Loading...
2014, 10-07 Study Session AGENDA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET STUDY SESSION Tuesday, October 7,2014 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL ROLL CALL: 1. Steve Worley Draft Amended 2014(TIP) Discussion/Information Transportation Improvement Plan 2. Cary Driskell Commercial Vehicles in Residential Discussion/Information Areas(trucks,etc.) 3.John Hohman, Christina Batch Code Amendments Discussion/Information Janssen 4.Mike Jackson 2015 Preliminary Budget Discussion/Information 5.Mayor Grafos Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 6. Information Only (will not be reported or discussed): a. Ecology Stormwater Grant Opportunities b. CH2M Hill Contract Amendment 7.Mayor Grafos Council Comments Discussion/Information 8.Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Note: Unless otherwise noted above,there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However,Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the Council reserves the right to take"action"on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term"action"means to deliberate, discuss,review,consider,evaluate,or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical,hearing,or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Study Session Agenda,October 7,2014 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 7, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Draft Amendment #2 - 2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council approval for CMAQ/TA Grant Applications on March 12, 2013; Adopted the 2014-2019 Six Year TIP on June 11, 2013, Resolution #13- 006; Approved Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) Grade Crossing Protection Fund (GCPF) application on July 30, 2013, and Adopted the Amended 2014 TIP on June 24, 2014, Resolution #14-005; Info RCA on September 23, 2014. BACKGROUND: Council adopted the Amended 2014 TIP based upon information staff had at that time relative to available funds and how these funds could be utilized for transportation projects this year. Since the adoption of the Amended 2014 TIP, staff has been given the opportunity to team with WSDOT on their SR 290/Sullivan Rd to Idaho State Line, Preservation Project No. XL 4558. In coordination meetings with WSDOT, WSDOT has agreed to include City of Spokane Valley resurfacing work on Sullivan from Trent (SR-290) to Wellesley Avenue, and a portion of Wellesley Avenue from Sullivan Road to 800 feet west. By combining this resurfacing work with WSDOT's project, the City expects to receive significantly reduced paving costs due to economies of scale related to the large amount of asphalt to be placed for WSDOT's project. The City's estimated cost for this work is $553,776. City staff will prepare the plans and specifications this year for WSDOT to insert into their bid documents. During WSDOT's design of the SR-290 resurfacing project, they also evaluated the lighting system along the highway. Based on a review of the age of the lighting system and the inability to get replacement parts for the existing older style lights, it is recommended that ten lights around the Sullivan/SR 290 intersection be replaced. See attached memo. Therefore, City staff proposes to include the replacement of these lights as part of WSDOT's preservation project. The estimated cost for WSDOT to do the design work this year is $10,000. The estimated construction cost for the replacement of these lights, including WSDOT's costs to oversee the project, is $161,576. Since the design portion of this project will be done this year, a second amendment to the 2014 TIP is required. The Draft Amendment #2 to the 2014 TIP will add the following: • Sullivan Preservation Project, SR-290 to Wellesley Attached is a summary of the proposed changes. A public hearing on the Draft Amendment #2 - 2014 TIP, as well as adoption of the TIP is currently scheduled for October 14, 2014. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The resurfacing portion of this project is proposed to be paid from the Street Preservation Fund 311. The lighting replacement is proposed to be paid from the Street Capital Projects Fund 303. There are sufficient funds to cover the estimated costs for these projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric Guth, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Amendment #2 - 2014 TIP; SR 290 Lighting Replacement Memo City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works DRAFT AMENDMENT#2 -2014 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 14- ,( ,2014) Primary City Total 2014 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 76,785 $ 568,800 2 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project(PE/RW Only) Flora Barker STP(U) $ 66,230 $ 490,600 3 0141 Sullivan/Euclid Concrete Intersection (PE Only) Sullivan Euclid STP(U) $ 18,700 $ 138,500 4 0142 Broadway©Argonne/Mullan Conc. Intersections (PE/RW) Broadway @Argonne/Mullan STP(U) $ 20,740 $ 153,650 5 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail (PE Only) SCC Valley Mall STP(E) $ - $ 440,000 6 0149 Sidewalk Infill Program- Phase 2 Various locations CMAQ $ 56,700 $ 226,800 7 0155 Sullivan West Bridge#4508 Sullivan ©Spokane River BR $ 893,000 $ 8,440,000 8 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection Project Pines (SR 27) Houk St. TIB-UCP $ 92,500 $ 1,850,000 9 0159 University Rd/1-90 Overpass Study University 1-90 CMAQ $ 13,300 $ 98,500 10 0166 Pines(SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project Pines (SR 27) @ Grace Ave HSIP $ - $ 648,500 11 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements(Bike/Ped.) Various locations HSIP $ 71,000 $ 472,000 12 0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 1-90 Wellesley STP(U) $ 22,500 $ 166,700 13 0176 Appleway Trail Phase 2 (RW&CN) University Evergreen CMAQ $ 343,000 $ 2,542,000 14 0201 ITS Infill Project(PE Only) Various locations CMAQ $ 4,000 $ 26,000 0202 2013 Street Preservation Projects- Phase 2 15 0179 -Argonne Rd Resurfacing Project Sprague Broadway STP(U) $ 49,275 $ 365,000 16 0179 -Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project(EB Lanes) Havana 1-90 STP(U) $ 83,700 $ 620,000 17 0179 -Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project 1-90 Thierman STP(U) $ 48,600 $ 360,000 18 0179 -Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project Herald University STP(U) $ 56,025 $ 415,000 2013 Street Preservation Projects- Phase 3 19 0180 -Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project Park Vista STP(U) $ 91,000 $ 670,000 20 2014 Street Preservation Project Various locations City $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 21 0196 -8th Ave Reconstruction Project McKinnon Fancher City $ 300,000 $ 300,000 22 0205 -Appleway Ave Resurfacing Thierman Park City $ 400,000 $ 400,000 23 - Euclid Ave Resurfacing Project Flora Barker City $ 227,000 $ 227,000 24 - Mullan Rd Resurfacing Project Dishman-Mica Broadway City $ 215,000 $ 215,000 25 0181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade Various locations QRSP $ - $ 133,800 26 0186 Adams St. Resurfacing Project 4th Sprague CDBG $ 28,000 $ 206,550 27 0187 Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project Vista Herald STP(U) $ 98,000 $ 725,000 28 0188 Sullivan Rd Resurfacing Project(PE Only) Sprague Mission STP(U) $ 11,450 $ 84,800 29 0191 Vista Rd/BNSF RR Crossing Safety Improvements Vista @ BNSF RR WUTC $ 10,750 $ 50,750 30 Fancher Bridge over BNSF RR Expansion Joint Repair Fancher @ BNSF RR City $ 107,000 $ 107,000 31 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements(PE Only) Sprague @ Barker Private $ - $ 55,000 32 0211 Sullivan Preservation Project-SR290 to Wellesley SR 290 Wellesley City $ 21,527 $ 21,527 $ 4,725,782 $ 22,518,477 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP arc to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances,and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. P:\Public Works\Capital Projects\CIP-TIP Funding\2014-2019 TIP\2nd Amended 2014 TIP\2nd Amended 2014 TIP(Draft 9-23-2014).xlsx 9/18/2014 Funded Projects Added Projects 2013 Carry Over Projects Public Works Department SMl ne Traffic Engineering 4000 Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum From: Ryan Kipp To: Eric Guth Date: 9/17/2014 Re: SR 290 (Trent) Lighting Replacement The Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)plans to resurface SR 290 (Trent) from the Sullivan Road interchange east to the Idaho state line using federal funds. WSDOT anticipates publishing an ad for the construction of this project in December 2014, with the construction in spring/summer 2015. WSDOT's policy was to evaluate the age of, and any deficiencies with the highway lighting system as part of a paving project, which is part of their design matrix. Then, if needed, the existing lighting system would be replaced as part of the paving project. Due to limited funding, WSDOT has eliminated the evaluation and replacement of existing lighting systems on the SR 290 resurfacing project. WSDOT notified the City of the paving project referenced above, and that a portion of the project is within the City limits. The street lights along SR 290 (Trent) within the City limits are the City's responsibility, and the City has an agreement with WSDOT to maintain these fixtures. There are 10 lights at or near the Sullivan Road and SR 290 interchange. The age of lights near Sullivan Road is unknown. WSDOT looked through their archive and the only project they could find in the area was completed around 1967. The maximum life expectancy of a lighting system is usually 40 years, so the current system has already exceeded it by six years. In addition, the lights are an antiquated frangible base style which is no longer available. When a frangible base pole (See Figures 1 and 2) is knocked over, the bolts are sheared off and the concrete base has to be jack hammered to remove the old bolts. This process is labor intensive and it drives up the replacement cost. The present-day type of base used is a • breakaway style (See Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1/2 Figure 3). With this style the pole breaks away when hit and the bolts are not sheared off. WSDOT has only three frangible base types left in stock to be used as replacements. There are still 38 of this style in operation in the eastern region. In fact, one of frangible base poles was knocked down in December. If another one of the City's frangible base lights is knocked down, there is no guarantee there will be a replacement available. Therefore, to replace a knocked down light, a new foundation and light pole would need to be purchased. In addition, the existing wiring system connecting these lights is outdated and does not meet current electrical codes. It is strongly recommended that no new lights be added to the existing wiring system, nor should it be modified. Therefore, it is my recommendation that a new electrical system (junction boxes, conduit, and wiring)be installed. The City considered the option of installing LED lighting. However, after discussion with WSDOT it was decided that it would be best to stay with High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lighting at this time. All of the other lighting on SR 290 is HPS and there is a significant color difference between HPS and LED lighting. Also, the existing lighting on Sullivan Road over Trent is HPS. Therefore, if LED lights were installed within the same area, there would be two different colors of light noticed by the drivers. At this time WSDOT has no plans to upgrade the lighting they own on SR 290 from HPS to LED. WSDOT stated that their first priority is to update the lighting on I-90, and then after that has been completed they would begin updating lighting along other state routes. Updating the poles and electrical system as described above for the SR 290 project would provide the City with the flexibility to upgrade lighting from HPS to LED in the future. The current system, as noted above, does not provide the City with this option. It is anticipated that if the lighting system can be upgraded, only new LED heads would be needed to convert from HPS to LED lighting. This will allow the City to spread out the lighting conversion cost over several projects. I recommend that the City replace the existing lighting system within WSDOT's project due to the age and outdated electrical system of the existing lighting system, and to avoid an additional construction project to separately replace the lighting system. The lighting replacement is within WSDOT's repaving project limit. Therefore, the City could request that WSDOT prepare the design of the replacement lighting system, and have it installed as part of their paving project. Having WSDOT preform the design would be much less expensive than hiring a consultant. Also,WSDOT would make sure the new system meets their design criteria and current electrical code. The estimated construction cost of the new system is $150,576, and the estimated design cost through an agreement with WSDOT is $11,000. Please note these costs include contingencies, construction engineering, administrative overhead, and taxes. The estimated total project cost to replace the 10 HPS street lights and its corresponding electrical system along SR 290 near Sullivan Road is approximately $161,576. 2/2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 7, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report - vehicle parking in residential areas. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 9.05.010; SVMC 9.30; WAC 308-330-462; RCW 46.61.570; RCW 46.44.080; RCW 7.80.120. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: May 29, 2012 City Council meeting, Council received an administrative report on potentially restricting semi-truck parking in residential zones; June 26, 2012, received a follow up administrative report from the perspective of the professional trucking community; September 4, 2012 administrative report; October 23, 2012 administrative report; November 13, 2012 first reading of Ordinance 12-029; December 11, 2012, second reading and adoption of Ordinance 12-029; information only item May 20, 2014; administrative report June 3, 2014; and administrative report August 19, 2014. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: At the August 19, 2014 Council meeting, Council requested that staff research options on ways to regulate parking on public rights-of-way in residentially- zoned areas. Various broad conceptual proposals were suggested by Council. Based on that discussion, staff drafted four draft options for discussion purposes. They represent a sliding scale in terms of restrictiveness. The first option is to take no further action at this time. The fourth would be the most restrictive. The three options which would represent amendments to the Code would have similar exemptions and penalties. All three would allow at least some period of time that prohibited vehicles could park (suggested three hours). This timeframe is suggested only as a talking point, and may be increased or decreased at the option of the Council. Option one would be to not amend the Code, and instead rely on our existing laws. Option two would prohibit any tractor, commercial trailer over 27 feet, or combination thereof (semi-trucks with or without trailers), from parking on the public rights-of-way in residentially- zoned areas for more than three hours. The vehicle length was selected because it is one foot under a standard trailer length for a dual trailer combination under federal regulations. Option three would prohibit any commercial vehicle, or combination of vehicles, over 22 total feet, from parking on the public rights-of-way in residentially-zoned areas for more than three hours. Option four would prohibit any vehicle over 22 feet total length from parking on the public rights- of-way in residentially-zoned areas for more than three hours. This would include commercial and recreational vehicles of all types over 22 feet. The proposed penalty for all three potential Code changes is a Class 4 Civil Infraction pursuant to RCW 7.80.120, with a base penalty of $25, with additional fees and assessments by the 1 Legislature and Courts of 105%, for a total (rounded up) of $52. This amount is proposed because it is the same as the fine for a parking violation under state law. Other possible policy considerations: - Prohibit all semi-trucks with or without trailers from parking more than "X" hours on private property in residentially-zoned areas; - Limit the number to one semi-truck with or without trailers from parking more than "X" hours on private property in residentially-zoned areas; - If semi-truck parking is limited on private property, discuss whether restrictions would apply to the front yard, side yard, or rear yard. Similarly, would the limitations apply if the vehicle is in a garage or carport? Not all side and rear yards are accessible from the street for a large vehicle. - Police Chief Van Leuven has identified concerns about adopting any of these proposals, and can provide that explanation. A summary of his concerns is that the cost of enforcement of options three and four would be significant. Further, there is a concern that options three and four would encourage neighborhood disputes. OPTIONS: Discussion about options. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Draft options 2 Option One: Leave Code As-is Option Two: Tractor and Semitrailer Parking Restrictions in Residentially-zoned Areas. A. Definitions. For purposes of this section: "Moving truck" means a vehicle for which the primary use is moving personal belongings from one residence to a new residence. "Residentially-zoned area" means any district which is zoned by the City as Multi- Family-1, Multi-Family-2, Residential-1, Residential-2, Residential-3, or Residential-4. "Semitrailer" means a vehicle of at least 27 feet in total length without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property within or on itself for commercial purposes, and drawn by a vehicle with motive power; and "Tractor" means a motor vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing semitrailers, and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and load so drawn. B. In order to relieve traffic congestion and facilitate the orderly movement and safety of traffic and pedestrians in residentially-zoned areas, the parking of any tractor, semitrailer, or tractor/semitrailer combination in excess of three consecutive hours, or combined six hours within seven consecutive days, is prohibited upon public rights-of-way in residentially-zoned areas. C. Exemptions. The following uses shall be exemptions to SVMC ***(B), above: 1. Moving truck, provided such parking does not exceed 24 consecutive hours or does not exceed 24 total hours in a seven consecutive day period; 2. Construction vehicles, provided they are on location for an active project for which a permit has been issued by the City, unless otherwise exempt from such permit requirements, and only for that period of time reasonably necessary to complete the project; and 3. Emergency vehicles. D. Each day any vehicle is parked in violation of this section, the violation shall be deemed a Class 4 civil infraction pursuant to RCW 7.80.120, and shall constitute a hazard or obstruction to traffic, and such vehicle may be impounded pursuant to chapter 46.55 RCW, as adopted or amended. Option Three: Commercial Parking Restrictions in Residentially-zoned Areas. A. Definitions. For purposes of this section: "Commercial vehicle" means a vehicle for hire for which the principal use is the transportation of commodities, merchandise, produce, equipment, freight, people, or animals; "Moving truck" means a vehicle for which the primary use is moving personal belongings from one residence to a new residence. "Residentially-zoned area" means any district which is zoned by the City as Multi- Family-1, Multi-Family-2,Residential-1, Residential-2, Residential-3, or Residential-4. "Commercial trailer" means a vehicle for hire without motive power for which the principal use is the transport of commodities, merchandise, produce, freight, equipment, people, or animals, and which is drawn by a vehicle with motive power. B. In order to relieve traffic congestion and facilitate the orderly movement and safety of traffic and pedestrians in residentially-zoned areas, the parking of any commercial vehicles or commercial trailers, or combinations thereof, exceeding 22 feet in total length, in excess of three consecutive hours, or combined six hours within seven consecutive days, is prohibited upon public rights-of-way in residentially-zoned areas. C. Exemptions. The following uses shall be exemptions to SVMC ***(B), above: 1. Moving truck, provided such parking does not exceed 24 consecutive hours or does not exceed 24 total hours in a seven consecutive day period; 2. Construction vehicles, provided they are on location for an active project for which a permit has been issued by the City, unless otherwise exempt from such permit requirements, and only for that period of time reasonably necessary to complete the project; and 3. Emergency vehicles. D. Each day any vehicle is parked in violation of this section, the violation shall be deemed a Class 4 civil infraction pursuant to RCW 7.80.120, and shall constitute a hazard or obstruction to traffic, and such vehicle may be impounded pursuant to chapter 46.55 RCW, as adopted or amended. Option Four: Parking Restrictions in Residentially-zoned Areas—Vehicle Length Restrictions. A. Definitions. For purposes of this section: "Moving truck" means a vehicle for which the primary use is moving personal belongings from one residence to a new residence. "Residentially-zoned area" means any district which is zoned by the City as Multi- Family-1, Multi-Family-2, Residential-1, Residential-2, Residential-3, or Residential-4; and "Vehicle" shall have the same meaning as set forth in RCW 46.04.670. B. In order to relieve traffic congestion and facilitate the orderly movement and safety of traffic and pedestrians in residentially-zoned areas, the parking of any vehicle, or combination of vehicles, exceeding 22 feet in total length, in excess of three consecutive hours, or combined six hours within seven consecutive days, is prohibited upon public rights-of-way in residentially- zoned areas. C. Exemptions. The following uses shall be exemptions to SVMC ***(B), above: 1. Moving truck, provided such parking does not exceed 24 consecutive hours or does not exceed 24 total hours in a seven consecutive day period; 2. Construction vehicles, provided they are on location for an active project for which a permit has been issued by the City, unless otherwise exempt from such permit requirements, and only for that period of time reasonably necessary to complete the project; and 3. Emergency vehicles. D. Each day any vehicle is parked in violation of this section, the violation shall be deemed a Class 4 civil infraction pursuant to RCW 7.80.120, and shall constitute a hazard or obstruction to traffic, and such vehicle may be impounded pursuant to chapter 46.55 RCW, as adopted or amended. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 7,2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: n consent n old business n new business n public hearing n information® admin.report n pending legislation n executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report — Batch Amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code—Definitions,Title 19,Title 22 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: A Planning Commission study session was conducted on August 14th, 2014. A public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on August 28th, 2014 and continued deliberations were conducted by the Planning Commission on September 11th,2014. BACKGROUND: The proposed amendments to the Definitions,Title 19 Zoning Regulations,and Title 22 Design and Development Standards have been developed by the Community Development Department in response to issues that have arisen through the development review process and in response to direction received from City Council. A study session on the proposed amendments was held by the Planning Commission on August 14,2014 followed by a public hearing on August 28,2014. The Planning Commission heard public testimony from several concerned citizens.The Planning Commission began deliberations after closing the public hearing and continued deliberations on September 11,2014. As part of the deliberations,the Planning Commission reached unanimous consensus to recommend approval of seven amendments as proposed and five amendments with modifications.The batch code text amendments cover a number of topics which will be discussed at the meeting. Due to the nature of the proposed amendments,if Council gives consensus to proceed to a first reading, staff will prepare ordinances grouping the similar topics together for Council consideration. OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed to first reading;take other action deemed appropriated. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council consensus to bring draft ordinances forward for a first reading at a future Council meeting. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen,Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Appendix A—Gun Ranges N. Bicycle Parking Comparison B. Community Facilities Screening& Shared O. Planning Commission Findings and Access Recommendation C. Outdoor Storage P. Staff Report and Recommendation to the D. Medical Office in MF-1 &MF-2 Planning Commission E. Manufactured Home Parks Q. Power Point Presentation F. Off-street Parking&Loading Standards G. Off-street Loading Spaces&Bicycle Parking H. Parking Matrix I. PC Meeting Minutes August 14,2014 J. PC Meeting Minutes August 28,2014 K. PC Meeting Minutes September 11,2014 L. Parking Comparison Matrix M. Loading Dock Comparison CTA-2014-0003 RCA for Administrative Report Appendix A Definitions Recreational facility: An indoor or outdoor facility used on a continuous basis for sports, games of skills and leisure-time activities. Examples include gymnasiums, amusement arcades, tennis and racquetball courts, bowling alleys, video arcades, dance halls, skating rinks, billiard parlors, archery, miniature golf course, indoor gun ranges, and indoor swimming pools. This definition excludes indoor theaters, golf driving ranges, gymnastic facilities, indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, and exhibition halls. See "Entertainment, use category." ATTACHMENT A Page 1 of 1 19.40.010 General provisions.ons. A. No principal or accessory structure shall be located within the clearview triangle (Chapter 22.70 SVMC). B. In the districts where the height of buildings is restricted to 35 feet, cooling towers, roof gables, chimneys and vent stacks may extend for an additional height, not to exceed 40 feet, above the average grade line of the building. Water stand pipes and tanks, church steeples, domes and spires and school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected to exceed maximum height requirements; provided, that one additional foot shall be added to the width and depth of front, side and rear yards for each foot that such structures exceed the required height. C. No structure may be erected to a height in excess of that permitted by applicable airport hazard zoning regulations. D. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwelling units in any residential zone. Guests may park and/or occupy a recreational vehicle while visiting the occupants of a dwelling unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month period. The intent is to accommodate visiting guests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwelling unit. E. Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential zone. F. The following features attached to structures are allowed as exceptions to the setback standards: 1. Minor Projections Allowed. Minor features of a struotune, such as eamss, chimneys, fire escapes, bay windows no more than 12 feet long and which cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure, uncovered stairways, and uncovered decks or balconies, may extend into a required setback up to 20 percent of the depth of the setback. However, they may not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback is required. Wheelchair ramps are allowed to project into the setback based on SVMC Title 24, Building Codes. Attached mechanical equipment such as heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators and water pumps are allowed to project into the side or rear setback only. G. Community facilities and public utility distribution facility(ies), except power poles-a-Rd-u-nde-r-g-pau-Rel transformers, shall comply with the following conditions: 1. The requirements for landscaping, signage, lighting and other requirements shall apply. 2. Type I landscape screening is required along property line(s) adjacent to a residential use or zone. GI4. Public utility transmission facility shall comply with the following conditions: 1. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to assure for the property construction, continued maintenance, and general safety to the property adjoining the public utility transmission facility; 2. All support structures for electric transmission lines shall have their means of access located a minimum of 10 feet above ground; 3. The facilities shall be compatible with the surrounding uses either by distance, landscaping, buffering, or design, as determined by the director; and 4. The height of any structure above ground does not exceed 125 feet. . The following design standards apply to all outdoor lighting in residential zones: 1. All new development shall provide lighting within parking lot , along pedestrian walkways and accessible routes of travel. 2. Lighting fixtures shall be limited to heights of no more than 24 feet for parking lots and no more than 16 feet for pedestrian walkways. 3. All lighting shall be shielded from producing off-site glare, either through exterior shields or through optical design inside the fixture, and shall not emit light above 90 degrees. 4. Street lighting installed by the City of Spokane Valley or other public utilities is exempt from these regulations. (Ord. 09-036 § 2. 2000; Ord. O0'O31 § 1. 2000; Ord. O0'O17 § 1. 2000; Ord. O8'O2G §4, 2008; Ord. 08-006 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). ATTACHMENT B Page 1of6 19.60.010 General requirements. A. Nonresidential development shall meet the minimum setback and the maximum height requirements shown in Table 19.60-1. B. Residential development shall meet the minimum residential development standards for the MF-2 zone shown in Table 19.40-1 with the exception that the following setbacks shall apply (note: alternate setbacks apply to multifamily adjacent to single-family uses or zoning. See SVMC 19.60.070 and 19.60.080): Front yard setback: 20 feet Rear yard setback: 10 feet Side yard setback: 5 feet Side yard — Flanking street setback: 20 feet Residential use adjacent to a nonresidential use: Side yard (without living space window): 5 feet Side yard (with living space window): 10 feet C. A home occupation may be established in a residence that has been legally permitted, excluding caretaker dwellings. D. Attached and detached accessory dwelling units (ADU) are permitted in all zoning districts that permit single-family dwellings and shall adhere to the appearance of single-family residences. An attached ADU is an accessory dwelling unit that has one or more vertical and/or horizontal walls in common with, or attached to, the principal dwelling unit. A detached ADU is a freestanding accessory dwelling unit that is not attached or physically connected to the principal dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling units shall meet all provisions contained in SVMC 19.40.100. E. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwelling units in any Mixed Use or Commercial zone except in manufactured home parks. Guests may park and/or occupy a recreational vehicle while visiting the occupants of a dwelling unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month period. The intent is to accommodate visiting guests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwelling unit. F. Parking areas shall be paved and landscaped in accordance with Chapter 22.50 SVMC. G. New development exceeding three stories in height shall be provided with paved service lanes not less than 16 feet in width. H. All new development shall provide for shared access with adjacent properties. 1H. All outdoor trash, garbage and refuse storage areas shall be screened on all sides visible to public views or rights-of-way with a minimum five-and-one-half-foot-high concrete block or masonry wall or sight- obscuring fence with a sight-obscuring gate and two feet of Type II landscaping in accordance with Figure 22.70-8. I 41. The following structures may be erected above the height limits of this code in the Office, Commercial, and Mixed Use zones, provided: (1) the structure is accessory to or part of a building which is a permitted use in the zone; (2) the structure complies with the height limits in the Airport Overlay zone; and (3) no residential use of the structure shall occur above the height limits prescribed in the zone: 1. Penthouses or roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans, or similar equipment to operate and maintain a building. 2. Fire or parapet walls, skylights, flagpoles, chimneys, church steeples, belfries, wireless masts, and similar structures. 3. Structures such as silos, feed mills, batch plants, and fixed cranes which are used in a manufacturing process which utilizes vertical processing and storage of materials. 4. Water stand pipes and tanks. I 14J. The following features attached to structures are allowed as exceptions to the setback standards: 1. Minor Projections Allowed. Minor features of a structure, such as eaves, chimneys, fire escapes, bay windows no more than 12 feet long and which cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure, uncovered stairways, wheelchair ramps and uncovered decks or balconies, may extend into a required structure setback up to 20 percent of the depth of the setback. However, they may not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback is required. ATTACHMENT B Page 2 of 6 2. Full Projections Allowed. In addition to subsection (K)(1) of this section, the following features are allowed to project farther into the required structure setback: a. Canopies, marquees, awnings and similar features may fully extend into a street setback and may extend into the public right-of-way subject to the requirements of the building code and adopted street standards. b. Uncovered stairways and wheelchair ramps that lead to one entrance on the street-facing facade of a building may fully extend into a street setback. c. Uncovered decks and stairways that are no more than 42 inches above the ground may fully extend into a required structure setback. d. On lots that slope down from the street, vehicular and pedestrian entry bridges that are no more than 42 inches above the average sidewalk elevation may fully extend into a required structure setback. e. Balconies may extend into public rights-of-way as allowed in the building code and adopted street standards. f. Attached mechanical equipment such as heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators and water pumps are allowed to project into the side or rear yard setback only. L. Mobile food vendors with permission of the property owner, health certificate and permit. M. Community facilities and public utility distribution facility(ies), except power p transformers, shall comply with the following conditions: 1. The requirements for landscaping, signage, lighting and other requirements shall apply. 2. Type I landscape screening is required along property line(s) adjacent to a residential use or zone. NM. Public utility transmission facility shall comply with the following conditions: 1. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to assure for the property construction, continued maintenance, and general safety to the property adjoining the public utility transmission facility; 2. All support structures for electric transmission lines shall have their means of access located a minimum of 10 feet above ground; 3. The facilities shall be compatible with the surrounding uses either by distance, landscaping, buffering, or design, as determined by the director; and 4. The height of any structure above ground does not exceed 125 feet. 19.70.0101-1, Light Industrial district. A. The Light Industrial designation is a planned industrial area with special emphasis and attention given to aesthetics, landscaping and internal and community compatibility. Typical uses would include technology and other low-impact industries. Light Industrial areas may also include office and commercial uses as ancillary uses within an overall plan for industrial development. B. Supplemental Regulations. 1. The outdoor storage provisions contained in SVMC 19.60.060 (B) shall apply to the I-1 district. 2. Mobile food vendors shall be located on/within designated areas which do not interfere with parking or internal circulation with permission of the property owner, health certificate and permit. 3. Setbacks. a. Front and flanking street yard setbacks shall be 20 feet; and b. Side and rear yard setbacks of 35 feet are required only adjacent to residential zoning districts. 4. The following structures may be erected above the height limits of this code, provided: (a) the structure is accessory to or part of a building which is a permitted use in the zone; (b) the structure complies with the height limits in the Airport Overlay zone; and (c) no residential use of the structure shall occur above the height limits prescribed in the zone: a. Penthouses or roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans, or similar equipment to operate and maintain a building. b. Fire or parapet walls, skylights, flagpoles, chimneys, church steeples, belfries, wireless masts, and similar structures. ATTACHMENT B Page 3 of 6 c. Structures such as silos, feed mills, batch plants, and fixed cranes which are used in a manufacturing process which utilizes vertical processing and storage of materials. d. Water stand pipes and tanks. 5. All parking, maneuvering and outdoor storage areas shall be paved. Exemptions: a. Parking and storage areas routinely used by cleated and other heavy equipment as approved by the planning director. b. The planning director may waive portions of these requirements upon recommendation by the Spokane regional clean air agency or the Spokane Valley development engineering division when it can be demonstrated that the proposed surfacing, such as grass pavers or other technology, will not adversely affect air quality, water quality or the integrity of the parking area. 6. The following features attached to structures are allowed as exceptions to the setback standards: a. Minor Projections Allowed. Minor features of a structure, such as eaves, chimneys, fire escapes, bay windows no more than 12 feet long and which cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure, uncovered stairways, wheelchair ramps and uncovered decks or balconies, may extend into a required structure setback up to 20 percent of the depth of the setback. However, they may not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback is required. b. Full Projections Allowed. In addition to subsection (B)(6)(a) of this section, the following features are allowed to project farther into the required structure setback: i. Canopies, marquees, awnings and similar features may fully extend into a street setback and may extend into the public right-of-way subject to the requirements of the building code and adopted street standards. ii. Uncovered stairways and wheelchair ramps that lead to one entrance on the street- facing facade of a building may fully extend into a street setback. iii. Uncovered decks and stairways that are no more than 42 inches above the ground may fully extend into a required structure setback. iv. On lots that slope down from the street, vehicular and pedestrian entry bridges that are no more than 42 inches above the average sidewalk elevation may fully extend into a required structure setback. v. Balconies may extend into public rights-of-way as allowed in the building code and adopted street standards. vi. Attached mechanical equipment such as heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators and water pumps are allowed to project into the side or rear yard setback only. 7. Community facilities and public utility distribution facility(ies), except power poles and underground transformers, shall comply with the following conditions: a. The requirements for landscaping, signage, lighting and other requirements shall apply. e. e: _ •_ __e: - ::•'•e ___. :e along property line(s) adjacent to a residential use or zone. 87. Public utility transmission facility shall comply with the following conditions: a. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to assure for the property construction, continued maintenance, and general safety to the property adjoining the public utility transmission facility; b. All support structures for electric transmission lines shall have their means of access located a minimum of 10 feet above ground; c. The facilities shall be compatible with the surrounding uses either by distance, landscaping, buffering, or design, as determined by the director; and d. The height of any structure above ground does not exceed 125 feet. g8. The following shall apply to all secondhand stores and consignment sales: a. The subject parcel must have frontage on an arterial; and b. Minimum building size of 15,000 gross square feet (gsf); and c. Limited to a single tenant. 94-9. A home occupation may be established in a residence that has been legally permitted, excluding caretaker dwellings. ATTACHMENT B Page 4 of 6 1014. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwelling units. Guests may park and/or occupy a recreational vehicle while visiting the occupants of a dwelling unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month period. The intent is to accommodate visiting guests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwelling unit. (Ord. 13-001 § 6, 2013; Ord. 10-005 § 1, 2010; Ord. 09-017 § 1, 2009; Ord. 09-010 § 1, 2009; Ord. 08-026 § 7, 2008; Ord. 08-017 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 19.70.020 1-2, Heavy Industrial district. A. Heavy Industrial designated property is characterized by intense industrial activities which include manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly, freight handling and similar operations. Heavy industry may have significant noise, odor or aesthetic impacts. B. Supplemental Regulations. 1. 1-2 allows any use permitted in the I-1 zoning district, except as specifically provided in SVMC 19.120.050 2. Mobile food vendors shall be located on/within designated areas which do not interfere with parking or internal circulation with permission of the property owner, health certificate and permit. 3. The following structures may be erected above the height limits of this code, provided: (a) the structure is accessory to or part of a building which is a permitted use in the zone; (b)the structure complies with the height limits in the Airport Overlay zone; and (c) no residential use of the structure shall occur above the height limits prescribed in the zone: a. Penthouses or roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans, or similar equipment to operate and maintain a building. b. Fire or parapet walls, skylights, flagpoles, chimneys, church steeples, belfries, wireless masts, and similar structures. c. Structures such as silos, feed mills, batch plants, and fixed cranes which are used in a manufacturing process which utilizes vertical processing and storage of materials. d. Water stand pipes and tanks. 4. All parking, maneuvering and outdoor storage areas shall be paved. Exemptions: a. Parking and storage areas routinely used by cleated and other heavy equipment as approved by the planning director. b. The planning director may waive portions of these requirements upon recommendation by the Spokane regional clean air agency or the Spokane Valley development engineering division when it can be demonstrated that the proposed surfacing, such as grass pavers or other technology, will not adversely affect air quality, water quality or the integrity of the parking area. 5. The following features attached to structures are allowed as exceptions to the setback standards: a. Minor Projections Allowed. Minor features of a structure, such as eaves, chimneys, fire escapes, bay windows no more than 12 feet long and which cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure, uncovered stairways, wheelchair ramps and uncovered decks or balconies, may extend into a required structure setback up to 20 percent of the depth of the setback. However, they may not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback is required. b. Full Projections Allowed. In addition to subsection (B)(5)(a) of this section, the following features are allowed to project farther into the required structure setback: i. Canopies, marquees, awnings and similar features may fully extend into a street setback and may extend into the public right-of-way subject to the requirements of the building code and adopted street standards. ii. Uncovered stairways and wheelchair ramps that lead to one entrance on the street- facing facade of a building may fully extend into a street setback. iii. Uncovered decks and stairways that are no more than 42 inches above the ground may fully extend into a required structure setback. ATTACHMENT B Page 5 of 6 iv. On lots that slope down from the street, vehicular and pedestrian entry bridges that are no more than 42 inches above the average sidewalk elevation may fully extend into a required structure setback. v. Balconies may extend into public rights-of-way as allowed in the building code and adopted street standards. 6. Community facilities and public utility distribution facility(ies), except power poles and underground transformers, shall comply with the following conditions: a. The requirements for landscaping, signage, lighting and other requirements shall apply. b. Type I landscape screening is required along property line(s) adjacent to a residential use or zone. �6. Public utility transmission facility shall comply with the following conditions: a. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to assure for the property construction, continued maintenance, and general safety to the property adjoining the public utility transmission facility; b. All support structures for electric transmission lines shall have their means of access located a minimum of 10 feet above ground; c. The facilities shall be compatible with the surrounding uses either by distance, landscaping, buffering, or design, as determined by the director; and d. The height of any structure above ground does not exceed 125 feet. 87. A home occupation may be established in a residence that has been legally permitted, excluding caretaker dwellings. g8. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwelling units. Guests may park and/or occupy a recreational vehicle while visiting the occupants of a dwelling unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month period. The intent is to accommodate visiting guests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwelling unit. (Ord. 13-001 § 7, 2013; Ord. 09-017 § 1, 2009; Ord. 09-010 § 1, 2009; Ord. 08-026 § 8, 2008; Ord. 08-017 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). ATTACHMENT B Page 6 of 6 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix Use Category/Type Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions C9 O Z V o N Storage,'general outdoors S S S S P See zoning districts for conditions. Automobile&truck/RV/motorcycle painting, S repair, body and fender works SP P P P P Enclosed structure only. SVMC 19.60.050(B)(3). 19.60.040 NC, Neighborhood Commercial district. B. Supplemental Permitted Use Regulations. 5. All storage in the NC district shall be within an enclosed building, except ; provided, that retail products which are for sale or rental may be displayed outdoors during business hours only, so long as the storago display does not occur within any required Front or flanking street yard, border easement, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle, or in any public street or right-of-way. 19.60.050 C, Community Commercial district. B. Supplemental Permitted Use Regulations. 3. Outdoor-Alt storage in the C district shall be located between the property line and the rear side of the within an enclosed building. Screening pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030(B) shall be provided for the portions of the outdoor storage which are visible from public right-of-way. -_ __• _ _ . _ . e.!_! _ The following are exempted from these requirements; provided: , that ra. Retail products which are for sale or rental may boand displayed outdoors during business hours only, so long as the storage display does not occur within any required front or flanking street yard, border easement, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle, or in any public street or right-of-way. b. Vehicles, machinery or other similar items normally displayed for sales, lease, or rent purposes on an open lot may be se-displayed. No inoperable or not currently licensed vehicles or remnants thereof shall be stored or displayed out of doorsoutdoors if these items are in working condition and not placed within border easements or public right-of-way. 19.60.060 RC, Regional Commercial district. B. Supplemental Permitted Use Regulations. 2.Al- Outdoor storage in the RC district shall be within an enclosed building or within an area screened by a sight-obscuring fence Type I screen consistent with the provisions of pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030(B)(1); providedexcept that no screening is required for the following: a. , that rRetail products which are for sale or rental may boand displayed outdoors during business hours only, so long as the storage display does not occur within any required front or flanking street yard border easement, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle or in any public street or right-of-way. ATTACHMENT C Page 1012 b. Vehicles, Automobiles, recreational vehicles, machines machinery and other similar items normally displayed for sale, lease or rents purposes on an open lot may be sa displayed if these items are in working condition and not placed within border easements or public right-of-way. 19.60.070 MUC, Mixed Use Center district. B. Supplemental Permitted Use Regulations. 1. Outdoor storage shall be screened by a sight-obscuring fence pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030(B)(1); except that no screening is required for the following: a. Retail products which are for sale or rental and displayed outdoors during business hours only, so long as the display does not occur within any required border easement, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle, or public right-of-way. 1. The outdoor storage provisions contained in SVMC 19.60.050(B)(3) shall apply to the MUC district. 19.60.080 CMU, Corridor Mixed Use district. B. Supplemental Permitted Use Regulations. 1. The outdoor storage requirements pursuant to provisions contained in SVMC 19.60.959060(8)02) shall apply to the CMU district. 19.70.0101-1, Light Industrial district. B. Supplemental Regulations. 1. Outdoor storage shall be screened by a sight-obscuring fence pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030(B)(1) when adjacent to a residential or commercial zoning district; except that no screening is required for the following: a. Retail products which are for sale or rental and displayed outdoors during business hours only, so Ionq as the display does not occur within any required border easement, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle. or in any public right-of-way. b. Vehicles, machinery or other items normally displayed for sale, lease, or rent may be displayed outdoors if these items are in working condition and not placed within border easements or the public right-of-way. 1. The outdoor storage provisions contained in SVMC 19.60.060(B) shall apply to the 11 district. ATTACHMENT C Page 2 of 2 Use Category/Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions ri N () In ri N M u LL —, g o U `Cc' O� ri N & cc cc cc 2 2 2 tJ W 0 Z u `C o. Medical 1. Clinics are only allowed as a conversion or redevelopment of an existing structure; 2. Existing buildings may be Medical/dental clinic SS PPPP P P P remodeled or demolished; and 4-3.New or remodeled structure may not exceed 110%of the current building footprint. ATTACHMENT D Page 1 of 1 19.40.130 Manufactured home parks. A. Manufactured home parks shall require approval of a binding site plan and site plan review, which pursuant to SVMC 20 Subdivision Regulations and SVMC 19.130 Site Plan Review- standards by the Spokane County utilities department, Spokane County regional health district and other appropriate agencies. C. Manufactured housing home parks density shall be consistent with the zoning classification they are located in not to exceed seven 12 units per acre_with a minimum of 3,600 square feet per spaco. - minimum of five manufactured home spaces shall be required per park. D. Manufactured home parks shall provide not less than 10 percent of the gross area of the park for common open space for the use of its residents. The maximum building coverage for each manufactured home space shall be 50 percent; provided, that coverage. E. Each manufactured home space shall_be a minimum of•15 feet in width have with-direct frontage on a public or private pa-ad-street. F. The minimum setbacks shall be pursuant to Table 19.40.130-1.for manufactured homes at park perimeter are as follows: 1. Twenty five feet from all public rights of way. 2. Side yard: 10 feet from park perimeter at the overall site lot side line. structure such as patio covers, awnings and/or carports. G. Minimum setbacks for individual in park spaces: 1. Front and flanking yards: four feet. 2. Side and rear yard: five feet. 3. Accessory structures such as patio covers, awnings, and/or carports: three feet. ATTACHMENT E Page 1 of 2 Table 19.40.130-1 Manufactured Home Park Minimum Setbacks (In Feet) * Minimum setback from the property Minimum setback from the lines of individual in park spaces boundary of the manufactured home park Front and Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Right-of- Flanking Way Street Yard Manufactured 45 5 5 10 10 20 Homes Patio covers, 45 3-5 3-5 3-5 3-5 20 decks, landings, awnings Carports 20** 35 3�5 35 35 *Greater setback shall control **For flanking streets,the setback may be 5 feet along the carport's non-access street. ATTACHMENT E Page 2 of 2 Chapter 22.50 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS 22.50.020 Vehicle parking. A. -_ - e __ __ _ _ e _ _ —e--• —•e • -e - ._! . The number of required off- street parking spaces shall be based on the following: 1. "Floor areaGross square feet"shall mean the gross square feet total area of the specific use. 2.Where fractional spaces result,the parking spaces required shall be constructed to the nearest whole number. 3. Uses not specified in Table 22.50-2 shall provide parking based on a use of similar nature. 4. New Construction. Prior to occupancy of a new structure with,,, any zo ng district off-street vehicle parking shall be provided in accordance withpursuant to Table 22.50-2. 5. Expansion of Existing Use. Prior to occupancy of an expanded (enlarged)floor area, off- street vehicle parking shall be provided in accordance withpursuant to Table 22.50-2 based on the expanded square footage. 6. Change of UecOccupancy. If a change in the occupancy classification is required, off-street parking shall be provided pursuant to Table 22.50-2 based on the proposed use prior to occupancy. If the minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required for the change of uec added to the existing on site parking supply falls short of the minimum number of vchiclo parking spaces required for the project as a whole,the applicant shall provide additional spaces to bring the total supply up to the minimum required. 7. In the case of multiple-use occupancies, other than shopping centers, in a building or on a lot, the total requirement for off-street parking shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately. 8. Tandem spaces shall not count as required parking. 9.All parking, maneuvering and loading areas shall be paved. 