from the Spokane Regional Site Selector and is for 2013. SIC = Standard Industrial Classification. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 2-3 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area by Green Solutions 2.4. CRITERIA FOR SITING DISPOSAL FACILITIES IN THE PLANNING AREA The minimum required contents for a solid waste management plan include"a review of potential areas that meet the criteria for land disposal facilities" (RCW 70.95.090). These criteria are listed in a different section of State law, RCW 70.95.165,which refers to solid waste disposal facility siting, and include: (a) Geology (g) Cover material (b) Groundwater (h) Capacity (c) Soil (i) Climatic factors (d) Flooding (j) Land use (e) Surface water (k) Toxic air emissions (f) Slope (1) Other factors determined by Ecology Reviewing the siting factors in a solid waste management plan being prepared for a county,which would have a larger land area and potential landfill sites located away from urban areas, is more meaningful than addressing these criteria in this Plan. The area addressed by this Plan consists of only 38.2 square miles and has a population density of 2,394 people per square mile, making it highly unlikely that a solid waste disposal facility would be sited in the area. In addition, one of the standards adopted by Ecology prohibits the siting of MSW or limited purpose landfills over federally- designated sole source aquifers. The City of Spokane Valley is located over the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Aquifer,which has been designated as a sole source aquifer. Hence, no new or expanded MSW or limited purpose landfills may be sited in Spokane Valley. Other types of land disposal facilities, such as land application sites, piles, and surface impoundments, might be possible in the planning area,but the specific factors that affect the siting of these types of facilities vary widely and will need to be reviewed at the time a specific proposal is being considered. 2.5. CURRENT WASTE GENERATION The current amount of waste generated in the City of Spokane Valley is estimated at 55,540 tons per year (see Table 2-5). This estimate includes residential and commercial waste quantities collected by the two waste collection companies currently active in the City, as well as the amounts "self-hauled"2 by residents and businesses to a transfer station. There is no data specific to Spokane Valley for the composition of this waste or 2 "Self-haul" is the term used for the practice of a waste generator(the person or company that created the waste)to haul their own waste to a transfer station or other disposal facility. This is a common practice for construction contractors, for instance, and in Spokane Valley there are also a significant number of residents who choose to use this method rather than subscribe to garbage collection services. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 2-4 Chapter 2:Background of the Planning Area by Green Solutions for the amounts of recyclable and compostable materials that are collected from the City,but the following sections describe the best available information for these. Composition of Spokane Valley's Solid Waste Table 2-4 shows the estimated composition of the solid wastes disposed from Spokane Valley. These figures are provided for planning purposes and are based on data developed for a 12-county area in eastern Washington State. These figures can be used together with the waste disposal estimate of 55,540 tons per year to provide estimates for the amounts of specific materials disposed annually (as shown in the last column of Table 2-4). Amount of Recyclable Materials Collected from Spokane Valley Ecology conducts an annual survey of the amount of materials collected for recycling and composting in Washington State. This survey includes amounts collected through curbside recycling programs and also commercial and special collections for a wide variety of materials. Ecology can provide this data for each county,but the data is not available on a city-by-city basis. Prorating the data for Spokane County appears to be the best available source of data on how much recycling is currently conducted in Spokane Valley. Since 1999, Ecology has also collected data on the amount of"diverted" materials, which are materials that are diverted from disposal to beneficial uses that are not defined as recycling. Examples of diverted materials include asphalt and concrete that are recycled (these materials are not included in the definition of recycling) and wood waste burned for energy (incineration is also not defined as recycling). Table 2-5 shows the most recent recycling data for Spokane County (2012) and prorated figures for Spokane Valley based on the City's share of the County's population (19.0% in 2012). Table 2-5 uses a prorated share (55,540 tons) of the total solid waste amount for the County in order to provide a consistent analysis here. This figure is often called "MSW" (municipal solid waste),which does not include some types of industrial and other wastes. Construction and demolition ("C&D") wastes are also not generally included in MSW, although some amount of this is actually included in the MSW figures (to the extent that these materials are being handled as part of the regular waste stream and not being disposed at special facilities such as inert waste or limited purpose landfills). Industrial and C&D wastes are the primary sources of the amounts shown as "non-MSW disposed" in Table 2-5. As indicated in Table 2-5, the amount of waste "generated" includes both the waste disposed plus the amount recycled or diverted. Figures are provided in Table 2-5 for both MSW and also for the broader waste stream that includes non-MSW materials. The last two rows of Table 2-5 show per capita figures for recycling, disposal and waste generation. These figures are expressed in terms of pounds per person per day. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 2-5 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area by Green Solutions Table 2-4 Estimated Composition of Solid Waste Disposed in Spokane Valley Materials' Percent of Total Amount Disposed (by weight) (tons per year) Paper Newspaper 1.8 1,000 Cardboard 4.7 2,610 Other Recyclable Paper 9.5 5,280 Compostable Paper 4.4 2,440 Remainder/Composite 1.5 830 Total Paper 21.9 12,160 Plastics PET Bottles 0.8 440 HDPE Bottles 1.0 560 Other Plastic Pkg. 1.9 1,060 Film and Bags 4.2 2,330 Other Products 1.3 720 Remainder/Composite 1.4 780 Total Plastics 10.7 5,940 Glass Clear Glass Containers 0.8 440 Green Glass Containers 0.4 220 Brown Glass Containers 0.6 330 Stoneware, Ceramics 0.2 110 Remainder/Composite 0.3 170 Total Glass 2.3 1,280 Metals Aluminum Cans 0.4 220 Tin Cans 0.7 390 Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.5 280 Other Ferrous Metals 2.6 1,440 Mixed Metal &Other 2.7 1,500 Total Ferrous Metals 6.9 3,830 Organics Food 10.8 6,000 Yard Wastes 9.8 5,540 Manures 2.8 1,560 Other Organics 2.4 1,330 Total Organics 25.8 14,330 Consumer Textiles 2.0 1,110 Products Furniture, Mattresses 2.7 1,500 All Other 2.1 1,170 Total Consumer Products 6.8 3,780 Other Wood 9.0 5,000 Construction 11.3 6,280 Hazardous/Special Wastes 3.7 2,050 Residues 1.5 830 Total Other 25.5 14,160 Totals 100.0% 55,540 Source: 2009 Washington Statewide Waste Characterization Study, Ecology 2010. Percentage figures are for the Eastern region (as defined by that study), which includes Spokane and 11 other counties. Figures may not add up exactly due to rounding. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 2-6 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area by Green Solutions Table 2-5 Recycled and Diverted Materials (2012) Spokane County Spokane Valley Recycled Amount 352,913 67,053 MSW Disposed 292,337 55,544 Total MSW Generated 645,250 122,597 Recycling Rate 54.7% 54.7% Diverted Amount (Non-MSW) 231,863 44,054 Non-MSW Disposed 147,711 28,065 Total Non-MSW Generated 379,573 72,119 Recycling Rate, Non-MSW Only 61.1% 61.1% All Recycling and Diversion 584,776 111,107 All Wastes (MSW and Non-MSW) 440,048 83,609 Total Generation, All Wastes 1,024,823 194,716 Diversion Rate 57.1% 57.1% Pounds per Capita (MSW Only) Recycled 4.07 4.07 Disposed 3.37 3.37 Generated 7.43 7.43 Source: Data for Spokane County is from the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System webpage. Figures for the City of Spokane Valley are prorated from County data based on City's 19.0%of population in 2012. Municipal Solid Waste Planning Projections Table 2-6 shows figures for the amount of solid waste projected to be recycled, disposed and generated in Spokane Valley for the next 20 years. These figures do not include the diverted and disposed amounts of non-MSW wastes. These figures were derived using the per capita figures shown in Table 2-5 and the population projections shown in Table 2-1. In other words, these projections assume that the recycling rate and disposal rates will remain constant over the next 20 years (which is an unlikely scenario). It should also be noted that recycled and disposed quantities vary throughout the year. The lowest amounts of recycling and waste disposal generally occur in the winter months (but typically with a spike in waste quantities after Christmas), and the greatest amounts often occur in the spring and fall. Recent data for the Valley Transfer Station (2012) shows the greatest amounts of solid waste received in May and August, and the greatest amounts of Clean Green received in May and November. Better data on solid waste quantities for Spokane Valley will be available in the future as a result of the contract signed with Sunshine. That contract requires Sunshine to provide an annual report on the monthly amounts of waste disposed at their transfer station by type of waste (total solid waste, acceptable waste, recyclables, organics, which are the same as Clean Green, C&D, MRW, special waste and unacceptable Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 2-7 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area by Green Solutions wastes). The report will also include the number of trips by haulers and self-haulers, and the number of customer service inquiries. A review of the current programs operating in Spokane Valley concluded that they are fully capable of handling current disposed and recycled quantities, and that these programs should be able to continue handling future quantities (for the next 20 years) as well. Table 2-6 Projected Solid Waste and Recycling Quantities for Spokane Valley AIL 2012 2020 2030 Population 90,550 96,657 103,820 Recycled Amounts, tons/year 67,191 71,723 77,038 Disposed Amounts, tons/year 55.658 59.412 63.815 Total Waste Generated, tons/year 122,850 131,135 140,853 Source: Based on the per capita figures shown in Table 2-5 and population figures shown in Table 2-1. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 2-8 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area by Green Solutions CHAPTER 3 WASTE REDUCTION 3.1. EXISTING WASTE REDUCTION ACTIVITIES Waste reduction refers to any action that avoids the generation of waste or reduces the toxicity of waste before it reaches the waste stream. Other terms used to describe waste reduction include source reduction,waste prevention,waste minimization and pollution prevention. Washington State law designates waste reduction as the highest priority waste management strategy. Examples of waste reduction methods include: • Reduce materials used in product manufacturing. • Increase the useful life of a product through durability and reparability. • Decrease the toxicity of products. • Reuse a product. • Reduce consumer use of materials and products. Existing waste reduction activities in Spokane Valley include public education, participation in regional programs,volume-based garbage fees, and backyard composting. These program elements are discussed below. Public Education To date, the City has distributed brochures developed by the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System (the "Regional System"). These brochures address waste reduction, reuse, mulching, composting, and household hazardous waste. Other Regional Programs The City has participated in regional programs to encourage waste reduction. These programs have included school and youth education, public education, coalitions with other entities,business and institution education, and home composting. More information about these programs can be found in the Spokane County 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Volume-Based Garbage Collection Fees Volume-based collection fees provide important feedback to residents and businesses and help educate them to the idea that there is a cost associated with the amount of waste they produce. In Spokane Valley, garbage collection costs vary according to the size of the container and frequency of collection for both residential and commercial customers. For residential customers, current garbage collection charges range from $14.45 per month for a 35-gallon cart emptied weekly to $29.14 for a 96-gallon cart emptied weekly (for carts provided by the waste hauler,Waste Management). Waste Management's website points out the potential for cost savings and provides tips for Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 3-1 Chapter 3:Waste Reduction by Green Solutions reducing the amount of garbage. Private and Personal Reuse Efforts The reuse and other waste reduction efforts conducted by residents,businesses and non-profit groups in Spokane Valley should not be overlooked. Although many of these are individual efforts that only deal with a small amount of products, altogether these activities provide a huge benefit to the local economy and avoid additional waste generation. Examples of these activities include garage sales, donations to charitable and for-profit organizations, the use of Craigslist and eBay, collection and reuse of building materials by Habitat for Humanity, and many other related activities. Backyard Composting Backyard composting is addressed here (instead of in the next chapter) because it is considered a waste reduction method. The City has promoted backyard composting through local public education efforts and also through regional efforts. City Code The Spokane Valley Municipal Code does not specifically encourage or discourage waste reduction activities,but does provide a mechanism for controlling potential problems that could result from two waste reduction activities: garage sales and backyard composting. Garage sales lasting more than seven consecutive days or occurring on more than two consecutive weekends are not allowed by city code. Compost piles found to be attracting an infestation of insects or other vermin are also not allowed. 3.2. WASTE REDUCTION PLANNING ISSUES Waste reduction is the highest priority waste management strategy because it conserves resources, reduces waste management costs, and minimizes pollution. Waste reduction programs can be the most difficult to implement,however,because these programs may require changes in production methods and consumption patterns, and are influenced by national/global economies and other factors that are typically beyond the control of local government. Specific waste reduction issues are discussed below. Food Waste Food waste is one of the largest components of the waste stream (see Table 2-4) and as such deserves attention as to the waste reduction possibilities for it. At the same time, there is increasing national awareness as to the amount of edible food that is going to waste. According to a recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council,3 40% of 3 From "Wasted: How America is Losing up to 40 Percent of its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill," by Dana Gunders, staff scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council,August 2012. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 3-2 Chapter 3:Waste Reduction by Green Solutions edible food is wasted as it travels from farms to kitchen tables. According to the USDA, a family of four could save $2,275 per year by making simple changes in the way they handle food purchases and storage. Implementation Difficulty Despite its high priority,waste reduction is a difficult topic for municipalities to address because it often requires either additional public education efforts or mandatory requirements (which are generally unpopular). Some activities may even be interpreted as being anti-business (such as for programs targeting a reduction in the use of a specific product). Measuring and Evaluating Waste Reduction Activities Measuring waste reduction is also difficult because the amount of waste generated in a specific area fluctuates with many variables, including economic conditions, seasonal changes and local weather. Hence, it can be difficult to demonstrate the cost- effectiveness or productivity of specific waste reduction techniques. 3.3. ALTERNATIVE WASTE REDUCTION STRATEGIES Many of the potential waste reduction methods, especially those regarding reductions in the degree of toxicity of specific products and waste reduction for manufacturing in general, are beyond the scope of what a single city can accomplish. Many of these are also beyond the scope of what a county or even a state can accomplish,but instead require action on a federal or international level. Perhaps the one exception to this principle is the idea of banning specific products,which can be done on a city or county level in order to force the use of a different product that has better waste reduction potential. The following alternatives were considered for new or expanded waste reduction activities. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is considered feasible or desirable,nor that is recommended (see Section 3.5 for waste reduction recommendations). Alternative A- Support New Product Stewardship Programs Product stewardship is a concept designed to alleviate the burden of end-of-life product management on local governments. Product stewardship programs typically address a specific type of product and provide an alternative collection or disposal system. One of the principles that this approach is based on is that the manufacturers of a product should bear the cost of collecting and recycling (or disposing of) that product, and that this will create an incentive for them to reduce the weight and/or toxicity of their products. Retailers, if they are involved in a program,would have an incentive to carry products that are easier (and so less expensive) to collect and recycle. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 3-3 Chapter 3:Waste Reduction by Green Solutions Developing new product stewardship programs is beyond the scope of a city,but Spokane Valley could participate in such programs developed by others. Any new product stewardship proposals at the county, state or federal levels could be evaluated and supported as appropriate to the City's interests. The cost for implementing this alternative would primarily be a small amount of staff time. Alternative B - Ban Specific Products or Materials The City could consider banning specific products that are difficult to recycle and/or causing problems such as litter. Examples of such bans include single-use plastic bags and Styrofoam carry-out containers,both of which have been banned by other cities (such as Seattle, Portland, and Issaquah). Implementing this approach could potentially require a substantial amount of staff time to research and defend, plus additional staff time and outreach costs for informing the affected parties and possibly enforcing a ban. Alternative C- Ban Yard Waste from Garbage Disposal Of all of the materials in the waste stream,yard waste is probably the easiest material to handle through other means. Yard waste can be left on the lawn (mulching of grass clippings), applied as a top-mulch in landscaping and gardens,handled through backyard composting (for leaves, grass clippings and some types of food wastes), chipped on-site (for branches and other woody materials), or recycled through residential and commercial yard waste collection programs. If an outright ban on disposal of yard waste within solid waste disposal containers is not feasible or desirable at this time, additional public education could be conducted instead to promote mulching of grass clippings,backyard composting, and even vermicomposting (using worm bins to convert food wastes into a desirable soil amendment). Banning yard waste from being placed in solid waste disposal containers could then be reconsidered at a later date. Alternative D - Promote Smart Shopping The City could conduct more promotion on the subject of smart shopping, such as using durable grocery bags and buying in bulk. Businesses could be encouraged to promote the use of durable grocery bags and to offer durable bags for customer use (as many grocery stores are already doing). The City could conduct a campaign that encourages: • Buying in bulk. • Buying concentrates. • Purchasing reusable products. • Buying secondhand items. • Avoiding over-packaged items. • Avoiding products containing hazardous ingredients. • Borrowing or renting when possible. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 3-4 Chapter 3:Waste Reduction by Green Solutions • Purchasing durable and repairable products. • Using reusable shopping bags. Another idea that is gaining in popularity is the use of fix-it workshops,where people can bring items in need of repairs and knowledgeable volunteers show them how to fix the item. Organizing this type of workshop is probably better accomplished by a non- profit group,but the City could help promote the workshops, provide space for the events, and possibly assist in other ways. Alternative E- Focus on Food Waste Food waste can be recycled through the yard waste collection program (see Chapter 4 for more details about that approach),but this does not address the fact that a substantial amount of edible food waste is unnecessarily discarded. A public education campaign could be used to inform residents of the meaning of expiration dates, opportunities to donate food, and other steps that could be taken to reduce food waste. Alternative F- Promote Volume-Based Collection Fees Waste Management already provides a system of volume-based fees for residential customers in Spokane Valley and surrounding areas, and rates charged by both haulers for commercial customers are also based on volumes. The availability of volume-based rates for residential customers could be publicized more to highlight the potential cost savings from waste reduction. The success of this approach could be monitored by the number of people who are signed up for the lower service levels. Furthermore, the City could require a rate system that provides greater incentive by reducing the cost for lower levels of service and increasing the cost of higher levels of service. For instance, the rate for a 64-gallon can emptied weekly could be set at an amount that is twice that of a 35-gallon can emptied weekly, and the rate for a 96-gallon can could be triple that of a 35-gallon can. This approach provides greater incentive for waste reduction and is used by many cities. Collection rates are discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 5. Alternative G - Business Waste Reduction Activities Business waste reduction programs are typically custom designed for each specific operation. Hence, this type of program is generally beyond the scope of a single city (to date, this approach has been conducted on a regional basis in the Spokane area). The City could,however, encourage businesses to examine their own wastes to look for ways to reduce the amounts of wastes, and to look for ways to recycle more (including the use of alternative products and materials that would be more recyclable). Business waste reduction programs typically include the following components: • Support and policy directives from upper management. • A waste reduction team or coordinator. • An accounting of materials purchased and waste produced. • A reduction plan targeting specific materials or practices. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 3-5 Chapter 3:Waste Reduction by Green Solutions • Employee education. • Ongoing feedback (to employees and others as appropriate) and evaluation. The City could request that the Chamber of Commerce or another group help promote these ideas and institute a recognition program for businesses that successfully reduce the amount of their wastes. With the Chamber's assistance, the cost for this program would be minimal, limited perhaps to only $25,000 for outreach materials, awards or plaques, and related expenses. Alternative H- Government Sector Leading by Example The City could set an example for local businesses and organizations, and become an even greater force in the marketplace,by broadening and upgrading procurement policies. The City could target products that: • Allow for greater waste reduction, such as purchasing copy machines that make double-sided copies more easily and setting duplex copying as default. • Require replacement or repair less often, such as rechargeable batteries and durable furniture. • Are easily repaired, such as machinery with standardized,replaceable parts. • Can be reused, such as washable plates and glasses. • Are nontoxic or less toxic, such as many cleaning agents and solvents now available. The City could also develop a more comprehensive in-house waste prevention program. By monitoring and reporting on effectiveness, costs, avoided costs, and program revenues for various waste reduction activities, the City could provide a model for local businesses and schools. In-house waste prevention programs could include: • Double- sided copying. • Routing slips instead of circulating multiple copies. • Electronic mail for intra-office messages. • Scrap pads from used paper. • Reusing large envelopes. • Use of very small cans for trash in individual offices,with larger containers provided for recycling. To ensure the program's continued success, employees need to receive regular updates about new waste reduction techniques. This information could be provided by informational notices or newsletters that are routed electronically on a regular basis. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 3-6 Chapter 3:Waste Reduction by Green Solutions Alternative I -Monitoring Waste Prevention Results It would be useful to have a mechanism for monitoring the results of waste prevention programs in order to provide feedback to participants and to provide a basis for future adjustments in the approaches being used. For many communities, this is typically done by periodically calculating the waste generation rate on a per capita basis. Unfortunately, changes in the generation rate due to waste prevention programs are typically very small in a given time period and so are easily masked or overwhelmed by other factors, such as economic problems or natural disasters. In the latter case, floods and storms can create large amounts of waste and it can be difficult to fully identify and separately account for these amounts. Alternatives to per capita rates include periodically conducting surveys of the residents or businesses about their activities to reduce waste, or conducting waste stream surveys for specific materials, products or packaging. Both of these activities can be quite expensive and may still lead to ambiguous results. A more effective approach than quantifying the amount of waste reduction may be to gauge success using a"performance-based standard." This is where waste prevention activities are presumed to be successful based on achieving a specific level of effort or other criteria. An example of this approach is to use the number of backyard composting bins that are distributed as a measure of the amount of yard debris that may be kept out of the waste stream. Other criteria can be used and these need to be tailored to each specific waste prevention activity. 3.4. EVALUATION OF WASTE REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES Review of Rating Criteria The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including consistency with solid waste planning goals, technical and political feasibility, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative. Based on the ratings for these criteria, each alternative can be given an overall rating and a decision can then be made as to whether to pursue it or not. Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: All of these alternatives support the goal of emphasizing waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy, and support other planning goals as well. Feasibility: In judging the alternatives for technical and political feasibility, most of the alternatives can be adopted without controversy or legal issues. Two alternatives (B and C) have potential issues with public acceptability and impacts to business practices and so are rated low for this criterion as a result of those questions. Monitoring the results of waste reduction programs could be technically challenging, and so this alternative is also rated low for feasibility. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 3-7 Chapter 3:Waste Reduction by Green Solutions Cost Effectiveness: Several of the waste reduction alternatives can be implemented without a significant investment in staff time or other resources, and so are rated high for cost-effectiveness. Alternative B would require significant amounts of staff time and other expenses such as outreach and enforcement,while possibly only affecting a small portion of the waste stream, and so this alternative is rated low for cost-effectiveness. A yard waste ban could require a significant amount of outreach to implement but also affects a significant portion of the waste stream, leading to a medium rating for this alternative. Monitoring the results of waste prevention programs has an uncertain return for the investment in staff time that could be necessary for this activity, so this alternative also has a low rating for cost-effectiveness. Rating of Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives is summarized in the following table. Table 3-1 Rating of the Waste Reduction Alternatives • Consistency with Planning Feasibility Cost- Overall Rating LAIternatiMm Goals Effectiveness A, Support product H H H H stewardship programs B, Ban specific products H L L L C, Ban yard waste H L M M D, Promote smart shopping H H H H E, Focus on food waste H H H H F, Promote volume-based H H H H fees G, Business waste reduction H H H H H, Government sector leading H H H H by example I, Monitoring waste H L L L prevention Rating Scores: H — High, M— Medium, L—Low 3.5 WASTE REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste reduction programs. The alternatives that were rated low in the above table are generally not being pursued as a recommendation in this Plan. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 3-8 Chapter 3:Waste Reduction by Green Solutions High-Priority Recommendations WR1) The City of Spokane Valley will evaluate product stewardship programs as these are proposed on a statewide or national level, and support those if appropriate to the interests of their citizens and the business community. WR2) The business community in Spokane Valley may be encouraged to reduce waste through a recognition program that publicizes success stories. WR3) The City of Spokane Valley will adopt policies and practices to encourage City departments to reduce waste. Medium-Priority Recommendations WR4) Public education materials distributed by the City of Spokane Valley will include information on alternative handling methods for yard waste, the value of"smart shopping" methods, how to avoid wasting food, and the availability of volume-based garbage collection fees. Low-Priority Recommendations WR5) A ban on the disposal of yard waste within solid waste disposal containers may be considered in the future if public education and outreach efforts are not effective in diverting most of this material from the waste stream. The lead agency responsible for implementing and funding these recommendations will be the City. Funds are expected to come from a surcharge on tipping fees at the transfer station, other available City funds, and the CPG grant program administered by Ecology. The costs for three of these recommendations (WR1,WR3, and WR5) consist primarily of staff time (although if a yard waste ban were actually implemented, there would be additional future expenses for informing the public of this and possibly also costs for enforcement activities). Recommendation WR2 could cost about$25,000, depending on how it is actually implemented. The cost for Recommendation WR4 is not high if waste reduction tips and information is included in general public education efforts. Since the City is pursuing its own management of its System, it will need a broad public education effort to inform residents and businesses about waste collection services, self- haul options, and recycling and yard waste programs as well as waste reduction. Since WR4 is the only recommendation that addresses public education, the full costs of those efforts is shown here and are estimated at$50,000 to $100,000 per year. The funding for Recommendations WR2 and WR4 would initially come from the disposal surcharge and other available City funds, and then be at least partially covered by CPG funds when the City becomes eligible for that grant in mid-2015. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 3-9 Chapter 3:Waste Reduction by Green Solutions Recommendation WR1 should be implemented on an as-needed basis. The implementation of recommendations WR2, WR3 and WR4 should begin next year (2015), and WR5 should be evaluated in 2018. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 3-10 Chapter 3:Waste Reduction by Green Solutions CHAPTER 4 RECYCLING AND ORGANICS COLLECTION 4.1. EXISTING RECYCLING AND ORGANICS PROGRAMS "Recycling" refers to the act of collecting and processing materials to return them to a similar use. Recycling does not include materials burned for energy recovery or destroyed through pyrolysis and other high-temperature processes. The State's definition of recycling is "recycling means transforming or remanufacturing waste materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill disposal or incineration. Recycling does not include collection, compacting,repackaging, and sorting for the purpose of transport" (Chapter 173-350 WAC). As indicated in the definition, the common use of the term"recycling" to refer to the act of placing materials in a special cart or other container to be collected separately from garbage is a misnomer, and recycling does not actually occur until the materials are processed and then used to create new products. On the other hand, keeping recyclable materials separate from garbage at the point of generation is typically a critically-important first step in ensuring that the materials are actually recycled. Organics (Clean Green) are also addressed in this chapter of the Plan. In the past, programs addressing organics have largely focused on yard debris (grass clippings, leaves and brush),but now these programs often include food waste and food-soiled paper. Previous processing methods for organics have consisted primarily of composting,but the addition of food waste is increasingly leading to the use of anaerobic digestion and other processing methods. The State's definition of composting is"composting means the biological degradation and transformation of organic solid waste under controlled conditions designed to promote aerobic decomposition. Natural decay of organic solid waste under uncontrolled conditions is not composting" (Chapter 173-350 WAC). Existing recycling and organics programs in Spokane Valley are primarily directed at the collection and transfer of these materials to facilities outside of the City. While the curbside and commercial collection programs operated by local haulers are the most visible examples of these programs, there is also a significant amount of other activities being conducted in the City. These activities are described in more detail below. Drop-Off and Buy-Back Programs The"typical" recyclables can be dropped off at several locations in and near the City for recycling, including the Sunshine Transfer Station and various other locations. Many of the other private companies and non-profit groups collect only a limited number of materials,but three such facilities in Spokane collect the full range of materials (Du-Mor Recycling, Earthworks Recycling, and Pacific Recycling). Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan -4-1 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions Examples of other drop-off activities include: • E-waste (electronics) can be dropped off at a Salvation Army and several Goodwill locations in Spokane Valley. • Ink cartridges can be returned for recycling at several local stores, or sent back to manufacturers through the mail. • Rechargeable batteries can be dropped off at certain hardware stores and other locations (depending on the type of battery). • Clothing can be dropped off at collection kiosks. Options for dropping off yard debris and food scraps are less common and only two of these are known to exist currently in Spokane Valley (the Sunshine Transfer Station and the County-owned Valley Transfer Station). The Sunshine Transfer Station accepts Clean Green (including mixed yard debris, food scraps and food-soiled paper) for a fee ($50 per ton as of November 2014,with a minimum charge of$10). Curbside and Commercial Collection Programs Residents in Spokane Valley are provided with recycling collection services by Waste Management. The types of materials, collection frequency and other details for the curbside recycling program in Spokane Valley (and other urban areas) have been guided to date by a service level ordinance adopted by Spokane County. This ordinance has been codified as Chapter 8.58 of the Spokane County Code. The County Code requires that all subscribers to garbage collection services in Spokane Valley receive (and pay for) curbside recycling services. This Code also requires that certified haulers provide this service, and that the haulers must collect newspaper, cardboard, aluminum and steel cans, and plastic bottles (types 1 and 2) at a minimum. At the hauler's options, they may also collect a variety of other materials, including mixed paper, glass bottles, and other types of plastics and metals. The actual types of materials currently collected by Waste Management in Spokane Valley are listed in Table 4-1. The curbside recycling program is currently conducted on an every-other-week basis. For the mixed organics collection program (yard debris and food waste), the collection frequency is weekly from March through November and monthly from December through February. For the curbside recycling program, there is no extra charge for additional materials placed in paper bags or cardboard boxes next to the recycling cart. For the mixed organics collection program, there are extra charges levied for additional materials placed outside of the cart. Both the recycling and mixed organics carts are 96- gallon carts provided by Waste Management. Multi-family buildings (apartments) in Spokane Valley are also provided with recycling and mixed organics collection services by Waste Management. These services are provided on a subscription basis, meaning that the manager or owner of an apartment building may choose to subscribe to one or both of these services and thus make them Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-2 Chapter 5: Waste Collection by Green Solutions available to their tenants. Materials collected for multi-family buildings are the same as for the residential curbside program (see Table 4-1). The size and number of containers, collection frequency and other details depend on the subscription level for the multi- family building. Table 4-1 Materials Collected for Recycling by Waste Management Program Acceptable Materials Unacceptable Materials Residential Curbside, Clean paper and cardboard Laminated and food-soiled Multi-Family and (including office paper, papers Commercial Recycling magazines, paperback books, Light bulbs, window and mirror Programs mail and food boxes) glass, and ceramics Clean glass bottles and jars Sharp metals and batteries Aluminum and tin/steel cans, Electronics scrap metal, aluminum food containers, and empty/non- Styrofoam hazardous aerosol cans Plastic bags Plastic bottles, jars and tubs Garbage (including diapers, syringes and hazardous waste containers) Mixed Organics Yard debris (leaves, grass Diapers clippings and small branches) Pet waste and litter Food scraps (fruits, vegetables, Plastics bread, grains, meat, dairy, and coffee grounds) Foil Food-soiled paper (paper Liquids towels, food-soiled paper bags, Shredded paper and greasy pizza boxes) Other types of non- compostable materials Source: Waste Management website, 2/24/14. Note: See http://wmnorthwest.com/Spokane/index.html for complete list of acceptable and unacceptable materials, and other important details. Businesses in Spokane Valley are provided with recycling collection services by the two certificated haulers, Sunshine Disposal and Waste Management, and several other companies. Since recycling by and for commercial and industrial companies is defined as a "free market" system by law, a variety of additional private companies can provide collection services for these businesses. Companies such as Earthworks Recycling, Diversified Wood Recycling, American Recycling Corporation, Baker Commodities, Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-3 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions Dickson Iron and Metal, Pacific Steel Hide and Recycling, Action Recycling, Du-Mor Recycling, Clark's Recycling and others provide pickup and drop-off services for materials such as metals, paper, and grease in commercial quantities. It is difficult to adequately describe all of these activities here, and such a description would also quickly become outdated and hence would not be useful in a long-term document such as this Plan. Current information on these activities can be obtained from other sources, such as Ecology's 1-800-recycle website. Recycled Tonnages It is currently not feasible to precisely quantify the tonnages collected by the many companies involved in recycling and organics collection in the City. Although Ecology collects data on current recycling amounts on an annual basis, that data is only available on a county level. Pro-rating the amount of recycling occurring in Spokane County, however,provides an estimate of 67,053 tons recycled and composted in 2012 in Spokane Valley (see Table 2-5). This is equivalent to a recycling rate of 54.7%. If "diverted materials"4 are also included in this analysis, the amount of recycled and diverted materials increases to 111,107 tons per year (in 2012). Including diverted materials means that additional types of wastes must also be included, and so the diversion rate only increases slightly to 57.1%. Recycling Markets State regulations (RCW 70.95.090(7)(c)) require"a description of markets for recyclables," hence a description of the markets for recyclable materials collected in Spokane Valley is provided below. This is intended to be only a brief report of current conditions, and it should be noted that market conditions for recyclables can undergo substantial changes in a short amount of time. Market demand and prices for recyclables have fluctuated significantly over the past several years,just as prices for all commodities fluctuate with demand and other factors. Some recyclable materials have seasonal cycles in supply and demand,but all materials exhibit long-term trends with the possibility of sudden price spikes or dips. In some cases, long-term contracts with price floors can help moderate the swings in market revenues,but this isn't possible for all materials. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show how the prices for aluminum cans and a few other materials collected from residential sources in the Pacific Northwest have fluctuated over the past 20 years. As can be seen in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, market prices dipped for most materials from 2008 to 2009 due to the slump in demand caused by the recession. 4 Diverted materials are materials that are handled separately from solid waste and instead directed to a beneficial use, but that do not meet the definition of recycling. Examples include construction wastes that are recycled and wood wastes that are burned for energy recovery. See Section 2.5 for more details. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-4 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions Figure 4-1 Price Paid for Baled Aluminum Cans (Annual Averages) $2,000.00 $1,800.00 $1,600.00 $1,400.00 2 $1,200.00 Q $1,000.00 cu $800.00 �L a $600.00 $400.00 $200.00 $0.00 M L1 LD N 00 cn o .-I N Cr) Ln l0 N 00 Q1 o .-I N M 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 o o o o o o o o o o -1 cI cI cI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o N N N N N N N N N N Source: Seattle Public Utilities website (original data source: American Metal Markets). Figure 4-2 Prices Paid for Select Recyclable Materials (Annual Averages) $600.00 $500.00 c $400.00 I a $300.00 Plastic U Mixed Paper a $200.00 Baled News $100.00 $0.00 M Ln N O ,-i M Ln N rn ,-i M o o o o co co co co o cn cn cn cn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl I I I N N N N N N N Source: Seattle Public Utilities website (original data sources are Mill Trade Journal's Recycling Markets, Pulp and Paper Week, Recycling Times, and Waste News). Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-5 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions Another important factor for marketing of recyclable materials collected in Spokane Valley is the cost of transporting the materials to end-markets, many of which are outside of Washington State. Recyclers in eastern Washington are farther from most markets and so have less access to these markets because the transportation cost is a barrier. The low market value of many recyclable materials limits the number of materials that can be cost-effectively moved to markets. 4.2. DESIGNATION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS The designation of recyclable materials has taken on more importance with the adoption of Chapter 173-350 WAC,which defines recyclable materials as being those materials"that are identified as recyclable materials pursuant to a local comprehensive solid waste plan." Since market conditions for recyclables can change drastically in a short amount of time, the list of designated materials is also accompanied by a description of the process for revising that list. Table 4-2 shows the list of designated recyclable materials. This list is not intended to create a requirement that every recycling program in the City collect every designated material. Instead, the intent is that through a combination of programs, residents and businesses should have an opportunity to recycle all of the designated materials through at least one program. In other words, if plastics are on the designated materials list, then at least one program in the city must collect plastics. The list has been prioritized to indicate the degree of access that residents and businesses should have for these materials (in other words, greater access should be available for the higher-priority materials). The list of"designated recyclable materials" shown in Table 4-2 should be used for guidance as to the materials to be recycled in the future. This list is based on existing conditions (collection programs and markets), and future markets and technologies may warrant changes in this list. The following conditions are grounds for additions or deletions to the list of designated materials: • The market price for an existing material becomes so low that it is no longer feasible to collect, process and/or ship it to markets. • Local markets and/or brokers expand their list of acceptable items based on new uses for materials or technologies that increase demand. • New local or regional processing or demand for a particular material develops. • No market can be found for an existing recyclable material, causing the material to be stockpiled with no apparent solution in the near future. • The potential for increased or decreased amounts of diversion. • Legislative mandate. • Other conditions not anticipated at this time. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-5 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions Table 4-2 List of Designated Recyclable Materials Priority Level Material High Priority Recyclables Materials: Clean paper and cardboard Materials that should Clean glass bottles and jars be collected by the Aluminum and tin cans, scrap metal, curbside, multi-family aluminum food containers, and empty/non- and commercial hazardous aerosol cans recycling programs, or Plastic bottles, jars and tubs by the mixed organics collection programs, in Mixed Organics the city. Yard debris Food scraps Food-soiled paper Medium Priority Edible food (donated) Materials: Cell phones Materials that should Electronics (e-waste) be collected at drop-off Clothing, textiles and buy-back locations Oil and oil filters (in the city or nearby), Antifreeze or through other collection services. Asphalt and concrete Batteries (all types) All metals, inc. appliances Plastic bags Reusable building materials Low Priority Wood Materials: Carpet Hard to recycle Drywall materials that should Roofing materials be recycled if markets Mixed construction and demolition are available. Shrink wrap, building wrap, and other film plastics Tires Any proposed changes in the list of designated materials should be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director, and minor changes in this list may be adopted without formally amending this Plan. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-6 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions 4.3. PLANNING ISSUES FOR RECYCLING AND ORGANICS The City of Spokane Valley is currently well-served by a variety of recycling and composting programs,but several improvements and issues could be addressed by this Plan. The most significant of these are noted below. The collection frequency for the residential curbside recycling program is currently every-other-week. Other studies have repeatedly shown that more frequent collections will lead to more diversion. Some communities have gone so far as to make garbage collection every-other-week and recycling weekly to encourage more recycling. Glass is currently included in the curbside recycling program and is mixed with other materials. When mixed with other materials, glass both contaminates the other materials and the glass itself is difficult to recycle. Recycling services in the City of Spokane Valley have been guided to date by a service level ordinance adopted by Spokane County. Since the City has assumed management of its System (see Chapter 6), it may be necessary or desirable for the City to adopt its own service level ordinance or otherwise ensure that garbage customers must also be provided with curbside recycling services. 4.4. ALTERNATIVE RECYCLING AND ORGANICS STRATEGIES The following alternatives were considered for new or expanded recycling and organics activities. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is considered feasible or desirable,nor that is recommended (see Section 4.6 for recycling and organics recommendations). Alternative A-Increase Curbside Recycling to Weekly Collection Studies have repeatedly shown that more frequent collection of recyclables leads to increased tonnages collected. Several cities have recently gone so far as to make recycling collections weekly and changed garbage collection to every-other-week (although a recent proposal by Seattle to do this failed due to questions about costs versus service levels). In general,weekly recycling collections are not double the cost of every-other-week collections,but the additional cost is in the range of 30 to 50% more than every-other-week collections. Weekly collection programs can be expected to collect about 30 to 40% additional tonnages over every-other-week collections. It should be noted that the additional tonnages more than make up for the greenhouse gas emissions related to the additional fuel consumed to run the route twice as much, since every additional ton of recyclables carries with it a huge benefit in greenhouse gas reductions. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-7 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions Alternative B - Switch to Dual Stream Collection to Collect Glass Separately Glass is a serious problem when mixed with other materials for recycling. Broken glass contaminates the other materials, especially paper and plastic, and makes it more difficult to recycle those materials. The glass that is carried along with the other materials causes problems with the processing equipment for paper and plastic and does not get recycled but ends up in landfills near the processing plants for the other materials. The glass that is recovered from a curbside mixture is also difficult to recycle because it consists of mixed colors and is also highly contaminated by other materials. Even if collected separately,however, markets for glass in Eastern Washington are nearly non-existent (although conversion to fiberglass and other alternative uses may be options), and the value of glass does not pay for the costs of shipping it to markets in Seattle and Portland. Alternative C -Minimum Service Level to Include Curbside Recycling When Spokane Valley creates its System, the City could continue to require curbside recycling services for residential garbage customers through a variety of means, such as by contract with the garbage haulers or through a service level ordinance. Alternative D - Drop-Off Site for Mixed Organics When the City of Spokane Valley leaves the Regional System, there is a question about the level of access that residents and local businesses will continue to have to the services provided by that system, including the Clean Green drop-off program at the Valley Transfer Station. This service will instead be provided by a drop-off site at the Sunshine Transfer Station. The contract signed with Sunshine in June 2014 provides for this and other services. Spokane Valley residents and businesses should be encouraged to use the Clean Green drop-off site at the Sunshine Transfer Station. 4.5. EVALUATION OF RECYCLING AND ORGANICS ALTERNATIVES Review of Rating Criteria The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including consistency with solid waste planning goals, technical and political feasibility, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative. Based on the ratings for these criteria, each alternative can be given an overall rating and a decision can then be made as to whether to pursue it or not. Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: All of these alternatives support the goal of increasing the recovery of marketable materials and providing convenient services for solid waste management. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-8 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions Feasibility: Alternatives C and D appear relatively easy for the City to implement, while Alternative A could be difficult due to the increased costs. Alternative B would also be difficult to implement, since it too would be more expensive but more importantly it would be very difficult for residents and businesses to switch to a dual- stream system after they have enjoyed the convenience of a single-stream system. Cost Effectiveness: Alternative A would cost more but would also lead to more tons collected for recycling, resulting in a cost per ton for recycling similar to the current system. Alternative B would be relatively expensive to implement, since additional bins or carts would be needed for curbside recycling program participants, although it could potentially result in more tons of material being actually recycled in the end. Alternative C would not cost much to implement but could provide significant advantages. Alternative D will require significant capital investment but will be self- funding (from tipping fees) and is very cost-effective compared to the alternative (disposal of yard and food waste as garbage). Rating of Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives is summarized in the following table. Table 4-3 Rating of the Recycling and Organics Alternatives Consistency Cost- with Planning Feasibility Cost- Overall Rating Alternative Goals Effectiveness A, Weekly curbside recycling H L M M B, Dual-stream approach H L L L C, Continue to include curbside recycling with H H H H garbage service D, Encourage City residents and businesses to use H H H H Sunshine Transfer Station clean green site Rating Scores: H— High, M— Medium, L—Low Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-9 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions 4.6 RECYCLING AND ORGANICS RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for recycling and organics programs: High-Priority Recommendations R1) Curbside recycling will continue to be included with garbage collection services for residential customers in Spokane Valley. R2) City residents and businesses will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for Clean Green drop-off services. Medium-Priority Recommendations R3) Weekly curbside recycling will be evaluated as part of the waste collection system changes expected to be implemented by Spokane Valley in 2018. The City has determined that it will implement its own System and so will implement R1 and has entered into a contract with Sunshine to implement R2. The City will be responsible for implementing Recommendation R3 as part of the changes anticipated in the future for the waste collection system (see next chapter). None of these recommendations will result in direct costs to the City, although two of the recommendations (R2 and R3) will result in additional costs to others, and those costs will be funded by user fees. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-10 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions CHAPTER 5 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION 5.1. EXISTING WASTE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES Existing Waste Haulers There are two solid waste collection service providers in Spokane Valley. As further described below, the City currently has franchises with both haulers,Sunshine Disposal and Waste Management. Under the current franchises,Sunshine Disposal collects waste from large containers (i.e., roll-offs and stationary compactors) for non- subscription customers, and Waste Management collects waste from containers (i.e.. compactors, roll off containers smaller dumpsters, and residential garbage carts) from residential and commercial customers. Sunshine Disposal provides recycling services to commercial customers, and Waste Management provides collection and recycling services for both residential and commercial customers, and Clean Green for residential customers. The City is in the process of negotiating contracts with both haulers. While negotiations are still ongoing, the City anticipates that the contracts will be for a term ending in 2018 and that both haulers will continue to provide the same services as they are currently providing. The mailing addresses and current population density for the service areas of the two collection service providers are shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Waste Collection Service Providers in Spokane Valley Population Land Area Density lirService Provider Address Served square miles (quareeop)e mileper_ s ) 11320 W. McFarland Road Sunshine Disposal NA 38.22 NA Airway Heights, WA 99001 Waste Management 11321 E. Indiana Avenue, 91,490 38.22 2,394.0 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Totals 91,490 38.22 2,394.0 Source: Population and land area figures are from the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) for 2013. There are also other collection services active in the City for special types of waste. Two companies have been issued statewide authority by the UTC to collect biomedical waste, for instance. These companies are Stericycle of Washington and Waste Management Healthcare Solutions of Washington. Other companies collect hazardous wastes. "Self-haul" by the waste generator (transportation of a person's or company's Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 5- 1 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions own waste) is also allowed, as long as the waste is brought to a properly-permitted facility. Regulations Concerning Waste Collection The Washington State authorities that govern collection activities are Ecology and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission("UTC"). RCW 70.95.020 also assigns responsibilities to local government for the management of solid waste handling while encouraging the use of private industry. The various laws that may apply to solid waste collection companies include: • Chapter 81.77 RCW,Solid Waste Collection Companies: This law establishes the state regulatory authority for solid waste collection companies and the procedures and standards with which they must comply. • Chapter 35.21 RCW, Cities and Towns: This law establishes authority of towns and cities in regard to solid waste and the procedures and standards with which they must comply. • Chapter 480-70 WAC, Rules for Solid Waste and/or Refuse Collection Companies: This chapter establishes standards for public safety,fair practices, reasonable charges,nondiscriminatory application of rates, adequate and dependable service, consumer protection, and compliance for solid waste collection companies. • Chapter 480-07 WAC, UTC Procedural Rules: This chapter addresses how to conduct business with the UTC. Four forms of collection services are allowed by State law in the City: • Certificated: With this collection method, cities are not actively involved in the management of garbage collection. Instead, it allows the UTC-certificated hauler to provide service under UTC regulation. • Municipal: Municipal collection utilizes municipal employees to collect waste (such as is done in the City of Spokane). • Licensed collection: This method applies to municipalities that require private collectors to have both a city-issued license as well as a UTC certificate. This approach gives the municipality limited control over collection services. Pursuant to state law, the City has assumed control and management of solid waste collection within its boundaries by entering into seven-year franchises with Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal for solid waste, recycling, and organic collection in 2008. Pursuant to state law, the City is currently negotiating contracts for the extinguishment of the haulers' statutory rights for measurable damages. Under such contracts, the City anticipates the haulers will continue to provide the same services as they have provided under the existing franchises. The City anticipates that it will enter into the contracts with Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal in 2014 to provide Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 5-3 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions for full extinguishment of haulers' statutory rights by March, 2018. After completion of the contracts with Waste Management and Sunshine, the City anticipates submitting a request for proposals for a long-term contract for solid waste, recycling, and organic collection in 2018. 5.2. WASTE COLLECTION FUTURE PLANNING When the City seeks a new contract for waste collection in 2018, the City will have the opportunity to develop a collection system from the ground up. The City could maintain the existing system or make changes to improve recycling and waste reduction options. The following are possible changes the City may consider: • Encourage more favorable recycling rates as a waste reduction initiative. • Encourage homeowners to participate in subscription waste collection and recycling services. • Explore innovative ways to increase recycling activities. • Explore citywide cleanup events and seasonal moderate-risk waste roundups. The City anticipates conducting a public participation program prior to going out for a new contract in 2018 to determine desired services and the acceptability of some of these options. 5.3. ALTERNATIVE WASTE COLLECTION STRATEGIES The following alternatives were considered for new or expanded waste collection activities. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is considered feasible or desirable,nor that is recommended (see Section 5.5 for waste collection recommendations). Alternative A- Contracted Collection Services The City is currently negotiating contracts with existing waste collection companies (Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal) that are anticipated to be executed in 2014 with terms lasting until 2018. As the 2018 expiration date draws near with Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal, the City will utilize a process to receive public input on various options for service levels for the subsequent collection contract. Such options will include: collection frequencies, recycling options, citywide cleanup programs, moderate-risk waste roundup, and other aspects of solid waste collection. Alternative B - Increase Curbside Collection Subscriptions The City would encourage increasing subscriptions for curbside collection through educating customers of the benefits of collection services. This approach reduces the Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 5-3 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions amount of illegal dumping and"junk" properties, and leads to lower per-unit collection fees. Collection fees are lower on the average because collection services can operate more efficiently when more households and businesses participate. This approach is also more efficient because it reduces individual trips that people make to a transfer station to drop off their garbage,with the resulting congestion there and the increased impact to the environment due to fuel consumption. Finally, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that people who self-haul their garbage do not recycle as much as those who subscribe to garbage collection and curbside recycling services. 5.4. EVALUATION OF WASTE COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES Review of Rating Criteria The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including consistency with solid waste planning goals, technical and political feasibility, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative. Based on the ratings for these criteria, each alternative can be given an overall rating and a decision can then be made as to whether to pursue it or not. Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: Both of these alternatives support the goal of providing convenient and reliable services, although some people may take issue with the idea that curbside garbage collection is better than self-haul to the transfer station. Feasibility: In judging the alternatives for technical and political feasibility, Alternative A can actually be considered more feasible than maintaining the status quo,whereas Alternative B is rated medium for this criteria due to the presumed somewhat unpopular question if customers do not want to subscribe to curbside collection. Cost Effectiveness: Both Alternatives A and B should be cost-effective. Rating of Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives is summarized in the following table. Table 5-2 Rating of the Waste Collection Alternatives Consistency 1� Cost- with Planning Feasibility Cost- Overall Rating Alternative Goals Effectiveness A, Contracted collection H H H H service B, Increase curbside M M M M subscri•tions Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 5-4 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions Rating Scores: H — High, M— Medium, L—Low 5.5 WASTE COLLECTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste collection programs: High-Priority Recommendations C1) When the City fully assumes control of collection services, anticipated to be in 2018,various options will be considered for providers and service levels, including negotiating versus bidding for haulers and collection frequency for recycling. Medium-Priority Recommendations C2) Educate the public on the benefits of curbside collection services and the comprehensive costs related to self-haul to transfer station. The City is the lead agency for both of these recommendations. Recommendation Cl should be implemented by 2018 through a competitive or negotiated process. Recommendation C2 could be evaluated at the time that the collection contract changes. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 5-5 Chapter 5:Waste Collection by Green Solutions CHAPTER 6 TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL 6.1. EXISTING TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES Overview There are currently two transfer stations operating in Spokane Valley: a private station owned and operated by Sunshine and a public facility, the Valley Transfer Station (see Figure 6-1). There are three additional transfer stations operating in Spokane County (but outside of the City limits for Spokane Valley): the North County Transfer Station (also known as Colbert Transfer Station), the City of Spokane Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Facility (which also acts as a transfer station), and a transfer facility operated by Stericycle (for biomedical wastes). There are no disposal facilities in Spokane Valley. In other areas of Spokane County, there is the City of Spokane WTE Facility, one active municipal solid waste ("MSW") landfill (Northside Landfill), one limited purpose landfill (Graham Road Recycling and Disposal), and six permitted inert waste landfills. The Northside Landfill is not open to the public,but is used by the City of Spokane for emergency disposal purposes (in case the WTE Facility is temporarily shut down) and for disposal of materials that cannot be processed at the W11, Facility. The Graham Road Landfill is open to the public and handles primarily construction and demolition waste, petroleum-contaminated soils, inert wastes, asbestos and other wastes. All of the six inert waste landfills are privately owned and operated. Three of these are not open to the public, and one of the inert landfills is permitted but not currently operating. The two inert waste landfills that are open to the public (Busy Bee Landfill and Spokane Rock Products) handle primarily concrete and asphalt. There are also a number of closed landfills in Spokane County (most notably Colbert Landfill, Greenacres Landfill and Mica Landfill), some of which are still undergoing monitoring and remedial actions. Sunshine Disposal &Recycling Transfer Station The Sunshine Transfer Station is a privately owned and operated transfer station located at 2405 University Road in Spokane Valley. This transfer station has been in operation at that location since 1983. The transfer station is currently open to contractors and commercial haulers for waste disposal. Residential and commercial waste collected by Sunshine Disposal is delivered here. Depending on the type of waste, these wastes are consolidated into transfer trailers or intermodal containers, which are used to transport waste to its final disposal site. Waste from contractors is generally transferred to the Graham Road limited purpose landfill. Cardboard and other recyclables collected from local businesses are delivered to the station and prepared for transport to markets by sorting and baling. Workers also separate some recyclables (primarily metals and wood) from mixed loads on the station's tipping floor. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 6-1 Chapter 6:Transfer and Disposal by Green Solutions Figure 6-1 Solid Waste Facilities in Spokane Valley 01.21.liplir WASH NGTON K. X#L1 SPOKANE COUNTY 1 ■ Valley Transfer Station ■ Sunshine Disposal Transfer Station City of Spokane Valley 1_ i N W =k _ r 1 , s Note: Although the Valley Transfer Station is located in Spokane Valley, it is part of the Spokane County system and is not part of the City's System. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 6-2 Chapter 6:Transfer and Disposal by Green Solutions The permit for the Sunshine Transfer Station was recently modified to include an MRW drop-off site, the capability to serve residential self-haul customers, a drop-off area for Clean Green,recycling drop-off containers, and other changes. Valley Transfer Station The Valley Transfer Station has been in operation since 1991. Previously, this station was owned and operated by the Regional System,but a recent agreement between the City of Spokane and Spokane County has transferred the ownership of this and the North Side Transfer Station to Spokane County. This transfer of ownership will become effective in November 2014. This agreement also includes provisions for the County to direct waste from the transfer stations to the City's WTE Facility. At the time that this Plan was being developed, the County was going through the process of hiring a private company to operate the transfer stations. The Valley Transfer Station is open to residential and commercial customers, and accepts solid waste for disposal at the WTE Facility. The Valley Transfer Station also accepts recyclable materials, Clean Green and moderate-risk waste ("MRW"), and has a separate area for collecting white goods (large appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines). 6.2. TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL PLANNING ISSUES The interlocal agreement for the Regional System expires on November 16, 2014. The City of Spokane Valley has entered into a contract with Sunshine to provide transfer, transport, and disposal services through its transfer station. The contract has a term of 10 years,with the option for two three-year extensions. Certain disposal options, including but not limited to incineration facilities and landfills located within the City of Spokane Valley, are not considered feasible options and so are not discussed in this Plan. 6.3. ALTERNATIVE TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL STRATEGIES The City recently went through an evaluation process to evaluate using the new County system and Valley Transfer Station versus use of the Sunshine Transfer Station. The City Council selected Sunshine and recently entered into a new contract with Sunshine to provide transfer and disposal services, so no additional options for these services need to be evaluated at this time. This contract is anticipated to save a substantial amount of money for City residents and businesses. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 6-3 Chapter 6:Transfer and Disposal by Green Solutions The contract that the City of Spokane Valley has signed with Sunshine provides for a tipping fee (disposal charge) of$98.15 per ton for solid waste,with a minimum fee of $15.20 per load. Clean Green will be accepted at the Sunshine Transfer Station for $50.00 per ton with a minimum fee of$10.00 per load. Separated recyclables and MRW will be received at the Sunshine Transfer Station at no charge. All rates will be paid by customers directly to Sunshine. The City will receive an administrative fee of$125,000 per year from Sunshine, a portion of which will be used to pay for staff administration of the City's contract with Sunshine. 6.4 TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendation is being made for transfer and disposal programs: High-Priority Recommendations D1) The Sunshine Transfer Station is designated as the disposal system for all solid waste from Spokane Valley, effective November 17, 2014. The City is the lead agency for this and related activities. Funding for transfer and disposal costs will be derived from surcharges on tipping fees. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 6-4 Chapter 6:Transfer and Disposal by Green Solutions CHAPTER 7 SPECIAL WASTES 7. 1 . INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to review the generation,handling and disposal methods for special wastes in Spokane Valley. These wastes generally require special handling and disposal due to regulatory requirements or for one or more other reasons. Hence, these wastes are currently managed and disposed of separately from the solid waste disposal system, and may not actually be defined as solid waste. The following special wastes are discussed in this chapter: 7.2 Biomedical Wastes 7.3 Construction and Demolition ("C&D") Wastes 7.4 Moderate-Risk Waste 7.5 Street Sweepings and Vactor Waste The source(s) and current handling practices for each special waste are described in this chapter. All of the wastes are also examined for needs and issues,but only those that pose disposal problems were further examined for alternatives and recommendations. 7.2. BIOMEDICAL WASTES Existing Management Practices for Biomedical Wastes State law (Chapter 70.95K RCW) defines biomedical wastes to include: Animal waste: animal carcasses,body parts and bedding of animals that are known to be infected with, or have been inoculated with, pathogenic microorganisms infectious to humans. Biosafety level 4 disease waste: biosafety level 4 disease waste is waste contaminated with blood, excretions, exudates, or secretions from humans or animals who are isolated to protect others from highly communicable infectious diseases that are identified as pathogenic organisms assigned to biosafety level 4 by the centers for disease control, National Institute of Health,biosafety in microbiological and biomedical laboratories, current edition. Cultures and stocks: wastes infectious to humans and includes specimen cultures, cultures and stocks of etiologic agents,wastes from production of biologicals and Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-1 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions serums, discarded live and attenuated vaccines, and laboratory waste that has come into contact with cultures and stocks of etiologic agents or blood specimens. Such waste includes but is not limited to culture dishes,blood specimen tubes, and devices used to transfer, inoculate, and mix cultures. Human blood and blood products: discarded waste human blood and blood components, and materials containing free flowing blood and blood products. Pathological waste: human source biopsy materials, tissues, and anatomical parts that emanate from surgery, obstetrical procedures and autopsy. Does not include teeth, human corpses, remains and anatomical parts that are intended for interment or cremation. Sharps: all hypodermic needles, syringes and IV tubing with needles attached, scalpel blades, and lancets that have been removed from the original sterile package. Clinics and agencies that generate biomedical waste are required to prepare and maintain a biomedical waste management plan. The plan must identify the types and quantities of biomedical waste and handling procedures for segregation, containment, transport, treatment, monitoring and disposal. The management plan must also include staff training procedures and contingency planning and identify specific individuals responsible for biomedical waste handling. The plan must be approved by the chief executive of the facility and must be available for inspection at the request of the local health officer. Biomedical waste must be segregated from other waste materials. Biomedical waste, other than sharps, must be enclosed in a red plastic bag and placed in a labeled, biomedical waste storage container. Sharps must be placed in a leak-proof, puncture- resistant, labeled container secured with a lid. Biomedical waste must be treated by an approved method prior to disposal. Approved treatment methods include steam sterilization, incineration and others as approved by the local health officer. The UTC regulates transporters of biomedical wastes. The UTC has issued statewide franchises to Waste Management and Stericycle to transport biomedical wastes. Their regulations also allow regular solid waste haulers to refuse to haul wastes that they observe to contain infectious wastes as defined by the UTC. Individual residents who generate hypodermic needles are not regulated as are clinics and agencies. Residents may collect used hypodermic needles in either labeled sharps containers made for that purpose or in empty plastic bottles such as detergent or bleach bottles (preferably labeled). Full containers can be dropped off at MRW collection sites. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-2 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions Planning Issues for Biomedical Wastes Most biomedical wastes generated in Washington State are currently being handled properly. There are occasionally problems with small amounts of biomedical wastes being improperly disposed from small generators such as veterinarians and dental offices,but in general these can be addressed on an as-needed basis. Residential "sharps" (syringes),however, can be a problem. Sharps and other biomedical wastes are generated at residential locations from home health care, especially for diabetes and other health problems, and from illegal drug use. Residential sources often lack access to proper disposal methods, and residential sharps thrown in the garbage can pose a hazard to waste collectors and others. Alternative Strategies for Biomedical Wastes The following alternative was considered for biomedical wastes. Special Waste Alternative A-Publicize Proper Disposal Options for Residential Sharps: An ongoing campaign could be conducted to publicize and promote the proper disposal options for residential sharps. This could be accomplished through a multi-prong effort involving the City, the Health District and local pharmacies that sell syringes. The Health District and local pharmacies could take the lead on establishing programs to handle the syringes and publicizing the availability of these programs. For the City, a brief explanation of the problems and proper disposal opportunities could be included on general information that is distributed about the waste collection system. This alternative is evaluated further at the end of this chapter (see Section 7.6). 7.3 . CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES Existing Management Practices for C&D Wastes This section of the Plan also addresses"green building," which is a topic closely related to construction and demolition wastes. C&D wastes are defined simply as the wastes that are generated from construction and demolition activities. These wastes consist primarily of new and used building materials (wood, sheetrock, pipe and other metals, shingles, etc.), concrete and asphalt. Land clearing wastes, including soil, stumps and brush, are also sometimes included in this category,but these materials are rarely treated as a waste. To the extent these materials are taken off-site, the materials can be handled as a valuable product, clean fill or inert wastes (in the case of clean soils), or as a wood waste. A category related to C&D wastes is"inert wastes." State rules adopted in February 2003, Chapter 173-350 WAC, created this category of waste. Inert wastes are defined to include some types of construction wastes, such as concrete, asphalt,brick, tile,wood, and roofing,but specifically excludes sheetrock. Inert wastes also include glass, Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-3 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions stainless steel, aluminum, and other wastes that can meet the criteria for inert wastes (will not burn, creates no harmful leachate or gases, etc.). The regulatory status of inert wastes differs from mixed C&D wastes,with disposal requirements that are less strict. The total amount of C&D wastes generated in Spokane Valley is unknown,but for most communities, C&D wastes are generated in quantities equal to half or more of the regular solid waste stream. C&D wastes are generated at a rate that is proportional to construction activity, and so annual amounts will vary depending on population growth, the economic climate and other factors. Large commercial developments and other one-time projects can have a significant impact on annual amounts, as can natural disasters. C&D wastes can be handled in a variety of ways. Some of this waste can be reused or recycled at facilities in the area (such as Habitat for Humanity, Brown Building Materials and Greenacres Gypsum), and much of it is brought to one of the landfills in the area (Graham Road Recycling and Disposal or one of the inert waste landfills). A significant amount of C&D wastes are disposed with solid wastes. According to the estimated waste composition figures (see Table 2-4), there are 5,000 tons of wood and 6,280 tons of construction waste in the solid waste stream from Spokane Valley. Beyond Waste Plan: Increasing the amount of green building practices is one of the five key initiatives identified in the State's Beyond Waste Plan. Green building is defined by the Beyond Waste Plan as"design and construction practices that significantly reduce or eliminate the negative impact of buildings on the environment and occupants in five broad areas: sustainable site planning; conservation of materials and resources; energy efficiency and renewable energy; safeguarding water and water efficiency; and indoor air quality." The Beyond Waste Plan adopted a short-term goal of"dramatically increasing adoption of environmentally preferable building construction, operation and deconstruction practices throughout the state and the region." A separate long-term goal was also adopted,which is for"green building to be a mainstream and usual practice throughout the state." Planning Issues for C&D Wastes There appears to be no significant problems currently with the management of C&D wastes in Spokane Valley, although reuse and recycling opportunities for these materials could likely be used more. Alternative Strategies for C&D Wastes Possible alternatives for C&D wastes are described below. Special Waste Alternative B -Install Collection Areas at the Transfer Stations: An area at the two local transfer stations could be set up as a collection and temporary storage point for reusable building materials. Materials could be placed in this area by either the customers or by transfer station staff (time permitting). The area should be Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-4 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions close to the tipping floor but also distinctly separated from it, to avoid confusion about what materials are permissible to take (scavenging directly from the tipping floor should not be allowed due to safety and regulatory concerns). Rules would need to be established as to whom may take materials from this area, and in any case solid waste customers should be required to weigh and complete their garbage transaction before taking materials from this area. Special Waste Alternative C - Promote Green Building: As mentioned earlier in this section, Ecology has adopted green building as one of the five primary initiatives in the Beyond Waste Plan. The scope of green building is very broad,however, and there are only a few of these topics that fit within the context of this Plan. For instance, issues dealing with energy efficiency,water conservation and indoor air quality have little to do with topics such as C&D recycling or even the use of recycled products. The green building activities that are relevant to this Plan are limited to: • Promoting de-construction activities that allow reuse and recycling. • Encouraging builders and others to recycle C&D materials. These activities could be promoted using a variety of tactics, ranging from providing links to other sources of information, to recycling requirements attached to new building permits. For the City of Spokane Valley, an appropriate level of involvement might be to provide brochures and other information developed by others, as these are available. Alternatives B and C are evaluated further at the end of this chapter (see Section 7.6). 7.4. MODERATE-RISK WASTES Introduction Residents and businesses in Spokane Valley produce small amounts of hazardous wastes, such as used solvents or other chemicals and leftover amounts of products such as garden chemicals and paints. For most businesses and virtually all residents, the amount of hazardous waste produced falls below the amount that is regulated and so is classified by Washington State law as a "moderate-risk waste." Businesses that create larger amounts of these wastes are regulated as hazardous waste generators and are subject to stricter requirements. Hazardous wastes as defined by State law (RCW 70.105.010) are excluded from the definition of solid waste, and so are not required to be addressed in a plan such as this. MRW generators are not required to retain the services of a hazardous waste disposal company (as larger generators must do),however, MRW will be disposed with solid waste if a convenient alternative is not provided. In other words, solid waste systems must provide an alternative disposal method for MRW or by default these materials Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-5 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions will end up in the wastes that are sent to landfills or incinerators. In recognition of this need, a State law (RCW 70.105.220) required local governments to produce a "local hazardous waste plan" that was to be implemented by December 31, 1991. This section of the Plan addresses MRW in recognition of the need for a solid waste system to provide a viable alternative for the proper disposal of these wastes. This section is not intended to satisfy the requirements for a local hazardous waste plan, which would require much more extensive analysis and program development. The City of Spokane Valley is considered to have satisfied the 1991 requirement for such a plan based on the fact that prior to its incorporation in 2003, the City was part of Spokane County, and the County had already complied with that requirement. Furthermore, it should be noted that another provision of State law (RCW 70.95.080(6)) clearly states"local governments shall not be required to include a hazardous waste element in their solid waste management plans." Regulations for Moderate-Risk Wastes MRW includes waste materials that have the characteristics of and pose the same risks as hazardous wastes,but are generated in relatively small quantities by individual households and in small quantities by businesses. In other words, these wastes are flammable, corrosive, toxic, and/or reactive. Federal law does not currently regulate these wastes as hazardous,but each state can adopt stricter regulations for hazardous waste from households and small quantity generators. Washington State has chosen to regulate these materials. Ecology has created a waste classification called MRW that includes household hazardous waste (which is generated by residential sources) and small quantity generator waste (which is generated by businesses,but in quantities below the current threshold for hazardous waste regulations). A State law adopted in 1991 also added used oil to the list of materials to be addressed by MRW programs. Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Waste: Many businesses and institutions produce small quantities of hazardous wastes. Conditionally exempt small quantity generators ("CESQGs") may produce hazardous waste at rates less than 220 pounds per month or per batch (or 2.2 pounds per month or per batch of extremely hazardous waste) and accumulate less than 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste on-site (or 22 pounds of extremely hazardous waste). Extremely hazardous wastes include specific pesticides and other poisons that are more toxic than other hazardous wastes. At amounts above these limits, the businesses become medium or large-quantity generators and must comply with the reporting and other requirements for hazardous waste management and disposal. CESQGs are conditionally exempt from State and Federal regulation, meaning that they are exempt only as long as they generate less waste than the threshold amounts, and properly manage and dispose of their wastes. Used Oil: Washington State law (Chapter 70.95I RCW) requires that local governments manage used oil in conjunction with their MRW programs and submit annual reports to Ecology. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-6 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions The Beyond Waste Plan Ecology is required by law (Chapters 70.105 and 70.95 RCW) to develop and update the statewide hazardous waste and solid waste plans. In 2004, Ecology simultaneously updated the 1991 State Solid Waste Management Plan and the 1994 State Hazardous Waste Management Plan. In 2004, the updated plans were published together as the Beyond Waste Plan. An updated version of the Beyond Waste Plan became available at the end of 2009. The Beyond Waste Plan's 30-year vision states: "We can transition to a society where waste is viewed as inefficient, and where most wastes and toxic substances have been eliminated. This will contribute to economic, social and environmental vitality." The Beyond Waste Plan recognizes that "waste generation in Washington continues to increase, and that toxic substances are more prevalent in our everyday lives now than they were just few years ago." It explains why it is important to move beyond waste and concludes "to lower the risks to people and the environment,Washington needs to shift to an approach that will significantly reduce wastes and toxic substances over time." The Beyond Waste Plan adopted five initiatives as starting points for reducing solid and toxic wastes in Washington. One of these initiatives is"reducing small-volume hazardous materials and wastes." This initiative addresses products and substances commonly used in households and in relatively small quantities by businesses. Ecology included this initiative in the Beyond Waste Plan for three reasons: 1. The Beyond Waste Plan assumes that MRW affects everyone. A major premise of the Beyond Waste Plan is that small-volume hazardous materials and wastes are everywhere and that people come into contact with them daily. As a result, chronic and acute exposure to hazardous chemicals in homes and businesses can be a significant health risk,which can be very costly to businesses and society due to health care costs, environmental degradation, insurance and liability. 2. The Beyond Waste Plan also assumes that the current management system is not sustainable over the long term. Government funds pay for special collections, fixed facilities, and treatment and disposal programs to keep MRW out of municipal solid waste landfills and away from illegal disposal,but currently only a portion of all MRW is actually captured. Achieving future goals will require a better approach, including safer alternatives, product stewardship,waste reduction, recycling and convenient collection opportunities that do not rely primarily on public systems and finances. 3. Finally, the Beyond Waste Plan assumes that great strides are possible, and that many opportunities exist to reduce and eliminate risks associated with MRW. This is based in part on the idea that consumer demand is building for less harmful products, as well as for more reuse and recycling. Several regional and national Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-7 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions initiatives are already underway, such as E-Cycle, the Take-it-Back Network and fluorescent lamp recycling,which lend credence to these ideas. The Beyond Waste Plan identifies the following recommendations for the small-volume hazardous materials initiative to succeed: 1. Eliminate or minimize groups of the most toxic chemicals as part of the Ecology's Reducing Toxic Threats work. 2. Reduce threats from mercury. 3. Reduce threats from Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins. 4. Develop a more comprehensive list of covered electronics through a product stewardship infrastructure. 5. Reduce the use of high-risk pesticides, emphasize proper use, and encourage effective alternatives. 6. Reduce and manage all architectural paint wastes. 7. Implement and promote Environmentally Preferable Purchasing at state and local governments and in institutional settings,with Ecology leading by example. Support the Climate Action Team proposals and other initiatives. 8. Ensure MRW and hazardous substances are regulated and managed according to hazards, toxicity and risk. 9. Support full implementation of local hazardous waste plans. 10. Ensure businesses and facilities handling MRW comply with environmental laws and regulations. Encourage as much reuse and recycling of MRW as possible. 11. Educate the public and businesses on prevention, proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous products and wastes. Encourage safer alternatives to minimize toxic threats, especially to vulnerable populations. 12. Develop and implement a strategy for a more regionally focused MRW program by evaluating the most significant threats and effective approaches, including safer alternatives, to reducing those threats. The Beyond Waste Plan adopted"five-year milestones" for these recommendations. Existing Management Practices for Moderate-Risk Wastes To date, moderate-risk wastes generated in Spokane Valley have been handled through drop-off collection sites at the Valley Transfer Station and two other locations operated by the Regional System. The drop-off site at the Valley Transfer Station is open from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. seven days per week (except major holidays). Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-8 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions Only household hazardous wastes are accepted for free at this site. CESQG's are referred to a private contractor for disposal of their wastes, and the private contractor periodically conducts collection events for CESQGs at the transfer station. Ongoing funding for the MRW program is provided through a portion of the tipping fee and Ecology's CPG grant program. Public education and information about the MRW program, including technical assistance to commercial generators,has been provided to date by Regional System staff. Others in the area, including garbage haulers and recycling companies, also provide information on proper handling and disposal of MRW. Planning Issues for MRW Wastes Because the City of Spokane Valley has chosen to leave the Regional System, an alternative program will be needed for MRW. Access to the MRW services at the Valley Transfer Station and other County-owned facilities may not be available. Sunshine has agreed to provide this service at its transfer station, and it is anticipated that they will collect a similar range of materials. Alternative Strategies for MRW Wastes Special Waste Alternative D - Encourage City Residents and Businesses to Use New Program for MRW: When the City leaves the Regional System in November 2014, local residents and businesses could be encouraged to use the MRW collection site at the Sunshine Transfer Station because access to existing County-owned sites may no longer be available. This alternative is evaluated further at the end of this chapter (see Section 7.6). 7.5. STREET SWEEPINGS AND VACTOR WASTES Existing Management Practices for Street Sweepings and Vactor Wastes Street sweepings and vactor wastes are two different wastes that are often managed together and are sometimes collectively called"street wastes." Street sweepings are the result of sweeping streets and parking lots to remove litter, sand and other materials. Vactor waste,which gets its name from the brand name of a vacuum truck that is often used to collect this material, is the result of pumping out stormwater catch basins, ditches, detention and retention ponds and similar structures. Both of these materials are potentially contaminated with heavy metals, petroleum products, and other chemicals, as well as being contaminated with litter (paper, plastic and metals). Only in extreme cases would the street sweepings or vactor waste be so contaminated that it would be necessary to handle these wastes as a dangerous waste,but the physical and chemical contaminants do limit the options for using these materials as clean fill or in other reuse applications. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-9 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions In Spokane Valley, street sweeping and the collection of vactor wastes are done by private companies under contract with the City. In the past, the City has provided a temporary storage site where wood pellets were added to the wastes to soak up excess water, and then the mixture was hauled to a landfill for disposal. At the time this Plan was being developed,however, the City was constructing a "decant facility," which will allow excess liquids to drain out of these wastes. This approach will avoid the need for adding wood pellets and also reduce the number of trips needed to the landfill. Planning Issues for Street Sweepings and Vactor Wastes With the construction of the decant facility, there are no additional known issues for street sweepings and vactor wastes, and so no need to examine additional alternatives for these materials. 7.6. EVALUATION OF SPECIAL WASTE ALTERNATIVES Review of Rating Criteria The special waste alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including consistency with solid waste planning goals, technical and political feasibility, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative. Based on the ratings for these criteria, each alternative can be given an overall rating and a decision can then be made as to whether to pursue it or not. Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: All of the special waste alternatives support the goals of providing reliable solid waste services and encouraging recycling and/or proper disposal as appropriate to the type of waste. Feasibility: Alternatives A (publicizing proper disposal methods for residential sharps) and C (promoting green building) are feasible although may lead to a minor amount of additional expenses not currently being incurred by the City. Alternative B (installing set-aside areas at the two transfer stations in the City) is not likely to be technically or politically feasible (due to cost and space constraints). Alternative D (using the Sunshine Transfer Station for MRW) is feasible and has been contractually arranged. Cost Effectiveness: Alternative A (publicizing proper disposal methods for residential sharps) is cost-effective in the sense that this may avoid a significant personal injury (should a waste collector or other person be stuck by an improperly-disposed syringe). Alternative B (installing set-aside areas at the two transfer stations in the City) may not be cost-effective in the sense that it would be hard to recover the capital costs of constructing the area for this activity. Alternative C (promoting green building) could be considered cost-effective in the sense that an investment in education and outreach would lead to future cost savings (from energy and water savings) in the ownership of homes and commercial buildings. Alternative D (using the Sunshine Transfer Station Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-10 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions for MRW) should be cost-effective in the sense that a proper disposal system for MRW could avoid injuries or environmental damages. Rating of Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives is summarized in the following table. Table 7-1 Rating of the Special Waste Alternatives Consistency Cost- with Planning Feasibility Cost- Overall Rating Alternative Goals Effectiveness Biomedical Wastes A, Publicize proper disposal options for residential H M H H sharps C&D Wastes B, Collection areas at transfer H L L L stations C, Promote green building H M H H Moderate-Risk Wastes D, Use Sunshine Transfer H H H H Station for MRW Rating Scores: H- High, M- Medium, L-Low 7.7 SPECIAL WASTE RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for special waste programs: High-Priority Recommendations SW1) Proper disposal options for residential sharps (syringes) will be promoted through a cooperative effort between the City of Spokane Valley, the Health District, and the waste collectors. SW2) Green building practices will be promoted by distributing brochures and publicizing other sources of information. SW3) City residents and businesses will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for MRW services. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-11 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions For Recommendation SW1, implementation responsibility should be shared by the City and the Health District,with assistance and cooperation from the two waste collection companies. The City will be the lead agency for Recommendations SW2 and SW3. The cost for Recommendation SW1 could be in the range of$25,000 to $50,000, depending on the extent of the public information and outreach campaign, and the potential to "piggy-back" on related public information efforts. The cost for Recommendation SW2 would be minimal, assuming the City would at most need to pay for minor modifications to the City's website and for printing of brochures developed by others. The cost for Recommendation SW3 will be significant,but this cost will be embedded in the disposal costs at the Sunshine Transfer Station and will be funded by Sunshine through tipping fees. Recommendation SW3 will be implemented after November 2014, although publicity activities may begin before that date. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 7-12 Chapter 7: Special wastes by Green Solutions CHAPTER 8 ADMINISTRATION 8.1 . EXISTING ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES City of Spokane Valley The City of Spokane Valley,which incorporated March 31, 2003, is a non-charter code city that operates under a Council-City Manager system of government. This form of government provides a separation of politics from day-to-day administration of the City's activities, and also allows for professional management of the City's activities. The Council consists of seven elected officials serving staggered four-year terms. All of the seven positions are "at large." Every two years, the City Council members choose one member to serve as the Mayor of the City Council, and a second person to serve as Deputy Mayor. The City Council is generally responsible for adopting legislation and policies, adopting the City's budget, approving contracts, and hiring the City Manager. The City Manager is responsible for implementing City ordinances, preparing the City budget, negotiating and overseeing contracts, managing City operations and staff, and managing other aspects of the City's operations. Prior to this Plan, the City of Spokane Valley participated in local solid waste programs largely though the Regional System,which included the City of Spokane,Spokane County, and other regional cities. This involvement guided policies and programs in the City and throughout the region. Solid waste services are performed by private companies, although the City and others have been involved in public education and other support activities. The City is also involved in solid waste though the City Code, which has provisions that address problems with properties that accumulate junk, such as inoperable cars and badly-managed piles of organic materials that are attracting pests. The City of Spokane Valley recently entered into a contract with Sunshine that stipulates that Sunshine will provide solid waste transfer, transport and disposal services for City residents and businesses. A clause of that contract provides that an administrative fee be paid to the City. This fee is to be paid in quarterly installments for a total annual amount of$125,000. There is also a provision of that contract that provides for a "Right-of-Way Maintenance Fee" to be paid by Sunshine, in the amount of$1.00 per ton for each ton of solid waste over 45,500 tons per year. Together, these funds are referred to as a"disposal surcharge" in other parts of this Plan, and these funds are expected to cover the City's expenses for operating the City's System. Spokane County and the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Until recently, solid waste programs in Spokane County were largely managed through the Regional System. Spokane Valley and the other cities in Spokane County have Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 8-1 Chapter 8:Administration by Green Solutions participated in this Regional System while maintaining some autonomy in solid waste collections and other programs (the City of Spokane, for instance, operates its own collection system for recycling and solid waste). The Regional System will cease to exist in November 2014,however, and Spokane County will become the lead agency for many of the programs that had been handled by the Regional System. Spokane Regional Health District The Health District is responsible for health programs throughout Spokane County, including Spokane Valley. In addition to programs addressing personal health problems and food safety, the Health District has an Environmental Public Health Division that conducts inspections of solid waste facilities and handles complaints related to solid waste. Washington State Agencies and Regulations The two State agencies that are primarily involved in solid waste management are Ecology and the UTC. Washington Department of Ecology: The Solid Waste Handling Standards (Chapter 173-350 WAC) were promulgated by Ecology under the authority granted by Chapter 70.95 RCW. In addition, Chapter 173-351 WAC, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, contains the current standards for municipal solid waste landfills. The Model Litter Control and Recycling Act (RCW 70.93.060) prohibits depositing garbage on any property not properly designated as a disposal site. There is also a"litter fund" that has been created through a tax levied on wholesale and retail businesses, and the monies from this fund have been used for education, increased litter clean-up efforts, and contracts to eligible county entities for illegal dump clean-up activities. Under the Model Toxics Control Act (Chapter 70.105D RCW), grants are available to local governments for solid waste management plans and programs,hazardous waste management plans and programs, and remedial actions to clean up existing hazardous waste sites. Solid and hazardous waste planning and programs are funded through the CPG program administered by Ecology's Solid Waste and Financial Assurance Program. Ecology also responds to complaints regarding hazardous material spills or releases. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission: The UTC regulates privately- owned utilities and companies that provide public services such as electric power, telephone, natural gas, private water systems, transportation, and waste collection. The UTC's authority over solid waste collection is established in Chapter 81.77 RCW and Chapter 480-70 WAC. The UTC regulates residential and non-residential garbage collection services, primarily in unincorporated areas and also for incorporated areas that have not taken control of Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 8-2 Chapter 8:Administration by Green Solutions the collection system. Cities are permitted by State law to choose their form of waste collection regulation. Many cities in Washington contract with a private hauler for garbage collection services (or collect it with city crews as in the case of Spokane), and only a few rely on the UTC to regulate a private garbage hauler as if they were an unincorporated area. UTC authority does not extend to companies operating under contract with any city or town, or to any city or town that undertakes solid waste collection. This regulatory system was set up by the State Legislature in the 1960's to ensure that every citizen and business,no matter how remotely located, can get garbage collection service. The UTC regulates solid waste collection companies by granting"certificates of convenience and necessity" that allow companies to operate in specified service areas. It also regulates solid waste collection, under authority of RCW 81.77.030,by: • Fixing collection rates, charges, classifications, rules, and regulations. • Regulating accounts, service, and safety of operations. • Requiring annual reports and other reports and data. • Supervising collection companies in all matters affecting their relationship to their customers. • Requiring collection companies to use rate structures consistent with state waste management priorities. The UTC requires certificate holders to provide the minimum levels of solid waste collection and recycling services established by a local solid waste management plan and enacted through a service level ordinance. Federal Agencies and Regulations At the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 6901-6987), is the primary body of legislation dealing with solid waste. Subtitle D of RCRA deals with non-hazardous solid waste disposal and requires the development of a state comprehensive solid waste management program that outlines the authorities of local, state and regional agencies. Subtitle D requires that the state program must prohibit "open dumps" and must provide that all solid waste is disposed in an environmentally- sound manner. 8.2. ADMINISTRATION PLANNING ISSUES No City personnel are currently assigned responsibility for solid waste management and recycling issues. When the City leaves the Regional System, the City will begin to incur costs for activities that are currently handled by the Regional System. These costs are not well- Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 8-3 Chapter 8:Administration by Green Solutions defined at this time,but are anticipated to be in the neighborhood of$50,000 to $100,000, primarily for various education and outreach activities. The City will also become eligible for CPG funds from Ecology beginning July 1, 2015, and these funds could be used to cover these costs and/or help defray the expense of the MRW program or other programs. As of July 1, 2015, Spokane Valley will be eligible for approximately $250,000 in CPG funds (for a two-year period), although the City will need to provide a 25% match ($83,300, or$41,650 annually) for those funds. 8.3. ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATION STRATEGIES The following alternatives were considered for new or expanded administration programs. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is considered feasible or desirable, nor that is recommended (see Section 8.5 for administration recommendations). Alternative A-Hire Staff to Manage the Solid Waste System None of the existing City employees are specifically assigned to solid waste activities, and so these duties currently fall on the Public Works Director and others. With its new System, additional work will be required for managing contracts, conducting public education activities, and also possibly grant management and reporting. One full-time employee may be needed to manage the System. If the collection system is changed to one where the City handles the billing, then additional personnel would be needed for that as well. Alternative B - Use Private Contractors and Existing Staff to Manage the Solid Waste System It should be noted that the idea of hiring additional staff is contrary to the typical approach for Spokane Valley, and it is more likely that the City will wish to contract for as many of the activities as possible and then have existing contracts management staff monitor the progress of those activities. 8.4. EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATION ALTERNATIVES Review of Rating Criteria The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including consistency with solid waste planning goals, technical and political feasibility, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative. Based on the ratings for these criteria, each alternative can be given an overall rating and a decision can then be made as to whether to pursue it or not. Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: Both of these alternatives support the goals for this Plan. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 8-4 Chapter 8:Administration by Green Solutions Feasibility: Between Alternatives A (hiring new staff) and B (the use of existing staff), Alternative B is more technically and politically feasible. Cost Effectiveness: Alternative B (using existing staff) is more cost-effective than Alternative A (hiring new staff). Rating of Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives is summarized in the following table. Table 8-1 Rating of the Administration Alternatives Consistency Cost- with Planning Feasibility Cost- Overall Rating Alternative Goals Effectiveness A, Hire new staff H L L L B, Use existing staff H H H H Rating Scores: H - High, M- Medium, L—Low 8.5 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for administration programs: High-Priority Recommendations Al) The additional services and programs needed by the City to support the City's solid waste system will be performed by contracted services to the extent feasible and appropriate. Existing City staff will be used to monitor the contracts and programs for solid waste in the City of Spokane Valley. Medium-Priority Recommendations A2) The additional funds needed to implement the City's solid waste system will be collected through surcharges on tipping fees collected at the Sunshine Transfer Station. The City of Spokane Valley is the lead agency for both of these recommendations, which will be implemented in November 2014. The funding source is defined above, plus CPG funds can be used when the City becomes eligible for those. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 8-5 Chapter 8:Administration by Green Solutions CHAPTER 9 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 9.1 . INTRODUCTION This chapter lists all of the recommendations from previous chapters and presents a plan to implement the recommendations. These recommendations are intended to guide decision-making activities for Spokane Valley for the next six years,while also providing direction for the next 20 years. Implementation of individual program elements will be accomplished through annual budgets and contracts. 9.2. WASTE REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste reduction programs (see Chapter 3 for more details): High-Priority Recommendations WR1) The City of Spokane Valley will evaluate product stewardship programs as these are proposed on a statewide or national level, and support those if appropriate to the interests of their citizens and the business community. WR2) The business community in Spokane Valley may be encouraged to reduce waste through a recognition program that publicizes success stories. WR3) The City of Spokane Valley will adopt policies and practices to encourage City departments to reduce waste. Medium-Priority Recommendations WR4) Public education materials distributed by the City of Spokane Valley will include information on alternative handling methods for yard waste, the value of"smart shopping" methods,how to avoid wasting food, and the availability of volume-based garbage collection fees. Low-Priority Recommendations WR5) A ban on the disposal of yard waste within solid waste disposal containers may be considered in the future if public education and outreach efforts are not effective in diverting most of this material from the waste stream. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 9-1 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan by Green Solutions 9.3. RECYCLING AND ORGANICS RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for recycling and organics collection programs (see Chapter 4 for more details): High-Priority Recommendations R1) Curbside recycling will continue to be included with garbage collection services for residential customers in Spokane Valley. R2) City residents and businesses will be encouraged to use Sunshine Transfer Station for Clean Green drop-off services. Medium-Priority Recommendations R3) Weekly curbside recycling will be evaluated as part of the waste collection system changes expected to be implemented by Spokane Valley in 2018. 9.4. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste collection programs (see Chapter 5 for more details): High-Priority Recommendations C1) When the City fully assumes control of collection services, anticipated to be in 2018,various options will be considered for providers and service levels, including negotiating versus bidding for haulers, and collection frequency for recycling. Medium-Priority Recommendations C2) Educate the public on the benefits of curbside collection services and the comprehensive costs related to self-haul to transfer station. 9.5. TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for transfer and disposal programs (see Chapter 6 for more details): High-Priority Recommendations Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 9-2 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan by Green Solutions D1) The Sunshine Transfer Station is designated as the disposal system for all solid waste from Spokane Valley, effective November 17, 2014. 9.6. SPECIAL WASTE RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for special waste programs (see Chapter 7 for more details): High-Priority Recommendations SW1) Proper disposal options for residential sharps (syringes) will be promoted through a cooperative effort between the City of Spokane Valley, the Health District, and the waste collectors. SW2) Green building practices will be promoted by distributing brochures and publicizing other sources of information. SW3) City residents and businesses will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for MRW services. 9.7. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for administration programs (see Chapter 8 for more details): High-Priority Recommendations Al) The additional services and programs needed by the City to support the City's solid waste system will be performed by contracted services to the extent feasible and appropriate. Existing City staff will be used to monitor the contracts and programs for solid waste in the City of Spokane Valley. Medium-Priority Recommendations A2) The additional funds needed to implement the City's solid waste system will be collected through surcharges on tipping fees collected at the Sunshine Transfer Station. 9.8. SIX-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The proposed implementation schedule is shown in Table 9-1. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 9-3 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan by Green Solutions Table 9-1 Implementation Schedule for Recommendations Recommendation 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Waste Reduction WR1) Support product stewardship programs as appropriate WR2) Business waste reduction recognition program WR3) Adopt city waste reduction policies X WR4) Promote waste reduction �� WR5) Consider yard waste disposal ban X X Recycling and Organics R1) Continue to include curbside recycling V with garbage services R2) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for Clean Green R3) Evaluate weekly curbside recycling X Solid Waste Collection C1) Contract for collection service X C2) Increase curbside subscriptions X Transfer and Disposal D1) Designate Sunshine Transfer Station as X disposal site (2014) Special Wastes SW1) Promote proper disposal of residential N. sharps >>> SW2) Promote green building SW3) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for MRW Administration Al) Use existing staff A2) Disposal surcharge as funding source 4 �+ X-indicates a singular or short-term event. Shading indicates ongoing activities. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 9-4 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan by Green Solutions 9.9. IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES The City of Spokane Valley is primarily responsible for most of the recommendations made in this Plan, but that responsibility is shared with others as appropriate to the nature of the recommended activity. Implementation responsibilities for the recommended activities are summarized in Table 9-2. Table 9-2 Implementation Responsibilities for Recommendations Recommendation CityCountyHealth Waste +•thea District Hauler- Waste Reduction WR1) Support product stewardship programs X as appropriate WR2) Business waste reduction recognition X O program WR3) Adopt city waste reduction policies X WR4) Promote waste reduction X WR5) Consider yard waste disposal ban X Recycling and Organics R1) Continue to include curbside recycling X O with garbage services R2) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer X O Station for Clean Green R3) Evaluate weekly curbside recycling X 0 Solid Waste Collection C1) Contract for collection service X 0 C2) Increase curbside subscriptions X Transfer and Disposal D1) Designate Sunshine Transfer Station as X disposal site Special Wastes SW1) Promote proper disposal of residential O O X O sharps SW2) Promote green building X SW3) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer X X 0 Station for MRW Administration Al) Use existing staff X A2) Disposal surcharge as funding source X X—indicates primary responsibility. 0— indicates secondary responsibility. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 9-5 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan by Green Solutions 9. 10. FUNDING STRATEGY The recommended programs will be funded through garbage rates, tipping fees, a disposal surcharge, other user fees, and State grants (CPG funds). It should be noted here that none of the recommendations in this Plan require additional construction or other capital acquisition activities (beyond the recent modifications that Sunshine has opted to make at the Sunshine Transfer Station), and so the costs addressed in this Plan are solely for operating expenses for a variety of programs. A summary of the funding sources for the recommended programs is shown in Table 9-3. Garbage rates will be used to fund waste collection, curbside recycling and commercial recycling programs. Tipping fees will be used for the recommended waste reduction, transfer, transport and disposal,household hazardous waste, and administration. Special user fees will fund small quantity generator and other special waste programs. Table 9-3 Funding Strategies for Recommendations 0 _Il Project or Activity U °Q E -7T3 � � I Waste Reduction X X X Recycling and Organics X X X Solid Waste Collection X Transfer and Disposal X Special Wastes X X X Administration X X 9. 11 . TWENTY-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE It is anticipated that programs and facilities in Spokane Valley will generally be able to stay on the course established by this Plan for the next twenty years. The waste stream for the City is not expected to increase so much (see Table 2-6) as to create capacity issues for the collection and disposal system that the City is proposing to use. The recently-executed contract with Sunshine will provide disposal services for at least the next ten years (with two three-year extensions possible). The contracts for waste collection services will provide for those services through 2018, at which time the City anticipates it will enter into a long term contract for solid waste collection services (as Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 9-6 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan by Green Solutions described in Chapter 5). Recycling and organics collection services will continue to be provided through the collection and disposal contracts. Hence, the twenty-year implementation strategy is much the same as the implementation details shown in the previous tables in this chapter. Changes will likely continue to occur,however, in the local, statewide and national solid waste arena, and should any of these changes require an amendment or revision to this Plan, then the steps described in the next section can be taken to address those. 9.12. PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE PLAN The Solid Waste Management-Reduction and Recycling Act (Chapter 70.95 RCW) requires local governments to maintain their solid waste plans in current condition. Plans must be reviewed and revised, if necessary, every five years. Assuming a timely adoption process for this Plan,with the process completed in late 2014, this Plan should be reviewed and, if necessary, revised or amended in 2019 or 2020. According to Ecology's guidelines5, "amendments" are more minor changes that generally occur within the five-year time period after a solid waste plan is approved,whereas "revisions" are more significant changes that could require more opportunities for public review and comment. Individuals or organizations wishing to propose Plan amendments before the scheduled review process must petition the City of Spokane Valley in writing. The petition should describe the proposed amendment, its specific objectives, and explain why immediate action is needed prior to the next scheduled review. The Public Works Director will investigate the basis for the petition and prepare a recommendation for the City Manager. If the City Manager decides that the petition warrants further consideration, the Public Works Director will draft a proposed amendment. This process will also be used if City staff initiate amendments to the Plan. The proposed amendment must be submitted to the City Council and undergo the normal review and approval process for this type of Plan amendment. As an amendment, a SEPA Checklist will likely not be necessary,but the proposed amendment should be reviewed by Ecology (the extent and timing for their review should be determined at a later date on a case-by-case basis). Once adopted, the amendment should be submitted to Ecology for review and approval. The Public Works Director may develop reasonable rules for submitting and processing proposed Plan amendments, and may establish reasonable fees to investigate and process petitions. All administrative rulings of the Public Works Director and City Manager may be appealed to the City Council. 5 Guidelines for Development of Local Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions,by the Washington Department of Ecology,February 2010,Publication#10-07-005. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 9-7 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan by Green Solutions Minor changes that may occur in the System,whether due to internal decisions or external factors, can be adopted without the need to go through a formal amendment process. Implicit in the development and adoption of this Plan is the understanding that emergency actions may need to be taken by the City in the future for various reasons, and that these actions can be undertaken without needing to amend this Plan beforehand. In this case, City staff will endeavor to inform Ecology and other key stakeholders as soon as feasibly possible,but not necessarily before new actions are implemented. If the emergency results in permanent and significant changes to the System, an amendment to this Plan will be prepared. If, however, the emergency actions are only undertaken on a temporary or short-term basis, an amendment will not be considered necessary. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 9-8 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan by Green Solutions GLOSSARY The following definitions are provided for various terms used in the Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan: Biomedical waste: infectious and injurious waste originating from a medical, veterinary, or intermediate care facility, or from home use. Buy-back recycling center: a facility that pays people for recyclable materials. Commercial solid waste: solid waste generated by non-industrial businesses. This includes waste from business activities such as construction; transportation, communications and utilities;wholesale trades; retail trades; finance, insurance and real estate; other services; and government. This term is also used to refer to all waste except residential, or is used by waste collectors to refer to all waste that is collected using dumpsters. Commingled: recyclable materials that have been collected separately from garbage by the generator, but the recyclable materials have been mixed together in the same container (see also single stream). Composting: the controlled biological decomposition of organic wastes to produce a humus-like final product that can be used as a soil amendment. In this Plan,backyard composting means a small-scale activity performed by homeowners on their own property,using yard debris that they generate. CPG: Coordinated Prevention Grants, a grant program administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Curbside recycling: the act of collecting recyclable materials directly from residential generators, usually after the recyclable materials have been placed at the curb (or at the side of the street if no curb exists in the area) by the residents. EPA: the United States Environmental Protection Agency; the federal agency responsible for promulgation and enforcement of federal environmental regulations. Ferrous metals: materials that are predominantly (over 75% by weight) made of iron. Includes cans and various iron and steel alloys that contain enough iron such that magnets adhere to them,but for recycling this generally does not include paint cans or other containers that may contain hazardous residues. Groundwater: water present in subsurface geological deposits (aquifers). Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan G-1 Glossary by Green Solutions HDPE: high-density polyethylene, a type of plastic commonly used in milk, detergent, bleach bottles and other containers. Also used for products that line and cap landfills. Household hazardous waste: wastes that would be classified as hazardous due to their nature or characteristics, except that the amount is too small to be regulated and the wastes are generated by households (which are exempt). Includes aerosol cans, solvents, some paints, cleaners, pesticides,herbicides, compressed gases, oil, other petroleum products, car batteries and other materials. Industrial waste: solid waste generated by various manufacturing companies. Includes waste generated by businesses that manufacture the following products: food, textile mill products, apparel, lumber, paper, printing, chemicals, stone, clay, glass, fabricated metals, equipment, and miscellaneous other products. Does not include hazardous wastes generated by these industries. Inert wastes: includes wastes that are inert in nature, such as glass, concrete, rocks, gravel, and bricks. Mixed paper: all other types of recyclable paper not included in newspaper, cardboard or high-grade papers. Includes materials such as"junk mail," magazines,books, and white and colored printing and writing papers. Moderate-risk wastes (MRW): includes household hazardous waste (see definition above) and wastes produced by businesses that potentially meet the definition of a hazardous waste except the amount of waste produced falls below regulatory limits. MSW: municipal solid waste (see also "solid waste"). Mulching: includes 1) leaving grass clippings on the lawn when mowing; 2) placing yard debris, compost,wood chips or other materials on the ground in gardens or around trees and shrubs to discourage weeds and retain moisture. Non-ferrous metals: materials predominantly made of copper, lead,brass, tin, aluminum, and other metals except iron. PET: polyethylene terephthalate, a type of plastic. Commonly used to refer to 2-liter beverage bottles, although other containers are also increasingly being made from this material, including containers for liquid and solid materials such as cooking oil, liquor, peanut butter, and many other food and household products. Public education: a broad effort to present and distribute informational materials. Public information: the development of educational materials for the public, including brochures,videos, and public service announcements. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan G-2 Glossary by Green Solutions RCW: Revised Code of Washington. Recycling: the act of collecting and/or processing source-separated materials in order to return them to a usage similar in nature to their previous use. Reusable items: items that may be reused (or easily repaired), including things such as small electronics,household items such as dishes, and furniture. Roll-off: large open-topped container, generally 8 to 40 cubic yards in volume, used for collecting and transporting wastes. Self-haul waste: waste that is brought to a landfill or transfer station by the person or company that created the waste. The former is called residential self-haul and the latter is called either non-residential or commercial self-haul. SEPA: State Environmental Policy Act. Single stream: refers to the practice of placing all recyclable materials together in one container for curbside collection. This is similar to "commingled" except that glass bottles may or may not be included in a commingled mixture,whereas glass bottles are mixed with the other materials in single stream collection programs. Solid waste: solid and semisolid wastes, including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition and construction wastes, discarded commodities,wood waste, and various special wastes. Special wastes: wastes that have particular characteristics such that they present special handling and/or disposal problems. Spokane Regional Solid Waste System: The name of the system that operated the public transfer stations and other aspects of the solid waste system through November 2014. This system was created by Interlocal agreements between Spokane County and the cities in the county, and was administered by the City of Spokane. Stationary compactor: A compaction unit installed at an apartment building or medium to large-sized business,used for compacting and transporting wastes. Tipping fee: The rate charged by transfer and disposal facilities, generally on a per-ton basis. Transfer station: an intermediate solid waste disposal facility at which solid waste is temporarily deposited to await transportation to a final disposal site. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan G-3 Glossary by Green Solutions UGA: Urban Growth Area, see Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan for more details. UTC: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. WAC: Washington Administrative Code. Waste reduction or waste prevention: reducing the amount or type of solid waste that is generated. Also defined by state rules to include reducing the toxicity of wastes. White goods: large appliances such as refrigerators. Yard debris: includes leaves, grass clippings,brush and branches. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan G-4 Glossary by Green Solutions ATTACHMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION Pending (this section will contain the City's resolution adopting this Plan, which will be nearly the final step of the process). Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan B-1 Attachment B: Resolution of Adoption by Green Solutions DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of July 16,2014; 11:30 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 July 29,2014 possible meeting July 31, 2014: Open House Event:Draft Solid Waste Management Plan; Council Chambers, 4 6 p.m. August 5,2014 No Meeting-National Night Out August 12,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Aug 4] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance,Noel Telecommunication Franchise—Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Setbacks—Micki Harnois (15 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Argonne Corridor Upgrade—Eric Guth (10 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: Bid Award Appleway Trail,earthwork,University to Pines—E. Guth (5 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Estimated Revenues and Expenditures 2015 budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 7. Tourism Promotion Agency(TPA)—Mark Calhoun,Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 8. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee—Mark Calhoun,Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 9.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 95 minutes] August 19,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Aug 11] 1. Historic Preservation—Mike Basinger (20 minutes) 2. Thierman Traffic Analysis—Sean Messner (20 minutes) 3. Shoreline Development Regulations—Lori Barlow (60 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 105 minutes] August 26,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Aug 18] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015 Budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes,motion to set 9/23 Budget hearing) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Setbacks—Micki Harnois (10 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Bid Award Mansfield Ave Connection—E. Guth (5 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 40 minutes] 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. Proposed 2015 Property Tax Ordinance —Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 115 minutes] September 9,2014,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tues,Sept 21 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Community Development Block Grant Proposed Projects—Comm Dev (20 minutes) 3.Admin Report: City Manager presentation of 2015 Preliminary Budget (30 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 7/17/2014 2:17:22 PM Page 1 of 3 September 16,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 8] 1.Admin Report: Code Text Batch Amendments—Marty Palaniuk (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] September 23,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 15] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CDBG Proposed Projects—Comm Dev (15 minutes) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015 Budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 3. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 4.First Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: CDBG Proposed Projects—Comm Dev. (10 minutes) 6.Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Allocations for 2015—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 8.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 9. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 95 minutes] September 30,2014—no meeting October 7,2014,Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 29] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) October 14,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 6] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.First Reading Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 5.First Reading Proposed 2015 Budget Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] October 21,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 13] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) October 28,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 20] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed 2015 Budget Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] November 4,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 27] 1.Admin Report: 2015 Fee Resolution—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) November 11,2014—no meeting—Veteran's Day November 18,2014,Formal meeting 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 10] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution for 2015—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) November 25,2014—no meeting—Thanksgiving week Draft Advance Agenda 7/17/2014 2:17:22 PM Page 2 of 3 December 2,2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 24] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) December 9,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 1] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations for 2015 (20 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) December 16,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 8] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) December 23,2014 no meeting December 30,2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 22] 1.Advance Agenda 2. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: ADA Transition Plan Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Economic Incentives Fire and Life Safety Code SEPA/NEPA Process—Eric Guth Stormwater Swales,care of Street Vacation/Connectivity Process Truck Parking in Residential Areas Draft Advance Agenda 7/17/2014 2:17:22 PM Page 3 of 3 City of Spokane Valley [rl}�N Sp�kan' +e ` �Ua�ley Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2014 - 06/30/2014 Page Title 1 Cover Sheet 2 Pre-Application Meetings Requested 3 Online Applications Received 4 Construction Applications Received 5 Land Use Applications Received 6 Construction Permits Issued 7 Land Use Applications Approved 8 Development Inspections Performed 9 Code Enforcement 10 Revenue 11 Building Permit Valuations Printed 07/10/2014 15:30 Page 1 of 11 Community Development SO lane ;Valley Monthly Report 01/01/2014 - 06/30/2014 Pre-Application Meetings Requested A Pre-Application Meeting is a service provided to help our customers identify the code requirements related to their project proposal. Community Development scheduled a total of 11 Pre-Application Meetings in June 2014. 20 15 10 -110 111115 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Land Use Pre-Application Commercial Pre-App Meeting Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial Pre-App 2 9 11 6 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land Use Pre-Application Meeting 3 2 4 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 5 11 15 10 13 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 65 Printed 07/10/2014 15:30 Page 2 of 11 Community Development Spokane '' Valley Monthly Report 01/01/2014 - 06/30/2014 Online Applications Received Community Development received a total of 131 Online Applications in June 2014. r 150 100 I 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 111111 Trade Permit Right of Way Permit Reroof Permit Demolition Permit = Approach Permit Sign Permit Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Approach Permit 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition Permit 1 1 2 3 3 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reroof Permit 1 1 13 25 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right of Way Permit 2 1 1 15 32 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Permit 0 3 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trade Permit 13 24 40 61 73 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 17 31 58 107 129 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 473 Printed 07/10/2014 15:30 Page 3 of 11 Community Development Sp0[rl}�N kaflC Valley Monthly Report 01/01/2014 - 06/30/2014 Construction Applications Received Community Development received a total of 436 Construction Applications in June 2014. 600 400 200 Pillill 1 J 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New ll Commercial-TI Residential-New = Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New 2 8 18 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial-TI 15 10 10 11 14 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-New 5 20 18 12 22 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial-Trade 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-Trade 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-Accessory 8 2 9 13 6 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition *2 *6 *4 *9 *3 *8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign 9 *11 *12 *17 *15 *9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Construction Permits *172 *201 *330 *429 *449 *376 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 216 258 401 497 511 436 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 2,319 *Includes Online Applications. Printed 07/10/2014 15:30 Page 4 of 11 Community Development },N Spokane Valley Monthly Report 01/01/2014 - 06/30/2014 Land Use Applications Received Community Development received a total of 52 Land Use Applications in June 2014. 100 50 !III" 111 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment = Binding Site Plan Preliminary ._, State Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting -- Act(SEPA) MEI Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation = Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment 1 1 6 8 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short Plat Preliminary 4 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Plat Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Binding Site Plan Preliminary 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Platting 0 1 2 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) 2 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Administrative 1 3 4 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits 52 50 56 61 39 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 60 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 372 Printed 07/10/2014 15:30 Page 5 of 11 Community Development S!I!lN pok' +e ;Valley Monthly Report 01/01/2014 - 06/30/2014 Construction Permits Issuer Community Development issued a total of 379 Construction Permits in June 2014. 600 IirI 400 200 111111111 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New Ir=e Commercial-TI Residential-New = Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New 1 0 9 26 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial-TI 18 11 4 12 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-New 5 4 36 8 20 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial-Trade 3 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-Trade 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential-Accessory 8 3 8 12 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demolition 2 4 2 9 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign 7 11 10 16 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Construction Permits 147 152 271 318 328 319 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 195 186 340 402 412 379 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 1,914 Printed 07/10/2014 15:22 Page 6 of 11 Community Development },N Spokane Valley Monthly Report 01/01/2014 - 06/30/2014 Land Use Applications Approved Community Development approved a total of 49 Land Use Applications in June 2014. 100 50 111111111 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment = Binding Site Plan Preliminary ._, State Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting -- Act(SEPA) MEI Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation = Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment 5 0 2 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short Plat Preliminary 0 2 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Plat Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Binding Site Plan Preliminary 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Platting 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) 0 0 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Administrative 1 2 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits 44 53 57 53 44 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 52 59 7 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 349 Printed 07/10/2014 15:22 Page 7 of 11 Community Development [lel Valley Monthly Report 01/01/2014 - 06/30/2014 Development Inspections Performed Community Development performed a total of 1289 Development Inspections in June 2014. Development Inspections include building, planning, engineering and ROW inspections. 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 " 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 2013 -- 2014 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2014 601 633 991 1,269 1,305 1,289 0 0 0 0 0 0■ 6,088 2013 465 503 807 1,026 1,060 1,015 1,084 1,078 1,186 1,016 832 672■ 10,744 2012 644 623 540 828 1,104 926 985 988 931 1,149 805 549® 10,072 Printed 07/10/2014 15:22 Page 8 of 11 Community Development Siiiikane , Valley Monthly Report 01/01/2014 - 06/30/2014 Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Officers responded to 45 citizen requests in the month of June. They are listed by type below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. C 60 I I 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Complaint, Non-Violation Environmental in General Nuisance = Property \_ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Complaint,Non-Violation 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Environmental a 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 3 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuisance 14 5 12 22 22 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Property 6 3 13 8 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 25 9 26 32 32 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To-Date: 169 Printed 07/10/2014 15:43 Page 9 of 11 Community Development Valley. Monthly Report 4000 01/01/2014 - 06/30/2014 Revenue Community Development Revenue totaled $152,637 in June 2014. 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2013 - Five-Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2014 $74,628 $66,134 $198,571 $160,508 $282,086 $152,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $934,564 Trend $77,877 $68,528 $112,700 $142,013 $215,223 $195,948 $140,018 $116,427 $124,983 $103,820 $95,140 $70,239 $1,462,916 2013 $158,912 $51,536 $102,538 $106,496 $184,176 $409,592 $277,553 $102,021 $129,174 $133,561 $98,386 $66,559 $1,820,504 2012 $34,204 $60,319 $177,737 $173,932 $268,672 $223,888 $123,137 $103,703 $113,731 $112,542 $108,948 $51,745 $1,552,558 2011 $43,842 $77,247 $80,774 $118,237 $84,684 $106,909 $88,247 $83,949 $167,076 $78,237 $95,172 $58,881 $1,083,255 2010 $87,229 $84,626 $109,029 $96,800 $305,185 $102,781 $87,805 $87,724 $107,002 $73,100 $72,948 $64,009,$1,278,238 2009 $65,199 $68,914 $93,424 $214,601 $233,397 $136,568 $123,348 $204,739 $107,930 $121,658 $100,247 $110,001r$1,580,026 Printed 07/10/2014 15:43 Page 10 of 11 Community Development Siijkane Valley Monthly Report 01/01/2014 - 06/30/2014 Building Permit Valuation Community Development Building Permit Valuation totaled $7,370,208 in June 2014. 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 ::::: '"" 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -r 2014 2013 - Five-Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2014 $3.17M $2.45M $9.90M $8.88M $34.58M $7.37M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M I $66.35M Trend $7.33M $4.17M $4.69M $8.52M $19.74M $19.01M $11.55M $9.67M $9.40M $7.55M $4.35M $2.21M I$108.20M 2013 $25.49M $1.92M $3.58M $7.30M $22.21M $41.88M $32.91M $6.52M $8.11M $14.22M $7.24M $2.54M 1$173.92M 2012 $0.72M $2.95M $5.29M $5.32M $24.38M $33.08M $7.91M $9.89M $6.47M $8.78M $3.76M $1.66M I$110.21M 2011 $1.46M $5.95M $5.03M $6.15M $2.53M $4.98M $3.83M $3.45M $21.54M $4.46M $3.97M $1.85M OM 2010 $7.06M $6.34M $6.82M $6.64M $32.55M $4.86M $5.36M $3.91M $5.71M $3.01M $1.93M $2.29M 2009 $1.91M $3.70M $2.74M $17.19M $17.03M $10.27M $7.75M $24.56M $5.18M $7.28M $4.87M $2.70M Printed 07/10/2014 15:43 Page 11 of 11 pc Jl . ; 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 0 Spokane Walley WA 99206 509.921.1000 0 Fax: 509.921.1008 0 cityllall@spokanevalley.org hWi © rr : iim To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director r Date: July 16, 2014 Re Finance Department Activity Report—June 2014 Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of June 2014 and included herein is a 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the end of June. 2013 Yearend Process The process of preparing the 2013 Annual Financial Report began in May and was completed in June. The State Auditor's Office began the audit of 2013 in June and plans to complete the single audit and financial statement portions of the audit by the end of July. They will then depart the City in order to complete the single audit for other local municipalities and return to Spokane Valley in October to complete the accountability portion of the audit. The audit will not likely be complete before November. Vehicle Purchases The 2014 Budget included $90,000 for the addition of three vehicles for the Public Works Department and at this point we have ordered 2 Ford Escapes and 1 Ford half ton pick-up at a total anticipated cost of $77,535. The Escapes have arrived and we anticipate delivery of the pick-up sometime in July. refunding of the 2003 Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO) Bonds In 2003 the City Issued $9,430,000 in LTGO bonds to facilitate the construction of CenterPlace. O Of this amount $2,430,000 of the bond proceeds were used to finance road and street Improvements surrounding the building. This portion of the bond issue was set to be paid off in annual installments over the 20-year period ending December 31, 2023. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by equal distributions of the 1st and 2nd %% real estate excise tax (REST) recorded in Funds 301 and 302. o $7,000,000 of the bond proceeds were used to finance construction of CenterPlace. This portion of the bond issue was set to be paid off in annual installments over the 30-year period ending December 31, 2033. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by the Spokane Public Facilities District. O Per the 2003 bond covenants the City may at its option call or redeem those bonds that remain outstanding after December 1, 2013. Given that interest rates are currently less than those the City is paying on the 2003 bonds we have begun the process to refund (refinance) the bonds. The end product of this endeavor will be a reduction in annual bond payments as a result of the interest portion of the bond payment declining. We anticipate Council P:1FinancelFinance Activity ReportsLCouncil Monthly Reportsl20142014 OG.docx Page 1 action to consider and approve the bond refunding will take place in July and the actual bond refunding to take place in August. 2015 Budciet Development Process The 2015 Budget development process began in the Finance Department in early March and all departments have completed detailed budget requests, By the time the budget Is adopted on October 28th the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss the budget on seven occasions including two public hearings. o June 17 Council budget workshop o August 12 Admin report on 2015 revenues and expenditures o August 26 Public hearing #1 on 2015 revenues and expenditures o September 9 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2015 Budget o September 23 Public hearing#2 on 2015 Budget o October 14 First reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2015 Budget o October 28 Second reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2015 Budget 2015 Property Tax Levy A significant part of the budget development process includes the annual levy of property taxes which in 2015 are expected to account for approximately 29% of recurring General Fund revenues. Council discussions specifically related to this topic will take place at the following meetings: o August 26- Review of ordinances levying 2015 property taxes and confirming tax levy o September 2 -Admin Report on proposed ordinance levying 2015 property taxes. o September 23 - First reading of ordinances levying 2015 property taxes and confirming tax levy. o October 7 - Second reading of ordinances levying 2015 property taxes and confirming tax levy. Outside Agency Funding in the 2015 Budget The City has historically provided funding for local organizations involved in either social • services or economic development activities and the preliminary 2015 Budget currently has $150,000 collectively available for this. The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows: o June 27 - Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers. o July 25-Agency requests are due at City Hall. o September 2 - Economic development and social service agency presentations to Council. o September 23 - Council makes final determination of awards. Budget to Actual Comparison Report A report reflecting 2014 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2014 Budget was adopted is located on pages 5 through 16. Because we attempt to provide this information in a timely manner this report is prepared from records that are not formally closed by the Finance Department at month end or reconciled to bank records. Although it is realistic to expect the figures will change over subsequent weeks, I believe the report is materially accurate. We've included the following information in the report: • o Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and by type in all other funds. o A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, Street O&M Fund and Stormwater Fund. P,FinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Roports42014t2014 06.docx Page 2 Q The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund balance figures are those that are expected to be reflected in our 2013 Annual Financial Report. O Columns of information include: o The 2014 Budget as adopted. o June 2014 activity. o Cumulative 2014 activity through June 2014. o Budget remaining in terms of dollars. o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed. A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 5): Recurring revenues collections are currently at 46.38% of the amount budgeted with 50.0% of the year elapsed. This is typical and reflective of the nature of the timing of when revenues are collected. O Property tax are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on April 30 and October 31 and are then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with lesser amounts typically remitted in June and December. Property taxes received thus far in 2014 are $6,030,024 or 54.67% of the amount budgeted. o Sales tax collections represent only 5-months of collections thus far because taxes collected in June are not remitted to the City by the State until the latter purl of July. Collections are currently $6,900,014 or 42.10% of the amount budgeted. o Gambling taxes currently total $149,935 or 24.28% of the amount budgeted. This is because they are paid quarterly with second quarter payments due by July 31. a Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter, So far in 2014 we have received $339,844 or 28.02% of the amount budgeted. U State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a calendar quarter but some are only once per quarter. Through May we've received remittances totaling $795,648 or 42.18% of the amount budgeted. Q Fines, forfeitures and penalties revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine and false alarm fees. Through June 2014 we've received remittances through the month of May with receipts of$630,486 or 42.87% of the amount budgeted. O Community Development service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as right of way permits. Revenues are currently$883,310 or 70.36% of the amount budgeted. O Recreation program fees are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in-season), and CenterPlace. Currently, revenues total $346,267 or 59.72% of the amount budgeted. Recurring expenditures are currently at 44.73% of the amount budgeted with 50.0% of the year elapsed. Departments experience seasonal fluctuations in activity so they don't necessarily expend their budget in twelve equal monthly installments. Investments (page 17) Investments at June 30 total $51,901,394 and are composed of$46,840,201 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,061,193 in bank CDs. Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 18) P:lFinancelFinence Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201412014 06.clocx Page 3 Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through June and total $7,790,183 including general, criminal justice and public safety taxes. This figure is $320,930 (4.30%) greater than for the same 5-month period in 2013. Economic Indicators (pages 19 —21) The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 19) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel 1 Motel taxes (page 20) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 21) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 19 provides a 10-year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice)with monthly detail beginning January 2005. o Compared with calendar year 2013, 2014 collections have increased by $267,628 or 4.04%. o Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at $17.4 million and dropped off dramatically in the subsequent three years. Page 20 provides a 10-year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2005. U Compared with calendar year 2013, 2014 collections have increased by $10,753 or 6.74%. O Collections reached an all-time high in 2013, exceeding the previous high in 2012 by $28,600. Page 21 provides a 10-year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail • beginning January 2005. O Compared with calendar year 2013, 2014 collections have increased by$23,444 or 4.78%. o Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at nearly $2.6 million, decreased precipitously in 2008 and 2009, and are slowly gaining ground. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 22) This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. O The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value and the 2013 assessed value for 2014 property taxes is $7,168,991,028. Following the City's December 1, 2013, bond payment, the City currently has $7,435,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 6.91% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1,38% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. o The $7,435,000 of bonds the City currently has outstanding is part of the 2003 nonvoted (LTGO) bond issue. Of this amount: o $5,990,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of Centerplace, These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $1,445,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. PlFinancelFinance Activity Reportsleouncil Monthly Reportst201412014 06.rlocx� Page 4 P:IFlnance\Finance Activity Reports%Council Monthly Reports1201412014 06 30.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2014 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget #001 -GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax 11,049,400 733,274 6,030,024 (5,019,376) 54.57% Sales Tax 16,390,000 1,400,956 6,900,014 (9,489,986) 42.10% Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 1,330,000 114,945 570,996 (759,004) 42.93% Sales Tax-Public Safely 745,000 63,645 319,173 (425,827) 42.84% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 617,400 4,788 149,935 (467,465) 24.28% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,213,000 8,460 339,844 (873,156) 28.02% State Shared Revenues 1,886,500 349,220 795,648 (1,090,852) 42.18% Fines,Forfeitures and Penalties 1,470,800 109,887 630,486 (840,314) 42.87% Community Development 1,255,400 140,024 883,310 (372,090) 70.36% Recreation Program Fees 579,800 68,515 346,267 (233,533) 59.72% Miscellaneous Department Revenue 85,500 9,207 37,758 (47,742) 44.16% Miscellaneous&Investment Interest 117,600 7,555 48,590 (69,010) 41.32% Transfer-in -#101 (street admit)) 39,700 3,308 20,010 (19,690) 60.40% Transfer•In -#105(him tax-CP advertising) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Transfer-in -#402(stoimadmin) 13,400 1,117 6,700 (6,700) 50.00% Total Recurring Revenues 36,823,500 3,014,910 17,078,756 (19,744,744) 46.38% Expenditures City Council 414,950 25,944 201,988 212,982 48.67% City Manager 660,843 51,545 312,372 348,471 47.27% Legal 448,922 42,784 210,267 236,655 46.84% Public Safety 23,384,643 1,819,859 10,791,177 12,593,466 46.15% Deputy City Manager 653,215 35,447 223,268 429,947 34.18% Finance 1,180,659 91,356 568,739 611,920 48.17% Human Resources 237,883 19,595 114,009 123,874 47.93% Public Works 882,694 50,223 357,901 524,793 40.55% Community Development-Administration 290,883 19,067 123,857 167,026 42.58% Community Development-Engineering 807,114 54,234 327,756 470,358 40.61% Community Development-Planning 928,906 78,573.60 456,670.10 472,236 49.16% Community Development-Building 1,267,656 89,270 596,573 671,084 47.08% Parks&Rec-Administration 274,743 23,188 128,240 146,503 46.68% Parks&Rec-Maintenance 796,200 64,226 316,920 479,280 39.80% Parks&Rec-Recreation 229,152 24,669 78,457 150,695 34,24% Parks&Rec-Aquatics 490,400 35,068 43,424 446,976 8.85% Parks&Rec-Senior Center 89,882 6,568 39,994 49,888 44.50% Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 828,842 62,056 359,639 469,203 43.39% Pavement Preservation 888,823 74,069 444,411 444,412 50.00% General Government 1,741,600 84,979 611,914 1,129,686 35.14% Transfers out-#502(insurance premium) 325,000 27,083 162,500 162,500 50.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 36,823,010 2,779,804 16,470,056 20,352,954 44.73% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 490 235,105 008,700 608,210 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues SCRAPS Pass-Through 0 56,568 56,568 56,568 #DIV10! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 58,568 56,568 56,568 #DIVIO! Expenditures Transfers out•#309(park grant match) 192,500 0 0 192,500 0.00% SCRAPS Pass-Through 0 56,568 56,568 (56,568) #DIVl01 Law Enforcement Contingency 350,000 0 0 350,000 0.00% Public Works(aulacad licenses) 8,800 0 8,800 0 100.00% Parks&Recreation(CP chairs) 11,350 11,192 11,192 158 98.61% Public Safety(precinct improvements) 24,000 0 0 24,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 586,650 67,760 76,560 510,090 13.05% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (586,650) (11,192) (19,992) 566,65.8 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (586,160) 223,914 588,708 1,174,868 Beginning unreslrictedfund balance 23,396,459 23,396,459 Ending unrestricted fund balance 22,810,299 23,985,167 Page 5 P:1FinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201412014 06 30.xisx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2014 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget [SPECIAL-REVENUE FUNDS f101 -STREET FUND [RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,858,600 156,850 746,390 (1,113,210) 40.10% Investment Interest 3,000 164 850 (2,150) 28.34% Insurance Premiums&Recoveries 0 0 4,204 4,204 #DIVIOI UlilityTax 2,750,000 210,010 1,040,984 (1,709,016) 37.85% Miscellaneous Revenue 0 2,919 4,602 4,602 fiDIV/01 Total Recurring Revenues 4,611,600 369,943 1,796,031 (2,815,569) 38.95% Exoenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 627,288 54,995 369,436 257,852 58.89% Supplies 386,500 22,936 281,487 105,013 72.63% Services&Charges 2,392,201 302,489 951,324 1,440,877 39.77% intergovernmental Payments 798,000 62,008 195,756 602,244 24.53% Interfund Transfers-out-#001 39,700 3,308 19,850 19,850 50.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (plow replace.) 75,000 6,250 37,500 37,500 50,00% Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (non-plow vehicle 10,777 898 5,388 5,389 50.00% Interfund Transfers-out-f)311 (pavement preservr 282,000 23,500 141,000 141,000 50.