2008, 12-16 Study Session MinutesMINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Mayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Present:
Councilmembers:
Rich Munson, Mayor
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember
Staff:
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Lori Barlow, Associate Planner
Inga Note, Traffic Engineer
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Bill Miller, IT Specialist
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
In light of full disclosure, Councilmember Gothmann stated that he owns one of the properties mentioned
in the first agenda item; he stated he was not a proponent of the action, and had no idea it was going to
occur until it got to the Council for consideration; and that he has not discussed this with other
Councilmembers and said he would not take part in this discussion. Councilmember Gothmann then left
the dais and the Council Chambers.
REGULAR STUDY SESSION ITEMS:
1. Partial Release of Interest — Greg McCormick
For each of the Release of Interests, Planning Manager McCormick explained that in 1966 the Ponderosa
Acres Third (and Fourth) addition plat was recorded in Spokane County; that each included a 55' wide
strip of land as shown on the maps; that wording on the face of the plat indicates that the 55' area was
reserved for future right -of -way; and according to County records, this area was never actually dedicated
for right -of -way purposes; that the situation was brought to the City's attention by a property owner who
wanted to construct a detached accessory structure, and when staff researched the plat, this issue was
discovered. Mr. McCormick further explained that since it does not appear that either area was actually
dedicated as right -of -way, a street vacation action is not necessary; and the "Release of Interest" will
suffice in addressing these situations. After brief discussion of the areas in question, there was Council
consensus to place these items on the next Council's consent agenda. Councilmember Gothmann was
invited and returned to the dais.
Other business: Before proceeding with the other agenda items, City Attorney Connelly introduced new
intern Ian Whitney, who will be interning in our legal department until June of this year; and Mr.
Connelly explained that Mr. Whitney has passed the bar and is waiting for his wife to graduate from
Whitworth, at which time they will be moving. Council greeted and welcomed Mr. Whitney.
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -16 -08 Page 1 of 10
Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09
2. County's Termination of Road Contract — Mayor Munson
Mayor Munson explained that we were not informed this was going to occur; and since it has, it has
raised a number of questions about future road maintenance; that Mayor Munson explained that he had
been made aware that in the past, some citizens had complained to the Commissioners about the
inadequate snow removal; there was mention of our perceived "interference with the crews or having
inspectors looking at their work, all of which ended with a meeting with Public Works Director Kersten
and City Manager Mercier and the road folks; and that we had assumed everything had been resolved as
there had been no word since; but that the Board of Commissioners met last week and voted to terminate
the contract next October, adding that we were shocked by the form of notice, the phone message. Mayor
Munson also mentioned the gradual moving away from the summer road services, but not the winter
services. City Manager Mercier mentioned the added materials in the council packet of the press release
and road services contract, and the list of ongoing contracts with Spokane County, and said there is an
audio - recording (CD) available from the City Clerk and distributed to Council, of that December 9, 2008
meeting; and he stated that this issue is not represented on the Commissioner's agenda, which is also
included. Mr. Mercier also brought attention to the December 20, 2005 PowerPoint presentation from
Neil Kersten and in particular slide 12 which mentions that the "County is not set up to be a contractor
and does not wish to adapt its operations to be a contractor for the long term," and that the "County has
stated that they do not need our work; will help out where needed but prefer that we begin transitioning
away from their services as outlined in the following draft plan;" and he mentioned the phasing out of
snow removal over a five -year period; adding that we have expressed a desire for a three to five year
transition period; and said that last winter was a tough experience in dealing with snow clearing; that the
County did a marvelous job and we repeatedly expressed appreciation and congratulations for the work
they did; and that he and Neil Kersten met with Bob Brueggeman several times last year; and Mr. Mercier
said he expressed that there was some expression of the County not doing winter; but we expressed a
desire for an orderly transition, in that we would want a three to five -year transition period; and we used
such a three -year period to move to private contractors for our summer services. Councilmember Wilhite
asked if we have received the written notice and Mr. Mercier replied that we have not, as the
Commissioners just voted last Tuesday to authorize the issuance of such.
Council discussion included mention that the County is within their right to seek termination of the
agreement; that we strive to maintain good communication; of the disappointment with the method of
communication concerning this large contract; and that the contract was beneficial to both parties.
Discussion then turned to the list of contracts added to tonight's council packet, and whether to work
toward alternative contracted services for all now, or to develop a plan of transition in order to be
prepared should the County suddenly and without warning decide to terminate other contracts. It was
determined that the next step would be a motion at the December 30 council meeting, to authorize the
City Manager to develop an alternate plan for all public services currently provided to us by the County in
accordance with interlocal contract agreements, including timing, specifics, cost, etc., so as not to be
caught unaware; and further for that December 30 meeting, to authorize an assessment of law
enforcement services alternatives analysis presented by ICMA Consulting. Mayor Munson suggested
sending a letter to the Commissioners after the December 30 meeting once the motions had been voted
upon; and Councilmember Wilhite suggested that perhaps a phone call to the three Commissioners of
these upcoming agenda items would be prudent. Councilmember Taylor suggested holding another joint
meeting with the Commissioners to avoid future surprises. It was reiterated that the termination of the
road maintenance contract is not slated to take effect until October of 2009; and Deputy Mayor Denenny
said that we will have an alternative in place in time for winter services for the 2009/2010 season, adding
that we have the resources and the ability to negotiate contracts or find the necessary resources.
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -16 -08 Page 2 of 10
Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09
2a. Stimulus Task Force Update — Neil Kersten
Mayor Munson explained that there are a number of requests to get ready for this stimulus package, and
that staff has made recommendations in that regard; and that we need to inform the Board of County
Commissioners what we would like done with the funding, even though the amount of funding is
unknown. Mr. Mercier further explained that staff receives this as developments occur, and we have been
put on a "quick march" to prepare a list of projects that might be eligible for funding under the stimulus
infrastructure program; and mentioned the need to re- examine the six -year Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) to perhaps re -order so that we comport with the parameters of this new upcoming
program.
Public Works Director Kersten said that we just found out last Tuesday or Wednesday that this was
coming and at that point, had no details; he said that the SRTC Board meeting last Thursday did provide
more details, and he brought Council's attention to page 2 of the handout entitled "2009 Federal Stimulus
Package Proposal." Based on verbal discussion, Mr. Kersten explained, we cannot fund projects that are
fully funded in the 2009 budget; that the first wave of projects must be ready to bid in July; that there
could be a second wave but that is not yet known; that we are looking for projects that have more
disciplines and are longer in terms of construction in order to involve more people for a longer period; he
said preservation projects are similar to the grind and overlays done a few months ago and we are not
seeking that type of project. Mr. Kersten explained that we need to do the design and right -of -way
acquisition and that the program will only fund construction; and he proceeded to explain the 2009
adopted budget, proposed amended budget as shown in the handout; that staff has submitted the pavement
preservation projects list as that had to have been submitted by last Friday; but that staff can remove any
project at Council's direction; adding that it is easier to take off a project then add a new project to the list
once the deadline has passed. Mr. Kersten said in order to meet the dates of the schedule, we will need to
request engineering services and select consultants, and would need to amend the budget in January to get
contracts and start designing; and said that this list does not represent a loss of projects, but a change in
priority as we want to be ready to quickly move ahead; that this would mean a delay in Sprague, but it
could wait until another bill if it doesn't get funded in this bill; but said that either way there is a good
chance of getting it funded within the next two years.
Council discussion included mention from Mayor Munson that we don't know what the exact political
process will be or what the stimulus package will look like until we see the final package;
Councilmember Wilhite said that it doesn't hurt to be prepared so if Congress comes through, we could
amend the budget again if needed, and if wouldn't hurt to take that calculated risk of shifting dollars;
adding that SRTC mentioned that they felt that once everyone's priority list was included, if there were
remaining funds, it would go to the second priorities. It was also mentioned that at least in the first wave,
no matching funds will be required; although Mr. Kersten said we will have to do the design, which on a
preservation project is 10% on the right -of -way, so there is a match in that sense, but there are funds in
this year's budget to cover that. Mayor Munson suggested moving ahead cautiously with the expectation
that very little of this will be funded, although there are too many unknowns at this point to further
speculate.
Mr. Mercier said that part of the dilemma is that to get these projects included, we need to have the
appropriate engineering right -of -way work done, that we have to commit funds to do the engineering
right -of -way in January, and we don't know yet how many projects on this list will survive Friday's
interaction as they try to develop a regional list. Mayor Munson said the meeting for this is this Friday at
9 a.m. at the Fairground's Conference Center, and he asked and received Council consensus to offer these
projects as our priority projects.
Mayor Munson called for a five- minute recess at 6:57 p.m.; and he reconvened the meeting at 7: 08 p.m.
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -16 -08 Page 3 of 10
Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09
3. Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan — Scott Kuhta & Kathy McClung
Senior Planner Kuhta mentioned tonight's goal and schedule, and gave a brief outline of tonight's
expectations. Councilmember Gothmann asked if there was previous consensus on Deputy Mayor
Denenny's proposal to cut off the SARP to just east of the center at Sullivan and Sprague, and stated that
he would prefer to see the area continue east. Council confirmed that there was consensus; however, Mr.
Kuhta remarked that the suggestion was to extend the neighborhood to the east a little, but the exact
boundary was not identified, and that discussion will be forthcoming. Mr. Kuhta mentioned his e-mail
concerning a suggested SARP deliberation, which schedule shows holding a public hearing March 3,
thereby giving staff a month to complete the final draft of council recommended changes; with the first
reading set for March 10 and the second reading of the ordinance to adopt the Plan set for March 24
Mayor Munson suggested Council consider in the future, the option of holding two Monday meetings if
needed or if we fall behind the proposed schedule, such meetings being held January 12 and January 26.
Mr. Kuhta mentioned that last week Council completed the applicability sections and that draft should be
up on the website soon if not already; and regarding the list of individual requests, he said we need to re-
visit the Scott's request; and letters of requests which were discussed included numbers 120, 118, 113,
and 112 which is the Grafos letter, which brought up the question of where exactly the plan would end.
Mr. Kuhta said that the suggestion is to bring the Neighborhood Center (in the pink on the map) to the
east somewhere; and Mayor Munson suggested having it square with the area on the north; and that staff
could examine that suggestion in detail and bring that issue back later showing what is in that area; and
Councilmember Gothmann suggested extending it so the dividing line is south of the dividing line on the
north; and Mr. Kuhta stated that staff will look at property ownership to make sure there are no problems
and will re- confirm; and he said that the current zoning is community commercial; and if this is changed
to community center, there would be a few changes such as drive - through type businesses would be
restricted; and the type of retail businesses would be the same but it would affect how one builds the
buildings including the architectural standards, and how buildings would be placed on lots, including
setbacks.
Discussion ensued concerning the individual letters of request/concern:
Scott property (letter #126): Mr. Kuhta said this is currently zoned community commercial and the
request is to be completely out of the subarea plan; and it was suggested by Councilmember Gothmann to
leave them in the plan. Mr. Kuhta said the proposed zoning is residential boulevard; and we might need
extra right -of -way along the Scott's property, but that does not affect the decision tonight. After further
discussion, there was a show of hands on whether or not to leave this property in the plan, with Mayor
Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Taylor and Gothmann opting to leave the
property in the Plan; and Councilmembers Schimmels, Dempsey and Wilhite to exclude them from the
Plan; therefore, the Scott's property will be left in the plan.
Polka Dot Pottery (letter #111): located at 118 S Pines Road; just to the south of the neighborhood
district zone; in the middle of the sub -area Plan boundary, with the property split with the residential
boulevard and the mixed use avenue zones; the request is to be left out of the Plan (as mentioned in
another letter to the Planning Commission); Mr. Kuhta mentioned to maintain their current use they
would need to be zoned with the mixed use avenue zones; and he mentioned the need to craft language
for later discussion on which district zone an existing use would be placed in situations such as this; and it
was determined to delay this decision until the split zone discussion is held.
Avista properties (letter #95): located on Appleway; they have an issue with the current community
facility zone, to be addressed later through the comprehensive plan amendment process; that one property
is in the City Center and one is in the residential boulevard; and they would like to have the zone all one
zone; and Mr. Kuhta suggested moving the city center over; that this is for two separate individual lots
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -16 -08 Page 4 of 10
Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09
and having them zoned either way would be appropriate; and that they would likely prefer the City Center
as it allows more flexibility in building size. It was Council consensus to have this zoned City Center
including the lot to the south.
Auto Row, (letter #92): this is the issue of no used car lots, which resulted in a recommendation to
Council to allow used or new vehicle sales in the Gateway area.
Valley South Storage (letter #56): Councilmember Gothmann mentioned several issues in the letter
which are not relevant to this discussion, such as taxes and road issues; and other issues including pre -
located street which will be discussed and reviewed later.
There was some brief discussion on some of the other letters which did not have specific property
questions concerning zoning; or addressed issues to be discussed later, such as enticements or incentives,
or issues which have already been addressed and decided, such as sale of used cars in Auto Row. Mayor
Munson brought up letter #55, which lead to his comments concerning the notification process of what
this plan will do and how it will affect properties; and that staff was going to let Council know the
notification process to property owners along Sprague; and Mr. Kuhta said that will be forthcoming later,
to be followed by Council discussion on how they would like to handle the final public hearing. Mr.
Kuhta mentioned that some of the public's specific concerns were about notice that zoning would change,
and he said that staff will craft a letter explaining that if this is adopted, zoning will change; and urging
the property owner to contact staff for further information; and that process will be used for the final
public hearing.
Plantation Restaurant, Sprague & Vista (letter #43), Mr. Riley's property: expressed zoning
concerns; and Mr. Kuhta said this property owner's existing restaurant business is conforming to that
district zone under the new regulations; and discussion will be held later regarding the possibility of
adding casinos to that zone; and whether Council wants to include car sales in that district zone.
Letter #42 Pizza Hut: this is the Gateway Commercial Center so full service restaurants are permitted in
that district zone and Pizza Hut could operate in that location; that the property owner wants to use this as
a potential used car lot; and the way the regulations read, is that would not be permitted on the ground
floor on Sprague; and that is a topic for further discussion, whether in the dark blue areas to allow car
sales, which is the theme of that whole area; and Mr. Kuhta said the way it reads, car sales would be
allowed on the second floor but not the ground floor, and Mr. Kuhta said he feels that is an error to be
reviewed later.
Letter #27, Pool World: they have several concerns about the plan and would prefer not being in the
Plan area; and Mr. Kuhta said they can use the existing use, Mixed Use Boulevard, so their use is not
affected but he explained their concern is about the residential boulevard on the south side; and they are
concerned about the new signage requirements being too restrictive; that they have some expansion plans
and /or are buying other property and are concerned about the Plan in general; and said they have been
participating in this process from the beginning. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that on one
handout in the packet, there was an error on the extreme lower right; that this is the document Mr.
Gothmann provided which compares different uses, and in that lower right side under surface parking, the
last entry should read "front, side and rear for new neighborhood center retail." Councilmember
Gothmann said that the question on this property is, can there be a driveway from Appleway going north
between two houses along Appleway, or two office spaces, that goes north; that this property owner wants
an access from Appleway; and wants to take advantage of the double frontage. Mr. Kuhta explained that
there are access management regulations that are in the street and open space section which will be
discussed; and it proposes right -in, and right -out on Appleway now; so there would be some limitations
on access on Appleway to properties; according to the proposed regulations.
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -16 -08 Page 5 of 10
Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09
Letter #21 Walt's Mailing Service: it was mentioned that the back page has a suggestion to limit the
scope of the plan to a single city center core area; and if that is established, then fund it, plan it and move
on; and on Walt's Mailing second letter discusses the splitting of their property into combination
residential boulevard and mixed use; if they expand they are concerned about how the residential
boulevard regulations would affect any future plans for their property. Mr. Kuhta said they would be able
to expand their building under the nonconforming provisions adopted if it doesn't meet the threshold for
new construction; and they could expand, but the issue is the concern with the residential boulevard zone;
and that use itself is fine for that mixed use boulevard, but the issue is the expansion; and this should be
further addressed when the split -zone is discussed again. Mr. Kuhta said that the development along
Appleway should face the street; and there is landscaping and screening standards as part of the code, but
in this instance, the question is if this building were extended, would it be required to meet the
requirements of the plan, and if it meets that threshold, once you get toward Appleway development it
would need to adhere to the residential boulevard zone, which is not consistent with the current use of the
property; and that if we require new streets, does Council want backs of buildings along Appleway or to
face Appleway to make it more pedestrian oriented and more aesthetically pleasing. Councilmember
Taylor mentioned that the letter discusses the possible moving north and not south, and either way, if the
building is going to be expanded, Mr. Kuhta said the one way would bring into play the regulations of
mixed use avenue; and the residential boulevard zone starts the other way; and if the move is north, there
is no issue. Mr. Kuhta said the next deliberation will include some language about giving flexibility to the
Community Development Director if the regulations are not clear. There was also discussion about
setbacks, or building in expectation for existing businesses which want to do incremental expansion, and
the need to draft such language if that is Council's desire; and it was mentioned by Mayor Munson that he
thought Council had given the Planning Department the latitude to examine exceptions and be logical in
the application of this plan, and this is one of those cases; and Mr. Kuhta confirmed that language needs
to be included affording that flexibility. Councilmember Gothmann stated that perhaps staff could run
scenarios on either this particular piece of property or similar situations and analyze those scenarios.
Mayor Munson asked if staff feels this type of exception will occur very often, and Mr. Kuhta said he
feels this is a case -by -case situation for any existing building along the corridor, how close they are to the
existing setbacks, how much do they want to expand, whether they have to meet the thresholds, or if there
is an easement in the way preventing building closing to the street; or any number of scenarios; similar to
what staff does today with development; and said that staff won't know everything until the development
review process. Mayor Munson said if there are these unique situations, it would be helpful if staff
compiled a "what -if' explanation, keeping the plan's steps in mind with each scenario.