10. The Director may allow a reduction up to 2b%when the applicant makes a written request demonstrating site conditions that prohibit compliance with these requirements. ATTACHMENT F Page 1 of 1 22.50.030 Off-street loading. A. Every building or part thereof erected or occupied for retail business,service,wholesale, manufacturing, storage,warehousing, hotel/motel, industrial or any other similar use_similarly involving the receipt or distribution that receives or distributes by,�, hicle^omaterials or merchandise shall provide and maintain of the same premises loading spaces onsite in accordance with the following requirements: 1.All parking, loading and maneuvering of trucks shall be conducted on private property and shall not interfere with parking spaces or landscaping.: 2. Loading spaces shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from any front property line. The Director may allow exceptions when the applicant makes a written request demonstrating conditions that prohibit compliance with this requirement. 3. The minimum dimensions of oOff-street loading spaces shall m aeurobe as follows 12 feet wide by 30 feet long a.When one space is required, it shall m aeure 12 feet wide, 30 feet long and 15 feet high (if a dock). b.When two or more spaces are required,they shall measure 12 feet wide, 60 feet long and 15 feet high (if a dock). 2. Loading facilities located on the side of a building but not facing a street shall be set back from the front property line a minimum distance of 60 feet. . Required passenger vehicle parking shall not be allowed within the truck dock apron space. . The minimum number of off-street loading spaces-shall be pursuant to shown on tho following-tTable arc rcquired22.50-7: ATTACHMENT G Page 1 of 4 Table 22.50-7—Loading Spaces Required Use/Gross Square Feet Required Loading Spaces Industrial, manufacturing wholesale, warehouse, similar uses 10,000—40,000 square feet 1 space 40,001 —60,000 square feet 2 spaces 60,001 — 100,000 square feet 3 spaces Over 100,000 square feet 1 space for each 50,000 square feet or part thereof Restaurants 20,000—60,000 square feet 1 space 60,001 — 100,000 square feet 2 spaces Over 100,000 square feet 1 space for each 50,000 square feet or part thereof Hospitals, convalescent/nursing homes and similar institutions 10,000—40,000 square feet 1 space 40,001 — 100,000 square feet 2 spaces Over 100,000 square feet 1 space for each 50,000 square feet or part thereof Department stores, retail and other commercial uses 10,000—20,000 square feet 1 space 20,001 —50,000 square feet 2 spaces 50,001 — 100,000 square feet 3 spaces Over 100,000 square feet 1 space for each 50,000 square feet or part thereof ATTACHMENT G Page 2 of 4 B. Screening of Off Street Loading Areas. 1. Off street loading spaces and apron space shall not be located on the street side of any building in commercial or residential zones. In those instances where three or more sides of the. building face dedicated streets, loading spaces and apron space shall be located at the rear or side of the building and screened from view of the abutting streets for a minimum of 35 feet in accordance with the provisions of SVMC 22.70.030(1). In the industrial zones, off street loading spaces and apron space may be located on the street side of buildings, providing that they are screened from view of the abutting streets for a minimum of 35 feet in accordance with the provisions of SVMC 22.70.030(1); a side or r ar wall within 60 feet of any front property line or adjacent to the street. (Ord. 09 033 § ti 2009; Ord 09 010 § 1, 2009; Ord. 08 007 § 1, 2008; Ord. 07 015 §'1, 2007. Formerly 22.50.0,1 0). 22.50.040 Bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be provided by all uses in multifamily residential, commercial, mixed use, office, and light industrial zoning districts pursuant to SVMC Table 22.50 822.50.40(A)through (F). Bicycle parking is not required when the primary use of a business is to service vehicles. A. Bicycle_parking shall consist of permanent bicycle spaces are individual units within ribbon racks capable of , inverted "U"racks, locking wheel racks, lockers, or other similar permanent structures accommodating_five two or more bicycles. B. Multifamily developments shall provide one bike rack for every two buildings, including clubhouse and rental offices. C.All other uses shall provide bike spaces pursuant to Table 22.50-8. ATTACHMENT G Page 3 of 4 Table 22.50-8-Required Bicycle Spaces Minimum Number of Total Parking Spaces Bicycle Spaces Required Requiredl 0 to 24 0 25 to 50 2 50 to 100 4 100-250 6 250-500 8 More than 500 10 A. Bicycle racks and/or storage shall be provided when 25 or more parking spaces are required, at a ratio of one rack for every 25 parking spaces. D. Required bicycle parking must shall be located within 50 feet of an entrance to the building or use. GE. If bicycle parking is not visible from the street, a sign must be posted indicating the location of the bicycle parking spaces.The location of the bicycle racks shall be visible from the street to promote usage and enhance security. DF.All bicycle parking shall be separated from motor vehicle traffic by a barrier, curb, post, bollard,. landscaping or other similar device. €G. The property owner of a site shall have a continuing obligation to properly maintain any bicycle parking facilities on their property. The Director may allow exceptions when the applicant makes a written request demonstrating site conditions that prohibit compliance with these requirements. ATTACHMENT G Page 4 of 4 Table 22.50-2-Required Parking Spaces for Specific Activities Use Required parking Agriculture and Animal Animal processing/handling 1 per staff on largest shift Greenhouse/nursery, commercial 1 per 500 gross square feet Community Services Church, temple, mosque, synagogue and house of worship 1 per 4 fixed seats or 1 per 150 square feet of floor area Community hall, club or lodge 1 per 350 gross square feet Funeral home 1 per 500 gross square feet Daycare Day care, adult and child 1 per 500 gross square feet Education Schools, college or university 1 per 600 gross square feet of classroom and 1 per 5 seats in principal assembly room Schools, K through 8 1 per classroom Schools, 9 through 12 7 per classroom Schools, professional, vocational and trade 1 per 600 gross square feet Schools, specialized training studios 1 per 350 gross square feet Entertainment Casino 1 per 350 gross square feet Cultural Facilities 1 per 800 gross square feet Major event entertainment and indoor theaters 1 per 4 fixed seats or 1 per 150 square feet of floor area Recreation facility, indoor 1 per 350 gross square feet Recreation facility, outdoor 20 per acre of site Food and Beverage Service Brewery, winery and/or distillery 1 per 1,000 gross square feet Espresso establishment, Restaurant Tavern/night club, 1 per 250 gross square feet, min of 2 Tasting room Group Living Assisted living facility/convalescent/nursing home 1 per 4 residents plus 1 per staff on largest shift Community residential facility 1 per 4 residents Dwelling, congregate 1 per sleeping room Industrial, Light& Heavy Assembly/manufacturing/processing, light 1 per 600 gross square feet Assembly/manufacturing/processing, heavy 1 per 1,000 gross square feet Wrecking, recycling, junk and salvage yards 1 per 2,000 gross square feet Industrial Service Carpet/ruq cleaning, dry cleaning, laundry, linen supply 1 per 1,000 gross square feet plant, commercial Laboratories (all bio safety labels) 1 per 1,000 gross square feet Lodging Bed and breakfast, hotel/motel 1 per quest room and 1 per staff on largest shift Medical Hospital 1 per 500 gross square feet Medical/dental clinic Two or less professionals 1 per 500 gross square feet Three or more professionals 1 per 350 gross square feet Office Animal clinic/veterinary 1 per 500 gross square feet Call center 1 per 250 gross square feet Office, professional and general 1 per 500 gross square feet ATTACHMENT H Page 1 of 2 Residential Dwelling, accessory units 1 per dwelling unit Dwelling, multifamily Dwelling, Studio and 1 bedroom 1 per dwelling unit, plus 5% of total for quests Dwelling, Two or more bedrooms 1.5 per dwelling unit, plus 5% of total for quests Dwelling, one-and two-family, townhouse 2 per dwelling unit Manufactured (mobile) home park 2 per dwelling unit plus 5% total for quest parking Retail Sales Appliance and furniture sales/service 1 per 1,000 square feet of display area Building supply and home improvement 1 per 350 gross square feet Convenience store 1 per 400 gross square feet Equipment sales, rental, maintenance & repair 1 per 1,000 gross square feet Landscape materials sales 1 per 1,000 gross square feet Retail sales, indoor, including shopping centers 1 per 350 gross square feet Retail sales, outdoor 1 per 5,000 gross square feet of display area Showroom 1 per 2,000 gross square feet Retail Services Personal services 1 per 350 gross square feet Banks, savings and loan, and other financial institutions, Post 1 per 350 gross square feet office, postal centers, and other similar uses Vehicle Services Automobile parts, accessories and tires 1 per 300 gross square feet Automobile/taxi rental, Passenger vehicle sales, service and 1 per 1,000 gross square feet of building footprint and repair 1 per 5,000 square feet of indoor/outdoor display area Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle service, painting, repair, body 1 per 500 gross square feet and fender works Boat and RV sales, and service and repair 1 per 1,000 gross square feet of building footprint and 1 per 5,000 square feet of indoor/outdoor display area Carwash, self-service 1 per 500 gross square feet Fueling station 1 per 4 pumps Warehouse Wholesale and Frei.ht Movement Freight forwarding 1 per 2,000 gross square feet Storage, general indoors, warehouse 1 per 3,500 gross square feet Storage, general outdoors, display 1 per 1,500 gross square feet ATTACHMENT H Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT I Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, August 14,2014 Chair Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present Kevin Anderson John Hohman, Community Development Director Christina Carlsen Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Robert McCaslin Christina Janssen, Planner Mike Phillips Marty Palaniuk, Planner Steven Neill Luis Garcia,Development Services Coordinator Joe Stoy Deanna Horton, Secretary Sam Wood Commissioner Neill moved to approve the August 14, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed seven to zero. Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the July 10, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed, six to zero. Commissioner Stay noted this was his first meeting since returning from an excused medical leave and he would ineligible to vote on the minutes of the previous meeting. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Wood reported he attended the recent Spokane Home Builders Association (SHBA) government affairs meeting. Mr. Wood noted Mike Allen from the City of Spokane spoke regarding changing their street repairs from capital improvements to maintenance. Mr. Wood also commented the legislature could be asked to consider a complete ban on studded tires. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Director Hohman welcomed back Commissioner Stoy. Mr. Hohman introduced Luis Garcia,the City's new Development Services Coordinator. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public to comment, COMMISSION BUSINESS: Stndy Session --- CTA-2014-0001, Code text atnendnnents to sections of Title 19, Title 22 and Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC): Director Hohman gave the Commissioners a brief overview of the proposed amendments. Mr. Hohman stated the amendments are being brought forward as either a directive from the City Council, or issues which needed changing for clarification. Mr. Marty Palaniuk introduced a proposed change to SVMC Appendix A, definition for recreational facility to specify only indoor gun ranges would be allowed in the City limits. The Commissioners has no issues with this suggested change. Mr. Palaniuk stated the next proposed amendment is to SVMC 19.40.010(G), 19.60.010(M), 19.70.010(7), and 19.70.020(6)removing the development regulations related to landscaping,signage and lighting for community facilities and public utility distribution facilities. Mr. Palaniuk stated there are times when a power company might own a very large parcel of land and need to put a small control building on it. In many of these cases it would not make sense to require a site obscuring fence ail the way around a large parcel. Commissioner Stoy asked if there would be any landscaping required. Staff responded that a Type I landscaping would be required at the building. Commissioner Carlsen asked if screening would be required if the use was against a residential use or zone, Ms. Janssen explained any public utility located in a mixed use or commercial zone would not require landscaping, but any commercial development against a residential zone would require screening. Ms. Carlsen asked if a substation would fall into this category. Mr. Palaniuk said a substation would be considered commercial development. A substation would be fenced for safety and security reasons,and if it were in a residential neighborhood it would be required to be landscaped. 08-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 Mr. Palaniuk said the next proposed amendment is to SVMC I9.60.010(H)to remove the requirement for shared access with adjacent properties on commercial development. The Commissioners had no issues with this change. The next proposed amendment would update the outdoor storage requirements including location and landscape screening requirements in Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Community Commercial (C), Regional Commercial (RC), Mixed Use Center (MUC), Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and Light Industrial (I1) zones in Chapter 19.60. In the NC zone the amendment clarifies the language. in the (C) zone the amendment would require outdoor storage to be located behind the building and require screening if storage was visible from the right-of-way. In RC, MUC, CMU zones, outdoor storage would be required to be screened by a sight-obscuring fence. In the I1 zone screening would be required only when adjacent to a residential or commercial zone. Commissioner Anderson asked for an explanation regarding the front and flanking yards. Mr. Palaniuk explained the City has setbacks in the front and flanking yards which do not allow the placement and storage of materials. Displays of material also cannot be done in border easements or rights-of-way. There was discussion about not being allowed to display merchandise in the setbacks, and Commissioner Carisen noted a secondhand store which displays bicycles in front of their store, which would be in the front yard setback. Staff noted that this portion of the code had not changed and no change was being proposed. Commissioner Anderson asked what the intent was in adding border easements to the code. Mr. Hohman stated it would be to make sure that pedestrian traffic is not impeded and that the clearview triangle is not obstructed. Mr. Palaniuk stated the proposed amendments to SVMC 19.120.050,the Permitted Use Matrix ■ Allow medical/dental clinics in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones with conditions,and • Remove the requirement for automobile repair to be located within enclosed structures in the Corridor Mixed Use and Community Commercial zones and • Allow Outdoor Storage as a use in the Community Commercial zone. This amendment would allow Outdoor Storage as a use. This would be a type of outdoor storage which would allow the storage of RVs, campers and similar items as a use or a storage yard. This would be allowed with conditions. The medicalldental office would be allowed in MF-I and MF-2 zones. Mr. Palaniuk explained there are some single family residences which are in the MF-1/MF-2 zones which could be converted into a medical/dental clinic. Commissioner Carisen expressed concern for diluting the City's multifamily inventory. Staff expressed this was not intended for current multifamily housing but for single family residences, which are located in these zones, which could be converted. The last change is to remove the requirement for automobile repair facilities to be located within enclosed structures in the CMU and C zones. Currently, repair facilities must be completely enclosed and this includes all vehicles being repaired. Fencing would be required if it was not located against another commercial use or zone. The next proposed amendment to SVMC 19.40.130 concerns increasing the allowable density for manufactured home parks (MI-IP), providing for common open space within manufactured home parks, and adding a table for setback requirements. Mr. Hohman prefaced the conversation by saying that in response to the Association of Manufactured Home Owners (AMHO) request for extra protections, City Council had requested staff to look into what could be done regarding manufactured home parks. Currently state law provides that the owner of the property on which a manufactured home park is located must give the residents, who rent space in the park, one year notice of intent to self the park. The MHP residents would like the City to create a zoning overlay to provide them extra protection in the case of an owner trying to sell the land on which their homes are located. The Council decided they did not want to create an overlay zone. However,they asked staff to look at the density in order to make a MHP more attractive to the property owner to help reduce the likelihood of the park owner selling the park. The density of a manufactured home park would be 12 units per acre 08-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of4 in the MF-I or MF-2 zones. It would need to have at least five spaces to qualify. Commissioners asked why five, and Mr. Palaniuk said the number was arbitrary, however, the idea was not to allow the creation of a MHP with just two lots so a manufactured home could be put on the back of a residential lot and used as an accessory dwelling unit. The City has standards for accessory dwelling units and a MH would not fit this criteria. This would also create open spaces for a MHP, along with setbacks for each home and accessory structures. SVMC 22.50.030 proposed amendment is to amend off-street loading requirements to allow more flexibility for locating loading spaces, remove landscaping requirements and add a table showing the loading space dimensions. This amendment was intended to simplify the language by removing the requirement for screening in an industrial zone and allow Ioading docks on the front of a building. Commissioners had questions regarding the dimensions in Tahle 22.50-6 and how they would work. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that item 22.50.030(3)All parking, loading and maneuvering of trucks shall be conducted on private property. Mr. Anderson felt it should be the first item listed. Ms. Janssen stated that there is also a provision to allow the Director to make an exception if the applicant can provide written reason as to why conditions prohibit compliance with the requirements. Ms. Janssen explained SVMC 22.50.020 was being amended to update language from `change of use' to `change of occupancy' which is the commonly used term. The term 'floor area' was being changed to `gross square feet'for ease of administering the code, and change 'in accordance with'to `pursuant to.' Staff is also adding an allowance for the Director to reduce the number of required parking spaces when the applicant can demonstrate site conditions prohibit compliance, and to determine the number of spaces required if a use is not specified in the Required Parking Space table. Ms. Janssen explained SVMC 22.50.040 was being amended to clarify the language to make it consistent with the rest of the SVMC. The bicycle parking regulations are being amended to change the number, location, and size of required bike racks, which is being reduced from what was previously required. A provision for the Director to allow an exception when site conditions prohibit compliance is being added. Commissioner Carisen would like the requirements for multifamily development to be specified if it is to be calculated differently than other commercial development. Commissioner Anderson suggested determining how many bikes need to be parked not how many bike racks are needed and therefore let the applicant decide what type of rack they want and the number of bikes they need to accommodate. Ms. Janssen explained Table 22.50-2 Required Parking Spaces had been reformatted to be more consistent with the formatting of the recently updated Permitted Use Matrix (19.120), and said the NAICS code references have been removed. The table also modifies the number of required parking spaces for several uses based on an assessment of other local jurisdiction parking requirements. Ms. Janssen reviewed a few of the changes being proposed such as espresso stands,schools, etc.,and gave as an example, that Animal processing currently requires one parking space per employee, and that the suggestion is to change that to one parking space per the number of staff on the largest shift. Schools were proposed to change to reflect the grade ranges, which change is the current practice around the area. Commissioner Carlsen felt the parking which was currently being used for schools was more reflective of what would be needed rather than the proposed change. An espresso stand is currently required to have one space plus one per employee. The change suggested was one per 250 gross square feet. Commissioner Carisen asked how many spaces were required to be ADA (Americans with Disability Act)compliant. Ms. Janssen replied that one out of every 25 spaces must be ADA compliant,and one of every six must be van accessible. Commissioner Phillips asked if you only have one parking space required then must it be ADA Van accessible, and Ms. Janssen confirmed that was accurate. Mr. Garcia explained that if a business was on an ADA accessible route, then the business was required to be ADA accessible, and have a space for it. The Commissioners wanted to know when an ADA space would not be required. Commissioner Stoy said he thought that less than four or five spaces did not require an ADA space. It was noted the public hearing for these amendments is scheduled for August 28,2014. 08-14-14 Planning Commission Minutcs Page 3 of4 Commissioner Wood asked if he could make a statement regarding the bicycle parking. He said he had been a small businessman all of his life, and the idea that he would be forced to provide another cost to do business is ludicrous. He said he opposes it and he does not support something like it. Mr. Wood said he understood he could not change it, but he felt he had to express his displeasure with the whole idea of bicycle racks. Mr. Hohman clarified for Mr. Wood that the requirement for a bicycle rack was already in the SVMC and that this process was amending the current requirements. Mr. Hohman explained that Mr. Wood was welcome to express his displeasure again at the public hearing and offer a change to the code at that time. Mr. Wood said he understood. Mr. Wood also offered that he rode a bicycle himself, however he had a problem with forcing businesses to absorb a cost. He said he sees many bike racks with no bikes in them. Commissioner Phillips stated he agreed with Mr. Wood and he was opposed to requiring bicycle racks and when it came time for deliberation, he would probably vote to not have the requirement. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Mr. Stoy thanked the Commissioners for their assistance regarding his absence. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m. At„,,,, Joe Stay, Chairperson Date signed - - ; J.) Deanna Horton, Secretary O8-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT J Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, August 28,2014 Chair Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson John Hohman,Community Development Director Christina Carlsen Cary Driskell, City Attorney Robert McCastin Christina Janssen, Planner Mike Phillips Marty Palaniuk. Planner Steven Neil Luis Garcia, Development Services Coordinator Joe Stoy Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary Commissioner Carlson moved to approve the August 28, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed seven to zero. Commissioner Carisen moved to approve the August 14, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed, seven to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had nothing to report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Director Hohman commented on the advanced agenda for the Planning Commission. Mr. Hohman stated the City Council was expected to approve the Shoreline Master Program development regulations by resolution soon. After this approval the entire Shoreline Master Plan will be put together as a complete unit and returned for adoption as a complete package. Mr. Hohman thanked the Commissioners for their dedication, saying the City Council reviewed the regulations but had little to change based on the thorough work done by the Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public to comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing — CTA-2014-9091, Code text amendments to sections of Title 19, Title 22 and Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC): The Commission business is a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC): • Appendix A changing the Recreational Facility definition specifying indoor gun ranges; • Sections 19.40.010, 19.60.010, 19.70.010, and 19.70.020 removing screening requirement for community facilities and public utilities; • Section 19.60.010 removing the shared access requirement for new development; • Sections 19.60.040, 19.60.060, 19.60.070, 19.60.080, 19.70.010 modifying outdoor storage requirements • Section 19.120.050 permitting limited medical and dental clinic use in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones; • Section 19.40.130 modifying development standards for Manufactured Home Parks; • Section 22.50.020 modifying the vehicle parking requirements; • Section 22.50.040 modifying bicycle parking requirements; • Section 22.50.030 modifying the off-street loading requirements; • Table 22.50-2 modifying the table layout and specific activity parking requirements. Chair Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. Mr. Palaniuk and Ms.Janssen gave an overview of each of the proposed amendments to the Commission and received the following public testimony: 08-28-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 Mr. Palaniuk noted a comment letter was received, and given to the Commissioners, from Wes Crosby, 5025 N Argonne Lane, who commented regarding the manufactured home park standards. Mr. Crosby commented the setbacks for the front and flanking carport covers was too large. He feels construction of multi-purposed buiIdings should be allowed. Mr. Crosby noted open space/common area landscaping should only be required after all the manufactured home lots have been filled and patios, carports, utilities have been installed to keep from destroying the pre-installed landscaping in such adjacent open spaces. Wendy McElroy, PO Box 13, Pinecroft Mohile Home Park: Ms. McElroy said manufactured housing was never meant to be used as permanent housing, so no real regulations were ever created protecting mobile home owners. Ms. McElroy said the Attorney General established a division for mobile home tenants which relies on the Landlord Tenant Act but this does not protect the homeowners who rent land for their homes. Ms. McElroy said many of her neighbors would not be able to afford to move if the park she lives in were sold. The cost to move a mobile home can range from $4,000 to $10,000. She felt, that in some cases, it could cause some of the residents to become homeless. She feels mobile homes and mobile home parks are one answer to affordable housing, and give pride of home ownership. Ms. McElroy said the homeowners need zoning laws to protect them. Mobile home parks are not going to go away, and the citizens who are currently living in them have no protection if the owner decides to sell. Ms. McElroy said that she felt 12 units per acre was close. Most homes in her area were older and she can hear her neighbors 15 feet away, she did not want to hear her neighbor snoring. She said some consideration needed to be given to the tenants. The property owners only want to collect the rent and not worry about what happens after. Randy Chapman, 8900 S Mullan Hill: Mr. Chapman stated he is the state president for the Association of Manufactured Home Owners. He would like to have a zoning district for manufactured home parks. Mr. Chapman also read a letter from William and Melinde Chambers, who support a manufactured home park zone. Mr. Chapman and the Chambers feel there are no protections for the manufactured home owners if the owners of the park should choose to sell the land the park is located on. They would like to have zoning to protect the home owners. Commissioner Neill asked Mr. Chapman about the rights of the property owner to be able to do what they wished with the property they owned. Mr. Chapman sited tile Tumwater, WA ordinance and the 911' Circuit Court of Appeals which came down in favor of the Tumwater ordinance supporting the creation of a manufactured home park zoning district. Commissioner Carlsen said the proposed amendment was not for a zoning change and asked Mr. Chapman how he felt about the proposed changes in front of the Commission currently. Mr. Chapman had no issues with the proposed amendments. Mr. Hohman reminded the Commission that the City Council previously heard testimony regarding the manufactured home parks. One possibility had been a zoning overlay however, Council felt this density approach would be better suited for our City, provide more options for the property owner to not convert the land. Mr. Hohman stated the proposed amendment was a different way to attain the same goal. Kelly Konkrigbt, 3212 S Lloyd Lane: Mr. Konkright stated he felt medical/dental uses should be an allowed use in MF-1 and MF-2 zones. Mr. Konkright said new structures should be allowed in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones. He said this was a way to broaden the use in these zones. Mr. Konkright said he did not feel a developer would want to convert an existing structure, but a new structure would need to be built to suit the needs of the use. Commissioner Stoy asked why the use would need to be restricted. Ms. Barlow stated during an inventory of multifamily land in the City it was determined vacant land in these zones was limited and should be preserved for the proper uses. There was no one else who wished to testify on any of the other proposed amendments. Chair Stay closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. 08-28-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 The Commission discussed going through and approving the proposed amendments which all Commissioners could agree on as presented, and then returning to the ones which would require further discussion. Commissioner Carisen moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Appendix A, changing the Recreational Facility definition to specify indoor gun ranges. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Carisen moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to 19.40.00(G), I9.60.010(M), 19.70.010(7) and 19.70.010(6) removing the screening requirement for utilities and community facilities. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Carisen moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to 19.60.010(H) removing the shared access requirement for new development. Commissioner Wood said he liked the idea of shared access. Mr. Hohman stated that several years ago,the City's former City Attorney had informed the department this provision was not legal and could be considered a taking if one property owner was required to allow access from another property owner without compensation. Commission Stoy asked how the city of Liberty Lake requires it to reduce the amount of access points along certain streets in their city. Mr. 1-Iohman replied he was not aware how Liberty Lake conducted their business and if a development was one property owner, it could be different. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Carisen moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to 19.120.050 allowing automobile/truck repair as a permitted use in Corridor Mixed Use and Community Commercial zones. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Wood moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to 9.50.l 20 to allow Outdoor Storage as a permitted use in the Community Commercial zone. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to 19.60.040(B)(5) Neighborhood Commercial, 19.60.040(B)(3) Community Commercial, 19.60.060(B)(2) Regional Commercial, 19.60.070(B) Mixed Use Center, 19.60.080 (B) Corridor Mixed Use, and 19.70.010(B) Light Industrial to allow storage and display of a businesses' own products on their site and where and how a business can store and display their own products on their own site. Commissioner Carisen stated she felt a business should be allowed to display items in their front and flanking street yards. However, other Commissioners said they felt products should not be allowed in drainage easements, or in the clearview triangle as it could impede traffic. Commissioner Carisen moved to amend the motion to remove the reference to front and flanking street yards and add drainage easements and require meeting the clearview triangle regulations. The vote amendment passed unanimously. The vote on the amended motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to 19.40.130 manufactured home park standards. Staff had previously shown that the standards had been moved from the text of the code to Table 19.40.130-1. While moving the standards from the text to the table. it was discovered that the setbacks for the manufactured home had been four feet from a front and flanking street yard, and three feet for other setbacks. This had been appropriate for the building code at the time it was written, in approximately 2003, but it had not been updated with the reissuance of the 2012 International Building Code or the Washington State Building Code which requires ail of these setbacks to be a minimum of five feet. This is now the recommendation of staff to be consistent with the current building codes. Commissioner Carlsen stated she had a problem with the carport setback being required e 20 feet from a front or flanking street, but the home or other structures could be five feet. After discussion with staff, it was determined the setback would he determined based on the side of the carport where the car would be taking access. Commissioner Carisen moved to amend the table 19.40.130-1 to require a 20 foot setback for the carport on a front or flanking street yard on the side the car is taking access, and five feet on the non-access side. The vote on the amendment passed unanimously. The vote on the amended motion also passed unanimously. 08-28-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 The subjects for continued deliberation at the next meeting are Medical/Dental Clinics in MF-1 and MF-2 zones, Off-Street Parking, Off-Street Loading Spaces, Bicycle parking and the new Parking Matrix. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There were no comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Joe Stoy,Chan. Date signed • Deanna Horton, Secretary 08-28-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 Attachment K Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers City Hall, September 11,2014 Chair Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson John Nohman,Community Development Director Christina Carlsen, Absent,Excused Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Robert McCaslin Christina Janssen,Planner Mike Phillips Lori Barlow,Senior Planner Steven Neill Luis Garcia, Development Services Coordinator Joe Stoy Sam Wood Deanna Horton,Secretary Nearing no objections Commissioner Carlsen was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Neill moved to approve the September 11, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed six to zero. Commissioner Neill moved to approve the August 28, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed, six to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had nothing to report. ADMINISTRATIVE: REPORT: Director Ilohman said the Shoreline Master Program would be coining to the agenda for the formal adoption process. Mr. Holman also said the state mandated update of the Comprehensive Plan,which is required to be completed by 2017,will be begin sometime in 2015 due to the City Council's desire to have to it completed ahead of time. PIJULIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Continued deliberations -- CTA-2014-0003, Code text amendments to sections of Title 19, Title 22 and Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC): At the August 28, 2014 meeting the Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC): • Appendix A changing the Recreational Facility definition specifying indoor gun ranges; this amendment was passed as proposed. • Sections 19.40.010, 19.60.010, 19,70.010, and 19.70.020 removing screening requirement for community facilities and public utilities;this amendment was passed as proposed, • Section 19.60.010 removing the shared access requirement for new development; this amendment was passed as proposed, • Sections 19.60.040, 19.60.060, 19.60.070, 19.60.080, 19.70.010 modifying outdoor storage requirements, this proposal passed with the change to remove the requirements for front and flanking yards and added requirements jbr no storage in drainage easements and for meeting the requirements of the clearview triangle regulations, • Section 19.120.050,permitting Outdoor storage as a use,this amendment passed as proposed, • Section 19.120.050, allowing automobile/truck repair as a permitted use in Corridor Mixed Use and Community Commercial zones,this amendment passed. • Section 19.40.130 modifying development standards for Manufactured Honk Parks; this amendment passed with a modification for the setback on the carport based on where the car would take access from. 09-I 1-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 The following amendments were still left to be deliberated upon: • Section 19.120.050 permitting limited medical and dental clinic use in the MF-1 and MI;-2 zones; • Section 22.50.020 modifying the vehicle parking requirements; • Section 22.50.030 modifying the off-street loading requirements; • Section 22.50,040 modifying bicycle parking requirements; • Table 22.50-2 modifying the table layout and specific activity parking requirements. The Commission continued their deliberations with a discussion of 19.120.050 allowing medical/dental clinics only in existing structures. Expansion would allowed but only be 10% of the original structure footprint. Commissioner Anderson asked why new structures would not be allowed. Ms. Barlow stated since the City's developable inventory of MF-1 and MF-2 zoned properties in the City was limited; the intent was not to allow those properties to be used for a use, which would not be a desired use in those zones. An existing structure on a parcel could be converted and expanded for any necessary modifications but would leave larger parcels for permitted uses. The Commissioners debated over: • The amount to modify an existing structure • allowing new structures, • if a new structure should be allowed, what size should it be, • limiting the size of the lots to be developed, • not allowing the encroachment of offices into multifamily zones to preserve the Comprehensive Plan designations and the zoning districts, • allowing new buildings but only as a replacement structure to relocate on the parcel to make it more useable • whether to allow the use in these zones. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend approval of allowing medical/dental clinics in the MF-1 and MF-2 zoning districts as presented by staff. Commissioner Neill stated this amendment should limit the size of the structures in order to stay true to the Comprehensive Plan. The vote on the motion was one to five, motion fails. (Commissioner Neill in favor) Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval of allowing medical/dental clinics in the MF-1 and MF-2 zoning districts with the conditions it has to be an existing residential structure and the lot size could not exceed 10,000 square feet. There was discussion about how to determine what would be the correct lot size to limit the development to, how it would be easier to limit the size of the building, but that an existing building might not be located on a property where it could be developed. Commissioners discussed needed alterations, modifying the original structure, moving the structure on the lot, allowing a new structure but not exceeding the footprint of the original structure, how big a structure would the Commission want to allow to be built. The Commissioners were concerned about digging into the inventory of MF properties if the buildings were allowed to be too large. Commissioner McCaslin felt that possibility limiting the size of the structure and the lot would be difficult and it was discussed to just allow the use as permitted and not as a use with conditions. Then Commissioner Neill suggested the size of the building suggested limiting the size of the building to 3,500 square feet. it was noted the height limits in the MF-1 zoning district is 40 feet and in the MF-2 it is 50 feet, which would allow a multistory building. Commissioner McCaslin stated it would be limited by the size of the lot. Commissioner Neill stated limiting the size of the building would keep a developer from buying a large lot and putting up a large building, keeping the larger lots available for multifamily development. Ms. Barlow explained that if it is permitted, then it could go anywhere in the zoning district, at any size whether it was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Barlow said it could be limited by size of the building, then it could be more consistent with the multifamily development in the area, if you limit the size of the lot, at this time she did not believe staff nor the Commissioners had enough information to make an educated decision on how to regulate this way, if it is limited to existing structures then it is limited to small professional offices, but there would be no new buildings. Commissioner McCaslin felt that that it should be permitted but not allow expansion any more than 10%of the existing structure. The vote on the motion to limit the lot size to 10,000 square feet failed with a vote of zero to six. Commissioner Anderson moved to allow medical/dental offices in existing residential structures in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones. Existing structures would be allowed to be modified to increase by 10%. New structures would be permitted, but the square footage would be limited to the same amount of the original structure plus 10%. Vote on this motion was six to zero. Motion passed, 09-11-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 The next subject was off-street parking in 22.50.020. This was some simple changes to keep up with some vernacular which is commonly used in the department and an addition to allow the director to make provisions when site conditions prohibit compliance. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend the changes to 22.50.020 as presented by staff. Motion approved by a vote of six to zero. The proposed amendment for off-street loading spaces in 22.50.030 has moved the required dimensions for the spaces from text to a table, and removed the landscaping requirements; only allow docks in the rear or on the side of the building. Ms. Janssen displayed the main points which were discussed at the last meeting and which arc important points which should be maintained, all parking and maneuvering must be done on the property, loading locks must be on the side or back of the building(except in industrial zones) and they must not impact landscaping or required parking. Commissioner Anderson, McCaslin, Wood felt this subject should be market driven. They felt that loading docks should be allowed to be located where the retailer feels it works for them but unloading should not occur in the right-of-way. Commissioner Stoy felt there were valid reasons for requiring where the loading docks and maneuvering to occur on private property to keep trucks from unloading in the right-of-way. Mr. Stoy felt the length of a loading space should be 30 feet not 60 feet if there were more than one dock. Ms. Barlow noted the sizes have been in the municipal code and were not changed when staff moved them to the table. Mr. Hohinan noted that a loading dock in the front of a building is done to not restrict the developer, but to make a pleasant viewing building and to attract more pleasing buildings to the neighborhood. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend approval of 22.50.030 as presented by staff. Motion fails with a vote of two to four,Commissioners Stoy, McCaslin,Anderson and Wood dissenting. Commissioner Wood moved to recommend approval 22.50.030 proposed wnendment with the following changes: no limitations where the dock will be located, define the minimum loading space size as 12x30, no height restriction. The motion passed with a vole of six to zero. Ms. Janssen moved on to bicycle racks in 22,50.040, added regulations to look at racks for multifamily developments differently than other commercial developments. New requirements ask for less bike racks than were required previously and a provision for the director to make an exception in certain cases. Commissioner Anderson asked about the desire to have bike racks, or bike parking spaces, Ms. Janssen responded the desired result was to provide the spaces. Commissioner Anderson would like to propose the requirement be changed to space and not required racks. Commissioner McCaslin asked if bike parking was regulated by the state law,if it was just use the state requirements and allow the state to regulate and enforce the requirements. Deputy City Attorney Lamb stated he was not aware of any state requirements for bike parking however he did say that the Growth Management Act has requirements for transportation and there are requirements in the Comprehensive Plan regarding transportation including the Bike and Pedestrian Plan. Mr. Lamb also noted there are transportation grants associated with bike lanes and other bike facilities. lle said he was not aware of any state requirements for bike racks, there could be other implications if we are nut consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other opportunities, if the requirement was eliminated. Ms. Barlow reaffirmed that the biking community also needs to have facilities to be able to shop and commute with a bike and the racks assist in that process. She also explained that having the regulations and the bike plan in the Comprehensive Plan allowed us to meet the needs of the community. Commissioner Neill noted when the Bike Plan came before the Planning Commission there were people in attendance who supported the Plan;however there was no one against it. Commissioner Phillips stated he had expressed this disapproval of the requirement of having to have bike racks at the previous meeting. He feels a retailer should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not he would like to have bike racks in front of his business. If the retailer doesn't care, then he would not make the effort, and that was fine with him. He as in favor of the amendment as it stands, because it was a reduction in the requirements. He also liked the fact that a smaller business would not be required to have any. Mr. Phillips would like the subject to be readdressed in the future. Commissioner Wood stated he resented the fact, personally, as a tax payer and as a citizen that he votes for things because of available funding, then he is manipulated by powers outside of this area to do things that he might not agree to. He said he does them so that he can get that funding. He personally resents it. Ms. Barlow said she would like to clarify a previous comment (that the Bike and Pedestrian Plan is in the Comprehensive Plan) being in a higher category of being able to receive grant money is spurred on by the fact that the community went through a process to identify the Bike and Pedestrian Plan was an important asset that the community wanted to have included in their Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the funding and the grants being pursued are implementing the community adopted standard. The grants are not driving the standard; the standards are driving the pursuit of the grants. When the City went through a community based process to 09-11-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 develop the Bike and Pedestrian Plan that was what the community said it wanted to see, so staff is implementing a community based standard. Ms. Darlow stated she wanted to make sure that the Commissioners understood this was a community desire which drove the pursuit of the grants,not the other way around. Commissioner Neil! also reminded the Commissioners that the people who showed up for the community meetings and the public hearing on the Bicycle Plan were all in favor, every one. This is the reality of life. Things are dictated by the people who show up. Commissioner Wood commented that sometimes the minority gets pretty loud and we listen to them a lot and it is unfortunate that the majority does not speak out, and he does not know how to address that. He said he could not believe that because only a few people showed up,that it represents a majority of the citizens of Spokane Valley. Director liohman reminded the Commissioners their job was to do what was best for the community, not to bring forward what was best for them as individuals,but looking beyond that and looking for what would be the best for the community. Mr. Holtman said the Commissioners should listen to the Mayor, who approves of the hike plan,and things like it, because it is a quality of life factor. If the City does not have these types of things, it is more difficult to recruit new companies into the area. These are all quality of life factors which need to be looked, and looked at for the entire community. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend approval of 22.50.040 as presented except to change parking racks to parking spaces. The vote on the motion was six to zero, the motion passed. The next subject was Table 22.50-2 the parking matrix which has been reformatted to match the recently changed use matrix to match the broad use format, removed the NAICS codes, the parking requirements have been reduced. Staff has compared the parking requirements in several jurisdictions and has reduced the number of required car parks in all eases. Commissioner McCaslin asked if developers have come and asked for less parking requirements for their projects. Mr. Holtman commented that in many cases the developer installed more parking spaces than staff was requiring. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend approval of 22,50-2 as presented by staff. The motion passed with a vote of six in favor and zero against. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Conunissioner McCaslin thanked staff for the hard work on the amendments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. 'e, - /k Joe Stoy,Chairperso Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 09-11-44 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 City Of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Spokane County Richland Kennewick Auburn Agricultural processing 1 per employee 1, per 1,000 sq. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 2 employees 1 per employee 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. plant ft. on largest shift Ambulance Service 1 per ambulance& 1 per 1 per ambulance& 1 employee on largest shift per employee on largest shift Animal clinic/veterinary 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 500 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. of 1 per 350 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. waiting,office and exam rooms Animal Processing facility 1 per employee 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 2 employees 1 per employee 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. ft. on largest shift Appliance&Furniture 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. of display 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 650 sq.ft. 1 per 800 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. of 4 per 1,000 sq.ft. sales/service area ft. of floor area display area Assisted Living facility 1 per 4 residents& 1 per 1 per 4 residents 1 per 3 dwelling units,+ 1 per 2 dwelling 1 per4 residents&q 1 per 4 residents+ 1 staff on largest shift 5%for guests units per staff on largest shift space for each 2 employees Auction yard(excluding 1 per 300 gross sq.ft. 1 per 300 gross sq.ft. livestock) Auditoria,theatres, 1 per 4 fixed seats or 1 per 1 per 4 seats or 1 1 for every 4 occupants 1 per 3 seats 1 per 4 fixed seats or 1 1 per 4 seats stadia 150 sq.ft. per 6 feet of based on max permitted per 150 sq.ft. bench area occupant load Automobile impound 1 per 500 sq.ft. of bldg. area, 12 spaces for sites up to 1 per 500 sq.ft. of bldg. yard + 1 per 5,000 sq.ft. of 10 acres. 20 spaces for area,+ 1 per 5,000 sq. outdoor storage area sites over 10 acres ft. of outdoor storage area Automobile sales/rental 1 per 400 sq.ft. of inside 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. of 1 per employee 1 per 400 sq.ft. of 1 per 5,000 sq.ft. of display area. 1 per 2,000 sq. ft. building,+ 1 space per with a minimum of inside display area. 1 outdoor display. 1 ft. outside display area 1,500 gross sq.ft. of 4 spaces. per 2,000 sq.ft. of per 1,000 of indoor outside display area outside display showroom Automobile service 1 per 300 sq.ft. +2 per svc. 1 per 500 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sw.ft. 1 per employee,+ 1 per 300 sq.ft. +2 per 1 per 400 sq.ft. Bay. Each bay counts as 1 minimum of 3 1 per service bay svc. Bay. Each bay space (bay does not counts as 1 spacy count) minimum of 4 Bank or other financial 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 350 sq.ft. 1 per 350 sq.ft. 1 per 300 sq.ft. If drive 1 per 400 sq.ft. institution less 3 spaces for through is provided each drive-through may be reduced to 1 window up to a per 400 sq.ft. max reduction of 33% ATTACHMENT L Page 1 of 7 City Of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Spokane County Richland Kennewick Auburn Barber/beauty shop 1 per chair and 1 per 1 per 330 sq.ft 1 per 100 sq.ft. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per chair and 1 per 1 per 400 sq.ft. employee employee Bed&Breakfast 1 per guest room in addition 1 per rentable 1 space per unit/room 1 space per room 1 per guest room 1 per guest room to resident parking room Bowling Alley 2.5 per lane,except when 1 per 330 sq.ft. 4 spaces per lane 5 spaces per lane 4 per lane+additional 5 spaces per lane located in a shopping center required spaces for other uses Brewery,winery or 1 per each employee on max 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per each employee 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. distillery shift+ 1 per 4 seats in any ft. on max shift+ 1 per 4 tasting room or visitor facility seats in any tasting room or visitor facility. Building supply and 1 per 300 sq.ft. of retail. 1 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. minimum 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 300 sq.ft. of 1 per 250 sq.ft. home improvement per 1,000 sq.ft. of of 3 spaces retail. 1 per 1,000 sq. warehouse. 1 per 600 gross ft. of warehouse. 1 per square feet of assembly or 600 sq.ft. of assembly light manufacturing area or light manufacturing Call center,telephone 1 per employee 1 per employee Carnival or circus 1 per 400 sq.ft. of lot area 20 per acre of site 1 per 2,500 sq.ft. 1 per 400 sq.ft. of lot 3 per 1,000 sq.ft. of of land area area usable rec. area Carpenter shop 1 per 600 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per each 2 1 per 600 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. ft. of floor area employees on the largest shift Carwash-self service 2 spaces for drying and 1 per 500 sq.ft. 3 spaces for each service 2 spaces at the 2 spaces for drying and 1 per 400 sq.ft. cleaning per stall+3 bay. Space inside the ingress and 2 leaning per stall+3 reservoir spaces in front of service bay shall be spaces at the reservoir spaces in each stall considered a parking egress of each lane front of each stall space or washing bay Casino 1 per 50 gross sq. ft. of 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per every 4 occupants 1 space per 150 sq. 1 per 50 gross sq. ft. of 1 per 200 sq.ft. dining, bar,gaming and based on maximum ft. dining, bar,gaming and dance space+ 1 per permitted occupant load dance space+ 1 per employee employee College or University 1 per 600 sq.f.t of classroom 1 per 600 sq.ft. 1 per 4 seats in classroom 1 per 2 persons .75 per student and 1 per 5 seats in principal of floor area+ 1 + 1 per classroom. legal capacity assembly room per 4 dorm Domitories,0.75 spaces every 3 seats in rooms per planned resident classroom Community hall,club or 1 per 200 sq.ft. 