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 4,611,466 476,383 2,001,741 2,609,725 43.41% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 134 (106,441) (205,710) (205,844) [NONRECURRING ACTIVITY I Revenues Grants 0 0 15,150 15,160 #DIV/0! Transfer-in -#302 0 0 23 23 #DlVf01 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 15,173 15,173 #DIV/0! Expenditures 133 Sprague/Sullivan ITS 0 0 173 (173) #DIV/01 Patch Trailer 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% 204 Hawk Signal 25,000 3,950 14,339 10,661 57.36% Software 6,750 0 0 6,750 0.00% Transfers out-#501 (new pickup) 15,000 0 0 15,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 76,750 3,950 14,512 62,238 18.91% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (76,750) (3,950) 661 77,411 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures j (76,616) ,, (110,390) , (205,050) (128,434) Beginning fund balance 2,063,234 2,063,234 Ending fund balance 1,986,618_ 1,858,184 Page 6 P:1FlnanceWFInance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201412014 06 30,xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Slx-Month Period Ended June 30,2014 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget ESPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued (1103-PATHS&TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 7,800 0 0 (7,800) 0.00% Investment Interest 0 2 14 14 #DlV/01 Total revenues 7,800 2 14 (7,786) 0.17% Expenditures Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0f Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,800 2 14 (7,786) Beginning fund balance 71,871 71,871 Ending fund balance 79,671 71,885 f#105-HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 490,000 41,123 170,191 (319,809) 34.73% Investment Interest 300 27 125 (175) 41.80% Total revenues 490,300 41,149 170,317 (319,883) 34.74% Expenditures Interfund Transfers-#001 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Tourism Promotion 547,000 36,298 158,068 388,932 28.90% Total expenditures 677,000 36,298 158,068 418,932 27.39% Revenues over(under)expenditures (86,700) 4,851 12,249 (738,915) Beginning fund balance 236,927 236,927 Ending fund balance 150,227 249,176 Page 7 P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201412014 06 30.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed r• 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2014 E 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued p120-CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment interest 0 0 0 0 #D1V10! Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 #DIV/Oi Total revenues 0 0 0 0 iiDiV/01 Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO! Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 _ 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 #121-SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment interest 7,300 320 1,660 (5,440) 25.47% lnterfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 #DIVI01 Total revenues 7,300 320 1,860 (5,440) 25.47% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 #DIVIOI Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIVI01 Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,300 320 1,860 (5,440) Beginning fund balance 5,448,502 5,448,502 Ending fund balance 5,455,802 5,450,362 #122-WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment interest 700 31 180 (520) 25.77% Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 #DIVI01 Subtotal revenues 700 3i 180 (520) 25.77% )=xpenditures Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Total expenditures 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (499,300) 31 180 (500,520) Beginning fund balance 503,565 ' 503,565 Ending fund balance 4,265 503,745 #123-CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,700 74 429 (1,271) 25.22%© lnterfundTransfer-#001 0 0 0 0 #DIVI01 Total revenues 1,700 74 429 (1,271) 25.22% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO! Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 616,284 51,357 308,142 308,142 50.00% Total expenditures 616,284 51,357 308,142 308,142 50.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (614,584) (51,283) (307,713) (309,413) Beginning fund balance 1,789,271 1,789,271 Ending fund balance 1,174,687 1,481,558 Page 8 P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201412014 06 30.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2014 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #{204-DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 441,520 0 145,760 (295,760) 33.01% interfund Transfer-in-#301 93,152 7,763 46,576 (46,576) 50.00% Interfund Transfer-in-#302 93,151 7,763 46,575 (46,576) 50.00% Total revenues 627,823 15,525 238,912 (388,912) 38.05% Expenditures Debt Service Payments-CenlerPlace 441,520 0 108,967 332,553 24.68% Debt Service Payments-Roads 186,303 0 17,626 168,677 9.46% Total expenditures 627,823 0 128,593 501,230 20.16% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 15,525 112,319 (890,142) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 112,319 Page 9 P:1FinancelFlnance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201442014 06 30.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0'% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2014 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 9301 -REET 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 -Taxes 600,000 99,435 259,688 (340,312) 43.28% Investment Interest 1,000 54 312 (686) 31,25°!u Total revenues 601,000 99,489 260,000 (341,000) 43.26% Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#204 93,152 7,763 46,576 46,576 50.00% Interfund Transfer-out-#303 268,575 0 (19,136) 287,711 -7.13% Interfund Transfer-out-#311 (pavement prosen 184,472 0 0 184,472 0.00% Total expenditures 546,199 7,763 27,440 518,759 5.02% Revenues over(under)expenditures 54,801 91,726 232,560 (859,759) Beginning fund balance 968,021 968,021 Ending fund balance 1,022,822 1,200,581 #302 REET 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS Revenues REET 2-Taxes 600,000 99,435 254,594 Investment interest 1,000 62 360 {345(640) 42.43% (640) 35.99% Total revenues 601,000 99,497 254,954 (346,046) 42.42% Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#101 0 0 23 Interfund Transfer-out-#204 93,151 7,763 46,575 46,676 50.00% Interfund Transfer-out-#303 585,097 0 57,377 527,720 9.81% Interfund Transfer-out-#311 (pavement prosen 184,472 0 0 184,472 0.00% Total expenditures 862,720 7,763 103,976 758,767 12.05% Revenues over(under)expenditures (261,720) 91,734 150,678 (1,104,813) Beginning fund balance 1,323,378 1,323,378 Ending fund balance 1,061,658 1,474,356 1 • I Page 10 P:IFinance\Finance Activity Reports\Councll Monthly Reports12014\2014 06 30.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2014 I 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued j #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 11,092,997 10,537 822,414 (10,270,583) 7.41% Developer Contribution 166,020 0 0 (168,020) 0.00% Miscellaneous 0 160 200 200 #DIV/0l Transfer-1n-#301 268,575 0 (19,136) (287,711) -7.13% Transfer-1n-#302 685,097 0 57,377 (527,720) 9.81% Transfer-in-#312 Appleway Landscaping 250,000 0 0 (250,000) 0.00% Transfer-In-#312 Sullivan Rd W Bridge 2,320,000 0 30,618 (2,289,382) 1.32% Transfer-In-#402 7,101 0 0 (7,101) 0.00% investment Interest 0 1 8 8 #DIV/01 Total revenues 14,689,790 10,688 891,481 (13,798,309) 6.07% Expenditures 060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06-31 860,280 102,289 118,367 741,913 13.76% 061 Pines(SR27)ITS Imporvement SRTC 08-26 10,000 0 67 9,933 0.67% 113 Indlana/Sullivan FCC Intersection 0 113 113 123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker 382,410 57 7,856 374,654 2.05% 141 Sullivan&Euclid PCC 123,090 4,996 27,768 95,322 22.56% 142 Broadway @Argonne/Mullen 50,000 68 3,461 46,539 6.92% 145 Spokane Vailey-Miliwood Trail 100,000 0 832 99,168 0.83% 149 Sidewalk infill 384,425 11,233 56,007 308,418 15.37% 150 Sullivan Road Bridge Drain Retrofit 0 0 0 0 #01V/01 154 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility 0 0 435 (435) #DIV/0I 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 8,888,189 13,856 162,117 8,736,072 1.71% 156 Mansfield Ave.Connection 1,158,727 36,879 543,719 615,008 46.92% 159 University Rd/1-90 Overpass Study 50,000 0 18,213 31,787 36.43% 166 Pines Rd.(SR27)&Grace Ave.Int.Safely 538,850 485 10,275 528,575 1.91% 167 Citywide Safely Improvements 341,928 300 300 341,628 0.09% 168 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk&Adams Rd Sidewalk 30,000 33 3,422 26,578 11.41% 169 ArgonnelMullan Safely Indiana-Broadway 0 0 558 (558) #DIV/01 i 70 Argonne road:Empire Ave-Knox Ave. 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 175 Sullivan UP Tracks UC(SB)Resurfacing 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 176 Appleway Trail 0 0 274 (274) #DIV/0! 177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 100,000 0 23,113 76,887 23.11% 181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 50,000 7,708 71,968 (21,968) 143.94% 185 Appleway Landscaping-Phase 1 250,000 8,409 9,908 240,092 3.96% 191 Vista Rd BNSF Xing Safety Improvements 0 386 5,027 (5,027) #DIV/01 196 8th Avenue-McKinnon to Fancher 300,000 2,796 29,964 270,036 9.99% 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 (PE Start 2014) 91,891 0 68 91,823 0.07% Contingency 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0.00% Total expenditures 14,689,790 189,607 1,083,834 13,606,069 7.38% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 _ (178,919) (192,353) (27,404,377) Beginning fund balance 61,827 61,627 Ending fund balance 61,827 (130,526) Page 11 P:1FlnancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reporis1201412014 06 30,xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Slx-Month Period Ended June 30,2014 / 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #309-PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues interfund Transfer-In-#001 192,500 0 0 (192,500) 0.00% Investment Interest 500 30 176 (324) 35.19% Total revenues 193,000 30 176 (192,824) 0.09% Expenditures Capital 0 0 0 0 #01V/O! 203 Sand volleyball courts at Brown's Park 40,000 2,265 5,987 34,013 14.97% Edgecliff picnic shelter 65,000 0 0 65,000 0.00% 195 Discovery Playground equipment 50,000 932 2,289 47,711 4.58% Shade structure at Discovery Playground 15,000 0 0 15,000 0.00% City entry sign 70,000 0 0 70,000 0.00% Park signs 22,500 0 0 22,500 0.00% Total expenditures 282,500 3,196 8,277 254,223 3.15% Revenues over(under)expenditures (69,500) (3,168) (8,101) (447,047) 1 Beginning fund balance 352,779 352,779 Ending fund balance 283,279 344,678 #310-CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Miscellaneous 0 0 839,285 839,285 #DIV/0! Investment Interest 1,900 81 472 (1,428) 24.86% Total revenues 1,900 81 839,757 837,857 44197.76% Expenditures Capital 0 0 0 0 #DIVI01 Miscellaneous 0 0 2,202 (2,202) #DIV/0! Total expenditures _ 0 0 2,202 (2,202) #DIV/01 Revenues over(under)expenditures 1,900 81 837,556 840,059 Beginning fund balance _ 1,101,903 1,101,903 Ending fund balance 1,103,803 1,939,459 Note; The fund balance Includes$839,285.10 paid by the Librery District for 2.82 acres et the Balfour Perk site. If the District does not succeed In getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City will repurchase this land at the original sate price of 3639,285.10. #311 -PAVEMENT PRESERVATION FUND Revenues Interfund Transfers in-#101 282,000 23,500 141,000 (141,000) 50.00% Interfund Transfers in-#123 616,284 51,357 308,142 (308,142) 50.00% Interfund Transfers In-#301 184,472 0 0 (184,472) 0.00% Interfund Transfers in-#302 184,472 0 0 (184,472) 0.00% Interfund Transfers In-#001 886,823 74,069 444,411 (444,412) 50.00% Grant Proceeds 2,763,272 0 56,193 (2,707,079) 2.03% Miscellaneous 0 0 50 50 #DIVI01 Investment interest 0 126 734 734 #DIV/01 Total revenues 4,919,323 149,052 950,630 (3,968,793) 19.32% Txpenditures 162 2012 Street Preservation 400,000 103 2,097 397,903 0.52% 163 Sprague Ave Swale Upgrade,Park to 1-90 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 174 2013 Street Preservation Ph1 0 0 191 (191) #DIVIOI 179 2013 Street Preservation Ph2 1,610,000 233,945 262,147 1,357,853 15.66% 180 Carnahan,Indiana&Sprague Presery 0 269,420 286,823 (286,823) #DMO! 186 Adams Road Resurfacing 198,760 10,497 20,985 177,775 10.56% 187 Sprague Ave Preservation Protect 1,352,841 4,069 33,073 1,319,769 2.44% 188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project 33,920 2,092 2,542 31,378 7.49% 202 Appleway Street Preservation Project 0 1,617 9,203 (9,203) #DIVIOI Total expenditures 3,695,621 621,743 607,080 2,988,481 16.88% Revenues over(under)expenditures 1,323,802 (372,692) 343,471 (6,957,254) Beginning fund balance 798,609 798,609 Ending fund balance 2,122,411 1,142,080 Page 12 P:1FinancelFinance Activity ReporlslCouncit Monthly Reports1201 412014 06 30.xisx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% _ For the Six-Month Period Ended Juno 30,2014 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget 'CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS•continued #312-CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0l Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Developer Contribution 0 0 4,675 4,675 #DIV10! Total revenues 0 0 4,675 4,675 #DIV/0I Expenditures Capital Outlays 0 0 0 0 #DIVl01 Transfers out-#303-Appleway Landscaping 250,000 0 0 250,000 0.00% Transfers out-#303-Sullivan Rd W Bridge 2,320,000 0 30,618 2,289,382 1.32% Total expenditures 2,570,000 0 30,618 2,539,382 1.19% Revenues over(under)expenditures (2,570,000) 0 (25,943) (2,534,707) Beginning fund balance 7,742,299 7,742,299 Ending fund balance 5,172,299 7,716,356 Page 13 P:1FinancelFlnance Activity Reports%Council Monthly Reporis1201412014 06 30.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budges Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed w 50.0% For the Six•Month Period Ended June 30,2014 I 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS X1402-STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY I Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,835,000 155,888 1,024,697 (810,303) 55.84% Investment Interest 2,500 92 531 (1,969) 21.26% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DIVI01 Total Recurring Revenues 1,837,500 155,980 1,025,228 (812,272) 55.79% Expenditures Wages I Benefits/Payroll Taxes 505,535 28,848 164,212 341,323 32.48% Supplies 15,900 506 2,480 13,420 15.60% Services&Charges 1,065,076 164,660 449,019 616,057 42.16% Intergovernmental Payments 26,500 0 13,076 13,424 49.34% Interfund Transfers out•#001 13,400 1,117 6,700 6,700 50.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#502 1,567 131 783 784 50.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,627,978 195,261 636,270 991,708 39.08% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 209,522 (39,281) 388,958 179,436 'NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 0 8,747 8,747 #01V/Of Interfund Transfers-in 0 0 0 0 #D1V101 Developer Contributions 0 0 51,492 51,492 #DIV/01 Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 60,239 60,239 #DIV10l Exoenditures Capital-various projects 900,000 0 0 900,000 0.00% Properly acquisition 250,000 0 0 250,000 0.00% VMS Trailer 16,000 0 0 16,000 0.00% 150 Sullivan Bridge Drain Retrofit 0 0 1,152 (1,152) #DIV/0! UIC Retrofits on Pvmnt Pres Projects 0 33,961 33,981 (33,961) #DIV/Ot 166 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk&Adams Rd Sidewalk 0 0 0 0 #DIV/O! 186 Adams Road Resurfacing 0 1,861 3,002 (3,002) #DIV/01 193 Effectiveness Study 0 1,273 10,604 (10,604) #DIV/OI 197 Broadway,Havana to Fancher SD Retrofit 0 0 444 (444) #DlV/0! 198 Sprague,Park to University LID 0 50 1,606 (1,606) 4DIVI01 199 Havana-Yale Diversion 0 0 972 (972) #DIV/01 200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion 0 0 2,566 (2,566) #DIV/0! Transfers out-#501 (now pickup) 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,196,000 37,145 54,308 1,141,692 4.54% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (1,196,000) ^ (37,145)_ 5,931 1,201,931 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures i (986,478) (76,426) 394,889 l 1,361,367 Beginning working capital 2,342,556_ 2,342,556 Ending working capital 1,356,078 2,737,445 Page 14 P:IFlnancelFtnance Activity Reparts1Council Monthly Reports1201412014 06 30.xtsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0%° For the SIx-Month Period Ended June 30,2014 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS-continued I /1403-AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 500,000 259,106 259,106 (240,894) 51.82% Grant DOE-Decant Facility 0 0 13,072 13,072 #DIV/01 Grant DOT-Decant Facility 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 #01V/0! Grant revenue 870,000 0 38,119 (831,881) 4.38% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 4DIV101 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #01V/01 Total revenues 1,370,000 359,106 410,296 (959,704) 29.95% Expenditures 163 Sprague swales 0 0 510 (510) #DIV/01 190 14th Ave Custer to Carnahan 0 0 0 0 /IDIV/01 189 Beltman-Dickey Storm drain 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 173 Decant Facility 0 186,988 430,859 (430,859) #DIV/01 Broadway SD retrofit(design only) 60,000 0 0 60,000 0.00% Dutra!!Diversion(design only) 60,000 0 0 60,000 0.00% 192 SE Yardley Retrofits 1,000,000 3,618 36,543 963,457 3.65% Total expenditures 1,120,000 190,606 467,911 652,089 41.78% Revenues over(under)expenditures 260,000 168,500 (57,815) (1,611,793) Beginning working capital 333,610 333,610 Ending working capital 583,610 275,995 Page 15 PAFinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201412014 06 30.xisx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.0% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2014 i 2014 Actual Actuallhru Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget [INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS /1501 -ER&R FUND Revenues Transfer-In-#001 15,400 1,283 7,700 (7,700) 50.00% Transfer-In-#101 10,777 898 5,389 (5,389) 50.00% Transfer-In-#101 (plow replace.) 75,000 6,250 37,500 (37,500) 50.00% Transfer-In-#402 1,567 131 784 (784) 50.00% Investment Interest 1,000 54 314 (686) 31.37% Transfer-In-#101 (new pickup) 15,000 0 0 (15,000) 0.00% Transfer-in-#402(new pickup) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Total revenues 148,744 8,616 51,686 (97,058) 34.75% Expenditures Vehicle Acquisitions 90,000 0 0 90,000 0.00% Total expenditures 90,000 0 0 90,000 000% Revenues over(under)expenditures 58,744 8,616 51,686 (187,058) Beginning working capital 1,183,348 1,183,348 Ending working capital 1,242,092 1,235,034 #502-RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 2 2 #DIV/0l InterfundTransfer-4001 325,000 27,083 162,500 (162,500) 50.00% Total revenues 325,000 27,084 162,502 (162,498) 50.00% Expenditures Auto&Property Insurance 325,000 0 272,435 52,565 83.83% Unemployment Claims 0 0 5,680 (5,680) #DIV/01 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DtV/04 Total expenditures 325,000 0 278,115 46,885 85.57% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 27,084 (115,613) (209,384) Beginning working capital 124,171 124,171 Ending working capital 124,171 8,558 SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 67,257,980 4,408,145 24,289,764 Per revenue status report 67,257,980 4,408,145 24,269,764 Difference 0 0 0 Total of Expenditures for all Funds 71,304,691 4,568,637 22,455,684 Per expenditure status report 71,304,691 4,568,637 22,455,684 0 0 0 Page 16 P:IFinance\Finance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reporis1201412014 06 30.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 7/16/2014 investment Report For the Slx•Month Period Ended June 30, 2014 Total LOP* BB CD 2 BB CD 3 Investments _ Beginning $ 44,699,930.83 $ 3,059,208.90 $ 2,001,984.09 $ 49,761,123.82 Deposits 2,137,067.83 0.00 0.00 2,137,067.83 Withdrawls 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interest 3,201.92 0.00 0.00 3,201.92 Ending $ 46,840,200.58 $ 3,059,208.90 $ 2,001,984.09 $ 51,901,393.57 matures: 6/28/2015 11/4/2014 rate: 0.35% 0.29% Earnings Balance Current Period Year to date Budget 001 General Fund $ 33,464,378.51 $ 2,082.99 $ 15,928.51 $ 65,000.00 101 Street Fund 2,650,238.94 163.50 850.22 3,000.00 103 Trails&Paths 37,981.50 2.34 13.60 0.00 105 Hotel/Motel 432,724.99 26.70 125.40 300.00 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 300,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,191,573.65 320.28 1,859.60 7,300.00 122 Winter Weather Reserve 503,574.83 31.07 180.38 700.00 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 1,197,066.41 73.85 428.78 1,700.00 301 Capital Projects 873,453.99 53.89 312.46 1,000.00 302 Special Capital Projects 1,004,634.00 61.98 359.86 1,000.00 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 22,851.73 1.41 8.19 0.00 309 Parks Capital Project 491,213.81 30.30 175.96 500.00 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 1,318,599.73 81.35 472.32 1,900.00 311 Street Capital Improvements 2011+ 2,048,687.40 126.39 733.83 0.00 312 Capital Reserve Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 402 Stormwater Management 1,483,571.34 91.53 531.42 2,500.00 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 501 Equipment Rental&Replacement 875,741.45 54.03 313.69 1,000.00 502 Risk Management 5,101.29 0.31 1.82 0.00 $ 51,901,393.57 $ 3,201.92 $ 22,296.04 $ 85,900,00 *Local Government Investment Pool 1 Page 17 P:IFinence\Finance Activity Reports1Council Monthly Reports1201412014 06 30,xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 7/15/2014 Sales Tax Receipts For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30, 2014 Month Difference • Received 2013 2014 $ February 1,876,298.24 1,891,031.43 14,733.19 0.79% March 1,279,426.01 1,324,975.84 45,549.83 3.56% April 1,295,166.24 1,357,736.39 62,570.15 4.83% May 1,531,483.94 1,636,894.44 105,410.50 6.88% June 1,486,879.22 1,579,545.34 92,666.12 6.23% 7,469,253.65 7,790,183.44 320,929.79 4.30% July 1,568,524.87 August 1,612,535.63 September 1,646,673.39 October 1,650,525.59 November 1,630,334.91 December 1,544,088.55 January 1,584,524.73 18,706,461.32 7,790,183.44 Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.7%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax, The allocation of the total 8.7% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: - State of Washington 6.50% - City of Spokane Valley 0.85% - Spokane County 0.15% - Crrninial Justice 0.10% - Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% * - Public Safety 0.10% *— 2.20% local tax - Juvenile Jail 0.10% * - Mental Health 0.10% * - Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * • - Spokane Transit Authority 0.60% 8.70% • * Indicates voter approved sales taxes In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safely sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county-wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 10%of the receipts to Spokane County,with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county-wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60%of the receipts to Spokane County,with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 18 H:1Tax Revenue\Sales Tax12014\.sales tax collections 2014.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 6/30/2014 Sales Tax Collections- May For the years 2005 through 2014 1111 -Wt. 2014 to 2013 Difference I 2005 I 2006 1 2007 I 2008 I 2009 I 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1_ 2013 I 2014 1 $ % January 1,367,929 1,572,609 1,759,531 1,729,680 1,484,350 1.491,059 1,460,548 '1,589,887 1,671269 1,677,887 6,618 0.40% February 917,747 1,068,743 1,155,947 1,129,765 1,098,575 963,749 990,157 1,009,389 1,133,347 1,170,640 37,293 3.29% March 1,015,573 1,072,330 1,196,575 1,219,611 1,068,811 1,018,468 1,015,762 1,067,733 1,148,486 1,201,991 53,505 4.66% April 1,322,070 1,371,030 1,479,603 1,423,459 1,134,552 1.184,137 1,284,180 1,277,621 1,358,834 1,448,539 89,705 6.60% May 1,159,647 1,392,111 1,353,013 1,243,259 1,098,054 1,102,523 1,187,737 1,174,962 1,320,449 1,400,956 80,507 6.10% Collected to date 5,782,966 6,476,823 6,944,669 6,745,774 5,884,342 5,759,936 5,938,384 6,119,592 6,632,385 6,900,013 257,628 4.04% June 1,212,663 1,362,737 1,428,868 1,386,908 1,151,772 1,123,907 1.248,218 1,290,976 1,389,802 0 July 1,377,753 1,555,124 1,579,586 1,519,846 1,309,401 1,260,873 1,332,834 1,302,706 1,424,243 0 August 1,395,952 1.405,983 1,516,324 1,377,943 1,212,531 1,211,450 1,279,500 1,299,678 1,465,563 0 September 1,372,031 1,487,155 1,546,705 1,364,963 1,227,813 1,191,558 1,294,403 1,383,123 1,466,148 0 October 1,520,176 1.526,910 1,601,038 1,344,217 1,236,493 1,269,505 1,291,217 1,358,533 1,439,321 0 November 1,095,566 1,369,940 1,443,843 1,292,327 1,155,647 1,139,058 1,217,933 1,349,580 1,362,021 0 December 1,286,191 1.366,281 1,376,434 1,129,050 1.070,245 1,141,012 1,247.920 1,323,189 1,408,134 0 Total Collections 15,043,348 16,550,953 17,437,467 16,161,028 14,248,244 14,097,299 14,850,409 15,427,377 16,587,617 6,900,013 Budget Estimate 12,280,000 16,002,000 17,466,800 17,115.800 17,860,000 14,410,000 14,210,000 14,210,000 15,250.000 16,390,000 Actual over(under)budg 2,763,348 548,953 (29,333) (954.772) (3,611,756) (312,701) 640.409 1.217.377 1.337,617 (9,489.987) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 122.50% 103.43% 99.83% 94,42% 79.78% 97.83% 104.51% 108.57% 108.77% rife %change in annual total collected 10.93% 10.02% 5.36% (7.32%) (11.84%) (1.06%) 5.34% 3.89% 7.52% n/a %of budget collected through May 47.09% 40.48% 39.76% 39.41% 32.95% 39.97% 41.79% 43.07% 43.49% 42.10% %of actual total collected through May 38.44% 39.13% 39.83% 41.74% 41.30% 40.86% 39.99% 39.67% 39.98% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May - 8,000,000 7,000,000 _ 6,000,000 - L...:.0::., .•I May f - , i-,t-e, L. , 3ApnIJ - - , � t`< t t 4,000,000 ► ' tpx23l k',:',.. i ' 7 March 3,000,000 =February 2,000 000 ._•4 r s Li rb, 3' =�-i�t ;�f l�,� ::January 4,s, ,ii_ 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Page 19 H:1Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax120141105 hotel motel tax 2014,xlsx CITY OF SPOKANEVALLEY, ug NA 6i30/20'I4 FlotellMotelTaxTax Receipts through- .7,:•.:f e Actual for the years 2005 through 2014 -1"."' 2014 to 2013 Difference 1 2005 I 2006 I 2007 I 2008 I 2009 I 2010 1 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014 I 5 % January 20,691.03 20,653.49 25,137.92 28,946.96 23280.21 22,706.96 22.212.21 21,442.32 24,184.84 25,425.40 1,241 5.13% February 19,976.81 20,946.09 25.310.66 24,623.06 23283.95 23,416.94 22,792.14 21,548.82 25,974,98 26,013.62 39 0.15% March 22,828.15 24,308.48 29,190.35 27,509.99 25.272.02 24,232.35 24.611.28 25,654.64 27,738.65 29,383.93 1,645 5.93% April 29.748.41 34,371.32 37,950.53 40,406.02 36,253.63 39,463.49 38,230.49 52,130.37 40,979,25 48,245.81 7,267 17.73% May 29,017.56 32,522.06 31,371,01 36,828.53 32.588.80 34,683.32 33,790.69 37,478.44 40,560.41 41,122.66 562 1.39% Total Collections 122,262.06 132,801.94 148,960.47 158,314,56 140,678.61 144,503.06 141,636.81 158254.59 159,438.13 170,191.42 10,753 5.74% June 35,330.35 34,256.71 36,267.07 46,659.88 40,414.59 39.935.36 41,403.41 43,970.70 47,850.15 0.00 July 43,841.82 49,744.62 56,281.99 50,421.37 43,950.26 47,385.18 49,311.97 52,818.60 56,157.26 0.00 August 46,852.10 45.916.16 51,120.70 50,818.35 50,146.56 54.922.99 57,451.68 57,229.23 63,816.45 0.00 September 46,746.18 50,126.53 57260.34 60,711.89 50,817.62 59,418.96 58,908.16 64,298.70 70,794.09 0.00 October 34,966.85 38,674.17 43,969.74 38,290.46 36,734.36 41272.35 39,028,08 433,698.90 43,835.57 0.00 November 26,089.36 36,417.11 36,340.64 35,582.59 34,054.79 34,329.78 37,339,36 39,301.22 42,542.13 0.00 December 31,740.18 29,147.15 31,377.41 26.290.11 27,131.43 26.776.84 32.523.19 30,432.13 34,238.37 0.00 Total Collections 387,528.90 417,084.39 461,573.36 467,089.21 423,978.22 448,544.52 457,602.56 490,004,07 518,672.15 170,191.42 Budget Estimate 436,827.00 350.000.00 400,000.00 400.000.00 512,000.00 380,000.00 480,000.00 430,000.00 490,000.00 490.000.00 Actual over(under)budg (48.998.10) 67,084.39 61,578.36 67,089.21 (88.021.78) 68,544.52 (22,397.34) 60,004.07 28.672.15 (319,806.58) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 88.78%n 119.17% 115.39% 116.77% 82.81% 118.04% 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% nla %change in annual total collected 6.71% 7.54% 10.67% 1.19% (9.23%) 5.79% 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% nia %of budget collected through:.sy 27.99% 37.94% 37.24% 39.58% 27.4.8% 38.03% 29.51% 36.80% 32.54% 34.73% %of actual total collected through May 31.52% 31.84% 32.27% 33.89% 33.18% 32.22% 30.95% 32.30% 30.74% n!a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May 120,000.00 160,000.00 140,000.00 --- 120,000.00 ----- ._ May 100,000.00 -- Y` -` ._._..._ &April 80,000.00 --- ---- .- .. s March 60,000.00 -' _.-W =February - _January 40,040.00 aiffiRiFuviripLrlu----_L 20,000.00 - 0.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Page 20 H:\Tax RevenueXREET120141301 and 302 REET for 2014.x]sx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 613012014 1st and 2nd 114%REET Collections through May Actual for the years 2005 through 2014 2014 to 2013 Difference I 2006 I 2006 I 2007 I 2008 I 2009 I_ 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014 I $ January 147,819.56 243,894.16 228,896.76 145,963.47 55,281.25 59,887.08 64,128.13 46,358.75 56,898.40 61,191.55 4,293 7.55% February 128,082.35 172,154.72 129,919.79 159,503.34 45,180.53 64,121.61 36.443.36 56,114.56 155,226.07 67,048.50 (88,178) (56.81%) March 198.013.09 182,065.71 263,834.60 133.513.35 73,306.86 36,204.41 95,879.73 71,729.67 72,171.53 81,723.70 9,552 13.24% April 192,012.4.4 173,796.61 211,787.08 128,366.69 81,155.83 99,507.19 79,681.38 86,537.14 90,376.91 105,448.15 15,071 16.68% May 240,765.59 306.871.66 222,677.17 158,506.43 77,463.58 109,624.89 124,691.60 111,627.22 116,164.91 198,869,74 82,705 71.20% Collected to date 906,693.03 1.078.782.86 1,057,115.40 725,85328 332,388.05 419,345.18 400,824.25 372,367.34 490,837.32 514,231.64 23.444 4.78% June 284,268.67 226,526.64 257,477.05 178,202.98 105,020.93 105,630.23 81,579.34 124,976.2E 139.112.11 0.00 July 209,350.53 2,104.30 323,945.47 217,942.98 122,530.36 84,834.48 79.629.06 101,048,69 128,921.02 0.00 August 280,881.50 451,700.05 203,039.87 133,905.93 115,829.68 72.63027 129,472.44 106,517.19 117,149.90 0.00 September 214,738.94 188,06623 165,287.21 131,240.36 93,662.17 75,812.10 68,019.83 63,516.73 174,070.25 0.00 October 244,590,31 211,091.20 206,442.92 355,655.60 113,960.52 93.256.02 61,396.23 238,094.79 117,805.76 0.00 November 190,954.733 141,729.09 191,805.53 147,875.00 133,264.84 72.02124 74,752.72 104,885.99 78,324.02 0.00 December 159381.40 161,285.23 179,567.77 96,086.00 71,365.60 38.724.50 65.077.29 74,299.65 75,429.19 0.00 Total distributed by Spokane County 2,490,869.11 2,461.285.61 2,589,681.22 1,986.762.13 1,085,222.20 962,304.07 960,751.16 1,185,706.66 1,321,650.07 514,281.64 Budget estimate 4.006.361.00 2,000,000.00 2.000,000.00 2,000.000.00 2,000.000.00 760,000.00 800,000.00 950.000.00 1,000,000.00 1.200,000.00 Actual over(under)budget (1.515,491.89) 461.285.61 589,68122 (13.237.87) (911.777.80) 202,304.07 160.751.16 235,706.66 321.650.07 (685.718.36) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 62.17% 123.06% 129.48% 99.34% 54.41% 126.62% 120.09% 124.81% 132.17% n/a %change in annual total collected 23.92% (1.19%) 5.22% (2328%) (45.23%) (11.57%) (0.16%) 23.41% 11.47% n/a %o of budget collected through May 22.63% 53.94% 52.86% 36.29% 16.62% 55.15% 50.10% 39.20% 49.08% 42.86% °!of actual total collected through May 36.40% 43.83% 40.82% 36.53% 30.54% 43.58% 41.72% 31.40% 37.14% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May 1,200,000.00 1,000,000.00 . I s00,000.U0 -.___- -_. -May '^ 500,000.00 -1-- - =April - -March 400,000.00 -- February _- -- ,January 200,000.00 _ - - - - . - 2005 2006 2007 2003 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 NT.e 21 H:\Bonds\debt capacity.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/4/2014 Debt Capacity 2013 Assessed Value for 2014 Properly Taxes 7,168,991,028 Maximum Outstanding Remaining Debt as of Debt % Capacity 12/3.1/2013 Capacity Utilized Voted(UTGO) 1.00% of assessed value 71,689,910 0 71,689,910 0.00% Nonvoted (LTGO) 1.50% of assessed value 107,534,865 7,435,000 100,099,865 6.91% Voted park 2.50% of assessed value 179,224,776 0 179,224,776 0.00% Voted utility 2.50% of assessed value 179,224,776 0 179,224,776 0.00% 537,674,327 7,435,000 530,239,327 1.38% 2003 LTGO Bonds 1 Road& Period Street Ending CenterPlace Improvemen s Total 12/1/2004 60,000 85,00 145,000 12/1/2005 75,000 90,0 0 165,000 12/1/2006 85,000 90,001 175,000 Bonds 12/1/2007 90,000 95,00) 185,000 Repaid 12/1/2008 95,000 95,00c 190,000 12/1/2009 105,000 100,00. 205,000 12/1/2010 110,000 100,001 210,000 12/1/2011 120,000 105,000 225,000 1211/2012 130,000 110,000 240,000 12/1/2013 140,000 115,000 255,000 1,010,000 985,000 1,995,000 12/1/2014 150,000 120,000 270,000 12/1/2015 160,000 125,000 285,000 1 12/1/2016 170,000 130,000 300,000 12/1/2017 180,000 135,000 315,000 12/1/2018 220,000 140,000 360,000 12/1/2019 250,000 145,000 395,000 12/1/2020 290,000 150,000 440,000 12/1/2021 325,000 160,000 485,000 Bonds 12/1/2022 360,000 165,000 525,000 Remaining 12/1/2023 405,000 175,000 580,000 _ 12/112024 450,000 0 450,000 12/1/2025 490,000 0 490,000 12/1/2026 535,000 0 535,000 12/1/2027 430,000 0 430,000 12/1/2028 340,000 0 340,000 12/1/2029 295,000 0 295,000 12/1/2030 280,000 0 280,000 12/1/2031 240,000 0 240,000 12/1/2032 190,000 0 190,000 12/1/2033 230,000 0 230,000 5,990,000 1,445,000 7,435,000 7,000,000 2,430,000 9,430,000 Page 22 Rick VanLeuven Ozzie Knezovich Chief of Police Sheriff ° ie Spokane Valley Police Department Services provided in partnership with °"1N= °0+4 the Spokane County Sheriff's Office and the Community, Dedicated to Your Safety. TO: Mike Jackson, City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: July 14, 2014 RE: Monthly Report June 2014 June 2014: June 2013: CAD incidents: 5,194 CAD incidents: 4,940 Reports taken: 1,723 Reports taken: 1,879 Traffic stops: 1,141 Traffic stops: 1,067 Traffic reports: 242 Traffic reports: 347 CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self-initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing June residential burglaries, traffic collisions, vehicle prowlings, and stolen vehicles. Also attached are trend-line graphs for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013: Citations, Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls, Self-Initiated Calls, Collisions, Persons Crimes, Property Crimes, and Sex Crimes. Also included is the June Crimes by Cities stats report. This report reflects incidents that occurred in a specific city to which a deputy from Spokane County took the courtesy report. For example, an individual may have had his car stolen in Airway Heights, and he waited until he returned home in the Newman Lake area to make a report. In 2011, we switched from UCR to NIBRS classification. As a result, certain crimes were broken down to their violation parts for NIBRS and each part is now counted. Consequently, comparing certain crimes before 2011 to crimes during or after 2011 is not possible using the graphs. The crimes that are impacted by the NIBRS classification changes and should not be compared to prior graphs include: Adult Rape, Assault, Forgery and Theft. ADMINISTRATIVE: Chief VanLeuven met with Central Valley High School administration in early June to discuss their collaboration with SVPD and the success of the School Resource Deputy Program. Page 1 The semi-annual Behind the FACE (FireArms Crime Enforcement) Panel was held at Airway Heights in early June. FACE is a program facilitated at Airway Heights where a panel comprised of representatives from various agencies to include law enforcement, speaks to inmates who are scheduled for release. The inmates are identified as Armed Career Criminals and are reminded by members of the panel not only that they cannot possess firearms or ammunition after their release, but the ramifications should they not change their former criminal ways and abide with conditions placed on them once they are released from prison. Chief VanLeuven is a member of this panel and fully supports the foundation of this program. Chief VanLeuven participated in the Millwood Days Parade along with Sheriff Knezovich and members of the Traffic Unit. 4 ;K . 