The URL can be used to link to this page

2014, 10-14 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, October 14, 2014 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Chris Brummett, Valley Fourth Memorial Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015 Budget — Mark Calhoun 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Community Development Block Grant Proposed Projects — Mike Basinger 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2014 Amended Transportation Improvement Plan — Steve Worley 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on Oct 14, 2014 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $4,035,437.78 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending September 30, 2014: $424,495.86 c. Approval of September 5, 2014 Council of Governments Meeting Minutes d. Approval of September 9, 2014 Formal Council Meeting Minutes e. Approval of September 16, 2014 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes f. Approval of September 23, 2014 Formal Council Meeting Minutes g. Approval of October 7, 2014 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes Council Agenda 10-14-14 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 NEW BUSINESS: 5. First Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance #14-011 — Mark Calhoun [public comment] 6. Proposed Resolution #14-010 Amending 2014 Transportation Improvement Plan — Steve Worley [public comment] 7. Motion Consideration: Street Maintenance Contract — Eric Guth [public comment] 8. Motion Consideration: CH2M Hill Contract Amendment — Eric Guth [public comment] 9. Motion Consideration: Community Development Block Grant Proposed Projects — Mike Basinger [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 10. Historic Preservation — Mike Basinger; and Greg Griffith, Archaeology & Historic Preservation 11. Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment — Mark Calhoun 12. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): 13. Solid Waste Management Plan 14. Moderate Risk Waste Plan 15. Public Safety Contract Update CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2"—d and 41 Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1St 3rd and 5t' Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 10-14-14 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: X ❑ new business 0 public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing #2 on 2015 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No formal Council action has been taken on the 2015 Budget. BACKGROUND: This marks the fifth occasion where the Council will discuss the 2015 Budget and by the time the Council is scheduled to adopt the 2015 Budget on November 17, 2014, 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 Retreat • September 2 • September 9 • October 7 • October 14 • October 28 • November 17 Admin report: Estimated 2015 revenues and expenditures Public hearing #1 on 2015 revenues and expenditures City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2015 Budget Public hearing #2 on 2015 Budget First reading on ordinance adopting the 2015 Budget Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2015 Budget This evening's meeting represents the second public hearing on the 2015 Budget and the purpose of the hearing is to consider input from the public on the proposed 2015 budget. 2015 Budget Overview: • The 2015 Budget currently includes appropriations of $68,660,147 including $16,520,944 in capital expenditures, comprised in -part of: o $11,516,244 in Fund #303 Street Capital Projects o $490,650 in Fund #309 Park Capital Projects o $2,615,050 in pavement preservation including $920,000 financed by the General Fund o $1,800,000 in Stormwater Management Fund #402 and APA Fund #403 projects o $30,000 in Fund #501 Equipment Rental and Replacement for the acquisition of one small SUV for the Community and Economic Development Department. • To partially offset the $16,520,944 in capital costs, we anticipate $10,945,146 in grant revenues which results in 66.25% 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 1 Pertaining Specifically to the General Fund: • The 2015 recurring revenue estimate of $38,442,200 is $1,018,700 or 2.72% greater than the 2014 budget of $37,423,500. • The 2015 recurring expenditure proposal of $38,338,882 is $1,439,972 or 3.90% greater than the 2014 appropriation of $36,898,910. • With the exception of the addition of some supplemental requests discussed at the June 17 Budget Workshop, recurring expenditures for nonpayroll related expenditure classifications have been held to a maximum increase over the previous year's budget, of 1%. • Recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $103,318 or .27% of recurring revenues. • Nonrecurring expenditures total $1,642,400 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 Laserfiche upgrade. o $25,000 to construct offices for unit supervisors at the Police Precinct. 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. o $395,000 for professional services necessary to assist Community Development in the comprehensive plan update. ■ This has increased from a total of $200,000 as recently as the October 7, 2014 presentation of the budget to a total of $425,000 including $30,000 amended into the 2014 Budget plus the $395,000 in 2015. o $949,000 that represents the anticipated City share of a CAD / RMS system that will be acquired by the Sheriffs Department in 2015. ■ This too is a new item in the 2015 Budget. • The total of 2015 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by $1,539,082 - and this is entirely a result of the one-time/nonrecurring expenditure. • The projected General Fund fund balance at the end of 2015 is currently $19,172,310 or 50.01% of recurring revenues. 2 Other Funds: 2015 Budget appropriations (expenditures) in the other funds total $28,678,865 as follows: Fund Fund 2015 Number Name Appropriation 101 Street Fund 4,491,000 103 Paths and Trails Fund 0 105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund 600,000 106 Solid Waste Fund 125,000 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 0 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund 0 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 500,000 123 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 616,284 204 Debt Service Fund 538,100 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 555,179 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 698,489 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 11,516,244 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 490,650 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 0 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 2,615,050 312 Capital Reserve Fund 2,120,000 402 Stormwater Management Fund 2,257,869 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 1,200,000 501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund 30,000 502 Risk Management Fund 325,000 28, 678, 865 Primary sources of revenues in these other funds include: • Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the Street Fund is anticipated to be $1,859,900. • Telephone Tax revenues remitted to the City that supports Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated to be $2,565,100. • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large part used to match grant financed street projects are anticipated to total $1,250,000. • Hotel / Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are anticipated to be $510,000. • Stormwater Management Fees are estimated at $1,880,000. • Aquifer Protection Area Fees are estimated at $500,000. • Grant Revenues offsetting capital project costs are estimated at $10,945,146 o Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects - $8,714,114 o Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation projects - $971,032 o Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area projects - $1,260,000 OPTIONS: State law requires a public hearing on the proposed 2015 budget; and this is the second of such hearings. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: As the purpose of the public hearing is to gather input from the public in regard to the 2015 Budget, no action is requested at this time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This public hearing is the final step leading to Council consideration of the ordinance that will adopt the 2015 Budget. 3 STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Power Point presentation. • Assorted 2015 Budget information: o Pages 1-13 Budget summary information with detail by fund. o Page 14 General Fund budget change from October 7 to October 14. o Page 15 General Fund Recurring Department Changes from 2014 to 2015. o Page 19 Full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). 4 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 1014\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 Revenues Property Tax 11,049,400 0 11,049,400 11,277,100 227,700 2.06% Sales Tax 16,390,000 600,000 16,990,000 17,628,400 638,400 3.76% Safes Tax - Public Safety 745,000 0 745,000 820,100 75,100 10.08% Safes 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 (62,300) (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 36,823,500 600,000 37,423,500 38,442,200 1,018,700 2.72% 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 Dvipmnt - Admin 290,883 0 290,883 261,094 (29,789) (10.24%) Community & Economic Dvipmnt - Engineering 807,114 0 807,114 0 (807,114) (100.00%) Community & Economic Dvipmnt - Planning 928,906 0 928,906 0 (928,906) (100.00%) Community & Economic Dvipmnt - Econ Dev 0 0 0 298,276 298,276 #DIV/0! Community & Economic Dvipmnt - Dev Svc 0 0 0 1,424,944 1,424,944 #DIV/0! Community & Economic Dvipmnt - 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>$434.6 tease 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! Tota! Recurring Expenditures 36,823,010 75,900 36,898,910 38,338,882 1,439,972 3.90% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 490 524,100 524,590 103,318 Page 1 of 19 H,\Budgets\2015\IRCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx #001 - GENERAL FUND - continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues SCRAPS pass-through Total Nonrecurring Revenues Expenditures CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 0 56,600 56,600 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 0 (56,600) (100.00%) 0 56,600 56,600 0 (56,600) (100.00%) 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 #DIV10! 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 30,000 30,000 395,000 365,000 1216.67% 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/0f Parks & Rec (CenterPlace 10yr anniversary) 0 0 0 7,400 7,400 #DIV/0! Police Department - CAD / RMS 0 0 0 949,000 949,000 #DIV/0! City Hall remodel - Permit Cntr to main bldg 0 20,000 20,000 0 (20,000) (100.00%) 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 ba! > 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 2,679,607 3,266,257 1,642,400 (1,623,857) (49.72%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning unrestricted fund balance Ending unrestricted fund balance Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures General Fund Summary (586,650) (2,623,007) (3,209,657) (1,642,400) (586,160) (2,098,907) (2,685,067) (1,539,082) 23,396,459 23,396,459 20,711,392 22,810,299 61.95% 20,711,392 19,172,310 56.13% 50.01 % Total recurring and nonrecurring revenues 36,823,500 656,600 37,480,100 38,442,200 Total recurring and nonrecurring expenditures 37,409, 660 2,755,507 40,165,167 39,981,282 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over(Under) Total Expenditures (586,160) (2,098,907) (2,685,067) (1,539,082) Beginning unrestricted fund balance 23,396,459 23,396,459 20,711,392 Ending unrestricted fund balance 22, 810, 299 20, 711, 392 19,172,310 Page 2 of 19 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx [SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 - STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Utility Tax Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest Miscellaneous CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 9�0 2,750,000 0 2,750,000 2,565,100 (184,900) (6.72%) 1,858,600 0 1,858,600 1,859,900 1,300 0.07% 3,000 0 3,000 3,000 0 0.00% 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 #D1V/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 Street Fund Summary Total recurring and nonrecurring revenues 4,611,600 0 4,611,600 4,438,000 Total recurring and nonrecurring expenditures 4,688,216 29,830 4,718,046 4,491,000 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (76, 616) (29, 830) (106, 446) (53, 000) Beginning unrestricted fund balance 2,063,234 2,063,234 1,956,788 Ending unrestricted fund balance 1,986,618 1,956,788 1,903,788 Page 3 of 19 H,\Budgets1,2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 201410 14,xlsx [SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued #103 - PATHS & TRAILS FUND Revenues Motor Vehicie Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 °/v 7,800 0 7,800 7,800 0 0.00% 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 Trait - Univ to Pines) 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/01 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 Page 4 of 19 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14,xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued #120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures Operations Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 0 0 0 2015 Proposed Budget 0 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 D D 0 0 #DIV10f 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 0 0 0 0 0 #D1V/0! 0 300,000 300,000 #121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Miscellaneous 0 0 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 7,300 0 7,300 8,200 900 12.33% 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 #DIV10! 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 #DIV101 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 Miscellaneous 1,700 0 1,700 1,300 (400) (23.53%) 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 Page 5 of 19 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14,xlsx DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204 - LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 2014 LTGO Bond issue proceeds Total revenues Expenditures CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 441,520 0 441,520 373,800 (67,720) (15.34%) 93,152 0 93,152 82,150 (11,002) (11.81%) 93,151 0 93,151 82,150 (11,001) (11.81%) 0 7,661,000 7,661,000 0 (7,661,000) (100.00%) 627,823 7,661,000 8,288,823 538,100 (7,750,723) (93.51%) 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 Page 6 of 19 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14,xlsx CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 - REET 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 - Taxes Investment Interest CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 600,000 0 600,000 625,000 25,000 4.17% 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 Investment Interest 600,000 0 600,000 625,000 25,000 4.17% 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.0D% 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 Page 7 of 19 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 #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 a@ Argonne/Mullan PCC int,(PEIRW) 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 COBG 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 Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 0 61,827 61,827 Page 8 of 19 0 0 61,827 61,827 61,827 61,827 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued #309 - PARK CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #103 Transfers in - #312 Investment Interest Contributions Total revenues Expenditures CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 oda 192,500 55,000 247,500 100,000 (147,500) (59.60%) 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) 0 1,452,100 1,452,100 0 (1,452,100) (100.00%) 500 0 500 500 0 0.00% 0 500 500 0 (500) (100.00%) 193,000 1,557,600 1,750,600 100,500 (1,650,100) (94.26%) 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 #DIVIO! 