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 space for every 4 1 per 150 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. lodge occupants based on max permitted occupant load ATTACHMENT L Page 2 of 7 City Of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Spokane County Richland Kennewick Auburn Community recreational 1 per 200 sq.ft. 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 150 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. facility Community residential 2+ 1 per employee on 1 per 4 residents 1 per staff dr. + 1 2+ 1 per employee on .50 per bedroom facility maximum shift for every 3 other maximum shift staff members,+ 1 space for every 3 beds Composting 3+ 1 per employee 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per each 2 3+ 1 per employee 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. storage/processing ft. employees on the largest shift Contractor's yard 1 per employee 1 per employee Convalescent/nursing 1 per 2 beds 1 per 4 residents 1 per 5 beds 1 per doctor+ 1 for 1 per 2 beds 1 per 4 bedrooms+ home every3 other staff 1 for each 2 + 1 per 5 beds employees Convenience store 1 per 350 sq.ft.,+2.5 seats 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. minimum 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 350 sq.ft.,+2.5 1 per 400 sq.ft. of on-site seating, but not of 3. seats of on-site seating, less than 10. Gas plumps do but not less than 10. not count Gas plumps do not count Daycare,child&adult 1 per employee,+ 1 per 10 1 per 500 sq.ft. 1 per 10 children 2 per staff person 1 per employee,+ 1 per 2 per each 10 children or adults minimum of 4 10 children or adults children Dry cleaning,retail The great of 3 or 1 per 300 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 100 sq.ft. 1 per 400 sq.ft. The greater of 3 or 1 1 per 400 sq.ft. sq.ft. per 300 sq.ft. Dry cleaning,commercial 1 per 600 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 600 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. ft. Dwelling,acc.Apartment 1 per dwelling 1 per unit 2 per dwelling unit 2 per dwelling unit 1 per dwelling unit 2 per dwelling Dwelling,congregate 1 per sleeping room 1 per 4 residents 1 per unit/room 1 per person 1 per sleeping room 1 per 2 bedrooms capacity Dwelling,multi-family Studio&1 bedroom 1 per dwelling unit+5%of 1 per unit 1.5 per dwelling unit+5% 1.5 per dwelling 1 per dwelling unit+ 1.5 per dwelling unit total for guests of total for guests unit 5%of total for guests 2 or more bedrooms 1.5 per dwelling unit+5%of 1 per unit+ 1 per 1.5 per dwelling unit+5% 1.5 per dwelling 1.5 per dwelling unit+ 2 per dwelling unit total for guests bedroom after 3 of total for guests unit 5%of total for guests bedrooms Dwelling,1&2 family 2 per dwelling unit 1 per unit+ 1 per 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 per dwelling unit 2 per dwelling unit 2 per dwelling unit townhome bedroom after 3 bedrooms ATTACHMENT L Page 3 of 7 City Of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Spokane County Richland Kennewick Auburn Electrical manufacturing 1 per 600 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 2 employees 1 per 600 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. ft. on largest shift Ent/rec facility,indoor 1 per 200 sq.ft. 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per every 4 occupants 1 per 150 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. based on maximum permitted occupant load Ent/rec facility, 20 per acre of 1 per 2,500 sq.ft. 1 per 333 sq.ft. Outdoor site Golf Course 4 per hole 3 per tee 7 per green 4 per hole Golf driving range 3 per driving station+ 1 per 20 per acre of 2 per tee 7 per green 2 per driving station+ 1 500 sq.ft. of put/chip green site per 500 sq.ft. of put/chip green Skating rink 1 per 200 sq.ft. 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. 1 per 150 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. Sports field 20 per acre of site 20 per acre of 20 per acre of site 1 per 2,500 sq.ft. 20 per acre of site 1 per 333 sq.ft. site Swimming pool/Jacuzzi 1 per 100 sq.ft. of pool area 1 per 40 sq.ft. of pool 1 per 50 sq.ft. of 1 per 100 sq.ft. of 1 per 333 sq.ft. area water surface water surface Tennis,racquetball& 2 per court 1.5 per court 2 per court 2 per court 2 per court similar courts Equipment rental shop 1 per 300 sq.ft. of retail, 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 250 sq.ft. minimum 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 300 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. office or shop. 1 per 1,000 of ft. of 3 outdoor storage/display Equipment sales,repair 3+ 1 per employee 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 650 sq.ft. 1 per 800 sq.ft. 3+ 1 per employee 1 per 250 sq.ft. &maint. ft. Espresso/latte stand 1+ 1 per employee 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 75 sq.ft. minimum 1 per 100 sq.ft. 1+ 1 per employee 1 per 100 sq.ft. of 6 Exercise facility/gym 1 per 100 sq.ft. 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 100 sq.ft. 1 per 150 sq.ft. 1 per 100 sq.ft. 1 per 100 sq.ft. athletic club Fire station 1 per employee on maximum 1 per 500 sq.ft. 1 per 350 sq.ft. minimum 1 per employee on shift of 5 maximum shift Freight forwarding 1 per 2,000 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 2,000 sq.ft. 1 per employee 1 per 3,500 sq.ft. 1 per 2,000 sq.ft. ft.for first 3,000 minimum of 4 sq.ft. and then 1 per 3,500 sq.ft. Fueling station 1 per 4 pumps 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per employee,+ 1 space 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 4 pumps 1 per 200 sq.ft. per service bay Funeral home 1 per 5 seats in largest 1 per 500 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 4 seats in 1 per 4 seats or 8 ft. of 1 per 4 seats chapel,+ 1 per employee,+ 1 chapel or nave lineal bench in chapel for each facility vehicle area ATTACHMENT L Page 4 of 7 City Of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Spokane County Richland Kennewick Auburn Greenhouse/nursery, 1 per 400 sq.ft. of indoor 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 300 sq.ft. 1 per 400 sq.ft. indoor 1 per 400 sq.ft. commercial retail, 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. of retail+ 1 per 1,000 sq. outdoor display ft. outdoor storage Hospital 1 per patient bed 1 per 500 sq.ft. .4 per employee,+ 1 per 1 per staff doctor, 1 per 4 beds+ 1 per 1.75 per bed every 3 beds,+ 1 per 5 + 1 for every 3 doctor,+ 1 per each 3 daily outpatient other staff additional employees treatments,+teaching members+ 1 for hospitals add 1 for every every 3 beds 3 students Hotel/motel 1 per guest room in addition 1 per rentable 1 per room 1 per room 1 per guest room 1 per guest room to resident parking room Kennel/animal 3+ 1 per employee 1 space for each 10 3+ 1 per employee boarding/shelter animals kept on premises Laboratories 1 per 600 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 2 employees 1 per 600 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. ft. on largest shift Landscape materials 3+ 1 per employee 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 650 sq.ft. 1 per employee, 3+ 1 per employee 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. sales ft. minimum of 4 Laundromat 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 5 machines 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 400 sq.ft. Manufactured(mobile 2 per dwelling unit+5%for 1 per unit+ 1 per 2 per dwelling unit+5% 2 per dwelling unit 2 per dwelling unit+ 2 per dwelling unit home)parks guests bedroom after 3 for guests 5%for guests bedrooms Manufacturing 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. or 1 per 3 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per each 2 1 per employee on 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. employees on maximum ft. employees on the largest shift shift largest shift Medical clinic 1 per 200 sq.ft. 1 per 500 sq.ft. 1 per 175 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. 5 per each doctor or 1 per 200 sq.ft. dentist Model home sales 1 per 2,000 sq.ft. of sales 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 3,000 sq.ft. 1 per employee, 1 per 2,000 sq.ft. of area ft. minimum of 4 sales area Motor vehicle parts 1 per 300 sq.ft. 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 300 sq.ft. 1 per 300 sq.ft. 1 per 400 sq.ft. sales/service Museum,libraries 1 per 800 sq.ft. 1 per 500 sq.ft. 1 per 275 sq.ft. 1 per 150 sq.ft. 1 per 800 sq.ft. 1 per 400 sq.ft. Office,professional and 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 500 sq.ft. 1 per 350 sq.ft. minimum 1 per 350 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 500 sq.ft. general of 5 Post office,postal center 1 per 200 sq.ft. + 1 per 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 350 sq.ft. minimum 1 per 350 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. + 1 per 1 per 500 sq.ft. employee of 5 employee Print shop 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. minimum 1 per 350 sq.ft. 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 500 sq.ft. of 3 Racetrack 1 per 4 fixed seats 1 per 8 seats 1 per every 4 occupants 1 per 2,500 sq.ft. 1 per 4 fixed seats based on maximum of land area permitted occupant load ATTACHMENT L Page 5 of 7 City Of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Spokane County Richland Kennewick Auburn Recreation vehicle 1 per RV park/campsite 1 per RV park/campsite park/campground Recreational vehicle sales 1 per 3,000 sq.ft. of display 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 3,000 sq.ft. 1 per employee 1 per 3,000 sq.ft. of 1 per 5,000 sq.ft. of &service area ft. minimum of 4 display area display area Restaurant 1 per 200 sq.ft. except when 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per every 5 occupants 1 per 100 sq.ft. 1 per 4 seats except 1 per 100 sq.ft. in a shopping center based on maximum when in a shopping occupant load. Outdoor center areas 10 per 1,000 sq.ft. Retail sales,indoor 1 per 200 sq.ft. except when 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. minimum 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. except 1 per 400 sq.ft. located in a shopping center of 3 when located in a shopping center Retail sales,outdoor 1 per 5,000 sq.ft. of retail 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. minimum 1 per 300 sq.ft. 1 per 5,000 sq.ft. of 1 per 5,000 sq.ft. of sales area in addition to any of 3 retail sales area in display area requirements for buildings, addition to any except when located in a requirements for shopping center buildings,except when located in a shopping center Schools,professional, 1 per each 3.5 seats in 1 per 600 sq.ft. 1 per 4 seats in 1 per 2 persons 1 per each 3.5 seats in .75 per student vocational&trade classroom areas of floor area classroom,+ 1 space per legal capacity classroom areas classroom Schools,public&private 1 per classroom, 1 per each 7 per classroom 5 per teaching station;OR 8 per classroom 1 per teacher+ 1 per .40 per teaching (7-12) employee and 1 per 4 seats 1 per every 4 seats or each other employee+ station in auditorium or assembly every 8 feet of bench or 1 per 6 students room pew for fixed seating assembly areas Schools,public&private 2 per classroom and 1 per 1 per classroom 2 per teaching station;OR 2 per classroom 1 per teacher+ 1 per 1.20 per teaching (K-7) each 2 employees 1 per 4 seats or every 8 other employee station feet of bench or pew for fixed eating assembly areas;OR 1 for every 75 sq.ft. of assembly area, whichever is greater Service,retail 1 per 250 sq.ft. except when 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. minimum 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. except 1 per 400 sq.ft. located in a shopping center of 3 when located in a shopping center ATTACHMENT L Page 6 of 7 City Of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Spokane County Richland Kennewick Auburn Shopping Centers 4.5 per 1,000 for centers 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 300 sq.ft. 4.5 per 1,000 for 1 per 250 sq.ft. having less than 400,000 centers having less GLA. 5 per 1,000 for centers than 400,000 GLA. 5 having more than 400,000 per 1,000 for centers GLA having more than 400,000 GLA Showroom,industrial 1 per 500 sq.ft. of display 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 2,000 sq.ft. 1 per employee 1 per 500 sq.ft. of 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. area ft. minimum of 4 display area Solid waste 3+ 1 per employee Per CU review 3+ 1 per employee recycling/transfer site Specialized 1 per 300 sq.ft. 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 125 sq.ft. 1 per 300 sq.ft. training/learning schools or studios Storage,general-indoors, 1 per 3,500 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 2,000 sq.ft. 1 per employee 1 per 3,500 sq.ft. 1 per 2,000 sq. ft. warehousing ft.for fist 3,000 minimum of 4 sq.ft. and then 1 per 3,500 sq.ft. Storage,general-outdoor 3+ 1 per employee 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 1,500 sw.ft. 1 per employee 3+ 1 per employee 1 per 5,000 sq.ft. display ft. minimum of 4 Personal services 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 330 sq.ft. 1 per 350 sq.ft. minimum 1 per 400 sq.ft. 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per 400 sq.ft. of 3 Tavern 1 per 200 sq.ft. except when 1 per 250 sq.ft. 1 per every 5 occupants 1 per 100 sq.ft. 1 per 4 seats,except 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. located in a shopping center based on maximum when located in a occupant load. Outdoor shopping center areas 10 per 1,000 sq.ft. Transit Center 1 per 200 sq.ft. 1 per 200 sq.ft. Warehousing 1 per 3,500 sq.ft. 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 2,000 sq.ft. 1 per employee 1 per 3,500 sq.ft. 1 per 2,000 sq.ft. ft.for first 3,000 minimum of 4 sq.ft. and then 1 per 3,500 sq.ft. Wrecking,recycling,junk 1 per each employee+3 1 per 1,000 sq. 1 per 2,000 sq.ft. 1 per each employee+ 1 per 1,000 sq.ft. and salvage yard visitor spaces ft. 3 visitor spaces ATTACHMENT L Page 7 of 7 City # Loading Minimum Dimension When Required Additional Docks Maneuvering Required Space Algona No when proposed No Yakima 12x25 but the required any use requiring 52 ft loading space shall be of frequent loading adequate size to accommodate the maximum number and size of vehicles simultaneously loading or unloading at the structure. Walla Walla 12x25 but the required any use requiring 52 ft loading space shall be of frequent loading adequate size to accommodate the maximum number and size of vehicles simultaneously loading or unloading at the structure Kent Requires only maneuvering Misc uses area. 100 ft of for dock level doors or 45 with ground level doors between door and parking areas. When adjacent to loading facilities from other buildings, maneuvering area ranges between 65-164 ft Mountlake 12x30x14.5 but shall be of Does not specify Terrace adequate size to when accommodate the maximum number and size of vehicles simultaneously loading or unloading at the structure Gig Harbor Depends on 10x25x18 Depending on 85 ft between footprint/use footprint and use the loading dock and street Zillah 12x25 but shall be of any use requiring 52 ft adequate size to frequent loading accommodate the maximum number and size of vehicles simultaneously loading or unloading at the structure Lacey 45 ft clear area in front of Does not specify drive in doors and 100 ft when apron with a maneuvering hammer head in front of dock height doors ATTACHMENT M Page 1 of 16 City # Loading Minimum Dimension When Required Additional Docks Maneuvering Required Space Renton 45 ft clear maneuvering area any use requiring in front of ground level doors frequent loading and 100 ft clear maneuvering area in front of dock height doors Issaquah Depends on 25x10 or 50x12 any use requiring 52 ft footprint and frequent loading use Depending on footprint and use Dupont 55x12x15. Maybe reduced to any use requiring Min clearance 40x10x15 frequent loading of 45 to 75 ft depends on angle of loading space City of Liberty Depends on No minimum Depending on use Lake footprint and type and square use footage. Very similar to ours City of Spokane 10X25, clearance of 14 feet. 20K-50K sq. ft. of non residential=1 More than 50K= 2 Spokane County Depends on 1 space= 12X30X15 Depends on Must be footprint and 2 or more spaces = 15X60X15 footprint and use located on the use same lot as the structure they are serving, cannot block ROW, cannot back out on to any public ROW Richland No specific requirements for size and number Pasco No specific requirements for size and number. Post Falls No specific requirements for size and number. Semi trailers standard lengths of boxes in North America include 53 feet, 48 feet and 45 feet. Most common length is 53' Other versions measure 40 feet, 36 feet, 34 feet, 32 feet and 28 feet. Total Length of a Semi with a 53'trailer is 71 with ATTACHMENT M Page 2 of 16 Algona C-3 HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Loading and unloading of merchandise shall be done on private property or in such a manner as to minimize interference with vehicular and pedestrian traffic on public rights-of-way or off-street parking areas. 10.29.030 Parking limitations. A. Except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, no person shall park or stop or stand any vehicle upon any city right-of-way for a period in excess of seventy-two hours. B. Parking or stopping any semi-truck or tractor-trailer on city right-of-way is prohibited. Dump trucks, dump truck trailers, and semi-trucks loading or unloading articles or materials in the city of Algona may temporarily park in city right-of-way for a period not to exceed two hours. (Ord. 1033-10 § 1 (part): Ord. 666 § 3, 1991). YAKIMA 15.06.130 Off-street loading space required. Off-street loading and unloading spaces shall be required for any use requiring frequent loading or unloading from trucks or other large vehicles. (See YMC .) A. Loading Space Size. The required loading space shall be of adequate size to accommodate the maximum number and size of vehicles simultaneously loading or unloading at the structure. Each off- street loading space shall have the minimum dimensions of twelve feet in width and twenty-five feet in length. On-site maneuvering space of not less than fifty-two feet in length shall be provided adjacent to the loading dock.This maneuvering space shall not include any area designated for off-street parking. B. Loading Space Location. Required off-street loading and related maneuvering space shall be located only on or abutting the property served. No part of any vehicle using the loading space shall project into the right-of-way of any public or private road. (Ord. 2008-46 § 1 (part), 2008: Ord. 2947 § 1 (part), 1986). WALLA-WALLA 20.126.140 Off-street loading. Off-street loading and unloading spaces shall be required for any use requiring frequent loading or unloading from trucks or other large vehicles. A. Loading Space Size. The required loading space shall be of adequate size to accommodate the maximum number and size of vehicles simultaneously loading or unloading at the structure. Each off-street loading space ATTACHMENT M Page 3 of 16 shall have the minimum dimensions of twelve feet in width and twenty-five feet in length or as otherwise determined by the reviewing authority based on the dimensions and type of delivery vehicles serving the proposed use(s). On-site maneuvering space of not less than fifty-two feet in length shall be provided adjacent to the loading dock.This maneuvering space shall not include any area designated for off-street parking. B. Loading Space Location. Required off-street loading and related maneuvering space shall be located only on or abutting the property served. No part of any vehicle using the loading space will be allowed to project into the right-of-way of any public or private road. C. Off-Street Loading—School and Day Care Centers.A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading children shall be located on the site of any school or day care center having a capacity of thirteen or more students or clients. (Ord. 2012-09 §64, 2012). Kent 15.05.060 Loading space. For all hereafter erected, reconstructed, or enlarged, adequate permanent off-street loading space shall be provided if the activity carried on is such that the requires deliveries to it or shipments from it of people or merchandise. Such space shall be shown on a plan and submitted for approval by the planning department and the city engineer. No portion of a vehicle taking part in loading, unloading, or maneuvering activities shall project into a public street, alley, or interior pedestrian area. Loading space or maneuvering areas shall be in addition to required off-street parking spaces. A. Relationship of loading space to residential areas. Loading berths shall be located not closer than fifty(50) feet to any residential district, unless wholly enclosed within a , or unless screened from such residential area by a wall or uniformly painted fence not less than six (6)feet in height. B. Relationship to open space. Space for loading berths may occupy all or any part of any required setback or open space as long as the loading berth is uncovered.A covered loading area shall comply with the minimum setback requirements for the C. Types of uses for which loading space shall be provided. Loading space shall be provided for the following types of buildings or businesses:warehouses, supermarkets, department stores, office with a floorspace in excess of twenty thousand (20,000)square feet, industrial or manufacturing establishments, freight terminals, railroad , mortuaries, and such other commercial and industrial buildings which, in the judgment of the dlannc , are similar in nature in regard to loading space requirements. D. Required maneuvering areas. ATTACHMENT M Page 4 of 16 1. For buildings with dock-high loading doors. Buildini. which utilize dock-high loading doors shall provide a minimum of one hundred(100)feet of clear maneuvering area in front of each door. See the following diagram: COCK-HIGH LQ4CTJGAN.41 rV DCFa§ e II : : IIP. Ii° ra I I"I IIIE.1;° f1 2. Maneuvering area for buildings with ground-level loading doors. which utilize ground-level service or loading doors shall provide a minimum of forty-five (45)feet of clear maneuvering area in front of each door. See the following diagram: ANGLED GROUND LEVEL LOADING SERVICE OR LOADING DOORS) 4.5 x....>on I r•.I.:F41Pa+ I l e e Q'r�l. � .1 3. The maneuvering area shall be designed to accommodate the maximum length of vehicle to be served, as identified on a vehicle maneuvering diagram or other site plan measurements, and shall show no encroachment of maneuvering into a public , opposing lane of a two-way driveway, or within three (3)feet of any required parking stalls. The following standards and minimum distances shall also apply(see Diagram 2): a.When dock-high doors of one face dock-high doors of another ,the minimum distance between shall be one hundred sixty-four(164)feet; b.When dock-high doors of one face ground-level doors of another ,the minimum distance between shall be one hundred twenty-six (126)feet; ATTACHMENT M Page 5 of 16 c.When ground-level doors of one building face ground-level doors of another building,the minimum distance between buildings shall be sixty-five (65)feet; d.A joint access and maneuvering easement is required; e. The maneuvering area is measured from face of building to face of . Except for trucks parked at the loading dock, no parking, andscaping, or other obstruction shall be located within the maneuvering area; f. The fire lane shall be at least twenty-six (26)feet wide and marked and striped per requirements in the fire code, Chapter 13.01 KCC, as amended. Mountlake Terrace 19.125.080 Loading spaces. A. The City Engineer may require an applicant to provide an off-street loading space having access to a public thoroughfare. Such loading space shall be of adequate size to accommodate the maximum number and size of vehicles which would be simultaneously loaded or unloaded in connection with the business conducted in such building. No part of a truck or van using the loading space may back up out of or project into the public thoroughfare. B. Specific Requirements. Each off-street loading space shall measure not less than 30 feet by 12 feet and shall have an unobstructed height of 14 feet, six inches and shall be made permanently available for such purposes, and shall be surfaced, improved and maintained in conformance with approved engineering standards. (Ord. 2074 § 7.8, 1995). Gig Harbor 17.72.040 Off-street loading design requirements. A. Off-street loading berths shall be provided on the same lot as the use the berths serve and shall not occupy the front yard of the lot; B. No loading berth shall be located closer than 25 feet to a residential lot line unless screened by shrubbery or a fence or a combination thereof, any one of which must be approved by the planning director; C. Each loading berth shall be designed with access to a street or alley in a manner that does not permit undue interference with traffic movement on the public street or alley; D. Each required loading berth shall be at least 10 feet by 25 feet in size and 18 feet in height and shall provide 85 feet of direct access uninterrupted by any change in horizontal or vertical direction between the loading dock and the street; ATTACHMENT M Page 6 of 16 E. Each loading berth surface and access area shall be improved with portland cement concrete or asphaltic concrete paving to the standards established by the city public works director; F. Areas set aside for off-street loading berths shall not be considered as satisfying the requirements for off-street parking space and shall not be used for vehicle repairs or servicing; G. No approach to loading docks shall exceed a seven percent slope; H. All or part of the off-street loading requirements may be met by loading facilities within the buildings. (Ord. 573 § 2, 1990). 17.72.050 Off-street loading berth requirements. Off-street loading berths for passengers and freight shall be provided as given below and shall be on the same lot as the activity served unless the nature of the activities allows several owners to share a common location: A. Public Uses. One berth required for each 25,000 square feet of gross floor area; B. Commercial Uses. One berth required for each 10,000 square feet of wholesale commercial gross floor area; C. Professional Services Use. One berth required for each 25,000 square feet of gross floor area; D. Industrial Uses. One berth required for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor space; E. Residential Activities. One berth required for any residential facility occupying more than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area. (Ord. 1171 § 4, 2009; Ord. 1045 § 80, 2006; Ord. 573 § 2, 1990). Zillah 17.78.160 Off-street loading. Off-street loading and unloading spaces shall be required for any use requiring frequent loading or unloading from trucks or other large vehicles: A. Loading Space Size. The required loading space shall be of adequate size to accommodate the maximum number and size of vehicles simultaneously loading or unloading at the structure. Each off-street loading space shall have the minimum dimensions of 12 feet in width and 25 feet in length. On-site maneuvering space of not less than 52 feet in length shall be provided adjacent to the loading dock.This maneuvering space shall not include any area designated for off-street parking; ATTACHMENT M Page 7 of 16 B. Loading Space Location. Required off-street loading and related maneuvering space shall be located only on the property served by the load facility. No part of any vehicle using the loading space will be allowed to project into the right-of-way of any public or private road; and C. Off-Street Loading—Schools.A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading children shall be located on the site of any public or private school. (Ord. 2011-29 § 5 (Att. B)). LACEY 10. Loading Areas. Loading areas must be located in such a manner that no loading, unloading and/or maneuvering of trucks associated therewith takes place on public rights-of-way. A forty-five foot clear area is to be provided in front of all drive-in doors.A one hundred foot apron with a maneuvering hammer head is to be provided at all dock height doors. In no case when a vehicle is parked in the loading/unloading position adjacent to the building shall it block the movement of other vehicles RENTON LOADING SPACE STANDARDS: 1. Loading Space Required: For all buildings hereafter erected, reconstructed or enlarged, adequate permanent off-street loading space shall be provided if the activity carried on in such building requires deliveries to it or shipments from it of people or merchandise. Loading space shall be in addition to required off- street parking spaces. 2. Plan Required: Loading space shall be shown on a plan and submitted for approval by the Development Services Division. 3. Projection into Streets or Alleys Prohibited: No portion of a vehicle taking part in loading or unloading activities shall project into a public street or alley. Ingress and egress points from public rights-of-way at designated driveways shall be designed and located in such a manner as to preclude off-site or on-street maneuvering of vehicles. ATTACHMENT M Page 8 of 16 4. Minimum Clear Area for Dock High Loading Doors: Buildings which utilize dock-high loading doors shall provide a minimum one hundred feet(100) of clear maneuvering area in front of each door. Dock High Loading _ Door Angled doors AI112 ► r Air 1 DD' 1 DQ' Pariii11-1-1—Eni r + FIMITParkung 5. Minimum Clear Area for Ground Level Loading Doors: Buildings which utilize ground level service or loading doors shall provide a minimum of forty five feet(45) of clear maneuvering area in front of each door. Ground Lural Angled Servicia or Loading Loading Doors 4 ' 45' Parking i l J 1 t ' I TTT7TTYfl (Ord. 3988, 4-28-1986) Lynnwood D. Service Areas. Service areas shall be located and constructed in such a way to attempt to minimize their visual impact from adjoining streets. Reasonable measures, such as landscaping,walls, fencing or a combination thereof, shall be implemented to effectively screen all loading dock areas taking into account site constraints and topography. (Ord. 2441 § 17, 2003; Ord. 2317 §6, 2000; Ord. 2020 § 22, 1994; Ord. 1947 §§6, 8, 10, 1994) ATTACHMENT M Page 9 of 16 Issaquah 18.09.110 Loading spaces. A. Purpose of Required Loading Spaces: The purpose of requiring loading spaces is to provide for adequate room entirely on-site and off any traffic circulation routes for the loading and unloading of commercial vehicles which are associated with the proposed development. B. When required:Whenever the normal operation of any development requires that goods, merchandise, or equipment be routinely delivered to or shipped from that development, a sufficient off-street loading and unloading area shall be provided to accommodate the delivery or shipment operations in a safe and convenient manner. C. Defined: Type A Loading Space shall be at least twenty-five (25)feet in depth and ten (10)feet in width. Type B Loading Space shall be at least fifty(50)feet in depth and twelve (12)feet in width.All buildings with overhangs that project over loading spaces shall have a vertical overhang clearance of not less than fourteen (14)feet, exclusive of access aisle, platform or maneuvering area. D. Loading Space Requirements: 1. Design:All required off-street loading facilities shall be designed such that vehicles engaging in loading or unloading activities shall not encroach upon or interfere with the right-of-way or public use of streets, alleys or sidewalks. Maneuvering space of not less than fifty-two (52)feet in length shall be provided adjacent to the loading dock, and this maneuvering space shall not include any area designated or used for off-street parking, storage or trash dumpsters. 2. Other Parking Requirements: No area allocated to loading and unloading facilities may be used to satisfy the area requirements for off-street parking, nor shall any portion of any off-street parking area be used to satisfy the area requirements for loading and unloading facilities. 3. Computation of Required Loading Spaces: ATTACHMENT M Page 10 of 16 TABLE 18.09.110—COMPUTATION OF REQUIRED LOADING SPACES TYPE OF USE TYPE A TYPE B • COMMERCIAL: 30,000 sf or less Retail, Restaurant, etc. - 1 loading space for first 10,000 sf - 1 loading space for next 20,000 sf Office - 1 loading space • COMMERCIAL: More than 30,000 sf Retail, Restaurant, etc. - 1 loading space per 30,000 - 1 loading space per sf 30,000 sf Office - 1 loading space per 30,000 sf • SCHOOLS Elementary,Junior and Senior High, and - 1 loading space per food others having food service service operation 4. Exceptions: Exceptions to loading space requirements may be permitted through the Administrative Adjustment of Parking Standards (IMC 18.09.060). (Ord. 2283 § 3, 2000; Ord. 2108 § 9.11, 1996). ATTACHMENT M Page 11 of 16 Dupont 25.95.070 Loading. Whenever a building is erected, enlarged, or its use changed, and the building's use requires deliveries which could significantly endanger or impede traffic, adequate off-street loading facilities and maneuvering space for delivery vehicles shall be provided to prevent such danger or impedance. (1) Loading Facilities Location. Off-street loading facilities shall be in all cases on the same lot or parcel of land as the structure they are intended to serve. In no case shall the off-street loading space be part of the area used to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. No space for loading or unloading vehicles shall be so located that a vehicle using such loading space projects into any public street. Loading spaces shall be provided with access to an alley or street.Any required front, side, or rear yard may be used for loading an off-street loading space unless otherwise prohibited by this code. (2) Loading Berth Design. (a)All off-street loading spaces shall have a minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 15 feet. (b) Required off-street loading spaces shall be provided in berths which conform to the following minimum specifications: L = Minimum Loading Berth Length = 55 feet See DMC 25.95.070(2)(c)for modified loading berth length A = Dock Angle VV = Berth Width A = Apron Width D = Clearance T = Total Offset (c)A Type 1 administrative approval may be granted for a single reduced size loading space based on principal building use. If granted, such space shall be no smaller than 10-foot by 40-foot. ATTACHMENT M Page 12 of 16 DIAGRAM IDENTIFICATION: OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS DOCK ANGLE (A) BERTH WIDTH (W) CLEARANCE (D) APRON (A) TOTAL OFFSET(T) 90° 12' 55' 75' 130' 60° 12' 48' 55' 103' 45° 12' 39' 45' 84' Loading Ooek —I f : : T � 1QT M i KM 4 1 W t / Figure i 90-DECREE DOCKS Loading Dock t_ . .4/1%\11411111•"/".\\— L D A Silo, N\r/ T -\\.4 4. 3 Figure 2: ANGLED DOCKS ATTACHMENT M Page 13 of 16 Richland Loading and Service Areas. a. Truck docks and loading areas shall not be permitted on the side of the building that faces or abuts a public street. b. Refuse areas and service areas shall be screened from view of the public street. City of Liberty Lake Loading Space Standards It is the intent of this section to require all future commercial, business, institutional, or industrial development to provide off-street loading facilities in order to guarantee full utilization of existing rights of way to accommodate present and future traffic demands. Off-street loading facilities are intended to provide adequate space to accommodate outside deliveries from large vehicles which cannot be functionally served by normal parking stalls. Off-street loading facilities must be located in such a manner that service vehicles do not block or intrude into public rights of way or block driveways or parking area circulation. A. Location and Design. 1. All off-street loading spaces shall be designed to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. 2. In all cases, loading facilities shall be located on the same lot as the structure they are designed to serve. Required yards cannot be used for loading. Off-street loading space shall not be included in an area used to satisfy off-street parking requirements. 3. Loading spaces shall be designed and located so vehicles using these spaces do not project into any public right-of-way or otherwise extend beyond property lines. 4. Loading spaces shall be designed and built so no vehicles are required to back to or from an adjacent street, except for minor access for heavy trucking in industrial zones on local access streets. 5. When a proposed structure is intended to be used concurrently for different purposes, final determination of required loading spaces shall be made by the Director, provided the loading requirement for the combined uses shall not be less than the total requirement for each separate use. B. Required Off-Street Loading Spaces. The minimum number of off-street loading spaces shall be required according to the following table, unless the number is reduced by the Director. Use Size Required Spaces Industrial, manufacturing Up to 40,000 sq. ft. 1 space wholesale, warehouse, and 40,000 - 60,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces similar uses 60,000 - 100,000 sq. ft. 3 spaces Over 100,000 sq. ft. 3 spaces plus 1 additional space per every 50,000 sq. ft. of building or portion thereof over 100,000 Offices, hotels/motels, and Up to 60,000 sq. ft. 1 space restaurants 60,000 - 100,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces Over 100,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces plus 1 additional space per every 50,000 sq. ft. ATTACHMENT M Page 14 of 16 of building or portion thereof over 100,000 Hospitals, nursing homes, and Up to 40,000 sq. ft. 1 space similar uses 40,000 - 100,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces Over 100,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces plus 1 additional space per every 50,000 sq. ft. of building or portion thereof over 100,000 Retail and other commercial Up to 20,000 sq. ft. 1 space uses 20,000 - 50,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces 50,000 - 100,000 sq. ft. 3 spaces Over 100,000 sq. ft. 3 spaces plus 1 additional space per every 50,000 sq. ft. of building or portion thereof over 100,000 Spokane County 14.802.180 Required Off-Street Loading Off-street loading facilities are required to provide adequate space to accommodate outside deliveries from large vehicles which cannot be functionally served by normal parking stalls. 1. All off-street loading spaces shall be located and designed according to the following criteria: a. All off-street loading spaces shall be designed to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. b. In all cases; loading facilities shall be located on the same lot as the structure they are designed to serve. c. Off-street loading space shall not be included in an area calculation used to satisfy off-street parking requirements for landscaping. d_ Loading spaces shall be designed and located so vehicles using these spaces do not project into any public right-of-way. e_ Loading spaces shall be designed so vehicles are not required to back to or from an adjacent street. Loading spaces in industrial zones that use local access streets are exempt from this requirement. 2_ Off-street loading spaces shall measure at least 15 feet wide, 60 feet long and 15 feet high, except if this section requires only one off-street loading space, it may measure 12 feet wide,30 feet long and 15 feet high. 3_ The minimum number of off-street loading spaces shall be provided according to Table 802-2_ ATTACHMENT M Page 15 of 16 City of Spokane Section 170.230.300 Loading A. Purpose. A minimum number of off-street loading spaces are required to ensure adequate areas for loading for larger uses and developments.These standards ensure that the appearance of loading areas will be consistent with that of parking areas. B. Loading Standards. 1. Number of Loading Spaces. The number of loading spaces required is determined by the following table. Building Uses Include Number of Loading Spaces Required for Amount of Each Use Less than fifty dwellings units 0 Fifty or more dwelling units 1 Less than twenty thousand square feet of non-residential 0 use Twenty thousand square feet to fifty thousand square feet 1 of non-residential floor area More than fifty thousand square feet of non-residential floor 2 area 2. No loading spaces are required on a lot in the congested district,as defined in SMC 16A.04.010,which does not abut an alley. C. Size of Loading Spaces. Required loading spaces must be at least twenty-five feet long,ten feet wide,and have a clearance of fourteen feet,unless the director of building services waives the height requirement for good cause. D. Placement,Setbacks,and Landscaping. Loading areas must comply with the setback and perimeter landscaping standards stated in chapter 17C.200 SMG,Landscaping and Screening.When parking areas are prohibited or not allowed between a building and a street,loading areas are also prohibited or not allowed. E. Paving. In order to control dust and mud,all loading areas must be paved. ATTACHMENT M Page 16 of 16 Project Number of Car Parks Number of Bicycle Number of Bicycle Spaces Spaces (Current Code) (Proposed Code) Walmart 790 32 bike racks 5 bike racks 160 spaces Minimum 10 spaces Providence 585 23 bike racks 5 bike racks 115 spaces Minimum 10 spaces Beach House 401 16 bike racks 4 bike racks 80 spaces Minimum 10 spaces Appleway Automotive 145 6 bike racks No bicycle parking Service Dept. 30 spaces required for auto repair businesses ATTACHMENT N Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF' E SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CTA-2014-0003 September 25,2014 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. Bnelcgrnund: 1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. 2. CTA-2014-0003 is a City-initiated Code Text Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SV MC) Appendix A changing the Recreational Facility definition; SVMC 19.40.010, 19.60.010, 19.70.010, and 19.70.020 removing screening requirement for community facilities and public utilities; SVMC 19.60.010 removing the shared access requirement for new development; SVMC 19.120.050 permitting limited medical and dental clinic use in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones; SVMC 19.40.130 modifying development standards for Manufactured home Parks; SVMC 22.50.020 modifying the vehicle parking requirements; SVMC 22.50,040 modifying bicycle parking requirements; SV MC 22.50.030 modifying the off-street loading requirements; SVMC Table 22.50-2 modifying the table layout and specific activity parking requirements; and SVMC 19.60.040, 19.60.060, 19.60.070, 19.60.080, 19.70.010 modifying outdoor storage requirements 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on August 28th, 2014 and September 11th, 2014 and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the amendment to City Council. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. The proposed City-initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): i. Land Use Policy-13 Review and revise as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development. ii. Land Use Policy-2.4 Residential development should be designed to provide privacy and common open space. Open space areas shall be proportionate to the size of the residential development. iii. Land Use Policy-8.3: Allow office uses in high density residential zones to provide some of the service needs generated from multifamily development. iv. Land Use Policy-11.3: Provide appropriate buffering, landscaping and other development standards for industrial areas. v. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility,consistency, predictability and clear direction. vi. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses;and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious. vii. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 0 PAGE 1014 b. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Finding(s): SVMC Appendix A--Definitions. Outdoor gun ranges are inappropriate in densely populated commercial and mixed use areas. The current definition permits both indoor and outdoor gun ranges in those areas creating an incompatible mix of uses. The proposal will amend Appendix A, Definitions, Recreational facility to narrow the definition to just indoor gun ranges and subsequently permit only indoor gun ranges in commercial and mixed use areas . ii. SVMC 19.40.010—General provisions and SVMC 19.60.010—General Provisions. Public utility and community facility projects are required to screen large areas around the perimeter ofa project in addition to the landscaping required for the project, The screening requirement is excessive, when a small building is placed on a large vacant parcel. The proposal will remove the requirement for Type 1 screening for community facilities and public utility distribution facilities along property lines adjacent to a residential use or zone. iii. SVMC 19.60.010—General Provisions. New development is required to provide shared access with adjacent properties. This requirement does not bear a nexus to the impacts caused by the project and may unfairly burden the properly owner. The proposal will remove the requirement for all new development to provide shared access with adjacent properties. iv. SVMC 19.120.050—Permitted Use Matrix. General outdoor storage is not a permitted use in the Community Commercial (C) district. Outdoor storage,as a business, would be an appropriate use of the commercial properties available in the C zone. The proposal will permit Storage, general outdoors in the Community Commercial (C) district with conditions. v. SVMC 19.120.050—Permitted Use Matrix. Automobile repair already occurs on many sites located in the Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) and Community Commercial (C)zones. Auto repair uses are appropriate in these zones given the developed nature of these zones. The proposal permits Automobile/truck/RVlmotorcycle painting, repair, body and fender works in the CMU and C zones. The proposal also removes the requirement to be contained in an enclosed structure and allows for vi. SVMC 19.60.040—NC,Neighborhood Commercial district. Sale and display items are not permitted to be displayed in the front or flanking street yard setbacks in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC)zone. Businesses should be allowed to utilize the site for items reasonably displayed outdoors to attract sales so long as the health and welfare of the public is not compromised. The proposal will allow sale or rental items to be displayed in front or flanking street yards provided they are not located in a border easement,drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle or right-of-way in the NC zone vii. SVMC 19.60.050--C,Community Commercial district. Businesses located in the Community Commercial(C) zone are required to maintain all storage in an enclosed building. This can create a prohibitive economic environment and undue financial burden. The proposal will allow outdoor storage to occur between the property line and the rear side of the building; require screening for storage which is visible from the right-of-way; and allow sale or rental items to be displayed in front or flanking street yards provided they are not located in a border easement, drainage swalc or easement, clearview triangle or right-of-way. viii.SVMC 19,60.060—RC,Regional Commercial district. Businesses located in the Regional Commercial(RC) zone are required to maintain all storage in an enclosed building. This can create a prohibitive economic environment and undue financial burden. The proposal will allow outdoor storage to occur on the site provided it is screened with a sight-obscuring fence; Allow Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 0 PAGE 2 OF 4 sale or rental items to be displayed in front or flanking street yards provided they are not located in a border casement, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle or right-of-way. ix. SVMC 19.60.070—MUC,Mixed Use Center district. Businesses located in the Mixed Use Center(MUC)zone are required to maintain all storage in an enclosed building. This can create a prohibitive economic environment and undue financial burden. The proposal will allow outdoor storage to occur on the site provided it is screened with a sight-obscuring fence;Allow sale or rental items to be displayed in front or flanking street yards provided they are not located in a border easement, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle or right-of-way. x. SVMC 19.60.080—CMU,Corridor Mixed Use district. Businesses located in the Corridor Mixed Use(CMU)zone are required to maintain all storage in an enclosed building. This can create a prohibitive economic environment and undue finaucial burden. The proposal will allow outdoor storage to occur on the site provided it is screened with a sight-obscuring fence; Allow sale or rental items to be displayed in front or flanking street yards provided they are not located in a border easement, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle or right-of-way. xi. SVMC 19.70.010—I-1, Light Industrial district. Businesses located in the Light Industrial(I-I) zone are required to maintain all storage in an enclosed building. This can create a prohibitive economic environment and undue financial burden. The proposal will allow outdoor storage to occur on the site provided it is screened with a sight-obscuring fence when adjacent to a residential or commercial district; Allow sale or rental items to be displayed in front or flanking street yards provided they are not located in a border easement,drainage swalc or easement, clearview triangle or right-of-way. xii. SVMC 19.40.130—Manufactured home parks. Manufactured home parks may nut develop at more than 7 units per acre regardless of zone. This restriction includes the medium and high density residential zones. The space width and area requirements limit the developer's flexibility when developing a specific site. A minimum number of spaces is not specified and could lead to a two-space manufactured home. Setbacks do not conform to current International Building Code (IBC)requirements for structure separation. Manufactured borne parks are not required to provide any open space areas for tenants. The proposal will allow a density of twelve manufactured homes per acre in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones. Limit the density of manufactured homes in low density residential zones to the density permitted in the underlying zone. Require a minimum of five home spaces per Manufactured 1-Iome Park. Require 10 percent of the gross arca of the manufactured home park be open space for the use of the residents. Remove lot coverage and minimum lot width requirements. Organize the setback information in a table and increase minimum setbacks from 3 and 4 feet to 5 feet to conform to the IRC. xiii.SVMC 19.120.050- Permitted Uses Matrix-Allowing medical/dental clinics to locate on currently occupied parcels in the MF-1 & MF-2 zones allows property owners to utilize existing buildings in these zones while maintaining the City's inventory of properties available for multi- family development. xiv.SVMC 22.50.020--Clarifies the code language and provides consistency with verbiage used in the International Building Code. It further allows flexibility for development by including a provision allowing the Director to consider alternatives to the parking requirements when faced with unanticipated conditions associated with the site or use. xv. SVMC 22.50.030—Reduces the required size and location provisions for loading spaces; removes the required landscaping screening for loading spaces;and allows the Director to consider alternatives to the requirements. These changes provide greater flexibility to property owners when loading spaces are required address changing trends of the business industry. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission ATTACI IMENT 0 PAGE 3 OF 4 xvi,SVMC 22.50.040—Reduces the amount of bicycle parking required for commercial development,eliminates the size requirement for individual bike racks and allows the Director to consider exceptions to the requirement providing more options for bicycle parking facilities. xvii.Table 22.50-2--Reformats Required Parking Spaces table for consistency with the Permitted Use Matrix, consolidates similar uses for ease of use, reduces the minimum number of parking spaces required for many of the listed uses offering more flexibility to developers. 2. Conclusion(s): a. The proposed text amendments arc consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. b. The Growth Management Act stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City approve the proposed City- initiated code text amendments. Approved this 25th day of September,2014 _A.--94:e_. — ------c..e g 1-2, _ vi. Joe Stoy,Chairinari� ATTIT 41)-e4.'lc_I l U Deanna -Lorton, Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission ATTACH M E N1 0 PAGE 4 OF 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SiokanePLANNING DIVISION Valley STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2014-0003 STAFF REPORT DATE: July 31, 2014 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: August 28, 2014, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated text amendments proposing to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Titles 19, 22 and Appendix A as follows: change the Recreational Facility definition, remove screening requirement for community facilities and public utilities, delete shared access requirement, allow limited medical and dental clinic uses in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones with conditions, modify manufactured home park standards, modify outdoor storage requirements, modify bicycle parking requirements, modify the off-street loading requirements, and modify the required parking standards. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendments as put forth. STAFF PLANNER: Martin Palaniuk,Planner,Community Development Department Christina Janssen,Planner,Community Development Department REVIEWED BY:Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC Title 19,22, and Appendix A A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A ATTACHMENT P Page 1 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2014-0003 Process Date Determination of Completeness: N/A SEPA Determination: To be completed on 8/22/14 Published Notice of Public Hearing: Scheduled for 8/8/14& 8/15/14 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: Scheduled for 8/14/14 2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to modify a number of areas of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code that have been identified as containing errors or omissions. Many of the amendments address problems that have been identified through the project review process or are necessary to provide consistency throughout the code. The proposed modifications are to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)Titles 19,22 and Appendix A as follows: Appendix A(Definitions): Update the definition of Recreational Facility to specify indoor gun ranges among the examples. SVMC 19.40.010(G), 19.60.010(M), 19.70.010(7), 19.70.020(6): Remove development regulations related to landscaping, signage and lighting for community facilities and public utility distribution facilities. SVMC 19.60.010(H): Remove the requirement for shared access with adjacent properties for commercial development. SVMC 19.120.050: Amend Permitted Use Matrix to allow medical/dental clinics in the MF-1 & MF-2 zones with conditions and remove the requirement for automobile repair to be located within enclosed structures in the Corridor Mixed Use and Community Commercial zones. SVMC 19.40.130: Increase the allowable density for manufactured home parks,provide for common open space within manufactured home parks, and add a table for setback requirements. SVMC 22.50.020: Administrative corrections for clarity. Allow the Director to reduce the number of required parking spaces when the applicant can demonstrate a need and to determine the number of spaces if a use is not specified in the Required Parking Space table. SVMC 22.50.030: Amend off street loading requirements to allow more flexibility for locating loading spaces,remove landscaping requirements and add a table for loading space dimension. SVMC 22.50.040: Amend the bicycle parking regulations including number,location, and size of required bike racks. SVMC Table 22.50-2: Reformat the Required Parking Space table consistent with the recently updated permitted uses matrix and remove the NAICS code references. Modify the number of required parking spaces for several uses based on an assessment of other local jurisdiction parking requirements. Chapter 19.60: Update the outdoor storage requirements including location and landscape screening requirements. ATTACHMENT P Page 2 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2014-0003 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan for periodically evaluating and revising the City's development standards and maintaining a flexible regulatory environment. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: Land Use Policy-1.3 Review and revise as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development. Land Use Policy-2.4 Residential development should be designed to provide privacy and common open space. Open space areas shall be proportionate to the size of the residential development. Land Use Policy-8.3: Allow office uses in high density residential zones to provide some of the service needs generated from multifamily development. Land Use Policy-11.3: Provide appropriate buffering,landscaping and other development standards for industrial areas. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable,cost-effective,and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment as described in the following discussion:. The change to the Recreational Facility definition prevents an outdoor range from occurring in densely populated commercial zones where they are incompatible. The City could not prevent an outdoor range from occurring in those zones that allow a recreational facility using the current definition. Those zones are MUC,CMU,C, RC, I-1, and I-2. Changes to the Off-street Parking and Loading standards provide clarity and flexibility. The change will allow the Director some flexibility in determining the number of parking spaces required if a particular use is not listed in Table 22.50-2. It will also allow the Director to reduce the required number of spaces by up to 25 ATTACHMENT P Page 3 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2014-0003 percent when site conditions prevent compliance. Extraneous language has been removed for clarity. Under current regulations public utilities are required to provide Type I screening along the entire length of any property line adjacent to a residential use or zone when constructing any utility facility. This becomes unreasonable when constructing small utility buildings on very large parcels. In most case a fence is usually placed around the utility building for safety and security. Eliminating the requirement for Type I screening along the entire property line will reduce unnecessary screening. Changes to the off-street loading standards allow for more site flexibility when locating loading spaces and gives the director the ability to consider exceptions on a case by case basis. Removing the screening requirements for off-street loading areas will provide more flexibility in site plan development. Bicycle parking is increasingly becoming a popular mode of transportation,both for commuters and recreation. The proposed changes to the bicycle parking requirements will allow exemptions in certain circumstances,reducing the number of racks required,and simplifying the location requirements while still providing adequate safe and secure areas for bicycle parking. The amendments to Table 22.50-2 are meant to streamline the development review process by reformatting the table for consistency with the Permitted Use matrix and making it easier to use and understand by consolidating similar uses where possible, removing the NAICS codes from the table and evaluating the parking space requirements and making adjustments where necessary. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Public noticing has not been initiated for CTA-2014-0003 as of the date of this report. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): . To be determined at the end of the comment period. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To be provided following the conclusion of applicable comment periods. ATTACHMENT P Page 4 of 4 j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7 PLANNING DIVISION Batch Code Text Amendments CTA-2014-0003 October 7, 2014 Administrative Report mr ›Imley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! P�,NSN NNS CTA- 2014-0003 Revisions to : • Definitions • Title 19 Zoning Regulations • Title 22 Design and Development Standards ›alen\; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! P�,NSN NNS Definitions • Recreational Facilities definition - Gun ranges tnt aa.0 �C: mr j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! P�,NSN NNS Title 19 • Shared Access-19.60.010 • Screening of Community Facilities-19.40.010 LeaE • Automobile Repair in the Corridor Mixed Use & Community Commercial zones-19.120 • Outdoor Storage in the Community Commercial aan zone-19. 120 • Outdoor Storage Requirements-19.60 & 19.70 • Medical Offices in the multi-family zones-19. 120 • Manufactured Home Park regulations-19.40 ›alen\; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! P�,NSN NNS Title 22 • Change of Use/Occupancy-22 . 50 • Off Street Loading spaces-22 .50.030 • Bicycle Parking-22.50.030 • Parking Matrix-Table 22. 50 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P ° NN�NG � 1 DIVISION • August 14th-Planning Commission (PC) Study Session *41 • August 28th- Public Hearing • September 11th- Continued Deliberations tin • September 25th- Findings & Recommendations 1.11 • October 7th- Administrative Report • TBD-1st Reading 1's) • TBD- 2nd Reading 6 j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7" P�,NSN NNS Recreational facility Definition 'C` Addition of the word "indoor" to "gun Z` ranges:' LLB mr ›alen\; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! P�,NSN NNS Landscape Screening Requirements Chapters 19.40.010 (G), 19.60.010(M), 19.70.010 (7), 19.70.020 (6) � • Eliminate screening requirement for utilities 4�T mr ›alen\; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! P�,NSN NNS Shared Access Chapter 19.60.010 • Eliminate shared access requirement for new development. 4�T 9 j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! P�,NSN NNS Outdoor Storage 19.60.040-Neighborhood Commercial • Update outdoor display requirements to allow 11-1. display in the front and flanking street yard 4�T • Add provision for display items to be located out of required border easements, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle, or public right-of-way �o WIRIVrilil COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT °►NNING DIVISION Permitted Use Matrix Chapter 19.120 • Allow outdoor storage in the Community Commercial zone. Cr°1 Supplemental Lid Use Category/Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Conditions R-1 R-2 R-3 R4 MF-1 M1-2 MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC NOS I-1 1-2 al outda� r, I S S See zoning distri��t -or Stcrage. ger — ccndiiiens 111 11 mr j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,,veP�,NSN NNS Outdoor Storage 19.60.050-Community Commercial • Remove requirement for storage to be in an 11111. enclosed building 4�T • Storage can be located between the building and � the rear property line and screened with a Type I landscape screen where visible to the public right- of-way • Add provisions for front and flanking street display mr j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,"10P�,NSN NNS Outdoor Storage 19.60.060-Regional Commercial • Remove requirement for storage to be in an 11111. enclosed building 4�T • Storage will be screened with a sight obscuring � fence • Add provisions for front and flanking street display j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! P�,NSN NNS Outdoor Storage 19.60.070-Mixed Use Center • Storage will be screened with a Type I landscape 11111. b u ffe r 4�T • Add provisions for front and flanking street display j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! P�,NSN NNS Outdoor Storage 19.60.080-Corridor Mixed Use • Remove requirement for storage to be in an 11111. enclosed building 4�T • Storage will be screened with a sight obscuring � fence • Add provisions for front and flanking street display j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! P�,NSN NNS Outdoor Storage 19.70.010-Light Industrial � • Storage will be screened with a sight obscuring 11111. fence 4�T • Add provisions for front and flanking street display COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT °►NNING '� DIVISION Permitted Use Matrix Chapter 19.120 • Add vehicle repair as a Permitted Use in the crl Corridor Mixed Use and Community Commercial 111.,- zones. —iiUseUse Category/Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Conditions Iiii iiii R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MF-1 M1-2 IMC r CMtl GO 0 NC C RC P:CSS I-1 1-2 Automobileitruck RV'Imotorc V cle painting, repair, body and P P P fender works I P s 'r.ic 19 6a.D5oi Bir3;i. 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT "SWW. NNING DIVISION Permitted Use Matrix Chapter 19.120 • Medical/dental office in multifamily zones with conditions Residential Zai ie Use CategaryfEypa Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions Qistric#s R- R- R- R- MF- MF- I- 1- MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC 13/051 2 3 4 1 1 2 1. Clinics are only allowed asa conversion or redevelopment of an existing structure; 2. Existing build inks maybe Medical/dental clinic P P F' F' P P F' F' P remodeled or demolished; and 3. New orreniodeledstructure may not exceed 110© of the current building footprint. 18 j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' 7 P�,NSN NNS Manufactured Home Parks Chapter 19.40.130 • Increase the allowable density in the MF-1 and MF-2 1111. zones 4�T • Provide common open space • Create a 5 space minimum • Place setbacks into table 19 ›alen\; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! P�,NSN NNS Vehicle Parking Chapter 22.50.020 �y • "Gross square feet" and "Change of LLB Occupancy" clarification • Add Director modification provision 20 ›alen\; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , P�,NSN NNS Loading spaces Chapter 22.50.030 r410 • Remove side & rear location requirement WI • Add provision to protect parking & landscaping • Modify loading space size requirements • Remove landscape screening requirement 21 j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ! : PLNS Bicycle parking Chapter 22.50.040 • Clarify where bicycle parking is required ;tiro • Provide exemption for auto service businesses LLB • Clarify multifamily bicycle parking requirements • Convert table from a "rack" requirement to a "space" requirement • Reduce the number of bicycle spaces required • Add Director modification provision j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' w, , P�,NSN NNS Required parking Table 22.50-2 • Re-format for consistency with Permitted Use Matrix f410 • Remove NAICS Code References .11 imme • Reduce (consolidate or remove) number of uses for ease of use • Evaluate and make changes to parking requirements 23 S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :! ' PLANNING D VS ON Questions ? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 7, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Preliminary 2015 Budget GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.33 Budget in Code Cities PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion at the June 17, 2014 Budget Workshop; Staff presented estimated revenues and expenditures for 2015 Budget on September 2, 2014, in preparation for the Public Hearing; and Public Hearing with Council discussion on September 9, 2014. BACKGROUND: Part of the ongoing budget process, and in keeping with the requirements of RCW 35A.33.052, City Manager Jackson will present the 2015 Preliminary Budget for Council review. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None at this time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 2015 Preliminary Budget and PowerPoint Presentation pokane - �Va11e City Manager' s 201 5 Preliminary Budget Presentation to Council October 7, 2014 201 5 Council Goals • Pursue a legislative capital budget request for possible financial assistance for the Barker Road Bridge Grade Separation (overpass/underpass); the Appleway Trail Project; and parkland acquisition. • Pursue the Bridging the Valley concept at State and Federal levels, including long term funding for grade separation and corridor consolidation. • Continue and expand, where possible, economic development efforts, including review and evaluation of Spokane Valley's development regulations and how they compare with other jurisdictions; and including completion of the City Hall Plan. • Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preservation program, to include sustained funding in the City's Street Fund to address concerns beyond the year 2019. • Evaluate and discuss increasing costs to public safety, including law enforcement. Seek long-term solutions to keeping costs in check while better serving the community. • Work toward completion of the Comprehensive Plan review. 2 Legislative Assistance Legislative representation ► Advocates for cities and towns in Educational training Washington, D.C. Provides programs and services that give Publications and resources Technical assistance in personnel and local leaders tools and knowledge labor relations, energy, transportation, Keeps leaders informed of critical issues budgeting planning, risk management ► Partners with state leagues to and employee wellness supplement resources and strengthen Member programs, such as municipal the voice of local government liability and property insurance, Promotes cities and towns through an employee drug and alcohol testing, and aggressive media and communications employee benefits program rAWC membership= $62,500 1 I NLC membership = $7,500 Dues were reversed at Budget Workshop 3 Sp"okan~ City Manager ' s j�»Qy Budget Message Fiscal policies Budget Highlights Challenges Balanced Budget for 2015 Future Concepts .010"\.. pokane Valley Balanced Budget - City is in Excellent Financial Condition is '� SiiokaneFINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Valley 11 Maintain basic service levels with modest increases . 2 ) Minimize Personnel cost / overhead by continuing to contract for many services . 3 ) Continue the 6 Year Business Plan Process . `"`okane FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT �lle� 4) Leverage City funds with grant opportunities . 5 ) Minimize City Debt with a pay as you go philosophy. 61 Strive to prioritize spending in the annual budget process and minimize mid -year addition of projects and appropriations . The State of Washington sets the maximum level of allowable debt based on assessed value of property. The City of Spokane Valley currently utilizes only 1 .31 % of it total allowable debt capacity, and more importantly, only 6.54% of non-voted bond capacity. 8 kane Spo jValley FINANCIAL OBJECTIVES 1 Maintain a minimum General Fund Ending Balance of 50% of total recurring expenditures. 6 months of general fund operations 2) If necessary, utilize the Service Level Stabilization fund ($ 5 .4 million) to maintain ending fund balance minimum . i ) Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund will not reduce below $ 3 . 24 million (60% of $ 5 .4 million). 4) Property Tax assessment will increase by new construction in 2015 . (Approximately $200, 000; City will not take 1 °o property tax increase) 5) Grow our economy so our existing tax base can support our basic programs . 9 Spokan�� jValley COMMITMENT TO POLICIES ✓ Long term financial sustainability. ✓ Deviation from commitments could begin to erode our financial condition . Must Remain Fiscally Sound Recurring Revenues $ 38 , 442 , 200 Difference ' ecurring 5103, 318 Expenditures 38 , 338 , 882 Sii45Une SiiokaneEnding Fund balance Projected fund balance at the end of 2015 is currently $ 19 , 856 , 710 or 51 . 79% of recurring expenditures = 6 month ' s operating expenses Spokan�� jvalley Remaining Fiscally Conservative Refunding of 2003 Limited Tax General Obligation ( LTGO) Bonds Moody's Investor Services upgraded the City of Spokane Valley' s bond rating to Aa3 . "The upgrade . . . reflects the City's low debt burden , sizeable tax base which is expected to expand into the medium-term , and healthy financial performance, which is maintained through strong management practices."* Only true debt service is Street Bonds CenterPlace debt is reimbursed by the Spokane Public Facilities District *Spokesman Review quote from Moody's Investor \\mo \\�i Services notification of City's upgrade to Aa3 1 3 Siiokane Budget Highlights Spokane Lean Operations jValley The proposed 2015 Budget recurring expenditures were capped at 1 % over the 2014 Budget for non- wage expenditures FTE count will remain the same at 87 .25 employees in 2015. 1s Proposed CED Changes included in the 201 5 Budget ✓ Community & Reduce Planning Manager FTE count from 1 .0 to 0.0. Economic Reduce Code Enforcement Officer FTE count From Development FTE 2 .0 to 1 .0. count remains @ The manager of the consolidated division has been titled the Development Services Manager to more 2014 level of accurately describe the duties of the position. 29. 50 The addition of a 1 .0 FTE Development Engineer (Grade 16). s( Net budget The addition of a 1 .0 FTE Economic Development Project Specialist (Grade 1 5). impact is a Revise the Employee Position Classification Monthly reduction in Salary Schedule to increase the Code Enforcement payroll costs of Officer from Grade 13 to Grade 14. $8,065 since the An Economic Development Division has been June 17, 2014 created . These personnel report to the Community and Economic Development Director and assist in Budget Workshop accomplishing our economic development goals. 16 Currently Implemented CES Organizational Changes Planning Manager and one Code Enforcement Officer vacancy have not been filled . Consolidated the former Planning and Development Engineering Divisions into the Development Services Division . A consultant firm has been retained to replace the higher level planning support previously provided by the Planning Manager. Community and Economic Development Director 1 FTE Administrative Assistant 1 FTE I - I Development Services Manager Building Official 1 FTE 1 FTE Economic I. I 1 Development Senior Planner Engineer Sr Plans Examiner _ Development Services Coordinator 1 FTE 2 FTE 1 FTE Coordinator - 1 FTE 1 FTE Economic Planner Assistant Engineer Ir Development 2 FTE 1 FTE Plans Examiner Engineer 1 FTE Permit Facilitator _ 0.50 FTE 2 FTE Code Enforcement ROW Inspector Building Inspector Economic 1 FTE 1 FTE 3 FTE Office Assistant _ Development 2 FTE Specialist I Planning I 1 FTE j Commission j Construction Office Assistant I ._._._l 1 FTE - Inspector Planner - 1 FTE 2 FTE Engineering Technician - New Poston Realigned 1 FTE Positions 18 PUBLIC SAFETY # 1 PRIORITY Sheriffs Office-2014 Convnissioned Officer Worksheet Total Commissioned FTC: 226.00 12 temporary Deputy+3 Officer Candidate positions included in Uninc.Patrol) Total included in Commissioned Officer Charge: 209.67 Excludes those allocated along was atlminietrative costs and those that are County reapons.ertity. Category 1 Category 2 Category 3I Category 4 Dedicated FTEs Shared Services Allocated with County Responsibility/ Investigative/ Administrative Costs Other Cosl Recovery Method Note:"Unincorporated"here includes'small riles. Community ServleeslK-9 Vnincorp Valley HledloalLk Deer Park Total Major Crimes Civil Adel do Ce plaln 1 Deputies 3 ChiefAnspector 'r_ 1 1 Lieutenant 1 Lieutenant 1 1 Sergeant 1 Command Staff Marine Patrol Sergeant _ 1 1 Detectives a Uncle/sheriff 1 Deputy 0.25 Deputy 1 J 1 Sex Crimes PIO DTF Patrol Sergeant 1 Deputy 1 Detective/Corp 1.50 Captain 1 1 Detectives 4.84 Deputies 6.75 Lieutenant 2 21 4 Deputy 1 Training/CMS/Admin Sergeant 8 9 17 Lieutenant 1 Sex Offender Registration Deputies 545 47 4.5 2 inn IrrvaR tiga time Task Force(TM) Sergaanl 7 Detective/C nip 016, Officer Candidalcs 3Y J 3 Lie ulecant 1 Detective 1 Sergeant-COL my only '[ Tralliic1CVEO Defectives-County only 1.33 Deputies 2 Sex Off.Res.Verit.3514 Sergeant 1 1 Detective/Corp "I Dole elivelC arp. 1 1 2 Depuhes 3 5 S CIUIJTTFfDTF% ITF Federal 5 enures Detectives 2.50 Detective/Corp 0.67 Coil amity Services nepufies 0 9.5 Deputy I 1 I 1 1 I 2 Gang Enforcement Admtn/Not Allocated Investigative Unit _ Sergeant 1 Sheriff 1 Sergeant 1 1 Defective/Corp 2 Dele el lye JC a rp. 6 I 10 16 Deputy 1 1 Total Investigative 24.92 Total County/Other 8.33 Domestic Violence Irltellelligence Led Policing DelecliveICcrp. 1 1 I I 2 Detective 1 School Resource Deputies Marine/Search Rescue Deputies 3 4 1 7 Deputies 175 K-9 Total Dedicated FTEs 84.5 85 4.5 2 177 Deputies 5 Total Administrative 8 Dedicated FTEs excluding SROs 813 82 4.5 2 170 Total Investligative/SupportDery 32.67 20 Commissioned OfRate Ca Cost Category Direct Costs Indirect Costs Total I Community Services $ 211,987 S 59,406 $ 271,393 Detectives $ 1,503,271 $ 373,461 $ 1,876,732 Patrol $ 14,942,165 $ 3,767,144 $ 18,709,309 Traffic Inv $ 1,504,024 $ 410,818 $ 1,914,842 K-9 $ 605,810 $ 148,708 $ 754,518 Reservists $ 7,575 $ 11,919 $ 19,494 Investigations $ 4,364,005 $ 1,157,554 $ 5,521,559 School Resource Deputies $ 726,167 $ 188,254 $ 914,421 Extra Duty $ 5,480 $ 20,118 $ 25,598 Contracts $ 755 $ 12,600 $ 13,355 County Local Grants & Contracts $ - $ 14,676 $ 14,676 County Match Grants $ 44,498 $ 9,967 $ 54,465 Emergency Operations Team $ 205,292 $ 84,892 $ 290,184 Total Costs $ 30,380,545 /Commisioned Officers 196.17 Commiioned Officer Rate $ 154,868 21 Breakdown of Commissioned Officer Rate Sheriff's Office Indirect, 11.44% Countywide Indirect, 9.17% M&O, 3.69% Salary, 57.24% Benefits, 18.47% 22 Countywide Indirect Cost Components 28 Other Vehicle Depreciation, Departments, 20.29% 22.14% Facilities Maintenance, -.NE% 9.43% Information Systems, 21.49% Insurance, 26.65% 23 Sheriff's Indirect Co Undersheriff, Communications, r-4.07% 6.76% Par LEIS,7.25% Professional Administration, Standards, 6.65% 42.70% Training , 19.11% Garage, 13.46% 24 Other Contract Costs In addition to the Commissioned Officer Rate, there are other costs charged to the City. Other Charges (SV Only) Direct Indirect Total I Forensics 5, 210,808 S 60,293 5 271,101 Dispatch 5 664,833 S 133,861 798,694 Helicopter 5 14,687 $ 2,249 $ 16,93E Explosive Disposal - County 5 1,465 $ 2,985 $ 4,450 Crime Check 5 177,51E $ 24,712 $ 202,228 SCOPE 88,216 1E $ 49,708 $ 137,923 SIRT 5 12,306 $ 6,468 $ 18,774 Explosive Dispose. - Spok.3re 5 813 $ - $ 813 Records 5 655,974 $ - $ 655,974 Property Room 5 150, 172 S. - $ 150,172 Valley Ad min Officers 5 254,294 $ 77,077 $ 331,370 Total $ 2,231,083 $ 357,352 $ 2,588,435 /# of SV Commissioned Officers * 98.77 SV Other Costs per Officer $ 26,207 * # of Officers does not include 2 admin. positions 25 Comparison of property tax to Public Safety (Police, courts, etc.) $25,000,000 aik $ 24, 153 ,492 $20,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $ 11 , 277 , 100 $ 10,000,000 $5,000,000 :: � :: 1 _ Al — ' '' , '- 1 f 11 4ffe i . __ - --_.,-.1.-.,- ••••w-.- i A I WIL .11.1mwrprw- ROAD MAINTENANCE , PRESERVATION AND �� CONSTRUCTION - # 2 PRIORITY Spokane jUalley Funding Pavement Preservation General Fund recurring expenditures $ 37,416,382 x 6% Pavement Preservation goal commitment $ 2,245,000 (represents 6% of recurring expenditures) 28 Spokane4.0.0 Funding Pavement Preservation #001 General Fund $920,000 #101 Street Fund $206,618 #123 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund $616,284 #301 Capital Projects Fund (1St %4% of REET) & $251 ,049 #302 Special Capital Projects Fund (2nd %4% REET) $251 ,049 TOTAL $2,245,000 29 CTIY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 8/15/2014 2015 Budget Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation 2014 Budget Actual Actual As As Budget Projected 2012 2013 Adopted Amendmnt Amended 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenues Transfers in-#001 General Fund 2,045,203 0 888,823 0 888,823 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 920,000 Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 0 282,000 282,000 0 282,000 206,618 206,618 206,618 206,618 206,618 Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund 0 616,284 616,284 0 616,284 616,284 554,996 0 0 0 Transfers in-#301 RE ET 1 0 150,000 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 251,049 251,049 251,049 251,049 Transfers in-#302 RE ET 2 0 150,000 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 251,049 251,049 251,049 251,049 Grants 0 35,945 2,763,272 123,464 2,886,736 971,032 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 300 2,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 2,045,503 1,237,029 4,919,323 123,464 5,042,787 3,216,032 2,183,712 1,628,716 1,628,716 1,628,716 Expenditures Unidentified Projects 0 0 0 0 0 1,033,470 2,195,000 2,195,000 2,195,000 2,195,000 Pre-Project Prof Svc-GeoTech 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Capital projects 1,882,424 1,387,153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Appleway-Thierman to Park 0 0 400,000 0 400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0162-2012 Street Preservation 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0174-2013 Street Preservation Phase 1 0 0 0 200 r 200 0 0 0 0 0 0179-2013 Street Preservation Phase 2 0 0 1,610,000 (89,417)r 1,520,583 0 0 0 0 0 0180-2013 Street Preservation Phase 3 0 0 0 330,000 ' 330,000 0 0 0 0 0 0186-Adams Road Resurfacing Project 0 0 198,760 6,240 r 205,000 0 0 0 0 0 0187-Sprague Ave Preservation Project 0 0 1,352,841 21,842 ' 1,374,683 0 0 0 0 0 0188-Sullivan Rd Preservation Project 0 0 33,920 0 ' 33,920 1,122,580 0 0 0 0 xxxx-WSDOT Sullivan: Trent to Wellsley 0 0 0 0 ' 0 409,000 0 0 0 0 Transfers out-#303-Sidewalk infill 27,043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers out-#303-Sullivan bridge repairs 192,039 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers out-#303-Evergreen 79,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 2,181,451 1,387,153 ' 3,595,521 320,865 3,916,386 2,615,050 2,245,000 2,245,000 2,245,000 2,245,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures (135,948) (150,124) 1,323,802 (197,401) 1,126,401 600,982 (61,288) (616,284) (616,284) (616,284) Beginning fund balance 1,084,681 948,733 798,609 798,609 1,925,010 2,525,992 2,464,704 1,848,420 1,232,136 "., Ending fund balance 948,733 798,609 2,122,411 1,925,010 2,525,992 2,464,704 1,848,420 1,232,136 615,852 ` 30 Public $25,000,000 Safety Street Maintenance, Preservation """ $20,000,000 & Capital �okane .000 Valley 2015 $1 5,000,000 f Prioritized Budget _Iwo $10,000,000 Stormwater Community $5,000,000 Ops& APA Parks & & Development General LegislativeRecreation & Executive Admin Public Government '11 111 Works OP 1 $0 31 Siiokane Valley MODERATE GROWTH IN CURRENT OPERATIONAL EXPENSES / BUDGET INCREASE II20,000,000 18,000,000 16,000,000 +/ ♦ ♦ •� 14,000,000 ♦- S` Okane ♦�♦' 12,000,000 - .000 V all eyE 10,000,000 Sales Tax 8,000,000 Collections I 6,000,000 2004-2015 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Budget Budget 33 Sample 2014 Tax Bill - Tax District #0144 Median Home Value Most Populated $ 133 , 727 District oc) S-1151-. 32 2% 0 'V'?' SI))1-(). N 1, c, %Cc' 37% 2 • o 22% 17% 1 % 904. imi 3%0 Central Fire State City of Spokane Library Valley SD District #1 Schools Spokane County District Valley Spokane County Tax Assessor's Office 34 $ 133,727ProY T Median House Value in Spokane Valley 1 • ■ ■ $ 1 .58111 2014 ertax Rate p per thousand of valuation (rounded from 1 .577609) $211 .29 Annual homeowner cost • • • I h providepoliceprotection, to • community planning, building services, parks and recreation, general government and more 35 Source - S•okane Count Assessor's Office pokalle Eley »a�aidoe 4 / '...£;^!>� '..74 .V 1 Z 61 Per month ' Vii." `..,",‘\'' } ,\� { 7 ki „AI— � o is "+ I x °*1 ‘ $ +,,""vA v o‘3..: s Z 7.* °S ,411§,--. . ,,0 "` is ,y,\ , `' r,,,t. 1111i y -V, , .L''''' , ,' ,‘ \ ..."4 ?,? c,..s. {k` i � Spokane Valley2014 citytax rate p per thousand of valuation : $1.58* Median home value in Spokane Valley $133,727 Source - Spokane County Assessor's Office *rounded from $1 .577609 36 Sliolkane STAFFING LEVELS Personnel Comparisons with other Jurisdictions 2015 Ratio Personnel Jurisdiction Population #FTE's* 1 Emp/res % of Budget Kennewick 77,700 168 463 52% Pasco 67,770 154 440 44% Spokane 212,300 1324 160 unknown Yakima 93,080 200 465 63% Benton County 186,500 630 296 unknown Spokane County 484,500 1659 259 unknown Spokane Valley 92,050 87.25 1055 20% *Other jurisdictions #'s based on 2014; FTE's adjusted for removal of Police, Fire, Library 38 SiokaneFINANCIAL CHALLENGES jValley CONTINUED FUNDING Pavement Preservation Street Capital Projects - Grants and Matching Funds Street Maintenance Other Capital Projects - Land Acquisition / Parks , Trails , City Hall Plus associated operational and maintenance costs 39 PotentialProjects s„5,20,4 Fsdm ated CI piano. A Tost� Secured go�e,tta,r ��e��11 Fund �a�lP��ec� F�3�2 Fun�3tt„�02 Pond _ ded Prole .hated PathsB Bulldogs Capital tInfun anted Totmr opme� Balfour rdegn�rstimPn� Apple/my..Ta noes 0 Appleway Tall-FM green to Cordon3,074,000 3,074,000 2,100 3,866,000 3,866,000 9,250 Apple/my..Ta Balfour 0 pp�ay nds�p�(GoamPa 3 ppew� na�pNg�amyn m0 1 a o Oty Hall 8,097,669 epaatt0n 700 Sewer Grade8,000,000 Barker Parkandacqu.onndu/BNSF 0 0 0 0 01,100,000 Total ofCap�IP,ects A46.n.to A993An9n Pn91PHTP PPPT1nnn 1lnnnnn0 PPnPnnn nlnn.10 �T376.m PHHF76. alsore1ud�n%yearTIP epavmen«r2lt anLTGGbond lssue�rthe a Ctty Hall(assumes.$434,500annuallearepayment Corke cons... yHallspacewconvertebondpayment.,bondsmsued 3 ars2%) wren an rMeaty before aOtymIl wne�y��rerpn e 2055w ch a therms( oP�n�Oy�neC4ywdl�neto�nhs'cu��lease Bal211,000 four ms�$100� res0$20,000e�) Appleway Tall malntemencceen(&pp 000atey$20.m0 per Rule) dy%Eergreen(2m1� Eerg�ntaGorom(2%%31 40,000 App40,000 �ewayLandscapngmamtenance 9,500 (Per acre esIa) 3nn.0 010 tl1tu R/nostper$4 mn 1as�l on OTT Future bond paa30-year2Tca Issue at 4.50%wrtn an issue costo 2%) STes General Fund-2013 7,826,207 General nd-2014 2,443,507 �eloperumrrtnb...Ron...,M..-2013 3,180 Geeloper...Ron...,Gl..-2014 4,675 10 277 569 Buslness route signage 21,139 Balfour Park berry Development 57,601 Appleway Lanusaplrtq 268,000 Sullkon Rd Bddge Replacement 2,320,000 Apple/my..-Unlnersdyto Pines 1,452,100 Appleway..-Plnesto ENergreen 256,398 Barker Road BNSF Grade Sepaatl on' 700,000 OR Hall 5,202,331 10 277 569 :Memnon n 40 City Hall - if constructed with cash City Hall cost of $ 14.4 million Using all cash currently on hand of $6,379,564 which is composed of: o Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund #310 - $1, 100,000 o 2012 General Fund - fund balance > 50% - $2,443,507 L, Capital Reserve Fund #312 fund balance that is uncommitted - $2,836,057 Current cash deficiency is $8,020,436 ( _ $14,400,000 - $6,379,564) Assuming General Fund revenues exceed expenditures by $1 .5 million per year it would take 5.35 years to set aside $8,020,436 (5.35 = $8,020,436 / $1,500,000) 41 Spokane e� Balanced Budget Valley Budgeted recurring revenues exceed budgeted recurring expenses. The City does not draw on non-recurring revenues to fund continuing operations. Low debt. No major deficit in service provision . Prioritized spending . Sufficient stabilization and reserve funds in all accounts . Capacity to handle unforeseen events without impacting general fund A detailed, transparent budget process and Business Plan that provide full disclosure to the Council and citizens. 42 SiiokaneFUTURE CONCEPTS jUalley FILLING VACANT POSTIONS SERVICE LEVEL SOLVENCY PAVEMENT PRESERVATION LAW ENFORCEMENT/ PUBLIC SAFETY REET FUNDS FORECAST CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 10/1/2014 Analysis of Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) Revenues and Scheduled Disbursements 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimated REET available on January 1 2,291 ,398 2,286,602 2,006,080 2,541 ,767 2,01 5,402 1 ,599,304 Estimated REET revenues 1 ,200,000 1,250,000 1 ,250,000 1 ,250,000 1 ,250,000 1 ,250,000 Estimated approved capital expenditures (Engineers estimate) (656,735) (836,494) (45,41 5) (2,367) 0 0 Potential capital expenditures (Top 2 Outstanding Grant Applications) 0 (27,630) 0 0 0 0 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation 0 0 0 (1 ,109,000) (1,000,000) 0 Transfer to Fund #311 - Pavement Preservation (368,944) (502,098) (502,098) (502,098) (502,098) (502,098) June 1 debt service payment on 2014 LTGO bonds (33,1 51) (19,650) (18,400) (16,450) (14,500) (12,475) December 1 debt service payment on 2014 LTGO bonds (145,967) (144,650) (148,400) (146,450) (149,500) 152,475 Estimated REET available on December 31 2,286,602 2,006,080 2,541 ,767 2,01 5,402 1 ,599,304 2,487,206 44 010"\.. SpÔ1 Va11 Summary ° Balanced Budget - City is in Excellent Financial Condition 4, P:\Clerk\Agenda Packets for Web\agenda packet 2014,10-07\Item 4 spreadsheet potential and pending projects.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA I 9/15/2014 Pending/Potential Projects Worksheet Project Financing Estimated Grant Financed Cit Financed Trojel Potentialnipt/ en 0aFund 103 Fund 310 Fund 31Fund 301/302 Project Secured Anticipated General Paths& Civic Buildings Capital Bond Cost Grants Grants Fund Trails Capital Project Reserve REET Financed Total Unfunded Capital Projects -Sullivan Road Wcct Bridge replacement 355,3507099 45,350,000 -0 ,030,000 9 9 9 273247999 6 9 355,3507099 6 9 -Balfour Park development 3,866,000 3,866,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,866,000 3,866,000 -Appleway Trail-University to Pines 1,502,100 1,502,100 0 0 0 50,000 0 1,452,100 0 0 1,502,100 0 0 -Appleway Trail-Pines to Evergreen 1,899,250 1,899,250 1,642,852 0 0 0 0 256,398 0 0 1,899,250 0 0 -Appleway Trail-Evergreen to Corbin 3,074,000 3,074,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,074,000 3,074,000 -Appleway Trail-Balfour to University 1,200,000 1,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 1,200,000 -Phase 1-Appleway Landscaping(Dora to Park) 2 ,999 9 9 9 9 2.613999 0 9 2499 9 9 -Phase 2&3-Appleway Landscaping(Park to University) 2,400,000 to 3,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,400,000 to 3,500,000 -Buaner Route Signage 21,130 21,139 9 9 9 9 21,130 0 9 21,130 9 9 --- - - -• -- •- -- 57,601 57,601 9 9 9 9 57,601 0 9 57,601 9 9 -City Hall 14,400,000 14,400,000 0 0 0 1,100,000 5,202,331 0 0 6,302,331 8,097,669 8,097,669 -Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation* 29,200,000 29,200,000 5,840,000 20,451,000 0 0 700,000 2,209,000 0 29,200,000 0 0 -Sewer and roads at industrial property east of Flora Rd. 10,500,000 10,500,000 0 2,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,500,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 -Park land acquisition 900,000 to 1,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 900,000 1,100,000 Total of Capital Projects 84,638,090 to 85,938,090 20,512,852 22,951,000 0 1,100,000 10,277,560 2,209,000 0 57,100,421 27,537,669 to 28,837,669 *also included in 6-year TIP Convert City Hall Lease Payment to a Bond Payment -Convert annual lease payment for City Hall to an LTGO bond issue for the construction of a City Hall(assumes the$434,600 annual lease payment for City Hall space is converted to a bond payment with bonds issued for 30-years at 4.50%with an issue cost 012%) This won't be an option for the City before April 1,2016 which is the first opportunity the City will have to exit ds'current lease. 6,940,000 Future Potential Recurring General Fund Expenditures -Balfour Park maintenance 211,000 (3 acres @$15,000 each+8.3 acres @$20,000 each) -Appleway Trail maintenance(approximately$20,000 per mile) Phase 2-University to Evergreen(2 miles) 40,000 Phase 3-Evergreen to Corbin(2 miles) 40,000 -Appleway Landscaping maintenance 9,500 (Per acre estimate) 300,500 -Future bond payments(cost per$1 million issued) 62,650 (assumes a 30-year LTGO issue at 4.50%with an issue cost of 2%) Capital Reserve Fund#312 Sources General Fund-2013 7,826,207 General Fund-2014 2,443,507 Developer contribution(Library District)-2013 3,180 Developer contribution(Library District)-2014 4,675 10,277,569 Uses Business route signage 21,139 Balfour Park Library Development 57,601 Appleway Landscaping 268,000 Sullivan Rd.West Bridge Replacement 2,320,000 Appleway Trail-University to Pines 1,452,100 Appleway Trail-Pines to Evergreen 256,398 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation* 700,000 City Hall 5,202,331 10,277,569 Difference 0 2014 09 15 si ane Valley 2015 Preliminary Budget (As of October 7, 2014) S4kii e .0000v-Valleyc City Manager's Budget Message 2015 Annual Budget Dear Citizens, Mayor and City Council of Spokane Valley: I am pleased to present the attached 2015 proposed budget for the City of Spokane Valley. The City of Spokane Valley remains financially strong and continues to benefit from a history of prudent financial decisions since our 2003 incorporation. Responsible budgeting and restrained spending has helped us achieve our key fiscal policies including an ending fund balance equivalent to six months of general fund operations, and almost no debt. The City of Spokane Valley is a stellar example of how a City can function efficiently and economically while providing key services to the community. Our per capita employee count and personnel expenses are among the lowest(if not the lowest) in the nation. To ensure continued financial stability it is imperative that the City keep its recurring expenses in check. To do this, we must continue to limit recurring expenditures at levels less than or equal to our annual revenues. Beyond recurring operating activity however, because of our excellent financial condition, we are afforded the opportunity to use that portion of the General Fund fund balance that exceeds 50% for nonrecurring expenditure in pursuit of programs that are important to the City Council and community. Recent examples of this include General Fund contributions to the Appleway Trail — University to Pines project, Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project and the Appleway Landscaping project. Beginning in 2012, the City initiated spending of general fund, special revenue fund and capital project fund revenues and reserves for the sole purpose of aiding street preservation. In 2015, our citizens will again see an aggressive program of repaving our roadways. Some may question paving roads that "don't look so bad." The truth is the best time to repave is before a road deteriorates to the point that full reconstruction is necessary. Full reconstruction can cost substantially more than pavement preservation such as crack sealing or grinding and repaving. That is why the City of Spokane Valley has committed critical financial resources to preservation of our transportation infrastructure. 1 Fiscal Policies The Fiscal Policies adopted by the City Council are an important element in the long range fiscal strength of Spokane Valley. These policies appropriately dictate that if the economic conditions deteriorate, future budget reductions may be triggered. Financial Management—The City proposes to: 1. Maintain basic service levels with minimal resources to achieve success. 2. Minimize personnel costs/overhead by continuing to contract for many services. 3. Continue the six-year Business Plan process. 4. Leverage City funds with grant opportunities. 5. Minimize City debt with a pay as you go philosophy. o The State of Washington sets the maximum level of allowable debt for cities based on assessed value of property. The City of Spokane Valley currently utilizes only 1.31% of its total debt capacity, and more importantly, only 6.54% of non-voted bond capacity. This is extremely low debt. 6. Strive to prioritize spending in the annual budget process and minimize mid-year addition of projects and appropriations. Financial Objectives - The City's financial objectives are: 1. Maintain a minimum General Fund Ending Balance of 50% of recurring expenditures which is the equivalent of six months of general fund operations. 2. If necessary, utilize the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund ($5.4 million) to maintain ending fund balance minimum. 3. Commitment to the strategy that the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund will not reduce below$3.24 million (60% of$5.4 million). 4. Maintain the property tax assessment the same as 2014 with the exception of new construction. As in the previous four years, the City will forego the 1% annual increase allowable by RCW 84.52.050. We anticipate this will result in a levy of $11,077,144 plus estimated new construction of $200,000 for a total levy of $11,277,144. The 1% increase capacity will be banked for future use as provided by law. 5. Grow our economy so our existing tax base can support our basic programs. Commitment — By committing to these policies, the City will ensure financial sustainability well into the future. Breaking this commitment can take us in the opposite direction and begin to erode our fiscal strength. 2 Budget Highlights The 2015 Budget recognizes the economic realities of our times and the necessity to continue to operate within our financial means. Pavement Preservation Fund: In the 2012 Budget, Council established the Pavement Preservation Fund #311. For 2015, projected expenditures for preservation are $2,615,050. A total of $971,032 in grant funding is budgeted in pavement preservation for 2015. In addition, $920,000 will be transferred from the General Fund, $206,618 from the Street Fund, $616,284 from the Civic Facilities Replacement Fund, $251,049 from REET 1 Capital Projects Fund and $251,049 from REET 2 Special Projects Fund. Most of these transfers are projected to be sustainable for the foreseeable future. However, the transfer from the Civic Facilities Replacement fund is not sustainable and is depleted at year end 2016. The good news is due to grants, the total revenues for street preservation are $3,216,032 which exceeds expenditures by $600,982. Because of this, we currently are able to continue the funding of street preservation through at least 2019. This will require us to adhere to a budget and continue to utilize grant funds to bolster our own city transfers. Moderate Growth in Current Operational Expenses/Budget Increase: Investing in the essential core services identified by the Council and community creates baseline costs. Similar to the trend in most jurisdictions, costs and demands for service are growing while tax revenues are decreasing. Quality service delivery requires ongoing investment in basic capacity to provide efficient operations. Moderate as it may be, recurring operational expenses have increased as reflected in the General Fund increase of 3.90% for 2015. Staffing Levels: Staffing levels for 2015 will remain the same as 2014 for a total of 87.25 employees. Even taking into consideration that we contract for police services and are served by Fire Districts and a Library District, for a major city, we are operating substantially below the normal employee count at a substantially reduced cost. Spokane Valley personnel costs are approximately 20% of the total General Fund recurring expenditures. Comparable cities and counties typically fund personnel costs at about 40% to 70% of their General Fund Budget (after adjusting for police, fire and library personnel, of which the City of Spokane Valley contracts). Spokane Valley staff levels are about one employee for every 1,055 citizens. Comparable cities range from one employee to every 160 citizens to one employee for every 463 citizens. While the survey is not scientific, the low comparable personnel costs coupled with the low employee per citizen ratio indicates the City of Spokane Valley is operating at a very low yet effective staffing level. Since incorporation, this City has taken a conservative approach to adding new staff Spokane Valley continues to have the lowest employee count of any Washington city with 50,000 or more in population. By all comparisons, the City of Spokane Valley is a lean, productive City government. 3 Public Safety Costs: In 2015, the Police, Court and Jail related services proposed budget is $24,153,492 —an amount equal to 214% of anticipated property tax collections ($11,277,100) for the entire year. Council has made a commitment not to reduce public safety service levels and associated costs in 2015. Challenges: Pavement Preservation: Street Preservation needs must be balanced with other needs. The 2015 Budget achieves this balance. Grants and Declining Matching Funds: City staff actively pursues funding commitments from other sources to help pay the cost of needed capital improvements—roads, bridges, stormwater and parks that benefit the community. In 2015 a total of $16,520,944 is budgeted for a range of capital projects of which $10,945,146 (66.2%) is coming from outside grant sources. When the City applies for state and federal grants, the City must provide its share (match) for these projects. In the past, Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) was used for most of the City match. In addition to capital construction, the City funds a portion of Pavement Preservation from REET funds. During the last five years, annual revenue from the REET tax has declined from $2.5 million to estimated 2015 revenues of $1.2 million. Depending on availability of Federal, State and Local grants, which have been declining, the City may reach a point where we have to prioritize preservation versus capital projects. Local Street Maintenance Combination of Funding: This fund derives its revenues from an allocation of the State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax distributed to cities and towns, and a 6% city utility tax on telephone usage estimated in 2015 at $1,859,900 and $2,565,100 respectively. The combination of Fuel Tax and Telephone Utility Tax enables us to meet the ongoing need for these funds to pay for critical street maintenance activities such as snow plowing, pothole repair, crack sealing, sweeping, weed control, street lighting, traffic signals and a variety of other repairs/improvements. In 2015, $206,618 will transfer to Pavement Preservation for more substantial repaving projects. 4 The Budget for 2015 Balanced Budget Adopted: One of the most important tests of fiscal management is the ability of a municipal enterprise to maintain basic services during an economic downturn. The creation and maintenance of financial reserves since incorporation has served its intended purpose and provided the opportunity for Spokane Valley to sustain critical public services during the turbulent economic conditions that began in 2008 and from which we are just now emerging. The 2015 budget reflects a prudent increase in continuation of service delivery capabilities. The 2015 budget is in balance. Expenses have been balanced with known or reasonably predictable revenues. The budget is designed to maintain the healthy, positive fund balance at year end that provides for the City's cash flow needs without costly borrowing. In pursuit of fiscal responsibility, special attention was given to limiting the growth in new programs and financial commitments. This approach allows available resources to be put toward sustaining services that are consistent with the City Council's priorities for 2015 and beyond. Future Concepts: The budget process is not static and Council, the citizens, and staff must remain vigilant to watch for economic trends that impact current forecasts. Even as we adopt a 2015 budget, we must keep in mind the future economic opportunities and threats that may impact our multi-year forecast. An example of potential impacts and adaptive future concepts are as follows: • A commitment by Management to review all vacant positions prior to filling them. (In some cases, positions must be filled quickly due to workload.) • Continue budget strategy to fund City programs and pavement preservation within the existing City of Spokane Valley tax structure. • By all indications, the economic recovery of the U.S. and its collective states, counties and cities will be a steady but perhaps faltering process. The City of Spokane Valley has predicted $200,000 increase in property tax due to new construction, and an increase in sales tax revenues of 6.90% ($1,138,000) in 2015. This is the largest projected annual increase in sales tax since 2006. Sales tax actually declined substantially in 2008 — 2011 and began to trend slowly upward in 2012. • Because it represents about 63% of the General Fund budget, achieving future budget reductions without impacting Law Enforcement and other Public Safety services will be challenging but achievable. 5 Acknowledgments: I would like to acknowledge the City Council and staff for a long history of conservative spending and prudent fiscal planning. By saving and conserving the taxpayers' money, and by adopting prudent long-term fiscal policies, the City can balance its budget for many years to come. The City Council has set a path to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the City. The management staff and employees have worked together to develop Business Plans and 2015 budget recommendations that achieve Council's goal of sustainability. The Citizens of Spokane Valley should be proud of the strong financial condition of their City. We invite your examination and questions regarding the 2015 Budget. Respectfully, Mike Jackson City Manager 6 Snn cit11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 �3ol�ane 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org 40000 Valley TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Mark Calhoun,Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: About the 2015 Budget and Budget Development Process The budget includes the fmancial planning and legal authority to obligate public funds. Additionally, the budget provides significant policy direction by the City Council to the staff and community. As a result, the City Council, staff and public are involved in establishing the budget for the City of Spokane Valley. The budget serves four functions: 1. It is a Policy Document The budget functions as a policy document in that the decisions made within the budget will reflect the general principles or plans that guide the actions taken for the future. As a policy document, the budget makes specific attempts to link desired goals and policy direction to the actual day-to-day activities of the City staff. 2. It is an Operational Guide The budget of the City reflects its operation. Activities of each City function and organization have been planned, debated, formalized, and described in the following sections. This process will help to maintain an understanding of the various operations of the City and how they relate to each other and to the attainment of the policy issues and goals of the City Council. 3. It is a Link with the General Public The budget provides a unique opportunity to allow and encourage public review of City operations. The budget describes the activities of the City,the reason or cause for those activities,future implications, and the direct relationship to the citizenry. 4. It is a Legally Required Financial Planning Tool The budget is a financial planning tool, which has been its most traditional use. In this light, preparing and adopting a budget is a State law requirement of all cities as stated in Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The budget must be adopted as a balanced budget and must be in place prior to the beginning of the City's fiscal year. The budget is the legal authority to expend public moneys and controls those expenditures by limiting the amount of the appropriation at the fund level. The revenues of the City are estimated, along with available cash carry-forward,to indicate funds available. The budget takes into account unforeseen contingencies and provides for the need for periodic adjustments. 2014 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Historically the City has utilized a budgeting approach that assumed for most functions of government that the current year's budget was indicative of the base required for the following year. However,with the recent downturn in the economy and resultant reduction in revenues (most notably the decline in sales taxes), the 2012 through 2015 Budget development processes were amended to consciously review service levels in each department and determine the appropriate level of funding that meets Council goals relative to available resources. The 2015 Budget development process began at the February 18, 2014 Council workshop where among other topics, Council and Staff discussed the budget in general terms. In mid-April 2014 the Finance Department notified City Departments that their 2015 revenue and expenditure estimates were due by mid-May. Through the balance of May and early June, the City Manager's office and Finance Department worked to prepare budget worksheets that were communicated to the City Council at a Budget workshop held June 17, 2014. Following the workshop, the Finance Department continued work on the budget including refinements of revenue and expenditure estimates and through July and August, the Finance Department and City Manager reviewed updated budget projections. By the time the 2015 Budget is scheduled to be adopted on November 18, 2014,the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss it on seven separate occasions, including two public hearings to gather input from citizens: June 17 Council budget workshop September 2 Admin report: Estimated 2015 revenues and expenditures September 9 Public hearing#1 on 2015 revenues and expenditures October 7 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2015 Budget October 14 Public hearing#2 on 2015 Budget October 28 First reading on ordinance adopting the 2015 Budget November 17 Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2015 Budget Once adopted,the final operating budget is published,distributed,and made available to the public. After the budget is adopted, the City enters a budget implementation and monitoring stage. Throughout the year, expenditures are monitored by the Finance Department and department directors to ensure that actual expenditures are in compliance with the approved budget. The Finance Department provides the City Manager and City Council with monthly reports to keep them abreast of the City's financial condition and individual department compliance with approved appropriation levels. Any budget amendments made during the year are adopted by City Council ordinance. The City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts within a fund; however, any revisions that alter the total expenditures of a fund, or that affect the number of authorized employee positions, salary ranges or other conditions of employment must be approved by the City Council. When the City Council determines that it is in the best interest of the City to increase or decrease the appropriation for a particular fund, it may do so by ordinance adopted by Council after holding one public hearing. 8 BUDGET PRINCIPLES • Department directors have primary responsibility for formulating budget proposals in line with City Council and City Manager priority direction, and for implementing them once they are approved. • The Finance Department is responsible for coordinating the overall preparation and administration of the City's budget. This function is fulfilled in compliance with applicable State of Washington statutes governing local government budgeting practices. • The Finance Department assists department staff in identifying budget problems, formulating solutions and alternatives,and implementing any necessary corrective actions. • Interfund charges will be based on recovery of costs associated with providing those services. • Budget amendments requiring City Council approval will occur through the ordinance process at the fund level prior to fiscal year end. • The City's budget presentation will be directed at displaying the City's services plan in a Council/constituent friendly format. • No long term debt will be incurred without identification of a revenue source to repay the debt. Long term debt will be incurred for capital purposes only. • The City will strive to maintain equipment replacement funds in an amount necessary to replace the equipment at the end of its useful life. Life cycle assumptions and required contributions will be reviewed annually as part of the budget process. New operations in difficult economic times may make it difficult to fund this principle in some years. • The City will pursue an ending general fund balance at a level of no less than 50% of recurring expenditures. This figure is based upon an evaluation of both cash flow and operating needs. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING Accounting Accounting records for the City are maintained in accordance with methods prescribed by the State Auditor under the authority of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Chapter 43.09.20, and in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles as set forth by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Basis of Presentation-Fund Accounting The accounts of the City of Spokane Valley are organized on the basis of funds,each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. Each fund is accounted for with a separate set of double-entry accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity,revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. The City's resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds depending on their intended purpose. The following are the fund types used by the City of Spokane Valley: 9 Governmental Fund Types Governmental funds are used to account for activities typically associated with state and local government operations. All governmental fund types are accounted for on a spending or "financial flows" measurement focus, which means that typically only current assets and current liabilities are included on related balance sheets. The operating statements of governmental funds measure changes in financial position,rather than net income. They present increases(revenues and other financing sources)and decreases(expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. There are four governmental fund types used by the City of Spokane Valley: 1. General Fund This fund is the primary fund of the City of Spokane Valley. It accounts for all financial resources except those required or elected to be accounted for in another fund. 2. Special Revenue Funds These funds account for revenues that are legally restricted or designated to finance particular activities of the City of Spokane Valley. Special Revenue funds include: • #101 - Street Fund • #103 -Paths&Trails Fund • #105 -Hotel/Motel Tax Fund • #106- Solid Waste Fund • #120- CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund • #121 - Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund • #122-Winter Weather Reserve Fund • #123 - Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 3. Debt Service Funds These funds account for financial resources which are designated for the retirement of debt. Debt Service Funds are comprised of the #204—LTGO Debt Service Fund. 4. Capital Project Funds These funds account for financial resources, which are designated for the acquisition or construction of general government capital projects. Capital Project Funds include: • #301 —REET 1 Capital Project Fund • #302—REET 2 Capital Projects Fund • #303 - Streets Capital Projects Fund • #309 -Parks Capital Projects Fund • #310-Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund • #311 -Pavement Preservation Fund • #312—Capital Reserve Fund Proprietary Fund Types A fifth type of fund classification are the Proprietary Funds that are used to account for activities similar to those found in the private sector where the intent of the governing body is to finance the full cost of providing services based on the commercial model which uses a flow of economic resources approach. Under this approach, the operating statements for the proprietary funds focus on a measurement of net income (revenues and expenses) and both current and non-current assets and liabilities are reported on related balance sheets. Their reported fund equity (total net assets) is segregated into restricted, unrestricted and invested in capital assets classifications. As described below,there are two generic fund types in this category: 10 1. Enterprise Funds These funds account for operations that provide goods or services to the general public and are supported primarily by user charges. Included in this type of fund is: • #402—Stormwater Management Fund • #403—Aquifer Protection Area Fund 2. Internal Service Funds These funds account for operations that provide goods or services to other departments or funds of the City. Included in this type of fund is: #501 -Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund #502-Risk Management Fund Basis of Accounting Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized,recorded in the accounting system and ultimately reported in the financial statements. • Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting is used for all governmental funds. Modified accrual recognizes revenues when they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. • Accrual Basis of Accounting is used for enterprise and internal service funds. Under this system revenues and expenses are recognized in the period incurred rather than when cash is either received or disbursed. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting Annual appropriation budgets are adopted for all funds with Governmental Funds utilizing a modified cash basis of accounting for budget purposes, and Proprietary Funds utilizing a working capital approach. Budgets are adopted at the fund level that constitutes the legal authority for expenditures and annual appropriations for all funds lapse at the end of the fiscal period. EXPLANATION OF MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES General Fund#001 • Property Tax Property taxes play an essential role in the finances of the municipal budget. State law limits the City to a $3.60 levy per $1,000 assessed valuation, deducting from there the levy of$1.50 by the Spokane County Fire Districts #1 and #8, along with deducting $0.50 for the Library District, which leaves the City with the authority to levy up to $1.60 for its own purposes. The levy amount must be established by ordinance by November 30th prior to the levy year. • Retail Sales and Use Tax The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.7%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the 8.7%tax rate to the agencies is as follows: 11 State of Washington 6.50% City of Spokane Valley 0.85% Spokane County 115% Criminal Justice 0.10% Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% * Public Safety 0.10% * 2.20%local tax Juvenile Jail 0.10% * Mental Health 0.10% * Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * Spokane Transit Authority 0.60% * 8.70% *Indicates voter approved sales taxes. • Criminal Justice Sales Tax Local Sales Tax for Criminal Justice funding is to be used solely for criminal justice purposes, such as the City's law enforcement contract. This tax is authorized at 1/10 of 1% of retail sales transacted in the County. Of the total amount collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and cities within the County. • Public Safety Sales Tax Beginning in 2005, an additional .1% voter approved increase in sales tax was devoted to public safety purposes. This .1%was approved by the voters again in August 2009. Of the total amount collected,the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. • Gambling Tax Gambling tax revenues must be spent primarily on law enforcement purposes pertaining to gambling. Funds remaining after necessary expenditures for such enforcement purposes may be used for any general government purpose. Gambling taxes are to be paid quarterly to the City, no later than the last day of January, April, July and October. The City imposes a tax on the following forms of gambling at the following rates: Bingo (5% gross, less prizes); Raffles (5% gross, less prizes); Games (2% gross, less prizes); Card playing (10% gross). • Leasehold Excise Tax Taxes on property owned by state or local governments and leased to private parties(City's share). • Franchise Fees Cable TV is the only franchise fee levied in the City at a rate of 5%of gross revenues. This is a fee levied on private utilities for the right to use city streets, alleys, and other public properties. • State-Shared Revenues State-shared revenues are received from liquor sales, and motor vehicle excise taxes. These taxes are collected by the State of Washington and shared with local governments based on population. State- shared revenues are distributed on either a monthly or quarterly basis, although not all quarterly revenues are distributed in the same month of the quarter. The 2014 population figure used in the 2015 Budget is 92,050 as reported by the Office of Financial Management for Washington State on April 1, 2014. This figure is important when determining distribution of State shared revenues on a per capita basis. 12 • Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety Fines and penalties are collected as a result of Municipal Court rulings and other miscellaneous rule infractions. All court fines and penalties are shared with the State, with the City, on average, retaining less than 50%of the amount collected. • Community Development Community Development revenues are largely composed of fees for building permits,plan reviews, false alarms and right of way permits. • Recreation Program Fees The Parks and Recreation Department charges fees for selected recreation programs. These fees offset direct costs related to providing the program. • CenterPlace Fees The Parks and Recreation Department charges fees for use of CenterPlace. Uses include regional meetings, weddings, receptions and banquets. Rental rooms include classrooms, the great room and dining rooms. • Investment Interest The City earns investment interest on sales tax money held by the State of Washington prior to the distribution of the taxes to the City, as well as on City initiated investments. Street Fund#101 • Motor Vehicle Fuel Excise Tax(gas tax) The State of Washington collects a $.3750 per gallon motor vehicle fuel tax at the pump and remits $.0296 of the tax back to cities on a per capita basis. For 2015 the Municipal Research and Services Center estimates the distribution back to cities will be $20.29 per person. Based upon a City of Spokane Valley population of 92,050 (per the Washington State Office of Financial Management on April 1,2014) we anticipate the City will collect $1,867,700 in 2014. RCW 47.30.050 specifies that .42% of this tax must be expended for paths and trails activities and based upon the 2015 revenue estimate this computes to $7,800. The balance or $1,859,900 will be credited to Fund #101 for Street maintenance and operations. • Telephone Utility Tax The City of Spokane Valley levied a 6% telephone utility tax via Ordinance #08-014 with collections beginning in 2009. Telephone companies providing this service pay the tax to the City monthly. Telephone tax has been estimated at$2.57million for 2015. Paths& Trails Fund#103 Cities are required to spend .42% of the motor vehicle fuel tax receipts on paths and trails (please see the explanation for Street Fund#101)which we anticipate will be $7,800 in 2015. Because the amount collected in any given year is relatively small, it is typical to accumulate State distributions for several years until adequate dollars are available for a project. Hotel/Motel Tax Fund #105 The City imposes a 2%tax under RCW 67.28.180 on all charges made for the furnishing of lodging at hotels, motels, and similar establishments (including bed and breakfasts and RV parks) for a continuous period of less than one month. The tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5 percent state sales tax, so that the total tax that a patron pays in retail sales tax and hotel/motel tax combined is equal to the retail sales tax in the 13 jurisdiction. The revenues generated by this tax may be used solely for paying for tourism promotion and for the acquisition and/or operation of tourism-related facilities. This tax is estimated to generate $510,000 in 2015. LTGO Debt Service Fund#204 In 2003 the City issued $9,430,000 in limited tax general obligation (LTGO) bonds the proceeds of which were used to finance both the construction of CenterPlace and road and street improvements surrounding the facility. In 2014 the City refunded the LTGO bonds in order to take advantage of lower interest rates which resulted in a reduction in subsequent annual bond repayment (much like refinancing a home mortgage). At the completion of the bond refunding there remained$7,035,000 of LTGO bonds. Of this total: • $5,650,000 remains on the original debt used towards the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 20-year period ending December 1,2033. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by the Spokane Public Facilities District. At January 1, 2015 the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $5,425,000. • $1,385,000 remains on the original debt used towards the road and street improvements. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 10-year period ending December 1, 2023. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by equal distributions from the 1st and 2"d quarter percent real estate excise tax. At January 1,2015 the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $1,250,000. REET 1 Capital Projects Fund#301 Under Washington State Law, RCW 82.46.010, the City is allowed to impose an excise tax on each sale of real property at the rate of one-quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenue generated is used for financing capital projects as specified in the capital facilities plan under the Growth Management Act. REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302 Under Washington State Law, RCW 82.46.010,the City is allowed to impose an additional excise tax on each sale of real property at the rate of one-quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenue generated is used for financing public works capital projects as specified in the capital facilities plan under the Growth Management Act. Stormwater Management Fund#402 A stormwater fee is imposed upon every developed parcel within the City, which is an annual charge of$21 for each single family unit and$21 per 3,160 square feet of impervious surface for all other properties. These charges are uniform for the same class of customers and service facilities. These fees are estimated to generate $1,880,000 in 2015. Aquifer Protection Area (APA)Fund#403 These are voter approved fees, the proceeds of which are applied to aquifer protection related capital construction projects. Fees are collected by Spokane County and remitted to the City twice each year. Fees include: • An annual fee of$15 per household for the withdrawal of water from properties within the APA. • An annual fee of$15 per household for on-site sewage disposal by properties within the APA. • For commercial properties an annual fee ranging from $15 to $960 depending upon water meter size. These fees are estimated to generate $500,000 in 2015 Interfund Transfers Many funds receive a portion of their revenues from other funds in the form of an interfund transfer. These transfers typically represent payments for either services rendered by one fund for another or a concentration of revenues for a specific project or purpose. The following interfund transfers are planned for 2015: 14 Out: 001 101 105 123 301 302 312 402 Total In 001 0 39,700 30,000 0 0 0 0 13,400 83,100 204 0 0 0 0 82,150 82,150 0 0 164,300 303 0 0 0 0 221,980 365,290 2,120,000 0 2,707,270 In: 309 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 310 339,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 339,300 311 920,000 206,618 0 616,284 251,049 251,049 0 0 2,245,000 501 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 502 325,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325,000 - 5,963,970 Total in Total Out 1,684,300 246,318 30,000 616,284 555,179 698,489 2,120,000 13,400 5,963,970 Total out 0 #001-General Fund is budgeted to transfer out$1,684,300 including: • $100,000 to Fund#309-Park Capital Projects Fund for park related projects. • $339,300 to Fund #310 - Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund which is being done for the purpose of building into the General Fund Budget the anticipated additional cost the City will annually incur when we eventually construct a City Hall structure rather than renting space. • $920,000 to Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. • $325,000 to the #502-Risk Management Fund for the 2014 property and liability insurance premium. #101-Street Fund is budgeted to transfer out$246,318 including: • $39,700 to Fund#001-General Fund to cover administrative costs. • $206,618 to Fund#311-Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. #105-Hotel /Motel Tax Fund is budgeted to transfer $30,000 to Fund #001-General Fund for the purpose of financing advertising at CenterPlace. #123-Civic Facilities Replacement Fund is budgeted to transfer $616,284 to Fund #311-Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. #301-REET 1 Capital Projects Fund is budgeted to transfer out$555,179 including: • $82,150 to Fund #204-LTGO Debt Service Fund to pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2014 LTGO bonds. • $221,980 to Fund#303-Street Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards grant matches for street construction projects. • $251,049 to Fund#311-Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. 15 #302-REET 2 Capital Projects Fund is budgeted to transfer out$698,489 including: • $82,150 to Fund #204-LTGO Debt Service Fund to pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2014 LTGO bonds. • $365,290 to Fund#303-Street Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards grant matches for street construction projects. • $251,049 to Fund#311-Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. #312 — Capital Reserve Fund is budgeted to transfer $2,120,000 to Fund #303-Street Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project. #402-Stormwater Fund is budgeted to transfer $13,400 to Fund #001-General Fund to cover administrative costs. SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE 2014 BUDGET Budget Summary for All Funds • Based upon funding levels anticipated in the 2015 budget, City staff will strive to maintain adequate levels of service. • Appropriations for all City Funds will total$67.5 million including$16.5 million in capital expenditures, comprised in-part of: o $11.5 million in Fund#303 Street Capital Projects. o $490,650 in Fund#309 Park Capital Projects. o $2.6 million in Fund#311 Pavement Preservation Fund projects. o $600,000 in Fund#102 Stormwater Management projects. o $1.2 million in Fund#103 Aquifer Protection Area projects. o $30,000 in Fund#501 Equipment Rental and Replacement for the acquisition of a small SUV for the Community&Economic Development Department. • To partially offset the $16.5 million in capital costs,we anticipate $10.9 million in grant revenues which results in 66.1%of capital expenditures being covered with State and Federal money. • Budgets will be adopted across 21 separate funds. • The full time equivalent employee (FTE)count will remain at 87.25 employees. • The 2015 Budget reflects the third consecutive year the City will set aside City monies in an amount equivalent to 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures for pavement preservation in Fund#311 — Pavement Preservation. This 6%equals$2,245,000. • Positions and salary ranges are based on the City's compensation and classification plan. • Payroll tax and benefit amounts are based on staff benefit plans. • Contract costs for public safety,park maintenance,aquatics and street maintenance are based on estimates by City staff. • The City is setting money aside in Fund#501-Equipment Rental and Replacement for the eventual replacement of its vehicles. 2015 General Fund Revenues • Total recurring 2015 revenues are estimated at$38,442,200 as compared to $36,923,500 in 2014. This is an increase of$1,518,700 or 4.11%. • The two largest sources of revenue continue to be Sales Tax and Property Tax which are collectively estimated to account for 81.0% of 2015 General Fund revenues. • The 2015 general sales tax estimate (excluding criminal justice and public safety sales taxes)is reflective of 2014 receipts to date and are currently estimated at$17.6 million which reflects an increase of $1,138,400 or 6.9%over the 2014 estimate. 16 • The Property Tax levy does not include the 1%increase allowed by Initiative #747 which was approved by the voters in November 2001 through their approval of Initiative #747 and the subsequent action by the State Legislature in November 2007. o The 2015 levy is estimated at$11,277,100. o The levy assumes we start with the 2014 levy of$11,077,100, forgo the 1% increase allowed by State law, and finally add taxes related to new construction which we estimate to be $200,000. • Franchise fees and business registrations are primarily based on projected receipts in 2014. • State shared revenues are based upon a combination of historical collections including 2014 collections through July,and per capita distribution figures reported by the Municipal Research and Services Center. • Fines and forfeitures are estimated by Spokane Valley and based on historical collections. • Building permit and land use fees are estimated by Spokane Valley and based on historic collections. 2015 General Fund Expenditures • Total 2015 recurring expenditures are budgeted at$38,338,882 as compared to $36,898,910 in 2014. This is an increase of$1,439,972 or 3.90%. • The City commitment of 6% of recurring General Fund expenditures to pavement preservation equals $2,245,000 and is computed by multiplying total recurring expenditures prior to adding the pavement preservation element($37,418,882 x 6%= $2,245,000). The $2,245,000 that is transferred to Pavement Preservation Fund#311 is comprised of the following: o $920,000 from General Fund#001 o $206,618 from Street Fund#101 o $616,284 from Civic Facilities Replacement Fund#123 o $251,049 from REET 1 Capital Projects Fund#301 o $251,049 from REET 2 Capital Projects Fund#302 • 2015 Nonrecurring expenditures total$498,400 and include: o a$100,000 transfer to Fund#309—Park Capital Projects o $145,000 for Information Technology expenditures including: • $25,000 for PEG hardware and software • $20,000 to replace 2 copy machines(in Finance and Public Works) • $60,000 to replace a Cisco 4510 switch that is 10-years old • $20,000 to replace 2 DVRs at CenterPlace that are 9-years old • $20,000 for a Laser fiche upgrade o $25,000 to construct offices for unit supervisors at the Police Precinct o $200,000 for professional services necessary to assist Community Development in the comprehensive plan update o $10,000 to upgrade the dial-up modems at the 3 swimming pools o $8,000 to replace lounge area carpet at CenterPlace o $7,400 of supplies for a 10-year CenterPlace anniversary event General Fund Revenues Over(Under)Expenditures and Fund Balance • 2015 recurring revenues are anticipated to exceed recurring revenues by$103,318. • Total 2015 expenditures are anticipated to exceed total revenues by$395,082. o This is entirely due to the nonrecurring expenditures previously discussed which equal $498,400 and is not a result of ongoing operating costs overwhelming revenues. • The total unrestricted General Fund fund balance is anticipated to be $19,866,310 at the end of 2015 which is 51.82% of total recurring expenditures of$38,338,882. Our goal is to maintain an ending fund balance of at least 50.0%. Highlights of Other Funds Revenues 17 • Motor vehicle fuel tax(MVFT)revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the City is estimated to be $1,867,700 according to per capita estimates provided by the Municipal Research and Services Center. Of this amount, $1,859,900 will be credited to the Street O&M Fund and.42%or$7,800 to the Paths and Trails Fund. • Telephone taxes that are remitted to the City and support Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated at$2,565,100. • Real estate excise tax(REET)revenue is computed by the City and is primarily used to match grant funded street projects as well as pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2007 general obligation bonds. In 2015 we estimate these revenues to be $625,000 per each 1/4%for a total of$1,250,000. • Hotel/Motel tax revenues are computed by the City and are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism. In 2015 we estimate the 6%tax will generate $510,000. • The Stomwater Management Fee is based on an equivalent residential unit(ERU)that is equal to 3,160 square feet of impervious surface that is billed at a rate of$21 per single family residence and$21 per ERU for commercial properties(an ERU for a commercial property is computed as total square feet of impervious surface divided by 3,160). In 2015 we estimate this will fee will generate $1,880,000. • The Aquifer Protection Area Fund is expected to generate $500,000 in fees that are collected on the City's behalf by Spokane County and remitted in two installments during the year. • Grant revenues that will be applied to a variety of construction projects are estimated at$10,885,146 in 2015. By fund we anticipate grant revenues as follows: o Fund#303—Street Capital Projects- $8,714,114 o Fund#311 —Pavement Preservation-$971,032 o Fund#103—Aquifer Protection Area-$1,200,000 Expenditures • Fund#101 - Street Fund appropriations include: o a$206,618 transfer to Pavement Preservation Fund#311 for pavement preservation projects o $8,000 for the acquisition of a pavement marking grinder • Fund#301 - REET 1 Capital Projects Fund includes a$555,179 appropriation to cover: o a$82,150 transfer to LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund#204 to pay one-half of the City's annual repayment of the 2014 LTGO Bonds. o a$221,980 transfer to Street Capital Projects Fund#303 to partially offset the cost of street construction/reconstruction projects. o A $251,049 transfer to Pavement Preservation Fund#311 for pavement preservation projects • Fund#302-REET 2 Capital Projects Fund includes a$698,489 appropriation to cover: o a$82,150 transfer to LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund#204 to pay one-half of the City's annual repayment of the 2014 LTGO Bonds. o a$365,290 transfer to Street Capital Projects Fund#303 to partially offset the cost of street construction/reconstruction projects. o a$251,049 transfer to Pavement Preservation Fund#311 for pavement preservation projects • Fund#303 —Street Capital Projects Fund includes an appropriation of$11,516,244 for a variety of street construction projects. Included in the projects is the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement for which we are appropriating $7,201,779 in 2015. We anticipate the project will cost approximately$15.3 million between 2014 and 2016 and will be financed through a combination of$13.0 million in grants and$2.3 million in City matching funds with the source being a$2.3 million transfer from Fund#312—Capital Reserves. 18 • Fund#309—Parks Capital Projects includes a$490,650 appropriation to cover a variety of City park improvements that will be financed through a combination of a$100,000 transfer from the General Fund #001 with the balance of$390,150 being paid from Fund#309 reserves. • Fund#311 —Pavement Preservation includes $2,615,050 of pavement preservation projects that will be financed in large part through grants totaling $971,032. • Fund#312—Capital Reserve includes a$2,120,000 in transfers to Fund#303 —Street Capital Projects that will be applied towards the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project. • Fund#402- Storm water Fund includes $616,000 for capital expenditures including: o $600,000 for various projects, o $16,000 for the acquisition of a variable message system(VMS)trailer • Fund#403 -Aquifer Protection Area Fund includes a$1,200,000 appropriation for the Broadway Stormdrain Retrofit project. • Fund#501 - Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund includes$30,000 for the addition of three half-ton pickups. 19 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2015 Budget Summary Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Fund Total Fund Annual Appropriation Funds No. Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance General Fund 001 20,447,277 38,442,200 58,889,477 38,837,282 20,052,195 Street Fund 101 1,956,788 4,438,000 6,394,788 4,491,000 1,903,788 Paths&Trails Fund 103 29,671 7,800 37,471 0 37,471 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 105 190,227 510,300 700,527 600,000 100,527 Solid Waste 106 0 125,000 125,000 125,000 0 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 120 300,000 0 300,000 0 300,000 Service Level Stabilization Fund 121 5,455,802 8,200 5,464,002 0 5,464,002 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 122 503,565 800 504,365 500,000 4,365 City Facilities Repair&Replacement 123 1,174,687 1,300 1,175,987 616,284 559,703 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 204 0 538,100 538,100 538,100 0 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 301 1,015,822 626,000 1,641,822 555,179 1,086,643 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 302 1,047,658 626,000 1,673,658 698,489 975,169 Street Capital Projects 303 61,827 11,516,244 11,578,071 11,516,244 61,827 Park Capital Projects Fund 309 450,379 100,500 550,879 490,650 60,229 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 310 1,913,088 340,500 2,253,588 0 2,253,588 Pavement Preservation Fund 311 1,925,010 3,216,032 5,141,042 2,615,050 2,525,992 Capital Reserve Fund 312 8,283,706 0 8,283,706 2,120,000 6,163,706 44,755,507 60,496,976 105,252,483 63,703,278 41,549,205 Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Total Working Working Capital Funds No. Capital Revenues Sources Appropriations Capital Stormwater Management Fund 402 1,332,820 1,881,500 3,214,320 2,257,869 956,451 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 403 458,099 1,760,000 2,218,099 1,200,000 1,018,099 Equipment Rental&Replacement Fund 501 1,212,092 36,544 1,248,636 30,000 1,218,636 Risk Management Fund 502 124,171 325,000 449,171 325,000 124,171 3,127,182 4,003,044 7,130,226 3,812,869 3,317,357 Total of all Funds 47,882,689 64,500,020 112,382,709 67,516,147 44,866,562 20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ #001 -GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax 11,049,400 0 11,049,400 11,277,100 227,700 2.06% Sales Tax 16,390,000 100,000 16,490,000 17,628,400 1,138,400 6.90% Sales Tax-Public Safety 745,000 0 745,000 820,100 75,100 10.08% Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 1,330,000 0 1,330,000 1,468,700 138,700 10.43% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 617,400 0 617,400 535,100 (82,300) (13.33%) Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,213,000 0 1,213,000 1,238,000 25,000 2.06% State Shared Revenues 1,886,500 0 1,886,500 1,768,900 (117,600) (6.23%) Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety 1,470,800 0 1,470,800 1,507,100 36,300 2.47% Community Development 1,255,400 0 1,255,400 1,325,100 69,700 5.55% Recreation Program Revenues 579,800 0 579,800 563,500 (16,300) (2.81%) Miscellaneous Department Revenue 85,500 0 85,500 95,900 10,400 12.16% Miscellaneous&Investment Interest 117,600 0 117,600 131,200 13,600 11.56% Transfers in-#101 (street admin) 39,700 0 39,700 39,700 0 0.00% Transfers in-#105(h/m tax-CP advertising) 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% Transfers in-#402(storm admin) 13,400 0 13,400 13,400 0 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 36,823,500 100,000 36,923,500 38,442,200 1,518,700 4.11% Expenditures City Council 414,950 53,900 468,850 513,114 44,264 9.44% City Manager 660,843 0 660,843 688,363 27,520 4.16% Legal 448,922 22,000 470,922 461,839 (9,083) (1.93%) Public Safety 23,384,643 0 23,384,643 24,153,492 768,849 3.29% Deputy City Manager 653,215 0 653,215 691,303 38,088 5.83% Finance/IT 1,180,659 0 1,180,659 1,203,879 23,220 1.97% Human Resources 237,883 0 237,883 243,317 5,434 2.28% Public Works 882,694 0 882,694 921,914 39,220 4.44% Community&Economic Dvlpmnt-Admin 290,883 0 290,883 261,094 (29,789) (10.24%) Community&Economic Dvlpmnt-Engineering 807,114 0 807,114 0 (807,114) (100.00%) Community&Economic Dvlpmnt-Planning 928,906 0 928,906 0 (928,906) (100.00%) Community&Economic Dvlpmnt-Econ Dev 0 0 0 298,276 298,276 #DIV/0! Community&Economic Dvlpmnt-Dev Svc 0 0 0 1,424,944 1,424,944 #DIV/0! Community&Economic Dvlpmnt-Building 1,267,656 0 1,267,656 1,380,902 113,246 8.93% Parks&Rec-Administration 274,743 0 274,743 286,947 12,204 4.44% Parks&Rec-Maintenance 796,200 0 796,200 844,642 48,442 6.08% Parks&Rec-Recreation 229,152 0 229,152 226,174 (2,978) (1.30%) Parks&Rec-Aquatics 490,400 0 490,400 496,200 5,800 1.18% Parks&Rec-Senior Center 89,882 0 89,882 91,985 2,103 2.34% Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 828,842 0 828,842 824,997 (3,845) (0.46%) Pavement Preservation 888,823 0 888,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% General Government 1,741,600 0 1,741,600 1,741,200 (400) (0.02%) Transfers out-#502(insurance premium) 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Transfers out-#310(bond pmt>$434.6lease pmt) 0 0 0 67,600 67,600 #DIV/0! Transfers out-#310(city hall o&m costs) 0 0 0 271,700 271,700 #DIV/0! Total Recurring Expenditures 36,823,010 75,900 36,898,910 38,338,882 1,439,972 3.90% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 490 24,100 24,590 103,318 21 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ #001 -GENERAL FUND-continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues SCRAPS pass-through 0 56,600 56,600 0 (56,600) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 56,600 56,600 0 (56,600) (100.00%) Expenditures Transfers out-#309(park capital projects) 192,500 55,000 247,500 100,000 (147,500) (59.60%) General Government-IT capital replacements 0 0 0 145,000 145,000 #DIV/0! City Manager(2 scanners) 0 0 0 3,000 3,000 #DIV/0! Public Safety(const offices for unit supervisors) 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 #DIV/0! Community&Econ Dev(comp plan update) 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 #DIV/0! Parks&Rec(upgrade dial-up modem at pools) 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 #DIV/0! Parks&Rec(replace CP lounge area carpet) 0 0 0 8,000 8,000 #DIV/0! Parks&Rec(CenterPlace 10yr anniversary) 0 0 0 7,400 7,400 #DIV/0! Law Enforcement Contingency 350,000 0 350,000 0 (350,000) (100.00%) Public Works(autocad licenses) 8,800 0 8,800 0 (8,800) (100.00%) Parks&Recreation(CP chairs) 11,350 0 11,350 0 (11,350) (100.00%) Public Safety(precinct improvements) 24,000 0 24,000 0 (24,000) (100.00%) SCRAPS pass-through 0 56,600 56,600 0 (56,600) (100.00%) Transfers out-#106(solid wast ed/marketing) 0 60,000 60,000 0 (60,000) (100.00%) Transfers out-#312('12 fund bal>50%) 0 2,443,507 2,443,507 0 (2,443,507) (100.00%) Police Capital-precinct workstations 0 14,500 14,500 0 (14,500) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 586,650 2,629,607 3,216,257 498,400 (2,717,857) (84.50%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (586,650) (2,573,007) (3,159,657) (498,400) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (586,160) (2,548,907) (3,135,067) (395,082) Beginning unrestricted fund balance 23,396,459 23,396,459 20,261,392 Ending unrestricted fund balance 22,810,299 20,261,392 19,866,310 Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures 61.95% 54.91% 51.82% 22 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 -STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Utility Tax 2,750,000 0 2,750,000 2,565,100 (184,900) (6.72%) Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,858,600 0 1,858,600 1,859,900 1,300 0.07% Investment Interest 3,000 0 3,000 3,000 0 0.00% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 #DIV/0! Total Recurring Revenues 4,611,600 0 4,611,600 4,438,000 (173,600) (3.76%) Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 627,288 0 627,288 677,297 50,009 7.97% Supplies 91,500 0 91,500 111,500 20,000 21.86% Services&Charges 2,167,201 0 2,167,201 2,122,808 (44,393) (2.05%) Snow Operations 520,000 0 520,000 520,000 0 0.00% Intergovernmental Payments 798,000 0 798,000 748,000 (50,000) (6.27%) Vehicle rentals-#501 (non-plow vehicle rental) 10,777 0 10,777 12,077 1,300 12.06% Vehicle rentals-#501 (plow replace.) 75,000 0 75,000 0 (75,000) (100.00%) Transfers out-#001 39,700 0 39,700 39,700 0 0.00% Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 282,000 0 282,000 206,618 (75,382) (26.73%) Total Recurring Expenditures 4,611,466 0 4,611,466 4,438,000 (173,466) (3.76%) Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 134 0 134 0 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grants 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Expenditures Pavement marking grinder 0 0 0 8,000 8,000 #DIV/0! Capital 0 11,000 11,000 45,000 34,000 309.09% Patch trailer 30,000 0 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) Hawk Signal 25,000 0 25,000 0 (25,000) (100.00%) Software 6,750 0 6,750 0 (6,750) (100.00%) Trans out-#303(Sprague/Thierman Intersection) 0 18,830 18,830 0 (18,830) (100.00%) Transfers out-#501 (new pickup) 15,000 0 15,000 0 (15,000) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 76,750 29,830 106,580 53,000 (53,580) (50.27%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (76,750) (29,830) (106,580) (53,000) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (76,616) (29,830) (106,446) (53,000) Beginning fund balance 2,063,234 2,063,234 1,956,788 Ending fund balance 1,986,618 1,956,788 1,903,788 23 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #103-PATHS&TRAILS FUND Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 7,800 0 7,800 7,800 0 0.00% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 7,800 0 7,800 7,800 0 0.00% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Transfers out-#309(Appleway Trail-Univ to Pine: 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Total expenditures 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,800 (42,200) 7,800 Beginning fund balance 71,871 71,871 29,671 Ending fund balance 79,671 29,671 37,471 #105-HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 490,000 40,000 530,000 510,000 (20,000) (3.77%) Investment Interest 300 0 300 300 0 0.00% Total revenues 490,300 40,000 530,300 510,300 (20,000) (3.77%) Expenditures Transfers out-#001 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% Tourism Promotion 547,000 0 547,000 570,000 23,000 4.20% Total expenditures 577,000 0 577,000 600,000 23,000 3.99% Revenues over(under)expenditures (86,700) (46,700) (89,700) Beginning fund balance 236,927 236,927 190,227 Ending fund balance 150,227 190,227 100,527 #106-SOLID WASTE FUND Revenues Sunshine administrative fee 0 0 0 125,000 125,000 #DIV/0! Road maintenance fee 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Transfers in-#001 (marketing/education) 0 60,000 60,000 0 (60,000) (100.00%) Total revenues 0 60,000 60,000 125,000 65,000 108.33% Expenditures Education&Contract Administration 0 60,000 60,000 125,000 65,000 108.33% Transfers out-#001 (reimbursement for set-up) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 60,000 60,000 125,000 65,000 108.33% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 24 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #120-CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 300,000 #121 -SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 7,300 0 7,300 8,200 900 12.33% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 7,300 0 7,300 8,200 900 12.33% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,300 7,300 8,200 Beginning fund balance 5,448,502 5,448,502 5,455,802 Ending fund balance 5,455,802 5,455,802 5,464,002 #122-WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 700 0 700 800 100 14.29% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Subtotal revenues 700 0 700 800 100 14.29% Expenditures Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% Total expenditures 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (499,300) (499,300) (499,200) Beginning fund balance 503,565 503,565 503,565 Ending fund balance 4,265 4,265 4,365 #123-CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,700 0 1,700 1,300 (400) (23.53%) Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 1,700 0 1,700 1,300 (400) (23.53%) Expenditures Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 616,284 0 616,284 616,284 0 0.00% Total expenditures 616,284 0 616,284 616,284 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (614,584) (614,584) (614,984) Beginning fund balance 1,789,271 1,789,271 1,174,687 Ending fund balance 1,174,687 1,174,687 559,703 25 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ I °/U DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204-LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 441,520 0 441,520 373,800 (67,720) (15.34%) Transfers in-#301 93,152 0 93,152 82,150 (11,002) (11.81%) Transfers in-#302 93,151 0 93,151 82,150 (11,001) (11.81%) 2014 LTGO Bond issue proceeds 0 7,661,000 7,661,000 0 (7,661,000) (100.00%) Total revenues 627,823 7,661,000 8,288,823 538,100 (7,750,723) (93.51%) Expenditures Debt Service Payments-CenterPlace 441,520 0 441,520 373,800 (67,720) (15.34%) Debt Service Payments-Roads 186,303 0 186,303 164,300 (22,003) (11.81%) 2003 LTGO Bond retirement 0 7,549,000 7,549,000 0 (7,549,000) (100.00%) 2014 LTGO Bond issue costs 0 112,000 112,000 0 (112,000) (100.00%) Total expenditures 627,823 7,661,000 8,288,823 538,100 (7,750,723) (93.51%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 26 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ I °/U CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 -REET 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 -Taxes 600,000 0 600,000 625,000 25,000 4.17% Investment Interest 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00% Total revenues 601,000 0 601,000 626,000 25,000 4.16% Expenditures Transfers out-#204 93,152 0 93,152 82,150 (11,002) (11.81%) Transfers out-#303 268,575 7,000 275,575 221,980 (53,595) (19.45%) Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 66,577 36.09% Total expenditures 546,199 7,000 553,199 555,179 1,980 0.36% Revenues over(under)expenditures 54,801 47,801 70,821 Beginning fund balance 968,021 968,021 1,015,822 Ending fund balance 1,022,822 1,015,822 1,086,643 #302-REET 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2-Taxes 600,000 0 600,000 625,000 25,000 4.17% Investment Interest 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00% Total revenues 601,000 0 601,000 626,000 25,000 4.16% Expenditures Transfers out-#204 93,151 0 93,151 82,150 (11,001) (11.81%) Transfers out-#303 585,097 14,000 599,097 365,290 (233,807) (39.03%) Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 66,577 36.09% Total expenditures 862,720 14,000 876,720 698,489 (178,231) (20.33%) Revenues over(under)expenditures (261,720) (275,720) (72,489) Beginning fund balance 1,323,378 1,323,378 1,047,658 Ending fund balance 1,061,658 1,047,658 975,169 27 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #303-STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 11,092,997 (2,768,189) 8,324,808 8,714,114 389,306 4.68% Developer 166,020 0 166,020 94,860 (71,160) (42.86%) Transfers in-#101 0 18,830 18,830 0 Transfers in-#301 268,575 7,000 275,575 221,980 (53,595) (19.45%) Transfers in-#302 585,097 14,000 599,097 365,290 (233,807) (39.03%) Transfers in-#312-Appleway Landscaping 250,000 0 250,000 0 (250,000) (100.00%) Transfers in-#312-Sullivan Rd W Bridge 2,320,000 (2,120,000) 200,000 2,120,000 1,920,000 960.00% Transfers in-#402 7,101 0 7,101 0 (7,101) (100.00%) Total revenues 14,689,790 (4,848,359) 9,841,431 11,516,244 1,674,813 17.02% Expenditures 060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 860,280 0 860,280 602,196 (258,084) (30.00%) 061 Pines(SR27)ITS Imporvements 10,000 0 10,000 0 (10,000) (100.00%) 123 Mission Ave.-Flora to Barker 382,410 0 382,410 355,376 (27,034) (7.07%) 141 Sullivan&Euclid PCC(PE&RW) 123,090 0 123,090 35,052 (88,038) (71.52%) 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan PCC int,(PE/RW) 50,000 0 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) 145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 100,000 0 100,000 0 (100,000) (100.00%) 149 Sidewalk Infill 364,425 0 364,425 0 (364,425) (100.00%) 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 8,888,189 (4,888,189) 4,000,000 7,201,779 3,201,779 80.04% 156 Mansfield Ave. Connection 1,158,727 0 1,158,727 570,480 (588,247) (50.77%) 159 University Rd/1-90 Overpass Study 50,000 0 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) 166 Pines Rd (SR27)&Grace Ave. Intersect Safety 538,850 0 538,850 556,137 17,287 3.21% 167 Citywide Safety Improvements(bike/ped) 341,928 0 341,928 320,560 (21,368) (6.25%) 168 Wellesley Ave&Adams Rd Sidewalk 30,000 0 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) 177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 100,000 0 100,000 0 (100,000) (100.00%) 181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 50,000 0 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) 185 Appleway Landscaping-Phase 1 250,000 0 250,000 0 (250,000) (100.00%) 196 8th Avenue-McKinnon to Fancher 300,000 0 300,000 0 (300,000) (100.00%) 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 (PE START 2014) 91,891 0 91,891 301,357 209,466 227.95% 206 2015 CDBG Sidewalk Project 0 0 0 246,231 246,231 #DIV/0! 207 Indiana&Evergreen Transit Access Improve. 0 0 0 70,014 70,014 #DIV/0! xxx N.Sullivan Corridor ITS Project(PE start 2015) 0 0 0 105,486 105,486 #DIV/0! 210 Alcazar Driveway Reconstruction 0 7,000 7,000 0 (7,000) (100.00%) 211 Trent Lighting Replacement 0 14,000 14,000 151,576 137,576 982.69% 213 Sprague/Thierman Intersection 0 18,830 18,830 0 (18,830) (100.00%) Contingency 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0.00% Total expenditures 14,689,790 (4,848,359) 9,841,431 11,516,244 1,674,813 17.02% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 61,827 61,827 61,827 Ending fund balance 61,827 61,827 61,827 28 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #309-PARK CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 192,500 55,000 247,500 100,000 (147,500) (59.60%) Transfers in-#103 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Transfers in-#312 0 1,452,100 1,452,100 0 (1,452,100) (100.00%) Investment Interest 500 0 500 500 0 0.00% Contributions 0 500 500 0 (500) (100.00%) Total revenues 193,000 1,557,600 1,750,600 100,500 (1,650,100) (94.26%) Expenditures 5 Sand volleyball courts at Browns Park 0 0 0 176,200 176,200 #DIV/0! Pocket dog park 0 0 0 75,000 75,000 #DIV/0! Mission Trailhead landscaping 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 #DIV/0! 203 2 Sand volleyball courts at Browns Park 40,000 (40,000) 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Edgecliff picnic shelter 65,000 (56,000) 9,000 106,450 97,450 1082.78% 195 Discovery Playground equipment 50,000 1,400 51,400 0 (51,400) (100.00%) Shade structure at Discovery Playground 15,000 (15,000) 0 38,000 38,000 #DIV/0! City entry sign 70,000 (70,000) 0 70,000 70,000 #DIV/0! Park signs(3) 22,500 0 22,500 0 (22,500) (100.00%) Edgecliff sewer connection 0 13,000 13,000 0 (13,000) (100.00%) Old Mission Trailhead 0 55,000 55,000 0 (55,000) (100.00%) Appleway Trail (Univ.-Pines) 0 1,502,100 1,502,100 0 (1,502,100) (100.00%) Total expenditures 262,500 1,390,500 1,653,000 490,650 (1,162,350) (70.32%) Revenues over(under)expenditures (69,500) 97,600 (390,150) Beginning fund balance 352,779 352,779 450,379 Ending fund balance 283,279 450,379 60,229 #310-CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Sale of land 0 839,285 839,285 0 (839,285) (100.00%) Investment Interest 1,900 0 1,900 1,200 (700) (36.84%) Transfers in-#001 0 #DIV/0! Future C.H.bond pmt>$424.6k lease pmt 0 0 0 67,600 67,600 #DIV/0! Future C.H.o&m costs 0 0 0 271,700 271,700 #DIV/0! Total revenues 1,900 839,285 841,185 340,500 (500,685) (59.52%) Expenditures Professional services 0 30,000 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) Capital 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 30,000 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 1,900 811,185 340,500 Beginning fund balance 1,101,903 1,101,903 1,913,088 Ending fund balance 1,103,803 1,913,088 2,253,588 Note: The fund balance in#310 includes$839,281.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City ill repurchase this land at the original sale price of$839,285.10. 29 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ I °/U CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #311 -PAVEMENT PRESERVATION Revenues Transfers in-#101 282,000 0 282,000 206,618 (75,382) (26.73%) Transfers in-#123 616,284 0 616,284 616,284 0 0.00% Transfers in-#301 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 66,577 36.09% Transfers in-#302 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 66,577 36.09% Transfers in-#001 888,823 0 888,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% Grants 2,763,272 123,464 2,886,736 971,032 (1,915,704) (66.36%) Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 4,919,323 123,464 5,042,787 3,216,032 (1,826,755) (36.23%) Expenditures Pavement preservation 3,595,521 270,865 3,866,386 2,565,050 (1,301,336) (33.66%) Pre-project GeoTech 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0.00% Total expenditures 3,595,521 320,865 3,916,386 2,615,050 (1,301,336) (33.23%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 1,323,802 1,126,401 600,982 Beginning fund balance 798,609 798,609 1,925,010 Ending fund balance 2,122,411 1,925,010 2,525,992 #312-CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 0 2,443,507 2,443,507 0 (2,443,507) (100.00%) Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 0 2,443,507 2,443,507 0 (2,443,507) (100.00%) Expenditures Transfers out#303(ApplewayLandscaping-Dora tc 250,000 0 250,000 0 (250,000) (100.00%) Transfers out#303(Sullivan Rd W Bridge) 2,320,000 (2,120,000) 200,000 2,120,000 1,920,000 960.00% Transfers out#309(Appleway Trail-Univ-Pines) 0 1,452,100 1,452,100 0 (1,452,100) (100.00%) Total expenditures 2,570,000 (667,900) 1,902,100 2,120,000 217,900 11.46% Revenues over(under)expenditures (2,570,000) 541,407 (2,120,000) Beginning fund balance 7,742,299 7,742,299 8,283,706 Ending fund balance 5,172,299 8,283,706 6,163,706 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402-STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,835,000 0 1,835,000 1,880,000 45,000 2.45% Investment Interest 2,500 0 2,500 1,500 (1,000) (40.00%) Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total Recurring Revenues 1,837,500 0 1,837,500 1,881,500 44,000 2.39% Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 505,535 0 505,535 488,101 (17,434) (3.45%) Supplies 15,900 0 15,900 15,900 0 0.00% Services&Charges 1,065,076 0 1,065,076 1,078,301 13,225 1.24% Intergovernmental Payments 26,500 0 26,500 42,000 15,500 58.49% Vehicle rentalst-#501 1,567 0 1,567 4,167 2,600 165.92% Transfers out-#001 13,400 0 13,400 13,400 0 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,627,978 0 1,627,978 1,641,869 13,891 0.85% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 209,522 0 209,522 239,631 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Expenditures Capital-various projects 900,000 0 900,000 600,000 (300,000) (33.33%) Property acquisition 250,000 0 250,000 0 (250,000) (100.00%) VMS Trailer 16,000 0 16,000 16,000 0 0.00% Transfers out-#403(Decant Proj-DOE) 0 50,125 50,125 0 (50,125) (100.00%) Transfers out-#501 (new pickup) 30,000 0 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,196,000 50,125 1,246,125 616,000 (630,125) (50.57%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (1,196,000) (125) (1,196,125) (616,000) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (986,478) (125) (986,603) (376,369) Beginning working capital 2,319,423 2,319,423 1,332,820 Ending working capital 1,332,945 1,332,820 956,451 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ ENTERPRISE FUNDS-continued #403-AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% Grant DOE-Decant Facility 0 634,523 634,523 0 (634,523) (100.00%) Grant DOT-Decant Facility 0 100,000 100,000 0 (100,000) (100.00%) Grant DOE-LID/Retrofit Design 120,000 0 120,000 0 (120,000) (100.00%) Grant DOE-SE Yardley Retrofits 750,000 0 750,000 0 (750,000) (100.00%) Grant DOE-Broadway SD Retrofit 0 40,000 40,000 1,260,000 1,220,000 3050.00% Transfers in-#402(Decant Proj-DOE) 0 50,125 50,125 0 (50,125) (100.00%) Total revenues 1,370,000 824,648 2,194,648 1,760,000 (434,648) (19.80%) Expenditures Broadway Storm Drain Retrofit 60,000 40,000 100,000 1,200,000 1,100,000 1100.00% 173 Decant Facility 0 910,159 910,159 0 (910,159) (100.00%) 192 SE Yardley Retrofits 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 0 (1,000,000) (100.00%) Outfall Diversion(design only) 60,000 0 60,000 0 (60,000) (100.00%) Total expenditures 1,120,000 950,159 2,070,159 1,200,000 (870,159) (42.03%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 250,000 124,489 560,000 Beginning working capital 333,610 333,610 458,099 Ending working capital 583,610 458,099 1,018,099 32 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/29/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 -ER&R FUND Revenues Vehicle rentals-#001 15,400 0 15,400 19,300 3,900 25.32% Vehicle rentals-#101 10,777 0 10,777 12,077 1,300 12.06% Vehicle rentals-#101 (plow replace.) 75,000 0 75,000 0 (75,000) (100.00%) Vehicle rentals-#402 1,567 0 1,567 4,167 2,600 165.92% Investment Interest 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00% Transfers in-#101 (new pickup) 15,000 0 15,000 0 (15,000) (100.00%) Transfers in-#402(new pickup) 30,000 0 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) Total revenues 148,744 0 148,744 36,544 (112,200) (75.43%) Expenditures Computer replacement lease 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Software/Hardware replacement 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Vehicle Replacement 90,000 30,000 120,000 30,000 (90,000) (75.00%) Snow Plow Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 90,000 30,000 120,000 30,000 (90,000) (75.00%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 58,744 28,744 6,544 Beginning working capital 1,183,348 1,183,348 1,212,092 Ending working capital 1,242,092 1,212,092 1,218,636 #502-RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Transfers in-#001 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Total revenues 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Expenditures Auto&Property Insurance 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Unemployment Claims 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 124,171 124,171 124,171 Ending fund balance 124,171 124,171 124,171 TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 67,257,980 8,907,745 76,165,725 64,500,020 Total of Expenditures for all Funds 71,304,691 7,782,727 79,087,418 67,516,147 Total grant revenues(included in total revenues) 14,726,269 (1,820,202) 12,906,067 10,945,146 Total Capital expenditures(included in total expenditures) 20,988,700 (2,112,696) 18,872,865 16,520,944 33 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget Revenues by Fund General Fund Property Tax 11,277,100 Sales Tax 17,628,400 Sales Tax - Public Safety 820,100 Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 1,468,700 Gambling and Leasehold Excise Tax 535,100 Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,238,000 State Shared Revenues 1,768,900 Service Revenues 1,420,100 Fines and Forfeitures 1,507,100 Recreation Program Fees 563,500 Miscellaneous, Investment Int. ,Transfers 215,200 Total General Fund 38,442,200 Other Funds Street Fund 4,438,000 Paths &Trails Fund 7,800 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 510,300 Solid Waste 125,000 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 0 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund 8,200 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 800 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 1,300 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 538,100 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 626,000 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 626,000 Street Capitial Projects Fund 11,516,244 Parks Capital Projects Fund 100,500 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 340,500 Pavement Preservation Fund 3,216,032 Capital Reserve Fund 0 Stormwater Management Fund 1,881,500 Aquifer Protection Area 1,760,000 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 36,544 Risk Management Fund 325,000 Total Other Funds 26,057,820 34 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 General Fund Revenues $38,442,200 Recreation Program Fees 1% Miscellaneous Fines& Forfeitures 1°A 4% Property Tax 29% Service Revenues1 4% State Shared Revenues Franchise Fees/Business Registrations 3% v Gambling Tax 1% Public Safety Sales Tax 2% j, Criminal Justice Sales Tax 4% Sales Tax 46% 35 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 City Wide Revenues $ 64,500,020 Debt Service Fund 1% Capital Projects Funds Other Special Revenue Funds 25% 1% Street Fund 7%e ,,,,,,. \t Fund 7% — Management Fund 3% APA Fund 3% \_ Internal Service Funds 0% ir- General Fund 60% 36 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2015 Budget-General Fund Detail Revenues by Type 2011 2012 2013 12014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Property Tax Property Tax 10,681,620 10,799,123 10,841,559 11,049,400 11,277,100 Property Tax-Delinquent 0 0 0 0 0 10,681,620 10,799,123 10,841,559 11,049,400 11,277,100 Sales Taxes Sales Tax 14,850,409 15,427,377 16,587,617 16,490,000 17,628,400 Sales Tax-Public Safety 724,219 724,052 759,889 745,000 820,100 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 1,266,819 1,286,302 1,358,956 1,330,000 1,468,700 16,841,447 17,437,731 18,706,461 18,565,000 19,917,200 Gambling and Leasehold Excise Tax Amusement Games 10,882 10,125 10,799 10,400 10,800 Card Games 447,778 541,696 382,651 540,000 446,000 Bingo&Raffles 1,260 1,802 638 2,000 1,200 Punch Boards&Pull Tabs 64,310 64,771 134,350 65,000 71,000 Leasehold Excise Tax 4,340 11,481 6,139 2,000 6,100 528,570 629,875 534,577 619,400 535,100 Licenses&Permits Business Licenses 90,238 92,867 97,889 93,000 97,000 Comcast PEG Contribution 25,115 91,014 92,642 91,000 92,000 Franchise Fees 1,015,327 1,029,061 1,048,803 1,029,000 1,049,000 1,130,680 1,212,942 1,239,335 1,213,000 1,238,000 State Shared Revenues City Assistance State Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Streamline Mitigation of Sales Tax 589,154 557,415 571,806 557,400 520,000 Payment in Lieu of Taxes-DNR 3,870 8,898 0 4,800 4,400 CJ-High Crime 0 148,505 49,505 148,000 0 MVET Criminal Justice-Population 19,853 20,548 22,282 23,800 23,000 CJ Contracted Services 130,326 134,119 142,180 134,100 140,000 CJ Special Programs 74,942 77,114 82,689 79,600 81,900 DUI-Cities 19,171 16,618 16,604 16,600 16,600 Liquor Board Excise Tax 437,486 225,791 121,297 108,900 175,800 Liquor Board Profits 625,605 898,852 813,952 813,300 807,200 Work Study Reimbursement 3,723 0 0 0 0 1,904,131 2,087,860 1,820,317 1,886,500 1,768,900 Service Revenues Airway Heights Bldg.Plan Rev. 13,645 10,476 471 10,500 500 Building Permits 585,687 640,896 920,921 640,900 700,000 Demolition Permits 2,567 3,446 3,860 3,400 3,900 Building&Planning Fees 149,104 95,403 103,645 104,100 100,100 Entertainment License 12,173 12,604 18,335 12,600 16,500 Grading Permits 2,479 3,444 3,551 3,400 3,200 Home Profession Fee 2,940 3,360 3,612 3,400 3,400 Mechanical Permits 59,873 84,045 80,927 84,000 81,000 Misc.Permits&Fees 12,219 11,117 5,203 5,000 5,200 Planning Fees 001.058.059.345.83.