11,. '4 _Nib'•; , r Chief VanLeuven was asked to be part of the Interview Group at Spokane Valley Fire Department's Emergency Services Master Plan Session, which took a look at the community and trends impacting the department, such as economic, demographic, work force/labor issues, public expectations, political, industry benchmarks, innovations in public safety and workforce support issues. The month of June brought some retirements to the Sheriffs Office/Spokane Valley Police Department. Sgt. Don Manning turned over the reins of the Spokane Valley Traffic Unit to Sgt. Dave Ellis. Sgt. Ellis also heads up the Air Support Unit for the Sheriff's Office. We also wished Deputy Cindy Jones a fond farewell. Deputy Jones worked many years in the Domestic Violence Unit, and finished her career the last couple years in Patrol. Chief VanLeuven attended In-Service Training at the end of June. SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): SCOPE volunteers participated in the following events during the month of June: • McDonald Elementary School Bike Safety (gave and fitted 20 bike helmets) • East Valley Community Coalition Meeting • Fulcrum Resolution Clinic-Youth Mentoring Program Page 2 • Safe Kids Meeting • GoodWill GoodGuides Mentoring Program • Fall Free Spokane Coalition Meeting • GSSAC Coalition Meeting • Operation Family ID June 2014 Volunteers Hours per Station Location #Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 10 297.5 120.5 418.0 Edgecliff 23 731.0 0 731.0 Trentwood 6 192.0 218.5 410.5 University 14 271.5 265.0 536.5 TOTALS 53 1,492.0 604.0 2,096.0 Volunteer Value ($21.62 per hour) $45,315.52 for June 2014 Spokane Valley Graffiti Report 2012 2013 2014 Jan. 0 2 3 Feb. 0 7 16 March 2 13 11 April 14 9 30 May 16 4 4 June 15 9 13 July 41 7 Aug. 57 22 Sept. 26 4 Oct. 30 7 Nov. 19 7 Dec. 37 1 Total 257 92 52 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 48 on-scene hours (including travel time) in June, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control. Of those hours, 16 hours were for incidents in Spokane Valley. The total number of hours for Special Events in Spokane Valley in June totaled 7 for the Millwood Days Parade. Total June volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 525; year-to-date total is 3,171 hours. Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in Spokane Valley in May totaled 19 and in June 23 with 5 vehicles in May and 5 in June, respectively, eventually cited and Page 3 towed. Twenty-three hulks were processed in May and 73 hulks processed in June. During the month of June, a total of 131 vehicles were processed; the total for 2014 to date is 438. SCOPE LATENT PRINT STATS January - June 2014 TRAINING HOURS SCSO SVPD TOTAL January 0 25 35 60 February 0 28 55 83 March 0 43 59 102 April 4.5 41 32 73 May 0 31 29 60 June 0 18 32 50 YTD - TOTAL 4.5 181 243 422 SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of # of Hrs # of Disabled # of # of Non- Vol. Infractions Warnings Disabled Issued Issued Infractions Issued January 4 40 4 0 0 February 6 78 25 0 0 March 3 57 11 0 0 April 3 52 2 0 0 May 2 52 9 0 0 June 1 18 9 0 0 YTD Total 19 297 60 0 0 Spokane County # of # of Hrs # of Disabled # of # of Non- Vol. Infractions Warnings Disabled Issued Issued Infractions Issued January 2 11 2 0 0 February 8 10 4 0 0 March 2 23.5 0 0 0 April 4 26.5 0 0 0 May 2 30.5 0 0 0 June 2 9 0 0 0 YTD Total 20 110.5 6 0 0 Page 4 OPERATIONS: Directed Patrols Decrease Crime Rates in Spokane Valley - The Spokane Valley Investigative Unit in cooperation with Patrol Deputies utilizing Intelligence Led Policing have been focusing their efforts at directed patrols in specific locations in the Spokane Valley. Based on the types of crimes and frequency, detectives and deputies have focused their efforts at reducing the crime rate in areas that have been affected the greatest. The most recent directed patrols focused on and around one residence in particular. There had been an increase in burglaries, vehicle prowls and stolen vehicles in the area. As a result of these directed patrols, multiple stolen vehicles were recovered from one residence. Ultimately, the residents moved from the neighborhood and crime statistics instantly dropped in the area. Intoxicated Man Refuses Help, Assaults Deputies — In early June at 10:20 p.m., Spokane Valley Sheriffs Deputies Lamont Petersen, Chad Eaton and Bryon Zlateff responded to the call of an intoxicated man in the area of 2600 N. Pines Road. Deputies located the 42-year-old man who told deputies to either kill him or take him to jail. Deputy Petersen explained to the male that he was not in trouble, was not under arrest, and offered to give him a ride home. The male refused Deputy Petersen's offer of assistance, walked to Deputy Petersen's Patrol vehicle and attempted to get into the back seat. Deputy Petersen ordered the male to step away from his vehicle and walked towards him. The male turned towards Deputy Eaton, clenched his fists and assumed a fighting stance. The male yelled at the deputies and ran towards Deputy Eaton, who ordered the male to stop as he ran toward him. Deputy Eaton pushed the male back and the male grabbed onto his arm. Deputy Eaton and Deputy Petersen were able to detain the male, escort him to the ground and place him in handcuffs. After he was detained, Deputy Petersen walked behind the male and he kicked Deputy Petersen in the legs. The deputies had to place leg restraints on the male until he relaxed and they were able to place him in the back seat of a Patrol vehicle. The male was booked into jail for two counts of 3rd Degree Assault and one count of Resisting Arrest. Valley IHOP Burglarized — On a Monday morning in early June, Spokane Valley Sheriffs Deputies responded to IHOP at the Spokane Valley Mall on a burglary call. The complainant said the employee who opens the restaurant arrived at 5:30 a.m. and found the rear door unlocked. There were no other unlocked doors and there was no forced entry into the business. Inside the office, a safe had been opened and an undisclosed amount of cash was stolen. No other items inside the business were disturbed. At this time there are no suspects. Crime Stoppers is offering a cash reward for anyone providing information leading to an arrest in this incident. Persons with information should call the Crime Stoppers Tip Line at 1-800-222-TIPS, or should forward the tip via the Internet website www.crimestoppersinlandnorthwest.org. Tipsters do not have to give their name to collect the cash reward. Crime Stoppers of the Inland Northwest is a civilian organization that promotes public safety by paying cash rewards for information that solves crimes. It is not affiliated with law enforcement. Meth Salesman Loses Job — In early June at about 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley Sheriffs Deputy Jeremy Howe responded to the area of Farr and Broadway to look for a suspicious person who had offered to sell the complainant methamphetamine. The complainant said the suspect was a white male, wearing a blue shirt, blue hat and blue jeans. As Deputy Howe was driving north on Farr towards Broadway, he saw a white male walking towards him that fit the description of the suspect. The 46-year-old male looked at Deputy Howe and quickly changed his course, walked through a residential yard and towards a church playground. Deputy Howe contacted the male near the church. The male told Deputy Howe he was walking to a friend's house, became very Page 5 confrontational, and asked Deputy Howe why he was arresting him. Deputy Howe explained to the male he was not under arrest and was unable to explain the circumstances to the male because he was so belligerent and confrontational. This behavior led Deputy Howe to believe the male was the individual trying to sell the complainant methamphetamine. Due to the male's erratic behavior, Deputy Howe asked if he had any weapons. The male told Deputy Howe he had a knife and reached towards his right hip and grabbed ahold of a leather carrier. Deputy Howe told the male not to touch the knife and to place his hands on his head. The male initially refused to obey Deputy Howe's orders, and then reluctantly placed his hands on his head. Deputy Howe attempted to place the male in handcuffs to safely continue his investigation. The male became combative and attempted to get away from Deputy Howe. Deputy Howe requested assistance, and once Deputy Darrin Powers arrived on scene, they were able to safely detain the male. After the male was placed under arrest for Obstructing and Resisting Arrest, Deputy Powers located a small black nylon bag in the male's back pocket. This bag contained a white crystalline substance and a brown pasty substance that later field-tested positive for methamphetamine and heroin. A Gerber multi-tool with a two-inch knife was located in the male's front pocket. The male told Deputy Howe he was trying to get away so he could throw his drugs. The male was booked into jail for the charges of two counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree Assault, Obstructing and Resisting Arrest. "Tool Kit", Knives, Warrants, Drugs — In early June, before midnight, Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputy Randy Watts was patrolling the area of Third and Thierman when he witnessed a male riding his bicycle down the middle of Third Ave. without a headlamp. Deputy Watts contacted the 20- year-old bicyclist in the middle of the road. The male immediately said, "I know, I have a warrant." Deputy Watts checked the male's name through dispatch and confirmed he had two felony warrants for Possession of a Controlled Substance. After the male was placed under arrest, Deputy Watts found six knives in his possession. Two of the knives, found in his left, front pocket, were small folding knives. Another was a dagger concealed in his right front pocket with the handle sticking out. Three knives were found in the backpack the male was wearing. The largest of the knives was a machete tucked into his backpack; the handle of which was concealed in a red bandana and sticking out. The last knife was a throwing dagger concealed in a separate red bandana tucked in the front pocket of the backpack. In addition to the knives, several small burglary tools were discovered to include 12 metal shims, which are commonly used to break into vehicles. Deputy Watts also found the porcelain top of a spark plug, zip tie handcuffs, binoculars and gloves inside the backpack. Last, but not least, Deputy Watts found a small bag containing a white powder in a pocket of the backpack that field tested presumptive positive for heroin. The male chose not to speak with Deputy Watts about his belongings. He was booked into jail for Possession of a Controlled Substance, Possession of Burglary Tools, and three counts of Possession of Dangerous Weapons with the Intent to Conceal. Detectives Locate Stolen Property - On a morning in early June, the Spokane Valley Investigative Unit, assisted by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office SWAT Team and the Investigative Task Force, served three search warrants at residences in Spokane Valley in connection with a robbery several weeks earlier. On April 24th, 2014, at the Kohl's store located in Spokane Valley, a robbery took place in which a 70-year-old woman had her purse pulled from her arm. She was knocked to the ground and sustained injuries that required surgery. The male escaped with the purse. The victim's credit cards were later used to make a variety of purchases. Detective Darin Staley was able to identify a 24-year-old male as the suspect who committed the original robbery at Kohl's. The search warrants were served in an effort to arrest the male and recover the property purchased using the victims credit cards. The male was arrested at his home in the 11400 block of East 4th Avenue in the Spokane Valley. Two additional warrants were served at separate Spokane Valley addresses Page 6 associated with the case. Several items were recovered that proved to have been purchased using the victim's stolen credit cards. The male was arrested for 1st Degree Robbery with additional charges pending for other suspects associated with the investigation. Shoplifter Bites Loss Prevention Officer — In early June at approximately 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley Sheriff's deputies responded to JC Penny located inside the Spokane Valley Mall for a shoplifter who was being detained after biting a loss prevention officer. When deputies arrived, they were informed a 28-year-old female was observed placing several clothing items into a large JC Penny shopping bag without paying attention to the price or size of any of the items. The loss prevention officers watched her exit the store after passing open cash registers without making any attempt to pay for the items. Once outside, two loss prevention officers contacted her and identified themselves. The female became irate and attempted to walk away. When they attempted to stop her from leaving, she bit one of them twice on the hand as she continued to struggle and pull away. After gaining control of the female, they brought her back into the store and waited for deputies to arrive. The property located inside her bag consisted of 26 separate items with a value over $680. The loss prevention officer had two bite/puncture type wounds on two of his fingers, which were bleeding. He declined medical attention at the scene. The female claimed she intended to pay for the clothes with her credit card, but she exited quickly because she thought her friends had been involved in a collision. When deputies checked her purse for identification, they found her purse empty except for her cell phone and shoes. The female was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for charges of Robbery 1st Degree and Theft 3rd Degree. Ace Hardware Burglars Arrested — Just after midnight in mid-June, Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputy Brad Humphrey responded to Ace Hardware on a commercial burglary call, located at the northwest corner of Sprague and Sullivan Road. Deputy Humphrey positioned himself on the southwest side of the business and was able to see a 31-year-old male subject kneeling on the ground inside the fenced portion of the business with his hands in the air. Deputy Humphrey detained the male at that point to conduct his investigation. The male told Deputy Humphrey that he was inside the fenced area of the business "dumpster diving." The male said he and the 29-year-old female in the vehicle parked in the parking lot were looking for scrap metal to sell to recyclers. Deputy Humphrey had received further information that a witness had seen the male throwing items over the fence towards the female's vehicle. The male denied doing this, but did admit he was placing items on top of the dumpster to steal from the business. On the north side of the business, Deputy Humphrey looked on top of a four foot electrical box. He was able to see a shoe impression on top of the box that matched the tread design on the male's shoes. Deputy Humphrey utilized the electrical box, entered into the fenced area and found numerous items of scrap metal near and around the dumpster, as well as a lawn mower and metal retail stand. These items were placed in close proximity to the female's vehicle with an apparent quick getaway in mind. Both the male and female were booked into jail on the felony charges of 2nd Degree Burglary. Neighborhood Dispute Escalates - Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputy James Wang responded to the area of 3808 N. Edgerton in mid-June for a neighborhood dispute. It had been reported one of the neighbors had pointed a firearm at the other neighbor during some type of argument. Deputy Wang had dealt with the 57-year-old male suspect neighbor multiple times in the past. On one incident, the neighbor shot his neighbor's dog with a shotgun claiming self-defense. Deputies had dealt with this male suspect 13 times over the past three months. Deputy Wang spoke with the male suspect, who immediately denied pointing a firearm at his neighbor. The male said he was in his back yard caring for his animals when his neighbor started taking pictures of him. The male said he started to take pictures of his neighbor in return. The male told Deputy Wang his .357 revolver was in his Page 7 waistband and that he never pointed it at his neighbor at any time. Deputy Darrin Schaum spoke with the victim neighbor who told Deputy Schaum he and a friend were sitting in his backyard when the male came outside and started to take pictures of them. He told Deputy Schaum he walked up to the fence and asked the male what he was doing. He said at that point, the male drew his firearm, pointed it at him from his hip and told him to get his children "out of here," using racist terminology. The victim's friend provided the same statement to other deputies. The male suspect was booked into jail for the felony charge of Malicious Harassment. Nineteen-year-old Female Studying While House Burglarized — During an afternoon in mid- June, Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputy Jay Bailey responded to an occupied residential burglary call near the 11500 block of East Mission Road. Deputy Bailey contacted the 19-year-old victim who said she was studying when she heard someone pounding on the front door. She said she could only see the male suspect's baseball hat so she moved to the bathroom and could only see his shoulder. When the suspect continued pounding louder on the door, the victim ran outside with her dogs and called 911. A neighbor to the west of the victim's residence heard the loud pounding and met the victim in her back yard. The neighbor ran around the front of the victim's house and saw the front door had been kicked in. He entered the residence and confronted the male suspect coming out of the master bedroom. The neighbor said the suspect was stuffing items inside his backpack and told him "someone" was looking for him. The suspect was described as a white male, mid 40's, 5'10", 155-165 lbs, reddish mustache and beard, black baseball cap, black t-shirt with a ? logo on the front, and wearing brown shorts. The suspect walked out the front door and the neighbor tried to grab on to his shirt. The suspect continued east on Mission Road. The suspect fled north and was never located. The neighbor collected a coin counter the suspect dropped when he jumped a fence. The victim's parents arrived at the residence and confirmed multiple collector coins were stolen. These included approximately 200 "Ike" silver dollars, 1,000 "Benjamin Franklin" silver fifty cent coins (1940-1950's) and 40 silver quarters (1940-1970's). Crime Stoppers is offering a cash reward for anyone providing information leading to an arrest in this incident. Persons with information should call the Crime Stoppers Tip Line at 1-800-222-TIPS, or should forward the tip via the Internet website www.crimestoppersinlandnorthwest.org. Tipsters do not have to give their name to collect the cash reward. Crime Stoppers of the Inland Northwest is a civilian organization that promotes public safety by paying cash rewards for information that solves crimes. It is not affiliated with law enforcement. Theft Attempt Lands Felony Charges —In mid-June, Spokane Valley Sheriff's deputies responded to a reported robbery at Walmart, 15727 E. Broadway in Spokane Valley. Deputies located and stopped the suspect's vehicle within three minutes of receiving the call. Store security told Deputy C. North they witnessed the 32-year-old female suspect remove the hangers from several clothing items and conceal them in her pursue. The female picked up a bottle of soap and pushed her empty cart to the cash registers. She paid for the soap, but made no attempt to pay for the items concealed in her purse. The female was initially recognized by security from a previous theft incident. Once outside, they contacted the female suspect, identified themselves as store security and asked her to return the merchandise she failed to pay for. She claimed she had nothing she failed to purchase and refused to return to the store office. When security grabbed her purse to reclaim the merchandise, she became hostile while threatening to assault them. The female tried to take the purse back, kicked one of the security officers in the groin area and attempted to punch her in the face. The female then turned and began walking toward her vehicle as security tried to convince her to come back to the store office. When the female told them she was going to get a gun and shoot them, they returned to the store. They provided a description of the female's vehicle to 911, which was broadcast to the responding patrol units. Deputy C. Erdman observed the vehicle and conducted a Page 8 traffic stop in the 600 block of North Moore. The female was detained at that time without incident. Security positively identified the female as the suspect. She was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for felony charges of Robbery 2nd degree, Harassment and a misdemeanor warrant. She was also issued a citation for Driving While License Suspended 3rd degree. Multiple Gym Members Victimized By Thief - From November 2013 through February 2014, detectives with the Spokane County Sheriff's Investigative Task Force (ITF) noticed a large increase in Crime Check theft reports from local Spokane area gyms such as Oz Fitness, YMCA and Gold's gyms. The basis of all the theft reports had a common theme: victims had their wallets, car keys, and even firearms stolen from inside their lockers while they exercised. In some of the incidents, the lock had been cut off the locker, but, in most incidents, the victim had left their belongings in an unsecured locker. Most who had their car keys stolen also found items stolen from inside their vehicles, which were parked in the gym's parking lot. The victims quickly called their banks to report their credit/debit cards as stolen and in many of the cases the banks advised the stolen cards had already been used at nearby retail stores to purchase unknown items for large sums of money. ITF detectives determined one of the main items being purchased with the stolen cards was $500 Visa gift cards. ITF detectives were able to obtain surveillance video footage from several of the retail stores showing one of the suspects using the stolen cards. Investigators were able to positively identify the 24-year-old male suspect. Detectives determined probable cause existed to request the Spokane County Prosecutor's Office charge the male with multiple counts of 2nd degree theft, multiple counts of 2nd degree identity theft, and multiple counts of money laundering. A warrant was issued for his arrest; at the time,he was an inmate at the Kootenai County Jail. "Jailhouse Rock" — In mid-June, at about 7:45 p.m., Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputy Clay Hilton responded to a noise complaint near the 1100 block of North University Road. Deputy Hilton parked about three houses from the residence from where the music was coming. When Deputy Hilton exited his vehicle,he was able to hear loud music coming from the garage. As Deputy Hilton approached the residence, he was physically feeling the music and the bass, due to its high volume. Deputy Hilton knocked on the door three times before a 27-year-old male turned down the music, stepped out the front door and asked Deputy Hilton, "Now what do you want?" Deputy Hilton explained to the male that the Sheriff's Office had received a complaint in regard to his loud music and asked if he could turn it down. The male's response was, "This is the third time you guys have been here. Why don't you just give me a ticket so I can go back to my music." Deputy Hilton asked the male if he was intending on turning his music back up and/or refusing to keep it turned down. The male's response was "Just give me the ticket. I'm not turning it down." At that point Deputy Hilton told the male he was under arrest for violation of Spokane Valley City Ordinance SVMC: 8.25.060(B)(1)Noise Disturbance. The male was booked into jail for the violation. Pursuit/Felony Assault/Unlawful Imprisonment—In late June, at about 1:30 a.m., Spokane Valley Sheriffs Deputy Jeff Thurman was patrolling the area of Sprague and Freya when he located a stolen 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche. Deputy Thurman attempted to stop the vehicle when the 43-year-old driver failed to stop and fled from Deputy Thurman. Deputy Thurman initiated a pursuit and at the intersection of Appleway and Coleman, the male turned into a dirt parking lot. When the male attempted to exit the parking lot, he intentionally hit Deputy Thurman's Patrol vehicle head on. Deputy Thurman was able to pursue the male to the area of Broadway and Bowdish before his Patrol vehicle became inoperable due to a flat tire from the collision. Deputy Thurman and his K9 partner Laslo continued in the pursuit in a separate deputy's vehicle. During the pursuit, deputies saw there was a female passenger who was trying to either get the male to stop and/or exit the vehicle. The deputies did not know if the passenger was an acquaintance of his or if she was the victim of a Page 9 kidnapping. The male eventually turned southbound onto Long Road from Broadway. He was unable to negotiate a left turn at the intersection of Long and Appleway and collided with small trees on the south side of Appleway. Prior to colliding with the trees, the adult female passenger jumped out of the front passenger side of the vehicle where she sustained injuries. The male ran from the vehicle and Laslo located him a short distance later hiding underneath a deck in a residential area. The male was taken into custody and booked into jail for Unlawful Imprisonment/Domestic Violence (he and the female had a domestic relationship at one time), 2nd Degree Assault, Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle, Felony Eluding, Vehicular Assault, DUI, Resisting Arrest and Obstructing. The investigation is on-going and additional charges are possible. Thousands in Honey Product Stolen from Business — In late June, Spokane Valley Sheriffs Deputy Jay Bailey responded to Fruit Girl, located at 13807 E. Broadway, on a commercial burglary call. Sometime between 6:30 p.m. the night before and 7:00 a.m. the following morning, several thousands of dollars' worth of honey products and other miscellaneous items were stolen from the business. The Chase Honey Co. products came in 12 lb., 6 lb., 2 lb., and 16 oz. sizes. Anyone with information is asked to call Crime Check at 509-456-2233. New Motorcycle Law in Effect - On June 12th, 2014, Senate Bill 5141 went into effect changing rules governing motorcyclists on public roadways. The new law adds a new section to chapter 46.61 of the RCW's that govern the rules of the road for Washington State. The new law states, in part, that the operator of a street legal motorcycle approaching an intersection, including a left turn intersection, that is controlled by a triggered traffic control signal using a vehicle detection device that is inoperative due to the size of the street legal motorcycle, shall come to a full and complete stop at the intersection. If the traffic control signal, including the left turn signal, as appropriate, fails to operate after ONE cycle of the traffic signal, the operator may, after exercising due care, proceed directly through the intersection or proceed to turn left, as appropriate. With this new law in effect, motorcyclists are reminded to make certain traffic is clear and utilizing this new law does not put yourself or other motorists/motorcyclists at risk. Quick Way to Track Sex Offenders - The Spokane County Sheriffs Office has a quick and efficient method of tracking sex offenders living near your home, business, daycare, etc. There is a link on the Sheriffs Office main page, located at http://www.spokanecounty.org/sheriff/ titled Sex Offenders Search. This application gives you the ability to register by entering your name, address, email address and the radius from the address you input that will show you where level II and III registered sex offenders live. The radius options from the address you input are .25 miles, .5, 1 or 2. You will be provided with a photograph of the offender, their level, their physical features and an address near their actual, registered address. When new offenders move into your designated area, or radius from your address you have chosen, you will receive an email alert with that new information. At this point in time, if an offender moves out of your designated area you will not be notified, but that person will no longer show on your list of offenders. This application is updated daily and is the most accurate way the Sheriffs Office can inform the community of the location and nearby addresses of level II and III offenders living in Spokane County. This application will take the place of Sheriffs Office volunteers delivering hard copy notifications to the community. ******************* Page 10 2014 JUN CRIME REPORT To date: Yearly totals: Jun-14 Jun-13 2014 2013 2,013 2,012 2011 2010 2009 2008 BURGLARY 108 62 572 523 1101 1062 1027 936 725 753 FORGERY 57 82 336 457 850 826 593 341 297 354 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 139 123 788 785 1628 1770 1566 1183 1245 893 NON-CRIMINAL 16 6 74 57 106 108 160 917 892 944 PROPERTY OTHER 101 136 692 732 1469 1236 1126 837 933 828 RECOVERED VEHICLES 22 61 251 289 541 446 416 365 187 319 STOLEN VEHICLES 34 65 305 311 602 586 566 496 298 496 THEFT 289 254 1445 1451 3040 2636 2512 2365 2162 1,846 VEHICLE OTHER 17 19 130 139 268 287 195 3 5 7 VEHICLE PROWLING 79 74 610 564 1206 1165 1491 1395 920 1069 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 862 882 5,203 5,308 10,811 10,328 9,615 8,852 7,668 7,513 ASSAULT 89 91 492 463 950 936 963 895 927 869 DOA/SUICIDE 21 24 123 124 225 256 213 188 210 269 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 39 52 198 304 538 600 714 1297 1226 1063 HOMICIDE 0 0 2 0 2 2 3 1 3 3 KIDNAP 1 2 19 9 24 17 15 16 21 16 MENTAL 20 29 149 141 268 270 253 289 310 360 MP 7 18 61 83 156 154 125 128 115 95 PERSONS OTHER 280 274 1693 1658 3124 3112 2484 1692 1621 1,354 ROBBERY 13 10 44 56 96 79 98 68 75 71 TELEPHONE HARASSMENT 11 11 72 84 148 212 162 153 159 95 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 481 511 2690 2922 5531 5638 4997 4727 4,667 4,195 ADULT RAPE 3 5 37 35 38 89 67 44 35 44 CHILD ABUSE 4 2 25 14 26 27 89 115 159 148 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 15 30 126 100 236 190 184 206 157 86 SEX REGISTRATION 0 0 0 0 4 8 2 1 2 3 INDECENT LIBERTIES 1 1 16 10 20 27 17 8 10 11 RAPE/CHILD 0 1 4 7 13 13 23 28 35 39 RUNAWAY 37 29 191 224 397 530 510 490 440 369 SEX OTHER 5 2 35 26 46 38 56 215 211 179 STALKING 2 3 7 15 21 24 19 18 15 21 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 43 43 273 219 440 424 341 215 175 142 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 110 116 714 650 1271 1370 1294 1387 1271 1,108 TOTAL ITF 28 23 173 178 316 430 521 542 671 838 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 242 347 1605 1895 3525 3957 3569 3081 3,183 3,811 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 1,723 1,879 10,385 10,953 21,454 21,723 19,996 18,589 17,460 17,465 Charge Count from Tickets: Spokane Valley 1800 1600 • 1400A • A . • • 1200TC waxy- • • • • • • Alf, 1000 • ® X2011 -2012 800 r 2013 y -A-2014 600 400 200 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls 4000 3500 • 3000 2500 • A • • • Z4P• • • 2011 2000 • -- 2012 X2013 X2014 1500 1000 500 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC SPOKANE VALLEY TRAFFIC COLLISIONS 140 - 120 X • • 100 �•� • 80 A vr- A pr r � X2011 • • -2012 -0-2013 60 X2014 40 20 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Person Crimes 350 300 A • 250 •\ / /11 _� k __ X \Ai • • • X 200 ! • X2011 X -2012 --2013 150 X2014 100 50 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Property Crimes 1000 900 • 800 A 700 - 11jWiv • �M • •• • 600 f r • X2011 500 • � --2012 • X2013 X2014 400 300 200 100 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Self Initiated Incidents 3000 2500 • ♦ • • 2000 • • x ♦ -4 • A$P X2011 1500 -- 2012 X2013 X2014 1000 500 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Sex Crimes 50 45 • A x 40 35 /• X yfler ,p X x ,# 30 • , • • • _ X2011 25 A A • -- 2012 X • --2013 20 , X2014 15 • 10 5 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 4NIMI.:KE Clement - � T ,T T.'y`W ... CB moo' '�rai s al'S3��w�VAIi ,. m �eO ° � .�sa Cres a MEW A :A.w■■w7 ] ._ ?RAF ro° Fruit Hill Sanson Granite WAWAMandalay Aero .•1 •' ,co _ w EI�� %°Sha'`��.x•.•'• t.7 ; Wabash maiGG"JJ �� � rl• OI_ � 7a 'Crena I� EmmcQ S,r�o' Rub 8• •• �'�ellesl�l _ 4. ��r �1:1� : ir- m- ■ .le Gar o si<.� Et��� G�LL'.YS!` , ', 2, =MINIM t It‘i 1 v I ng Lon.= 1 i•11 ', 4'.. m po aneNOM= I I I: - Lacrosse a o °°i; arland �`a jilIMINIOUllia Indu tn.J�•.1 kA E 1�:, Mar; '� _ (M■E■ = ■ —Ini 1n ww.