Letter #19, Taylor Engineering: nothing specific about the district zone but concerns about frontage
coverage, pre- located street requirements, and the maximum block size which also deals with new streets;
and Mr. Kuhta said this would be a good segue way to begin discussion on the Gateway Commercial
Zones, as all these are imbedded in the district zone regulations; and these issues can be addressed as the
district zone is addressed.
Councilmember Taylor asked about the Clark/Pacific properties on the northeast corner of Bowdish and
Sprague, and if perhaps those comments came in after the deadline for comments. Mr. Kuhta said if it is
not included in this package tonight, it came in after the deadline, and mentioned the concern is about the
district zone, the mixed use avenue and the uses in that zone; which is a border between the mixed use
avenue and the city center; with mention of Bowdish as the dividing line for those areas. Councilmember
Taylor said since the issue there dealt with uses allowed in the mixed use zone versus city center, that can
be discussed when Council discusses mixed use avenue.
Mr. Kuhta then brought Council attention to the large spreadsheet showing consolidated Section 2.2 for
all district zones side -by -side, enabling the ability to compare and contrast across the chart, and all the
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -16 -08 Page 6 of 10
Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09
regulations for each district zone; he said the discussion will center on the last two, commercial avenue
and gateway commercial centers; that the dark blue areas are where full service restaurant, entertainment
establishments would be, and the light blue areas are more for the commercial sales, vehicle sales, and
other uses. Mr. Gothmann asked why the two zones must be separate and why they could not be
integrated into the same use, and what is the goal for that area. Mr. Kuhta said this came from some of
the focus groups and The testimony from the auto row, where they wanted to have more of a theme area;
and that this blends into the idea of having areas more pedestrian focused; in looking at the regulations,
Council could make the entire area one district zone; that the idea of the auto row folks is to put in a park
and possibly some type of theme park, and he said they have big ideas on how to attract people to auto
row and to get people here as more of a destination instead of just buying cars.
The topic of adult entertainment was mentioned, including comment from Councilmember Taylor who
explained that we are required to have a zone which allows that use somewhere in the city, and he asked
if we are making the Deja vue a nonconforming use, and if they shut down would we have to allow them
into another particular zone. Mr. Kuhta said that this refers to the UDC for Adult Entertainment, and if
we are changing the zone, we might need to look at that to make sure it is adequately addressed, including
the required buffers from churches and schools. Councilmember Gothmann said he recalls that none of
those establishments are permitted, but they are grandfathered in and the actual areas that we allow
permitted entertainment are another place other than along there, similar to an industrial zone; and that he
does not think they are permitted now and neither would they be permitted under the new use. Mr. Kuhta
and Ms. McClung both agreed that they feel that is correct, but staff will verify.
Mr. Kuhta directed Council to page 7 of 38 in Section 2.2 and using the chart and the building use section
together to see what is permitted in the plan area; and under Gateway Commercial Center, there is a "U"
there, and that the reference footnotes are on the back making the chart an easy reference, and he pointed
out the section dealing with Gateway Commercial Avenue Retail is allowed on Sprague only on the upper
floors and explained the process to read the chart; and he proposed deleting that "U" which allows car
sales on an upper floor; thereby leaving the regulations to allow that any kind of retail allowed here is
allowed in the dark blue areas. Council concurred Mr. Kuhta said in the light blue areas, full service
restaurants and industrial uses are prohibited; and there has been some question on whether to allow light
industrial uses in the light blue area as there is a lot of vacant land; that the light blue area does allow
medium box retail sale such as art supply, sporting goods, electronics, appliances, uses similar to Costco,
warehouse retail, and there are many retail uses allowed here other than auto sales; adding that auto repair
would be allowed. Full service restaurants would not be allowed as they have been identified to be
included in the dark blue area; and said that the entire area would be better for people to walk around; and
Mr. Kuhta proposed adding vehicle sales including new and used vehicles to this Gateway Commercial
Avenue Retail; and all those types of retail would also be allowed in the dark blue areas.
Mr. Kuhta then contrasted the retail allowed in the light blue and dark blue areas; and he mentioned there
is some concern with bars and nightclubs, currently under conditional use bars and nightclubs which are
not clearly ancillary to food service are included; and he mentioned some concern of impacts which might
require some review by the Hearing Examiner, as a conditional use permit requires a public hearing with
a Hearing Examiner. Mr. Kuhta asked if Council wants to keep bars and nightclubs as a conditional use
or move it to the permitted use in the dark blue areas. After Council discussion whether to have this as a
permitted use which can be accomplished by issuing an over - the - counter permit, or have it go to the
Hearing Examiner as a conditional use permit, there was some consensus to have this as an over -the-
counter permit. Mr. Kuhta said another use related to that is the casino, and Council concurred to include
that as well with the other entertainment uses.
Mr. Kuhta asked if there is a desire to add light industrial uses to the light blue area, considering we have
added light industrial uses to the mixed use avenue so there are other areas to have industrial uses; such as
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -16 -08 Page 7 of 10
Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09
plastic molding business, any kind of assembly, some warehousing with the light industrial use; and
mention that the light industrial use should conform with the architectural design of the area. City
Attorney Connelly added that the criteria to include light industrial should be based on impact to adjacent
properties and not on the type of business, even in auto row. It was also mentioned there is a need to have
a more detailed definition of what "outdoor storage" covers; and Community Development Director
McClung said an alternative idea is to accept related cars or vehicles. Deputy Mayor Denenny said in
reference to whether to add light industrial uses to this zone, he would like to re- examine some of those
examples and potential impacts; and Mr. Kuhta said light industrial would be more compatible with an
auto row; and after further discussion, Councilmember Gothmann suggested adding light industrial to
Gateway Commercial Center Retail and further define it later based on impact to the area. Council
concurred. Mr. Kuhta said that banks are not listed in this area and it would be logical to add them to the
dark blue areas, adding that there will be more discussion later on banks and full service restaurants;
followed by discussion on whether to include any type of financial institution and there appeared to be
Council consensus to add that as well, and Mr. Kuhta clarified that is defined as banks and financial
institutions excluding check cashing stores. Council concurred
Mr. Kuhta said in further examining the zone district chart in the Gateway Commercial Avenue, section
2.1.5, "other uses" are permitted such as civic, quasi -civic and cultural uses; but office, lodging and
residential are not permitted; and in the Gateway Commercial Center, lodging is permitted but office use
is not, and he asked Council if they would like to add offices there as well. After brief discussion about
allowing such office use as attorney offices in this area, Mr. Connelly reminded Council that the analysis
should be whether office use is compatible with the other uses allowed in this zone; and not specific type
of offices or promoting one specific type of business; and Mr. Gothmann recommended leaving office out
of that area since Appleway is designed to be a large office zone; and Mayor Munson suggested adding
office to this area; or specify office use on Appleway only as suggested by Councilmember Gothmann.
There followed discussion on office space, overdevelopment of specific uses, that office is permitted all
along the residential boulevard zone, mixed use avenue, city center, neighborhood centers; which lead to
agreement by Deputy Mayor Denenny and Councilmembers Gothmann, Schimmels and Taylor to leave
office the way it is and out of this particular zone, with Councilmembers Wilhite, Dempsey and Mayor
Munson preferring to see it dictated by the market. Mr. Kuhta said that ends the use section, and next
time discussion will center on development standards, building heights, and the bottom part of the chart.
4 Advance Agenda — Mayor Munson
Mayor Munson mentioned the previous discussion of the possibility of having additional meetings. Mr.
Mercier said he proposed to have the December 30 meeting include two motions of consideration
regarding alternative analysis, with the first authorizing the preparation of alternative analysis for services
currently delivered under contract by Spokane County, which is the entire range of contracts; and the
second motion would be to authorize the budget to perform the alternative analysis for the law
enforcement agreement; and later staff would provide an informational memo giving Council staffs
initial thoughts on how to prepare for a roads and highways alternative analysis as well as municipal
courts. Mr. Mercier said that he spoke with Sheriff Knezovich tonight and told him of that plan; who
mentioned he is aware and understands why we would be responding in this manner. Mayor Munson said
he will also attempt to call each of the three County Commissioners tomorrow to inform them of this
issue as well. Mr. Mercier added that we would incorporate into the advance agenda, the schedule
outlined and distributed by Mr. Kuhta at the beginning of tonight's discussion; and will tentatively
reserve January 12 and 26 as possible Monday evening meetings depending on the need.
Regarding the Argonne/Indiana intersection, Mayor Munson said he watched cars make illegal turns there
and he would recommend Councilmembers park in the Marie Callender parking lot and observe how
drivers ignore the sign; and he said a motion will be brought on the December 30 agenda to completely
close off the turn. Mayor Munson said there will be upcoming discussion on the regional transportation
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -16 -08 Page 8 of 10
Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09
issue and how to approach the governance, and Mayor Munson said he was appointed today to be a
member of an ad hoc committee to develop a plan on how we want to do regional governance of regional
transportation projects; and he said he wants to ensure he will reflect Councilmember's wishes in that
discussion.
Councilmember Dempsey asked for a point of privilege; and she mentioned that several weeks ago
several five -year presentations were made to some employees, but a group that was missed included five
members of this Council, and she then presented certificates of appreciate and a five -year pin to
Councilmembers.
5. Council Check-in — Mayor Munson. N/A
6. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier
Mr. Mercier said that the National League of Cities sent an e-mail today concerning them sponsoring a
green cities conference in Portland the end of April, with the primary points to be addressed to include
preparing for climate change, cutting carbon emissions, cost savings strategies, and developing green
jobs; and he said this might be a timely conference to consider attending; and said if Councilmembers are
interested in attending, he asked that staff be alerted quickly to take advantage of the lower cost deadline
the end of this month, adding that the conference would begin Saturday April 18 and run through
Wednesday April 22; and said he is considering sending some staff to this conference as well.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned 8:58 p.m.
ATTES
I
ce.
ristine Bainbridge ity Clerk
chard Munson yor
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -16 -08 Page 9 of 10
Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09
Notes from ]Easel Post -It Sticky Notes:
Schedule 1/26 1/12 possible Mondays
Review — last meeting decisions
Complete individual requests
Detailed District Regulations
Gateway Commercial Centers
Gateway Commercial Avenue
Nonconforming — as proposed
Add assessed/appraised value clarification
Scotts — no consensus previously
Nishamora — not in plan
r ®
Valley Best Way — keep in plan
Ruby Motors — come back when "use" discussion
Grafos — extend nonconforming south across Sprague at approximately Moore (confirm at boundary
discussion)
Everything as is, keep existing zoning
12/16 — straight south from North Boundary
Bring back more info on existing uses if any potential problems.
Scotts — leave in plan
Polka Dot — delay until split zoning discussion
Avista — make all City Center + small adjacent lot
Auto Row — N/A — used cars permitted in Auto Row
Valley Self - Storage — streets to be addressed later
Delay — incentives to be discussed later
Bring back info on notification process
Riley- Sprague & Vista — uses allowed questioned — discuss with use
Pizza Hut — discussion with uses
Pool World — general concerns about development regulations. No decision.
Mailing Service — Split Zone discussion
Language about exceptions for existing buildings. Run scenario on this property.
Council wants to see redevelopment
Examine options for staff flexibility
Gateway Commercial Zone
Look at impact on adult entertainment
Zoning
Any retail permitted in light blue allowed in dark blue
Mark bars & nightclubs /casinos as permitted use vs. conditional use
Bring back definitions of light industrial - tentatively add to this zone
Add financial institutions to Gateway Centers
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -16 -08 Page 10 of 10
Approved by Council: 01 -13 -09
Meeting Date: December 16, 2008 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: County's Termination of Road Contract
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide Council an opportunity to discuss the sudden
termination of the Road Contract by the Spokane Board of County Commissioners.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
® admin. report ❑ pending legislation
Contract
Amount
Animal Control
$444,008
Communications Maintenance
$127,829
District Court
$816,111
Emergency Management Services
$88,090
Engineering Services
$60,000
Geiger Incarceration and Work Release Services
$381,600
Geographic Information System (GIS)
$74,000
Hearing Examiner
$66,000
Jail Services
$420,806
Jury management Services
$5,000
Law Enforcement Services
$14,557,484
Permit and Land Use Tracking System (PLUS)
$31,240
Pretrial Services
$41,080
Probation
$0
county retains revenue
Prosecuting Services
$277,243
Public Defender Services
$363,349
Road Maintenance
$2,656,191
TOTAL
$20,410,031
CI7T of
� r
Valle ®
y
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106' • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ® Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org
Contract Administration
Ongoing contracts with Spokane County
Updated 5/31/07
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING - 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE
LOWER LEVEL, COMMISSIONERS' HEARING ROOM
DECEMBER 8, 2008
:00 P.M. — SPECIAL MEETI
ln:
git
1. CONTINUED FOR DECISION ONLY
a. Consider the 2009 Newman Lake Flood Control Zone District Budget.
b. Consider the Spokane County Budget for the Year 2009.
DECEMBER 9, 2008
jcc
Y
E �xv' t � av ti,,ti. r tin
, M C0111� SSIONERS: ;M
1. PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION (set final hearing for January 6, 2009):
Newman Lake Flood Control Fund #677 - $30,000 (677- 4440000): Appropriate $30,000
from Newman Lake Flood Control Fund #677 fund balance to support milfoil eradication
costs that exceeded budget.
2. NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (set hearing date for January 13, 2009)
a. Board of Equalization Meeting to consider the 2009 Assessment Roll for Newman
Lake Flood Control Zone District.
b. Consider Fiber Optic Trunk Line Franchise for Washington State Department of
Transportation for portions of Geiger Boulevard and Rowand Road.
3. VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS
a. Approve payment of vouchers.
b. Approve revisions to the Spokane County Mental Health Advisory Board Bylaws
c. Award Bid No. P5310 for 1 Floor Courthouse Remodel.
d. Accept as complete the work performed by Associated Fire Systems, Inc., for On-
Call Fire Alarm & Suppression System, Task Order Subcontract No. P5561.
e. Accept as complete the work performed by M. E. Uphus Construction, Inc. for
construction of County Jail ADA Renovations Project, Bid No. P5761.
Accept as complete the work performed by IRS Environmental for On -Call
Hazardous Material Abatement Services, Task Order Subcontract No. P5786.
Cancel County Warrants not presented within one year of date of issue.
f.
9.
Page 1
DECEMBER 10, 2008
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING - 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE
ROOM 2B, SECOND FLOOR
Page 2
h. Accept a renewal grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the housing opportunities for persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Grant
Contract No. WAH080017.
4. AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS
a. Execute 2008 Program Year Affordable Housing Program Agreements with housing
organizations and amending the 2008 Program Year Action Plan Allocations using
Home Investment Partnerships Program Funds ($973,282).
b. Execute Contract No. 07CCF0594(4) with Mallon Place for the purpose of extending
the time period and funding for step -down housing through March 31, 2009.
c. Execute Contract No. 08MH0824(1) with Spokane Mental Health Coordinating
Association for the purpose of adding language regarding payment of expenses.
d. Execute a renewal agreement between Spokane County, the Spokane County
Sheriff's Office and Center Target Sports (January 1, 2009 — December 31, 2009).
e. Execute a 2009 — 2010 Government Affairs Consulting Agreement with MJB
Consulting, Inc.
f. Execute Renewal to an Administrative Service Contract between Spokane County
and Premera Blue Cross (effective October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2010) to
provide administrative services and access to its provider network for emergency
and necessary health care provided to Spokane County Jail inmates, Geiger
Corrections Facility inmates and Spokane County Juvenile Detention Center
detainees.
g. In the matter of Final Acceptance of Contract No. P5895 for the Marian Hay Force
Main Valve Improvements Project.
5. RECEIVE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND SET DECEMBER 16,
2008 TO CONSIDER SAME
a. Consider Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Recommendation for Timber Land
Current Use Assessment Application by Porter Family Trust (File No. TLN- 04 -08).
b. Consider Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Recommendation for Timber Land
Current Use Assessment Application by Mary Isar (File No. TLN- 05 -08).
c. Consider findings of Fact, Conclusion and Recommendation for Open Space Land
Current Use Assessment Application by West Terrace Golf, LLC (File No. TLN -05-
08).
X' ''
OPENINGS SCHE
Soj CoUpuy
NEWS Advisory
CONTACT: Martha Lou Wheatley - Billeter
Public Information and Communications Manager
(509) 477 -7195
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
County Terminates Road Maintenance Contract with Spokane Valley
SPOKANE, December 9, 2008 — Citing that the current contract was no longer
"mutually beneficial," the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) voted unanimously this
afternoon to discontinue the County's road maintenance agreement with the City of Spokane
Valley, effective October 15, 2009.
The BOCC was told by County Engineer Bob Brueggeman that since Spokane Valley
opted for a limited scope of services, the almost $1.8 million contract was no longer cost -
effective for the Engineering and Roads department. In 2005, Spokane Valley began a two -year
phase down from the previous "full contract" of road maintenance services with the County, and
selected specific services, such as: traffic signals, signing, highway striping and winter
maintenance.
The current contract provides that either party may terminate the agreement with 180 -
days notice. In their deliberations this afternoon, the BOCC set an end date of October 15, 2009,
providing additional time for a smooth transition to a new contractor for road maintenance
services. The BOCC also directed staff to initiate discussions with Spokane Valley for
continuing Traffic Signal maintenance after October 15, 2009.
For more information, contact Martha Lou Wheatley - Billeter, Public Information and
Communications Manager, Spokane County — (509)A77 -7195 or 263 -9385.