* 176,292 332,778 437,287 332,800 355,500 Plumbing Permits 36,138 50,829 49,688 50,800 49,000 Right of Way Permits 105,765 82,262 98,265 85,500 95,000 Code Enforcement 10,211 3,906 (13,423) 4,000 6,000 Temporary Use Permit Fees 628 471 942 500 800 1,169,721 1,335,037 1,713,284 1,340,900 1,420,100 Fines and Forfeitures Public Safety False Alarm Services 154,550 170,262 183,032 171,000 180,000 Public Safety Grants 163,657 61,255 66,846 28,000 40,000 Fines&Forfeits-Traffic 666,777 586,000 558,378 587,000 603,400 Other Criminal-Non Traffic Fines 751,864 683,641 688,201 684,800 683,700 1,736,849 1,501,158 1,496,458 1,470,800 1,507,100 Recreation Program Charges Activity Fees(To use a recreational facility) 340,704 438,226 452,000 405,700 379,800 Program Fees(To participate in a program) 191,017 168,250 78,065 174,100 183,700 531,721 606,476 530,065 579,800 563,500 Miscellaneous Investment Interest 82,691 88,008 61,206 65,000 70,000 Sales Tax Interest 10,793 6,086 3,120 7,000 5,000 SCRAPS pass-through/nonrecurring 0 0 0 56,600 0 leasehold Excise Tax(State) 770 770 770 0 700 Interest on Gambling Tax 137 2,728 1,937 2,000 2,000 Dept.of Ecology Grant 0 51,048 62,101 0 0 EECBG Grant 62,084 20,383 0 0 0 Police Precinct Rent&Maint. 51,999 41,636 51,530 41,600 51,500 Miscellaneous Revenue&Grants 10,575 5,611 12,265 0 2,900 219,049 216,270 192,928 172,200 132,100 Transfers Transfer-in-#101(street admin) 25,000 39,600 39,700 39,700 39,700 Transfer-in-#120 0 0 50,787 0 0 Transfer-in-#105(h/m tax-CP advertising) 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Transfer-in-#310(full paveback) 1,051,730 0 0 0 0 Transfer-in-#402(storm admin) 13,386 15,000 13,400 13,400 13,400 1,090,116 84,600 133,887 83,100 83,100 Total General Fund Revenue 35,833,904 35,911,072 37.208.871 36.980.100 38,442,200 37 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2015 Budget-Other Funds Detail Revenues by Type 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget 101 Street Fund Investment Interest 0 4,056 0 3,000 3,000 Grants Revenues 431,001 173,185 172,530 0 0 Motor Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,857,708 1,846,990 1,868,055 1,858,600 1,859,900 Other Miscellaneous Revenues&Grants 39,074 64,415 9,848 0 10,000 Transfers in-#302 0 7,614 27,375 0 0 Transfers in-#402 90,750 0 0 0 0 Street Maintenance&Repair Charges 25259 0 7,774 0 0 Utilities tax 2,880,963 2,735,484 2,562,722 2,750,000 2,565,100 5,324,755 4,831,743 4,648,303 4,611,600 4,438,000 103 Paths&Trails Fund Investment interest 63 67 51 0 0 Motor Fuel(Gas)Tax 7,835 7,790 7,879 7,800 7,800 7,898 7,857 7,930 7,800 7,800 105 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Hotel/Motel Tax 457,603 490,004 518,672 530,000 510,000 Investment Interest 455 592 387 300 300 458,057 490,596 519,059 530,300 510,300 106 Solid Waste Sunshine administrative fee 0 0 0 0 125,000 Transfers in-#001(marketing/education) 0 0 0 60,000 0 0 0 0 60,000 125,000 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund Investment Interest 556 0 0 0 0 556 0 0 0 0 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund Transfer in 0 0 0 0 0 Investment Interest 8,632 9,103 6,971 7,300 8,200 8,632 9,103 6,971 7,300 8200 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund Investment Interest 837 883 676 700 800 837 883 676 700 800 123 City Facilities Repair&Replacement Fund Investment Interest 1,989 2,099 1,607 1,700 1,300 Transfers in 394,600 397,000 0 0 0 396,589 399,099 1,607 1,700 1,300 204 Debt Service-LTGO 03 Fund 2014 LTGO Bond issue proceeds 0 0 0 7,661,000 0 Facilities District Revenue 427,120 432,320 437,120 441,520 373,800 Transfers in-#301 92,251 92,651 92,951 93,152 82,150 Transfers in-#302 92251 92,651 92,952 93,151 82,150 611,623 617,623 623,023 8,288,823 538,100 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund Investment Interest 1,518 1,204 1,138 1,000 1,000 REET 1-2nd Percent 481,623 654,264 707,104 600,000 625,000 Misc.Revenues 0 9,601 0 0 0 483,141 665,069 708242 601,000 626,000 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund Investment Interest 1,732 1,762 1,349 1,000 1,000 REET 2-2nd.25 Percent 479,129 531,442 614,929 600,000 625,000 Transfers in-Capital Grants fund 0 6,477 0 0 0 480,861 539,681 616278 601,000 626,000 303 Street Capital Projects Fund Developer Contributions 91268 760,768 0 166,020 94,860 Grant Proceeds 2,335,143 3,852,253 3,475,351 8,324,808 8,714,114 Transfers in-#001 551,730 64,750 0 0 0 Transfers in-#101 13,105 476,659 138 18,830 0 Transfers in-#102 8,502 207,447 0 0 0 Transfers in-#301 Capital Projects 278,105 253,429 589,534 275,575 221,980 Transfers in-#302 Special Capital Projects 1,045,677 1,101,314 153243 599,097 365290 Transfers in-#310 0 140,139 0 0 0 Transfers in-#311 0 299,027 77,720 0 0 Transfers in-#312 Appleway Landscaping 0 0 8,348 250,000 0 Transfers in-#312 Sullivan Rd W Bridge 0 0 0 200,000 2,120,000 Transfers in-#402 56,862 113,014 0 7,101 0 Spokane Transit Authority 962,956 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 208,912 1,651 77 0 0 5,552,260 7,270,451 4,304,412 9,841,431 11,516,244 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund Investment Interest 1,735 848 660 500 500 Contributions and Donations 0 0 25,000 500 0 Transfers in-#001 100,000 106,250 50,000 247,500 100,000 Transfers in-#103 0 0 0 50,000 0 Transfers in-#312 0 0 0 1,452,100 0 Grant Proceeds 496,250 0 0 0 0 597,985 107,098 75,660 1,750,600 100,500 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund Investment Interest 8,609 5,349 1,771 1,900 1200 Sale of land 0 0 0 839,285 0 Transfers in-#001 0 7,577 0 0 339,300 8,609 12,926 1,771 841,185 340,500 38 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2015 Budget-Other Funds Detail Revenues by Type 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget 311 Pavement Preservation Fund Intl FD Trf frm Civic Facilities 2011+ 1,084,681 0 0 0 0 Grants 0 0 35,995 2,886,736 971,032 Investment Interest 0 0 2,751 0 0 Transfers in-#001 0 2,045,503 0 888,823 920,000 Transfers in-#101 0 0 282,000 282,000 206,618 Transfers in-#123 0 0 616284 616284 616,284 Transfers in-#301 0 0 150,000 184,472 251,049 Transfers in-#302 0 0 150,000 184,472 251,049 1,084,681 2,045,503 1237,030 5,042,787 3,216,032 312 Capital Reserve Fund Developer Contributions 0 0 3,180 0 0 Transfers in-#001 0 0 7,826,207 2,443,507 0 0 0 7,829,387 2,443,507 0 402 Stormwater Management Fund Grant Proceeds 373,861 64,838 233,165 50,000 0 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 4,143 0 0 Investment Interest 2,833 2,658 1,992 2,500 1,500 Stormwater Management Fee 1,832,952 1,834,740 1,869,081 1,835,000 1,880,000 2,209,646 1,902,236 2,108,381 1,887,500 1,881,500 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund Spokane County 417,326 510,936 484,343 500,000 500,000 Grant revenue 0 0 859,310 910,000 1,260,000 Grant DOE-Decant Facility 0 0 0 634,523 0 Grant DOT-Decant Facility 0 0 0 100,000 0 Transfers in-#402(DOE for Decant Proj) 0 0 0 50,125 0 Grant-Sprague Swales 0 96,291 0 0 0 Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 417,326 607,227 1,343,653 2,194,648 1,760,000 501 Equipment Rental&Replacement Fund Investment Interest 1,456 1,498 1,176 1,000 1,000 Transfers in-#001 15,400 15,400 0 15,400 19,300 Transfers in-#001(Vehicle Lease) 0 94,844 177,744 0 Transfers in-#101 9,100 9,100 0 10,777 12,077 Transfers in-#101(plow replace) 0 0 0 75,000 0 Transfers in-#402 0 0 0 1,567 4,167 Transfers in-#101 0 0 0 15,000 0 Transfers in-#402 0 0 0 30,000 0 25,956 120,842 178,920 148,744 36,544 502 Risk Management Fund Employment Security Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers in-#001 319,000 319,000 319,000 325,000 325,000 Investment Interest 25 9 7 0 0 319,025 319,009 319,007 325,000 325,000 Total of"Other Fund"Revenues 18,653,047 19,966,905 24,530,311 39,185,625 26,057,820 General Fund Revenues 35,833,904 35,911,072 37208,871 36,980,100 38,442,200 Total Revenues 54,486,985 55,878,021 61,739,182 76,165,725 64,500,020 39 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2015 Budget Expenditures by Fund and Department General Fund Council 513,114 City Manager 1,153,202 Public Safety 24,178,492 Operations&Administrative Deputy City Manager 691,303 Finance 1,203,879 Human Resources 243,317 Public Works 921,914 Community& Economic Development Administration 461,094 Economic Development 298,276 Development Services 1,424,944 Building 1,380,902 Parks& Recreation Administration 312,347 Maintenance 844,642 Recreation 226,174 Aquatics 496,200 Senior Center 91,985 CenterPlace 824,997 General Government 3,570,500 Total General Fund 38,837,282 Other Funds Street Fund 4,491,000 Paths&Trails Fund 0 Hotel/Motel Fund 600,000 Solid Waste 125,000 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 0 Service Level Stabilization Fund 0 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 500,000 Civic Facility Replacement Fund 616,284 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 538,100 - REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 555,179 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 698,489 Street Capital Projects Fund 11,516,244 Parks Capital Projects Fund 490,650 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 0 Pavement Preservation 2,615,050 Capital Reserve Fund 2,120,000 Stormwater Management Fund 2,257,869 Aquifer Protection Area 1,200,000 Equipment Rental & Replacement(ER&R) 30,000 Risk Management Fund 325,000 Total All Funds 67,516,147 40 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 General Fund Expenditures $ 38,837,282 Public Safety 62% Community& Economic Development 9% jak Public Works 3% Operation &Administrative 6% Council& Executive Parks& Recreations 4% 7% General Government 9% 41 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 City Wide Expenditures $ 67,516,147 Capital Projects Funds 27% Gen Gov/Risk Mgmt/ER&R 5% dial Tourism Promotion 1% Risk Management 0% Street Fund Debt Service 7% 1% Stormwater&APA Funds 5% Parks& Recreation_ Other Activities 4% 2% Community&Economic Development 5% Council/Executive/Ops& Admin 7% Public Safety 36% 42 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2015 Budget General Fund Expenditures by Department and Type Wages, Benefits Services& Capital &Payroll Taxes Supplies Charges Intergovernmental Interfund Expenditures Total City Council 214,379 4,550 294,185 0 0 0 513,114 City Manager and City Attorney 1,003,090 8,890 141,222 0 0 0 1,153,202 Public Safety 0 0 0 24,178,492 0 0 24,178,492 Operations&Administrative Deputy City Manager 627,478 2,500 61,325 0 0 0 691,303 Finance 1,172,483 6,000 25,396 0 0 0 1,203,879 Human Resources 218,109 700 24,508 0 0 0 243,317 Public Works 834,363 19,000 64,651 0 0 3,900 921,914 Planning &Community Development Admin 237,394 3,100 20,600 200,000 0 0 461,094 Economic Development 274,776 1,000 22,500 0 0 0 298,276 Development Services 1,122,644 21,050 281,250 0 0 0 1,424,944 Building 1,288,902 28,200 63,800 0 0 0 1,380,902 Parks&Recreation Administration 228,697 8,450 64,200 11,000 0 0 312,347 Maintenance 0 20,000 824,642 0 0 0 844,642 Recreation 153,924 7,750 64,500 0 0 0 226,174 Aquatics 0 7,200 489,000 0 0 0 496,200 Senior Center 84,285 2,500 5,200 0 0 0 91,985 CenterPlace 435,609 66,963 322,425 0 0 0 824,997 General Government 0 70,650 1,292,550 300,500 1,684,300 222,500 3,570,500 Total $ 7,896,133 $ 278,503 $ 4,061,954 $ 24,689,992 $ 1,684,300 $ 226,400 $ 38,837,282 43 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2015 Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 Difference Between 2013 and 2014 2014 2015 Increase (Decrease) Budget Budget $ City Council Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 210,658 214,379 3,721 1.77% Supplies 4,192 4,550 358 8.54% Services & Charges 254,000 294,185 40,185 15.82% Total 468,850 513,114 44,264 9.44% City Manager Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 596,300 623,173 26,873 4.51% Supplies 3,350 3,350 0 0.00% Services & Charges 61,193 61,840 647 1.06% Total 660,843 688,363 27,520 4.16% Legal Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 367,812 379,917 12,105 3.29% Supplies 2,400 2,540 140 5.83% Services & Charges 100,710 79,382 (21,328) (21.18%) Total 470,922 461,839 (9,083) (1.93%) Public Safety Non-Departmental (Fines & Forfeits) 764,500 733,500 (31,000) (4.05%) Wages/Payroll Taxes/Benefits 3,500 3,800 300 8.57% Supplies 27,000 28,000 1,000 3.70% Other Services and Charges 671,450 492,650 (178,800) (26.63%) Intergovernmental Services 21,918,193 22,895,542 977,349 4.46% Total 23,384,643 24,153,492 768,849 3.29% Deputy City Manager Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 590,025 627,478 37,453 6.35% Supplies 2,050 2,500 450 21.95% Services & Charges 61,140 61,325 185 0.30% Total 653,215 691,303 38,088 5.83% Finance/IT Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,151,059 1,172,483 21,424 1.86% Supplies 7,000 6,000 (1,000) (14.29%) Services & Charges 22,600 25,396 2,796 12.37% Total 1,180,659 1,203,879 23,220 1.97% Human Resuorces Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 214,905 218,109 3,204 1.49% Supplies 700 700 0 0.00% Services & Charges 22,278 24,508 2,230 10.01% Total 237,883 243,317 5,434 2.28% (Continued to next page) 44 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2015 Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 Difference Between 2013 and 2014 2014 2015 Increase (Decrease) Budget Budget $ (Continued from previous page) Public Works Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 799,369 834,363 34,994 4.38% Supplies 19,500 19,000 (500) (2.56%) Services & Charges 63,825 68,551 4,726 7.40% Total 882,694 921,914 39,220 4.44% Community Dev.-Admin Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 232,683 237,394 4,711 2.02% Supplies 3,100 3,100 0 0.00% Services & Charges 55,100 20,600 (34,500) (62.61%) Total 290,883 261,094 (29,789) (10.24%) Community Dev.-Economic Development Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 0 274,776 181,047 #DIV/0! Supplies 0 1,000 1,000 #DIV/0! Services & Charges 0 22,500 22,500 #DIV/0! Total 0 298,276 298,276 #DIV/0! Community Dev.- Dev. Sery Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,487,320 1,122,644 (364,676) (24.52%) Supplies 21,050 21,050 0 0.00% Services & Charges 227,650 281,250 53,600 23.54% Total 1,736,020 1,424,944 (311,076) (17.92%) Community Dev.-Building Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,136,956 1,288,902 151,946 13.36% Supplies 28,200 28,200 0 0.00% Services & Charges 102,500 63,800 (38,700) (37.76%) Total 1,267,656 1,380,902 113,246 8.93% Parks & Rec-Admin Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 222,343 228,697 6,354 2.86% Supplies 8,450 8,450 0 0.00% Services & Charges 43,950 49,800 5,850 13.31% Total 274,743 286,947 12,204 4.44% Parks & Rec- Maintenance Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Supplies 10,000 20,000 10,000 100.00% Services & Charges 786,200 824,642 38,442 4.89% Total 796,200 844,642 48,442 6.08% Parks & Rec- Recreation Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 156,702 153,924 (2,778) (1.77%) Supplies 5,350 7,750 2,400 44.86% Services & Charges 67,100 64,500 (2,600) (3.87%) Total 229,152 226,174 (2,978) (1.30%) (Continued to next page) 45 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2015 Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 Difference Between 2013 and 2014 2014 2015 Increase (Decrease) Budget Budget $ (Continued from previous page) Parks & Rec-Aquatics Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Supplies 2,500 7,200 4,700 188.00% Services & Charges 487,900 489,000 1,100 0.23% Total 490,400 496,200 5,800 1.18% Parks & Rec- Senior Center Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 81,682 84,285 2,603 3.19% Supplies 2,500 2,500 0 0.00% Services & Charges 5,700 5,200 (500) (8.77%) Total 89,882 91,985 2,103 2.34% Parks & Rec- CenterPlace Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 420,115 435,609 15,494 3.69% Supplies 64,187 66,963 2,776 4.32% Services & Charges 344,540 322,425 (22,115) (6.42%) Total 828,842 824,997 (3,845) (0.46%) Pavement Preservation Council Designation 888,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% Total 888,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% General Government Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Supplies 77,400 70,650 (6,750) (8.72%) Services & Charges 1,301,300 1,292,550 (8,750) (0.67%) Intergovernmental Services 269,600 300,500 30,900 11.46% Capital outlays 93,300 77,500 (15,800) (16.93%) Total 1,741,600 1,741,200 (400) (0.02%) Transfers out-#502 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Transfers out-#310 Bond pmt> $434,600 lease pmt 0 67,600 67,600 #DIV/0! Estimated City Hall O&M costs 0 271,700 271,700 #DIV/0! 0 339,300 339,300 #DIV/0! Total recurring expenditures 36,898,910 38,338,882 1,439,972 3.90% Summary by Category Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 7,671,429 7,899,933 228,504 2.98% Supplies 288,929 303,503 14,574 5.04% Services & Charges 4,679,136 4,544,104 (135,032) (2.89%) Pavement Preservation 888,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% Transfers out-#502 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Transfers out-#310 0 339,300 339,300 #DIV/0! Non-Departmental (fines &forfeits) 764,500 733,500 (31,000) (4.05%) Intergovernmental Svc (public safety) 21,918,193 22,895,542 977,349 4.46% 46 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2015 Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 Difference Between 2013 and 2014 2014 2015 Increase (Decrease) Budget Budget $ Intergovernmental Svc 269,600 300,500 30,900 11.46% Capital outlay 93,300 77,500 (15,800) (16.93%) 36,898,910 38,338,882 1,439,972 3.90% 47 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 011 Legislative Branch 2015 Budget This department accounts for the cost of providing effective elected representation of the citizenry in the governing body. The Council makes policy decisions for the City and is accountable to Spokane Valley citizens by making decisions regarding how resources are allocated,the appropriate levels of service,and establishing goals and policies for the organization. Accomplishments for 2014 • Continue to monitor the discharge permit process for the Spokane County wastewater treatment plant. We have been and continue to monitor the County's progress as it relates to the renewal of their wastewater discharge permit. The County did receive an extension of their current discharge permit to the Spokane river;however,the County is still awaiting the outcomes of at least two legal challenges. The County is required to continue to monitor PCB levels, and participate in the Regional Toxics Task Force to ensure that these levels are appropriate. City staff will continue to monitor the County's path forward. • Implement solid waste alternatives for collection,transport and disposal in the best interest of the City of Spokane Valley. Staff identified and provided two options for solid waste alternatives for transfer,transport and disposal for Council review. Council selected and executed a contract with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc.to provide an equivalent level of transfer,transport,and disposal services to what is currently provided,at a reduced rate. Council reviewed and adopted a Solid Waste Management Plan to manage the solid waste system implemented through the contract with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. Executed two contracts with existing collection haulers to extinguish statutory rights and allow the City flexibility to seek further cost savings and additional services in the future. • Pursue a legislative capital budget request or other grant/funding for the Appleway Trail Project,parkland acquisition and the Barker Road grade separation. Appleway Trail-Based on Council approval of the use of City funds,staff completed the design of the Appleway Trail between University Road and Pines Road. The design includes a plaza at University Road,trees,future irrigation lines, and trail lighting. For this project,staff anticipates completing the construction of this portion of the trail this year. Although unsuccessful at the legislative level,staff applied for federal grant funding for the Appleway Trail Project and received $1M for that portion between Pines Road and Evergreen Road. Barker Road Overpass-Staff worked with HDR Engineering to prepare and submit a$15M TIGER VI grant application for the Barker Road Grade Separation Project. Honeywell to assist in legislative support for the project. • Continued to expand where possible,an economic development plan,including review and evaluation of Spokane Valley's development regulations and how they compared with other jurisdictions;and began looking at options open for an alternative city hall. Staff completed review and evaluation of development regulations and brought forth several code amendments for Council approval. The 2015 Budget request and business plan include reorganization of Community Development to strengthen economic development efforts. Staff worked with an architect in developing a conceptual plan for a new city hall;identified potential properties;and developed a budget and provided options for the funding a new city hall. • Focus on sustainability of Street Preservation program beyond 2016. The Street Preservation program is sustainable through 2018. Over the past year,staff has been looking at ways to further sustain financially the current pavement preservation program. Staff has applied for and received grant funds equating to approximately$1.2M per the years 2017-2019 through the Surface Transportation Program grants. • Evaluate law enforcement needs based on calls for service,crime rates,business and population growth and other supporting data. Staffing analysis completed with two patrol officers added,a Power Shift created,a new Spokane Valley dedicated Drug and Property Crimes Unit formed,Corporals eliminated,and Property Crimes Detectives increased. Staffing levels will now be matched to peak call load times of day. Goals for 2015 • Pursue a legislative capital budget request for the Appleway Trail Project;parkland acquisition;and Bridging the Valley. • Evaluate and discuss potential increases to the law enforcement contract. Work toward completion of the Comprehensive Plan review. • Continue and expand where possible,an economic development plan for Spokane Valley,including completion of the City Hall Plan. • Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the city's Street Preservation program,to include sustained funding in the City's Street Fund,to address concerns through and beyond the year 2018. 48 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 011 Legislative Branch 2015 Budget Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2015 Actual Actual Actual 2014 Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Mayor 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Council 6 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Total FTEs 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Budget Detail Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 141,389 $ 165,571 $ 174,891 $ 210,658 $ 214,379 Supplies 3,515 3,605 3,577 4,192 4,550 Services&Charges 139,814 171,819 161,333 254,000 294,185 Total Legislative Branch $ 284,718 $ 340,995 $ 339,801 $ 468,850 $ 513,114 49 Fund:0011111. General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 013 Executive Branch 2015 Budget MAM 013-City Manager This department is accountable to the City Council for the operational results of the organization,effective support of elected officials in achieving their goals;fulfillment of the statutory requirements of the City Manager,implementation of City Council policies,and provision of a communication linkage between citizens,the City Council,City departments, and other government agencies. Accomplishments for 2014 •In addition to the support of the 2014 Council Goals as referenced under the Legislative Budget: •Identified alternatives for solid waste;presented two options to Council who executed a contract for transfer, transport&disposal with Sunshine Recyclers,Inc. •Continued further efforts in promotion of the City,including new •Presented Council a balanced 2015 Budget. •Provided leadership support for strengthening and promoting Spokane Valleys core values and fiscal policies. Goals for 2015 •In addition to the support of the 2015 Council Goals as referenced under the Legislative Budget: •Present Council a balanced 2016 Budget. •Work with Federal and State Lobbyists on behalf of the interests of our City. •Prepare Legislative Agenda for Council consideration. •Strengthen economic development. 015-Legal Accomplishments for 2014 •Assist in identifying solid waste options;draft and assist in negotiations and execution of Sunshine contract; assist in identifying and negotiating collection contracts;and review of Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan. •Review and assist in drafting/revising the shoreline regulation component of the Shoreline Master Program;review and advise on the compiled Shoreline Master Program for final adoption. •Draft interim and final marijuana zoning regulations which were adopted by City Council. •Support Public Works on bidding and contracts for the Sullivan Bridge West Project. •Assist on 2015 street maintenance contract procurement. •Review and assist in document preparation for refunding and reissuance of City bonds,including bond ordinance, official statement,and interlocal agreement amendment. •Represent City in property acquisition for road projects(Argonne,Mansfield). Goals for 2015 •Advise Council and staff on implementation of new solid waste system. •Provide timely advice on issues arising out of implementation of legalized recreational marijuana and medical marijuana,including 2015 legislative proposals. •Participate in negotiating new labor agreement. •Work with Community Development and Finance in identifying and implementing economic development options. Budget Summary 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents City Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 City Attorney 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 City Clerk 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Deputy City Attomey 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Deputy City Clerk 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant-Legal 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant(CC) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant(CM) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Interns 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 722,496 $ 847,380 $ 922,074 $ 964,112 $ 1,003,090 Supplies 3,273 4,501 1,811 5,750 8,890 Services&Charges 215,742 174,453 159,747 161,903 141,222 Total Executive&Legislative Sup $ 941,511 $ 1,026,334 $ 1,083,632 $ 1,131,765 $ 1,153,202 50 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 016 Public Safety 2015 Budget The Public Safety department budget provides funds for the protection of persons and property in the city. The City contracts with Spokane County for law enforcement, district court, prosecutor services, public defender services, probation services,jail and animal control services. See following page for detail information on each budgeted section. Judicial System -The Spokane County District Court is contracted to provide municipal court services. The contract provides for the services of judge and court commissioner with related support staff. Budgeted amount also includes jury management fees. $ 2,253,644 Law Enforcement- The Spokane County Sheriffs Office is responsible for maintaining law and order and providing police services to the community under the direction of the Police Chief. The office provides for the preservation of life, protection of property, and reduction of crime. $ 19,485,950 Jail System - Spokane County provides jail and probation services for persons sentenced by any City of Spokane Valley Municipal Court Judge for violating laws of the city or state. $ 1,413,475 Animal Control - Spokane County will provide animal control services to include licensing, care and treatment of lost or stray animals, and response to potentially dangerous animal confrontations. $ 291,923 Non-Departmental - consist largely of remitting a portion of fine and forfeitures revenue to the State of Washington $ 733,500 Total $ 24,178,492 51 City of Spokane Valley 2015 Budget 016-Public Safety 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Judicial System: District Court Contract 1,098,465 792,455 799,761 891,304 902,201 Public Defender Contract 705,375 769,295 649,831 852,965 813,554 Prosecutor Contract 484,799 421,087 410,196 406,777 420,151 Pretrial Services Contract 144,713 102,300 124,796 102,894 117,738 Prosecutor-Funded by JAG Grant 97 - - - - Subtotal Judicial System 2,433,449 2,085,137 1,984,584 2,253,940 2,253,644 Law Enforcement System: Sheriff Contract 16,885,482 16,853,600 17,030,382 18,144,552 18,896,608 Emergency Management Contract 59,622 80,877 80,338 81,398 84,892 Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 6,133 2,389 3,642 3,500 3,800 Operating Supplies 5,630 6,497 3,980 3,500 5,000 Repair&Maintenance.Supplies 1,412 693 2,343 3,500 3,000 Janitorial Supplies 1,083 1,062 - - - Small Tools&Minor Equipment - - - - - Electricity/Gas 29,266 21,603 21,865 30,000 25,000 Water 1,804 1,385 1,210 1,750 1,500 Sewer 847 849 851 900 900 Waste Disposal 3,423 3,504 3,460 4,000 3,500 Copier Maintenance - - - - - Law Enf. Bldg Maintenance Contract 50,940 59,194 80,283 77,400 55,000 Taxes and Assessments - 358 715 400 750 Miscellaneous Srvs/Contingency - - - 500,000 350,000 Crywolf Charges&Fees 33,314 45,568 44,412 48,000 50,000 Sterling Bank Fees 4,365 5,057 5,111 7,000 5,500 Crywolf Refunds 1,769 - - 2,000 500 Subtotal Law Enforcement Syste 17,085,090 17,082,636 17,278,592 18,907,900 19,485,950 Jail System: Jail Contract 689,636 976,681 768,660 1,501,222 1,368,475 Work Release(Geiger) 795,160 429,420 508,704 - - Subtotal Jail System: 1,484,796 1,406,101 1,277,364 1,501,222 1,368,475 Other: Capital Outlays/Communications 190,738 206,445 28,323 - - Fines&Forfeitures State Remittance 751,862 682,014 664,681 764,500 733,500 Animal Control Contract 306,923 284,926 285,427 287,081 291,923 Non-Capital Equipment for JAG Gran 44,524 16,253 3,272 20,000 20,000 Non-Capital Equip for ARRA JAG Gra 93,462 26,099 38,250 - - Settle&Adjust - - 118,273 - - Small Tools - - - 12,000 - Professional Services 1,765 - - - - JAG-Wireless Cards 10,462 10,035 10,119 - - Building Replacement Costs 77,600 80,000 - - - Nighttime Seatbelt Patrol Overtime 3,000 1,783 1,612 - - Maintenance - - - 12,000 25,000 Drive Hammered-Get Nailed Grant 6,943 5,876 10,811 - - Child Car Seat Overtime 2,436 - - - - Slow Down or Pay Up 2,734 - - - - Stickman Knows - 3,994 - - - Subtotal Other: 1,492,449 1,317,425 1,160,768 1,095,581 1,070,423 Total Public Safety 22,495,784 21,891,299 21,701,308 23,758,643 24,178,492 52 City of Spokane Valley 2015 Budgeted Contract Expenditures 20,000,000 - 18,896,608 18,000,000 - 16,000,000 - 14,000,000 - 12,000,000 - 10,000,000 - 8,000,000 - I 6,000,000 - I 4,000,000 - I 1,368,475 2,000,000 - 902,201 813,554 420,151 291,923 —11- 84,892 55,000 I District Court Public Defender Prosecutor Sheriff Contract Emergency Law Enf. Bldg Jail Contract Animal Control Contract Contract Contract Management Maintenance Contract Contract Contract 53 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 018 Operation&Administrative Services 2015 Budget The Operations&Administrative Services Department is composed of three divisions,the Deputy City Manager Division, the Finance Division,and the Human Resources Division. 013-Deputy City Manager Division The Deputy City Manager(DCM)supervises the Operations&Administrative Services Department,assists the City Manager in organizing and directing the other operations of the City,and assumes the duties of City Manager in his/her absence. Accomplishments for 2014 • Evaluate law enforcement needs based upon calls for service,crime rates,and citizen/business growth. Staffing analysis completed with two patrol officers added,a Power Shift created,a new Spokane Valley dedicated Drug and Property Crimes Unit formed,Corporals eliminated,and Property Crimes Detectives increased. Staffing levels will now be matched to peak call load times of day. • Finalize case weighting methodology in collaboration with the Spokane County Public Defender's Office. The County has decided not to pursue a case-weighting methodology. The City is pursuing a grant to pay for the resulting increased costs. The City is also working with the County to evaluate the current type of cases and insure all cases are counted correctly and addressed in the most efficient manner. • Update Draft 6 Year Strategic Communications Plan. Submitted updated 2014-2019 Draft of the 6-Year Strategic Communications Plan • Provide public information support that informs and engages the public as needed for Sullivan Bridge Replacement,Appleway Trail development,and other major projects that may be identified by the Council. Launched Sullivan Bridge Replacement Project public information outreach efforts,including key messaging,quarterly mailed project newsletter,media releases/contacts,web page development/updates,and other outreach as needed. Efforts will continue throughout the 2-year project that started in 2014. Developed and updated new web page for Appleway Trail project and developed legislative fact sheet supporting funding request. • Increased HotTopic newsletter to four issues/yr,with one issue mailed to entire city • Identified and maximized opportunity to promote the City of Spokane Valley. Expanded and raised profile of City Hall at the Mall to include State of the City address,also providing a venue for creating contacts with the community,and promoting new smart phone app,Sullivan Bridge Project,Appleway Trail, and other City departments and related agencies. Developed City of Spokane Valley YouTube channel for sharing City videos. Acquired video camera and related equipment/software to begin adding video into public information tools. Goals for 2015 • Evaluate,identify,and implement performance measures to assess the effectiveness of changes implemented as a result of the law enforcement staffing analysis. Implement the High-Performance Organization Plan,utilizing priority-based budgeting,civic engagement,data drivers,and collaboration to enhance the performance of the City government and align the efforts of the City with the needs of the community. •Conduct Community Satisfaction Survey updating citizens'most important issues and to improve communications. •Continue development and implementation of comprehensive Solid Waste public information outreach efforts that inform and familiarize citizens with new system,and that meet public information goals in the Solid Waste Management Plan. •Continue public information support that informs and involves the community for Sullivan Road Bridge project and Appleway trail project. • Launch limited social media outreach for Snowlnfo and Traffic Alerts. • Update the DRAFT 6-Year Communications Plan and its alignment with the 6-Year Business Plan. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Deputy City Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Senior Administrative Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Public Information Officer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Office Assistant II 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 8.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 Intern 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 424,953 $ 404,685 $ 402,012 $ 590,025 $ 627,478 Supplies 1,380 1,728 1,153 2,050 2,500 Services&Charges 79,375 23,650 56,162 61,140 61,325 Total Deputy City Manager Division $ 505,708 $ 430,063 $ 459,327 $ 653,215 $ 691,303 54 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 018 Operation&Administrative Services 2015 Budget 014-Finance Division The Finance Division provides financial management services for all City departments. Programs include accounting and financial reporting,payroll,accounts payable,purchasing,budgeting and financial planning,treasury,information technology and investments. The division is also responsible for generating and analyzing financial data related to the City's operations. The department prepares Finance Activity Reports for review by the City Manager and City Council as well as the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)that is subject to an annual audit conducted by the Washington State Auditor's Office. Accomplishments for 2014 • Implemented State Auditor recommendations. • Improved financial statement preparation process and accuracy. • Replaced a storage area network(SAN). • Began the process of virtualizing servers rather than simply replacing physical servers. • Acquired 1-Ford Escape for use by the Community Development Department that replaces a 2003 Chevy S10 pickup. • Acquired 2 Ford Escapes and 1 pickup for the Public Works Department. • Worked with the City Manager and Legal Department on a Moody's Investors Service bond rating presentation that resulted in an increase in the City's LTGO bond rating from"Al"to"Aa3". • Worked with the City Manager and Legal Department on refunding the 2003 LTGO bonds that resulted in a total savings of $1,581,128 that will be realized over the 20-year period ending December 1,2033. The City's share of the savings is $201,542 that will be realized over the 10-year period ending December 1,2023 and the Spokane Public Facility District's will be$1,379,586 that will be realized over the 20-year period ending December 1,2033. Goals for 2015 • Implement 2013 audit recommendations • Work towards continued improvement and accuracy in the financial statement preparation process. • Complete the 2014 CAFR by May 30,2015 and receive a"clean audit opinion". • Maintain consistent levels of service in payroll,accounts payable,budget development,periodic financial report preparation and information technology services. • Replace approximately 30 desktop computers that will reach the end of their life cycle. • Replace copiers in the Finance and Public Works departments that will reach the end of their life cycle. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Finance Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accounting Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accountant/BudgetAnalyst 3.00 3.00 3.75 3.75 3.75 Accounting Technician 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 IT Specialist 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 GIS/Database Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Help Desk Technician 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Total FTEs 11.00 11.00 10.75 11.75 11.75 Intern 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Budget Detail Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 903,495 $ 895,125 $ 1,008,218 $1,151,059 $ 1,172,483 Supplies 6,468 7,026 2,791 7,000 6,000 Services&Charges 46,543 18,664 21,218 22,600 25,396 Total Finance Division $ 956,506 $ 920,815 $ 1,032,227 $1,180,659 $ 1,203,879 55 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 018 Operation&Administrative Services 2015 Budget 016-Human Resources Division Human Resources(HR)is administered through the Deputy City Manager(DCM). The HR operation provides services in compensation,benefits,training and organizational development,staffing,employee relations,and communications. Accomplishments for 2014 • Achievement of the 2013 WellCity Award presented by the Association of Washington Cities • Employee training an development to increase safety in the workplace • Assist the economic development activities working with business owners to increase electronic content • Creation of the City Discovery mobile app to encourage children to learn about our community Goals for 2015 • Bargain a successor labor relations contract with represented employee of the City • Review employment policies for alignment with labor contract • Support economic development goals of the City through website and mobile app management • Provide employee training that supports communication,customer service and ethical decision making Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Human Resource Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Human Resources Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 182,604 $ 187,339 $ 197,822 $ 214,905 $ 218,109 Supplies 596 461 640 700 700 Services&Charges 21,314 24,278 13,645 22,278 24,508 Total Human Resources Division $ 204,514 $ 212,078 $ 212,107 $ 237,883 $ 243,317 56 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 032 Public Works 2015 Budget The Public Works Department oversees the City's transportation system,which includes construction and maintenance of streets and stormwater systems,operations and maintenance of traffic signs and signals and transportation planning. Accomplishments for 2014 • Designed sixteen projects and managed the construction of nine. • Developed the 2015-2020 Six Year TIP • Submitted twenty six grants for various capital projects; received$4.68M as of August 2014 • Completed one 2013 and four 2014 Pavement Preservation Projects • Completed design, bid,and have begun construction of the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project • Completed design and construction of the Appleway Trail Project-University to Pines Goals for 2015 • Implement approved capital projects. • Provide planning for development of the updated Transportation Improvement Plan. • Prepare and submit grant applications for capital projects. • Perform biannual update to Pavement Management Plan • Complete 2015 Pavement Preservation Projects as approved Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Public Works Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Assistant Engineer(CIP) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 (1) Engineering Technician I 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 (1) Engineering Technician II 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 (1) Limited Term Construction Inspi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 (2) Maint./Construction Inspector(F 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Senior Engineer 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Senior Engineer-Proj Mgmt 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 (1) Planning Grants Engineer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.375 0.375 Total FTEs 11.0 11.0 10.0 10.875 10.875 Budget Detail Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefit $ 550,017 $ 516,757 $ 557,708 $ 799,369 $ 834,363 Supplies 16,955 15,882 12,975 19,500 19,000 Services&Charges 101,646 104,612 88,004 63,825 64,651 Capital Outlay - 69,344 - 8,800 3,900 Total Public Works $ 668,618 $ 706,595 $ 658,687 $ 891,494 $ 921,914 (1) Only 50%is budgeted to the public works department in the General Fund with the balance budgeted as a part of capital projects funds. (2) This position is budgeted 50%as a part of capital projects funds and 50%street fund. 57 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Community&Economic Development Dept: 050 Administrative Division 2015 Budget The Administrative Division provides overall management and oversight of the Community Development Department including the permitting operation,long-range planning,development engineering,and code compliance and provides staff support through administration of the department's budget,provides administrative support and department training. Accomplishments for 2014 • Continued work on City's economic development plan. • Continued to implement customer service improvements for the department. • Continued work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Continued to implement a document control system for documents and forms. Goals for 2015 • Assist with the City's economic development plan. • Continue to implement a document control system for documents and forms. • Assist in City's Marketing Plan • Assist in City Hall project Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Community Development Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total FTEs 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 280,228 $ 269,228 $ 215,537 $ 232,683 $ 237,394 Supplies 1,488 3,854 2,399 3,100 3,100 Services&Charges 27,403 34,934 6,949 55,100 20,600 Intergovernmental Payments 10,645 - - - - Nonrecurring Professional Services - - - - 200,000 Total Administrative Division $ 319,764 $ 308,016 $ 224,885 $ 290,883 $ 461,094 58 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Community&Economic Development Dept: 051 Economic Development Division 2015 Budget The Economic Development Division will work closely with the City Manager to pursue economic development strategies which attract and retain businesses within the City. Staff develop collaborative relationships with businesses and economic development partners,use technology to support ED programs,building marketing plans,pursue infrastructure improvements and promote the City to businesses and visitors. Goals for 2015 • Continue to collaborate with economic development partners • Develop a business recruitment system • Pursue infrastructure improvements to foster economic development • Develop a business recruitment system • Develop a marketing plan • Develop GIS system to promote economic development applications Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Engineer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Senior Planner-CD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 E.D.Project Specialist 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Total FTEs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Budget Detail Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 274,776 Supplies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 1,000 Services&Charges 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ 22,500 Intergovernmental Payments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Total Administrative Division $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 298,276 59 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Community&Economic Development Dept: 055/056 Development Services Division 2015 Budget The Development Services Division is new to the City as of 2015 and reflects the consolidation of the Engineering and Planning Divisions of the Community and Economic Development Department. The Development Services Division is responsible for providing professional policy guidance to the City Council and Planning Commission on such issues as land use,access management,shoreline Management Act,annexation,growth targets,water quality, public works issues and more. Staff is responsible for processing land use and home business permits,reviewing environmentally sensitive areas,for the review and inspection of stormwater management in private development, reviewing access management and other public works improvements in private development applications, administering the State Environmental Protection Act. Accomplishments for 2014 • Continued to work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Updated Development Engineering's Webpage. • Submitted Forker Draw Floodplain Restudy to FEMA for review • Assisted in development of Regional LID guidance manual • Continued work on the Shoreline Master Program. • Continued to work on Economic Development issues for the City. • Continued work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Continued to work on code enforcement procedure manual update with legal office. • Continued participation in the County's UGA update process • Completed the 2014 Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. Goals for 2015 • Continue worked on Regional Low Impact Development Standards • Work on Floodplain Revisions • Develop a historic preservation program • Continue work on the City's Certified Sites Program • Complete the Shoreline Master Program. • Begin state requirement update of Comprehensive Plan • Continue work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Developers Forums • 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. • CBDG-Identify Sidewalk projects • Review of Municipal Code for updates Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Development Services Manager 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Engineer 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 Assistant Engineer 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Senior Planner 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Planner 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Maint/Construction Inspector 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Code Enforcement Officer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 ROW Inspector 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Senior Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Engineering Technician 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.0 Total FTEs 3.5 3.5 5.50 5.50 11.00 Budget Detail Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 1,175,949 $ 1,265,080 $ 1,488,268 $ 1,487,320 $ 1,122,644 Supplies 13,058 7,139 15,830 21,050 21,050 Services&Charges 134,373 256,321 287,985 227,650 281,250 Intergovernmental Payments 56,039 7,764 8,287 - - Total Engineering Division $ 1,379,419 $ 1,536,304 $ 1,800,370 $ 1,736,020 $ 1,424,944 60 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Community&Economic Development Dept: 057 Building Division 2015 Budget The Building Division implements the Washington State Building Code. This Division is responsible for ensuring that buildings and structures comply with adopted building codes through technical plan review and inspection services. The Permit Center receives applications and coordinates the review and processing of permits. Code compliance staff enforce zoning and building regulations on a complaint-driven basis. ROW inspection program provides inspection services to assure the compliance with the RPCP and the durability and safety of work done in the public ROW. Accomplishments for 2014 • Continue work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Maintained partnering efforts with Spokane and Spokane County. • Developed web-access for permit system. • Developed department reports. Goals for 2015 • Continue work on permit process and customer service improvement plan. • Maintain partnering efforts with Spokane and Spokane County. • Expand on-line permit system. • Continue coordinate on Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan • Continue to develop reports for web-access permitting system Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Building Official 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Building Inspector II 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Planner 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Development Service Coordinator 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Engineering Tech 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Permit Facilitator 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Plans Examiner 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 1.0 Senior Plans Examiner 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Assistant Planner 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Code Enforcement Officer BP 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Construction Inspector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maint/Const Inspector(ROW) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Senior Permit Specialist 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Total FTEs 12.75 12.75 11.50 12.50 14.00 Budget Detail Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 993,267 $ 1,021,199 $ 932,662 $ 1,136,956 $ 1,288,902 Supplies 22,516 21,645 20,139 28,200 28,200 Services&Charges 54,403 94,541 55,969 102,500 63,800 Intergovernmental Payments 18,629 - - - - Capital Outlays 64,309 86,384 - - - Interfund Charges - 3,668 - - - Total Building Division $ 1,153,124 $ 1,227,437 $ 1,008,770 $ 1,267,656 $ 1,380,902 61 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2015 Budget The Parks and Recreation Department is composed of six divisions including Administration, Maintenance, Recreation,Aquatics, Senior Center,and CenterPlace. The overall goal of the department is to provide quality recreation programs and acquisition, renovation,development,operation and maintenance of parks and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities. 000-Parks Administration Division The Administration Division provides direction and leadership for the Parks and Recreation Department in implementing the goals and objectives of the City Council and facilitates the general upkeep of parks and public areas of the City. Accomplishments for 2014 • Completed development of Browns Park Master Plan. • Completed renovation to Discovery Playground. • Completed the Edgecliff Park Sanitary Sewer project. • Completed the addition of a new picnic shelter at Edgecliff Park. • Finalized the Centennial Trail maintenance agreement. • Completed Appleway Trail RCO Grant application. Goals for 2015 • Construct four new sand volleyball courts at Browns Park. • Design and construct pocket dog park at Valley Mission Park. • Assume maintenance of Phase 2 of the Appleway Trail. • Pursue land acquisitions for priority facilities such as disc golf,skateboard park,etc. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Parks&Recreation Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 195,308 $ 204,362 $ 212,067 $ 222,343 $ 228,697 Supplies 32,474 17,641 33,927 8,450 8,450 Services&Charges 670,565 775,139 852,875 42,300 64,200 Intergovernmental Services 10,208 12,550 - 13,000 11,000 Interfund Transfer 7,000 - - -Capital Outlays - 6,545 - - - TotalParksAdministration $ 915,555 $ 1,016,237 $ 1,098,869 $ 286,093 $ 312,347 62 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2015 Budget 300-Maintenance Division The Parks Maintenance Division is responsible for the contracted maintenance and upkeep of our parks and public areas including the Centennial Trail. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Supplies 4,608 12,133 27,500 10,000 20,000 Services&Charges 651,591 738,636 761,500 786,200 824,642 Total Parks Maintenance $ 656,199 $ 750,769 $ 789,000 $ 796,200 $ 844,642 63 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2015 Budget 301 -Recreation Division The Recreation Division coordinates and facilitates the delivery of recreation programs and service throughout the City and the City's Park system. Accomplishments for 2014 • Utilized The Inlander racks in Spokane Valley&Liberty Lake to distribute the Spring/Summer Recreation Brochure. • Continued to work with local partners to provide successful programs and events such as Breakfast with Santa with the Rotary and Sand Volleyball Tournaments and leagues with Evergreen Volleyball Association. • Offered a successful Winter Break Day Camp at CenterPlace Regional Event Center. • Developed a Sponsorship pacet for the Summer Outdoor Movies. Goals for 2015 • Continue to provide quality recreation programs for the Spokane Valley Community. • Research creative means tp market and promote Recreation Programs&Events. • Actively look for sponsorship opportunities within the Community in regards to the Summer Outdoor Movies. • Produce more marketing materials in house with desktop publishing software. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Recreation Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 137,379 $ 131,218 $ 151,084 $ 156,702 $ 153,924 Supplies 4,688 4,220 5,760 5,350 7,750 Services&Charges 65,087 72,578 54,381 67,100 64,500 Interfund Charges - - - - - Total Recreation Division $ 207,154 $ 208,016 $ 211,225 $ 229,152 $ 226,174 64 Fund: 001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2015 Budget 302-Aquatics Division The City of Spokane Valley owns three pools: Park Road Pool,Terrace View Pool,and Valley Mission Pool. Services include open swim,swim lessons,swim team and facility rentals. In addition, the City leases a portion of Valley Mission Park to Splashdown Inc.for a water park. The City currently is contracting with the YMCA for all aquatic activities within the City. The YMCA provides the lifeguards and maintains the pools during the season. Accomplishments for 2014 • Completed the painting of the Park Road Pool tank. • Continued with the sales of merchandise options to the pools as an additional source of revenue. • Updated pool and feature rules and made them easily accessible online. • Expanded fitness opportunities by adding Triatholon Training and morining Lap Swim to maximize pool usage. Goals for 2015 • Maintain full summer swimming program. • Research Wifi capabilities at our outdoor pool facilities. • Paint the Valley Mission Pool tank. • Research marketing opportunities to more effectively promote the outdoor pools. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Detail Supplies $ 1,947 $ 5,053 $ 9,081 $ 2,500 $ 7,200 Services&Charges 446,067 434,242 469,765 487,900 489,000 Intergovernmental Services - - - - Total Aquatics Division $ 448,014 $ 439,295 $ 478,846 $ 490,400 $ 496,200 65 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2015 Budget 304-Senior Center Division The City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department assumed operational control of the Valley Senior Center in 2003. Accomplishments for 2014 • Continued Resource Fair for Seniors and their families; over 53 vendors and 350+attendees. • Continued relationship with Aging and Long Term Care of Washington to provide volunteer on site at senior center to provide information on variuous health plans. • Continued to add resource and referral information for volunteer reception desk availability. • Established a relationship with retirement communities by attending monthly Director meetings. Goals for 2015 • Offer more Tuesday evening classes in the Senior Wing of CenterPlace. • Continue relationship with YMCA to offer reduced daily rates for senior center members. • Develop and foster relationship with Walgreens to bring phamacy students to counsel seniors on medications,provide blood pressure checks and offering flu shots. • Research and develop class for seniors needing help with IT issues. • Work closely with the Parks&Recreation Director on programs being offered to seniors. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Senior Center Specialist 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTEs 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Intern 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 72,601 $ 78,209 $ 77,018 $ 81,682 $ 84,285 Supplies 960 2,855 2,157 2,500 2,500 Services&Charges 2,779 5,133 1,897 5,700 5,200 Capital Outlay - - - - - Total Senior Center Division $ 76,340 $ 86,197 $ 81,072 $ 89,882 $ 91,985 66 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 076 Parks&Recreation 2015 Budget 305-CenterPlace Division Construction of Mirabeau Point CenterPlace began in late 2003,and was completed mid-year 2005.The project represented the culmination of eight years of planning and fundraising by Mirabeau Point Inc.and the joint involvement of the City and Spokane County. The approximately 54,000 square foot facility houses the City of Spokane Valley Senior Center,a great room/banquet facility,numerous meeting rooms,multi-purpose rooms and high tech lecture hall. The facility combines with Mirabeau Meadows Parks and Mirabeau Springs to form a regional focal point for northeast Washington and Northern Idaho. Accomplishments for 2014 • Improved tracking of events and revenue generated from them. • Installed digital informational monitor on the second floor to assist visitors. • Replaced reception area carpet. • Continued to replace incandescent and CFL fitures to LED technology to lower utility costs. • Created better defined job duties of part-time event staff to ensure consistency in performance. Goal for 2015 • Continue implementing suggestions from Marketing Plan. • Recarpet Lounge. • Begin to address the roof leakage issues. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Customer Relations/Facilities Coo 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Office Assistant I 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Custodian 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maintenance Worker 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Total FTEs 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits $ 339,744 $ 389,547 $ 393,283 $ 420,115 $ 435,609 Supplies 59,756 57,236 59,994 64,187 66,963 Services&Charges 260,998 316,954 311,503 344,540 322,425 Capital Outlays 328,311 317,000 - - - Total CenterPlace Division $ 988,809 $ 1,080,737 $ 764,780 $ 828,842 $ 824,997 67 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept:090 General Government 2015 Budget The General Government Department accounts for those activities that are not specific to the functions of any particular General Fund Department or operation. Expenditures recorded here are composed of City Hall rent and related utilities; information technology equipment and services;capital costs that benefit more than one department;support of agencies external to the City that provide social service programs and economic development services;and transfers to other City funds for property/casualty insurance premiums(Fund#502),park capital projects(Fund#309)and the pavement preservation program(Fund#311). Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Supplies PEG COSV Small tools&Minor Equip 0 329 336 100 500 Business Registrations 1,292 1,288 293 2,000 1,500 Employee Recognition-Operating Supplies 25 0 13 3,000 3,000 Employee Recognition&Safety Program 1,694 347 1,925 0 0 Office&Operating Supplies 0 158 937 0 0 Small Tools&Minor Equipment 1,629 8,081 4,114 2,500 2,600 Non Capital Office Furniture&Equipment 0 526 0 0 0 Computer Hardware-Non Capital 0 0 35,165 23,000 27,250 Computer Software-Non Capital 0 0 6,519 31,800 20,800 Non Capital Computer Software/Hardware 35,941 22,568 0 0 0 Fuel 763 0 3 0 0 Office&Operating Supplies 9,229 4,504 10,313 15,000 15,000 50,573 37,801 59,618 77,400 70,650 Other Services&Charges Broadcasting Council Meeting 45,725 0 0 0 0 Professional Services-Misc Studies 0 0 87,229 150,000 150,000 Accounting&Auditing 68,336 69,161 70,119 90,000 80,000 Uncollectible Accounts Expense 2,054 2,288 0 0 0 Petty Cash Reimbursement 11 0 0 0 0 Advertising 169 0 0 0 0 Postage 3,626 3,993 1,168 5,000 1,500 Telephone Service 23,845 29,196 9,088 18,500 17,000 Cell Phones 0 0 1,561 0 1,600 Internet Service 0 0 13,994 18,100 12,500 City Wide Records Management 3,300 3,610 0 10,000 10,000 City Hall Rent 461,208 478,324 425,246 416,000 430,000 Facility Repairs&Maintenance 381 583 1,430 5,000 5,000 Equip Repair&Maint-Hardware Support 25,680 23,083 23,457 36,500 35,200 IT Support 96,059 75,225 71,221 28,500 33,800 Software Licenses&Maintenance 68,706 70,737 90,502 78,600 76,650 Equip Rental 0 0 3,300 0 3,300 PEG Reimburse-CMN 28,988 12,305 0 0 0 Printing&Binding 0 343 432 0 0 Miscellaneous Services 10,872 7,045 5,938 15,000 10,000 Merchant Charges(Bankcard Fees) 9,927 1,492 1,347 2,500 2,000 EECBG Utilities Partnering Program 12,947 20,383 0 0 0 Vehicle Rental 4,130 7,000 1,559 7,000 2,000 General Operating Leases:Computer 45,559 52,842 41,039 39,600 42,000 Economic Development-Site Selector 9,179 9,197 8,813 11,000 10,000 Professional Services-Economic Devel. 83,352 100,340 89,041 82,500 88,000 City Economic Development 1,375 88,230 202,430 200,000 200,000 Professional Services-Social Services 67,961 49,095 55,809 67,500 62,000 Alcohol Treatment:Liquor Excise Tax 8,750 4,516 1,213 0 0 Alcohol Treatment:Liquor Profits 12,512 17,977 16,279 20,000 20,000 Prior Period Adjustment 0 (163,322) 0 0 0 $ 1,094,652 $ 963,643 $ 1,222,215 $ 1,301,300 $ 1,292,550 68 Fund:001 General Fund Spokane Valley Dept: 090 General Government 2015 Budget Budget Summary cont. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Intergovernmental Services Election Costs 50,184 0 85,304 57,000 86,000 Voter Registration 79,252 86,132 87,964 87,000 90,000 Taxes and assessments 8,536 6,006 7,278 8,600 7,500 Spokane County Air Pollution Authority 114,941 115,569 115,720 117,000 117,000 252,913 207,707 296,266 269,600 300,500 Capital Outlays PEG COSV Broadcast-Office Furn. 13,330 0 2,131 0 0 PEG COSV Broadcast-Software/hardware 47,095 24,232 24,936 33,300 31,000 PEG COSV Broadcast-Communication 5,357 0 0 0 0 Copy Machine 0 21,523 0 20,000 0 Office Furniture&Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Software/Hardware 22,121 3,063 0 0 0 IT capital replacement 0 0 0 0 145,000 Compuer Hardware-Capital 0 0 15,035 40,000 46,500 Construction-Pavement Preservation 0 0 0 0 0 87,903 48,818 42,102 93,300 222,500 Debt Service:Principal Interest and Other Debt Service Costs (952) 444 301 0 0 Interfund Payments for Service Transfer out-#106(solid waste educ.) 0 0 0 60,000 0 Transfer out-#303(street const prof) 551,730 0 0 0 0 Transfer out-#309(park capital prof) 100,000 106,250 50,000 247,500 100,000 Transfer out-#310(bond pmt>$434.6 lease, 0 0 0 0 67,600 Transfer out-#310(city hall o&m costs) 0 0 0 0 271,700 Transfer out-#311 (pvmnt preservation) 1,084,681 2,045,203 855,857 888,823 920,000 Transfer out-#312(capital reserve fund) 0 0 7,826,207 2,443,507 0 Transfer out-#502(risk management) 319,000 319,000 319,000 325,000 325,000 2,055,411 2,470,453 9,051,064 3,964,830 1,684,300 Miscellaneous SCRAPS pass through 0 0 0 56,600 0 Supplies-10th Anniversary 0 0 3,818 0 0 Advertising-10th Anniversary 0 257 12,030 0 0 0 257 15,848 56,600 0 Total Governmental Division $ 3,540,500 $ 3,729,123 $ 10,687,414 $ 5,763,030 $ 3,570,500 69 Fund:101 Street Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The Street Fund was established to account for the activities associated with the provision of efficient and safe movement of both motorized and nonmotorized vehicles,as well as pedestrians within the limits of the City,and coordinate convenient coordinate convenient interconnect to the regional transportation system. Maintenace work includes snow and ice control, street pavement repairs,traffic signals and signs,landscaping and vegetation control and many other street maintenance and repair activities. Accomplishments for 2014 • Received grant funding for highway safety improvement projects • Developed and implemented a fleet maintenance program • Implemented signing to designate bicycle routes • Installed radar feedback speed signs and rectangular flashing beacons on Mission at Splashdown • Renewed contracts with private contracts for street maintenance services • Continue to improve the efficiency of snow and ice operations • Developed an Invitation to Bid for the Street&Stormwater Maintenance Contract • Solicited bids,and selected a contractor to perform Street and Stormwater Maintenance activities Goals for 2015 • Optimize traffic signals on selected corridors • Apply for grants and work with various schools to install flashing beacons at crosswalks. • Renew Contracts with private contractors for street maintenance services. • Continue to define and implement a fleet maintenance program Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Senior Engineer-Traffic 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.000 Public Works Superintendent 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.000 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.350 Assistant Engineer-Traffic/Planning 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.000 Planning Grants Engineer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.375 0.375 Total FTEs 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.375 5.725 Interns 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 • For 0.5 FTE of the 2 FTEs,only 50%is budgeted to the Street Fund with the balance budgeted as part of the capital project funds Revenues Utility Tax 2,880,963 2,735,469 2,562,722 2,750,000 2,565,100 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 1,857,708 1,846,990 1,868,055 1,858,600 1,859,900 Investment Interest 5,252 4,056 2,920 3,000 3,000 Grants 431,001 203,185 172,530 0 0 Transfers in 90,750 7,614 27,375 0 0 Miscellaneous 59,081 34,429 14,701 0 10,000 Total revenues 5,324,755 4,831,743 4,648,303 4,611,600 4,438,000 Expenditures Wages,Payroll Taxes&Benefits 435,510 572,349 582,013 627,288 677,297 Supplies 133,188 141,776 108,110 91,500 111,500 Services&Charges 2,489,348 2,361,014 2,152,294 2,167,201 2,122,808 Snow Operation 587,427 591,390 485,717 520,000 520,000 Intergovernmental Payments 712,919 723,305 797,275 798,000 748,000 Transfers out-#101 25,000 39,600 39,700 39,700 39,700 Transfers out-#311 (pvmnt pres) 0 0 282,000 282,000 206,618 Transfers out-#501 (non-plow) 0 10,777 10,777 10,777 12,077 Transfers out-#501 (plow replace) 0 100,000 150,000 75,000 0 Capital construction and equipment 1,527,830 552,829 205,621 106,580 53,000 Total expenditures 5,911,222 5,093,040 4,813,507 4,718,046 4,491,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures (586,467) (261,297) (165,204) (106,446) (53,000) Beginning fund balance 3,076,202 2,489,735 2,228,438 2,063,234 1,956,788 Ending fund balance $ 2,489,735 $ 2,228,438 $ 2,063,234 $ 1,956,788 $ 1,903,788 70 Fund:103 Paths&Trails Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The State of Washington collects a$.375 per gallon motor vehicle fuel tax at the pump and remits$.0296 of the tax back to cities on a per capita basis. For 2015 the Municipal Research and Services Center estimates the distribution back to cities will be$20.29 per person. Based upon a City of Spokane Valley population of 92,050 (per the Washington State Office of Financial Management on April 1,2014)we anticipate the City will collect $1,867,700 in 2015. RCW 47.030.050 specifies that.42%of this tax must be expended for the construction of paths and trails and based upon the 2015 revenue estimate. This computes to$7,800. The balance or$1,859,900 will be credited to Fund#101 for Street maintenance and operations. The portion of the motor vehicle tax allocated to the Paths and Trails Fund is by State Law restricted for the construction and/or improvement of paths and trails withing the City. Because the cost of such projects is typically much greater than the funds generated in a single year we typically leave the fund balance untouched until an adequate fund balance is available. In 2014 the City transferred$50,000 to Park Capital Projects Fund#309 to be applied twoards the Phase 2 Appleway Trail Project from University to Pines. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Moter Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 7,835 7,790 7,879 7,800 7,800 Investment Interest 63 67 51 0 0 Total revenues 7,898 7,857 7,930 7,800 7,800 Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers out- #309 0 0 0 50,000 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 50,000 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,898 7,857 7,930 (42,200) 7,800 Beginning fund balance 48,186 56,084 63,941 71,871 29,671 Ending fund balance $ 56,084 $ 63,941 $ 71,871 $ 29,671 $ 37,471 Fund: 105 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The Hotel/Motel Fund accounts for the receipt and expenditure of a special excise tax of two percent on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging under RCW 82.08. These funds will be used solely for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of tourist promotion,acquisition or operation of tourism-related facilities,and marketing of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 457,603 490,004 518,672 530,000 510,000 Investment Interest 455 592 387 300 300 Total revenues 458,058 490,596 519,059 530,300 510,300 Expenditures Tourism Promotion 472,482 511,756 458,904 547,000 570,000 Transfers out- #001 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Total expenditures 472,482 541,756 488,904 577,000 600,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures (14,424) (51,160) 30,155 (46,700) (89,700) Beginning fund balance 272,356 257,932 206,772 236,927 190,227 Ending fund balance $ 257,932 $ 206,772 $ 236,927 $ 190,227 $ 100,527 71 Fund:106 Solid Waste Spokane Valley 2015 Budget In 2003,the City of Spokane Valley entered into an interolocal agreement with the City of Spokane and Spokane County to join the existing Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System for a period of eight years. In 2011,that agreement was extended through November 16,2014. Committed to ensuring Spokane Valley citizens are provided with solid waste services that are affordable,sustainable, and environmentally responsible,in June 2014 the City of Spokane Valley opted to contract for solid waste transfer, transport and disposal services with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc.Services provided under the contract are effective November 17,2014 and continue for a period of ten years with options for two three-year extensions. Terms of the contract require Sunshine to pay the City an annual administrative fee of$125,000 that will be used by the City to offset contract administrative costs and solid waste management within the city,including solid waste public educational efforts. The contract also provides that a road maintenance fee will be paid by Sunshine at the rate of$1 per ton for each ton in excess of 45,500 tons in a single contract year. Payments will be made to the City by March 31 of the year following the calendar year being measured. Assuming the total tonnage in 2015 exceeds 45,500 we would expect our first payment from Sunshine by March 31,2016. The contract with Sunshine Recyclers does not include curbside pickup which remains optional for citizens and is available by subscription through Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal, Inc. The 2014 transfer-in of$60,000 from General Fund#001 was for the purpose of providing information materials and marketing necessary to inform residents and businesses of the change in the solid waste transfer,transport and disposal. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Sunshine administrative fee 0 0 0 0 125,000 Road maintenance fee 0 0 0 0 0 Investment interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60,000 0 Total revenues 0 0 0 60,000 125,000 Expenditures Education&Contract Admiistration 0 0 0 60,000 125,000 Transfers our-#001 (reimbursement 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 60,000 125,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 0 0 72 Fund: 120 Center Place Operating Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund was established as a result of covenant related to the issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds initially issued in 2003 and refunded in 2014. The bonds were issued for the purpose of constructing the CenterPlace facility. As a part of the bond issuance the City agreed to establish a$300,000 operating reserve account that could be used to make debt service payments on the bonds and/or pay for operating expenses of CenterPlace. If at any time the City were to draw on these reserves it would have to prepare and follow a plan for reinstatement of those funds drawn. This reserve is required to be in place for the life of the or through December 1,2033. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Investment Interest 556 0 0 0 0 Transfers-in 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 556 0 0 0 0 Expenditures Operations 0 0 50,787 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 50,787 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 556 0 (50,787) 0 0 Beginning fund balance 350,231 350,787 350,787 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance $ 350,787 $ 350,787 $ 300,000 300,000 300,000 Fund: 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The City has committed to maintaining a General Fund fund balance of at least 50%of recurring expenditures which is equivalent to 6-months of operations. The Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund serves as an emergency source of temporary financing to the General Fund in the event a downturn in the local economy resulted in a reduction of revenues that would otherwise compromise either the General Fund's minimum 50%reserve balance or historical levels of service. If an event such as a downturn in the economy resulted in the General Fund balance dropping below 50%of recurring expenditures,then the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund could be drawn against to maintain the fund balance minimum. In no event would the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund be reduced to less than 60%of the current $5.4 million balance or$3.24 million. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Investment Interest 8,632 9,103 6,971 7,300 8,200 Transfer-in 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 8,632 9,103 6,971 7,300 8,200 Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures 8,632 9,103 6,971 7,300 8,200 Beginning fund balance 5,423,796 5,432,428 5,441,531 5,448,502 5,455,802 Ending fund balance $ 5,432,428 $ 5,441,531 $ 5,448,502 $ 5,455,802 $ 5,464,002 73 Fund: 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The Winter Weather Reserve Fund was established to provide an emergency reserve for use during unusually harsh winters where the Street Fund#101 budget and fund balance are inadequate to accommodate the amount of snow plowing that may be necessary. In the event the City draws against this fund in any given winter we will strive to replenish the balance back to approximately$500,000 through subsequent years transfers from Fund#101. Due to the uncertainty of when this fund might be drawn upon we actually budget the same$500,000 in both 2014 and 2015 even though we recognize there exists only$500,000 to address this issue if it should arise. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Investment Interest 837 883 677 700 800 Transfer-in 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 837 883 677 700 800 Expenditures Snow removal 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 Total expenditures 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures 837 883 677 (499,300) (499,200) Beginning fund balance 501,168 502,005 502,888 503,565 503,565 Ending fund balance $ 502,005 $ 502,888 $ 503,565 $ 4,265 $ 4,365 Fund: 123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget This fund was initially created to set aside money for the eventual replacement of CenterPlace and the police precinct building located on on east Sprague Avenue and the source of funds had in prior years been an annual transfer from the General Fund. Beginning in 2013 however the City made the decision to no longer set money aside in this fund for future building replacements and instead decided to commit the entire fund balance of Fund#123 to a pavement program that is operated through Pavement Preservation Fund#311. This is in recognition of the fact that addressing deteriorating streets in a timely manner is a much higher priority in the present than setting money aside for buildings that will need replaced in the distant future. It was the City's conclusion that to both set money aside for the replacement of CenterPlace now while at the same time repaying the 2014 LTGO bonds(see Fund#204 discussion)that were issued to finance the construction of CenterPlace is essentially asking the same generation of taxpayers/citizens to pay for the same structure twice-the initial construction and the replacement. Based upon the$2.4 million fund balance that existed at the end of 2012,we estimate we can sustain a tranfer of $616,284 through approximately 2016 or for a total of four years. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Investment Interest 1,989 2,099 1,608 1,700 1,300 Transfers in-#001 394,600 397,000 0 0 0 Total revenues 396,589 399,099 1,608 1,700 1,300 Expenditures Transfers out-#311 0 0 616,284 616,284 616,284 Total expenditures 0 0 616,284 616,284 616,284 Revenues over(under)expenditures 396,589 399,099 (614,676) (614,584) (614,984) Beginning fund balance 1,608,259 2,004,848 2,403,947 1,789,271 1,174,687 Ending fund balance $ 2,004,848 $ 2,403,947 $ 1,789,271 $ 1,174,687 $ 559,703 74 Fund:204 Limited Tax General Obligation(LTGO)Bond-Debt Service Fund Spokane Valley I2015 Budget This fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for,and the payment of limited tax general obligation(LTGO) bonds also referred to as councilmanic or nonvoted bonds. When LTGO bonds are issued the City irrevocably pledges the full faith,credit and resources necessary to make timely payments of principal,and interest,within constitutional and statutory limitations pertaining to non-voted general obligations. In 2003 the City issued$9,430,000 in LTGO bonds,the proceeds of which were used to finance both the construction of CenterPlace and road and street improvements surrounding the facility. In 2014 the City refunded the LTGO bonds in order to take advantage of lower interest rates which resulted in a reduction in subsequent annual bond payments(much like refinancing a home mortgage). At the completion of the bond refunding there remained$7,035,000 of LTGO bonds. Of this total: • $5,650,000 remains on the original debt used towards the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 20-year period ending December 1,2033. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by the Spokane Public Facilities District. At January 1,2015 the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be$5,425,000. • $1,385,000 remains on the original debt used towards the road and street improvements. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 10-year period ending December 1,2023. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by equal distributions from the 1st and 2nd quarter percent real estate excise tax(Funds 301 and 302). At January 1,2015 the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be$1,250,000. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 427,120 432,320 437,120 441,520 373,800 2014 LTGO Bond issue proceeds 7,661,000 0 Transfers in-#301 92,252 92,651 92,951 93,152 82,150 Transfers in-#302 92,251 92,652 92,952 93,151 82,150 Total revenues 611,623 617,623 623,023 8,288,823 538,100 Expenditures Debt Service Payment-CenterPlace 427,470 432,531 437,120 441,520 373,800 Debt Service Payment-Roads 184,153 185,092 185,903 186,303 164,300 2003 LTGO Bond retirement 0 0 0 7,549,000 0 2014 LTGO Bond issue costs 0 0 0 112,000 0 Total expenditures 611,623 617,623 623,023 8,288,823 538,100 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 0 0 75 Fund:301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget This fund is used to account for the collection and expenditures of the first one-quarter of one-percent real estate excise tax (REET 1)that is authorized through RCW 82.46. This quarter percent must be expended for purposes identified in the capital facilities plan element of our comprehensive plan. RCW 82.46.010(6),defines"capital projects"as: those public works projects of a local government for planning,acquisition,construction,reconstruction,repiar, replacement,rehabilitation,or improvement of streets;roads;highways;sidewalks;street and road lighting systems; traffic signals;bridges;domestic water systems;storm and sanitary sewer systems;parks;recreational facilities;law enforcement facilities;fire protection facilities;trails;libraries;administrative and judicial facilities. Revenues recorded in this fund are typically used as a matching fund for street related construction projects that are accounted for in Street Capital Projects Fund#303, Pavement Preservation Fund#311,and to pay for a portion of the annual bond payment on the City's 2014 LTGO bonds that are accounted for in Fund#204-LTGO Debt Service Fund. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues REET 1-Taxes 481,623 654,264 707,104 600,000 625,000 Investment Interest 1,518 1,204 1,138 1,000 1,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 0 9,600 0 0 0 Total revenues 483,141 665,068 708,242 601,000 626,000 Expenditures Intergovernmental Services 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers out-#204 92,251 92,651 92,951 93,152 82,150 Transfersout-#303 278,105 253,429 589,534 275,575 221,980 Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation 0 0 150,000 184,472 251,049 Interfund Transfers 133,588 (1,203) 0 0 0 Total expenditures 503,944 344,877 832,485 553,199 555,179 Revenues over(under)expenditures (20,803) 320,191 (124,243) 47,801 70,821 Beginning fund balance 792,876 772,073 1,092,264 968,021 1,015,822 Ending fund balance $ 772,073 $ 1,092,264 $ 968,021 $ 1,015,822 $ 1,086,643 76 Fund:302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget This fund is used to account for the collection and expenditures of the second one-quarter of one-percent real estate excise tax(REET 2)that is authorized through RCW 82.46. This quarter percent may be only be levied by cities that are planning under the Growth Management Act and may only be expended for purposes identified in the capital facilities plan element of their comprehensive plan. RCW 82.46.035(5)defines"capital projects"as: public works projects of a local government for planning,acquisition,construction,reconstruction,repair,replacement, rehabilitation,or improvement of streets,roads,highways,sidewalks,street and road lighting systems,traffic signals, bridges,domestic water systems,storm and sanitary sewer systems,and planning,construction,reconstruction, repair,rehabilitation,or improvement of parks. Noteworthy here is that acquisition of land for parks is not a permitted use of REET 2 receipts,although it is a permitted use for street,water and sewer projects. Revenues recorded in this fund are typically used as a matching fund for street related construction projects that are accounted for in Street Capital Projects Fund#303,Pavement Preservation Fund#311,and to pay for a portion of the annual bond payment on the City's 2014 LTGO bonds that are accounted for in Fund#204-LTGO Debt Service Fund. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues REET 2-Taxes 479,129 531,442 614,929 600,000 625,000 Investment Interest 1,732 1,762 1,349 1,000 1,000 Transfers in-#307 0 6,477 0 0 0 Total revenues 480,861 539,681 616,278 601,000 626,000 Expenditures Transfers out-#101 0 7,615 27,375 0 0 Transfers out-#204 92,251 92,651 92,951 93,151 82,150 Transfersout-#303 1,045,677 1,112,518 153,243 599,097 365,290 Transfers out-#307 45,714 (173,470) 0 0 0 Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservatiot 0 0 150,000 184,472 251,049 1,183,642 1,039,314 423,570 876,720 698,489 Revenues over(under)expenditures (702,781) (499,633) 192,708 (275,720) (72,489) Beginning fund balance 2,333,084 1,630,303 1,130,670 1,323,378 1,047,658 Ending fund balance $ 1,630,303 $ 1,130,670 $ 1,323,378 $ 1,047,658 $ 975,169 77 Fund:303 Street Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The Street Capital Projects Fund accounts for monies used to finance street construction and reconstruction projects adopted in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP). Revenues to finance the projects comes from a combination of State and Federal Grants which typically cover upwards of 80q of projects costs with the City match portion coming from transfers from the REET 1 Capital Projects Fund#301,REET 2 Capital Projects Fund#302 and sometimes Stormwater Management Fund#402. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Grant Proceeds 3,297,974 3,826,042 2,870,539 8,324,808 8,714,114 Developer Contribution 91,268 760,768 0 166,020 94,860 Miscellaneous 209,037 1,650 78 0 0 WSDOT-Safe Routes 0 26,213 604,811 0 0 Transfers in-#001 551,730 64,750 0 0 0 Transfers in-#101 13,105 465,454 138 18,830 0 Transfers in-#102 8,502 207,447 0 0 0 Transfers in-#301 278,105 253,429 589,535 275,575 221,980 Transfers in-#302 1,045,677 1,112,518 153,243 599,097 365,290 Transfers in-#310 0 140,139 0 0 0 Transfers in-#311 0 299,027 77,720 0 0 Transfers in-#312 Appleway Landscaping 0 0 8,348 250,000 0 Transfers in-#312 Sullivan Rd W Bridge 0 0 0 200,000 2,120,000 Transfers in-#402 56,862 113,014 0 7,101 0 Total revenues 5,552,260 7,270,451 4,304,412 9,841,431 11,516,244 Expenditures Pines/Mansfield,Wilbur Rd.to Pines 22,742 43,725 228,275 0 0 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06-31 134,005 109,948 33,665 860,280 602,196 Pines(SR27)ITS Imporvement SRTC 06-26 3,090 196,503 1,000,462 10,000 0 Broadway Avenue Safety Project Pines-Park 804,028 1,747 0 0 0 Sprague/Sullivan PCC Intersection 1,510 (7,240) 0 0 0 Park Road-#2(PE Only)-Broadway to Indian 122,989 1,019 0 0 0 Indiana Ave.Extension-3600 1,358,038 53,791 3,877 0 0 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCC 1,252,581 1,435 96,313 0 0 Sprague Ave Resurfacing-Evergreen to Sullivai 44,359 2,825,759 11,799 0 0 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker 7,061 109 5,647 382,410 355,376 Park Rd RR Crosing Safety Improvements 25,838 0 0 0 0 Sullivan&Euclid PCC 25,923 8,720 0 123,090 35,052 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 42,887 1,255 73,792 50,000 0 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 3,778 3,834 429 100,000 0 24th Ave Sidewalk-Adams to Sullivan 1,696 43,091 270,962 0 0 Greenacres Trail-Design 44,787 2,815 0 0 0 In-House Design-Sidewalk Infill 7,851 529,155 187,148 364,425 0 Sidewalk&Tansit Stop Accessibility 9,500 233,859 4,991 0 0 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 54,386 949,390 819,702 4,000,000 7,201,779 Mansfield Ave.Connection 477 21,996 137,578 1,158,727 570,480 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Temp Repairs 1,950 192,039 0 0 0 University Rd/1-90 Overpass Study 0 5,336 170,805 50,000 0 Evergreen-16th to 32nd reconstruction 0 1,677,723 1,069 0 0 Pines Rd(SR27)&Grace Ave.Intersect study 0 0 28,093 538,850 556,137 City wide safety improvements 0 841 1,722 341,928 320,560 Wellesley Ave&Adams rd sidewalk 0 27,137 638,773 30,000 0 Argonne/Mullan corridor safety-Indiana to Bror 0 0 53,463 0 0 Argonne Rd-Empire to Knox 0 0 118,990 0 0 Sprague ave ADA sdwlk improvement(Havana 0 10,429 100,316 0 0 Sullivan UP Tracks UC(SB)Resurfacing 0 0 175,955 0 0 Appleway Trail Design 0 0 103,303 0 0 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 0 0 38,139 100,000 0 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 0 0 100,956 50,000 0 Appleway Landscaping-Phase 1 0 0 8,348 250,000 0 Vista Rd BNSF Xing Safety 0 0 4,880 0 0 8th Avenue-McKinnon to Fancher 0 0 0 300,000 0 ITS Infill Project Phase 1(PE START 2014) 0 0 0 91,891 301,357 2015 CDBG Sidewalk Project 0 0 0 0 246,231 Indiana&Evergreen Transit Access Improv. 0 0 0 0 70,014 N.Sullivan Corridor ITS Proj(PE start 2015) 0 0 0 0 105,486 Alcazar Driveway Reconstruction 0 0 0 7,000 0 Trent Lighting Project 0 0 0 14,000 151,576 Sprague/Thierman Intersection 0 0 0 18,830 0 Contingency 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 STEP Projects(106,129,130,131,151,152) 1,375,147 231,763 236 0 0 Misc.Road Projects 207,447 0 814 0 0 Total expenditures 5,552,070 7,166,179 4,420,503 9,841,431 11,516,244 Revenues over(under)expenditures 190 104,272 (116,091) 0 0 Beginning fund balance 73,456 73,646 177,918 61,827 61,827 Ending fund balance $ 73,646 $ 177,918 $ 61,827 $ 61,827 $ 61,827 78 Fund: 309 Park Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The Parks Capital Projects Fund was created to account for park related capital improvements. Source of financing typically consists of an annual transfer from the General Fund#001, however in some years the City will utilize money set aside for capital projects in other funds. This occurred in 2014 when$50,000 was transferred from the Paths and Trails Fund#103 and Capital Reserve Fund#312 which was applied towards the Appleway Trail-University to Pines project. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Grant Proceeds 496,250 0 0 0 0 Transfers in-#001 (General Fund) 100,000 106,250 50,000 247,500 100,000 Transfers in-#103(Paths&Trails) 0 0 0 50,000 0 Transfers in-#312(Capital Reserve) 0 0 0 1,452,100 0 Investment Interest 1,735 848 660 500 500 Contributions and Donations 0 0 25,000 500 0 Total revenues 597,985 107,098 75,660 1,750,600 100,500 Expenditures 3 Sand volleyball courts at Browns Park 0 0 0 0 176,200 Pocket dog park 0 0 0 0 75,000 Mission Trailhead landscaping 0 0 0 0 25,000 2 Sand volleyball courts at Browns Park 0 0 0 0 0 Edgecliff picnic shelter 0 0 0 9,000 106,450 Discovery Playground equipment 0 0 16,172 51,400 0 Shade structure at Discovery Playground 0 0 0 0 38,000 City entry sign 0 0 0 0 70,000 Park signs(3) 0 0 0 22,500 0 Edgecliff sewer connection 0 0 0 13,000 0 Old Mission Trailhead 0 0 0 55,000 0 Appleway Trail-Phase 1 (Univ.to Pines) 0 0 0 1,502,100 0 Terrace View Park Play Equipment 0 166,932 0 0 0 CenterPlace S. Landscape Development 0 38,365 9,131 0 0 Greenacres Park 1,338,146 10,529 0 0 0 Terrace View Park Shelter 98,053 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 1,436,199 215,826 25,303 1,653,000 490,650 Revenues over(under)expenditures (838,214) (108,728) 50,357 97,600 (390,150) Beginning fund balance 1,249,364 411,150 302,422 352,779 450,379 Ending fund balance $ 411,150 $ 302,422 $ 352,779 $ 450,379 $ 60,229 79 Fund: 310 Civic Facility Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The Civic Building Capital Projects Fund was initially set-up to accumulate resources to ultimately acquire or construct a City Hall building. The initial sources of revenue to set-up the fund reserves were transfers from the General Fund during 2005 through 2007,and as recently as December 31,2009 this fund had a fund balance of$5,828,600. During 2010 and 2011 the City determined that street repairs and reconstruction represented a more immediate City need and opted to expend nearly$2,000,000 of the fund balance for these projects. The projects themselves were part of a septic tank elimination program (STEP)initiated by Spokane County that resulted in the installation of sewer lines down many City City streets. At that time the City decided to completely reconstruct the effected streets rather than patch them. In 2012 the City used this fund to finance a variety street related capital projects as well as the$2.5 million acquisition of an 8.4 acre parcel of land on Sprague Avenue that is adjacent to Balfour Park. Partially offsetting the cost of the land acquisition was the subsequent sale of 2.82 acres of this parcel to the Spokane County Library District who plans to construct a library building consisting of no less than 30,000 square feet. In order for the Library District to actually construct a new building on this site they must first have a successful voted bond issue to provide the necessary financing. In the event the Library District is unable to pass a bond by October 2017,they will sell the 2.82 acres parcel back to the City for the original purchase price of$839,285. In 2015 the General Fund will begin to make two annual transfers to this fund that are each related to the eventual construction of a new City Hall facility. • The first transfer in the amount of$67,600,when added to the City's$434,600 annual lease payment for space in its current space totals$502,200 which is the amount we currently anticipate our annual bond repayment would be if we were to issue$8,000,000 of limited tax general obligation bonds with a 2%issue cost over 30-years at 4.50%. • The second transfer is our current estimate of the annual operating costs of a City Hall facility including utilities, janitorial,grounds maintenance and snow removal,and operating and maintenance supplies. The purpose behind making these transfers beginning in 2015 is to"create"this appropriation capacity within the General Fund. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Investment Interest 8,609 5,349 1,771 1,900 1,200 Sale of Land 0 0 0 839,285 0 Miscellaneous 0 7,577 0 0 0 Transfers in-#001 -Future C.H.bond pmt>$434.6k lease': 0 0 0 0 67,600 -Future C.H.o&m costs 0 0 0 0 271,700 Total revenues 8,609 12,926 1,771 841,185 340,500 Expenditures West Gateway at Thierman 0 88,559 9,942 0 0 STEP-Greenhaven 0 67,737 0 0 0 STEP-48th&Sundown 0 72,402 0 0 0 Acquisition of Sprague Property 0 2,501,668 0 0 0 Sprague Property Acquisition costs 0 29,109 0 0 0 Professional services 0 0 0 30,000 0 Transfers out-#001 551,730 0 0 0 0 Transfers out-#311 500,000 0 0 0 0 Total expenditures 1,051,730 2,759,475 9,942 30,000 0 Revenues over(under)expenditures (1,043,121) (2,746,549) (8,171) 811,185 340,500 Beginning fund balance 4,899,744 3,856,623 1,110,074 1,101,903 1,913,088 Ending fund balance $ 3,856,623 $ 1,110,074 $ 1,101,903 $ 1,913,088 $ 2,253,588 80 Fund: 311 Pavement Preservation Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget This fund was created during the 2011 Budget development process for the purpose of setting money aside for yet to be determined street capital improvement projects. During the 2011 Budget the City Council opted to: • Mmake an iniital transfer of$500,000 from the Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund#310,and additionally transfer an amount equivalent to 40%of the General Fund's audited fund balance that exceeded$26,000,000 as of December 31,2010. The 2010 ending fund balance was$27,461,703 which resulted in an additional 2011 transfer of$584,681 ((=$27,461,703-$26,000,000)x 40%)bringing the total transfers to$1,084,681. there were no pavement preservation expenditures from this fund in 2011. • In the 2012 Budget the City Council opted to transfer 100%of the General Fund unreserved fund balance in excess of$26,000,000 to Fund#311 which computed out to$2,045,203(=$28,045,203-$26,000,000). Pavement preservation expenditures in 2012 totalled$2,181,451. • In the 2013 Budget development process the City committed to finance pavement preservation at a level equivalent to 6%of 2013 General Fund recurring expenditures which computed out to$2,054,141 (=$34,235,677 x 6%). This was funded with an appropriation of$855,857 directly from the General Fund plus an additional appropriation of $1,198,284 in Fund#311. Sources of financing for the fund#311 appropriation included transfers-in from Fund#101 of$282,000;#123 of$616,284;#301 of$150,000 and#302 of$150,000. With an additional$165,793 in grant revenue this brought total 2013 pavement preservation revenues to$2,219,934,which are anticipated to finance$2,904,313 in projects in 2013(=$855,587 in Fund#001 and$2,048,456 in Fund#311). • In the 2014 Budget development process the City again committed to finance pavement preservation at a level equivalent to 6%of General Fund recurring expenditures which computed out to$2,156,051 (=$35,934,187 x 6%). This was financed with transfers from a number of City funds including$888,823 from the General Fund#001, $282,000 from Fund#101;$616,284 from Fund#123;$184,472 from Fund#301 and$184,472 from Fund#302. With an additional$2,888,736 of grant revenue this brings anticipated 2014 pavement preservation revenues to $5,042,787. The 2015 Budget is anticipated to finance$3,916,386 of projects in 2014. • The 2015 Budget is again being developed to set aside City funds equivalent to 6%of General Fund recurring expenditures which computes out to$2,245,000(=$37,416,382 x 6%). This is being financed with transfers from a number of City funds including$920,0003 from the General Fund#001,$206,618 from Fund#101,$616,284 from Fund#123;$251,049 from Fund#301 and$251,049 from Fund#302. With an additional$971,032 of grant revenue this brings anticipated 2015 pavement preservation revenues to$3,216,032. The 2015 Budget is anticipated to finance$2,615,050 of projects in 2015. (continued to next page) 81 Fund: 311 Pavement Preservation Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget Setting aside City funds in an amount equivalent to 6%of General Fund expenditures through the aforementioned plan is sustainable for approximately 4-years(2013 through 2016),which will coincide with the ultimate exhaustion of the Fund#123 fund balance. Beyond that point,we anticipate the finanacial commitment to pavement preservation is sustainable at an annual level of no less than$1,628,716 including$920,000 from the General Fund#001;$206,618 from the Street Fund#101;$251,049 from the REET 1 Capital Projects Fund#301;and$251,049 from the REET 2 Capital Projects Fund#302. Beyond 2016 we will look towards increasing the REET 1 and 2 contributions towards the pavement preservation program and will also take advantage of grant programs directed at pavement preservation as they become available. Because this is a Capital Project Fund whose sole purpose is to provide for Pavement Preservation projects,any money not expended in a given year will remain in the fund and will be available for reappropriation in subsequent years. Please see the following page for a list of proposed/potential projects in 2015. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Transfers in-#001 584,681 2,045,203 0 888,823 920,000 Transfers in-#101 0 0 282,000 282,000 206,618 Transfers in-#123 0 0 616,284 616,284 616,284 Transfers in-#301 0 0 150,000 184,472 251,049 Transfers in-#302 0 0 150,000 184,472 251,049 Transfers in-#310 500,000 0 0 0 0 Investment Interest 0 0 2,750 0 0 Grants 0 0 35,945 2,886,736 971,032 Miscellaneous 0 300 50 0 0 Total revenues 1,084,681 2,045,503 1,237,029 5,042,787 3,216,032 Expenditures Pavement preservation 0 1,882,424 1,387,153 3,866,386 2,565,050 Pre-project GeoTech 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 Transfers out-#303-Sullivan Brdg Rp, 0 192,039 0 0 0 Transfers out-#303-Evergreen 16-32 0 79,945 0 0 0 Transfers out-#303-Sidewalk Infill 0 27,043 0 0 0 Total expenditures 0 2,181,451 1,387,153 3,916,386 2,615,050 Revenues over(under)expenditures 1,084,681 (135,948) (150,124) 1,126,401 600,982 Beginning fund balance 0 1,084,681 948,733 798,609 1,925,010 Ending fund balance $ 1,084,681 $ 948,733 $ 798,609 $ 1,925,010 $ 2,525,992 (continued to next page) 82 Fund: 311 Pavement Preservation Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget Based upon recommendations in the Pavement Management Plan Update along with field verification by Public Works staff we are recommending the following preliminary project list of pavement preservation projects in 2015: ARTERIAL STREETS FROM TO Sullivan Rd Trent Ave (SR 290) Wellesley Ave Argonne Rd Sprague Ave Appleway Ave Montgomery Ave Dartmouth Rd University Rd Broadway Ave Herald Rd University Rd 32nd Ave Bowdish Rd Pines Rd 16th Ave Herald Rd University Rd RESIDENTIAL STREETS FROM TO Maxwell Ave Pines Rd (SR 27) Houk Rd Houk Rd Sinto Ave Mission Ave Sinto Ave Pines Rd (SR 27) Houk Rd Blake Rd 12th Ave 16th Ave Contingency Project List ARTERIAL STREETS FROM TO 32nd Ave Dish man Mica Rd Bowdish Rd 32nd Ave Pines Rd SR 27 Euclid Ave Sullivan Rd Flora Rd Montgomery Ave Woodruff Rd Dartmouth Rd RESIDENTIAL STREETS FROM TO Pierce Ave 32nd Ave 37th Ave Broadway Ave University Rd Bowdish Rd 8th Ave Barker Rd Henry Rd Dyer Rd Broadway Ave Sharp Ave Please note: Further investigation,testing and evaluation will be necessary to finalize these lists. 83 Fund: 312 Capital Reserve Fund ipokane Valley 2015 Budget This fund was created in 2013 to be used to account for the accumulation of resources for yet to be determined capital projects. The initial source of funds was a 2013 General Fund transfer of$7,826,207 and this was followed with a 2014 General Fund transfer of$2,443,507. Projects approved by City Council from this funded thus far have included: • $21,139 for business route signage in 2013 • $57,601 for Balfour Park/Library site development • up to$268,000 for Appleway Landscaping • $2,320,000 for the City's share of the$15.3 million Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement • $1,452,100 for Appleway Trail construction from University to Pines. Commitments to future projects include: • $256,398 towards Appleway Trail construction from Pines to Evergreen • $700,000 towards a Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project. Future projects are yet to be determined but could include the construction of a City Hall. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Transfers in#001 0 0 7,826,207 2,443,507 0 Developer Contribution 0 0 3,180 0 0 Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 0 0 7,829,387 2,443,507 0 Expenditures Business Route Singage 0 0 21,139 0 0 Balfour Park/Library site development 0 0 57,601 0 0 Transfers out#303-Appleway Landscape 0 0 8,348 250,000 0 Transfers out#303-Sullivan Rd W Bridge 0 0 0 200,000 2,120,000 Transfers out#309-Appleway Trail-Univ 0 0 0 1,452,100 0 Total expenditures 0 0 87,088 1,902,100 2,120,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 7,742,299 541,407 (2,120,000) Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 7,742,299 8,283,706 Ending fund balance 0 0 7,742,299 8,283,706 6,163,706 84 Fund:402 Storm Management Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The purpose of the Stormwater Management Fund is to account for the funds related to the maintenance,improvement and expansion of the City's storm sewer system. The revenue for this fund originates from astormwater fee collected on behalf of the City by Spokane County. The annual fee is$21 for each single family unit and$21 per each 3,160 square feet of impermvious surface for all other properties. Each increment of 3,160 square feet is know as an equivalent residential unit(ERU). Accomplishments for 2014 • Completed design and construction on 3 stormwater capital projects,including a new decant facility • Repaired,replaced and/or improved systems at at least 20 locations • Supported stormwater improvements with the City's Pavement Preservation Program • Updated the City's first Stormwater Capital Improvement plan for 2015-2020 • Developed and implemented an ongoing structure inspection program • Facilitated a 30-year interlocal agreement with WSDOT to construct/operate Decant Facility Goals for 2015 • Complete small works projects per the Stormwater CIP • Complete design and construction of stormwater capital projects in the current CIP • Update specifications and bid the street sweeping contract • Continue development and refining a Stormwater Capital Improvement Program • Continue work with WSDOT to process/dispose liquid and solid stormdrain debris • Update and/or create reporting tools to report and track effectivnes of stormwater programs Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Personnel-FTE Equivalents Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Engineering Technician II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Assistant Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.15 Planning Grants Engineer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.75 4.40 Interns 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 85 Fund:402 Storm Management Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget Recurring Activity Revenues Stormwater Management fees 1,832,952 1,834,740 1,869,081 1,835,000 1,880,000 Investment Interest 2,833 2,601 1,992 2,500 1,500 Miscellaneous 0 57 4,144 0 0 1,835,785 1,837,398 1,875,217 1,837,500 1,881,500 Expenditures Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 417,874 373,824 423,590 505,535 488,101 Supplies 13,427 12,158 10,856 15,900 15,900 Services&Charges 926,431 1,014,819 1,144,467 1,065,576 1,078,301 Intergovernmental Services 23,076 24,610 25,726 26,000 42,000 Transfers out-#001 13,386 15,000 13,400 13,400 13,400 Transfersout-#501 0 1,567 1,567 1,567 4,167 1,394,194 1,441,978 1,619,606 1,627,978 1,641,869 Recurring revenues over(under) Recurring Expenditures 441,591 395,420 255,611 209,522 239,631 Nonrecurring Activity Revenues Grant proceeds 373,861 64,838 233,165 50,000 0 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 373,861 64,838 233,165 50,000 0 Expenditures Capital-Various Projects 198,233 32,571 842,283 900,000 600,000 Property Acquisition 375,791 0 0 250,000 0 VMS Trailer 0 0 0 16,000 16,000 Misc.Noncapital Projects 0 0 1,270 0 0 Transfers out-#101 90,750 0 0 0 0 Transfers out-#303 56,862 113,014 0 0 0 Transfers out-#403(DOE for Decant F 0 0 0 50,125 0 Transfers out-#501 (new pickup) 0 0 0 30,000 0 721,636 145,585 843,553 1,246,125 616,000 Nonrecurring revenues over(under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (347,775) (80,747) (610,388) (1,196,125) (616,000) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures 93,816 314,673 (354,777) (986,603) (376,369) Beginning working capital 2,319,423 1,332,820 Ending working capital $ 1,332,820 $ 956,451 86 Fund:403 Aquifer Protection Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget In 1985 voters of Spokane County approved a ballot proposition to create the Spokane Aquifer Protection Area(APA) as well as corresponding aquifer protection area fees with both sunsetting December 31,2005. Boundaries of the APA included portions of unincorporated areas(including what is now Spokane Valley)and the cities of Liberty Lake, Millwood and Spokane. In 2004 the City of Spokane Valley approved a resolution authorizing the inclusion of its municipal boundaries within the APA. The APA program was subsequently reauthorized through 2025 with voter approval. All fees are collected by Spokane County and include: • An annual fee of$15 per household for the withdraw)of water from properties within the APA. • An annual fee of$15 per household for on-site sewage disposal within the APA. • For commercial properties an annual fee ranging from$15 to$960 depending upon water meter size. In 2004 the City of Spokane Valley(City)entered into an interlocal agreement with Spokane County(County)that authorized the County to collect and retain APA fees through 2010 for a variety of projects including: • up to$100,000 annually through 2010 to the Spokane Regional Health District to provide for data base management related to monitoriing of septic tanks and their potential impact on water quality in the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Praire Aquifer. • a septic tank elimination program(STEP)designed to replace septic tanks with sanitary sewer systems. In the 2004 interlocal agreement the City and County also agreed that for the years 2011 through 2025 the APA fees remaining after the payment of reasonable administration and billing fees incurred by the County would be distributed annually between the County,City and City of Spokane on a proportional basis relative to the amount generated in unincorporated areas,the City and City of Spokane. The fees collected on the City's behalf by Spokane County are expended entirely on stormwater related projects that designed to protect the acquifer. These fees plus grant monies received from a number of granting agencies finance a variety of capital projects. Budget Summary Q71 2012 2013 2014 2015 .r.t,“ s Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Spokane County 417,326 510,934 484,343 500,000 500,000 Grant DOE-Decant Facility 0 0 203,609 634,523 0 Grant DOT-Decant Facility 0 0 85,221 100,000 0 Grant DOE-LID/Retrofit Deisgn 0 0 0 120,000 0 Grant DOE-SE Yardley Retrofits 0 0 0 750,000 0 Grant DOE-Broadway Retrofits 0 0 0 40,000 1,260,000 Grant DOE-Sprague UIC Elimination 0 96,291 570,331 0 0 Miscellaneous 0 2 150 0 0 Transfers in-#402(Stormwater) 0 0 0 50,125 0 Total Revenues 417,326 607,227 1,343,654 2,194,648 1,760,000 Expenditures Broadway Retrofit 0 0 0 100,000 1,200,000 Decant Facility 0 0 299,319 910,159 0 SE Yardley Retrofits 0 0 29,062 1,000,000 0 Outfall Diversion Projects(design only 0 0 0 60,000 0 Sprague Swales 0 1,133,211 48,087 0 0 Bettman-Dickey Storm drain 0 0 196,987 0 0 14th Ave Custer to Carnahan 0 0 327,931 0 0 Total Expenditures 0 1,133,211 901,386 2,070,159 1,200,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures 417,326 (525,984) 442,268 124,489 560,000 Beginning working capital 333,610 458,099 Ending working capital $ 458,099 $ 1,018,099 87 Fund:501 Equipment Rental&Replacement Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The Equipment Rental&Replacement Fund(ER&R)is an Internal Service Fund that is designed to provide the funds necessary to purchase new vehicles and equipment at predetermined life cycles. This fund operates by charging each City department a monthly rental rate for the vehicles they use. The fee is based upon the estimated useful life of the vehicle and its replacement cost. The theory behind this program is that it allows City departments to budget vehicle replacement costs as a reocurring expense over an extended period of time rather than as an intermittent capital expense that may be difficult to afford in any single year. In the event a City department requires an additional vehicle that actually adds to the fleet rather than simply replaces an existing vehicle,then that department must budget for the initial purchase price and transfer the necessary funds to the ER&R Fund to make the acquisition. In subsequent years the department will then begin paying areplacement fee spread out over the estimated useful life of the new vehicle. The 2015 Budget includes an appropriation of$30,000 to replace one small pickup in the Community and Economic Development Department with one small SUV. Source of financing for the SUV will be Fund#501 fund balance which exists as a result of previous years payments by General Fund for this purpose. Budget Summary 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Interfund Equip&Vehicle Lease 0 0 177,744 0 0 Transfers in-#001 (replacements) 15,400 0 0 15,400 19,300 Transfers in-#101 (replacements) 0 119,344 0 10,777 12,077 Transfers in-#101 (addtl'pickup) 0 0 0 15,000 0 Transfers in-#101 (plow replace.) 