■ 0. �® •\oecr °=GEE & Dalton >'�o Eu lid --rick - -11121111i3111_���ii: i ���46 II au 'al Parka , 1y�- aim, '�;1. �• � ?1111 ' 11G� 111 aw'•—s-L1EC" 4 � v .��i(i �ra' �... - �• ww J •mss-s- F.irvie VV P s� �i�++',...v_� —,--m 0 ww all '�// �" F. 'ett. a g�F t Fektyk. �Ez'-mmi;lamb WE � �'.. .� E �-ir o`er wow-' ''yrs 'wr„ Momg.mery M it', Spokan : alley r 1 it'� �� w' r� Mansfiel: -� F nGlenb oL i-w �'''I�� psi ! � IIII �[t�_!TRlsi ��1, I Will 111, �_:- is io�r 1\na FiOra ■G7 ��� I �' fnim `' D Bal.■■ ���� Pft old ...,,, cle �i • ne—►y,al .. . r '- ! +� i� �s�L,J1 � I 1 9,\ MQ fall .14pERIPIEN. mIgir ligkes S� �� [�!� Er,e ib e rty �� ��1��' `'011 11G •F `kamm Lake �� N / t•J■II�IL'Y11 11 •�■ � •• A.-Lk •— � /Vista weh moi@= ii a o m 1E r, i■=ISIErmi • 1 illm ��_ e .: 1 I FAM N ri■Nii• •■�,,,1 ��1.110l111 s. : Www i -'/� 1��_2 d_° �l���1 �w oL1 1sw �11A�munimmput erside ° 1�L�!°:. ��I mum IMli2M.WaEMMRPA,IllMnlidiki&(Mllr ISICIa411=.111.1111111trarninliMilialli th _.....77.,„,........ „....„,,,,i1........, .. .pp 1 41,1‘IMMIllamille . • I ME NU 63 M_`°„'dF .hire• sswmsww - M111u"NIriaumr leY MEE 911Ie_ o-� wws. ` ,.'p■ ww_ s1.• ' �ou �• : U minia wNNI S ��__- ... .fir■�� w X1,1�' ►. sss•�sssss •• �� s �Si`�I iI �'ro.. lira■■.'m•I= � � 18th ■wIC��F"�� ��� �IQ�� ■�1�� mss- lb `j� \���, wwnauiav��� �\,� 11���Y si ,'. Oa ar 21st s�i��[rwarl fi" rMian1 MEM! �G1 6 I"� tTftl w�fLY:77 `� ' O . -s==1 �7BE11�•M(Lki ' ..�1 a�r � A `'�, man w■Tdl.N8Wil Lam •°wview w� 'Ir envie ■9!llwial '+sir w•►.'ai w wwi-ls 1 Is•CSL'J-E.711141.4\V: a =_PIMA= 25th INIA Llwww_ M' �11A`� r u be owwwwo ww 'r���min � o er 1 mo- 3i h wcsal-w `� ts Lli illEkal :SWI t Traffic mmYRPSl: _ .www � dLabI. aal � .irs"i9��lA vs 11111 _ Collisions EraiiiiiiMIM iimeala dp ww ■ �� •.°�. i �'h Belle Terre U o 3 i ;ittEL[L7�� 3rth 'a •'' R [ 1. j,°odra B C Ke` Ball 4 - Wow Echo II ~ i .w r � rd m 5.e Y , Low ��, en . ��� v 45th o �,���� uma 2 '1:4a. 1 oda F �M� 1�of6 1�}_ co.. e ow ] A.nnic ta k ,,'. j� Medium Low s� ft, P a ° 6 Medium �i,. •°c, err AOe Sso °Ae, ��S 4l iin G°�, r •Pd�hay ,� VC( St l ,ands.2° Mohaiy,Fok 'he Q ��-c.. 2 o _ High • e d" z f . 0.5 1 Miles 2014 u n e T raff i s Collision H ots ots Map Produced: 1 I 1 J 07 Jul 2014 ww Clement, S„,stio ev p , Fancis ■.IIL•�� >. I k ooa • Ira” MINNIBiYW■m■7■m1�� San , *, ffi 2 Centr. A`�t ° 2 Vi Crest'''- COM resc'� ./ MME tau � /<< .. ...... 7 g � ��` ?RAF '"� Sanson ' 2 Granite o U ,� 5 •^� Mandala E ,ctc Fruit Hill y� e , .w!!yE!'Y' .7� i� c ..±3 o �����//..• ". Wabash le-icii. e m .crenc,gymS.t\� Rub aser 'fYV lit ___ll lesl ���p}� Qz �P.�� ■� u � ..NIA, �. v �III��Lon'�� '� W 7fJ m Mall L�.. - j� J - po aneA '1mTita>'���e _ Lacrosst a o Z i arland ;`a E 11 ani ar - ! 0 illi ©\mow oo� �''- ecr �Y�Iii.lil " U x 3F" wrsn`w w� E l1ff °� iN oea ' '® �P Imam a 7 ° =- �_ r : �lf' � au �° E- u9i' > E o lid -rick P• 1.1112111111111111111�� —__ al Park E y Gra . _�mmim/ ii`7■1 r IV Ai r iii ' ��� Oir a 6 '� 'o'o Buy ke iG m. 'i■� = Buckeye �17�= ■!■I- '' ^ � es ' .r 1� 1"111 9 �- °< SWIT06-a-1—"Earrr �� -�� ■■ Spokan : alley - �� 1 � � W4E.. Mansfiel•N _,— J EMI 0 l r im pea Lake S' :��\ EIELI♦ n_I_r!! ' �Lk. /oPa Pit �r7— SIiV�� E� .�. ■II�l�r7 '� _■ . :�� 1 , � . .. - op: tet _ _peffiN � I► '- .� �p■I�s���1e°I a . W ra dib.)— W Ma r ii re■ImIagi K "i■,"11��1 11 NI :4416;11.1113111Lk Vista Row ...0101111111* 11.921,2 "-Mu. lih r- 10,11111112M191KM116111ri onn... ..........,M11 .... il /IMF , . . m �� !o+ min ■l�l� �EMMeII ■ Broad BEN � u� � �� ■rte mmomm, ��� as n■�■ww ■ • W11,111111511=1S.,oti7L 1!'w�» ■■rAfid m - IMit'►7MIIli�I1-- •� E -_ ■ he*e*y , - 6th ' Ir �lire_ Jesse l=`'um■ mEM '' wMME it .I AN�sm=111MM■ u d 61�,, e - �,�" a _ =Pep EMll.EEM , 111■■ ■d�m...NommoHmonimmmm� m=mim = - f'il��yy�11 .� 0.t�• k U - WHIM rah r•. e." ,, lhJ!II!LII!i ![u1__ I1&! iIUIL k. 7 --. - �� l te�a.: ' �11r�' , F eI_..■._I, �� MAIN ■1i i_ r gre.- 217J:i-1 . �r ♦ \ �.mmummEorm it,)`A II.■ �4. I� � 'ro S • Qa ;r 0�r . A ♦ man 'owview IaililfAf��Ea��Yl1Y' i• ��'� G���. '�� O �'~� 7■MCJ nye -9l11�0.�7 �! ,��f�jto �• 7IMMIZ■ 25th Ill`I[�-i :=lam 9 ; Q a �� �y111� 112‘, m ...a' ':_ms.omm 3 c, � www�8 l lgjifiid a,mai d�resea E ramm 0. sr m--all ' Nimrpotti y/ 2.c:rnrgranmial R n "i"Ak ,.o + Belle Terre , r ■ �� s' ag: Si dra GM ; o Ball a WittedXj . Echo II. c I■M ail . qi:J ��,4 ME" d .helly 0 1 45 r 1e o jilirg111;1 � �S aimCt 4Sth va.40 2 en m• _ n1_:w�lf z� .1., 1r v) A nnic = , :.-/: LOW f. 5 �e' Corkery .n �� Eo/ F e c ile� D G coy, t ° 5pp�° 7 ', °� �r p e s Medium F!-57th,M. t rkery � °M h b d .:.h Y U° r�,d8e •edF. (S Stl Sana 'F •N ,y High -0-0 cc o o.s I Miles 20 14 June Commercial Burglary Hotspots Map I I I 1MEE N Clements ,�`'y` �, °� o°D Traiu 3\���17-[•.L– E r. , '`.sa Crest's 'Z'. 1mm■■!•7 Sam o poet ° _ .W Vi - Epun__ " 7 �ose h Wi: c.m m= P , ?R`c< ro SansonBIZ ' Mandala F Fruit Hill ' e0 Granite "- c o Sha:. Wabash `. .r s,A o m Tr rt _l nw Q MEI JO I 5•r Rub • /aser j 'f'r 8 111 � 1� 1 �� O �P1� MEZIMITAIM II po ane111=11111 tit* • IIIIII )1111"41L-- III Lacrosse y • iiim arland Indu a kA A •♦ I.::' Its,* w1� il ar - / ¢' X111 ©\ �0� I ��IIc� u a 3; `w IP.: w_ EIIIL� r Oa •o • de Il .u Ni— ISI° 2 a >°/t :,ilk-4 mowr p -, 11:11111■11L ' Eu lid �.�._.. -rick ' �,r (- #0...illICrim /�� Hwy ., rti__E_ _1♦_i,=ar X 111111 ■,�_■,�_r W / m r ■ ■ v L 92\ `! - ra a HMI <� wot' �e� ■E; --==Nil 111 �! Spokan : alley s "� � L���� lippW. -1 � Mansfiel. �+ !r . ■1 : - 1, a A. 41 _U 4lak r'o i ia --1111, a �..- -r r 4'4, VEL_ Ingle it ° i BaLp�J��n tea— �1: .-. r 0 1116 r El.. c m ` unr, �1/ 1- r� ir, a Pit Old r 111.- -ie. it"- `- WWI __ � ' _ /\ lY1I,_ice ��� — e���l�rhl �, �I Missi�s � Ply41IIlIg llf'iLJ ilE - • ma km mill■IIJ�ilum �; L eortao rl��i �1hi� \_-_ ino_mmilw_ `! <taldc _____liwkii ���� F�F�� FH■Fyy7��yy�El � ����I�1 �.�� 1�lIIRI � �Vista • r�Pi :FE R7■I1■G41J 1mTo1m Broad ©rro+ �■ ■■r■-y- ■■ 1= �■�r —: �e.d1 1■IIIM lie IN EII:INIFi��� �.� .. IL Mial Jr_`a ii!a3e _a r`3ie ■�I31 ____ _ Ie■e■�Ille■ 1 � = =� r elley 'D _ ..� m in!r Lake • _ I II— HERE m w 0111--M1 �� �drr-N. _� IIM � --- e � �' ~�'ou • -,♦ A U! .I ah O rDEMENN ® mime p. ����–Tirailammr� 1 rrrGle7Jr _ 77 a _ y�� 1 i�Y llmerimm91 __ '�rYY I __L1L__1 � -' !-W, 1K=1 18th a �l■., EM11■Z,ILIMM -11V PIV'i re iS� �rlr+eear�aw , 1�' ` � _QfLr. ■ �i `� �+ ♦ 0. r � Ge N a al-. arr 21st nd ti0. rammaommi Id�r 0 mu � Yi1___ q U! IEFAINA 7 . ` n ` l_a1l � rij —! •°wv eK X1e H 1 .__v 25th �:�... �4 k"� 'likm a� ■ ` 1_ " � ii. vird.y.ii pr.�. Wm– r / 'w om 3,' ' Terre Residential Rin, �/ �o c Belle .9iii,iarim .. 3rth L o�� �' Nill h Burglaries �..!� � -glE1 r :�,00dra oCK\ ,� BallJO 'I 11ritsr Echo 11, c IM rF� Nrd Shelly gC 2A� ie ■ ��� :45th03enm��� nLB 45 Eroc �' '■S r lA.nnic S 2ro< wSL . .�� '7,„corker), \��p Z Y LOW D C o6 ire i t f•. S=5 le,, t•� �-or�t p' i `� � ess U 54 r��1 °rkery C7 0 • M°hab°o,sem• r Medium !�■. 57th U°b •ea U /1\ St- ' Sanern B'¢ k y�, v v_ _ High 0 0,5 ( Miles 2014 June Residential Burglary Hotspots Map Produced: • NM N Clements pi �, °� o°D Tray B\MM=17-[•.11- EI, , u sa Crest:+ `Z'• 1iE'■■'-7 Sam o nco et ° 2 .W Vi - .■Fin■!•E��� ". 7oseph z : .=et: ? roc mEEliN ,� RAF Sanson 1. ��N Mandala F Fruit Hill �� Granite Mandalay Wabash mer MN mg i 4WD • • ICIUiI .� !• Ozr •�P1l ' 00.011719 o 03 9L _ po ane41.11E ingrazwelmaiirth 'T'&�Aj m � Lacross= .o o arland V 1 Indu tri. kA E A -� * _ lilyMEM il a - / ¢' 11 1 ©F\ 0$1.10 D• u /3:R � - iliam • d' ' �+,�� ItMEIEM EM www. >��' Eu lid 'E —"ricklk V ;1 I■—:i. L►'■ V`• w - u ■ .`, • 3: ig•—imiTi-wimpw— 15' 1;� m. = °�'°� ° A �:! .'■■� iiEGra ' © � Spokan : alley t, _L� o ,% %�•[!7 '���� T ! (� ' • (Ij JJ "":� % 1 *y..1► Lake ��c7, I' ■/ �tImbli • San_Alt — ■�■w ■■ m Bal. il:1C ;. _ 0 ■■ ean— i , ��j� °pa Pit Old Ftglimil7�a�rziro �_ ' _ice ����' LI ■ 11 i ...:-.4.-H- _ '� �Jm�. 11!■t••I�■1IALJ �� \Ad EIMINE1101111 MI ._� �1Des - IIIE11L.171 1 ■i■IFIll E�tt[] -rauligNmsimi � Vista IMIPEM ■■rte � ihlrill — .1.1- .1W--- 1,-- '� ==_� } ii�:iiapiluarti _IIS � = - ann'illBailiff�, vim, um� =: 77F sir `7\ '31•■■mA �. ■ _ ''''a: p II� tl WI�■I '47+-1MSIIL•■�� N- 1■ 1 nd �r�12.. �. w=mf _ry2m. y3.En■■mm ••pP'I •' F �� ] ■�.� o_ `ai ® i ^��".7 . o th _ ,1 ram 11C��1,� i ' H Jesse _ ,p/J�I 1 4th ■ ` 1�]•� 1 � v m��Afl t �Ak� 6th rs" .�. ■!� lig 777 =/W ah t7■.. :th IMP= to to 1 ,■� ■[a7777777�77777w 77F— >•pp�" +�y■,�■■ ‘11 ■�... i7a:R ■� �� . "MI 1MIi 18111 r ;► 7' ... iii 1]TM.. Ali —! o ��V■ �■T77777���(U (Ulimmimirraim� ` � 11IiJI ! �� 16th G _d, ir 21st \ ainandt 01 n en � ■■ . ���r. �' ■ GE72 [g( o " Ia EMAISIMPEI ` MLE' e� �l' I 11.111" . 4'1 g.�=IM7:a 25th n mliniorpn raiew�� o �� learn 2.4 epi " MIN l ftww- .� ,• R n, rod �` . - h ' gene Terre Stolen alrFe ssu�ss ��_ 'N)V4O•O'�. ` ' S' Vehicles =moi• jt• , Odra 3 0 �,Ked . Ball a ■ m Echo A c 1 r p helly _ en - ie m Ern 45th L o C 2 45 • �.�r o.Fill:- ailEs Eros � air 1 A.nnic S ��� A���'• ( m F� i . .0 s (�M I Low .� f. .,� nes Co Corkery `.1 . ,c, ire :o_ ,e c _:-.8:/: S,g\ le�„26, PI ' V cies A'eb A.7 e cess u _ Medium Mak 57th ' c °rkery f7 � 49 MOhaB,°oks. `� v _ High CJ°•� •eat` <k St ' •rand '� �.sa • 1� .R go cC s o 0 I 0.5 1 I Miles I 2014 May & June Stolen Vehicle Hotspots Map Produced: - -_ NMN Clements �, B oob' • Troy 3\MM=111..L— E -win. g w=sa Cresta `2'. MAEww " 7osePhz WT. ci ? roc.■Fin Ww , RAF Sanson_�t� Mandalay ,cF Fruit Hill ,.,, 1-' Granite���� :. e Wabash � .� o OI� !� � a -(,e t if 1 ' '}$J Q • .<\ c°Sba• RUb, :�7F"� ICINErrilil. _M_�E ♦ �P�� u• � EMI All I w. Mr.MITAIN tit* ilblEMBEirla l i po ane E �i�am �■ Lacross= -a o II arland Indu tn kA lipiii ar - / ,0 VIII ©\ aw ®�. '� ecr !MUM fl 3 r mow.\� P\r ott Dr� _wr.. IIII �w . (KO�'d ' oll�7 ilimiew a u5 .�,..��1 /-rick po , L�IIIIIItII�� II N jam •'L`' ' " !�� u �� - el Eu lid 1•■Eugium'm � ig'lI/rrw�w 'IIGI 1i 111 �— n .N, 6 XI E=ra � f .13�-'w1 �j�l��I��mE'a�r7�/I// 0 0 M.Elir c AIiIiI ; Lake :: - 'r me � ■■ ■e j� a rc Inl!�I• • ■�dill�MIMI�® I 461 �• 1hII1II Deston F7C� rum67 �6 �� Broa © �/ � u �nnlI .IIIIILI irl l� l liI ■li� (Elm _� �r�.�''.■M■ !!ilIN lki— = millMillm = w a�■wa_ _ iM�LL ■ � MN 1 . I J ! j1fr • wr��w aguezm. mI •�+ EI■■E! C■� I Iih■111 l i�Q�1�i w (II (II • -i ■i■i I' ■ ��IQ ` y► a YI mF 1 ' '•eIR;;'— i-1,1R,• lith , ••I,1. '�- .1; 71V}1. -1hr� ! ,�� � rii_ to� waNnli■■i WAi iimi 1' Ilk Qa ar21st \ REULAiailig Wilk 7. c, iW. (11 J-MIEFFML•I C7. I•I ��r 'owview wMMF envie o :�G v�� M�!~i�� �MRi G� 1���[/ O �`flakw he EMAISIMIEt...EL., 25th to `l 1w�AM a' I'A 011 6" Cy ' a� g....l EL v wrPww' anrw 1v 1111110:` a wli�uw �� 1 61 r ,�mw.mmitil •� Belle Terre Vehicle 9r1j)s• rwF-iAlAw.. 3rth L Ro"Ory . � , i h — ran=- ' 51 dra aL� o CK\ ,� Ball ° Prowling Wrw. Echo 11c 1ir� N 1 ��rd �hellY B- CA� ene ■ '25�P 45th o C 2 m■ c �.• E a45 . '.47111117.— si� � r �'l A.nnic =S A', w E 11 .� . .i'"-� nes Corkery i_� I X06 ire :��.e c ,.r LOW 5\ levo' NSyrest A' 1 cess u - Medium S� 57th4;.��' c orkery C7 ° � 49 Mohah.°ok�•. rr v c?j--- .edF` �k St- ' Sana V a 'tcesb. .R K High s o f . 0.5 I Miles 20 14 June Vehicle Prowling Hotspots ots Map Produced: P 07,ul 2014 2014 JUNE CRIMES BY CITIES (Only crimes handled by Spokane County Sheriff's Office) AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML MW RF SCO SPA SPK SV WAV Total BURGLARY 3 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 4 0 69 0 0 108 0 194 FORGERY 4 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 46 0 2 57 0 115 MAL MISCHIEF 2 0 4 1 2 0 3 1 1 0 103 1 2 139 0 259 NON-CRIMINAL 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 1 16 0 29 PROP OTHER 23 2 5 0 0 1 15 7 0 0 62 0 16 101 0 232 RCRVD VEH 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 0 2 22 0 42 STL VEH 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 25 0 3 34 0 66 THEFT 25 0 8 0 1 0 9 1 4 0 127 0 5 289 0 469 VEH OTHER 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 17 0 34 VEH PROWL 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 53 0 0 79 0 140 WI K1]WI DI NI II'& 1 I I DRM 64 2 28 1 5 1 43 11 10 1 520 1 31 862 0 1,580 ASSAULT 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 71 0 12 89 0 193 DOA/SUICIDE 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 19 0 0 21 0 46 DV 17 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 32 0 1 39 0 97 HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KIDNAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 MENTAL 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 9 0 0 20 0 37 MP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 11 PERS OTHER 8 0 10 2 1 0 8 4 5 1 192 1 16 280 1 529 ROBBERY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 13 0 19 TEL-HARASS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 21 0 0 11 0 34 to va Ed MO MN N Id I Dl.' 32 0 20 2 1 0 16 22 9 1 353 1 30 481 1 969 ADULT RAPE 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 5 CHILD ABUSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 6 CUST INTFER 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 14 0 0 15 0 32 SEXREGISF 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 IND LIBERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 RAPE/CHILD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RUNAWAY 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 31 0 0 37 0 73 SEX OTHER 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 5 0 13 STALKING 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 4 SUSP PERSON 6 0 3 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 43 0 4 43 0 112 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 10 0 3 0 2 0 10 5 6 0 96 0 6 110 0 248 TOTAL ITF 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 6 28 0 46 TOTAL TRAFFIC 12 0 5 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 132 0 67 242 0 467 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 120 2 57 3 8 1 78 39 25 2 1,109 2 140 1,723 1 3,310 7/1/2014 A. 2014 June 70A,,,:71( INCIDENTS BY CITIES `' (Only incidents handled by Spokane County Sheriff's Office) Ai AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML MW RF SCO SPA SPK SV WAV TOTALS CAD INCIDENTS 23 217 228 28 9 2 28 219 96 17 3,476 4 551 5,194 2 10,094 SELF INITIATED INCIDENTS 18 33 98 9 3 0 17 130 28 3 1,073 1 477 1,902 1 3,793 DRUG SELF INT (PATROL) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 TRAFFIC STOPS 2 7 26 0 0 0 6 44 14 0 493 1 242 1,141 0 1,976 TRAFFIC STOPS (ARST/CIT/IN) 0 2 11 0 0 0 1 8 5 0 192 0 98 636 0 953 TS (WARRANTS) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 5 18 0 33 CALLS FOR SERVICE 5 184 130 19 6 2 11 89 68 14 2,403 3 74 3,292 1 6,301 ALARMS 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 8 2 0 104 1 3 91 0 214 ACCIDENTS 0 8 3 2 0 0 1 1 4 0 167 0 15 143 0 344 ACCIDENTS (ARREST/CIT) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 11 0 21 DRUG CALLS 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 18 0 0 52 0 75 DV 17 0 6 2 0 0 5 5 3 0 123 0 6 160 0 327 DUI 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 80 0 6 80 0 174 DUI (ARREST) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16 0 18 PURSUITS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY 2 7 18 1 0 0 1 30 18 2 402 0 41 555 0 1,077 VEHICLE RECOVERED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 2 21 0 41 911 ABANDON LINE 0 79 12 13 0 0 0 11 6 0 244 0 6 300 0 671 SHOPLIFTING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 63 0 64 ALL ARRESTS (ARREST/CIT/IN) 1 4 16 1 0 0 2 18 10 0 300 0 126 895 0 1,373 CRIME CHECK REPORTS 1 0 12 0 4 1 2 11 8 1 433 1 3 574 0 1,051 7/10/2014 crrt c>t SSokane .000Valley.. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT June 2014 AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION Contract Total %of Contract Name Contractor Amount Expended as Contract of 6/30/14 Expended Street Maintenance Poe Asphalt $1,366,663.00 $641,148.46 46.91% Street Sweeping AAA Sweeping $490,199.94 $305,429.44 62.31% Storm Drain Cleaning AAA Sweeping $189,990.00 $79,308.53 41.74% Snow Removal Poe Asphalt $140,000.00 $43,417.00 31.01% Landscaping Ace Landscaping $82,902.72 $27,634.23 33.33% Emergency Traffic Control Senske $10,000.00 $3,818.66 38.19% Litter and Weed Control Geiger Work Crew $60,000.00 $30,525.61 50.88% State Highway Maintenance WSDOT $215,000.00 $137,136.93 63.78% Traffic Signals,Signs, Striping Spokane County $632,000.00 $147,448.32** 23.33% Dead Animal Control Brad Southard $20,000.00* $6,186.00 30.93% * Budget estimates ** Does not include June 2014 Citizen Requests for Public Works 70 - 60 --- a 50 1 ' - 1 e 40 .- aci cc 30 _is i_. is 20 —i,- -- 10 —o.t - �i — r. I 1- 0r ! ; I �� I , 1E1,1 1 ® I I t f i 1 Total Citizen Misc. PW Dead Roadway Pothole Sign& Storm Traffic Requests: Requests Animal Hazard Requests Signal Drainage/ Requests Public Removal Requests Erosion Works [I Submitted 60 11 4 6 3 17 3 16 tJ In Progress 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 I :Resolved 60 11 4 6 3 17 3 16 *information in bold indicates updates 1 WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/, http:I/www.ecy.wa.gov/geographiclspokane/spokane river basin.htm, http://www.spokanecounty.orq/utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works/Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for June 2014: • Pothole patching/shouldering • Cracksealing arterials and residential roadways • AAA Sweeping vactoring sidewalk under drains and drywells • AAA Sweeping swept arterials and continued with residential sweeping • Poe completed asphalt repairs and completed stormwater projects throughout the City • The Geiger crew continues dryland grass cutting and continues with garbage pickup on arterials STORMWATER UTILITY The following is a summary of Stormwater Utility activities in the City of Spokane Valley for June 2014: • Stormwater CIP Update 2015-2020 approved by City Council. • Staff continued design and preparation work for 1st Small Works Bid Package. • Staff designed and supported installation of a number of repair, replace, or small stormwater capital improvements through Poe maintenance contract. • Started work on documents and specifications for new bid for street sweeping services. • Continued work on various capital improvement projects (see below). • Purchased variable messaging board for project and City use. `information in bold indicates updates 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS 60"44Spokane Public Works Projects .. Malley' Monthly Summary-Design&Construction June 2014 Estimated Total Project Proposed %Complete Construction Project U Design&Construction Projects Funding Ad Date PE 1 CN Completion Cost t Street Projects 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 64508 FHWA-BR 05/16/14 99 0 09/30/16 $15,833,333 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection FHWA-CMAQ 08/15/14 90 0 12/31/14 $ 2,002,350 0166 Pines Rd.(SR27)&Grace Ave.int Safety HSIP 07/01/14 35 0 10/31/14 $ 671,050 0186 Adams Road Resurfacing Project CDBG 03/21/14 100 95 07/31/14 $ 280,800 0191 Vista Rd BNSF Xing Safety Improvements wurC 03/21/14 100 0 08/31/14 $ 50,750 Street Preservation Projects 0179 2013 Street Preservation Ph2 FHWA-5TP(U) 09/20/13 100 75 08/15/14 $ 1,760,000 0187 Sprague Ave Preservation Project FHWA-STP(U) 05/30/14 100 0 08/31/14 $ 1,379,900 0196 8th Ave-McKinnon to fancher CosV 06/06/14 100 0 09/30/14 $ 300,000 0202 Appleway Street Preservation Project cow 05/09/14 100 0 12/31/14 $ 400,000 Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade(SRTC06-3 FHWA-cMAQ 09/01/14 95 0 07/15/15 $ 1,290,636 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements HSIP 09/01/14 10 0 06/30/15 $ 474,580 0181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade HSIP 08/01/13 100 90 09/30/14 $ 200,000 Stormwater Projects 0173 Spokane Valley Regional Decant Facility Dept of Ecology 12/27/13 100 70 09/05/14 $ 1,209,478 0185 Appleway Landscaping-Phase 1 cosy 06/27/14 100 0 11/01/14 $ 268,000 0192 SE Yardley Retrofits Dept of Ecology 7/25/2014 90 0 12/31/14 $ 1,000,000 Other Projects 0149 Sidewalk Infill FHWA-CMAQ 07/11/14 90 50 12/31/14 $ 1,139,955 $28,260,832 Design Estimated Total Project Complete _ %Complete Construction Project ff Design Only Projects Funding Date PE Completion Cost Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker FHWA-STP(o) 12/31/14 5 $ 517,919 0141 Sullivan&Euclid PCC 1HWA-STP(U) 07/31/14 80 $ 175,260 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mul Ian FHWA-STP(U) 09/30/14 90 $ 276,301 0201 ITS Infill Project-Phase 1 FHWA-CMAQ 01/01/15 5 $ 327,562 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 06/01/15 2 $ 51,619 Street Preservation Projects 0188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project FHWA-SW(U) 04/01/15 5 $ 1,156,500 Traffic Projects 0159 University Road Overpass Study SHWA-CMAQ 07/31/14 95 $ 249,711 0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study FHWA-STP(U) 12/30/14 60 $ 200,000 Stormwater Projects 0193 Effectiveness Study Dept of Ecology 02/28/15 8 $ 300,000 0197 Broadway,Havana to Fancher SD Retrofit Dept of Ecology 12/31/14 5 $ 60,000 0198 Sprague,Park to University LID Dept of Ecology 08/01/14 4 $ 20,000 0199 Havana-Yale Diversion Dept of Ecology 08/01/14 7 $ 20,000 0200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion Dept of Ecology 08/01/14 7 $ 20,000 Other Projects 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail FHWA-STP(E) 02/15/15 5 $ 745,000 0176 Appleway Trail Cow 10/31/13 90 $ 150,000 $ 4,269,872 'Information in hold indicates updates 3 PLANNING/GRANTS ® 2015-2017 Floodplain Management Project Staff submitted an application for the Chester Creek Drainage on May 23, 2014. If the preliminary project application makes the cut, a detailed project submittal will be due August. 1, 2014. Ecology is submitting a request for no less than $50 M statewide for the 2015-2017 program. • 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) On June 24th, 2014 the City Council passed Resolution 14-006 adopting the 2015-2020 TIP. • 2014 SRTC Call for STP Projects On June 25, 2014, the SRTC Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) met to discuss the recent STP project scoring for the 2014 Call for STP Projects grant program. There were various discussions; however, the "Starting Point" list provided prior to the TIC meeting (see below) did not change. These recommendations will be forwarded as a recommended project list to the SRTC Policy Board on July 10, 2014 for approval. Starting Point Option • by Area Size Urbanized Area • 11; r,:1, Name eject Project tT • ,:. , TOTAL Division Street Gateway Spokane Improvement Urbanized Area $3,BOO,000 0#,397,025 total STP request)` 86.69 STA Division HPT Alignment and Station Location Other Urbanized Area $400,000 78 e3 Stud Centennial Trail Gap- Spokane Mission Ave Phase 1 Other Urbanized Area $443,250 76.91 Spokane Valley Appfeway Trail Phase 2-Pines to Evergreen Other Urbanized Area $1,000,000 ($1,203,107 total STP request)" 73.88 Spokane Sunset Blvd-Royal to Lindeke Preservation Urbanized Area $2,692,964 84..78 Spokane Mission Ave-Division to Hamilton Preservation Urbanized Area 51,576,000 79A7 Spokane Valley Evergreen-Mission Connector to Indiana Preservation Urbanized Area $570,900 77.561 Spokane County Monroe St-Francis to Greta Preservation Urbanized Area $992,434 76.04 Spokane Valley Argonne-Broadway to Indiana Preservation Urbanized Area $553,600 76.00 Spokane Valley Sprague-Sullivan to Corbin Preservation Urbanized Area 51,531,0501 70.81 Spokane Valley Appleway-Park to DishmanMie Preservation Urbanized Area $1,029,350 70.00 _i Spokane County Mill Rd-Hastings to Wilson Reconstruction Urbanized Area $752,913 69.50l SRTC Planning Efforts($200,000fyear) off the top Urbanized Area $600,000 - SRTMC Operations&Maintenance off the top Urbanized Area 51,267,900 - (3 years) S17,010,361 84.6% Two projects on the prioritized list were underfunded. The Spokane "Division Street Gateway" project and Spokane Valley's "Appleway Trail Phase 2 — Pines to Evergreen" projects. *Information in bold indicates updates 4 The pie-chart below graphically shows where all STP funds ($20.1 M) are proposed to be allocated over 2017-2019. Starting Point Option - by Agency Cheney,$401,900 STA,$400,000 [leer Park,$508,799 4•: Spokane Valley, 1 $4,684,900 11 i 1 Spokane,$8,312,214 SfTC,$600,000 i SPTMC,$1,267,900 Spokane County, 53,930,537 The City of Spokane Valley did not receive any Improvement category projects. Preliminary Grant Totals (Subject to Change) for the City of Spokane Valley for each STP Category: STP PROJECT REQUEST,2017-19 PROJECT STP Estimated Other Secured City TYPE Request Project Cost Federal Funds Match Appleway Trail Phase 2-Pines to Evergreen OTHER $1,000,000 $2,134,057 $642,852 $491,205 Evergreen-Mission Connector to Indiana PRES $570,900 $660,000 $0 $89,100 Argonne-Broadway to Indiana PRES $553,600 $640,000 $0 $86,400 Sprague-Sullivan to Corbin PRES $1,531,050 $1,770,000 $0 $238,950 Appleway- Park to Dishman Mica PRES $1,029,350 $1,190,000 $0 $160,650 Totals $4,684,900 $6,394,057 $642,852 $1,066,305 • Safe Routes to Schools and Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Calls for Projects Staff submitted project grant applications to WSDOT on May 5 for the Safe Routes to School and the Pedestrian and Bicycle program on May 11, 2014. In December applications will be presented to the Governor's office for review, and results will be available by June, 2015. • 2014 Citywide Highway Safety Improvement Projects (HSIP) Safety Grant Sr. Traffic Engineer Messner presented an Information Only Preliminary Project list to the Spokane Valley City Council on June 24, 2014: Spot Location Projects: The proposed projects identified below are developed based on the review of the 2009 through 2013 crash data in which safety improvements can result in a reduction of crash types and the severity of crashes. "Information In bold indicates updates 5 o Intersection of Sullivan Road at Sprague Avenue (intersection improvements) o Intersection of Mission Avenue at State Route 27 (intersection improvements) • McDonald Road — Mission Avenue to 16th Avenue (corridor improvements) a Sullivan Road Safety Study — Mission Avenue to Sprague Avenue (corridor study) Systematic Projects: The proposed projects identified below are developed based on guidelines for improvements established by the FHWA as directed in the MUTCD. a Accessible Pedestrian Signals m Citywide traffic signal upgrades o Reflective signal bookplates — Citywide traffic signal enhancements at high volume intersections This project list is being further refined and applications will be submitted on or before the due date of July 16, 2014. `Information in hold indicates updates 6 ••••#\•... Spmbrkane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 1 Fax: 509.921.1008 1 cityhalU®spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: John Hohman, CD Director Date: July 17, 2014 Re: Beekeeping This memorandum responds to your request for information on Spokane Valley's beekeeping regulations, including a comparison to adjacent jurisdictions. Upon incorporation in 2003, Spokane Valley adopted Spokane County's zoning regulations on an interim basis. Hobby beekeeping was permitted in the UR-3.5 zone,the predominant residential zone at the time. Hobby beekeeping was defined as: "An activity, generally engaged in for personal use, where twenty-five (25) or fewer beehives are kept on a lot." The number of beehives was further limited to one hive per 4,356 square feet of lot area, up to a maximum of 25 beehives. A beehive is defined as a structure to contain one colony of bees and registered with the Washington State Dept. of Agriculture. Therefore, a one acre lot could have a maximum of 10 beehives. Beehives were required to be located 25 feet from all property lines and be isolated from public access by a security fence, or otherwise secured platform (see attached regulations). In 2007, Spokane Valley adopted its own zoning regulations. Beekeeping is included in the broader "Animal Raising and/or Keeping" category of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SVMC Chapter 19.40.150 allows a maximum of 25 hives. Animal keeping, including beehives, is permitted in every residential zone but is limited to lots with a minimum of 40,000 square feet. The beekeeping issue was debated at the March 16, 2007 and April 12, 2007, Spokane Valley Planning Conunission meetings. The Planning Commission discussed why bees are important, why they should or should not be allowed in residential areas, how many hives should be allowed, the size of the hives, location on a lot and whether it should be an allowed use within the City. At the April 12, 2007 meeting the Commissioners voted 4-3 in favor of allowing a maximum of 25 hives, but required a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The Planning Commission's recommendation was later confirmed by the City Council upon adoption of the City's zoning regulations. The current code does not include any special setback requirements for beehives. Spokane Valley 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping, Where permitted, the keeping of poultry and livestock (excluding swine and chickens) is subject to the following conditions: A. Minimum Lot Requirements. I. In residential zones,the lot or tract must exceed 40,000 square feet; 2. In mixed-use zones, on lots or tracts with legally established residential uses that exceed 40,000 square feet; C. Beekeeping for nonconunercial purposes is limited to 25 hives; City of Spokane The City of Spokane allows beekeeping on all residential lots, limited to one bee colony per 4,350 square feet of lot area, up to a maximum of eight colonies. A colony is defined as a natural group of bees having a queen or queens. Spokane has setback regulations, operational regulations (adequate water supply, abating aggressive bees by re-queening hives, etc.) and beekeeper certification requirements (see attached regulations). Earlier this month, the Spokane City Council voted to ban the city purchase and use of neonicotinoids, or "nicotine-like"insecticides which have been proven to be harmful to bees. The ban applies only to city purchase, and does not extend to private use. Spokane County Beekeeping is permitted in all residential zones, limited to two hives for the first 4,356 square feet of lot area and one for every 4,356 square feet thereafter. There is no maximum number of hives specified in the regulations. The regulations include a 25 foot minimum setback from property lines, except that hives may be placed 5 feet from side or rear property lines when a "flyway barrier"is established. A flyway barrier is a 6 foot tall solid barrier that forces bees to fly at an elevation at least six feet above ground level over property lines (see attached regulations). City of Liberty Lake Beekeeping is classified as similar to Dangerous animalllivestock keeping and is not permitted in any zone. City of Spokane Title 17C Land Use Standards Chapter 170.310 Animal Keeping Section t7C,310,130 Beekeeping A,Where Permitted. Beekeeping is allowed as an accessory use on any lot occupied by a single-family residence that is in the RA,RSF,RTF,RMF and RHD zones.Beekeeping for educational or research purposes by an institution such as college,high school or agricultural extension office is allowed as a Type II conditional use permit in all zones,subject to the requirements of subsection(B)(1)through(5) below. B.Staandards Applicable to Beekeeping. Beekeeping is subject to the following standards: I.Looation,Density and Maintenance of Colonies, a.The number of colonies is limited to one colony per four thousand three hundred filly square feet of lot area, up to a maximum of eight colonies; and b.Colonies shall be setback a minimum of twenty-five feet of any property line,except that ai colony may be situated within ten feet of a side lot line or rear lot line provided the following provisions are mel: i.The beehives are isolated from public access by a security fence es required ander SMC 17C.110.230(F);and ii.The beekeeper establishes and maintains a flyway barrier at least six feet in height consisting of a solid wall, solid fencing material, dense vegetation or combination thereof that is parallel to the property line and extends ten feet beyond the colony in each direction so that all bees arc forced to fly at an elevation of at least six feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the colony;or iii.Thc colony is situated ten feet or more above the grade of the nearest Adjoining property lino. 2,Colonies shall he maintained In movable-frame hives with adequate space and management techniques to prevent overcrowding and swarming. 3.111 any instance in which a colony exhibits aggressive or swarming behavior,the beekeeper must ensure that the colony is re-queened. Aggressive behavior is any instance in which unusual aggressive characteristics such as stinging or attacking without provocation occurs, 4.Every beekeeper shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to each colony. 5.R gislrations and Training. n,AIl colonies shall be registered with the director of'the state department of agriculture pursuant to RCW 15,60.021 no later than April I st of each year. b.The beekeeper shall have completed the requirements for apprenticeship level of the Washington State Beekeeper's Association master beekeeper certification program Date Passed: Monday, September 24,2007 Effective Date: Saturday,November 10,2007 ORD C34109 Section 4 Spokane County Beekeeping LDR,LDR-P,MDR,HDR zones) a.Beekeeping is allowed as an accessory use on any lot or parcel occupied by a singlofantily residence. b.The keeping of bees shall meet the requirements of the Washington State Department of Agriculture RCW 15.60 or as hereafter amended, c,The number of colonies allowed is limited to two(2)for the first 4,356 square feet of lot area,and one(1)for every 4,356 square feet of lot arca thereafter,There is no limit en the number of Nues/Nuolei, d.Beehives shall be setback a minimum of twenty-five(25) feet from any abutting side or rear properly line or public right-of-way, except that beehives may be setback up to five (5)feet from any abutting side or rear property line when the beekeeper establishes and Maintains a flyway barrier as provided in section(e)below. e.A flyway barrier shall be at least six(6) feet in height consisting of a solid wall,solid fencing material,dense vegetation or combination thereof that is parallel to such side and/or rear property line(s)and extends beyond the beehive(s) in each direction so that bees are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six(6) feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the colony.