- # # #-
Return to: Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board
Board of County Commissioners
1116 W. Broadway
Spokane, Washington 99260
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE SERVICES
IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
(January 1, 2006 — December 3J, 2006) 01 ,... j2
TITIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between Spokane County, a
political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at
1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY'
and the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having
offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite
106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," jointly hereinafter
referred to as the "PARTIES." The COUNTY and CITY agree as follows.
SECTION NO. 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS
(a) The Board of County .Commissioners of Spokane County has the cart of County
property and the management of County funds and business under RCW 36.32.120(6).
(h) Counties and cities may contract with each other to perform certain functions which
each may legally perform under chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act).
(c) The City of Spokane Valley desires to utilize the services of Spokane County for
the purpose of providing road maintenance services on the public rights - of - way in the City.
SECTION NO. 2: DEFINITIONS
(a) Agreement: "Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement between the CITY
and COUNTY regarding road maintenance services.
(b) City: "CITY' means the City of Spokane Valley.
(c) County: "COUNTY" means Spokane County.
(d) Maintenance and Operations: "Maintenance and Operations" and "M &O" shall
mean (1) those class codes (3000 -5999 and 7000 -9999) used by Spokane County in its budgetary
Page 1 of 10
process as prescribed by the BARS manual adopted by the State of Washington under chapter
43.88 RCW so long as such expenditures are directly attributable and proportionate to services
rendered to CITY under the terms of this Agreement.
(e) Services: "Services" means those sen-ices identified in Exhibit A -1.
(f) Compensation: "Compensation" means that methodology set forth in Exhibit A
used to establish the amount of money which the CITY will pay the COUNTY for providing
Services.
(g) vital improvement: "Capital Improvement' shall mean the capitalization
threshold adopted by the County during the term of the Agreement. The County shall give the City
advance notice of any increase in the capitalization threshold. Any such expenditure will be coded
as provided for in the BARS - manual adopted by the State of Washington under RCW 43.88.
(h) Uncontrollable Circumstances: "Uncontrollable Circumstances" means the
following events: riots, wars, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism, external fires
and floods, volcanic eruptions, lightning or earthquakes at or near where the Services are
performed and/or that directly affect providing of such Services.
(1) Report: "Report" shall mean the Invoice Supporting Documentation set forth in
Exhibit A -7.
SECTION NO. 3: P URPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce to writing the PARTIES' understanding as to the terms
and conditions under which the COUNTY will provide Services on behalf of the CITY. It is the
intent of the PARTIES that Services to be provided by the COUNTY will be consistent with the
CITY'S Council/Manager form of government provided for in chapter 35A.13 RCW.
SECTION NO. 4: DURATION/WITHDRAWAL
This Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2006, and run through December 31, 2006, unless
one of the PARTIES provides notice as set forth in Section 7.
At the conclusion of the initial term, this Agreement shall automatically be renewed from year to
year thereafter effective January l u to December 31' All renewals shall be subject to all terms and
conditions set forth herein except for Exhibit A.
The PARTIES recognize it is highly unlikely that .Exhibit A, setting forth the new billing rates for
each year's Services, will be available at the start of any renewal time frame. Accordingly, until a
new Exhibit A has been prepared and agreed to between the PARTIES, the PARTIES agree that
the COUNTY will bill the CITY and the CITY will pay the COUN'T'Y at the same billing rates
paid in the previous year. Upon the PARTIES agreement on a new Exhibit A, the CITY and
COUNTY will reconcile payments to date under the previous years billing rates with the new
Page2of10
billing rates. Any underpayment for any Services will be due in the first payment due following
reconciliation. Any overpayment for any Services will be credited to the first monthly payment due
following the reconciliation. The PARTIES agree that no interest shall be owing by either Party to
the other Party for any overpayment or underpayment determined as a result of the reconciliation.
Any Party may withdraw at any time from this Agreement for any reason whatsoever upon a
minimum of 180 days written notice as provided for in Section 7 to the other Party.
SECTION NO. 5: COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENTS
The CITY shall pay the COUNTY the costs for Services provided under this Agreement as set
forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference:
The COUNTY CEO shall advise the CITY Manager as soon as possible of any anticipated or
unanticipated capital improvement costs that arise during the contract period. Any such capital
improvement costs shall be amortized over the useful life of the improvement, and the increased
cost in the Agreement resulting from the improvement shall be calculated by the PARTIES and
paid within 30 days of receipt of request by the CITY. Any capital improvement for which the
COUNTY seeks reimbursement from the CITY must be necessary to fulfill the requirements of
this Agreement.
The COUNTY will bill the CITY for the cost of Services monthly, by the 15 of the month for the
previous month. Payments by the CITY will be due by the 5 day of the following month. At the
sole option of the COUNTY, a penalty may be assessed on any late payment by the CITY based on
lost interest eamings had the payment been timely paid and invested in the Spokane County
Treasurer's Investment Pool. The CITY may dispute any monthly billing. Pending resolution of
any dispute, the PARTIES agree that the CITY shall pay timely that portion of the bill that is
undisputed. In the event the CITY disputes any monthly billing it shall include in conjunction with
the monthly payment a letter stating with specificity the basis for the dispute. The PARTIES agree
to meet within thirty (30) calendar days of the COUNTY's receipt of the documentation letter
stating the basis for the CITY disputing any monthly billing to resolve the matter. In the event the
PARTIES cannot mutually resolve the matter within the thirty (30) calendar day time frame, unless
otherwise agreed by the PARTIES, the matter shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution
provisions set forth in Section 17. The selection of arbitrators as provided for in Section 17 shall
commence within thirty (30) calendar days of the running of the thirty (30) calendar day time
frame.
Any resolution of a disputed amount through use of the arbitration process identified in Section 17
shall include, at the request of either Party, a determination of whether interest is appropriate,
including the amount.
SECTION NO. 6: RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
PROVIDING SERVICES
Page 3 of 10
The COUNTY or designees agree to attend staff meetings as requested by the CITY Manager.
The COUNTY or designees agree to meet upon request by the CITY Manager or his/her designee
to discuss any Service provided under the terms of this Agreement.
The ClrY agrees the COUNTY may use the COUNTY'S stationery in conjunction with providing
Services under the terms of this Agreement.
SECTION NO. 7: NOTICE
All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (1) the day such
notices or other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (ii) the third day
following the day on which the same have been mailed by first class delivery, postage prepaid
addressed to the COUNTY or the CITY at the address set forth below for such Party, or at such
other address as either Party shall from time -to -time designate by notice in writing to the other
Party:
COUNTY:
CITY:
Spokane County Chief Executive Officer
or his/her authorized representative
1116 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99260
City of Spokane Valley City Manager
or his/her authorized representative
Redwood Plaza
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
SECTION NO. 8: REPORTLNG
Reports — The COUNTY shall provide the CITY with reports documenting actual usage under this
Agreement at the same time each invoice requesting payment is made, unless otherwise mutually
agreed by the Parties. The Parties agree that the terminology "reports documenting usage" means
that type of information provided by the COUNTY to the CITY in the 2004 agreement for
Services. Such reports shall be in a format as mutually agreed to between the Parties. The content
and/or format for such reports may be changed from time -to -time by written agreement between
CITY and COUNTY staff.
Records Review — The CITY shall be allowed to conduct random reviews of the records generated
by the COUNTY in performance of this Agreement. The CITY will provide the COUNTY with
reasonable advance notice of the records reviews. The Parties agree that they will make best efforts
to achieve a resolution of any potential records confidentiality issues, including entering into
confidentiality agreements or other similar mechanisms that will allow disclosure of the necessary
information to accurately conduct a records review. If the CITY will be allowed to view only those
records directly relating to Services provided within CITY's corporate boundaries, then the
Page 4 or i0
COUNTY must keep a log of original documents used to charge the CITY, and those documents
must have identifying numbers or letters so the original source documents can be easily retrieved.
SECTION NO. 9: COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed
and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the
same.
SECTION NO. 10: ASSIGNMENT
No Party may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of
the other PARTY.
SECTION NO. 11: COuNTY EMPLOYEES
The COUNTY shall appoint, hire, assign, retain and discipline all employees performing Services
under this Agreement according to applicable collective bargaining agreements and applicable state
and federal laws.
The COUNTY agrees to meet and confer with the CITY with respect to staff that is assigned to
provide Services. Issues of discipline or performance will be specifically handled according to
COUNTY policies.
SECTION NO. 12: LIABILITY
(a) The COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless the CITY and its officers, agents, and
employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of
any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the
COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services
pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or
damages is brought against the CITY, the COUNTY shall defend the same at its sole cost and
expense; provided that the CITY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of
governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the
CITY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the CITY and the COUNTY and
their respective officers, agents, and employees, the COUNTY shall satisfy the same.
(b) The CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY and its officers, agents, and
employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of
any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the
CITY, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant
to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is
brought against the COUNTY, the CITY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense;
provided that the COUNTY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of
Page 5ofl0
governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the
COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the COUNTY and the CITY
and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the CITY shall satisfy the same.
(c) tithe comparative negligence of the Parties and their officers and employees is a cause of
such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the Parties in
proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such
proportion.
(d) Where an officer or employee of a Party is acting under the direction and control of the
other Party, the Party directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity and/or
omission giving rise to liability shall accept all liability for the other Party's officer or
employee's negligence.
(e) Each Party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the
Agreement.
(f) The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's
immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other
party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified Party with a full and
complete indemnity of claims made by the i employees. The PARTIES acknowledge
that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them.
(g) The COUNTY and the CITY agree to either self insure or purchase policies of insurance
covering the matters contained in this Agreement with coverages of not less than S5,000,000 per
occurrence with S5,000,000 aggregate limits including professional liability and auto liability
coverages.
SECTION NO. 13: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
The PARTIES intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this
Agreement. The COUNTY shall be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of
the CITY, that the CITY is interested only in the results to be achieved and that the right to control
the par manner, method and means in which the services are performed is solely within the
discretion of the COUNTY. Any and all employees who provide Services to the CITY under this
Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of the COUNTY. The COUNTY shall be solely
responsible for the conduct and actions of all employees under this Agreement and any liability that
may attach thereto. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant or representative of the CITY shall be
deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the COUNTY for any purpose.
SECTION NO. 14: MODIFICATION
This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES.
Page 6 of 10
SECTION N0,15: PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in conjunction with providing the Services
shall remain with the original owner, unless specifically and mutually agreed by the PARTIES to
this Agreement.
S9 CTION NO. 16: ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED REREIN/BINDING EFFECT
This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree
that there are no other understandings oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this,
Agreement. No changes or additions to this Agreement Shall be valid or binding upon the
PARTIES unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by the PARTIES.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto, their successors and assigns.
SECTION NO. 17: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any dispute between the PARTIES which cannot be resolved between the PARTIES shall be
subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be
reduced to writing and considered by the COUNTY CEO and the CITY Manager. If the COUNTY
CEO and the CITY Manager cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The
provisions of chapter 7.04 RCW shall be applicable to any arbitration proceeding.
The COUNTY and the CITY shall have the right to designate one person each to act as an
arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third arbitrator. The decision of
the arbitration panel shall be binding on the PARTIES and shall be subject to judicial review as
provided for in chapter 7.04 RCW.
The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the PARTIES..
SECTION N O. t 8: VENUE STIPULATION
They Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the
State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each party that this Agreement
shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington both as to interpretation and
performance, Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this
Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent _jurisdiction
within Spokane County, Washington.
SECTION NO. 19: SEVFRABI L1TY
The PARTIES agree that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts
to be illegal, the i:alidity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights
and obligations of. thy: PARTIES shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement.
Page 7 or 10
If it should appear that any part, term or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any
statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be
in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith
and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision.
SECTION NO. 20: RECORDS
All public records prepared, owned, used or retained by the COUNTY in conjunction with
providing Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed CITY property and shall be
made available to the CITY upon request by the CITY Manager subject to the attorney client and
attorney work product privileges set forth in statute, court rule or case law. The COUNTY will
notify the CITY of any public disclosure request under chapter 42.17 RCW for copies or viewing
of such records as well as the COUNTY'S response thereto,
SECTION NO. 2i: HEADINGS
The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of
convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to
define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain.
SECTION NO. 22: TIME OF ESSENCE OF AGREEMENT
Time is of the essence of this Agreement and in case either Party fails to perform the obligations
on its part to be performed at the time fixed for the performance of the respective obligation by
the terms of this Agreement, the other Party may, at its election, hold the other Party liable for all
costs and damages caused by such delay.
SECTION NO. 23: UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCESIIMPOSSIBILITY
A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting
from Uncontrollable Circumstances shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement.
A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting
from any change in or new law, order, rule or regulation of any nature which renders providing
of Services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement legally impossible, and any other
circumstances beyond the control of the COUNTY which render legally impossible the
performance by the COUNTY of its obligations under this Agreement, shall be deemed not a
default under this Agreement.
SECTION NO. 24: FILING
This Agreement shall be filed by the County with such offices or agencies as required by chapter
39.34 RCW.
Page 8 of 10
Page 9of10
SECTION NO. 25: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL
The PARTIES warrant that the officers executing below have been duly authorized to act for and
on behalf of the Party for purposes of confirming this Agreement.
SECTION NO. 26: INITIATIVES
The PARTIES recognize that revenue - reducing initiative(s) passed by the voters of Washington
may substantially reduce local operating revenue for the C1TY, COUNTY or both PARTIES. The
PARTIES agree that it is necessary to have flexibility to reduce the contracted amount(s) in this
Agreement in response to budget constraints resulting from the passage of revenue - reducing
initiative(s). If such an event occurs, the PARTIES agree to negotiate in good faith to achieve a
mutually agreeable resolution in a timely fashion.
SECTION NO. 27. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The Parties shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent •
that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement.
SECTION NO. 28: DISCLAIMER
Except as otherwise provided,' this" Agreement shall not be construed in any manner that would
limit either Party's authority or .powers under laws.
SECTION NO. 29: SUPERSEDE
This Agreement shall supersede and terminate that agreement between the Parties entitled
"INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTY AND CITY OF
SPOKANE VALLEY REGARDING PROVISION OF ROAD MAINTENANCE
SERVICES" executed by Spokane County on June 4, 2003, and executed by the CITY on May
27, 2003.
SECTION NO. 30: ASSURANCE
k The CITY shall pay the COUNTY the true and full cost of all Services provided under this
is Agreement. The intent of the Parties is tliat neither Party will subsidize the other and that the
CITY will not subsidize any other jurisdiction that is receiving similar services.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have caused this Agreement to be executed on
date and year opposite their respective signatures.
DATED: 3 7 &0o67 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY,,WASHCNiGTON
ATTEST:
CL� • F THE BO
A L -A—. ■ —1—.1
Daniela Erickson
DATED: 2y$/6 7
ATT.T
stine Bainbridge, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
Office c , the City A orney
Page 10 of 10
is
• Nit
A,
A
' ' S, Commissioner
CITY QE SPOKANE VALLEY
David Mercier, City Manager
ce- Chairman
Page 9 of 10
SECTION NO. 25: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL
The PARTIES warrant that the officers executing below have been duly authorized to act for and
on behalf of the Party for purposes of confirming this Agreement.
SECTION NO. 26: INITIATIVES
The PARTIES recognize that revenue- reducing initiative(s) passed by the voters of Washington
may substantially reduce local operating revenue for the CITY, COUNTY or both PARTIES. The
PARTIES agree that it is necessary to have flexibility to reduce the contracted amount(s) in this
Agreement in response to budget constraints resulting from the passage of revenue - reducing
initiative(s). If such an event occurs, the PARTIES agree to negotiate in good faith to achieve a
mutually agreeable resolution in a timely fashion.
SECTION NO. 27. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The Parties shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent
that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement.
SECTION NO. 28: DISCLAIMER
Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall not be construed in any manner that would
limit either Party's authority or powers under laws.
SECTION NO. 29: SUPERSEDE
This Agreement shall supersede and terminate that agreement between the Parties entitled
"INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTY AND CITY OF
SPOKANE VALLEY REGARDING PROVISION OF ROAD MAINTENANCE
SERVICES" executed by Spokane County on June 4, 2003, and executed by the CITY on May
27, 2003.
SECTION NO. 30: ASSURANCE
The CITY shall pay the COUNTY the true and full cost of all Services provided under this
Agreement. The intent of the Parties is that neither Party will subsidize the other and that the
CITY will not subsidize any other jurisdiction that is receiving similar services.
Exhibit A, Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT "A" '
1
•
STREET MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS
SECTION NO. 1: 2006 -2008 TRANSITION PLAN
The transition plan, as set forth in Exhibit A -2, outlines each activity by year that the City will
consider transitioning to other providers. The City may solicit completed bids and examine other
available resources to provide the specific activities outlined in the plan. The CITY, at its option,
may reduce activities each year as outlined in the plan. The CITY will give the COUNTY 30 days
written notice prior to the termination of any activity.
CITY, at its option, may reduce or increase services up to 10% of the amount of the annual
contract, as outlined in Exhibit A -2, with 60 days prior written notice to COUNTY.
SECTION NO. 2: COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENTS
In consideration for COUNTY providing services as set forth herein, CITY shall pay COUNTY
for actual costs (monthly bills will include costs by activity for direct labor for each employee,
supervision, employee benefits, equipment rental, materials and supplies, utilities, subcontracted
work and permits) after receipt of invoices and supporting documentation to include copies of
timecards, updated material costs and quantities, and summary reports for labor and equipment
charges as identified in Exhibit A -7, and overhead costs as described in Exhibit A -5. Standard
labor rates can be affected by overtime, extra holiday pay, shift differential, labor contracts, and
on -call rates. Labor and equipment rates are shown in Exhibit A -3 for 2006 and Exhibit A -4 for
2007 and will be reviewed and modified when required. COUNTY will notify CITY in writing
of any changes to or modifications of the labor and equipment rates.