9,100 0 0 75,000 0 Transfers in-#402(addtl'pickup) 0 0 0 30,000 0 Transfers in-#402(replacements) 0 0 0 1,567 4,167 Investment Interest 1,456 1,498 1,176 1,000 1,000 Total Revenues 25,956 120,842 178,920 148,744 36,544 Expenditures Computer replacement lease 0 0 0 0 0 Software/Hardware replacement 0 0 0 0 0 Snow plow replacement 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Replacement 0 0 48,750 120,000 30,000 Total Expenditures 0 0 48,750 120,000 30,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures 25,956 120,842 130,170 28,744 6,544 Beginning working capital 1,183,348 1,212,092 Ending working capital $ 1,212,092 $ 1,218,636 88 Fundi:502 Risk Management Fund Spokane Valley 2015 Budget The City of Spokane Valley is exposed to risks of loss related to a number of sources including tort;theft of,damage to, and destruction of assets;errors and ommissions;injuries to employees;natural disasters;and unemployment claims filed by former employees through the State of Washington. The Risk Management Fund was established to account for all such related revenues and expenses. Revenues for this fund are comprised almost entirely from an annual transfer of money from the General Fund and the single largest expense is typically the insurance premium the City pays to our insurance provider,the Washington Cities Insurance Authority(WCIA). Budget Summary 41 2012 2013 2014 2015 AMU] Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Transfers in-#001 319,000 319,000 319,000 325,000 325,000 Investment Interest 25 9 7 0 0 Total Revenues 319,025 319,009 319,007 325,000 325,000 Expenditures Auto&Property insurance 282,419 255,185 263,922 325,000 325,000 Unemployment Claims 24,087 10,340 14,126 0 0 Miscellaneous 2,349 862 0 0 0 Total Expenditures 308,855 266,387 278,048 325,000 325,000 Revenues over(under)expenditures 10,170 52,622 40,959 0 0 Beginning working capital 20,420 30,590 83,212 124,171 124,171 Ending working capital $ 30,590 $ 83,212 $ 124,171 $ 124,171 $ 124,171 89 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Capital Expenditures for 2015 SOURCE OF FUNDS #101 #301 #302 #303 #309 #311 #312 #402 #403 #501 2015 REET 1 REET 2 Street Park Aquifer Equipment Expenditure Capital Capital Capital Capital Pavement Capital Stormwater Protection Rental& Developer Capital Outlay Description Budget Street Projects Projects Projects Projects Preservation Reserve Management Area Replacement Grants Contributions #303 Street Capital Projects Fund 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade-190 to Trent 602,196 81,297 520,899 0123 Mission Ave-Flora to barker 355,376 47,976 307,400 0141 Sullivan Rd/Euclid PCC(PE/RW) 35,052 4,732 30,320 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 7,201,779 2,120,000 5,081,779 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection 570,480 475,620 94,860 0166 Pines Rd(SR27)&Grace Ave.Intersection Safety 556,137 556,137 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements 320,560 32,410 288,150 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 301,357 40,683 260,674 206 2015 CDBG Sidewalk Project 246,231 14,355 231,876 207 Indiana&Evergreen Transit Access Improvement 70,014 70,014 North Sullivan Corridor ITS(PE start 2015) 105,486 14,241 91,245 Trent Lighting Replacement 151,576 151,576 Contingency' 1,000,000 100,000 100,000 800,000 Subtotal 11,516,244 0 221,980 365,290 0 0 0 2,120,000 0 0 0 8,714,114 94,860 #101 Street Fund -Pavement marking grinder 8,000 8,000 -Transportation management center 45,000 45,000 Subtotal 53,000 53,000 I 0 I olv. 0 I I 0 I 0 l 0 I 01 01 0 0 #309 Parks Capital Projects Fund -5 sand volleyball courts at Browns Park 176,200 176,200 -Pocket dog park 75,000 75,000 - Mission Trailhead landscaping 25,000 25,000 -Edgecliff picnic shelter 106,450 106,450 -Shade structure at Discovery Playground 38,000 38,000 -City entry sign 70,000 70,000 Subtotal 490,650 0 l 0 l 0 l 0 1 490,650 I 0 l 0 l 0 I 0)I 0 l 0 0 #310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund -n/a 0 -n/a 0 0 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 #311 Pavement Preservation Fund -Pavement preservation 2,615,050 1,644,018 971,032 Subtotal 2,615,050 0 l 0 I 0 1 0 l I 1,644,018 I 0 l 0 l 0 l 0 1 971,032 0 #402 Stormwater Management Fund -Capital-various projects 600,000 600,000 -Variable messaging system(VMS)trailer 16,000 16,000 Subtotal 616,000 CLL.0 I 0 l .. 0 l I 0 l 0 1 616,000 I 0 0 1 0 0 #403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund -Broadway stormdrain retrofit 1,200,000 1,200,000 Subtotal 1,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 #501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund - 1 one small SUV 30,000 30,000 Subtotal 30,000 0 0 L 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 30,000 I 0 0 am Total Capital Expenditures and Related Financing Sources 16,520,944 53,000 221,980 365,290 0 490,650 1,644,018 2,120,000 616,000 0 30,000 10,885,146 94,860 1 Contingency amount is to cover unforseen overruns,costs related to projects that were expected to complete in 2015 and the costs of projects that have not yet had funding sources identified. - Dollar figures in Italicized Bold font are paid from a combination of existing fund balance and fund revenue that is not attributable to a single project. 90 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Full Time Equivalent Employees Difference from Adopted Proposed 2014 to 2015 2009 2010 2011 I 2012 2013 2014 2015 +(-) #001 -General Fund City Manager/City Clerk 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0.000 Legal 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.000 Deputy City Manager 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 0.000 Finance 10 12 11 11 10.75 11.75 11.75 0.000 Human Resources 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.000 Public Works 7.5 7.5 7.5 7 7 7.375 7.375 0.000 CED-Administration 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 0.000 CED-Economic Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.500 (1) CED-Development Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11.000 (1) CED-Engineering 8 8 6 6 8 7 0 (7.000) (1) CED-Planning 9 9 8.5 8.5 8 8 0 (8.000) (1) CED-Building 14.75 14.75 12.75 12.75 11.5 12.5 14 1.500 (1) Parks&Rec-Admin 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.000 Parks&Rec-Recreation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000 Parks&Rec-Senior Cntr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000 Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 0.000 Total General Fund 81.25 83.25 74.75 74.25 72.25 73.625 73.625 0.000 #101 -Street Fund 5 5 4.5 5 5 5.375 5.725 0.350 (2) #303-Street Capital Project Fund 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.000 #402-Storm Water Fund 4 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.75 4.4 (0.350) (2) Total FTEs 93.75 95.75 87.25 87.25 85.25 87.25 87.250 0.000 (1) Reflects a reorganization of the Community and Economic Development Department which results in a net change of 0.0 FTEs. (2) Reflects a revised estimate of time spent by various employees between Streets and Stormwater. Net change is 0.0 FTEs. 91 2014 Work Force Comparison The 31 Washington Communities with a Population of 30,000 to 100,000 CITY POPULATION FULL-TIME PART-TIME Bellingham 82,810 749 33 Yakima 93,080 651 20 Renton 97,130 631 11 Redmond 57,700 591 20 Olympia 49,670 536 11 Kirkland 82,590 527 25 Richland 52,090 446 34 Auburn 74,630 406 1 Kennewick 77,700 335 8 Lynnwood 36,030 324 14 Bremerton 38,180 301 24 Longview 37,040 298 9 Pasco 67,770 292 2 Federal Way 90,150 280 15 Bothell 41,630 279 12 Puyallup 38,670 270 11 Lacey 45,320 252 8 Marysville 62,600 242 10 Issaquah 32,880 236 8 Walla Walla 32,260 234 15 Lakewood 58,360 229 9 Edmonds 39,950 196 5 Mount Vernon 33,170 189 24 Pullman 31,420 188 34 Wenatchee 33,070 162 4 Shoreline 53,990 124 11 Des Moines 30,030 119 21 Spokane Valley 92,050 87 2 Sammamish 49,260 73 5 Burien 48,240 60 9 University Place 31,420 43 5 AVERAGE 301 14 Source: Association of Washington Cities Survey: 2014 Full-Time 7/24/2014 92 EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE Salary Schedule Effective January 1,2015 Position Title Grade 2015 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 21-22 8,888.39 - 13,835.11 City Attorney 21 8,888.39 - 12,451.71 Community Development Director 21 8,888.39 - 12,451.71 Finance Director 21 8,888.39 - 12,451.71 Public Works Director 21 8,888.39 - 12,451.71 Parks and Recreation Director 19 7,199.37 - 10,086.73 Human Resources Manager 18 6,480.26 - 9,077.61 Planning Manager 4ia 6,'180.26 — 9,077.61 Building Official 18 6,480.26 - 9,077.61 Senior Engineer-Capital Projects, Development 18 6,480.26 - 9,077.61 Development Services Manager 18 6,480.26 - 9,077.61 Deputy City Attorney 18 6,480.26 - 9,077.61 Senior Engineer-Traffic,CIP Planning/Grants 17 5,831.91 - 8,169.51 Accounting Manager 17 5,831.91 - 8,169.51 City Clerk 16 5,248.20 - 7,352.09 Engineer 16 5,248.20 - 7,352.09 Senior Plans Examiner 16 5,248.20 - 7,352.09 Public Works Superintendent 16 5,248.20 - 7,352.09 Senior Administrative Analyst 16 5,248.20 - 7,352.09 Senior Planner 16 5,248.20 - 7,352.09 Development Services Coordinator 16 5,248.20 7,352.09 Associate Planner 15 4,724.02 - 6,617.33 CenterPlace Coordinator 1-5 1,721.02 — 6,617.33 Assistant Engineer 15 4,724.02 - 6,617.33 IT Specialist 15 4,724.02 - 6,617.33 Engineering Technician II 15 4,724.02 - 6,617.33 GIS/Database Administrator 15 4,724.02 - 6,617.33 Economic Development Project Specialist 15 4,724.02 - 6,617.33 Human Resource Analyst 14 4,251.88 - 5,956.06 Accountant/Budget Analyst 14 4,251.88 - 5,956.06 Administrative Analyst 14 4,251.88 - 5,956.06 CenterPlace Coordinator 14 4,251.88 - 5,956.06 Planner 14 4,251.88 - 5,956.06 Building Inspector II 14 4,251.88 - 5,956.06 Plans Examiner 14 4,251.88 - 5,956.06 Public Information Officer 14 4,251.88 - 5,956.06 Engineering Technician I 14 4,251.88 - 5,956.06 Senior Permit Specialist 14 4,251.88 - 5,956.06 Code Enforcement Officer 14 4,251.88 - 5,956.06 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 13-14 3,826.38 - 5,956.06 Recreation Coordinator 13-14 3,826.38 - 5,956.06 Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator 13 3,826.38 - 5,360.23 Code Enforcement Officer 4a 3,826.38 — 5,360.23 Building Inspector I 13 3,826.38 - 5,360.23 Executive Assistant 13 3,826.38 - 5,360.23 Planning Technician 13 3,826.38 - 5,360.23 Deputy City Clerk 12-13 3,445.00 - 5,360.23 Senior Center Specialist 12-13 3,445.00 - 5,360.23 Human Resources Technician 12-13 3,445.00 - 5,360.23 Permit Facilitator 12 3,445.00 - 4,824.10 Help Desk Technician 12 3,445.00 - 4,824.10 Administrative Assistant 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,824.10 Permit Specialist 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,824.10 Accounting Technician 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,824.10 Maintenance Worker 11-12 3,099.55 - 4,824.10 Office Assistant 11 10-11 2,789.41 - 4,341.90 Custodian 10 2,789.41 - 3,906.81 Office Assistant I 9-10 2,510.78 - 3,906.81 Note: Slight rounding differences may exist between the figures reflected on this page and the actual payroll rates computed by the Eden Payroll System. 93 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Glossary of Budget Terms Accrual Basis — A basis of accounting Capital Improvement — Expenditures in which revenues and expenditures are related to acquisition, expansion or recorded at the time they occur as rehabilitation of an element of the opposed to when cash is actually government's physical plant; sometimes received or spent. referred to as infrastructure. Appropriation — A legal authorization Capital Outlay— Fixed assets that have granted by the City Council to make general value of $5,000 or more and expenditures and to incur obligations for have a useful economic lifetime of more a specific purpose. than one year. Assessed Valuation — The valuation set Capital Project — Major construction, upon real estate and certain personal acquisition, or renovation activities property by the County Assessor as a which add value to government's basis for levying property taxes. physical assets or significantly increase their useful life, also called capital Authorized Positions — Employee improvements. positions, which are authorized in the adopted budget, to be filled during the Capital Projects Fund—A fund created year. to account for all resources and expenditures used for the acquisition of Bond — A long-term promise to repay a fixed assets except those financed by specified amount (the face amount of the enterprise funds. bond) on a particular date (the maturity date). The most common types of bonds Contingency — A budgetary reserve set are general obligation revenue bonds. aside for emergencies or unforeseen Bonds are primarily used to finance expenditures not otherwise budgeted. capital projects. Contractual Services — Services Budget—A plan of financial activity for rendered to a government by private a specified period of time (fiscal year or firms, individuals, or other governmental biennium) indicating all planned agencies. revenues and expenses for the budget period. Debt Service — Payment of interest and principal on borrowed money according Budget Message — The opening section to a predetermined payment schedule. of the budget that provides the City Council and the public with a general Department — The basic unit of service summary of the most important aspects responsibility, encompassing a broad of the budget, changes from the current mandate of related service and previous years, and the views and responsibilities. recommendations of the Mayor. 94 Division — Can be a subunit of a that define accepted accounting department which encompasses a principles. substantial portion of the duties assigned to a department (e.g. Building Division GASB — The Governmental Accounting in the Planning and Community Standards Board, established in 1985, is Development Department). the current standard-setting board for governmental GAAP. Encumbrance — The commitment of appropriated funds to purchase an item General Fund—The principal operating or service. To encumber funds means to fund of the City used for general set aside or commit funds for a specified governmental operations. Taxes and future expenditure. fees that generally have no restriction on their use support it. Expense — Charges incurred (whether paid immediately or unpaid) for General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds — operations, maintenance, interest or This type of bond is backed by the full other charges. faith, credit and taxing power of the government issuing it. Face Value — The amount of principal that must be paid at maturity for a bond Indirect Cost—A cost necessary for the issue. functioning of the organization as a whole, but which cannot be identified Fiscal Year — A twelve-month period with a specific product, function or designated as the operating year for activity. accounting and budgeting purposes in an organization. Infrastructure — The physical assets of a government (e.g. streets, water, sewer, Full-time Equivalent Position (FTE) — public buildings, and parks). A full-time or part-time position converted to the decimal equivalent of a Interfund Transfers — The movement full-time position based on 2,080 hours of monies between funds of the same per year. For example, a part-time governmental entity. person working 20 hours per week would be equivalent of 0.5 of a full-time Levy — To impose taxes for the support position. of the governmental activities. Fund—A fiscal entity with revenues and Long-term Debt— Debt with a maturity expenses that are segregated for the of more than one year after the date of purpose of carrying out a specific issuance. purpose or activity. Mission Statement— A broad statement GAAP — Generally Accepted of the intended accomplishment or basic Accounting Principles. Uniform purpose of a program. minimum standards for financial accounting and recording, encompassing Modified Accrual Accounting — A the conventions, rules, and procedures basis of accounting in which 95 expenditures are accrued but revenues Revenue — Sources of income financing are accounted for when they become the operations of government. measurable and available. Since this type of accounting basis is a Taxes— Compulsory charges levied by a conservative financial approach, it is government for the purpose of financing recommended as the standard for most services performed for the common governmental funds. benefit. This term does not include specific charges made against particular Operating Budget — The portion of the persons or property for current or budget that pertains to daily operations permanent benefits such as special that provide basic governmental assessments. Neither does the term services. include charges for services rendered only to those who pay, for example, Ordinance — A formal legislative sewer service charges. enactment by the City Council. If it is not in conflict with any higher form of Unreserved Fund Balance — The law, such as a statute or constitutional portion of a fund's balance that is not provision, it has the full force and effect restricted for a specific purpose and is of law within the boundaries of the available for general appropriation. municipality to which it applies. User Charges — The payment of a fee Program — The smallest organization for direct receipt of a public service by that delivers a specific set of services. A the party who benefits from the service. program may be an entire department; or if a department encompasses Vision Statement — A short statement significantly diverse responsibilities or that conveys the big picture of the large work forces, a single department organization. It is general in scope, not may be divided into two or more restricting. It answers the question programs. "Why?" Reserve — An account used to either set aside budgeted revenues that are not required for expenditure in the current budget year or to earmark revenues for a specific future purpose. Resolution — A special or temporary order of a legislative body—an order of a legislative body requiring less legal formality than an ordinance or statute. Resources — Total amounts available for appropriation including estimated revenues, fund transfers, and beginning balances. 96 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of October 1,2014; 10:00 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings October 14,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 6] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015 Budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CDBG Proposed Projects—Mike Basinger (15 minutes) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2014 Amended Transportation Improvement Plan— Steve Worley(5 min) 4. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 5.First Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance #14-011—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 6. Proposed Resolution #14-010 Amend 2014 Transportation Improvement Plan— Steve Worley (5 minutes) 7.Motion Consideration: Street Maintenance Contract—Eric Guth (10 minutes) 8.Motion Consideration: CH2M Hill Contract Amendment—Eric Guth (10 minutes) 9.Motion Consideration: CDBG Proposed Projects—Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 10.Admin Rpt: Historic Preservation—M.Basinger/Greg Griffith,Archaeology&Historic Preservation(30 min) 11.Admin Report: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 12.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 13. Info Only: (a) Solid Waste Mgmt Plan; (b)Moderate Risk Waste Plan [*estimated meeting: 140 minutes] October 21,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 13] 1. STA Presentation of"Moving Forward"Plan—Karl Otterstrom,Brandon Rapez-Betty (20 minutes) 2. Solid Waste Franchises/Ordinances—Erik Lamb (30 minutes) 3. Solid Waste Management Plan—Eric Guth (30 minutes) 4.Moderate Risk Waste Plan—Eric Guth (20 minutes) 5. Ecology Stormwater Grant Opportunities—Eric Guth (15 minutes) 6.Alcohol/Drug Enforcement—Chief VanLeuven (30 minutes) 7.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 150 minutes] October 28,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 20] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Repealing Ordinance 07-023 and 08-004—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 5.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Repealing Ordinance 07-022 and 08-003 —Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 6.First Reading Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 7.First Reading Proposed 2015 Budget Ordinance —Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 8.Admin Report: Solid Waste Collection Services Contracts—Erik Lamb,Morgan Koudelka (30 minutes) 9.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 10. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 105 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 10/2/2014 11:42:30 AM Page 1 of 3 November 4,2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 27] ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Repealing Ordinance 07-023 and 08-004—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Repealing Ordinance 07-022 and 08-003 —Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 3. Proposed Resolution Adopting Solid Waste Management Plan—Eric Guth (15 minutes) 4. Proposed Resolution Adopting Moderate Risk Waste Plan—Eric Guth (15 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: Solid Waste Collection Services Contract w/Waste Mgmt—E.Lamb (10 minutes) 6.Motion Consideration: Solid Waste Collection Services Contract w/Sunshine—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS 7. Shoreline Master Plan Review of Findings,Draft Ordinance —Lori Barlow (60 minutes) 8. 2015 Fee Resolution—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 9. Draft Legislative Agenda—Mike Jackson (20 minutes) 10.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 170 minutes] November 11,2014—no meeting—Veteran's Day Monday,November 17,2014; SPECIAL MEETING: [due Mon,Nov 10] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed 2015 Budget Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Shoreline Master Plan—Lori Barlow (30 minutes) 5. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution for 2015 —Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 7.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 90 minutes] November 18,2014—no meeting (Councilmembers attend NLC Conference) November 25,2014—no meeting—Thanksgiving week December 2,2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 24] 1.Beekeeping—John Hohman (20 minutes) 2. Street Vacation Process—John Hohman (30 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Dept. Reports(normally due with the Nov 25 meeting) [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] December 9,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 1] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Shoreline Master Plan—Lori Barlow (20 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] December 16,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 8] ACTION ITEMS: 1.Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations for 2015 (20 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 10/2/2014 11:42:30 AM Page 2 of 3 December 23,2014 no meeting December 30,2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 22] ACTION ITEMS: 1.Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee; Planning Commission NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2.Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Avista Electrical Franchise Bid Process,Explanation of Public Works Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan Drug Education/Information Economic Incentives Governance Manual Updates Mayoral Appts Councilmbrs to Committees(Dec/Jan) SEPA/NEPA Process—Eric Guth Setback Requirements Spokane Regional Transportation Mgmt Ctr Street Sweeping Bike Lanes Draft Advance Agenda 10/2/2014 11:42:30 AM Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 7, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Ecology Stormwater Grant Opportunities: 2014 Department of Ecology—Water Quality Program, Call for Projects for State Fiscal Year 2016 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Federal Clean Water Act of 1987, Section 319, Chapter 173-95A WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Centennial Clean Water Program, and Chapter 90.50A RCW, Water Pollution Control Facilities—Federal Capitalization Grants. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Resolution 13-016 Adopting the 2014 Budget on October 22, 2013; Approval of the 2015-2020 Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan on May 27, 2014. BACKGROUND: The Department of Ecology (Ecology) through their Water Quality Program for State Fiscal Year 2016, issued a call for projects on Sept 1, 2014. The estimated amount statewide for this 2016 Call for Projects is $92.5 million. Project applications are due Friday, November 7, 2014. Eligible projects include those projects that complement a city's or county's stormwater program by treating stormwater from existing development. Cities and counties may receive funding for design/construct or construction-only stormwater facility projects as well as a limited suite of stormwater activities. Staff evaluated the proposed Ecology grant criteria and identified a draft list of projects to review with Council, see attached. The draft project list reflects information from the 2013 UIC Retrofit Plan, Pavement Preservation Program, 2015-2020 Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan, Ecology Requirements and Council's expressed priorities. Staff will refine the project list and request concurrence to proceed at a future Council meeting in October. OPTIONS: Info Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Info Only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Project costs are currently being developed in more detail for each project. The City's match on Ecology's projects is 25% of the total project cost. STAFF CONTACTS: Eric Guth, P.E. — Public Works Director; Art Jenkins, P.E. — Stormwater Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Draft List of Projects for Grant Funding Applications Draft List of Projects for Stormwater Grant Funding Drywell Retrofits with Pavement Preservation 2015-2017 For several years,the City's Stormwater Utility,in conjunction with the Aquifer Protection Area fund,has paid for retrofits and improvements in conjunction with Pavement Preservation Projects. To continue the program and increase levels of funding to meet the current backlog identified in the UIC Retrofit Plan 2013, stormwater staff proposes an application to the Department of Ecology to provide funding assistance for drywell retrofits on various pavement preservation projects. The following list of pavement preservation projects within the City's current TIP includes drywells that are candidates for retrofit: • Sullivan,Trent to I-90 • Sullivan, Stn to Sprague • Sullivan, Sprague to Mission • Appleway,Park to Dishman-Mica • Argonne,Broadway to Indiana • Sprague, Sullivan to Corbin • University,Dishman Mica to 16th • 32nd, Dishman-Mica to Evergreen • McDonald, 16th to Mission • Broadway,Herald to University • Montgomery,Woodruff to University • 16th,Herald to University • Dishman-Mica Stn to 16th Sprague, University to Park Stormwater Improvements Stormwater Utility staff is proposing a project along Sprague between University and Park Roads. The design would call for open bottomed planter boxes with an engineered soil and various plantings just upstream of existing drywells to intercept and treat most runoff through a planter box. Irrigation is already provided with the landscaped berms in these areas, so water could be provided throughout the summer to ensure plant survival. Overflows from the planter boxes would go to the existing drywells. The benefits to the City include meeting Ecology treatment standards,improving the longevity of existing drywells, ensuring no wholesale relocation or removal of existing trees or reshaping the entire landscape to create swales,and lowering the project cost. 2015-2017 Outfall Elimination This project would bring the City much closer to eliminating all discharges from City-owned storm systems to surface waters of the State. Our stormwater permit with the State requires mitigation of pollutants entering surface waters from City-owned stormwater conveyances. By eliminating discharge points that outfall to surface waters of the State,the City eliminates the pollutants that would be carried by that Stormwater from entering those surface water bodies. Design on the following projects has been started and would be included under this project request to Ecology: • Ponderosa(Eliminates outfalls to Chester Creek Tributary from basins 18 to 21,and 23) • Havana Diversions(8th and Havana, 14th and Havana) • Chester Creek(basins 8, 9, 10, 11 —requires easements and/or land acquisitions) 2015-2017 Stormwater Water Quality Activities The Call for Projects includes funding for certain activities that would increase the prevention of pollutants from mixing with Stormwater. Allowable expenditures under this category include materials,equipment, facilities,publications,and surveys. Staff is evaluating a current list of needs against the Call for Projects, to see what activities could be funded under this category. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 7, 2014 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sullivan Road W Bridge Replacement Project #0155— CH2M HILL Supplemental Agreement Number 12— Construction Services GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approved Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) Applications on May 25, 2010; Admin Report on March 8, 2011; Admin Report on August 23, 2011; Admin Report on Temporary Repairs on September 20, 2011; Info Memo on TIGER III Grant Application on September 27, 2011; Approval of surveying and topographic mapping contract with CH2M HILL on November 1, 2011; Info Memo on TIGER IV Grant Application on February 14, 2012; Authorized execution of Supplemental Agreement Number 1 with CH2M HILL for Preliminary Design services; Info RCA regarding the Final Design Scope of Work on July 24, 2012; Approved Final Design Phase Contract with CH2M HILL on July 31, 2012; Info RCA on November 6, 2012; Motion to Approve on November 13, 2012 regarding the De Minimus Determination on Impacts to Sullivan Park and Centennial Trail; Approval of award of Sullivan Park Improvements project, Phase 1-Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement on August 27, 2013; Info RCA on February 25, 2014; and Approval of award of Phase 2 construction contract on July 22, 2014. BACKGROUND: The Phase 2 - Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project replaces the existing two-lane southbound Sullivan Road Bridge over the Spokane River, with a new four- lane bridge. CH2M HILL, the City's project design consultant, prepared the plans, specifications and bid package for the Phase 2 - Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project. Supplement 12 extends CH2M HILL's scope of work to include construction phase services and increases the Contract maximum payable amount by $377,505, which includes a 10 percent ($34,318) City- controlled Management Reserve Fund (MRF) amount. The revised total Contract amount, including MRF, is $2,015,035. This proposed increase of CH2M HILL's Contract amount has been anticipated within the current project budget. We anticipate requesting formal Council action on this Supplement 12 to CH2M HILL's Contract at the next regular Council meeting on October 14, 2014. OPTIONS: Information only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No change. The proposed increase of CH2M HILL's Contract amount has been included in prior Construction phase budget estimates. The latest budget numbers are shown below. Estimated Project Expenses PE $1,820,000 ROW $81,503 CN (w/out contingencies) $13,424,974 Total(rounded) $15,326,477 Project Funding Federal BR Grant $8,000,000 State FMSIB Grant @ 10% (CN) $1,501,000 State TIB (CN) $3,500,000 Utility Reimbursement $316,418 City Funds $2,320,000 Total(rounded) $15,637,418 STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, P.E. - Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric Guth, P.E. — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: CH2M HILL Contract Supplement 12 for Construction Services 11624111296DillasParblitionta=lisPortzdion Su lemental Agreement Organization and Address p p g CH2M HILL,INC. Number 12 999 W.Riverside Avenue,Suite 500 Spokane,WA 99201 Original Agreement Number Sullivan Road W Bridge Replacement#0155 Phone: (509)747-2000 Project Number Execution Date Completion Date BRM 4103(007) 11/8/2011 12/31/2016 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE $ 2,015,035.00 Description of Work Professional services to provide bridge and retaining wall structural and traffic signal and illuminaton-related construction management,office engineering, and construction inspection services. The Local Agency of City of Spokane Valley,Washington desires to supplement the agreement entered into with CH2M HILL,INC. and executed on 11/8/2011 and identified as Agreement No. 0155 AU provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: See Exhibit A-1 attached II Section IV,TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: The Completion Date is hereby revised to 17/31/7016 III Section V, PAYMENT,shall be amended as follows: Supplement#12 anthnri7es an additional 537505 The overall Total Amnnt Anthori7ed is revised to.S1,980,717 The overall Maxinmm Amount Payable is revised to 57,015,035 as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: Roger W Flint By: Mike Jackson Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature DOT Form 140-063 EF Date Revised 9/2005 EXHIBIT A-1 Scope of Work for Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement - Supplemental Agreement No. 12 City of Spokane Valley, Washington FHWA Project No. BRM 4103(007) September, 2014 GENERAL This Supplemental Agreement No. 12 scope of work modifies the scope of CH2M HILL's professional engineering services and compensation for the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project for the City of Spokane Valley(City). This work includes additional professional services to support the City with bridge and retaining wall structural, and traffic signal and illumination-related construction management, office engineering,and construction inspection services for the project. The City may make or approve changes within the general scope of this agreement. If such changes affect CH2M HILL's cost of,or time required for, performance of the services,an equitable adjustment will be made through a written supplement to the agreement. CH2M HILL will notify the City in writing of the occurrence of a change and an estimate of the cost impact. The City will provide written approval of change. A 10 percent contingency fund has been established for minor changes to the Scope of Work. Use of the contingency fund requires written authorization from the City. CH2M HILL will provide supplemental construction management services,office engineering services, and construction inspection services, as defined below. These services,specific to bridge • and retaining wall structural, and traffic signal and illumination components, are intended to assist the City to administer the contract for construction, monitor the performance of the construction Contractor("Contractor"),verify that the Contractor's work is in general conformance with the construction Contract Documents, and assist the City in responding to events that occur during the construction. Assumptions 1. This scope of work is premised on a Notice to Proceed date of approximately September 2014 with a 22 month project duration for construction engineering support activities. Deviations from the anticipated construction activities,schedule, or duration of construction will materially affect the scope of these services and CH2M HILL's compensation for the services,and will require an adjustment to CH2M HILL's compensation. CH2M HILL will not perform services beyond the agreed to contract scope without written authorization from the City. 2. The City will be responsible for the construction management of the project and to provide staff to perform the day-to-day Construction Management,Office Engineering,and Construction Inspection. SPK$SRY/BR_SUPPi12_SDC_09102014 1 OF 6 188201.D1.BR EXHIBIT A-1 3. The level of effort required to provide the services described herein is highly dependent on the experience and capabilities of both the City field inspector and the low-bid construction contractor awarded the project. Consequently, CH2M HILL has limited control over the number and types of field inquiries received and the corresponding level of effort required to respond to those inquiries. Therefore,the level of effort for all tasks is limited to the amount of labor and expenses as indicated in the attached fee itemization. Additional services beyond these limits will be provided as extra work. 4. CH2M HILL's Personnel at Construction Site The presence or duties of CH2M HILL's personnel at a construction site,whether as onsite representatives or otherwise,do not make CH2M HILL or CH2M HILL's personnel in any way responsible for those duties that belong to the City and/or the construction contractors or other entities, and do not relieve the construction contractors or any other entity of their obligations, duties,and responsibilities, including, but not limited to,all construction methods, means, techniques,sequences,and procedures necessary for coordinating and completing all portions of the construction work in accordance with the construction Contract Documents and any health or safety precautions required by such construction work. CH2M HILL's personnel have no authority to exercise any control over any construction contractor or other entity or their employees in connection with their work or any health or safety precautions and have no duty for inspecting, noting,observing,correcting, or reporting on health or safety deficiencies of the construction contractor(s)or other entity or any other persons at the site except CH2M HILL's own personnel. The presence of CH2M HILL's personnel at a construction site is for the purpose of providing to the City a greater degree of confidence that the completed construction work will conform generally to the construction Contract Documents and that the integrity of the design concept as reflected in the construction Contract Documents has been implemented and preserved by the contractor(s). CH2M HILL neither guarantees the performance of the contractor(s)nor assumes responsibility for contractor's failure to perform work in accordance with the construction Contract Documents. For this agreement only,construction sites include places of manufacture for materials incorporated into the construction work. 5. CH2M HILL's services listed below will be provided in accordance with applicable guidelines from the current versions(as of execution of this supplement)of the WSDOT Construction Manual and the WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines (LAG) Manual. 6. The City will contract separately with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)to perform testing, quality control, and inspection services required by the specifications for the manufacture of the precast concrete girders. 7. The City will contract with an independent firm to perform materials testing,sampling, and quality control services for the project. 8. The City will have responsibility to review the Contractor's traffic control plan submittals. Based on the above assumptions,CH2M HILL will perform the following services: SPKISRWBR_SUPPL12_SCC_09102014 2 OF 6 428859.04 05 EXHIBIT A-1 1.0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES 1.1 Pre-Construction Conference CH2M HILL will attend one pre-construction conference with the Contractor to review the project communication,coordination and other procedures and discuss the Contractor's general work plan and requirements for the project. It is assumed that the pre-construction conference will be attended by CH2M HILL's project manager. 1.2 General CM Support CH2M HILL will provide supplemental services in coordinating the site activities,administering the contract for construction, monitoring the Contractor's performance, responding to design and technical submittals,and closing out the contract for construction. CH2M HILL's construction support responsibilities will include bridge and retaining wall structural,traffic signal, and illumination elements of the project only. Except as specifically noted below,the following subtasks pertain only to the bridge and retaining wall structural,traffic signal, and illumination elements of the project and include: 1.2.1 Field Instructions and Orders CH2M HILL will assist the City when requested to issue field instructions,orders or similar documents during construction as provided in the contract for construction within the budget available for this task. 1.2.2 Correspondence and Communications CH2M HILL will not be in direct communications with the Contractor. CH2M HILL will coordinate and respond directly to City requests to provide recommendations for written communications between the City and Contractor. 1.2.3 Minor Variations in the Work CH2M HILL may assist the City with recommendations to authorize minor variations in the work which do not involve an adjustment in the Contractor's contract price nor time for construction and are not inconsistent with the intent of the construction Contract Documents. 1.2.4 Environmental/Agency Permits CH2M HILL will assist the City with updating the formula for determining monetary mitigation for short and long-term project habitat impacts. CH2M HILL will provide up to 24 hours of Environmental Documentation/Permitting consultation assistance as requested by the City throughout the construction duration. L2.5 Coordinate/Review Changes The City will receive and review all proposed changes for the work. As requested by the City, CH2M HILL will assist the City with recommendations for City negotiations of the Contractor's change proposal,or with recommendations regarding the change's compliance with the design intent. The City will negotiate the requested changes and prepare change order documents. 1.2.6 Claims and Disputes As requested by the City, CH2M HILL will review select letters and notices and will advise the City regarding the Contractor's compliance with the contract requirements for claims and disputes. SPIQSRWBR_SIJPPL12_SDC_09102014 3 OF 6 428859.CM 05 EXHIBIT A-1 CH2M HILL will not issue decisions on Contractor claims or disputes. CH2M HILL will not, except as part of Additional Services, undertake comprehensive and detailed investigation or analysis of Contractor's claims and disputes, nor participate in judicial or alternative dispute resolution procedures for the claims or disputes. 1.3 Shaft Pre-Construction Conference CH2M HILL will attend a separate shaft pre-construction conference at the project site to discuss the proposed shaft construction procedures, personnel,equipment to be used,and other elements of the approved shaft installation plan in accordance with the specifications. CH2M HILL will take minutes and may otherwise record the results of this conference. It is assumed that the shaft pre-construction conference will be attended by CH2M HILL's project manager,senior bridge engineer,and geotechnical engineer. 1.4 Retaining Wall Pre-Construction Conference CH2M HILL will attend a separate pre-construction conference at the project site to discuss the proposed modular block wall design and construction procedures, personnel,equipment to be used, wall finish, and other elements of the approved wall design calculations and shop drawings in accordance with the specifications. It is assumed that the wall pre-construction conference will be attended by CH2M HILL's project manager(in person)and senior bridge engineer(via teleconference). 2.0 OFFICE ENGINEERING SUPPORT 2.1 Submittals CH2M HILL will review bridge/retaining wall structural,traffic signal, and illumination related shop drawings,samples, and submittals for conformance with the design concept and compliance with the requirements of the plans and specifications for construction. A list of anticipated submittals to be reviewed by CH2M HILL and an estimate of associated review hours is attached. The City will require the Contractor to submit these items as required by the construction contract,the LAG Manual and the Construction Manual. The City will log and track shop drawings,samples, and submittals.The City will distribute copies of bridge/retaining wall structural items to CH2M HILL and will copy and distribute submittals back to the Contractor after CH2M HILL's review. CH2M HILL will review submittals and return one marked-up copy with comments to the City for copying and distribution to the Contractor. Submittals will be transmitted electronically in Adobe Acrobat(.pdf)format. CH2M HILL will review bridge/retaining wall structural,traffic signal,and illumination related submittals provided by the Contractor and/or its subcontractors and material suppliers for general conformance with design concept and the information contained in the Contract Documents. This review shall not include review of the accuracy and completeness of details,such as quantities, dimensions,weights or gauges,fabrication processes, construction means and methods, coordination of the work with other trades or construction safety precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the Contractor. CH2M HILL's review and approval or acceptance of the submittal shall not relieve the Contractor of its duties under the Contract Documents. SPKISRWBR SUPPLI2 SCC 09102014 4 OF 6 428B59.CK 05 EXHIBIT A-1 2.2 Requests for Information At the City's request,CH2M HILL will review the Contractor's bridge/retaining wall structural,traffic signal,and illumination related requests for information (RFI)or clarification of the plans and specifications for construction. CH2M HILL will coordinate such review with the design team and with the City as appropriate. The City will coordinate and issue responses to the RFIs and will log and track the Contractor's RFIs. CH2M HILL will assist the City in reviewing and responding to the Contractor's requests for substitution of materials and equipment. At the City's request, CH2M HILL will review and advise the City as to the acceptability of such substitutions. 3.0 CH2M HILL SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION 3.1 Periodic Site Visits CH2M HILL will perform up to ten (10) one-day site visits to the project site to observe the work and confirm that the work is in general conformance to the plans and specifications. CH2M HILL will coordinate with the City's inspector regarding any issues that need to be discussed or addressed. CH2M HILL will not provide direction or recommendations directly to the Contractor. CH2M HILL will provide field observation notes to document the site visit. 3.2 Material Testing and Special Inspection At the City's request,CH2M HILL will review the bridge/retaining wall structural reports and other information prepared by the material testing firm contracted independently with the City.The City's onsite inspector will coordinate the testing firms'schedules, transmittal of reports,findings or other information to the Contractor and CH2M HILL. 3.3 Technical Field Inspection—Foundation and Structures CH2M HILL will provide technical specialists to provide inspection of the contractor's work specifically related to the bridge foundation, bridge structure,and retaining walls for this project. The scope and budget assumes the following: • Up to twelve(12)days of structural engineering field support. • Up to 18 days of geotechnical field support to observe the six(6)9-foot diameter drilled shafts(3 days per shaft). • Up to 16 days of geotechnical field support to observe the eight(8)5-foot diameter drilled shafts(1-1/2 days per shaft). CH2M HILL will coordinate with the City's inspector regarding any issues that need to be discussed or addressed,and CH2M HILL will not provide direction or recommendations directly to the Contractor. CH2M HILL will provide field observation notes. 4.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT& COORDINATION CH2M HILL will provide project management and coordination with the City.A total time of 22 months is assumed to be the duration for this work. Project management services include: • Staff management sPKSRWBR SUPP112 SDC 09102014 5 OF 6 421359.CN.05 EXHIBIT A-1 • Management of budget and schedule • Monthly progress reports and invoices(The progress report/invoice will identify the work performed for that period, major decisions,schedule,and budget status. • Routine communication and coordination with the City. 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The following services will be provided by CH2M HILL upon written authorization of the City and agreement on compensation to CH2M HILL A supplement to the contract will serve as written authorization. • Services necessary due to the default of the Contractor. • Services related to damages caused by fire,flood, earthquake or other acts of God. • Services related to warranty claims,enforcement and inspection. • Services related to onsite cultural resources monitoring during ground disturbing activities. • Preparation for and serving as a witness in connection with any public or private hearing or other forum related to the project. • Services to support, prepare, document, bring,defend, or assist in litigation undertaken or defended by the City. • Perform miscellaneous and supplemental services related to the project as requested by the City. SPK/SRWBR SUPPL12_SDC_09102014 S OF 6 428859.CN.05 SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT CH2M HILL SUBMITTAL REVIEW LIST - Bridge/Retaining Wall Structural Items Date: 09/10/14 Budgeted Specification Review Number Section Description of Item Submitted Hours 2-02.3(2) Bridge Demolition Plan 12 hr 2-09.3(3)D Temporary Shoring Plan and Structural Shoring Design 16 hr 6-01.5 Work Access Plan 16 hr 6.02.3(2)A Concrete Mix Designs 16 hr 6-02.3(4)A Concrete Batch Plant Certifications 2 hr 6-02.3(5)B Concrete Delivery Certificates of Compliance 4 hr 6-02.3(5)D Concrete Acceptance Test Results 8 hr 6-02.3(6)A •Concrete Hot Weather Placement Procedures 4 hr 6-02.3(6)A Concrete Cold Weather Placement Procedures 4 hr 6-02.3(11) Concrete Placement and Bridge Deck Curing Plan 6 hr 6-02.3(12) Concrete Construction Joint Locations 6 hr 6-02.3(13) Expansion Joints 4 hr 6-02.3(14)C Pigmented Sealer Samples, Materials, and Mock-up 16 hr 6-02.3(16)& (17) Falsework and Formwork Plans 32 hr 6-02.3(18) Resin Bonded Anchor Product Info 1 hr 6-02.3(19) Grout for Bearing Pads 2 hr 6-02.3 Shop Drawings for Bridge Drain, Pipe, and Pipe Supports 12 hr Plans & 6-02.3(24) Reinf. Steel Shop Drawings (Placing Drawings and Bending Lists)- Bridge 48 hr 6-02.3(24)E Reinf. Steel Welder Qualifications 4 hr 6-02.3(25) Prestressed Plant Certification 2 hr 6-02.3(25) Misc. Prestressed Concrete Girder Submittals 8 hr 6-02.3(25)A Shop Drawings for Prestressed Concrete Girders 12 hr 6-02.3(25)M Prestressed Concrete Girder Acceptance Certification 2 hr 6-02.3(25)M Prestressed Concrete Girder Shipping Plan 2 hr 6-02.3(25)N Prestressed Concrete Girder Erection Plan 2 hr 6-02.3(25)N Prestressed Concrete Girder Camber Calculations 4 hr 6-03.3(7) Misc. Structural Steel Work Shop Drawings and Material Test Reports 8 hr 6-03.3(25) Welder and Welding Operator Performance Qualifications and Credentials 4 hr 6-05.3(9) .Bubble Curtain Design Calculations and Shop Drawings 8 hr 6-09.3(3) Concrete Overlay Mix Design 4 hr 6-09.3(5) Scarification Equipment and Procedures 4 hr 6-09.3(5) Concrete Overlay Placement and Curing Procedures 4 hr 6-10.3(2) Reinf. Steel Shop Drawings (Placing Drawings and Bending Lists) -Traffic Barriers 16 hr 6-10.3(2) Traffic Barrier on EB Bridge-Welding WPS and PQRs for field welding 6 hr 6-10.3(2) Placing Drawings-Traffic Barriers 12 hr 6-19.3(2)A Shaft Contractor Experience& Qualifications 4 hr Page 1 of 3 SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT CH2M HILL SUBMITTAL REVIEW LIST - Bridge/Retaining Wall Structural Items Date: 09/10/14 Budgeted Specification Review Number Section Description of Item Submitted Hours 6-19.3(2)B Shaft Installation Plan 24 hr 6-19.3(9) Shaft CSL Test Reports 8 hr 6-19.3 Shaft Submittals- Concrete Mix Design, CSL Tubes, etc 12 hr 6-19.3 Reinf. Steel Shop Drawings (Placing Drawings and Bending Lists)-Shafts 12 hr 6-20.3 Pedestrian Railing Shop Drawings 16 hr 6-21.3 Reinf. Steel Shop Drawings (Placing Drawings and Bending Lists) -South Overlook 8 hr 6-22.3 East Br Mods -Temp Cantilever Walkway Shop Drawings 16 hr 6-22.3 East Br Mods-Temp Traffic Barrier 8 hr 6-22.3 East Br Mods-Temporary Gutter System 6 hr 6-22.3 East Br Mods- Catalog Cuts and Manufacturer's Data 2 hr 6-22.3 East Br Mods- Field Verif of Exist Girder Strands and Reinf. 4 hr 6-22.3 East Br Mods- Salvaged Traffic Railing and Ped Railing 6 hr 6-23.3(2) Modular Block Trail Walls-Wall Design Calculations and Shop Drawings 20 hr 6-23.3(2) Modular Block Trail Walls- Product Data 2 hr 6-23.3(2) Modular Block Trail Walls-Qualifications 2 hr 6-24.3 Deformation Monitoring - Monitoring Plan 4 hr 6-24.3 Deformation Monitoring -Qualifications 2 hr 6-24.3 Deformation Monitoring - Records of Monitoring 6 hr 6-25.3 Vibration Monitoring - Equipment Catolog Cuts 2 hr 6-25.3 Vibration Monitoring - Mounting Details 2 hr 6-25.3 Vibration Monitoring - Records of Vibration Monitoring 6 hr 6-26.3 Cable Fence- Shop Drawings 4 hr 7-20.3 Avista Natural Gas- Utility Support Shop Drawings 8 hr 7-20.3 Avista Natural Gas-Utility Support Product Data 2 hr 7-21.3 Avista Power- Utility Support Shop Drawings 8 hr " 7-21.3 Avista Power- Utility Support Product Data 2 hr 7-22.3 Communications- Utility Support Shop Drawings 6 hr 7-22.3 Communications- Utility Support Product Data 2 hr 8-24.3 Gravity Block Wall at Sullivan Park-Shop Drawings and Product Data 8 hr 8-26.3 Centennial Trail Protection - Design Calculations and Shop Drawings 4 hr AASHTO M251 Elastomeric Bearing Pad Certifications 2 hr 9-19.1 Concrete Girder Mix Designs 2 hr 9-30.1(3) Pipe Hangers for Bridge-Supported Potable Water Main 3 hr Total Review Hours 534 hr Page 2 of 3 1 SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMEN1 CH2M HILL SUBMITTAL REVIEW LIST -Signal/Illumination Items Date: 09/10/14 Specification Budgeted Review Number Section Description of Item Submitted Hours 8-20.2(2) Surface Mounted Pedestrian Light Standard 3 hr 8-202(3) Mixed-Use Shoe-Box Light Standard 3 hr 9-06.5 (4) Anchor Bolts, Nuts and Washers 3 hr 9-28.0 Signing Materials and Mounting Hardware 2 hr 9-29.1 Conduit and Fittings 3 hr 9-29.2 Junction Boxes, Cable Vaults, and Pull Boxes 4 hr 9-29.3 Fiber Optic Cable, Electrical Conductors, Cable 4 hr 9-29.6 Poles, Light and Signal Standards 4 hr 9-29.7 Liminaire Fusing and Electrical Connections at Light Standard Bases 3 hr - 9-29.10 Luminares Lamps and Lighing Emitting Diodes (LED) 4 hr 9-29.12 Induction Loop Splices, Signal Splices, Illumination Splices 3 hr 9-29.18(1) Induction Loop Vehicle Detectors 3 hr 9-29.19 Pedestrian Push Buttons 2 hr 9-29.24 Service Cabinets 3 hr Total Review Hours 44 hr Page 3 of 3