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.N. bond pmt > $424.6k lease pmt 0 0 0 67,600 67,600 #DIV/0! Future C.N. 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, 285.10 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. Page 9 of 19 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued #311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION Revenues Transfers in - #101 Transfers in - #123 Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Transfers in - #001 Grants Investment Interest CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 282,000 0 282,000 206,618 (75,382) (26.73%) 616,284 0 616,284 616,284 0 0.00% 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 66,577 36.09% 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 66,577 36.09% 888,823 0 888,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% 2,763,272 123,464 2,886,736 971,032 (1,915,704) (66.36%) 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 (Appleway Landscaping -Dora to 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 Page 10 of 19 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 - STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees Investment Interest Miscellaneous CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 0'p 1,835,000 0 1,835,000 1,880,000 45,000 2.45% 2,500 0 2,500 1,500 (1,000) (40.00%) 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 Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 209,522 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY 0 1,627,978 1,641,869 0 209,522 239,631 13,891 0.85% Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! 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 Prof - 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 1,198,000 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 Stormwater Fund Summary Total recurring and nonrecurring revenues 1,837,500 50,000 1,887,500 1,881,500 Total recurring and nonrecurring expenditures 2,823,978 50,125 2,874,103 2,257,869 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (986,478) (125) (986,603) (376,369) Beginning unrestricted fund balance 2,319,423 2,319,423 1,332,820 Ending unrestricted fund balance 1,332,945 1,332,820 956,451 Page 11 of 19 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx ENTERPRISE FUNDS - continued #403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County Grant DOE - Decant Facility Grant DOT - Decant Facility Grant DOE - LID/Retrofit Design Grant DOE - SE Yardley Retrofits Grant DOE - Broadway SD Retrofit Transfers in - #402 (Decant Prof - DOS) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As _ Adopted Amendment As Amended 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 0I 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% 0 634,523 634,523 0 (634,523) (100.00%) 0 100,000 100,000 0 (100,000) (100.00%) 120,000 0 120,000 0 (120,000) (100,00%) 750,000 0 750,000 0 (750,000) (100.00%) 0 40,000 40,000 1,260,000 1,220,000 3050.00% 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 Page 12 of 19 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Budget 2014 As Adopted Amendment As Amended INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 - ER&R FUND Revenues Vehicle rentals- #001 15,400 Vehicle rentals - #101 10,777 Vehicle rentals - #101 (plow replace.) 75,000 Vehicle rentals - #402 1,567 Investment Interest 1,000 Transfers in - #101 (new pickup) 15,000 Transfers in - #402 (new pickup) 30,000 2015 Proposed Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 0 15,400 19,300 3,900 25.32% 0 10,777 12,077 1,300 12.06% 0 75,000 0 (75,000) (100.00%) 0 1,567 4,167 2,600 165.92% 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00% 0 15,000 0 (15,000) (100.00%) 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/01 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 Transfers in - #001 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 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 #DMO! 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 Total of Expenditures for all Funds Total grant revenues (included in total revenues) Total Capital expenditures (included in total expenditures) 67,257,980 9,407,745 76,665,725 64,500,020 71,304,691 7,832,727 79,137,418 68,660,147 14,726,269 (1,820,202) 12,906,067 10,945,146 20,988,700 (2,112,698) 18,872,865 16,520,944 Page 13 of 19 10/712014 1 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 1014\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xisx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 General FundBudget Changes from October 7 to 14, 2014 RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax - Public Safety Sales Tax - Criminal Justice Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax Franchise Fees/Business Registration State Shared Revenues Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety Community Development Recreation Program Revenues Miscellaneous Department Revenue Miscellaneous & Investment interest Transfer -in -#101 (street admin) Transfer -in - #105 (ism tax -CP advertising) Transfer -in - #402 (storm admin) Total Recurring Revenues 2014 Budget 2015 as of 10/7/2014 0 Change as revised 11,049,400 11,277,100 16,990,000 17,628,400 745,000 820,100 1,330,000 1,468,700 817,400 535,100 1,213,000 1,238,000 1,880,500 1,788,900 1,470,800 1,507,100 1,255,400 1,325,100 579,800 563,500 85,500 95,900 117,600 131,200 39,700 39,700 30,000 30,000 13,400 13,400 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 $ 0 11,277,100 227,700 2.0616 O 17,628,400 638,400 3.76% O 820,100 75,100 10.0816 O 1,468, 700 138,700 10.43% O 535,100 (82,300) (13.3316) O 1,238,000 25,000 2.0816 O 1,768,900 (117,600) (6.2316) O 1,507,100 38,300 2.47% 0 1,325,100 69,700 5.55% 0 563,500 (18,300) (2.8116) 0 95,900 10,400 12.16% 0 131,200 13,600 11.5616 0 39,700 0 0.00% 0 30,000 0 0.00% O 13,400 0 0.00% 37,423,500 38,442,200 0 38,442,200 1,018,700 2.72% Ex etc City Council 468,850 513,114 0 513,114 44,264 9.44% City Manager 660,843 688,363 0 688,363 27,520 4.16% Legal 470,922 461,839 0 461,839 (9,083) (1.9316) Public Safety 23,384,643 24,153,492 0 24,153,492 768,849 3.29% Deputy City Manager 653,215 691,303 0 691,303 38,088 6.83°% Finance! IT 1,180,659 1,203,879 0 1203,879 23,220 1.9716 Human Resources 237,883 243,317 0 243,317 5,434 2.28°% Public Works 882,694 921,914 0 921,914 39,220 4.4416 Community&EconDev -Admin. 290,883 261,094 0 261,094 (29,789) (10.24%) Community & Econ Dev - Engineering 807,114 0 0 0 (807,114) (100.00%) Community & Econ Dev - Planning 928,906 0 0 0 (928,908) (100.00%) Community & Econ Dev - Econ Dev 0 298,278 0 298,276 298,276 #DIV/01 Community & Econ Dev - Deveio. Svc. 0 1,424,944 0 1,424,944 1,424,944 #DIV/01 Community& EconDev- Building 1,267,658 1,380,902 0 1,380,902 113,246 8.93% Parks & Rec - Administration 274,743 286,947 0 288,947 12,204 4.44% Parks & Rec - Maintenance 796,200 844,642 0 844,642 48,442 6.08°6 Parks & Rec - Recreation 229,152 226,174 0 226,174 (2,978) (1.30%) Parks & Rec - Aquatics 490,400 496,200 0 498,200 5,800 1.18% Parks & Rec - Senior Center 89,682 91,985 0 91,985 2,103 2.34% Parks & Rec - CenlerPlace 828,842 824,997 0 824,997 (3,845) (0.48%) Pavement Preservation 888,823 920,000 0 920,000 31,177 3.51% General Government 1,741,600 1,741,200 0 1,741,200 (400) (0.02%) Transfers out- #502 (insurance premium) 325,000 325,000 0 325,000 0 0.00°% Transfers out #310 (Bond pint>$434.6Klease pmt 0 67,800 0 67,600 67,600 #DIV/01 Transfers out#310 (Cityilea O&M costs) 0 271,700 0 271,700 271,700 #DIV/01 Total Recurring Expenditures 36.898,910 38,338,882 0 38,338,882 1,439,972 3.90% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 524,590 103,318 0 103,318 (NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues SCRAPS pass-through 56,600 0 0 0 (56,600) (100.0016) Total Nonrecurring Revenues 56,600 0 0 0 (56,600) (100.00%) Expenditures Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 247,500 100,000 0 100,000 (147,500) (59.60%) General Government - IT capital replacements 0 145,000 0 145,000 145,000 #DIV/01 City Manager (2 scanners) 0 3,000 0 3,000 3,000 #DIV101 Public Safety (const offices for untsupervisors) 0 25,000 0 25,000 25,000 #DIV/01 Community & Econ Dev (comp Titan update) 30,000 200,000 195,000 395,000 365,000 1216.67% Parks & Rec (upgrade dial-up modem at pools) 0 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 #DIV/01 Parks & Rec (replace CP lounge area carper) 0 8,000 0 8,000 8,000 #DIV/01 Parks & Rec (CenrerPace 10yranniversary) 0 7,400 0 7,400 7,400 #DIV/01 Police Department - CAD 1 RMS 0 0 949,000 949,000 949,000 #DIV/01 City Hall remodel - Permit Cntr to main bldg 20,000 0 0 0 (20,000) (100.00%) Law Enforcement Contingency 350,000 0 0 0 (350,000) (100.00%) Public Works (autocadlicenses) 8,800 0 0 0 (8,800) (100.00%) Parks & Recreation (CP chairs) 11,350 0 0 0 (11,350) (100.00%) Public Safety (precinct Improvements) 24,000 0 0 0 (24,000) (100.001,6) SCRAPS pass-through 56,600 0 0 0 (58,600) (100.00%) Transfers out - #106 (solid waste edrmarketing) 60,000 0 0 0 (60,000) (100,00%) Transfers out - #312 (12 fund bat 6096) 2,443,507 0 0 0 (2,443,507) (100.00%) Police Capital - precinct workstations 14,500 0 0 0 (14,500) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 3,268,257 498,400 1,144,000 1,642,400 (1,623,857) (49.72%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning unrestricted fund balance Ending unrestricted fund balance Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures (3,200,657) (498,400) (2,685,067) (395,082) 23,398,459 20,711,392 20,711,392 T- 20.316,310 ( 56.13% ( 1 52.89% I (1,642,400) (1,539,082) 20,711,392 19,172,310 ( 50.01% Page 14 of 19 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Recurring Expenditure Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 City Council Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total City Manager Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Legal Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Public Safety Non -Departmental (Fines & Forfeits) Wages/Payroll Taxes/Benefits Supplies Other Services and Charges Intergovernmental Services Total Deputy City Manager Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total 2014 Budget 210,658 4,192 254,000 2015 Budget 214,379 4,550 294,185 468,850 513,114 596,300 3,350 61,193 623,173 3,350 61,840 660,843 688,363 367,812 2,400 100,710 379,917 2,540 79,382 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2013 and 2014 Increase (Decrease) 3,721 358 40,185 1.77% 8.54% 15.82% 44,264 9.44% 26,873 0 647 4.51% 0.00% 1.06% 27,520 4.16% 12,105 140 (21,328) 470,922 461,839 (9,083) 764,500 733,500 3,500 3,800 27,000 28,000 671,450 492,650 21,918,193 22,895,542 23,384,643 24,153,492 590,025 2,050 61,140 627,478 2,500 61,325 653,215 691,303 Finance/IT Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,151,059 1,172,483 Supplies 7,000 6,000 Services & Charges 22,600 25,396 Total 1,180,659 1,203,879 Human Resuorces Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total 214,905 218,109 700 700 22,278 24,508 237,883 243,317 Page 15 of 19 3,29% 5.83% (21.18%) (1.93%) (31,000) 300 1,000 (178,800) 977,349 (4.05%) 8.57% 3.70% (26.63%) 4.46% 768,849 3.29% 37,453 450 185 6.35% 21.95% 0.30% 38,088 5.83% 21,424 1.86% (1,000) (14.29%) 2,796 12.37% 23,220 1.97% 3,204 0 2,230 1.49% 0.00% 10.01% 5,434 2.28% (Continued to next page) H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\ budget summary as of 201410 14.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Recurring Expenditure Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 (Continued from previous page) Public Works Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Community Dev.-Admin Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total 2014 Budget 799,369 19,500 63,825 2015 Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2013 and 2014 Increase (Decrease) 6✓p 834,363 34,994 19,000 (500) 68,551 4,726 4.38% (2.56%) 7.40% 882,694 921,914 39,220 4.44% 232,683 237,394 4,711 2.02% 3,100 3,100 0 0.00% 55,100 20,600 (34,500) (62.61%) 290,883 261,094 (29,789) (10.24%) Community Dev.-Economic Development Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total 0 0 0 0 Community Dev.- Dev. Sery Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,487,320 Supplies 21,050 Services & Charges 227,650 Total 1,736,020 Community Dev.-Building Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,136,956 Supplies 28,200 Services & Charges 102,500 Total 1,267,656 Parks & Rec- Admin Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Parks & Rec- Maintenance Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Parks & Rec- Recreation Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total 274,776 181,047 #DIV/0! 1,000 1,000 #DIV/0! 22,500 22,500 #DIV/0! 298,276 298,276 #DIV/0! 1,122,644 (364,676) (24.52%) 21,050 0 0.00% 281,250 53,600 23.54% 1,424,944 (311,076) (17.92%) 1,288,902 151,946 28,200 0 63,800 (38,700) 13.36% 0.00% (37.76%) 1,380,902 113,246 8.93% 222,343 228,697 6,354 2.86% 8,450 8,450 0 0.00% 43,950 49,800 5,850 13.31% 274,743 286,947 12,204 4.44% 0 10,000 786,200 796,200 156,702 5,350 67,100 0 0 20,000 10,000 824,642 38,442 #DIV/0! 100.00% 4.89% 844,642 48,442 153,924 7,750 64,500 229,152 226,174 Page 16 of 19 6.08% (2,778) 2,400 (2,600) (1.77%) 44.86% (3.87%) (2,978) (1.30%) (Continued to next page) FI:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 1014\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Recurring Expenditure Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 (Continued from previous page) Parks & Rec- Aquatics Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Parks & Rec- Senior Center 2014 Budget 2015 Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2013 and 2014 Increase (Decrease) %o 0 0 0 #DlV/0! 2,500 7,200 4,700 188.00% 487,900 489,000 1,100 0.23% 490,400 496,200 5,800 1.18% 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% Page 17 of 19 Fi:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2015 Recurring Expenditure Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 Summary by Category Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Pavement Preservation Transfers out - #502 Transfers out -*310 Non -Departmental (fines & forfeits) Intergovernmental Svc (public safety) Intergovernmental Svc Capital outlay 2014 Budget 2015 Budget 10/7/2014 Difference Between 2013 and 2014 Increase (Decrease) oho 7,671,429 7,899,933 228,504 2.98% 288,929 303,503 14,574 5.04% 4,679,136 4,544,104 (135,032) (2.89%) 888,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% 325,000 325,000 0 0,00% 0 339,300 339,300 #DIV/0! 764,500 733,500 (31,000) (4.05%) 21,918,193 22,895,542 977,349 4.46% 269,600 300,500 30,900 11.46% 93,300 77,500 (15,800) (16.93%) 36,898,910 38,338,882 1,439,972 3.90% Page 18 of 19 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 10 14\budget summary as of 2014 10 14.xlsx #001 - General Fund City Manager / City Clerk Legal Deputy City Manager Finance Human Resources Public Works CED - Administration CED - Economic Development CED - Development Services CED - Engineering CED - Planning CED - Building Parks & Rec - Admin Parks & Rec - Recreation Parks & Rec - Senior Cntr Parks & Rec - CenterPlace CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Full Time Equivalent Employees 2009 2010 Adopted 2011 1 2012 2013 2014 Proposed 2015 Difference from 2014 to 2015 + (-) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0.000 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.000 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 0.000 10 12 11 11 10.75 11.75 11.75 0.000 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.000 7.5 7.5 7.5 7 7 7.375 7.375 0.000 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.500 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11.000 (1) 8 8 6 6 8 7 0 (7.000) (1) 9 9 8.5 8.5 8 8 0 (8.000) (1) 14.75 14.75 12,75 12.75 11.5 12.5 14 1.500 (1) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000 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) (2) Reflects a reorganizafion of the Community and Economic Development Department which results in a net change of 0.0 FTEs. Reflects a revised estimate of time spent by various employees between Streets and Stormwater. Net change is 0.0 FTEs. Page 19 of 19 City of Spokane Valley 2015 Budget Discussion Public Hearing #2 2015 Budget October 14, 2014 2015 Budget Summary All Funds Total appropriations across all City Funds of $68.66 million including: $39.98 million in the General Fund which is comprised of $38.34 million recurring and $1.64 million nonrecurring. $28.7 million spread across 20 additional funds. $16.5 million in capital expenditures. FTE count will remain at 87.25 employees in 2015. General Fund REVENUES: Total recurring 2015 revenues of $38,442,200 as compared to $37,423,500 in 2014 for an increase of $1,018,700 or 2.72%. All revenue estimates are based upon a combination of historical collections and future projections with some increasing and others decreasing. 