Estimated costs for requested services in future years will be provided by the CITY as a part of
annual budget discussions.
CITY shall pay COUNTY for the full cost (including salary, benefits, supplies, materials,
equipment, and administrative overhead costs) of providing CITY with rapid response staff in
responding to emergencies as outlined in Section 3B of this Exhibit.
SECTION NO. 3: SERVICES PROVIDED
A. County Responsibilities - Services
COUNTY will provide street and traffic maintenance services as identified in Exhibit A -I . The
CITY will direct these services within the limits of COUNTY'S operational workforce and
equipment.
Actual levels of service provided by COUNTY will be those adopted by CITY and COUNTY in
annual budget processes. COUNTY is a contractor for CITY and will provide services
requested by CITY so long as such services are within COUNTY'S ability to provide.
Actual services provided by COUNTY shall be of the type, nature and magnitude subsequently
negotiated between CITY and COUNTY during the PARTIES' annual budget and planning
processes. After adoption of budget and plan, within the constraints of the base level services
program described, CITY may request adjustments to individual tasks in order to meet specific
needs. COUNTY shall consider all such requests and, whenever practicable, alter the work
program as necessary. COUNTY is a contractor of services only and does not purport to
represent CITY professionally other than in providing the services requested by CITY.
B. COUNTY and CITY Coordination
COUNTY will identify specific liaisons for street, traffic, and stormwater maintenance services
to handle day -to -day operational activities related to basic and discretionary services. CITY will
identify a liaison for the same purposes. The liaisons will meet regularly with the CITY to
review scheduled daily work activities, future planned work activities, completed work activities
and the overall performance of this Agreement.
The COUNTY will provide daily, bi- weekly and 90 day schedules to the CITY. Daily schedules
will show the activity, specific work locations and the number of crew for each activity.
Schedules will be provided prior to the dates of the scheduled work. Schedules may change due
to weather, available personnel, equipment, materials, and other workload factors. COUNTY
will notify CITY of any schedule changes as soon as the changes are known by COUNTY.
Emergency work, including 911 calls, will be referred directly to COUNTY personnel.
COUNTY will maintain an emergency contact list with the CITY and 911 dispatch centers.
Emergency work to protect public safety and/or property will be handled as COUNTY and/or
CITY liaisons deems necessary. Emergency work may include, but is not limited to, snow and
ice control, slide and/or debris removal, flooding, repair of flood damage to roads and road
rights -of -way, repair of traffic signal malfunctions, or replacement of downed stop signs. CITY
liaison will be informed of the incident as soon as practicable.
Non- emergency citizen requests, during regular CITY operating hours, will be referred to CITY.
CITY will be responsible for prioritizing requests and arranging with COUNTY for work to be
done.
C. CITY Responsibilities
In conjunction with COUNTY providing the services described in Subsections A and B of this
Section, CITY, in executing this Agreement, does:
(1) Confer on COUNTY the authority to perform the street and traffic maintenance services
within CITY limits for the purposes of carrying out this Agreement.
Exhibit A, Page 2 of 3
(2) Agree that when COUNTY provides engineering and administrative services for CITY,
County Engineer may exercise all the powers and perform all the duties vested by law or by
resolution in the City Engineer or other officer or department of' the City charged with street
administration.
(3) Adopt by reference all ordinances, resolutions and codes necessary to provide authority for
COUNTY to perform the services under this Agreement.
Attachment List:
A- l Services
A -2 Multi Year BudgetlTransition Plan
A -3 2006 Employee and Equipment Rates
A-4 2007 Employee and Equipment Rates
A -5 Overhead Cost Definition
A -6 Winter Operations Detail
A -7 Invoice Supporting Documentation
Exhibit A, Page 3 of 3
EXUIBIT A -1
SERVICES
Spokane County will provide street and traffic maintenance services within CITY limits of
Spokane Valley at the levels described in Section 1 of the Agreement, as follows (actual levels
of service provided by COUNTY will be those adopted by CITY and COUNTY in annual
budget processes).Traffic and street maintenance service levels as set by CITY shall reflect City
policies and may or may not be similar to County policies. CITY shall be solely responsible for
setting service level policies for all roadway features. COUNTY is merely a contractor for
purposes of implementation of City policy.
1. Street Maintenance - The following are examples of street maintenance services
provided by COUNTY. Actual services will be in the magnitude, nature and manner
requested by CITY.
1.1 Traveled Way/Roadway Surface: Patching, crack sealing, prelevel, pavement
replacement, grading, gravelling, sweeping and flushing.
1.2 Sboulders: Restoration and repair.
1.3 Drainage: Cleaning debris from drainage pipes, catch basins, drywells, culverts,
ditches, gutters, and curb and gutter inlets. Repairing damage to existing drainage
facilities such as drainage pipes, catch basins, drywells, culverts, ditches, gutters
and curb and gutter inlets.
1.4 Winter Maintenance: Sanding, liquid de- icing, snow removal and chasing water
from roadway surfaces. The County will provide minimum level of service as
outlined in Exhibit 5 for snow removal priorities, crew configurations,
equipment, and estimates of duration.
1.5 Roadside: Cutting or trimming bushes or limbs blocking visibility.
2. Traffic Maintenance - The following arc examples of traffic maintenance services
provided by COUNTY. Actual services will be in the magnitude, nature and manner
requested by CITY.
2.1 Sign Maintenance: Replacing fadcd sign faces and broken posts, straightening
leaning posts, relocating signs for visibility or pedestrian safety, maintenance of
vandalized signs or signs damaged by vehicle accidents, inspection of signs to
check for visibility or pedestrian safety, maintenance of vandalized signs or signs
to check for reflectivity, removal of signs when appropriate.
2.2 Crosswalk Marking: Refurbishing, installing new, and removal when appropriate.
Exhibit A -1, Page 1 of 2
2.3 Stop Bars Marking: Refurbishing, installing new and removal when appropriate.
2.4 Arrows /Legends Marking: Refurbishing, installing new and removing when
appropriate.
2.5 Curb Painting: Maintenance of curbing and islands.
2.6 Striping: Painting linear road stripes on pavement, such as centerlines, edge lines,
radius and channelization, and removal of line, stripes or symbols from the
pavement.
2.7 Repair and replacement of street light heads, poles, wiring or bulbs in existing
street lights which are incorporated within traffic signal systems.
2.8 Utility Locating: Locating underground traffic facilities for utilities or other
digging operations.
2.9. Signal Maintenance: Replacing and cleaning light systems for signal and flasher
displays and signs, installation and repair of vehicle detector loops, checking and
adjusting signal timing, examining traffic signal operation to assure it is operating
as intended, inspecting hardware for wear or deficiencies, testing and repairing of
electronic control devices and components, repair or replacement of signal and
flasher displays, supports or wiring external to controller cabinet, modification of
controller cabinets, testing of new and modified cabinets and control devices,
traffic counter testing and repair and preventative maintenance.
2.10 Flasher /Crosswalk Preventative Maintenance: Examining to assure equipment is
operating as intended and inspecting hardware for wear or deficiencies and
repairing components as required.
Exhibit A -1, Page 2 of 2
CODE 1 ACTIVITY
DESCRIPTION
2005 CONTRACT 2006 l 2006 CITY /COUNTY 1 2008 CITY/PRIVATE
AMOUNT ACTIVITY CONTRACT AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT
•
Road Maintenance Activities
2312 Dust Control Prep 58,300.00 City
58,798.00
2320 Shoulder Repair 527,000.00 City
528,620.00
2322 Shoulder Maintenance
Grader 538,600.00 City
541,1 28.00
2330
Gravel/Dirt Road Grading 515.300.00 ` City
516,218.00
2340 Pothole Patching°
5158,100.00 City/County
5167,586.00
50.00
2340W Winter Pothole Patch
S20,400.00 County
521,624.00
2342 Chip Sealing
2343 Pavement Removal &
Replace'
5285,600.00 City/Count
5423,397.92
50.00
2344 Crack Sealing
5122,400.00 County
5129,744.00
2345 Chip Sealing Prep 8
Cleanup
2346 Blade Patch Hot
50.00
5113,832.00 City
Transfer to PR&R
2348 Fog Seal
2351 Gravel/Dirt Road Temp
51,000.00 City
51,060.00
2413 Light Ditch Cleaning
51,000.00 City
51,500.00 County
$10,200.00 County
51,590.00
510,812.00
51,060.00
S0.00
50.00
2511 Bridge Inspection
2512 Bridge Repair -
Superstructure
2513 Bridge Repair-
Substructure
55,100.00 County
55,406.00
50.00
2610 Sidewalk
51,500.00 City
51,590.00
2611 Curbs
51.000.00 1 City
_
51,060.00
2620 Paths
5500.00 ; City
S530.00
2645 Guardrail Maintenance
512,200.00 City
512,932.00
52,600.00 City
52,756.00
55,406.00
2646 R1W Fencing
2647 Median Maintenanco
$5,100.00
2661 Liquid ()Dicing
5153,000.00 ` County
5162,18
2862 Sanding
5234,600.00 ` County
5248.676.00
2663
Snow Removal - Roadway
$224,400.00 County
5237,864.00
2664 Snow Removal -
Sidewalks
55,100.00 Coun
55,406.00
2670 Street Cleaning°
5382.500.00 City /County
5105.450.00
5300,000.00 !.
2671 Winter Sweeping
551,000.00 County
554,060.00
2673 Sweepings Clean -up
$4,100.00 Coun
$4,346.00
2711 Roadside Mowing
510,200.00 ; City
510,812.00
2712 Brush Clearingfl: ree
Trimming
535.700.00 County •
537,842.00
520,400.00. City
521.624.00
2713 Weed Control -Res
2713A Weed Control -Res (no
spray)
55,100.00 ' City
55,406.00
Exhibit A -2
Multi -year Budget and Transition Plan
2714
Weed Control -Gen 1
530,600.00 V
City
532.436.00
2714A
Weed Control -Gen (no
spray)
55,100.00
City
55,406.00
2720lrrigation
57,100.00
City
57,526.00
2750
Utter Pickup
54,100.00
City
54,346.00
2750D
Litter Pickup Deer
52,000.00
City
52,120.00
2753
Utter Control
51,000.00
City
51,060.00 ,
2760
Contour Control
51,000.00
City
51,060.00
2762
Contour Control -RIW
53,100.00
City
53,286.00
9751
Investigation
510,565.00
County
510,190.00
Emergency Callout
County
525,000.00
Subtotal Road
Maintenance
52,022,097.00 I
51,651,173.92
$516,240.00
Valley Stormwater
Management
r 9710
Drywell Repair
523,510.00 ,
County
524,920.60 -
9720
0rywell Cleanout
592,554.00
Ci
598.107.24
9730
Culvert Repair
57,589.00
County
58,044.34
9740
Culvert Cleanout
54,613.00
County
54,889.78
9742
Swalo Maintenance
54,613.00
County
54,889.78
9747
Repair
510,565.00
City
511,198.80
9750
Chasing Water
54,613.00
County
54,889.78
Stormwater
Maintenance Total
5148,057.00
$47,634.28 $109,306.14
Traffic Maintenance
tivltles
■
2641
TMS, Sign Maintenance
$69,400.00
County
$73,564.00
2842
TMS. Signal Maintenance
5224,400.00
County
5237,864.00
591,372.00
2643
TMS, Striping
586200.00
County
2644
TMS, Crosswalks &
Mesgs
$32,600.00
County
534,556.00
2649
Signing
51,500.00
County
$1,590.00
2653
Striping -Prep & Cleanup
5500.00
County
$530.00
2654
Legend Truck- Prep &
Cleanup
County
2843
Road Maintenance
Striping
County
2844
Road Maintenanco
Legends
•
County
4201
Sign Vandalism
_ County
4202
Accident Repair - Signs
County
4203
Accident Repair - Signals
County
Traffic Maintenance
Total
d
5414,600.00
5439,476.00
s
Summary of Road and
Traffic Matntananco
Road Maintenance Tasks
$2,022,097.00
$1,651,173.92
5516.240.00
Stormwater Maintenance
Tasks
5148,057.00
$47,634.28
5109.306.14
Traffic Maintenance Tasks
5414,600.00
$439,476.00
Management Overhead
@I 19%
5477.033.00
5406,274.00
Administrative Overhead
(k) 5%
$125.535.00
$108,914.21
Contingency
City
Maintenance/Inspectors"
_
_ 5150.131.07
SUBTOTALS
$2,651,472.41 5775,677.21
-
TOTAL CITY BUDGET
53,187,322.00 53,427,149.62 4
•Subtact to negotiation depending on City's
ability to administer and manage private contracts
Road Maintenance ACUVr
2312
2320 Shoulder
Dust Control Prep
City
59,325.88
City
59,885.43
Repair
City
530,337.20
City
532,157.43
2322
Shoulder Maintenance
Grader
City
543,595.68
City
$46,211.42
2330
Gravel/Din Road Grading
City
517,191.08
City
$18,222.54
2340
Pothole Patching°
City
$177,641.16
City
$188,299.63
2340W
Winter Pothole Patch
County
522,921.44
County
$24,296.73
2342
Chip Sealing
2343
Pavement Removal 8
Replace*
City
°
5448,801.80
City
5475,729.90
2344
2345
Crack Sealing
County
5137.528.64
•
County
5145,780.36
Chip Sealing Prep 8
Cleanup
2346
Blade Patch Hot
City
City
2348
Fog Seal
!
.
2351
GraveUDirt Road Temp
City
51,123.60
City
51,191.02
2413
Light Ditch Cleaning
City 1
51.123.60
City
51,191.02
Bridge Inspection
City
51,685.40
511,460.72
City
City
51.766.52
512,148.36
2511
2512
Bridge Repair-
Superstructure
City
2513
---.
Bridge Repair-
Substructure
City
55,730.36
City
56,074.16
Sidewalk
City
51,685.40
City
S1,786.52
2610
2611
Curbs
City
$1,123.60
City
51.191.02
2620
Paths
City
5561.80
City
5595.51
2645
Guardrail Maintenance
City
S13,707.92
City
S14.530.40
2646
RIW Fencing
City
52,921.36
Ci
53,096.64
2647
Median Maintenance
City
_
55,730.36
City
S6.074.18
2661
Liquid Deicing
County
5171,910.80
County
5182,225.45
2662
Sanding
County
5263,596.56
County
$279,412.35
2663
Snow Removal- Roadway
County
5252,135.84
County
5267,263.99
2864
Snow Removal -
Sidowalks
County
55.730.36
County
56.074.18
2670
26
Street Cleaning'
City
5411,777.00
City
City
5436,483.62
560,741.82
Winter Sweeping
City
$57.303.60
2673
Sweepings Clean-up
City
54.606.76
City
s4,ss3.17
2711
Roadside Mowing
City
511,460.72
City
512.148.36
7.712
2713
Brush Clearing/Tree
Trimming
County
�^
$40,112.52
County
542,519.27
Weed Control -Res
C
$22,921_44
55,730.36
City
City
524,296.73
56,074.18
2713A
Weed Control -Res (no
sPray)
City
CODE I ACTIVITY
i f DESCRIPTION
2007
ACTIVITY
2007
CITY /COUNTY
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
2007
CITY /PRIVATE
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
2008
ACTIVITY
2008
CITYICOUNTY
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
2008
CiTY /PRIVATE
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
Exhibit A -2
Multi -year Budget and Transition Plan
2714
Weed Control -Gen
City
$34,382.16
City
536,445.09
2714A
Weed Control -Gen (no
spray)
City
$5,730.36
City
56,074.18
2720
Irrigation
City
57,977.56
City
58.456.21
2750
Utter Pickup
Ci
City
54.606.76
City
City
54,883.17
$2,382.03
27500
Litter Pickup Deer
52,247.20
2753
Litter Control
City
City
51,123.60
$1,123.60
City
City
51,191.02
51,191.02
2760
Contour Control
2762
Contour Control -RAN
C'
53,483.16
City
53,692.15
9751
Investigation
County
510,801.40
County
511,449.48
Emergency Ca®out
County
526,500.00
County
$28,090.00
Subtotal Road
Maintenance
5931,237.56
51,348.221.20
5987,111.81
51,429,114.47
Valley Stormwater
Management
9710
Drywall Repair
County
City
526,415.84
5103,993.67
City
City
528,000.79
5110233.29
9720
Drywe1I Cleanoul
9730
Culvert Repair
County
58,527.00
City
59,038.62
9740
Culvert Cleanout
County
55,1 83.17
City
55,494.16
9742
Swale Maintenance
County
55,183.17
City
55,286.83
9747
Repair
City
511,422.88
City
$11.651.34
9750
Chasing Water
County
55,183.17
County
55,494.16
Stormwater
Maintenance Total
560,492.34
5115,416.55
55,494.16
5169,705.02
"Traffic
Maintenance
Activities
2641
TMS, Sign Maintenance
County
577,977.84
County
County
582,656.51
5267.263.99
2642
TMS, Signal P.1aintenance
County
5252,135.84
2643
TMS, Striping
County
596,854.32
County
5102,665.58
2644
TMS, Crosswalks &
Mesgs
County
536,629.36
County
538,827.12
2849
Signing
County
51,685.40
County
51,786.52
2653
Striping -Prep & Cleanup
County
5561.80
County
5595.51
2654
Legend Truck- Prep &
Cleanup
County
County
2843
Road Maintenance
Striping
County
County
2844
Road Maintenance
Legends
County
County
4201
Sign Vandalism
County
County
4202
Accident Repair - Signs
County
County
j
4203
Accident Repair - Signals
County
County
Traffic Maintenance
Total
5465,844.58
5493,795.23
_
Summary of Road and
Traffic Maintenance
Road Maintenance Tasks
Stormwater Maintenance
Tasks
Traffic Maintenance Tasks
Management Overhead
19%
Administrative Overhead
®5%
Contingency
City
Maintenanosllnspectors
SUBTOTALS
TOTAL CITY BUDGET
$931.237.56
$50,492.34
s
$465,844.56
5275,039.15
572.378.72
$1,794,992.33
51,348.221.20
5115,416.55
51,814,910.81
5987,111.81
55,494.16
5493,795.23
5282.416.23
574,320.06
5192,134.12
$159,138.94
51,843,137.49
51,429,114.47
$159,705.02
5215,029.40
5168.687.27
51,982,536.17
■
53,609,903.13 53,825,673.66
'Subject to negotiation depending of
ability to administer and manage pri
EXHIBIT A.3
SPOKANE COUNTY
ROAD MAINTENANCE
2006 Standard Labor and Equipment Rates
MAINTENANCE WORKERS
TITLE 1 CLASS
Road Maint. Specialist 1
2251
X-tra Help (5 month position) 1 2231X
Seasonal Help (9 month positon) 1 2251S
Road Maint. Specialist II
2261
Road Maint. Specialist 111
2271
Road Maint. Specialist IV
2281
MONTHLY
RATE (a)
1.848
$ 3.064
$ 4.546
$ 4,865
$ 5,078
$ 5.301
HOURLY
RATE
$
12.00
19.24
28.06
29.96
$ 31.22
$ 32.55
EVENING
RATE (b)
nla
$
25.23
31.38
33.51
n/a
28.66
30.56
$ 31.82
e
$ 33.15
1.5 X
RATE (c)
$ 17.61
$
34.93
$ 36.43
2.5 X
RATE (d)
$ 28.68
$
$
$
41.38
51.64
55.19
57.55
$ 60.04
EQUIPMENT CH
TYPE
Dump Truck
Water Truck
Oil Distributor
Motor Grader
Backhoo
Asphalt Paver
Wheel Loader
Sweeper
Broom
Sander
Roller
Truck & Plow
Truck & Pup
Vector
(a) The "Monthly Rate" is the loaded labor rate per month for the class of employee at a top step placemen t nclu d r ng be nefits anq Lv� u v��s��.
(b) The "Evening Rate" is the hourly labor charge for those workers assigned to evening shifts (swing & graveyard).
(c) The 1.5 X race is the overtime loaded labor charge per hour worked over normal working hours.
(d) The 2.5 X rate is the overtime labor charge per hour worked for working recognized holidays.
(e) Supervisors and Foremen are paid Straight Overtime (SOT) not the 1.5 X rate of the maintenance workers.
(f) The straight overtime rate is also applied to recognized holiday pay resulting in 2 X not 2.5 X allowed for maintenance workers.
Note 1: Call -out after normal working hours is charged a minimum 4 hours straight time. or at the 1.5x overtime rate for Maintenance Workers only.
Note 2: All rates arc based on the most currant labor contract available.
Note 3: Spokane County reserves the right to utilize any qualified worker for tho City of Spokane Valley contracted work.
ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
MONTHLY
RATE (a)
HOURLY
RATE
EVENING
RATE (b)
O
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISION
MONTHLY
HOURLY
RATE
EVENING
RATE (b)
SOT
RATE (0)
2 X
RATE (f)
TITLE
CLASS
1 RATE (a)
Road Maint. Foreman{
2208
5 6,430
S 39.27
nla
$ 29.65
S 58.29
Road MainL /Utility Inspector
2208
$ 6,430 1
$ 39.27
n/a
$ 29.65
$ 58.29
Road Maint, Supervisor II
2210
$ 7,469
S 45.46
nla
' $ 34.28 y
$ 67.55
Road Maint. Superintendent
2222
$ 7,852
$ 47.74
nla
1 S 35.98
nla
EXHIBIT A.3
SPOKANE COUNTY
ROAD MAINTENANCE
2006 Standard Labor and Equipment Rates
MAINTENANCE WORKERS
TITLE 1 CLASS
Road Maint. Specialist 1
2251
X-tra Help (5 month position) 1 2231X
Seasonal Help (9 month positon) 1 2251S
Road Maint. Specialist II
2261
Road Maint. Specialist 111
2271
Road Maint. Specialist IV
2281
MONTHLY
RATE (a)
1.848
$ 3.064
$ 4.546
$ 4,865
$ 5,078
$ 5.301
HOURLY
RATE
$
12.00
19.24
28.06
29.96
$ 31.22
$ 32.55
EVENING
RATE (b)
nla
$
25.23
31.38
33.51
n/a
28.66
30.56
$ 31.82
e
$ 33.15
1.5 X
RATE (c)
$ 17.61
$
34.93
$ 36.43
2.5 X
RATE (d)
$ 28.68
$
$
$
41.38
51.64
55.19
57.55
$ 60.04
EQUIPMENT CH
TYPE
Dump Truck
Water Truck
Oil Distributor
Motor Grader
Backhoo
Asphalt Paver
Wheel Loader
Sweeper
Broom
Sander
Roller
Truck & Plow
Truck & Pup
Vector
(a) The "Monthly Rate" is the loaded labor rate per month for the class of employee at a top step placemen t nclu d r ng be nefits anq Lv� u v��s��.
(b) The "Evening Rate" is the hourly labor charge for those workers assigned to evening shifts (swing & graveyard).
(c) The 1.5 X race is the overtime loaded labor charge per hour worked over normal working hours.
(d) The 2.5 X rate is the overtime labor charge per hour worked for working recognized holidays.
(e) Supervisors and Foremen are paid Straight Overtime (SOT) not the 1.5 X rate of the maintenance workers.
(f) The straight overtime rate is also applied to recognized holiday pay resulting in 2 X not 2.5 X allowed for maintenance workers.
Note 1: Call -out after normal working hours is charged a minimum 4 hours straight time. or at the 1.5x overtime rate for Maintenance Workers only.
Note 2: All rates arc based on the most currant labor contract available.
Note 3: Spokane County reserves the right to utilize any qualified worker for tho City of Spokane Valley contracted work.
ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
MONTHLY
RATE (a)
HOURLY
RATE
EVENING
RATE (b)
O
SOT
RATE (e)
2 X
RATE (1)
Ti T1_E
CLASS
Training Foreman
2211
2219
$ 6,759
$ 6,759
$ 41.23
$ 41.23
n/a
n/a
$ 31.11
$ 31.11
Ma
n!a
Material Resource Manager
Envlromontal & Spec. Pro]. Mgr.
p.
2128
$ 7,852
5 47.74
n/a
_ 5 35.98
n!a
0 • orations Manager
2309
$ 6,930
S 42.25
n!a
S 31.88
n/a
Administrative Specialist II
1012
$ 4.248
$ 26.29
No
5 29.39
•
nla
EXHIBIT A.3
SPOKANE COUNTY
ROAD MAINTENANCE
2006 Standard Labor and Equipment Rates
MAINTENANCE WORKERS
TITLE 1 CLASS
Road Maint. Specialist 1
2251
X-tra Help (5 month position) 1 2231X
Seasonal Help (9 month positon) 1 2251S
Road Maint. Specialist II
2261
Road Maint. Specialist 111
2271
Road Maint. Specialist IV
2281
MONTHLY
RATE (a)
1.848
$ 3.064
$ 4.546
$ 4,865
$ 5,078
$ 5.301
HOURLY
RATE
$
12.00
19.24
28.06
29.96
$ 31.22
$ 32.55
EVENING
RATE (b)
nla
$
25.23
31.38
33.51
n/a
28.66
30.56
$ 31.82
e
$ 33.15
1.5 X
RATE (c)
$ 17.61
$
34.93
$ 36.43
2.5 X
RATE (d)
$ 28.68
$
$
$
41.38
51.64
55.19
57.55
$ 60.04
EQUIPMENT CH
TYPE
Dump Truck
Water Truck
Oil Distributor
Motor Grader
Backhoo
Asphalt Paver
Wheel Loader
Sweeper
Broom
Sander
Roller
Truck & Plow
Truck & Pup
Vector
(a) The "Monthly Rate" is the loaded labor rate per month for the class of employee at a top step placemen t nclu d r ng be nefits anq Lv� u v��s��.
(b) The "Evening Rate" is the hourly labor charge for those workers assigned to evening shifts (swing & graveyard).
(c) The 1.5 X race is the overtime loaded labor charge per hour worked over normal working hours.
(d) The 2.5 X rate is the overtime labor charge per hour worked for working recognized holidays.
(e) Supervisors and Foremen are paid Straight Overtime (SOT) not the 1.5 X rate of the maintenance workers.
(f) The straight overtime rate is also applied to recognized holiday pay resulting in 2 X not 2.5 X allowed for maintenance workers.
Note 1: Call -out after normal working hours is charged a minimum 4 hours straight time. or at the 1.5x overtime rate for Maintenance Workers only.
Note 2: All rates arc based on the most currant labor contract available.
Note 3: Spokane County reserves the right to utilize any qualified worker for tho City of Spokane Valley contracted work.
MAINTENANCE WORKERS MONTHLY
HOURLY
RATE
,
EVENING
RATE (b)
1.5 X
RATE (c)
2.5 X
RATE (d) 4
TITLE
CLASS RATE (a)
X -tra Help (5 month position)
2231X S 1.848
S. 12.00
nla
$ 17.61
5 28.68
Traffic Signal Technician 2
2311 S 6,026
$ 36.87
nla
$ 41.27
S 68.12
Traffic Signal Technician 3
2312 6,659
$ 40.64
nla
$ 45.50
S 75.17
Chief Traffic Signal Technician
=
2313 S 7,177
$ 43.72
We
$ 48.96
S 80.93
Traffic Sign Technician 1
2242 S 4,466
S 27.58
n/a
$ 30.84
S 50.74
Traffic Sign Technician 2
2265 5 5.050
$ 31.12
_ nla
$ 34.81
$ 57.35
Traffic Sign Technician 3
2274 $ 5,453
$ 33.46
n/a
$ 37.44
$ 61.74
Traffic Sign Technician 4
2287 $ 5.877
$ 35.98
n/a
$ 40.28
$ 66.46
Chief Traffic Signal Technician
_ 2283 $ 7.000
$ 42.67
n/a
$ 47.78
$ 76.96
ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
MONTHLY
RATE (a)
HOURLY
RATE
EVENING
RATE (b)
SOT
RATE (e)
2 X
RATE (f)
TITLE
CLASS
Englnoor 3
2335
$ 8,254
$ 50.13
n!a
$ 34.22
nla
EXHIBIT A -3
SPOKANE COUNTY
SIGN 8. SIGNAL MAINTENANCE
2006 Standard Labor and Equipment Rates
EQUIPMENT C1
TYPE
1.5 Ton Truck
Bucket Truck
Class 4 Truck
Heavy Uso True
112 Ton Truck
Com . act 4x4
Mini Van
Midsize Sedan
Striper Truck
(a) Tho "Monthly Rate" is the loaded tabor rate per month for the class of employee at a top step placement, including benefits and L&I expenses.
(b) The "Evening Rate" is the hourly labor charge for those workers assigned to evening shifts (swing 8 graveyard).
(c) The 1.5 X rate is the overtime labor charge per hour worked over normal working hours.
(d) The 2.5 X rate is the overtime labor charge per hour worked for working recognized holidays.
(o) Supervisors and Foremen are paid Straight Overtime (SOT) not the 1.5 X rate of the maintenance vmrkers.
(f) The straight overtime rale is also applied to recognized holiday pay resulting in 2 X not 2.5 X allowed for maintenance workers.
Note 1: Call -out after normal working hours is charged a minimum 4 hours straight time. or at the 1.5x overtime rate for Maintenance Workers only.
Note 2: All rates are based on the most current labor oontroct available.
Note 3: Spokane County reserves the right to utilize Any qualified worker for the City of Spokane Valley contracted work.
MAINTENANCE WORKERS
MONTHLY
RATE (a)
HOURLY
RATE
EVENING
RATE (b)
1.5 X
RATE (c)
2.5 X
RATE (d)
EQUIPMENT CI
TITLE
CLASS
TYPE
X -tra Help (5 month position)
2231X
$ 1,848
S 12.00
nla
$ 17.81
5 28.68
Dump Truck
Seasonal Help (9 month positon)
2251S
$ 3,459
$ 21.59
n/a
$ 25.32
S 46.59
Water Truck
Road Maint. Specialist I
2251
$ 4,637
$ 28.60
$ 29.20
$ 31.99
$ 52,65
Oil Distributor
Road Malnt. Specialist II
2261
$ 4.962
S 30.54
b 31.14
$ 34.18
5 56.27
Motor Grader
Road Maint. Specialist III
2271
$ 5,179
$ 31.83
$ 32.43
$ 35.61
$ 58.69
Backhoo
Road Maint. Specialist IV
_
2281
$ 5,407
$ 33.18
5 33.78
$ 37.13
$ 61.22
Asphalt Paver
•
Wheel Loader
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISION
MONTHLY
RATE (a)
HOURLY
RATE
EVENING '
RATE (b)
SOT
RATE (e)
2 X
RATE (f)
Sweeper
TITLE
CLASS
Broom
Road Maint. Foreman 1
2208
$ 8,559
S 40.04
nla
$ 30.22
$ 59.44
Sander
Road Maint.lUtility inspector
2208
$ 6,559
$ 40.04
n/a
$ 30.22
$ 59,44
Roller
Road Maint. Supervisor 11
2210
$ 7,610
5 46.35
n/a
$ 34.94
$ 68.88
Truck & Plow
Road Maint. Superintendent
2222
_ $ 8,007
, 5 48.66
_ nla
_ $ 36.68
_ n/a
Truck & Pup
Vector
ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
MONTHLY HOURLY EVENING
RATE (a) RATE RATE (b)
SOT
RATE (o)
2 X
RATE (f)
TITLE
CLASS
Training Foreman
2211
$ 8,894 $ 42.04 n/a
$ 31.72
n/a
Material Resource Manager
,
2219
$ 8,894 5 42,04 Ma
$ 31.72
n/0
Enviromental & Spec. Pro). Mgr.
2128
$ 8,009 ' S 48.67 n/a
$ 36.68
nla
Operations Manager
2309
$ 7,089 $ 43.08 nla
$ 32.49
n/a
Administrative Specialist II
1012
_ $ 4,333 S 26.79 nla
_ $ 29.96
nla
EXHIBIT A-4
SPOKANE COUNTY
ROAD MAINTENANCE
2007 Standard Labor and Equipment Rates
(a) The "Monthly Rate' is the traded labor rate per month for the dass of employee at art average step placement, including benefits and L&I expert!
(b) The "Evening Rate" is the hourly labor charge for those workers assigned to evening shifts (swing & graveyard).
(c) The 1.5 X rate is the overtime loaded labor charge per hour worked over normal working hours.
(d) The 2.5 X rate is the overtime labor charge per hour worked for working recognized holidays.
(e) Supervisors and Foremen are paid Straight Overtime (SOT) not the 1,5 X rate of the maintenance workers.
(f) The straight overtime rate is also applied to recognized holiday pay resulting in 2 X not 2.5 X allowed for maintenance workers.
Note 1: Call -out after normal working hours is charged a minimum 4 hours straight time, or al the 1.5x overtime rate for Maintenance Workers only.
Note 2: Ail rates are based on the most current Tabor contract.
Note 3: Spokane County reserves the right to utilize any qualified worker for the City of Spokane Valley contracted work.
MAINTENANCE WORKERS
MONTHLY
RATE (a)
HOURLY
RATE _
EVENING
RATE (b)
1.5 X
RATE (c)
2.5 X
RATE (d)
EQUIPMENT C
TITLE
CLASS
TYPE
X -tra Help (5 month position)
2231X
$ 1.848
$ 12.00
n/a
$ 17.61
$ 28.68
1.5 Ton Truck
Traffic Signal Technician 2
2311
$ 6,146
$ 37.59
n/a
$ 42.08
S 69.45
Bucket Truck
Traffic Signal Technician 3
2312
5 6.792
$ 41.43
nla
$ 48.39
$ 76.65
Class 4 Truck
Chlof Traffic Signal Technician
2313
$ 7.320 _
$ 44.57
i
n/a
$ 49.92
$ 82.53
Heavy Use Tru
Traffic Sign Technician 1
2242
5 4.555
$ 28.11
n/a
$ 31.44
5 51.73
112 Ton Truck
Traffic Sign Technician 2
2285
S 5,161
$ 31.72
nla
$ 35.49
S 58.48
Compact 4x4
Traffic Sign Technician 3
2 274
5 5,582
$ 34.11
n/a
i
$ 38.17
$ 62.95
Mini Van
Traffic Sign Technician 4
2287
$ 5,995
S 36.68
n/a
5 41.05
$ 67.77
Midsize Sedan
Chief Traffic Signal Technician
_ 2283 _,
$ 7.140
- S 43.50
n/a
5 48.71
_ S 80.52
Striper Truck
EXHIBIT A-4
SPOKANE COUNTY
SIGN & SIGNAL MAINTENANCE
2007 Standard Labor and Equipment Rates
ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
TITLE
Engineer 3
CLASS
2335
MONTHLY
RATE (a)
5 8,419
HOURLY
RATE
$ 51.11
EVENING
RATE (b)
Wei
SOT
RATE (e)
$ 34.88
2X
RATE (1)
n/a
(o) The 'Monthly Rate' is the loaded labor rate per rnonih for the class of employee at an average stop placement, including benefits and L &I expens
(b) The 'Evening Rate' is the hourly tabor charge for those workers assigned to evening shifts (swing & graveyard).
(c) The 1.5 X rate is the overtime labor charge per hour worked over normal working hours.
(d) The 2.5 X rate is the overture labor charge per hour worked for working recognized holidays.