2 largest sources are Sales Tax and Property Tax which are collectively estimated to account for $31,194,300 or 81.1% of 2015 General Fund revenues. General Fund General sales tax collections are estimated at $17,628,400, an increase of $638,400 or 3.76% over the amended 2014 Budget. Property Tax levy is not proposed to include the 1% increase authorized by State law. 2015 Levy is estimated at $11,277,100 Levy assumes we start with the 2014 levy of $11,077,144 + estimated new construction of $200,000. General Fund EXPENDITURES: 2015 recurring expenditure proposal of $38,338,882 as compared to $36,898,910 in 2014 for an increase of $1,439,972 or 3.90%. Recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $103,318 or .27% of recurring revenues. General Fund Nonrecurring expenditures total $1,642,400 and include: a $100,000 transfer to Fund #309 — Park Capital Projects $145,000 of IT related capital replacements. $25,000 to construct offices for traffic unit supervisors at the precinct. $395,000 for professional services directed towards the comprehensive plan update (increased from our previous estimate of $200,000). $949,000 for CAD / RMS software for the Police Department. General Fund The total of 2015 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by $1,539,082. Projected fund balance at the end of 2015 is currently $19,172,310 or 50.01% of recurring expenditures. Other Funds Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the Street Fund is anticipated to be $1,859,900. Telephone Taxes that are remitted to the City and support Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated to be $2,565,100. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large part used to match grant financed street projects are anticipated to total $1,250,000. Other Funds Hotel/Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are anticipated to be $510,000. Stormwater Management Fees of $1,880,000. Aquifer Protection Area fees of $500,000. Grant Revenues of $10,945,146: Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects - $8,714,114 Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation - $971,032 Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area - $1,260,000 Future Council Budget Discussions October 28 — First reading of ordinance adopting 2015 Budget. November 17 — Second reading of ordinance adopting 2015 Budget. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ Consent ❑ Information Department Director Approval: ❑ Old business ❑ New business ® Public Hearing ❑ Admin. Report ❑ Pending Legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Community Development Block Grant Program — Public Hearing GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On September 16, 2014, City Council reviewed the proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) sidewalk projects and agreed staff should prepare an estimate for sidewalks on the south side of Mission Avenue and west side of Park Road. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley is a member of the Spokane County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consortium. Each year the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development provides CDBG entitlement funding to Spokane County, with last year's funding totaling approximately $1.3 million. The City of Spokane Valley receives a 20% set-aside of Spokane County's annual federal appropriation for infrastructure projects. Spokane Valley's 2015 share will be approximately $270,000 for eligible projects. The City of Spokane Valley has received less than its appropriation in years past. This year the City is proposing sidewalk projects that exceed the appropriation in anticipation of recovering the guaranteed set aside from previous CDBG funding cycles. Although Spokane Valley has a guaranteed set aside, the City must participate in the same application process as all other agencies requesting CDBG funding. To be eligible for CDBG funding, projects must be located in residential, low to moderate income target areas. Proposed projects must also be ranked as a "high priority" in Spokane County's Consolidated Plan, the guiding document for Spokane County's CDBG program. High priority infrastructure projects include water, sewer and street improvements. The CDBG application deadline is November 9, 2014. The following projects have been identified based on an evaluation of sidewalk needs in CDBG target areas. Recommended CDBG Sidewalk Proiects Approximate Costs Mission Avenue, east of Lily Road to Park Road $281,194 Park Road, Mission Avenue to Nora Road $126,075 Total Infrastructure Cost Estimate $407,269 OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Hold Public Hearing. A motion consideration will be taken during the latter part of tonight's council meeting. 1 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: CDBG grants are typically funded at 100% of the total project cost. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Presentation 2 COMMUNCIY DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Community Development Block Grants Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT mmnrumr--_. Economic Development CDBG Funding Progression • Housing and Urban Development (HUD) • Spokane County CDBG Consortium • City's guaranteed set-aside is 20% igiunrmor- Economic Development CDBG Grant Criteria • Residential, Low to Moderate Target Areas • Project Must Have High Priority Ranking • High Priority Infrastructure Projects — Water — Sewer — Street Improvements COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Project Selection Methodology • Identify Sidewalk Gaps: — CDBG Target Areas — Close to Schools — Identified in the adopted Bike Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Proposed Sidewalk Projects • Consistent with BPMP —Safe Routes to School map — Recommended Pedestrian Network map • Located in CDBG LMI Target Areas • Fully utilizes the City's share of the grant COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Legend 2015 CDBG Sidewalk Projects 2015 CDBG Sidewalk Projects BPMP Recommended Sidewalks Projects BPMP Safe Routes to School LMI Target Area School 0 50 100 200 Foot COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Proposed Sidewalk Projects Recommended CDBG Sidewalk Projects Approximate Costs Mission Avenue, east of Lily Road to Park Road Park Road, Mission Avenue to Nora Road Total Infrastructure Cost Estimate $281,194 $126,075 $407,269 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Process • Application deadline November 10, 2014 • Award funds 2015 • Sidewalk construction 2016 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 10-14-2014 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Draft, Second Amended 2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual advanced six-year plans for coordinated transportation program expenditures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: March 12, 2013: Council approval of CMAQ/TA Grant Applications May 28, 2013: Public Hearing, Draft 2014-2019 TIP June 11, 2013: Adopted 2014-2019 Six Year TIP via Resolution 13-006 July 30, 2013: Approved Washington Utilities and Transpiration Commission (WUTC) Grade Crossing Protection Fund (GCPF) application January 21, 2014: Draft Amended 2014 TIP, Informational Request for Council Action (RCA) February 4, 2014: Draft Amended 2014 TIP, Administrative Report June 10, 2014: Public Hearing on 1St Draft Amended 2014 TIP June 24, 2014: Adoption of Resolution 14-005, first amended 2014 TIP September 23, 2014: Draft Amended 2014 TIP, Informational RCA October 7, 2014: Draft Amended 2014 TIP, Administrative Report BACKGROUND: Pursuant to RCW 35.77.010, the City is required to prepare and after public hearing adopt a revised and extended comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years. The program shall be filed with the Washington State Secretary of Transportation not more than thirty days after its adoption. Annually thereafter the Council shall review the work accomplished under the program and determine current City transportation needs. Based on these findings, the Council shall prepare and after public hearings thereon adopt a revised and extended comprehensive transportation program before July 1st of each year. Each one-year extension and revision shall be filed with the Secretary of Transportation not more than thirty days after its adoption. OPTIONS: Conduct Public Hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct Public Hearing. 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 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works DRAFT AMENDMENT #2 - 2014 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 14- , ( , 2014) Proj. # Project From To Primary Source City Amount Total 2014 Project Costs 1 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 2 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project (PE/RW Only) 3 0141 Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (PE Only) 4 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Conc. Intersections (PE/RW) 5 0145 Spokane Valley -Millwood Trail (PE Only) 6 0149 Sidewalk Infill Program - Phase 2 7 0155 Sullivan West Bridge #4508 8 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection Project 9 0159 University Rd/I-90 Overpass Study 10 0166 Pines (SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project 11 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements (Bike/Ped.) 12 0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 13 0176 Appleway Trail Phase 2 (RW & CN) 14 0201 ITS Infill Project (PE Only) 0202 2013 Street Preservation Projects - Phase 2 15 0179 - Argonne Rd Resurfacing Project 16 0179 - Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project (EB Lanes) 17 0179 - Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project 18 0179 - Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project 2013 Street Preservation Projects - Phase 3 19 0180 - Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project 20 2014 Street Preservation Project 21 0196 - 8th Ave Reconstruction Project 22 0205 - Appleway Ave Resurfacing 23 - Euclid Ave Resurfacing Project 24 - Mullan Rd Resurfacing Project 25 0181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 26 0186 Adams St. Resurfacing Project 27 0187 Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project 28 0188 Sullivan Rd Resurfacing Project (PE Only) 29 0191 Vista Rd/BNSF RR Crossing Safety Improvements 30 Fancher Bridge over BNSF RR Expansion Joint Repair 31 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements (PE Only) 32 0211 Sullivan Preservation Project-SR290 to Wellesley 1-90 Flora Sullivan Broadway SCC Various locations Sullivan Pines (SR 27) University Pines (SR 27) @ Various locations 1-90 University Various locations Sprague Havana 1-90 Herald Park Various locations McKinnon Thierman Flora Dishman-Mica Various locations 4th Vista Sprague Vista @ Fancher @ Sprague @ SR 290 Trent Barker Euclid @Argonne/Mullan Valley Mall @Spokane River Houk St. 1-90 Grace Ave Wellesley Evergreen Broadway 1-90 Thierman University Vista Fancher Park Barker Broadway Sprague Herald Mission BNSF RR BNSF RR Barker Wellesley CMAQ STP(U) STP(U) STP(U) STP(E) CMAQ BR TIB -UCP CMAQ HSIP HSIP STP(U) CMAQ CMAQ STP(U) STP(U) STP(U) STP(U) STP(U) City City City City City QRSP CDBG STP(U) STP(U) WUTC City Private City 76,785 66,230 18,700 20,740 56,700 893,000 92,500 13,300 71,000 22,500 343,000 4,000 49,275 83,700 48,600 56,025 91,000 1,300,000 300,000 400,000 227,000 215,000 28,000 98,000 11,450 10,750 107,000 $ 21,527 568,800 490,600 138,500 153,650 440,000 226,800 8,440,000 1,850,000 98,500 648,500 472,000 166,700 2,542,000 26,000 365,000 620,000 360,000 415,000 670,000 1,300,000 300,000 400,000 227,000 215,000 133,800 206,550 725,000 84,800 50,750 107,000 55,000 21,527 $ 4,725,782 $ 22,518,477 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are 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 Funded Projects Added Projects 2013 Carry Over Projects 9/18/2014 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 09/18/2014 33368-33379 $13,510.48 09/19/2014 33380-33441 $611,204.72 09/19/2014 33442-33443 $54,593.36 09/19/2014 5943-5968 $1,920.00 09/23/2014 33444 $50.00 09/24/2014 33445-33449 $5,839.57 09/25/2014 33450-33492; 925140066 $663,637.57 09/25/2014 5969-5979 $2,021.00 09/26/2014 33493-33511 $138,573.99 10/02/2014 33512-33531 $40,821.61 10/03/2014 33532-33571; 930140031 $2,206,819.30 10/03/2014 5980-5988 $831.00 10/07/2014 4926; 4940-4943; 4951; 33572-33574 $295,615.18 GRAND TOTAL: $4,035,437.78 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists Other Funds 101 — Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 120 — CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 123 — Civic Facilities Replacement 204 — Debt Service 301 — Capital Projects (1st 1/4% REET) 302 — Special Capital Proj (2"d'/4% REET) 303 — Street Capital Projects 304 — Mirabeau Point Project 307 — Capital Grants 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 —Capital Reserve 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511 City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.032.000. Public Works 001.058.050.558. Comm. Develop.- Administration 001.058.055.558. Comm. Develop.— Develop.Eng. 001.058.056.558. Community Develop.- Planning 001.058.057.558. Community Develop.- Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't -Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist 09/18/2014 1:23:13PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33368 9/18/2014 001081 ALSCO 33369 9/18/2014 003860 BILOUS, PAVLO 33370 9/18/2014 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 33371 9/18/2014 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 33372 9/18/2014 003717 DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES LP LSPO1506263 LSP01511946 LSPO1517639 Expenses 9571159 9573229 S0089561 S0089583 S0090452 September 2014 8102641 8102642 8102646 8107673 8107674 8107694 8107695 8107696 8107697 8107698 "‘ 8107699 8107700 8107701 8107702 8107703 8107704 8111539 8111545 Fund/Dept 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.018.013.513 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.011.000.511 Description/Account Amount FLOOR MATS FOR PRECINCT FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC FLOOR MAT SERVICE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total : PETTY CASH: 10275, 11602,03,05,0 Total : 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER Ca 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER Ci 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER a 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER CI 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER CI 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER a 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER a 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER a 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER Ci 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER Ca 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER Ca 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER a 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER a 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER a 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER Ca 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER CI 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER Ca 001.076.301.571 TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER CI 20.39 20.39 20.39 61.17 80.08 80.08 169.19 352.76 36.44 51.57 26.54 636.50 55.24 55.24 109.77 160.13 134.72 266.72 102.96 107.96 131.54 107.85 242.46 102.06 145.15 113.40 114.77 118.84 100.70 131.54 115.67 249.48 Page: 1 vchlist 09/18/2014 1:23:13PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33372 9/18/2014 003717 DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES LP 33373 9/18/2014 003136 GIBSON, CARLY 33374 9/18/2014 003596 MESSNER, SEAN 33375 9/18/2014 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 33376 9/18/2014 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 33377 9/18/2014 000295 VALLEYFEST 33378 9/18/2014 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 33379 9/18/2014 003128 YWCA OF SPOKANE 12 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 12 Vouchers in this report (Continued) 8111681 Expenses Expenses 18529579 18529580 August 2014 59010031 Sept 2014 8682830 Sept 2014 Fund/Dept 001.076.301.571 001.018.014.514 001.018.016.518 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.076.302.576 001.076.300.576 105.000.000.557 001.076.305.575 001.090.000.560 Description/Account Amount TRANSPORTATION TO SUMMER Ci 123.38 Total : 2,679.10 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : ACCOUNT NOT ON MASTER ACCOUNT NOT ON MASTER UTILITIES: PARKS TC/PA ANALYSIS: PARKS Total : Total : 2014 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB Total : SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT AND CF Total : 2014 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI Total : 389.72 389.72 500.00 500.00 23.80 22.00 5,715.37 5,761.17 27.00 27.00 2,472.00 2,472.00 152.18 152.18 696.32 696.32 Bank total : 13,510.48 Total vouchers : 13,510.48 Page: 2 vchlist 09/19/2014 2:51:37PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page:— — 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33380 9/19/2014 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 52353 52354 33381 9/19/2014 000648 ABADAN, REPROGRAPHICS & IMAGING 36696 36939 33382 9/19/2014 003078 ALLWEST TESTING & ENGINEERING 75241 33383 9/19/2014 000497 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 111-1615140 33384 9/19/2014 003090 BIG R STORES 058073/3 33385 9/19/2014 000673 BUDGET ARBOR & LOGGING LLC 11-2283 33386 9/19/2014 000796 BUDINGER & ASSOCIATES INC M14075-3 33387 9/19/2014 003961 CAPITAL DIGITAL DOCUMENT 041187 33388 9/19/2014 003221 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SEPA REVIEW 33389 9/19/2014 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 77505090 77505786 33390 9/19/2014 000823 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES 33391 9/19/2014 002385 DKS ASSOCIATES 249487 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 309.000.176.595 303.303.155.595 311.000.187.595 001.090.000.592 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 311.000.179.595 001.013.015.515 001.090.000.513 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 101.042.000.543 55530 303.303.060.595 Description/Account Amount 2014 STORM DRAIN CLEANING 2014 STREET SWEEPING CONTRA Total : BINDING SERVICES BINDING SERVICES Total : 0187 -SPRAGUE STREET PRESER'I Total : ADMINISTRATION FEE AUG-NOV 21 Total : Total : Total : SUPPLIES: PW TREE REMOVAL 0179 - MATERIALS TESTING SERVI Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : SEPA REVIEW RISK WASTE PLAN Total : COMPUTER LEASES 001-8922117-1 COMPUTER LEASE 001-8922117-0( Total : PERMIT FEE 2014 Total : ARGONNE CORRIDOR SIGNAL & D 27,514.75 36,041.22 63,555.97 55.44 676.29 731.73 2,282.70 2,282.70 78.90 78.90 23.90 23.90 652.20 652.20 6,309.65 6,309.65 40.63 40.63 300.00 300.00 1,006.63 1,087.48 2,094.11 143.00 143.00 8,684.81 Page: 1 ""� vchlist 09/19/2014 2:51:37PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33391 9/19/2014 002385 002385 DKS ASSOCIATES 33392 9/19/2014 001926 FARR, SARAH 33393 9/19/2014 001232 FASTENAL CO 33394 9/19/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC (Continued) EXPENSE IDLEW98814 IDLEW98916 42463 42491 42492 42493 42522 42528 42529 33395 9/19/2014 003707 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SERVICE 1701 33396 9/19/2014 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 33397 9/19/2014 000007 GRAINGER 33398 9/19/2014 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 33399 9/19/2014 001723 HEDEEN & CADITZ PLLC 33400 9/19/2014 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount Total : 8,684.81 001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 309.000.176.595 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.032.000.543 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.058.056.558 APRIL 2014 SERVICES 1702 001.058.056.558 JUNE 2014 SERVICES AUG14 1042 AUG14 1148 9529862121 00165040-B 7724 600425543 600425544 600427343 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 Total : Total : Total : LOBBYIST SERVICES LOBBYIST SERVICES- FEDERAL Total : 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: PW 303.000.177.595 0177 - FURURE TRAFFIC ANALYSI: Total : 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 Total : SCHEDULE 572DD016: 9/11-10/10/1 SCHEDULE 572E3651: 9/11-10/10/1. SCHEDULE 57281 DD: 8/7-9/6/14 70.56 70.56 2.92 6.40 9.32 116.80 40.00 38.40 123.20 84.80 82.45 93.50 579.15 2,654.40 400.00 3,054.40 3,506.85 7,000.00 10,506.85 37.06 37.06 11,827.48 11,827.48 3,767.50 3,767.50 745.84 830.28 550.02 Page: vchlist 09/19/2014 2:51:37PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: —3— Bank age'— Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33400 9/19/2014 001728 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO (Continued) 33401 9/19/2014 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 788240 33402 9/19/2014 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE & FITINGS 33403 9/19/2014 003697 INTEGRA 33404 9/19/2014 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 33405 9/19/2014 003185 LAMB, ERIK 33406 9/19/2014 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 33407 9/19/2014 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 33408 9/19/2014 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS 33409 9/19/2014 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO 33410 9/19/2014 001035 NDM TECHNOLOGIES INC 512420 513499 514661 12313815 0089307 1ST/2ND PICTURE 439 497 511 2A #0176 AUGUST 2014 84964 6293 6294 6317 Fund/Dept 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.090.000.586 101.042.000.542 001.018.016.518 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 309.000.176.595 101.000.000.542 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount Total : 5-206- ANNUAL DOT INSPECTION Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Total : INTERNET SERVICE FOR SCRAPS Total : TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND SUP Total : "PICTURE IT" WELLNESS CAMPIAC Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : DESIGN FEE FOR APPLEWAY TRAI Total : Total : Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SENTINEL IPS: SEPT- NOV SENTINEL EPS: SEPT- NOV MONTHLY MAINTENANCE Total : 2,126.14 54.30 54.30 62.54 443.52 437.45 943.51 88.48 88.48 10,023.40 10,023.40 25.00 25.00 12,915.44 424.50 649.35 13,989.29 150.00 150.00 59.39 59.39 100.55 100.55 1,197.00 1,197.00 300.00 2,694.00 Page: �3� vchlist 09/19/2014 2:51:37PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33411 9/19/2014 000008 NORLIFT 55025932 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 17.01 Total : 17.01 33412 9/19/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 725449219001 001.076.000.576 SUPPLIES: PARKS 130.35 726633751001 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 31.08 726633813001 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 187.49 726751207001 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 124.62 728488691001 001.013.015.515 SUPPLIES: PW 35.05 728488893001 001.013.015.515 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 13.58 Total : 522.17 33413 9/19/2014 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER AUGUST 2014 001.016.000.586 STATE REMITTANCE 51,460.63 Total : 51,460.63 33414 9/19/2014 002243 ORBITCOM 00783255 001.076.305.575 TELEPHONE SERVICE CENTER PL 209.26 Total : 209.26 33415 9/19/2014 000881 OXARC R292388 101.042.000.542 CYLINDER RENTAL 93.85 Total : 93.85 33416 9/19/2014 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 1428301-SP14 001.090.000.518 POSTAGE METER RENTAL 275.00 Total : 275.00 33417 9/19/2014 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 44234 101.042.000.542 2014 STREET AND STORMWATER 298,265.20 Total : 298,265.20 33418 9/19/2014 000041 PROTHMAN COMPANY 2014-4519 001.018.014.514 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,166.67 Total : 6,166.67 33419 9/19/2014 002193 QSCEND TECHNOLOGES INC 6456 001.058.056.558 WEB APPLICATION SERVCIES 125.00 Total : 125.00 33420 9/19/2014 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS INC 26010 001.058.057.558 NAME PLATE 37.77 Total : 37.77 33421 9/19/2014 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS IN13973 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS 750.33 Total : 750.33 Page: 4 vchlist 09/19/2014 2:51:37PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: " --5— Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33422 9/19/2014 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 33423 9/19/2014 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 33424 9/19/2014 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE 33425 9/19/2014 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 33426 9/19/2014 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY 33427 9/19/2014 003499 SPOKANE CO SHERIFF COMMUNITY, 33428 9/19/2014 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 33429 9/19/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 5898378 6296522 9072 TB 6-0016 50311626 AUGUST 2014 01 OCTOBER 2014 3550.215 110100045 51502329 TB 6-0116 33430 9/19/2014 000710 SPOKANE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 24087 40557 33431 9/19/2014 000093 SPOKESMAN -REVIEW 403038 33432 9/19/2014 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L104932 33433 9/19/2014 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED SP140261-IN Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 303.303.156.595 101.042.000.514 402.402.000.531 001.016.000.586 001.011.000.511 001.013.015.515 303.303.181.595 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.514 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 309.000.176.595 001.090.000.514 311.000.202.595 Description/Account Amount 2014 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONT 2014 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONT Total : RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SER\ Total : RECORDING FEES QUIT CLAIM DE Total : COUNTY IT SUPPORT AUGUST 201 Total : CRIME VICITIMS COMPENSATION 1 Total : LAW ENFORCEMENTAPPRECIATI( Total : FILE COMPLAINT Total : ENGINEERING AND ROADS INVOI( AUGUST WORK CREW INVOICE 2( EXCISE TAX FOR QUIT CLAIM DEE Total : DUES 2014-2015 C. DRISKELL DUES 2014-2015 E. LAMB Total : ADVERTISING ACCOUNT 42365 Total : SAO AUDIT OF 2013 Total : 202 - APPLEWAY STREET PRESER 530.46 127.18 657.64 3,714.90 3,714.90 75.00 75.00 11,825.04 11,825.04 735.05 735.05 35.00 35.00 240.00 240.00 51,139.27 3,444.09 10.00 54,593.36 105.00 105.00 210.00 2,898.80 2,898.80 17,589.44 17,589.44 6,144.63 Page: -�� vchlist 09/19/2014 2:51:37PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33433 9/19/2014 001875 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED 33434 9/19/2014 000797 THE KIPLINGER LETTER 33435 9/19/2014 002092 THOMPSON, CHRIS 33436 9/19/2014 003960 TUPPER, KENNETH 33437 9/19/2014 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRISES LLC 33438 9/19/2014 003470 VISION SOLUTIONS INC 33439 9/19/2014 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 42524 42581 (Continued) KW L30104 EXPENSE ADE -2014-0015 8302014 263272 33440 9/19/2014 000676 WEST 33441 9/19/2014 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 62 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 62 Vouchers in this report 830256129 AUGUST 2014 AUGUST 2014 B Fund/Dept 001.018.014.514 001.018.013.513 001.058.058.345 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.518 303.000.196.595 309.000.176.595 001.013.015.515 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount Total : 6,144.63 0519289201 RENEWAL M. CALHOU Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION REF Total : BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTGS F Total : VISION SOLUTIONS DOUBLE TAKE MAILING SERVICES MAILING SERVICES 58.00 58.00 12.11 12.11 315.00 315.00 1,154.00 1,154.00 5,685.01 Total : 5,685.01 Total : WEST INFORMATION CHARGES Total : INTENRET SERVICE CITY HALL DARK FIBER LEASE Total : Bank total : 611,204.72 Total vouchers : 611,204.72 402.77 218.27 621.04 743.69 743.69 560.73 409.41 970.14 Page: vchlist 09/19/2014 3:14:46PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33442 9/19/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 33443 9/19/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 2 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 2 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date 110100045 51502329 TB 6-0116 Fund/Dept 303.303.181.595 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.514 Description/Account Amount ENGINEERING AND ROADS INVOI( AUGUST WORK CREW INVOICE 2( Total : EXCISE TAX FOR QUIT CLAIM DEE Total : 51,139.27 3,444.09 54,583.36 10.00 10.00 Bank total : 54,593.36 Total vouchers : 54,593.36 Page: vchlist 09/19/2014 12: 54: 29 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page(' .-1— Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5943 9/19/2014 003984 ACT -ON SOFTWARE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00 Total : 52.00 5944 9/19/2014 003974 ADAMS, LEAH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 5945 9/19/2014 003983 ALS ASSOCIATION EVERGREEN CHPT PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 257.00 Total : 257.00 5946 9/19/2014 003982 BUILD IT ATHLETIX PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5947 9/19/2014 003965 COOK, ALEX PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR MIRABEAI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5948 9/19/2014 003964 GREENE, NICOLE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5949 9/19/2014 003969 HAMASHIACH, KEHILAT PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT SULLIVAN PARI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5950 9/19/2014 003970 HARWOOD, DIANE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5951 9/19/2014 003972 HASSIE AUTO CLUB PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU MEI 257.00 Total : 257.00 5952 9/19/2014 003518 IRONWORKERS LOCAL#14 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5953 9/19/2014 003985 JAGELSKI, BEN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT EDGECLIFF PAI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5954 9/19/2014 003981 JCPENNEY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU MEI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5955 9/19/2014 003971 LEAMING, BRANDY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PA 52.00 Page: vchlist 09/19/2014 12: 54: 29 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: // Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 5955 9/19/2014 003971 003971 LEAMING, BRANDY 5956 9/19/2014 003973 LOCAL 4921 5957 9/19/2014 003980 LOZANO, AL 5958 9/19/2014 003979 LYFOR, JANESSA 5959 9/19/2014 003968 MEDVEDEV, LAURISSA 5960 9/19/2014 003978 MITCHELL, JAIME 5961 9/19/2014 003891 PARE, HEATHER 5962 9/19/2014 003967 POLLOCK, HEIDI 5963 9/19/2014 003977 PRITCHARD, CHRIS 5964 9/19/2014 003976 RAGLE, HEATHER 5965 9/19/2014 003963 SLYE, RONNIE 5966 9/19/2014 003962 VIALL, TIM 5967 9/19/2014 003966 WILSON, RAND 5968 9/19/2014 003975 WYLES, JAKKI (Continued) PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PAKRS REFUND PARKS REFUND Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME) Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME) Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT BROWNS PARK Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT SULLIVAN PARI Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME) Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 Page: vchlist 09/19/2014 12:54:29PM /2 Voucher List Page: -3-- Spokane 3'Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5968 9/19/2014 003975 003975 WYLES, JAKKI 26 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref 26 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date (Continued) Total : 52.00 Bank total : 1,920.00 Total vouchers : 1,920.00 Page: vchlist 09/23/2014 2:12:36PM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33444 9/23/2014 003221 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SEPA REVIEW 001.090.000.513 SEPA REVIEW RISK WASTE PLAN 50.00 Total : 50.00 1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 50.00 1 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 50.00 Page: vchlist 09/24/2014 3:37:52PM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33445 9/24/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 2207 August 2014 001.058.056.558 INLAND NW PARTNERS ASSOC 80.00 2207 August 2014 001.058.057.558 INT'L CODE COUNCIL 1,696.02 2207 August 2014 001.058.057.558 WABO INC 133.53 2207 August 2014 001.058.055.558 VISIT SPOKANE 70.00 2207 August 2014 001.058.055.558 GREATER SPOKANE INC 50.00 2207 August 2014 001.058.050.558 DEPT OF LICENSING 116.00 Total : 2,145.55 33446 9/24/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 2223 August 2014 001.013.015.515 WSAMA 410.00 2223 August 2014 001.018.014.514 EXPEDIA 254.80 Total : 664.80 33447 9/24/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 7511 August 2014 001.018.013.513 USPS 16.00 7511 August 2014 001.032.000.543 APWA 375.00 7511 August 2014 101.042.000.542 WSU CASHIERS - SPS 359.00 7511 August 2014 001.018.016.518 ALASKA AIRLINES 180.20 7511 August 2014 001.018.016.518 ASSOCITION OF WA CITIES 210.00 7511 August 2014 001.018.013.513 VIZIAPPS STORE 15.00 7511 August 2014 001.018.014.514 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING FOUNDA 225.00 Total : 1,380.20 33448 9/24/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 9094 August 2014 001.076.301.571 KEK COMMUNICATIONS 60.00 9094 August 2014 001.076.301.571 HOBBY LOBBY 4.74 9094 August 2014 001.076.301.571 WAL-MART 12.49 9094 August 2014 001.076.305.575 THERMAL SUPPLY INC 270.91 9094 August 2014 001.076.305.575 MOTION AUTO SUPPLY 24.83 9094 August 2014 001.076.301.571 ACA BOOKSTORE 158.28 9094 August 2014 001.076.305.575 MEETING PROFESSIONALS INT'L 95.00 9094 August 2014 001.076.305.575 IAAM INC 75.00 9094 August 2014 001.076.305.575 ALASKA AIRLINES 217.20 Total : 918.45 33449 9/24/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 2199 August 2014 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP 28.00 2199 August 2014 001.013.000.513 ALASKA AIRLINES 254.20 2199 August 2014 001.011.000.511 ALASKA AIRLINES 254.20 2199 August 2014 001.032.000.543 ALASKA AIRLINES 254.20 Page: vchlist 09/24/2014 3:37:52PM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33449 9/24/2014 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued) 2199 August 2014 2199 August 2014 2199 August 2014 2199 August 2014 2199 August 2014 2199 August 2014 5 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 5 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 001.011.000.511 AVIS RENTACAR GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP GREATER SPOKANE INC GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP ATA GLANCE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Total : 52.72 20.00 45.00 20.00 137.25 -335.00 730.57 Bank total : 5,839.57 Total vouchers : 5,839.57 Page: vchlist 09/25/2014 3:05:14PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33450 9/25/2014 000648 ABADAN, REPROGRAPHICS & IMAGING 36834 36885 33451 9/25/2014 002816 ABLE CLEAN-UP TECHNOLOGIES INC 15840 33452 9/25/2014 003078 ALLWESTTESTING & ENGINEERING 33453 9/25/2014 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA 33454 9/25/2014 001816 BENTHIN & ASSOCIATES 33455 9/25/2014 000796 BUDINGER & ASSOCIATES INC 33456 9/25/2014 002562 CD'A METALS 33457 9/25/2014 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 33458 9/25/2014 000235 DB SECURE SHRED 33459 9/25/2014 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 33460 9/25/2014 002920 DIRECTV INC 74197 74436 75277 EXPENSE Fund/Dept 403.000.192.595 402.000.185.595 001.058.056.524 311.000.186.595 403.000.192.595 403.000.192.595 001.032.000.543 Description/Account Amount PRINTING SERVICES BINDING SERVICES FENCE RENTAL Total : Total : 0186 ADAMS RD RESURFACING M, ENGINEERING YARDLEY STORM\A MATERIALS TESTING YARDLEY ST Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 2188 311.000.179.595 0179 - SURVEY SVCS 2209 402.000.197.595 SURVEYING M14331-1 807080 348518 2721091514 SEPTEMBER 2014 SEPTEMBER 2014 23966934275 303.000.196.595 101.000.000.542 001.058.055.558 001.090.000.518 001.076.304.575 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.543 Total : 0196 - GEOTECHNICAL & PAVEMEP Total : Total : Total : Total : SUPPLIES: PW PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION ADVERTISING SENIOR CENTER ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 76.50 82.63 159.13 1,065.26 1,065.26 3,456.10 2,500.00 1,371.50 7,327.60 12.32 12.32 1,000.00 15,000.00 16,000.00 974.88 974.88 126.79 126.79 5,242.50 5,242.50 164.40 164.40 39.83 324.36 364.19 CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINT SHOF 48.99 Page: 1 vchlist 09/25/2014 3:05:14PM /2 Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33460 9/25/2014 002920 002920 DIRECTV INC (Continued) Total : 48.99 33461 9/25/2014 002507 FASTENERS INC S4050228.001 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 281.80 S4058340.001 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 4.85 Total : 286.65 33462 9/25/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 42495 402.000.197.595 NOTICE OF APPLICATION SEP -201 88.40 42570 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 39.95 Total : 128.35 33463 9/25/2014 002992 FREEDOM TRUCK CENTERS PC001174420:01 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 13.04 Total : 13.04 33464 9/25/2014 000609 GENDRONS CO 4504 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 63.47 Total : 63.47 33465 9/25/2014 001003 GEOENGINEERS INC 0131238 311.000.000.544 FWD TESTING - FALLING WEIGHT 24,557.45 Total : 24,557.45 33466 9/25/2014 000007 GRAINGER 9540768778 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 31.63 Total : 31.63 33467 9/25/2014 002568 GRANICUS INC 57861 001.011.000.511 BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTGS ( 719.59 Total : 719.59 33468 9/25/2014 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD 915131 101.042.000.542 40206D: SERVICE 318.73 Total : 318.73 33469 9/25/2014 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 274968 001.032.000.543 COPIER COST- INVOICE CORRECT 4.00 277736 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS 1.37 277737 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS 3.79 278173 001.018.014.514 COPIER COSTS 174.17 278174 001.018.014.514 COPIER COSTS 82.74 278175 001.013.000.513 COPIER COSTS 30.33 278180 001.032.000.543 COPIER COSTS 333.00 278187 001.013.015.515 COPIER COSTS 57.87 278188 001.013.015.515 COPIER COSTS 16.07 278200 001.058.050.558 COPIER COSTS 31.36 Page: vchlist 09/25/2014 3:05:14PM Voucher List Spokane Valley %0 Page: —3— Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33469 9/25/2014 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. (Continued) 278205 001.018.016.518 COPIER COSTS 48.12 278206 001.018.016.518 COPIER COSTS 17.42 278253 001.076.000.576 COPIER COSTS 440.82 278254 001.076.000.576 COPIER COSTS 39.87 278281 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS 1.83 278902 001.058.050.558 COPIER COSTS 222.50 278911 001.058.050.558 COPIER COSTS 122.59 278912 001.058.050.558 COPIER COSTS 23.96 Total: 1,651.81 33470 9/25/2014 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 788313A 101.000.000.542 5-210 ANNUAL DOT INSPECTION 331.75 788391 101.000.000.542 5-209 DOT ANNUAL INSPECTION 60.81 Total : 392.56 33471 9/25/2014 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. PAY APP 4 311.000.179.595 0179 - ARGONNE RD & SPRAGUE : 23,902.61 Total : 23,902.61 33472 9/25/2014 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 0089607 101.042.000.542 TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND SUP 6,469.09 Total : 6,469.09 33473 9/25/2014 001944 LANCER LTD 0448024 001.058.057.558 BUSINESS CARDS 92.62 Total : 92.62 33474 9/25/2014 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO EW -14-037 309.000.176.595 IRRIGIATION METER APPLEWAY TI 7,236.85 EW -14-038 309.000.176.595 IRRIGATION METER APPLEWAY TF 8,574.97 Total: 15,811.82 33475 9/25/2014 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO 84738 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 63.05 85042 303.303.155.595 SUPPLIES FOR BARRICADE 184.74 Total : 247.79 33476 9/25/2014 001844 NIMRI, RABA EXPENSE 001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 272.90 Total : 272.90 33477 9/25/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 727986968001 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 198.38 727987091001 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 24.99 727987093001 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 9.72 Page: vchlist 09/25/2014 3:05:14PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: --74'. Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33477 9/25/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 33478 9/25/2014 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS INC. 33479 9/25/2014 000836 SCHULTZ, WILLIAM J. 33480 9/25/2014 000862 SPOKANE ROCK PRODUCTS INC. 33481 9/25/2014 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED 33482 9/25/2014 003312 TAYLOR, CHELSIE 33483 9/25/2014 000335 TIRE-RAMA 33484 9/25/2014 003458 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO 33485 9/25/2014 001464 TW TELECOM 33486 9/25/2014 003206 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP (Continued) 727989391001 727989471001 728283914001 728284028001 728301694001 728678486001 40334 EXPENSE PAY APP 1 PAY APP 1 S P 140247-I N SP 140266-I N EXPENSE 8080030827 8080030949 987248 06520966 114138 Fund/Dept 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 309.000.176.595 001.058.056.524 311.000.202.595 311.000.187.595 403.000.173.594 402.000.185.595 001.018.014.514 001.058.057.558 001.058.055.558 101.042.000.542 001.076.305.575 001.013.015.515 Description/Account Amount SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PARKS SUPPLIES: PARKS SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW BILLBOARD AND PRINTS Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 0202-APPLEWAY BLVD STREET PR 0187 - SPRAGUE AVE STREET PRE 7.69 363.08 170.11 7.98 36.94 30.39 849.28 760.90 760.90 377.37 377.37 265,804.17 264,977.40 Total : 530,781.57 MATERIALS TESTING 0185 - ON CALL MATERIALS TESTI! Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 53666D: SERVICE 40205D: SERVICE SUPPLIES: PW Total : Total : INTERNET/PHONE CENTERPLACE Total : 1,335.00 1,231.50 2,566.50 1,360.75 1,360.75 426.91 23.86 450.77 497.33 497.33 1,245.93 1,245.93 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,947.20 Page: 4'^ vchlist 09/25/2014 3:05:14PM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33486 9/25/2014 003206 003206 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP (Continued) Total : 1,947.20 33487 9/25/2014 001797 VPCI 34332 001.090.000.518 LASERFISCHE ANNUAL SUPPORT 10,793.91 Total : 10,793.91 33488 9/25/2014 000100 WABO INC. 29081 001.018.016.518 JOB POSTING 50.00 Total : 50.00 33489 9/25/2014 003210 WEST CONSULTANTS INC. 005428 001.058.055.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 164.43 Total : 164.43 33490 9/25/2014 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO MS0601001417 101.042.000.542 CATERPILLAR EQUIPMENT PURCI- 1,314.18 Total : 1,314.18 33491 9/25/2014 001792 WHITEHEAD, JOHN EXPENSE 001.018.016.518 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 32.58 Total : 32.58 33492 9/25/2014 002651 WOODARD, ARNE EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 27.82 EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 27.26 Total : 55.08 925140066 9/26/2014 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-57 001.016.000.521 CRY WOLF CHARGES AUGUST 20' 3,943.62 Total : 3,943.62 44 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 663,637.57 44 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 663,637.57 Page: 45"x' vchlist 09/2512014 3:56:44PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5969 9/25/2014 002426 AARP ORGANIZATION PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 5970 9/25/2014 003996 CHARBONNEAU, GARRY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 109 52.00 Total : 52.00 5971 9/25/2014 004004 DAVIS, GEORGE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME) 52.00 Total : 52.00 5972 9/25/2014 003998 DE LA GARDIE, KARLY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FIRESIDE LOUD 210.00 Total : 210.00 5973 9/25/2014 004001 DRAGOMIR, DANA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 5974 9/25/2014 003999 HADLEY, RYAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND GREAT ROOM 60.50 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FIRESIDE LOW 149.50 Total : 210.00 5975 9/25/2014 003997 NOTSON, KARA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FIRESIDE LOUD 210.00 Total : 210.00 5976 9/25/2014 003995 SPENCER, SUZIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FIRESIDE LOUD 210.00 Total : 210.00 5977 9/25/2014 004002 THE ARC OF SPOKANE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 420.00 Total : 420.00 5978 9/25/2014 004003 VORONTSOVA, OKSANA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 5979 9/25/2014 004000 WALSHON, KATHLEEN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 213 27.00 Total : 27.00 11 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 2,021.00 11 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,021.00 Page: �f vchlist 09/26/2014 1:26:06PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: c 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33493 9/26/2014 000921 A TO Z RENTAL & SALES INC 33494 9/26/2014 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY 33495 9/26/2014 000030 AVISTA 33496 9/26/2014 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 33497 9/26/2014 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 33498 9/26/2014 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 33499 9/26/2014 003500 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 181871-1 IVC1028828 IVC1028829 August 2014 September 2014 9575211 9577233 S0090558 September 2014 34201 637363 638048 33500 9/26/2014 001911 GLOVER MANSION &, RED ROCK CATEF CP119 C P 1362 CP1395 33501 9/26/2014 000741 HONEY BUCKETS 2-1017359 2-1018519 2-1018933 33502 9/26/2014 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 778826 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.076.305.575 RENTAL FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 001.016.000.521 PRECINCT SUPPLIES 001.016.000.521 PRECINCT SUPPLIES 001.076.300.576 101.042.000.542 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 Total : UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA Total : LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total : 001.076.305.575 UTILITIES: PARKS Total : 001.076.305.575 RECYCLING COLLECTION: CP Total : 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.076.300.576 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 17.39 17.39 463.06 431.54 894.60 17,508.65 24,959.54 42,468.19 259.98 300.34 115.41 675.73 844.33 844.33 46.25 46.25 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE 32.00 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 172.96 Total : 204.96 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 152.18 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 60.00 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 225.55 Total : 437.73 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL- PARKS 158.00 