(e) Supervisors and Foremen are paid Straight Overtime (SOT) not tho 1.5 X rate of the maintenance workers.
(I) The straight overtime rale is also applied to recognized holiday pay resulting in 2 X not 2,5 X allowed for maintenance workers.
Note 1: Cali -out after normal working hours is charged a minimum 4 hours straight time, or at the 1.5x overtime rate for Maintenance Workers only.
Note 2: All rates are based on the most current labor contract.
Note 3: Spokane County reserves the right to utilize any qualified worker for the City of Spokane Valley contracted work.
.
ACCOUNT
2003
TITLE , BUDGET
2005
ADOPTED
2005
YTO Actual
50800
Beginning Fund Balance °
j
$ 7,615,000
$ 18,188,207
$ -
51999
Reinbursable
$ 1,330,000
$ 2,344,416
$ 2,402,226
Administr"atior1
54310
Management
S 113,000
$ 426,200
$ 121,889
54320
Undist Fringe
$ 495,000
$ 1,000,600
$ 1,589.256
54330
General Services
$ 1.070,000
$ 2,439,832
$ 2,430,995
54340
Planning
$ 400,000
$ 652,600
$ 626,198
54350
Facilities
$ 125,000
$ 236,200
$ 238,277
54360
Training
$ 140,000
S 311,960
$ 282,348
54370
Undist Indirect Labor Cost
$ 960,000
5 1,783,600
$ 069,418)
Total Administration
$ 3,303,000
$ 6,850,992
$ 5,119,545
Miscellaneous
59119
Principal Gen Govt
S 187,500
$ 187,500
59200
Interest
5 300
$ 119
59443
Capital - Equipment
$ 53.258
S -
5 -
Total Miscellaneous
_
$ 53,258
$ 187,800
$ 187,619
59700
gating Transfers
Cost Allocation
$ 1,1 97,167
Public Works Admin
$ 325,000
Permit Center Bonds
$ 249,663
Sewer Construction
$ 985.000
Evergreen Interchange
$ 171.685
$ -
$ -,
$ 2,928,515
$ 4,471,178
$ 2,060,280
Total Operating Transfers
Maintenance
54230
Roadway
$ 4,983,600
$ 7,767,100
$ 7,632,039
54240
Storm Drainage
$ 676,800
$ 711,100
$ 813,009
54250
Structures
$ 66.000
5 99.800
$ 153.665
54261
Sidewalks
$ 6.000
$ 21,900
$ 23,955
54263
Street Lighting
$ 229,200
$ 130,100
$ 109,676
54264
Traffic Control Devices
$ 901,200
$ 1,279,000
$ 1,296,449
54266
Snow & Ice Removal
$ 2,419,200
$ 3,333.100
$ 1,917.372
54267
Street Cleaning
$ 730,800
$ 761,000
$ 798,709
54270
Roadside Development
$ 781,200
S 1,092,700
$ 1,259,845
54290
Maint. Administration
$ 1,206,000
$ 1,032,100
$ 1,053,781
$ 12,000,000
_ $ 16,227,900
_ $ 15,058,500
Total Maintenance
_
BUDGET EXPENDITURES
AGENCY
ORGANIZATION
Exhibit A - 5, Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A -5
ADMINISTRATION PERCENTAGE CALCULATION SHEET
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
ACCOUNT
59510
59511
59515
59520
59530
59540
59550
59561
59563
59564
59565
59570
59590
Agency Org
4000000
Agency Org
4200000
5000
Agency Org
4210000
5000
TITLE
Construction
Engineering
Value Engineering
Construction Engineering
Right of Way
Roadway
Storm Drainage
Structures
Sidewalks
Street Lighting
Traffic Control Devices
Parking Facilities
Roadside Development
Construction Administration
Total Construction
Subtotal
Engineer Grants
Unclassified
State Grants
Unclassified
Total Expenditures •
Administration
Miscellaneous
Operating Transfers
TOTAL ADMINSTRATION
Total minus Grants
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
CALCULATION (Original Version)
Administration/Expenditures
2003
BUDGET
$ 792,100
$
S 558,100
$ 430,200
$ 3,353,800
$ 377,500
S 839,000
$ 157,800
$ 8,500
$ 455,800
$ 14,200
$ 70,400
$ 52.600
$ 7,110,000
$ 34,339,773
$ 7,308.000
S 3,176,000
$ 44,823,773
$ 3,303,000
$ 53,258
$ 2,928,515
$ 6,284,773
S 34.339 773
$ 34,339,773
18%
2005 2005
ADOPTED YTD Actual
760,500
377,200
288,000
2,852,500
306,700
90,000
362,000
15,000
137,300
5,189,200
$ 53,459,693
$ 7,011,000
$ 5,977,000
269,262
241,899
60,106
1,809,908
187,908
48,371
49,869
124,811
35,687
62,739
2,690,560
$ 27,718,730
$ 6,567,203
5 4,937,805
5 66,447,693 $ 39,223,738
ORIGINAL PERCENTAGE CALCULATION
ALTERNATE CALCULATION
Total Road Fund Budget Expenditures
Total Adminstration /Budget Expenditures
$ 6,850,992
$ 187,800
$ 4,471,178
5 11,509,970
$ 53,459 693
$ 53,459,693
22%
Ala
$ 66,549,017
17%
$ 5,119,545
5 187,619
$ 2,060,280
$ 7,367,444
$ 27 718,730
$ 27,718,730
27%
a
5 39,375,775
19%
Exhibit A -5, Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A-6
PRIORITIES ON SNOW PLOWING
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SNOWPLOWING
PRIORITIES
1. Main Arterials
2. Secondary Arterials
3. Hillside Residentials
4. Valley Floor Residentials
NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES
14
8
12
15
2
2
3
2
DEICERS i GRADERS
2
2
7
9
2 a
TRUCK
PLOWS
2
4
TRUCK TRUCKS
SANDERS Plows/Sanders
2
2
2
HOURS TO
COMPLETE
12
12
16
60
c
EXHIBIT A -7
BILLING DOCUMENTATION
The following items are provided throughout the billing cycle to the City by the County to aid in
auditing the monthly bill for services.
1 . Copies of employee time cards.
2. Current County costs of inventoried items.
3. Current costs for contracted materials.
4. Current rental charges for fleet vehicles.
5. Summary Reports of Labor and Equipment.
RESOLUTION NO.
0172
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF EXECUTING AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
REGARDING PROVISION OF ROAD
MAINTENANCE SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, pursuant to
the provisions of the Revised Code of Washington Section 36.32.120(6), has the care of County
property and the management of County funds and business; and
WHEREAS, Spokane County did execute an Interlocal Agreement between Spokane County
and City of Spokane Valley Regarding Provision of Road Maintenance Services, pursuant to chapter
39.34 RCW ( Interlocal Cooperation Act). Said agreement was adopted per Resolution 3 -0423 dated
April 29, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley desires to utilize the services of Spokane County for
the purpose of providing road maintenance services on the public rights -of -way in the City of Spokane
Valley.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane
County, Washington, that the Chair of the Board or a majority of the Board, be and is hereby
authorized to execute that document entitled "INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ROAD
MAINTENANCE SERVICES IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY (January 1, 2006 - December
31, 2006)."
APPROVED by the board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington this 7th
day of March, 2006.
ATTEST:
Daniela Erickson
Clerk of the board
1p\agreemm12006 inurlocal agrmr w city of Spokane valley
RESOLUTION
Mark Richard, /ice -Chair
L
_a►
Todd Miclke Chair
• 0
2006 Street
Maintenance
December 20, 2005
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
John Hohman, Senior Engineer
Tim Klein, Maintenance
Superintendent
• 0
Program Attributes
o In 2006 Council's #1 goal is development of a Street
Master Plan that will include providing the
maintenance required to preserve the City's streets.
o High visibility — citizens can directly see their money at
work
o Potential to make a real difference in the lives of our
residents — i.e. paving a gravel street, fixing a
recurrent drainage problem, keeping weed growth
under control, fixing a problem the right way for a long
term solution
o Sets a tone for the community —well maintained City
infrastructure helps foster community pride and
encourages new residential and business opportunities
•
o All street maintenance performed
under contract by Spokane County
and WSDOT
o WSDOT responsible for SR 290 Trent
and SR 27 Pines
o Spokane County responsible for all
other arterials and local access
streets
Background
Background
o Contracts cover:
• Street activities such as snow plowing,
street sweeping, and pavement
repairs
• Stormwater activities which includes
drywell and culvert cleanout and
repairs
• Traffic maintenance which includes
signals, signs, and striping
4
2006 Street Maintenance
• •
Examples of Operations
2006 Street Maintena
• 0
o Contract executed in 2003;
automatically renews each year
o Contract functions well but is limited in
scope: only Trent and SR 27
o State continues to provide a high level
of service for street maintenance and
traffic operations
WSDOT Contract
• 0
7
County Contract
o County contract executed in 2003, covered
2004 and automatically extended for 2005
o City reimburses County for actual costs plus a
24% overhead /management charge
o 2004 County contract amount was $3,113,268;
actual billed $2,292,000
o 2005 County contract amount $3,187,322;
through November, billing is $2,548,053
2006 Street Maintenance
•e
Contract Analysis
o $3+MiIlion annual budget is appropriate given the
needs of the street system
o County has not billed entire budget due to:
• Light winter weather over the past two years
• Lack of permanent staff for shouldering and asphalt
patching — instead relying on Seasonal or Temporary
workers
• City is second priority - crews typically complete
County work first; Example: Pavement Removal and
Replacement
• Heavy County workload; Example: County performs
striping work for themselves, Millwood, Liberty Lake
and Spokane Valley with only one striping machine
• County has not designated a City specific crew or
foreman and has not been willing to add permanent
staff
2006 Street Maintenance
• 0
o Most difficulties involve non - winter activities —
shouldering, sweeping, pavement removal and
replacement, weed control
o Winter operations work better; crews are
available for 24 hour coverage and have kept
our streets in good condition
o County operations are focusing on upgrades
and paving of rural County roads
Contract Analysis
• •
•
o Levels of service must be defined
and directed by the City
• Current contract maintains pre-
incorporation levels of service, but does
not clearly define the service level
• City staff is not always able to obtain
adequate service for our citizens.
Example: some work requests such as
shoulder repair are never performed
• City work will always be a lesser priority
11
Contract Analysis
2006 Street Maintenance
•
o County is not set up to be a contractor
and does not wish to adapt its operations
to be a contractor for the long term
o County has stated that they do not need
our work; will help out where needed but
prefer that we begin transitioning away
from their services as outlined in the
following draft plan
Overall Contract
Assessment
• 0
Contract Options
Phase out all services in the County
contract except traffic /signal work
• Phase out most services in 3 -years
• Phase out snow removal over a 5 -year
period
• Maintain the County for traffic & signal
work
•s
Draft Plan
o City and County staff have developed the
following short term plan
o 2006
• Landscaping and weed control — must transition this
activity due to the termination of City work within
County's contract with service provider and lack of
County personnel (only 1.0 FTE)
• Street Sweeping
• Drywell cleanout
• Grading and shouldering
• Options for pothole repair, pavement replacement, and
durable long -term striping depending on City staff's ability
to prepare bid documents and manage contracts
14
2006 Street Maintenance
• 0
Draft Plan
0 2007
• Adds all non - winter asphalt repairs
(potholes and pavement replacement)
• Start to develop options for winter
maintenance
16
Draft Plan
0 2008
• All activities except traffic /signal work,
and snow removal are in -house or
contracted.
0 2009 -2010
• Phase out snow removal by the end of
2010
• County continues with traffic /signal
work
2006 Street Maintenance
•
o Management responsibilities revert from County
to City on private contracts or in -house work
o County currently charges a 24% overhead on
all work
o The City will need additional staff to develop,
manage, and inspect contracts beginning in
2006
o Part of the overhead expense can be shifted to
City management and the remainder will be
rolled back into services
17
Draft Plan
2006 Street Maintenance
• 0
o Full contract services
o Full in -house services
o Combination of in -house and contracts
o Shared facility and equipment use with
County for snow operations — County has
extra graders during the winter that could be
rented by the City
o Other
Options to investigate
Questions and Comments?
2006 Street Maintenance
Attendance:
Councilmembers:
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike DeVleming, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
MINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, December 20, 2005, 6:00 p.m.
Staff:
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Cal Walker, Police Chief
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner
John Hohman, Senior Engineer
Tim Klein, Maintenance Superintendent
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Bing Bingaman, IT Specialist
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed all in attendance.
Employee Introductions: Building Official Tom Scholtens introduced newly hired Permit Specialist Jodi
Main. Council welcomed Jodi to the City staff.
1. Administration of Oath of Office for Councilmembers — Chris Bainbridge
City Clerk Bainbridge administered the oath of office to all returning councilmembers as a group; then to
newly elected Councilmember Bill Gothmann, followed by congratulations and a short break to allow
others to extend congratulations and partake in coffee and cookies.
2. 2009 World Figure Skating Championships — Dave Mercier /Toby Steward
Toby Steward and Barb Beddor of Star USA gave a presentation on the 2009 Figure Skating
Championships; and also went through a short presentation highlighting the 2007 event. Mr. Steward
discussed the bid for 2007 and what is needed for 2009; stating that the goal is to get ten organizations to
help support the 2009 event and suggests each entity contribute $30,000 over a three -year period. Ms.
Beddor mentioned that figure skating is the most popular sport of winter Olympics generating the highest
television ratings; and they are confident of hosting the 2009 event. They further explained that this
would be a state -wide bid with Washington State bidding, with the site for events taking place in Spokane
at the Arena and Spokane Convention Center; they discussed bid specifications for the event and spoke of
the requirements for hosting; and asked Council for a commitment to help with the event by contributing
$10,000 per year for 2007, 2008 and 2009; and stated if the bid is not won, the City has no financial
obligation. Ms. Beddor stated that revenues generated in previous year when Vancouver hosted the 2001
event, resulted in an estimated $81.6 million delivered to their economy. They stated their bid deadline
is February 1 and they would appreciate a determine as soon as possible.
Discussion and questions followed concerning the number of hotel rooms necessary and if there is ample
capacity. Ms. Beddor explained that this event would require 1,000 to 1,500 rooms per night for the
week -long period; adding that more hotel rooms would be filled by fans than competitors. Council
Study Session Minutes: 12 -20 -05 Page 1 of 4
Approved by Council: 01 -10 -06
discussed continued about funding including the mention of the hotel /motel fund; and City Manager
Mercier stated as a point of information, that other jurisdictions have used funding from hotel lodging tax
for this type of event; and he would recommend convening that committee so they could pass a
recommendation to council; adding that the first $10,000 would not be due until 2007.
It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded, that the City of Spokane Valley show support of
the world championships by promising $30,000 over the three-year period of 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mr. Steward mentioned that mid -
March is when the selection committee will come here to appraise the bid and facilities; and that he and
Ms. Beddor might be back then to ask council to be involved in process if possible.
3. East Valley School District School Resource Officers — Cal Walker
Police Chief Walker introduced Christine Burgess, East Valley School Superintendent, and Jeff Miller,
East Valley High School Principal, who will discuss their request for a School Residential Deputy. Ms.
Burgess explained that they seek support to establish a school residential deputy at East Valley School
District, and that the Deputy would be housed at East Valley High School for improved community
safety. She explained some of the history of safety problems in the past including an incident involving a
gun; of their budget and their willingness to help support the program; of the neighborhood presence,
prevention, and education, and continued with her presentation as per the distributed handout. Principal
Miller said he spoke with other area principals who have commissioned officers in their schools and of
the multitude of benefits. They indicated the cost of the program to the School District would be $15,000;
with a total estimated annual cost of $100,000; and stated that the County and City could share the
remaining cost through available grants and other local funding.
Council discussion included that such a request for a funded officer has not occurred in the past; the
percentage of funding sought from the City and from the County; and that this would be an addition to the
contract and not a re- negotiation. It was Council consensus that Chief Walker approach the County to
see if they would be willing to split evenly the $85,000 with the City; and that Chief Walker will report
later to Council concerning his discussions with the County; and that Council wants the School District
to remain involved.
4. Ad Hoc Sign Committee Update — Dave Crosby
Sign Committee Chair Crosby explained the issues concerning the business directional signs located on
Appleway, and the Sign Committee's recommendation not to replace the existing signs. Via his
PowerPoint presentation, he explained that the Committee's concerns were (1) are the current signs
effective in directing traffic to businesses advertised; (2) are they ineffective and if so, why; (3) how
could the signs be more effective; (4) what alternatives should be considered; (5) what are the
implications for other one -way commercial streets where the same conditions exist; and (6) what are the
cost implications and how should business be charged.
In response to Councilmember Denenny's question concerning gifting of public funds; City Attorney
Connelly responded that the current signs are likely illegal, and signs could be placed in the right -of -way
but they would need to be similar to the official blue /green state highway signs; and the issue of gifting
could be resolved by charging for the signs. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the effectiveness of the
current signs; sign ordinance prohibiting off - premise advertising; and if the signs are replaced will
businesses in other areas want the same kind of consideration later. It was Council consensus that since
there will be a fairly extensive study completed on the Sprague /Appleway Corridor in the near future, to
add this element to the study and have the chosen consultant examine the issue for recommendations; but
to leave the situation unchanged for now. It was also mentioned that staff should make sure the chosen
consultant receives a copy of the Sign Committee's report.
Study Session Minutes: 12 -20 -05 Page 2 of 4
Approved by Council: 01 -10 -06
5. Pavement Cut Policy — Tom Scholtens
After Building Official Scholtens gave his PowerPoint presentation, discussion included (1) inspections
and what they entail; (2) whether the current bond requirement is necessary; (3) time limits on an
obstruction permit; and (4) right -of -way patches being done without a permit and associated violations;
and issuing larger, project type permits for sewer or utility installation. It was Council consensus that Mr.
Scholtens will continue to gather data and report back in February after he is able to observe the current
process to get a better feel of what should occur next year and in future years; and that additional data will
include information concerning the four points mentioned above; staff requirements, and Spokane Valley
business licenses.
6. Draft Request for Proposals for the Sprague /Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan — Marina Sukup and
Greg McCormick
Planning Manager McCormick explained the request for proposals as per his Request for Council Action
form, highlighted some of the work items within the draft Request For Proposal (RFP), and mentioned the
tentative schedule as shown in Section VIII of the draft. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the
boundaries in question, whether to phase the project and if so how to designate the phases; funding and
other budgetary issues; the concept of a City Center; auto row; ample commercial land designation; and
the corridor as a whole. It was Council consensus that staff move ahead looking at the whole corridor,
with phasing being determined where best suited; and to move forward to publish the RFP, adjusting the
timeline as necessary.
Mayor Wilhite called for a five minute recess at 8:15 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
7. Draft Scope of Work for Street Masterplan and Related activities — Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten explained that Council expressed a desire for a well - defined Street Master
Plan that identifies the current condition of the city streets and recommends appropriate improvements
and maintenance to preserve the value and structural integrity of the transportation system. Senior
Engineer Worley then explained the Scope of Services phases and tasks. In response to Council inquiry
concerning a timeline, Mr. Kersten said he expects the project will take about a year to complete, that the
grant dates are not finalized, and to be eligible for some grants, data will be needed on all sidewalks on all
arterials. Mr. Mercier added that staff feels it important to have the outside consultant do the first pass at
gathering all the information to have external validation of the amount of resources that would be needed
for the actual infrastructure improvements, to help rationalize the criteria system that would be used to
determine which projects should require attention first; that the outside assessment will accomplish the
task quickly and provide that external validation should council determine that voter approval is required
for some capital improvements. Mr. Mercier asked concerning Transportation Task #2, if we anticipate
the consultants completing their study September to December, then the next year TIP which needs
approval in June of 06, will that be a product of in -house staff? Mr. Kersten replied it would with the
possibility of enlisting the consultant's assistance. Mr. Mercier suggested staff might want to confirm the
dates of the TIP if the consultant won't be able to prepare the full six -year TIP until September or
December of 2006, that perhaps the TIP dates would be for the years 2008 to 2013 rather than from 2007
through 2012. Mr. Worley said he would examine that issue. It was Council consensus to move forward
with the Request For Proposal.
8. Road Maintenance Update — Neil Kersten/John Hohman
Public Works Director Kersten explained that there was a joint meeting with the Board of County
Commissioners last October which discussed the road maintenance contract; and that Mr. Hohman has
been working with County staff to lay out a draft plan for review; that our staff went through this
PowerPoint presentation with staff from the County to make sure they were comfortable with our
statements; that they suggested some changes and those changes have been incorporated into tonight's
presentation; adding that there were a few changes in direction since then as the County has stated its
willingness to contract with the City as long as we need them, and if we proceed with contracting, as we
receive and evaluate bids, if we decide it is best to go with the County, we can always opt not to award
the bid and stay with the county. Mr. Mercier added that he attended the County's meeting this morning,
Study Session Minutes: 12 -20 -05 Page 3 of 4
Approved by Council: 01 -10 -06
and each Commissioner said they were in support of continuing services under reasonable conditions,
adding that there is no economic disadvantage or grievous union issues associated with the contracts, but
there are some portions of the contract to re- examine in coming years. Mr. Hohman then went through
his PowerPoint presentation, and stated that they received validation that the transition plan is really an
optional plan with no forced conclusions.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson, seconded by Councilmember Taylor, and unanimously agreed to
extend the meeting to 9: 15 p.m.
Councilmember Flanigan asked if we talked with the City of Spokane as they might be interested. After
the presentation of the PowerPoint, it was Council consensus to move forward.
9. Service Recognition — Dave Mercier
Mr. Mercier relinquished the floor to Mayor Wilhite, who then spoke of Councilmember Flanigan's
service, that tonight is his last meeting, and in bidding adieu she presented Councilmember Flanigan with
a plaque honoring him for his part of the First City Council of the City of Spokane Valley. After
congratulations were given, Deputy Mayor Munson spoke of the jested "Flanigan Statue" often referred
to in the past, and presented Mr. Flanigan with a statue memorializing the two of them during past
Mayor's balls. Each Councilmember then spent a few moments to thank Councilmember Flanigan for his
work as part of the first Council of the City.
10. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor Wilhite: No comments
11. Council Check in — Mayor Wilhite: No comments
12. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier
City Manager Mercier brought Council attention to the memorandum distributed to Council tonight
concerning the upcoming schedule for handling the Comprehensive Plan; and that the break between
tonight and January 12 will give Council opportunity for further review of the Plan, as well as a reminder
of what is needed to accomplish timely adoption.
Councilmember Flanigan said that he heard from a citizen concerned about banning sledding in the
Mission Park area, and stated that no such ban would take place without Council consensus; with Mr.
Mercier adding that staff is undertaking measures to make the sledding experience a safe experience.
Mr. Mercier stated that it is his understanding that the County has decided to close their offices at 1:00
p.m. on Friday, and if Council desires to do likewise, tonight would be the last opportunity to make that
decision. It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming, seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, and
unanimously agreed that City Offices will close at 1:00 p.m. Friday.
It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m.
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Study Session Minutes: 12 -20 -05 Page 4 of 4
Approved by Council: 01 -10 -06
Federal Stimulus Package
Proposed Street Capital Projects List
December 12 2008
Additional Longer -Term Projects
Sullivan Rd West Bridge - Spokane River
Barker Rd Overpass (BTV)
8th Ave Phase 1 - Carnahan to Havana
8th Ave Phase 2 - Park to Dickey
8th Ave Phase 3 - Dickey to Carnahan
$ 1,300 $ 100 $ 13,000
$ 1,684 $ 20,933
$ 222 $ 175 $ 2,018
$ 369 $ 175 $ 2,161
$ 369 $ 200 $ 2,816
Total
$ 3,944 $ 650 40,928
$ 14,400
$ 22,617
$ 2,415
$ 2,705
$ 3,385
$ 45,522
$ 6,464 $ 2,075 $ 68,057 $ 76,596
(all numbers shown in thousands)
PE
RW
CN
Total
Preservation Projects -
-
Sprague Ave Resurfacing - University to Evergreen
$ 150
$ 2,423
$ 2,573
Sprague Ave Resurfacing - Evergreen to Sullivan
$ 95
$ 1,240
$ 1,335
Euclid Ave Resurfacing - Sullivan to Flora
$ 69
$ 901
$ 970
32nd Ave Resurfacing - Dishman Mica to SR 27
$ 71
$ 925
$ 996
Sullivan Rd Resurfacing - Indiana to Euclid
$ 105
$ 1,370
$ 1,475
Dishman Mica -Resurfacing #1 - 16th to University
$ 89
$ 1,156
$ 1,245
Dishman Mica Resurfacing #2 - Bowdish to City Limit: $ 31
$ 398
$ 429
Sub Total
$ 610
$ -
$ 8,413
$ 9,023
Improvement Projects
Bowdish Rd - 32nd to 8th
$ 279
$ 500
$ 4,014
$ 4,793
Flora Rd - Sprague to Mission*
$ 374
$ 150
$ 3,362
$ 3,886
Mission Ave - Flora to Barker
$ 345
$ 150
$ 3,103
$ 3,598
Evergreen /32nd - 16th to 32nd, Evergreen to SR -27
$ 406
$ 300
$ 3,681
$ 4,387
Barker Road - 8th to Appleway
$ 272
$ 175
$ 2,449
$ 2,896
Carnahan Truck Lane - 8th to City Limits
$ 234
$ 150
$ 2,107
$ 2,491
Sub Total
$ 1,910
$ 1,425
$ 18,716
$ .22,051
Grand Total
$ 2,520
$ 1,425
$ 27,129
$ 31,074
Federal Stimulus Package
Proposed Street Capital Projects List
December 12 2008
Additional Longer -Term Projects
Sullivan Rd West Bridge - Spokane River
Barker Rd Overpass (BTV)
8th Ave Phase 1 - Carnahan to Havana
8th Ave Phase 2 - Park to Dickey
8th Ave Phase 3 - Dickey to Carnahan
$ 1,300 $ 100 $ 13,000
$ 1,684 $ 20,933
$ 222 $ 175 $ 2,018
$ 369 $ 175 $ 2,161
$ 369 $ 200 $ 2,816
Total
$ 3,944 $ 650 40,928
$ 14,400
$ 22,617
$ 2,415
$ 2,705
$ 3,385
$ 45,522
$ 6,464 $ 2,075 $ 68,057 $ 76,596
(all numbers shown in thousands)
2009 Federal Stimulus Package Proposal
• Sprague Resurfacing /University — Evergreen $2,856,000
• Other Preservation Projects $1,293,000
Total $4,149,000
Public Works Department
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 0 Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org
BACKGROUND
There have been discussions throughout the country, state and region about a federal
economic stimulus package geared towards public works infrastructure projects. Current
numbers being tossed around range from $500 billion to $1 trillion total federal stimulus
funds. This amount of total funding would translate to approximately $35 -70 million
coming to the Spokane region if typical federal funding formulas are used.
Local agencies have been asked to develop a list of public works projects that could
benefit from these potential federal funds. As of this writing the criteria verbally
discussed by SRTC staff for project funding selection under the proposed program are as
follows:
• Stimulus package funds cannot be used to supplant existing 2009 budgeted
projects
• First wave of funding for projects that can be "shovel ready" by July 2009. (i.e.,
design and right -of -way acquisition must be complete)
• Second wave of funding for projects that need up to 2 years to complete (this
would include the ability to use funds for design, right -of -way acquisition and
environmental work)
• Preservation projects are okay but prefer funding projects with multiple
disciplines (i.e., asphalt, concrete, utilities work)
• Federal stimulus money can only be used for construction phase, not design or
right -of -way phases
CURRENT 2009 BUDGET
The adopted 2009 budget includes in the 303 — Street Capital Projects Fund the
following two line items. These two projects are budgeted to be paid for with city REET
1 and REET 2 funds.
2009 Federal Stimulus Package Proposal Page 2
PROPOSAL
In an effort to position the city to qualify for as much federal stimulus funds as possible
staff proposes the following:
Council consensus to amend the 2009 budget for the 303 — Street Capital Project
Fund and the 307 — Capital Grants Fund as necessary to create projects eligible
for potential upcoming federal stimulus grant funds.
This entails refocusing efforts from construction of projects to design of projects.
Local funds currently programmed for construction would be reprogrammed for
completing design and right -of -way.
Total re- allocation of local funds will not exceed existing budgeted amounts.
Attached is the summary of projects (with project descriptions) staff submitted to the
SRTC for funding consideration.
SCHEDULE
Staff understands that the SRTC Board will review project lists from each Spokane area
jurisdiction and agency (WSDOT, STA) on Friday, December 19. The SRTC Board will
approve and forward on to WSDOT a final regionally prioritized project list.
Staff recommends that once the SRTC Board develops the regionally prioritized list the
following tasks be accomplished as soon thereafter as possible:
1. Issue RFQ for consultant assistance in the development of Plans, Specifications
and Estimates (PS &E) for each stimulus project (December 2008)
2. Prepare and adopt amended 2009 Budget for funds 303 and 307 as necessary to
support Spokane Valley projects on the approved SRTC regionally prioritized
project list (January 2009)
3. Prepare and adopt amended 2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as
necessary to support Spokane Valley projects on the approved SRTC regionally
prioritized project list (January 2009)
4. Select, negotiate, and contract with consultants for the completion of design and
right -of -way acquisition for each stimulus project (January 2009)
5. Complete PS &E's and bid projects by July 1, 2009
2009 Adopted Budget
Sprague Ave Resurfacing - University to Evergreen
Misc. Road Preservation Projects
PE RW CN Total
231
130
2,625 $ 2,856
1,163 $ 1,293
Total
361 $ 3,788 $ 4,149
2009 Proposed Amended Budget
Additional Longer -Term Projects
Sullivan Rd West Bridge - Spokane River
Barker Rd Overpass (BTV)
8th Ave Phase 1 - Carnahan to Havana
8th Ave Phase 2 - Park to Dickey
8th Ave Phase 3 - Dickey to Carnahan
$ 1,300 $ 100 $
$ 1,684 $
$ 222 $ 175 $
$ 369 $ 175 $
$ 369 $ 200 $
13,000 $ 14,400
20,933 $ 22,617
2,018 $ 2,415
2,161 $ 2,705
2,816 $ 3,385
Total
$ 3,944 $ 650 40,928 $ 45,522
Local funds only
Federal Stimulus funds
6,464 $ 2,075 $ 68,057 $ 76,596
(all numbers shown in thousands)
PE
RW
CN
Total
Preservation Projects
Sprague Ave Resurfacing - University to Evergreen
$ 150
$ 2,423
$ 2,573
Sprague Ave Resurfacing - Evergreen to Sullivan
$ 95
$ 1,240
$ 1,335
Euclid Ave Resurfacing - Sullivan to Flora
$ 69
$ 901
$ 970
32nd Ave Resurfacing - Dishman Mica to SR 27
$ 71
$ 925
$ 996
Sullivan Rd Resurfacing - Indiana to Euclid
$ 105
$ 1,370
$ 1,475
Dishman Mica Resurfacing #1 - 16th to University
$ 89
$ 1,156
$ 1,245
Dishman Mica Resurfacing #2 - Bowdish to City Limits $ 31
$ 398
$ 429
Sub Total
$ 610
$ -
$ 8,413
$ 9,023
Improvement Projects
Bowdish Rd - 32nd to 8th
$ 279
$ 500
$ 4,014
$ 4,793
Flora Rd - Sprague to Mission*
$ 374
$ 150
$ 3,362
$ 3,886
Mission Ave - Flora to Barker
$ 345
$ 150
$ 3,103
$ 3,598
Evergreen /32nd - 16th to 32nd, Evergreen to SR -27
$ 406
$ 300
$ 3,681
$ 4,387
Barker Road - 8th to Appleway
$ 272
$ 175
$ 2,449
$ 2,896
Carnahan Truck Lane - 8th to City Limits
$ 234
$ 150
$ 2,107
$ 2,491
Sub Total
$ 1,910
$ 1,425
$ 18,716
$ 22,051
Grand Total
$ 2,520
$ 1,425
$ 27,129
$ 31,074
2009 Adopted Budget
Sprague Ave Resurfacing - University to Evergreen
Misc. Road Preservation Projects
PE RW CN Total
231
130
2,625 $ 2,856
1,163 $ 1,293
Total
361 $ 3,788 $ 4,149
2009 Proposed Amended Budget
Additional Longer -Term Projects
Sullivan Rd West Bridge - Spokane River
Barker Rd Overpass (BTV)
8th Ave Phase 1 - Carnahan to Havana
8th Ave Phase 2 - Park to Dickey
8th Ave Phase 3 - Dickey to Carnahan
$ 1,300 $ 100 $
$ 1,684 $
$ 222 $ 175 $
$ 369 $ 175 $
$ 369 $ 200 $
13,000 $ 14,400
20,933 $ 22,617
2,018 $ 2,415
2,161 $ 2,705
2,816 $ 3,385
Total
$ 3,944 $ 650 40,928 $ 45,522
Local funds only
Federal Stimulus funds
6,464 $ 2,075 $ 68,057 $ 76,596
(all numbers shown in thousands)
*Wane
4• Vdal
Y'
Federal Stimulus Package
Proposed Street Capital Projects List
December 12 2008
Public Works Department
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org
Pavement Preservation Projects (Ready for Construction by July 2009)
1) Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project #1
Project Limits: University Rd. to Evergreen Rd., 2.0 miles
Total Project Cost: $2,573,000
Project Description: Grind and Resurface roadway, upgrade storm water deficiencies,
and retrofit sidewalk handicap ramps to bring up to current ADA
standards.
Jobs Impact: Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, concrete, pre -cast concrete, and utility
contractors and various construction supply companies. Permanent
jobs are increased from encouraging long term economic
development of adjacent commercial and residential properties.
This project would support related jobs from the engineering
design phase through construction for a duration of 12 to 18
months:
Permits Required: This is a pavement preservation project that will not require
permits.
Ability to Proceed: Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a pavement preservation project that
requires limited design and can easily move forward to
construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
2) Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project #2
Project Limits: Evergreen Rd. to Sullivan Road, 1.0 miles
Project Cost: $1,335,000
Project Description: Grind and Resurface roadway, upgrade storm water deficiencies,
retrofit sidewalk handicap ramps to bring up to current ADA
standards.
Jobs Impact: Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, concrete, pre -cast concrete, and utility
contractors and various construction supply companies. Permanent
jobs are increased from encouraging long term economic
development of adjacent commercial and residential properties.
This project would support related jobs from the engineering
design phase through construction for a duration of 12 to 18
months.
Permits Required: This is a pavement preservation project that will not require
permits.
Ability to Proceed: Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a pavement preservation project that
requires limited design and can easily move forward to
construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW _ and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
3) Euclid Ave. Resurfacing Project
Project Limits: Sullivan Road to Flora Rd., 1.06 miles
Project Cost: $970,000
Project Description: The project will Grind and Resurface the roadway, upgrade storm
water deficiencies and retrofit sidewalk handicap ramps to bring up
to current ADA standards.
Jobs Impact: Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, concrete, pre -cast concrete, and utility
contractors and various construction supply companies. Permanent
jobs are increased from encouraging long term economic
development of adjacent commercial and residential properties.
This project would support related jobs from the engineering
design phase through construction for a duration of 12 to 18
months.