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL - PARKS 158.00 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL - PARKS 158.00 Total : 474.00 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 184.36 Page: �f vchlist 09/26/2014 1:26:06PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page3—� Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33502 9/26/2014 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 33503 33504 33505 33506 33507 33508 33509 33510 33511 9/26/2014 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT 9/26/2014 000895 NEWBILL, BRANDON (Continued) 778827 782057 784872 September 2014 Expenses 9/26/2014 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC October 2014 9/26/2014 000437 PERIDOT PUBLISHING LLC, LIBERTY LA 17129 9/26/2014 001860 PLATT ELECTIRCAL SUPPLY F108036 F133971 9/26/2014 002475 POST FALLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5157 9/26/2014 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS INC. 40473 9/26/2014 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM 14-17 9/26/2014 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW 19 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 19 Vouchers in this report Aug 1-31-2014 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.090.000.518 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 001.076.000.576 001.076.302.576 Description/Account Amount FLOOR WAXING AT CENTERPLACE EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAI EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAI Total : OPERATING SUPPLIES: CENTERPI Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : CITY HALL RENT Total : ADVERTISING FOR HAUNTED POC Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT Total : ENTREPRENEUR ANNUAL MEMBE Total : BANNERS FOR VALLEYFEST Total : DIGITAL IMAGE FROM MUSEUM Total : OPERATING EXPENSES FOR AUG Total : 1,621.00 179.10 185.01 2,169.47 254.97 254.97 41.15 41.15 34,000.00 34,000.00 248.00 248.00 28.34 93.96 122.30 270.00 270.00 173.92 173.92 10.00 10.00 55,221.00 55,221.00 Bank total : 138,573.99 Total vouchers : 138,573.99 Page: _2— vchlist 10/02/2014 1:48:41 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33512 10/2/2014 000921 ATO Z RENTAL & SALES INC 33513 10/2/2014 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY 33514 10/2/2014 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 33515 10/2/2014 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 33516 10/2/2014 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 33517 10/2/2014 002308 FINKE, MELISSA 33518 10/2/2014 002712 GTFX INC. 33519 10/2/2014 002607 HUB SPORTS CENTER 33520 10/2/2014 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 33521 10/2/2014 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW 181871-1 RCB 1150618 9579266 acct 7219 S0091425 S0091441 September 2014 September 2014 September 2014 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 38982 2014 786347 787725 790054 790055 CP M-9-23-2014 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.076.300.576 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 105.000.000.557 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount RENTAL OF SUPPLIES FOR CENTE Total : SECURITY MONITORING AT CENTE Total : LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE AT C LATE CHARGE: CENTERPLACE LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total : UTILITIES: PW Total : WATER CHARGES: PW WATER CHARGES FOR EDGECLIF Total : INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT Total : SERVICE THE GREASE TRAP AT CI Total : 2014 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB Total : EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAI EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( SEPTEMBER 2014 MONTHLY CLEA Total : MEDIA AND PURCHASES EXPENSE 34.79 34.79 112.50 112.50 293.31 3.15 197.11 79.72 573.29 414.80 414.80 581.22 1,022.46 1,603.68 234.00 756.60 990.60 111.96 111.96 9,313.24 9,313.24 42.14 105.35 105.36 7,136.00 7,388.85 4,699.16 Page: �'� vchlist 10/02/2014 1:48:41 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33521 10/2/2014 001684 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW 33522 10/2/2014 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 33523 10/2/2014 000868 POWER CITY ELECTRIC CON. INC. 33524 10/2/2014 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS INC. 33525 10/2/2014 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER 33526 10/2/2014 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 33527 10/2/2014 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 33528 10/2/2014 002212 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS 33529 10/2/2014 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION, SOLUTI (Continued) August 2014 39133 40511 10-360984 6205535 September 2014 September 2014 September 2014 September 2014 11713913 140911173101 33530 10/2/2014 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 2102 2117 2126 33531 10/2/2014 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 2277879-2681-4 2277880-2681-2 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 001.076.300.576 001.076.300.576 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 309.000.203.594 309.000.209.594 309.000.195.594 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : Total : EMBROIDERY FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES FOR BRIDAL FAIRS Total : PARKS MAINTENANCE WATER CHARGES: PW HYDRANT USE - PW WATER CHARGES: PARKS WATER CHARGES: PARKS Total : Total : MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE: Total : ANSWERING SVC: CP SEA4590531 Total : 0203 -BROWNS PARK VOLLEYBALL 0209 - PARK SIGNS 2014 DESIGN DISCOVERY PLAYGROUND CONST Total : WASTE MGMT: CENTERPLACE WASTE MGMT: PRECINCT Total : 4,699.16 9,225.69 9,225.69 203.18 203.18 202.18 202.18 25.22 25.22 244.58 244.58 602.83 102.03 374.30 71.37 1,150.53 81.53 81.53 46.20 46.20 1,460.20 1,866.75 30.80 3,357.75 755.61 286.27 1,041.88 Page: vchlist 10/02/2014 1:48:41 PM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 20 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 40,821.61 20 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 40,821.61 Page: /3� vchlist 10/03/2014 2:04:24PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33532 10/3/2014 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 33533 10/3/2014 002988 ACE LANDSCAPING 33534 10/3/2014 003078 ALLWESTTESTING & ENGINEERING 33535 10/3/2014 000506 ASCE 33536 10/3/2014 003860 BILOUS, PAVLO 33537 10/3/2014 002562 CD'A METALS 33538 10/3/2014 000322 CENTURYLINK 33539 10/3/2014 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE 33540 10/3/2014 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 33541 10/3/2014 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 33542 10/3/2014 001880 CROWN WEST REALTY LLC 33543 10/3/2014 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 33544 10/3/2014 003624 DEHN, SHELLY 37909 5323 75311 1042871166 EXPENSE 808878 SEPTEMBER 2014 104058 47744 9533.0 OCTOBER 2014 563550 EXPENSE Fund/Dept Description/Account 001.032.000.543 101.042.000.542 311.000.187.595 001.032.000.543 001.018.013.513 101.000.000.542 001.076.000.576 101.042.000.542 001.013.000.513 303.303.156.595 101.042.000.543 101.042.000.543 001.018.016.518 Amount BINDING SERVICES Total : 2014 LANDSCAPING RIGHT OF WA Total : 0187 -SPRAGUE STREET PRESER' Total : 2015 MEMBERSHIP YEAR ID 2575: Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : 2014 PHONE SVCS: ACCT 509 Z14 - Total : TRANSFER STATION Total : ELECTRONIC CODE UPDATE Total : REPLUMB SERVICE & CAP Total : COMMON AREA MAINT FACILITY C Total : TOWER RENTAL PUBLIC WORKS Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 382.28 382.28 3,475.00 3,475.00 7,188.88 7,188.88 250.00 250.00 49.39 49.39 37.50 37.50 473.23 473.23 25.23 25.23 172.46 172.46 2,585.46 2,585.46 260.78 260.78 204.02 204.02 183.32 �f Page: vchlist 10/03/2014 2:04:24PM Voucher List Spokane Valley 8 Page: •-'2- Bank 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33544 10/3/2014 003624 003624 DEHN, SHELLY 33545 10/3/2014 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 33546 10/3/2014 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 33547 10/3/2014 002507 FASTENERS INC 33548 10/3/2014 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN 33549 10/3/2014 000007 GRAINGER 33550 10/3/2014 003177 GUTH, ERIC 33551 10/3/2014 002964 HALME CONSTRUCTION 33552 10/3/2014 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 33553 10/3/2014 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY 33554 10/3/2014 001104 MCCAIN INC. 33555 10/3/2014 002714 MILD TOO WILD UPHOLSTERY (Continued) RE-313-ATB40916067 RE-313-ATB40916068 RE-313-ATB40916118 RE-313-ATB40916156 0814-0464 S4063869.001 EXPENSE 9544379051 EXPENSE PAY APP 1 788507 990752 INV0178358 CSV ENDORCEMENT Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 303.303.060.595 311.000.187.595 303.303.166.595 101.042.000.542 001.011.000.511 101.000.000.542 001.032.000.543 403.000.192.595 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.204.595 001.000.000.321 Description/Account Amount Total : STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT SIGNAL & ILLUMINATION MAIN ARGONNE CORRIDOR UPGRADE I ARGONNE RD & SPRAGUE AVE ST Total : 0166 - PINES RD & GRACE AVE INT Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : CONSTRUCTION Total : 5-211- ANNUAL DOT INSPECTION Total : 5-208- SANDBLAST 0204 - SIGNAL EQUIPMENT Total : Total : CSV ENDORECEMENT REFUND Total : 183.32 6,498.62 3,912.19 68.33 172.84 10,651.98 1,412.25 1,412.25 4.14 4.14 32.48 32.48 6.21 6.21 51.40 51.40 398,150.31 398,150.31 1,090.64 1,090.64 392.60 392.60 23.70 23.70 13.00 13.00 Page: < vchlist 10/03/2014 2:04:24PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33556 10/3/2014 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 33557 10/3/2014 004008 NORTHWEST METAL WORKS 33558 10/3/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 33559 10/3/2014 002243 ORBITCOM 33560 10/3/2014 002678 ORNAMENTAL GATE AND FENCE 33561 10/3/2014 000881 OXARC 33562 10/3/2014 003847 POTHOLE SOLUTION LLC 33563 10/3/2014 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS INC 33564 10/3/2014 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS 33565 10/3/2014 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. EE -14-037 EE -14-038 EE -14-044 Fund/Dept 309.000.176.595 309.000.176.595 309.000.176.595 CSV ENDORCEMENT 001.000.000.321 730918775001 730918850001 731445656001 731445736001 731473326001 731530552001 731534324001 00790301 6486 95215SS 1005 26067 IN15064 6319829 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.018.016.518 001.018.016.518 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.543 Description/Account Amount COST ESTIMATE OH TO UG CONVE COST ESTIMATE OH TO UG CONVI COST ESTIMATE OH TO UG CONVI Total : CSV ENDORCEMENT REFUND Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: HR SUPPLIES: HR PHONE FOR CENTERPLACE SERVICE CALL 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 101.042.000.594 Total : Total : Total : Total : POTHOLE PATCHING TRAILER - FA Total : 001.018.013.513 NAME TAG 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS 101.042.000.542 Total : Total : 1,462.08 1,462.08 466.44 3,390.60 13.00 13.00 6.16 85.55 2.84 9.98 16.78 19.85 11.39 152.55 209.26 209.26 122.29 122.29 202.73 202.73 33,532.06 33,532.06 16.09 16.09 901.89 901.89 2014 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONT 423.93 Total : 423.93 Page: vchlist 10/03/2014 2:04:24PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33566 10/3/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 33567 10/3/2014 000311 SPRINT 33568 10/3/2014 000335 TIRE-RAMA 33569 10/3/2014 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 33570 10/3/2014 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 33571 10/3/2014 001792 WHITEHEAD, JOHN 930140031 9/30/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 41 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 41 Vouchers in this report 110100049 51502308 959698810-082 8080030880 9732257012 9732388838 Fund/Dept 303.303.181.595 001.016.000.523 001.058.057.558 001.032.000.543 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount ENGINEERING AND ROAD INVOICE HOUSING INVOICE AUGUST 2014 Total : GPS PHONE 35518D: SERVICE Total : Total : SEPT 2014 VERIZON CELL PHONE SEPT 2014 WIRELESS DATA CARD Total : 42682 303.303.155.595 MAILING SERVICE 42820 309.000.176.595 MAILING SERVICE EXPENSE 92902000632 001.018.016.518 001.016.000.521 Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : LAW ENFORCEMENT 86,550.09 122,049.00 208,599.09 70.23 70.23 36.85 36.85 1,216.52 440.11 1,656.63 1,487.32 229.84 1,717.16 578.25 578.25 1,528,080.43 Total : 1,528,080.43 Bank total : 2,206,819.30 Total vouchers : 2,206,819.30 Page: vchlist 10/03/2014 2:19:59PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 5980 10/3/2014 004013 ASURIS NW HEATH 5981 10/3/2014 004012 BIRD, EVE 5982 10/3/2014 004017 BOUCHER, TED PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND 5983 10/3/2014 004010 CROHNS/COLITIS FOUNDATION, OF AMI PARKS REFUND 5984 10/3/2014 004014 EMBASSY MANAGEMENT LLC 5985 10/3/2014 004016 GILBERT, DAVID 5986 10/3/2014 004009 HAMED, IQBAL 5987 10/3/2014 004011 KERNER, ELLA 5988 10/3/2014 004015 WELLS FARGO WEALTH MGMT 9 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref 9 Vouchers in this report PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 110 Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PA Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PA Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES Total : Bank total : 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 257.00 257.00 210.00 210.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 831.00 Total vouchers : 831.00 Page: �'1� 3 L� vchlist Voucher List Page: — 10/07/2014 4:07:16PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 4926 10/3/2014 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben57222 001.231.15.00 PERS: PAYMENT 74,706.65 Total : 74,706.65 4940 10/3/2014 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben57224 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 30,181.38 Total: 30,181.38 4941 10/3/2014 000682 EFTPS Ben57226 101.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 33,689.65 Total : 33,689.65 4942 10/3/2014 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL/ Ben57228 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 5,253.67 Total : 5,253.67 4943 10/3/2014 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC P1 Ben57230 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1,127.26 Total : 1,127.26 4951 10/3/2014 000682 EFTPS Ben57236 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 964.82 Total : 964.82 33572 10/3/2014 000120 AWC Ben57218 101.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS: PAYMENT 109,052.62 Ben57234 001.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS (COUNCIL): PAYMENT 10,197.09 Total : 119,249.71 33573 10/3/2014 000164 LABOR & INDUSTRIES Ben57216 101.231.17.00 LABOR & INDUSTRIES: PAYMENT 23,499.16 Ben57232 001.231.17.00 LABOR & INDUSTRIES: PAYMENT 4,450.31 Total : 27,949.47 33574 10/3/2014 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben57220 001.231.21.00 UNION DUES: PAYMENT 2,492.57 Total : 2,492.57 9 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 295,615.18 9 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 295,615.18 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 10-14-2014 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ['information ❑admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending September 30, 2014 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 263,547.72 $ 5,475.00 $269,022.72 Benefits: $ 144,699.54 $ 10,773.60 $155,473.14 Total payroll $ 408,247.26 $ 16,248.60 $424,495.86 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES Special Regional Council of Governments Meeting Hosted by Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Friday, September 5, 2014 10:00 a.m. — 12:30 a.m. Spokane County Fair and Expo Center, Conference Facility 404 N Havana Street, Spokane Valley, Washington Attendance: Spokane Valley Council Staff Mayor Dean Grafos Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard Councilmember Bill Bates Councilmember Chuck Hafner Councilmember Rod Higgins Councilmember Ed Pace Councilmember Ben Wick Mike Jackson, City Manager Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Others in Attendance: Various elected officials and staff members from within the region. 