Permits Required: This is a pavement preservation project that will not require
permits.
Ability to Proceed: Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a pavement preservation project that
requires limited design and can easily move forward within 120-
180 days upon funding notification. The City has allocated funds
for PE, ROW and Environmental to ensure that the project will be
bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
4) 32 Ave. Resurfacing Project
Project Limits: Dishman -Mica Rd. to State Route 27, 1.8 miles
Project Cost: $996,000
Project Description: The project will Grind and Resurface the roadway, upgrade storm
water deficiencies and retrofit sidewalk handicap ramps to bring up
to current ADA standards.
Jobs Impact: Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, concrete, pre -cast concrete, and utility
contractors and various construction supply companies. Permanent
jobs are increased from encouraging long term economic
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 2 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
5) Sullivan Rd.
Project Limits:
Project Cost:
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
Jobs Impact:
development of adjacent commercial and residential' properties.
This project would support related jobs from the engineering
design phase through construction for a duration of 12 to 18
months.
This is a pavement preservation project that will not require
permits.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a pavement preservation project that
requires limited design and can easily move forward to
construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
Resurfacing Project
Indiana Ave. to Euclid Ave., 1.0 miles
$1,475,000
The project will Grind and Resurface the roadway, upgrade storm
water deficiencies and retrofit sidewalk handicap ramps to bring up
to current ADA standards.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, concrete, pre -cast concrete, and utility
contractors and various construction supply companies. Permanent
jobs are increased from encouraging long term economic
development of adjacent commercial and residential properties.
This project would support related jobs from the engineering
design phase through construction for . a duration of 12 to 18
months.
This is a pavement preservation project that will not require
permits.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a pavement preservation project that
requires limited design and can easily move forward to
construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
6) Dishman -Mica Road Resurfacing Project #1
Project Limits: 16 Avenue to University Road., 1.3 miles
Project Cost:
Project Description:
$1,245,000
The project will Grind and Resurface the roadway, upgrade storm
water deficiencies and retrofit sidewalk handicap ramps to bring up
to current ADA standards.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, concrete, pre -cast concrete, and utility
contractors and various construction supply companies. Permanent
jobs are increased from encouraging long term economic
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 3 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
development of adjacent commercial and residential properties.
This project would support related jobs from the engineering
design phase through construction for a duration of 12 to 18
months.
Permits Required: This is a pavement preservation project that will not require
permits.
Ability to Proceed: Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a pavement preservation project that
requires limited design and can easily move forward to
construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
7) Dishman -Mica Road Resurfacing Project #2
Project Limits:
Project Cost:
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
Bowdish Road to South City Limits, 0.8 miles
$429,000
The project will Grind and Resurface the roadway, upgrade storm
water deficiencies and. retrofit sidewalk handicap ramps to bring up
to current ADA standards.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, concrete, pre -cast concrete, and utility
contractors and various construction supply companies. Permanent
jobs are increased from encouraging long term economic
development of adjacent commercial and residential properties.
This project would support related jobs from the engineering
design phase through construction for a duration of 12 to 18
months.
This is a pavement preservation project that will not require
permits.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a pavement preservation project that
requires limited design and can easily move forward to
construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 4 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
Short -Term Road Reconstruction Projects (Ready for Construction by July 2009)
1) Bowdish Rd Reconstruction Project
Project Limits:
Project Cost:
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
Sprague Ave. to 32 Ave., 2.0 miles
$4,793,000
The project will reconstruct an existing two -lane roadway as a
three lane asphalt roadway with concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and ADA accessible ramps. New stormwater facilities
will be constructed that include catchbasins, conveyance piping,
stormwater swales, and drywells. New street lighting will be
constructed as necessary at major intersections. The City will
coordinate with water, phone and power utilities for utility line
upgrades, replacement or relocates that can use the reconstruction
project to minimize trenching and resurfacing costs.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, earthwork, concrete, pre -cast concrete, utility,
and lighting contractors and various construction supply
companies. Permanent jobs are increased from encouraging long
term economic development of adjacent commercial and
residential properties. This project would support related jobs from
the engineering design phase through construction for a duration of
18 to 24 months.
Anticipated permits include a Stormwater permit from Washington
State Dept. of Ecology. This permit is easily obtained during
design. No permits are anticipated that would possibly derail this
project.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a road widening and improvement
project with a relatively straight - forward design that requires
limited Right -of -Way acquisition. The project is anticipated to be
Categorically Exempt from the SEPA/NEPA environmental review
process. The City expects that the project can easily move forward
to construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 5 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
2) Flora Rd.Reconstruction Project
Project Limits:
Project Cost:
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
Sprague Ave. to Mission Ave., 0.90 miles
$3,886,000
The project will reconstruct an existing two -lane roadway as a
three lane asphalt roadway with concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and ADA accessible ramps. New stormwater facilities
will be constructed that include catchbasins, conveyance piping,
stormwater swales, and drywells. New street lighting will be
constructed as necessary at major intersections. The City will
coordinate with water, phone and power utilities for utility line
upgrades, replacement or relocates that can use the reconstruction
project to minimize trenching and resurfacing costs.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, earthwork, concrete, pre -cast concrete, utility,
and lighting contractors and various construction supply
companies. Permanent jobs are increased from encouraging long
term economic development of adjacent commercial and
residential properties. This project would support related jobs from
the engineering design phase through construction for a duration of
15 to 24 months.
Anticipated permits include a Stormwater permit from Washington
State Dept. of Ecology. This permit is easily obtained during
design. No permits are anticipated that would possibly derail this
project.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a road widening and improvement
project with a relatively straight - forward design that requires
limited Right -of -Way acquisition. The project is anticipated to be
Categorically Exempt from the SEPA/NEPA environmental review
process. The City expects that the project can easily move forward
to construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 6 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
r
3) Mission Ave.
Project Limits:
Project Cost:
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed
Reconstruction Project
Flora Rd. to Barker Rd., 0.99 miles
$3,598,000
The project will reconstruct an existing two -lane roadway as a
three lane asphalt roadway with concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and ADA accessible ramps. New stormwater facilities
will be constructed that include catchbasins, conveyance piping,
stormwater swales, and drywells. New street lighting will be
constructed as necessary at major intersections. The City will
coordinate with water, phone and power utilities for utility line
upgrades, replacement or relocates that can use the reconstruction
project to minimize trenching and resurfacing costs. This project
will complete a new corridor north of I -90 and the Spokane River
that will connect the North Greenacres neighborhood to the TIB
funded extension of Indiana Ave. and the major retail center at the
Spokane Valley Mall.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, earthwork, concrete, pre -cast concrete, utility,
and lighting contractors and various construction supply
companies. Permanent jobs are increased from encouraging long
term economic development of adjacent commercial and
residential properties. This project would support related jobs from
the engineering design phase through construction for a duration of
15 to 18 months.
Anticipated permits include a Stormwater permit from Washington
State Dept. of Ecology. This permit is easily obtained during
design. No permits are anticipated that would possibly derail this
project.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a road widening and improvement
project with a relatively straight - forward design that requires
limited Right -of -Way acquisition. The project is anticipated to be
Categorically Exempt from the SEPA/NEPA environmental review
process. The City expects that the project can easily move forward
to construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 7 of 15 - 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
4) Evergreen Rd. /32 Reconstruction Project
Project Limits: 16 to 32 Evergreen to SR -27., 1.25 miles
Project Cost: $4,387,000
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
1
t
The project will reconstruct an existing two -lane roadway as a
three lane asphalt roadway with concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and ADA accessible ramps. New stormwater facilities
will be constructed that include catchbasins, conveyance piping,
stormwater swales, and drywells. New street lighting will be
constructed as necessary at major intersections. The City will
coordinate with water, phone and power utilities for utility line
upgrades, replacement or relocates that can use the reconstruction
project to minimize trenching and resurfacing costs. This project
completes a central corridor in the Spokane Valley that connects
the major retail center at the Spokane Valley Mall and I -90 with
the major residential areas in the south valley and State Highway
27 and south Spokane County.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, earthwork, concrete, pre -cast concrete, utility,
and lighting contractors and various construction supply
companies. Permanent jobs are increased from encouraging long
term economic development of adjacent commercial and
residential properties. This project would support related jobs from
the engineering design phase through construction for a duration of
15 to 18 months.
Anticipated permits include a Stormwater permit from Washington
State Dept. of Ecology. This permit is easily obtained during
design. No permits are anticipated that would possibly derail this
project.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a road widening and improvement
project with a relatively straight - forward design that requires
imited Right -of -Way acquisition. The project is anticipated to be
Categorically Exempt from the SEPA/NEPA environmental review
process. The City expects that the project can easily move forward
o construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July
1 2009.
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 8 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
5) Barker Rd.Reconstruction Project
Appleway to 8 0.75 miles
$2,896,000
The project, will reconstruct an existing two -lane roadway as a
three lane asphalt roadway with concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and ADA accessible ramps. New stormwater facilities
will be constructed that include catchbasins, conveyance piping,
stormwater swales, and drywells. New street lighting will be
constructed as necessary at major intersections. The City will
coordinate with water, phone and power utilities for utility line
upgrades, replacement or relocates that can use the reconstruction
project to minimize trenching and resurfacing costs.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, earthwork, concrete, pre -cast concrete, utility,
and lighting contractors and various construction supply
companies. Permanent jobs are increased from encouraging long
term economic development of adjacent commercial and
residential properties. This project would support related jobs from
the engineering design phase through construction for a duration of
15 to 24 months.
Anticipated permits include a Stormwater permit from Washington
State Dept. of Ecology. This permit is easily obtained during
design. No permits are anticipated that would possibly derail this
project.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a road widening and improvement
project with a relatively straight - forward design that requires
limited Right -of -Way acquisition. The project is anticipated to be
Categorically Exempt from the SEPA/NEPA environmental review
process. The City expects that the project can easily move forward
to construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
Project Limits:
Project Cost:
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 9 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
6) Carnahan Truck Lane Project
Project Limits: 8 to South City Limits, 0.75 miles
Project Cost:
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
$2,491,000
The project will reconstruct an existing two -lane roadway as a
three lane asphalt roadway with concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and ADA accessible ramps. The third lane will provide
a truck lane for south bound traffic up a steep hill. New
stormwater facilities will be constructed that include catchbasins,
conveyance piping, stormwater swales, and drywells. New street
lighting will be constructed as necessary at major intersections.
The City will coordinate with water, phone and power utilities for
utility line upgrades, replacement or relocates that can use the
reconstruction project to minimize trenching and resurfacing costs.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, earthwork, concrete, pre -cast concrete, utility,
and lighting contractors and various construction supply
companies. Permanent jobs are increased from encouraging long
term economic development of adjacent commercial and
residential properties. This project would support related jobs from
the engineering design phase through construction for a duration of
15 to 24 months.
Anticipated permits include a Stormwater permit from Washington
State Dept. of Ecology. This permit is easily obtained during
design. No permits are anticipated that would possibly derail this
project.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a road widening and improvement
project with a relatively straight - forward design that requires
limited Right -of -Way acquisition. The project is anticipated to be
Categorically Exempt from the SEPA/NEPA environmental review
process. The City expects that the project can easily move forward
to construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification. The
City has allocated funds for PE, ROW and Environmental to
ensure that the project will be bid ready on or before July 1 2009.
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 10 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
Long -Term Road Reconstruction Projects (Ready for Construction by Jan. 2011)
1) Sullivan Road West Bridge
Project Limits: Sullivan Road South Bound Bridge@ Spokane River
Total Project Cost: $14,400,000
Project Description: The project will replace an existing two -lane bridge with a new
four -lane bridge across the Spokane River. The project includes a
new asphalt roadway with concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks, and
ADA accessible ramps. New stormwater facilities will be
constructed that include catchbasins, conveyance piping,
stormwater swales, and drywells. New street lighting will be
constructed as necessary. The City will coordinate with water,
phone and power utilities for utility line upgrades, replacement or
relocates that can use the reconstruction project to minimize costs.
Jobs Impact: Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, earthwork, concrete, pre -cast concrete, utility,
and lighting contractors and various construction supply
companies. Permanent jobs are increased from encouraging long
term economic development of adjacent commercial and
residential properties. This project would support related jobs
from the engineering design phase through construction for a
duration of 36 to 48 months.
Permits Required: Anticipated permits include Stormwater, Hydraulic, and Fish and
Wildlife.
Ability to Proceed: Project is identified in City's 6 -year Transportation Improvement
Plan. The City expects that the project can easily move forward to
construction within 18 months upon funding notification.
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 11 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
2) Barker Road
Project Limits:
Total Project Cost:
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
Bridging The Valley Overpass
Barker Road Overpass @ SR290 & BNSF RR crossing.
$22,617,000
The project will construct a new overpass to replace an existing at-
grade RR crossing. The project includes a new asphalt roadway
with concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks, and ADA accessible
ramps. New stormwater facilities will be constructed that include
catchbasins, conveyance piping, stormwater swales, and drywells.
New street lighting will be constructed as necessary. The City will
coordinate with water, phone and power utilities for utility line
upgrades, replacement or relocates that can use the reconstruction
project to minimize costs.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, earthwork, concrete, pre -cast concrete, utility,
and lighting contractors and various construction supply
companies. Permanent jobs are increased from encouraging long
term economic development of adjacent commercial and
residential properties. This project would support related jobs
from the engineering design phase through construction for a
duration of 36 to 48 months.
Anticipated permits include Stormwater and Environmental.
The City can proceed immediately with this project once funds are
available. Environmental clearance has been received and the
design is 30% complete.
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 12 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
3) 8 Avenue Reconstruction Phase #1
Project Limits:
Total Project Cost:
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
Havana Rd. to Carnahan Rd, 0.5 miles
$2,415,000
The project will reconstruct an existing two -lane roadway as a
three lane asphalt roadway with concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and ADA accessible ramps. New stormwater facilities
will be constructed that include catchbasins, conveyance piping,
stormwater swales, and drywells. New street lighting will be
constructed as necessary at major intersections. The City will
coordinate with water, phone and power utilities for utility line
upgrades, replacement or relocates that can use the reconstruction
project to minimize trenching and resurfacing costs.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, earthwork, concrete, pre -cast concrete, utility,
and lighting contractors and various construction supply
companies. Permanent jobs are increased from encouraging long
term economic development of adjacent commercial and
residential properties. This project would support related jobs
from the engineering design phase through construction for a
duration of 15 to 18 months.
Anticipated permits include a Stormwater permit from Washington
State Dept. of Ecology. This permit is easily obtained during
design. No permits are anticipated that would possibly derail this
project.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a road widening and improvement
project with a relatively straight - forward design that requires
limited Right -of -Way acquisition. The project is anticipated to
Categorically Exempt from the SEPA/NEPA environmental review
process. The City expects that the project can easily move forward
to construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification.
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 13 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
4) 8 Avenue Reconstruction Phase #2
Project Limits: Carnahan Rd. to Dickey Rd., 0.62 miles
Total Project Cost: $2,705,000
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
The project will reconstruct an existing two -lane roadway as a
three lane asphalt roadway with concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and ADA accessible ramps. New stormwater facilities
will be constructed that include catchbasins, conveyance piping,
stormwater swales, and drywells. New street lighting will be
constructed as necessary at major intersections. The City will
coordinate with water, phone and power utilities for utility line
upgrades, replacement or relocates that can use the reconstruction
project to minimize trenching and resurfacing costs.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, earthwork, concrete, pre -cast concrete, utility,
and lighting contractors and various construction supply
companies. Permanent jobs are increased from encouraging long
term economic development of adjacent commercial and
residential properties. This project would support related jobs from
the engineering design phase through construction for a duration of
15 to 18 months.
Anticipated permits include a Stormwater permit from Washington
State Dept. of Ecology. This permit is easily obtained during
design. No permits are anticipated that would possibly derail this
project.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year T ransportation
Improvement Plan. This is a road widening and improvement
project with a relatively straight - forward design that requires
limited Right -of -Way acquisition. The project is anticipated to
Categorically Exempt from the SEPA/NEPA environmental review
process. The City expects that the project can easily move forward
to construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification.
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 14 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley
5) 8 Avenue R
Project Limits:
Total Project Cost:
Project Description:
Jobs Impact:
Permits Required:
Ability to Proceed:
econstruction Phase #3
Dickey Rd. to Park Rd., 0.88 miles
$3,385,000
The project will reconstruct an existing two -lane roadway as a
three lane asphalt roadway with concrete curb and gutter,
sidewalks, and ADA accessible ramps. New stormwater facilities
will be constructed that include catchbasins, conveyance piping,
stormwater swales, and drywells. New street lighting will be
constructed as necessary at major intersections. The City will
coordinate with water, phone and power utilities for utility line
upgrades, replacement or relocates that can use the reconstruction
project to minimize trenching and resurfacing costs.
Project creates temporary jobs during construction supporting
asphalt pavement, earthwork, concrete, pre -cast concrete, utility,
and lighting contractors and various construction supply
companies. Permanent jobs are increased from encouraging long
term economic development of adjacent commercial and
residential properties. This project would support related jobs from
the engineering design phase through construction for a duration of
15 to 18 months.
Anticipated permits include a Stormwater permit from Washington
State Dept. of Ecology. This permit is easily obtained during
design. No permits are anticipated that would possibly derail this
project.
Project is already identified in City's 6 -year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This is a road widening and improvement
project with a relatively straight - forward design that requires
limited Right -of -Way acquisition. The project is anticipated to
Categorically Exempt from the SEPA/NEPA environmental review
process. The City expects that the project can easily move forward
to construction within 120 -180 days upon funding notification.
Federal Stimulus Package Proposed Project List 15 of 15 12/12/2008
City of Spokane Valley