1. Welcome & Review of Meeting Agenda — Spokane Co. Commissioner Shelly 0' Quinn Commission Chair O'Quinn welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave those in attendance the opportunity for self -introductions. 2. Opening Comments and Welcome to the Spokane Interstate Fair — Rich Hartzell, Spokane County Fair & Expo Center Director Mr. Hartzell took a few moments to welcome everyone to the meeting and to the fair. 3. Relationship Between Fairchild AFB and Spokane Regional Governments — Commander McDaniel Colonel Charles B. McDaniel, 92nd Air Refueling Wing Commander, gave a brief introduction of himself and explained the mission and vision of the 92nd Air Refueling Wing, as well as some of the received awards and events. 4. Economic Development Update — Grant Forsyth, Chief Economist, Avista Corporation Dr. Forsyth went over some aspects of the economy, including comparison and speculation of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) Growth and Inflation Outlook from 2013 to 2019, the United States Federal Funds Interest Rate Future Contracts, the Non -Farm Employment Growth for 2013-2014, Residential Units Permitted from 2013-2014, and a comparison of existing home prices in Spokane, Kootenai County, and the United States for 2013-2014. 5. Small Cities/Towns Legislative Priorities/Updates Several Mayors and Councilmembers from various cities such as Spokane Valley and Airway Heights, gave a brief update on some of those cities' legislative priorities, with Deputy Mayor Woodard also mentioning the upcoming groundbreaking of Spokane Valley's Appleway Trail. 6. Upcoming Elections — Vicky Dalton, Spokane County Auditor Spokane County Auditor Vicky Dalton, along with Elections Manager Mike McLaughlin briefly spoke concerning the upcoming election, and of their and their department's work concerning all aspects of elections, from registering voters, to ballot layouts, to the actual elections. Special Regional Council of Governments Meeting 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 2 Approved by Council: DRAFT 7. STA Moving Forward Project — Susan Meyer Via their PowerPoint presentation, STA's (Spokane Transit Authority) Chief Executive Officer Susan Meyer, with Director of Planning Karl Otterstrom, discussed their ongoing "Moving Forward Project," which is STA's long-range multimodal transportation plan for the future of public transit, and which included showing some of the high performance transit networks and conceptual projects. 8. Small Cities/Towns Legislative Priorities/Updates Several other small cities and towns gave very brief reports on their legislative priorities for their communities. 9. Destroyed Property Forms — Vicki Horton, Spokane County Assessor Spokane County Assessor explained that the Assessor's Office offers disaster assistance to Washington residents and businesses affected by such disasters as the "straight-line windstorm" which occurred July 23, 2014 in Spokane County; she explained that declaring a disaster enables SBA (Small Business Administration) assistance; and she also mentioned the availability of low-interest federal disaster loans to repair or replace damaged or destroyed real estate, and that homeowners and renters are eligible for up to $40,000 to repair or replace damaged or destroyed personal property. She explained that interest rates can be very low, and that applicants may be submitted online at a secure website; and she welcomed individuals to contact her office for further information. 10. Public Facilities District (PFD) Update — Mike McDowell PFD Chair McDowell went over some of the plans for the upcoming Spokane Convention Center Expansion Project, and showed several photos of the progress taken and planned for this project. 11. Small Cities/Towns Legislative Priorities/Updates Representatives from Cities, Towns and tribes were invited to give an update on their legislative priorities. 12. Roundtable Discussion of Topics of Regional Importance — Shelly 0' Quinn There was some brief discussion about having more conversations among the West Plains municipalities as well as the Air Force Base concerning economic growth, water purveyors, and other economic factors. There were no other topics discussed. The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:15 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Regional Council of Governments Meeting 09/05/2014 Page 2 of 2 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, September 9, 2014 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer Micki Harnois, Planner Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, Mayor Grafos asked for a few moments of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and audience rose for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Bates: reported he attended the monthly 9-1-1 Emergency Board meeting where they discussed the emergency notification system, also known as Alert Spokane or Reverse 9-1-1, he mentioned an article in the newspaper a few weeks ago that indicated there were some problems with this system since notification was primarily through landlines, which are disappearing in favor of cell phones; and he reminded everyone that people must register their phone in order to have that service, and can do so through alertspokane.org. Councilmember Bates also reported that he attended the Clean Air Board meeting; went to the grand opening at the Fair Grounds, which was held the same day as the Regional Council of Governments meeting, and which he said was well attended by elected officials and staff. Councilmember Wick: said that he participated in the Air Force's 65th Anniversary and attended the Air Force Ball; went to the first meeting this year of the Tourism Promotion Area committee where they discussed allocations and forecasts as well as tracking actual revenues from hotel stays, and he gave a brief history of how this committee was created to encourage tourism, and of their funding allocation process where they award funds to Visit Spokane and the Regional Sports Commission. Councilmember Wick also mentioned the Department of Ecology Oil Rail Study and the meeting that he, Mr. Guth and Mr. Jackson attended and said they emphasized the grade separation as well as corridor consolidation; said he was on a local radio show to promote lodging tax applications and available funding; went to the Minutes Regular Council Meeting 09-09-2014 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT annual Greater Spokane, Inc. (GSI) meeting and met new director Steve Stevens; also attended the Spokane Fair; mentioned that the Spokane Valley Partners are working on their "Food for Thought" program to help feed kids throughout the weekend; said our City's Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting will likely be moved to October 27th; and said the Oil Rail Transportation Community Forum is scheduled for late October, and he hopes to have more information later. Councilmember Hafner: reported the Health District finally determined how best to evaluate the health district officer; and said he attended the Council of Governments Meeting and mentioned several of the speakers. Deputy Mayor Woodard: he also mentioned the "Food for Though" program and said they are looking mostly for high energy, high protein foods for that backpack program; mentioned some of the speakers heard during the Council of Governments meeting; and said he went to a SNAP Fall Fundraiser. Councilmember Pace: said he attended the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Planning Committee meeting where they received their budget and talked about their Moving Forward Plan to increase bus service if approved by the voters; said he thinks the STA downtown plaza should not be moved; and said he voted in favor of placing the STA Moving Forward Plan on an upcoming ballot, which means an increase in the sales tax; and said he attended the Council of Governments meeting at the Fairgrounds. Councilmember Higgins: said he and City Planner Barlow attended the County's Land Use Planning Steering Subcommittee meeting to update the County's system as required under the GMA (Growth Management Act); and said once those updates are formalized, they go before the full committee for approval, then to the various jurisdictions for adoption and will likely be completed in 2015; said he also attended the antique car show at Mirabeau Park. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Grafos stated that he attended the ribbon cutting at the Fair, as well as the Council of Governments meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comments. Ms. Tzena Scarborough: as per her handout, she invited everyone to the free summit for Women Veterans, to be held at the Spokane Convention Center September 20, 2014. Ms. Mary Lou O'Donnell, N Bolivar Road: spoke of her concern with the noise from Aspen Sound which is located on the corner where she lives; said the noise is a poor business practice for a neighborhood and even with her TV on, she still hears the noise, sometimes six days a week; said if she were to sell her home, she feels she would have a difficult time as no one would want to live next to Aspen Sound. Mr. Lyle Hatcher: said he is a caregiver for Ms. O'Donnell; that he is at her home a few hours every day and was mowing the lawn one day and heard someone from Aspen Sound using profanity for about an hour; said this must be resolved; that Ms. O'Donnell is 85 and he echoed the idea of having a difficult time selling the home if she wanted to move; said if you put something next to the wall, the noise vibration causes the item to rattle and fall off. Mr. Phil Chesley: also mentioned the problem with the loud noise at Aspen Sound; said he has tried to get them to quiet down, but to no avail; said he also witnessed drug use, although he is not sure if it was an employee; said the noise is over -powering and something has to be done. Ms. Wendy McElroy, Spokane Valley: spoke of her opposition to rezoning mobile home parks; said five feet more on each side is not living conditions; that this hits the low income people and said there is not enough room in five feet to have a yard, and there is also no privacy; that it would not be conducive to good healthy living and would create a depressive state; said she spoke with the Fire Department and their concern is having too many homes together and she said they were not aware of the proposal; said her insurance agent said she would not be able to afford the insurance premium in such a location. Mr. David Martin: said he lives on the north corner of Bolivar and would also like Aspen Sound gone; said he tried being nice and asked them to turn down the noise, and even called the police several times until a police officer told him, Mr. Martin, to settle down or they'd put him in cuffs; said he has had a business in the past and never treated neighbors like that and that it has to stop; that the music is screaming too loud and they need help with this situation. Minutes Regular Council Meeting 09-09-2014 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015 Budget Revenues — Mark Calhoun Mayor Grafos opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. After Deputy City Manager Calhoun gave a brief synopsis of the estimated revenues and expenditures for 2015, Mayor Grafos invited public comment. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:02 p.m. Councilmember Pace mentioned his desire to reduce spending by $110,000 by reducing travel money, association memberships and other things that don't directly benefit citizens, and to reduce the property tax rate by 1%, which he said would be a reduction of about $110,000, which he said is not much money, but that it would send a clear message to businesses that might want to relocate here. Councilmember Bates said the history of our City's budget is that we have a very tight budget, and he feels such a change would be premature not knowing what the legislative battle will be, or how much cutting there might be concerning revenue sharing and other legislative issues. Councilmember Wick added that in order to be more successful at a federal level on such things as the TIGER grant, there will have to be a certain amount of travel, and maybe even more than in the past; and said he would hate to restrict travel in that regard as travel money seems like a good investment on such things as a multi-million dollar grant. Mr. Jackson said the purpose of this item tonight is to conduct the public hearing, and that Council can change the budget at any time prior to its final adoption. Added Agenda Item: Outside Agency Funding Presentations — Mark Calhoun City Manager Jackson mentioned that due to some confusion on presentation dates, after consulting with the Mayor, it was agreed to permit these two organizations the opportunity to make a presentation. Ms. Sherri Richardson of Goodwill Industries; and Ms. Angela Lorenzi of Hearth Homes, each gave a short presentation promoting their grant application for funds. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on Sept 9, 2014 Request for Council Action Form, Totaling: $3,200,111.34 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending August 31, 2014: $418,684.01 c. Motion to Set Budget Hearing for October 14, 2014 d. Motion to Authorize City Manager to finalize and execute Car Radio Club Agreement e. Approval of August 19, 2014 Council Study Session Meeting Minutes f. Approval of August 26, 2014 Council Formal Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-010 Amending Setbacks — Micki Harnois After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance 14-010. Planner Harnois gave a brief recap of the proposal, and said there have been no changes to the ordinance since the first reading. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Pace said he agrees with approving this ordinance, and for the future, would like to bring back the issue of setbacks again and perhaps go to the pre -2007 setbacks. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4. Proposed Resolution 14-009 Adopting Shoreline Regulations — Lori Barlow It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Resolution No. 14-009 informally accepting the City Council Draft Shoreline Development Regulations. Senior Planner Barlow explained that staff is asking Council to accept by resolution, these draft development regulations which would Minutes Regular Council Meeting 09-09-2014 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT allow us to establish this as the final draft, and that would ultimately be packaged with the other previously informally adopted pieces of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), and brought back for formal and final public review of the entire SMP. Ms. Barlow mentioned that these regulations were extensively revised by the Planning Commission through more than seven meetings. Councilmember Pace asked if these regulations will affect any rights of property owners to do whatever they want to, and Ms. Barlow said that it would, that this is a set of regulations to be implemented within the shoreline jurisdiction, but that it would not affect anyone who hasn't historically been regulated by the Act and the implementing regulations; that the regulations do not restrict a land owner more than they currently are restricted; that the goal is to protect the land, and she explained that these regulations actually create more flexibility for property owners and in some cases depending upon the environmental designation, actually reduces some of the regulations. City Attorney Driskell added that the approach taken was that the City wanted to be in a position to do work ahead of time for the benefit of property owners to determine what the critical buffer is; and he asked if Councilmember Pace's concern was more toward creating nonconforming rights. Councilmember Pace replied it was. City Attorney Driskell said staff discussed that and paid particular attention to that and in their analysis, there were only two buildings, that as a result of these regulations, would be nonconforming, and that both are nonresidential properties and are located on the Keiser property; and that staff does not see that as problematic. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Sidewalk Infill Project Phase 2 Bid Award — Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the bid for the Sidewalk Infill Project Phase 2, #0149 to Cameron Reilly, LLC in the amount of $208,937.20 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Public Works Director Guth explained the proposal and bid submittal process and outcome, as noted on his September 9, 2014 Request for Council Action Form. Mr. Jackson noted that the intent is to complete the project this year; and Mr. Guth added that staff is working with STA to install the bus shelters, that the pads will be ready but STA will actually install the shelters. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 7:30 p.m.; and he reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. 6. Motion Consideration: Thierman Traffic Configuration — Sean Messner It was moved by Councilmember Bates and seconded to accept the recommendations of the traffic engineer division to proceed with the installation of the flashing yellow arrows at Sprague and Thierman, leave the lane configurations as they are now, and re-evaluate the intersection in eight to twelve months. Traffic Engineer Messner gave the highlights of the traffic analysis and his rationale for keeping the configuration the way it is now; said that although the twenty -hour hour video did not show blocking, he agrees some blocking does occur, but said that option one compared to existing conditions will not change the blocking; and said there are safety issues to consider such as there have been no sideswipes with the current configuration, but that option 1 puts traffic at risk for those crashes. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Ms. Heather Graham, of Spokane Valley; spoke in favor of the motion and agreed with installing the flashing yellow arrows; said she attended the August 26 Council meeting and listened to all the options and made note of the Mayor's concern for visitors as that is a confusing area, but she said most visitors use GPS as a guide; said if we put in two turn lanes and someone on the inside lane realizes they are in the wrong lane, they would be stuck; said she agrees with Mr. Messner's suggestions and feels the public safety is important. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Hafner voiced his agreement with the motion and in keeping with the recommendations of our registered engineer that the area would be safer with the current configuration than with making a change. Councilmember Wick said he doesn't see this as an issue since we have only received one public request to make this change. Vote by a show of hands resulted in those in favor of the motion were Minutes Regular Council Meeting 09-09-2014 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmembers Bates, Hafner and Wick; and those opposed were Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Higgins and Pace. The motion failed. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize staff to proceed with option 1 modifying the Sprague/Thierman northbound intersection through -lane to dual shared left -turn through lanes with signal modifications, with no changes to the Appleway/Thierman intersection. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Ms. Heather Graham said that there are similar two-lane configurations throughout the County but they are well signed; that she didn't hear anything about adding extra signage, which would increase the cost, but which might also make it just as safe. There were no further comments. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about signage and Mr. Messner said it would be included in such a project. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Pace and Higgins. Opposed: Councilmembers Hafner, Bates, and Wick. Motion carried. Added Agenda Item: 6a. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment, Shane Comer to Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee — Mayor Grafos It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to confirm the Mayoral recommended re- appointment of Michael Shane Comer to the Spokane County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee for a three-year term effective September 2, 2014, pending official appointment by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners. Councilmember Wick said he would have liked to see this opened up to give others a chance to apply, and Deputy Mayor Woodard replied that the last time we advertised, we only received one application. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafner, Pace, Higgins and Bates. Opposed: Councilmember Wick. Motion carried. Added Agenda Item: 6b. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Appleway Trail Phase 2A — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the Appleway Trail Phase 2A contract to Stone Creek Land Design & Development LLC as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, in the amount of $1,068,992.75 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Public Works Director Guth briefly explained the project and said that two bids were received; that the bids were close and that the path lighting was a lump sum bid which may have caused the difference in the bids, but that this is within the budget Council verbally approved, and that this will be included in the budget amendment later this year. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Wick said having the bid 30% over the engineer's estimate makes him a little nervous, and that he finds it difficult to spend that difference out of capital funds when there are so many other projects. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafner, Pace, Higgins and Bates. Opposed: Councilmember Wick. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comments. Mr. Ray Ward, of East 9th Avenue spoke concerning semi -trucks; said that one morning at 4:45 a.m. there were two trucks in his neighborhood, and one was across from his bedroom and the other across from McDonald School and the church; said it doesn't sound very safe and he mentioned the pollution factor and said school buses are not even allowed to idle by schools any more. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos Councilmember Hafner suggested having a meeting with Spokane City Council to discuss some of the same concerns to see if we can come to consensus and move forward on such regional items as bridging the valley, coal and oil trains, and liquor revenues. Mr. Jackson said staff will work to have an agenda in place then set a meeting. Councilmember Wick suggested a meeting with GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) to discuss what we would like to see from their organization, and to perhaps establish better Minutes Regular Council Meeting 09-09-2014 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT communications. Councilmember Bates agreed with that suggestion, adding that we need ideas of what we think or hope GSI could do for us, instead of them telling us what they are doing. Mr. Jackson said that Director Hohman and Mr. Basinger are working closely with GSI, and he suggested staff continue that and have staff come to council first about expectations, then invite GSI in for a meeting; and said this will take some time. Council concurred. Mayor Grafos stated that the problem with Aspen Sound has been going on for a couple of years and we need to see if there is anything the City can do to alleviate that problem; he also noted that concerning the bridging the valley and the coal and oil trains, since we now have historic low interest rates, perhaps that could be examined by staff and to bring Council some hard numbers on what one of these projects would cost, and to explore discussion perhaps with other cities; that if we started the project, we might get some help from the federal government, and suggested staff look to see if there is an opportunity to self -fund part of that project. INFORMATION ONLY n/a CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Jackson mentioned the draft letter to Governor Inslee concerning the state maintaining state shared revenues with local governments, and Council agreed with submitting the letter. Mr. Jackson also noted that the topic of commercial vehicles, trucks, will be included on the October 7 council agenda. Mr. Jackson mentioned the legislative agenda which will be on next week's Council meeting, and said we will have to strategize how much funding to go after; he noted that Parks and Recreation submitted a grant for partial funding, but it appears we were not successful; said that we have a long-range plan for the Barker Road Grade Separation, that we could look at self -funding, but we have marked the capital reserves for various projects, so it would depend if Council wants to change priorities and shift some of the funds around; and he added that Lobbyist Briahna Taylor will also be here next week for the legislative agenda discussion. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] Review the Performance of a Public Employee It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately sixty minutes to review the performance of a public employee, and that no action would be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:28 p.m. At approximately 9:34 p.m., Mayor Grafos declared Council out of executive session, which time it was immediately moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed, to adjourn. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting 09-09-2014 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington September 16, 2014 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff 6:00 p.m. Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Eric Guth, Public Works Director Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. Mayor Grafos announced, and invited everyone to that the Appleway Groundbreaking set for 4:00 p.m. this Thursday; and to the Sullivan Bridge/Park Improvements Dedication set for September 25, at 3:30 at Sullivan Park. 1. Draft Legislative Agenda — Mike Jackson, Briahna Taylor City Manager Jackson introduced lobbyists Briahna Taylor and Alex Soldano, both of Gordon Thomas Honeywell, to discuss legislative issues. Mr. Soldano briefed Council on the Legislature's Operating Budget, which he explained is where local state shared revenues come from; he said there are several pressures since the recession which have become worse with recent court decisions, such as the McCleary decision whereby the State was ordered to fully fund basic education by 2018 because it was determined the State wasn't doing enough for basic education, and to have an approved plan by the end of the 2014 legislative session; he said a plan was not passed and the Supreme Court of Washington determined that the State was in contempt, but would wait to impose sanctions until after the end of the 2015 Legislative session when the Court would review what the legislature did; and based upon that review, would determine whether sanctions would be levied. Mr. Soldano explained that all this means a drastic shortfall with agency directors being directed to include a 15% budget reduction; which also means local state shared revenues, including marijuana, liquor, and streamlined sales tax would be hit hard when it comes to sharing those revenues with municipalities. Ms. Taylor went over the capital funding segment of the State's budget, which she explained includes brick -and -mortar construction; adding that if some of the proposed school regulations such as class size pass, an additional $2.5 million would be required to be set aside for school construction. Ms. Taylor also discussed the request for funding assistance with the Appleway Trail Project, and recommended keeping the request to a limit of $1 million, as she examined similar past year's legislative requests from various entities, and it appeared the maximum request allocated was $1 million. Ms. Taylor went over the transportation budget portion of the overall state budget, and said there is little available revenue; that the conversation focused on whether to adopt individual increases, or a packet, and said most negotiations Council Study Session 09-16-2014 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT have stalled with no real progress. She mentioned the Governor launched a task force to examine climate change and a part of that is proposing either a cap and trade system, or a carbon tax, but either way the price of gasoline would be affected and an increase would make it more difficult for everyone to come to an agreement on the transportation revenue package; she noted a smaller gas tax was proposed of three to four cents to fund maintenance and operation, adding if the package were to pass, there would be no revenue available to fund projects, but only to fund maintenance and operation of state facilities; she noted there was also discussion about the impacts of freight rail with emphasis on safety, capacity and quality of life. Mr. Soldano added that rail issues are very controversial state-wide; and he mentioned Spokane Valley's participation on the ad hoc freight rail committee, which was organized by the Association of Washington Cities (AWC); and he said that AWC will be carrying that discussion forward and putting their proposal in a report to include all governments' concerns about what can be done including the amount of traffic generated, as well as safety and quality of life issues. Discussion moved to code enforcement costs and cities having a first lien authority; with Ms. Taylor explaining that the proposal has not advanced; that she met with key legislatures to discuss the proposal's prospects and the feedback from legislators was to encourage Spokane Valley to look for an alternative proposal as having a first priority lien is not a viable option as it is opposed by the community banks, adding that there also seems to be a general dislike for the current nuisance abatement law. Ms. Taylor recommended advancing a proposal that allows the city to make progress but doesn't advance the first priority lien, which means the City and the property owner would enter into an agreement for mitigation. She also mentioned the idea of having the County Assessor collect those costs through property tax notifications. Mayor Grafos noted that just including our bill with the county assessor's tax bill would not be legally binding. Ms. Taylor mentioned that some cities that operate a utility have more advantage in collecting mitigation payments. City Attorney Driskell mentioned there is a provision for dealing with the situations where the area is unfit for human habitation, but those are not the majority of cases and declaring a building unfit is only part of the solution. Ms. Taylor said that AWC is still working on their legislative agenda and she asked if Council would like to add anything There were no immediate suggestions. Ms. Taylor mentioned the legislative issue dealing with limiting the number of indigents per public defenders, and said now that public defenders are mandated to handle fewer cases, other lawyers must be hired which represents another hit on municipalities; she said AWC is seeking additional funding for cities to meet these new caseload standards. The topic of marijuana legislation was mentioned and of the desire of some cities to ban its sale and production; and Ms. Taylor said there is a desire not to have those bans pre-empted by state law; adding that a way to have local sharing would be in the reconciliation of medical and recreational marijuana statutes. Ms. Taylor said there is no specific proposal yet. Ms. Taylor mentioned that another issue AWC is considering is the lifting of the 1% property tax cap; she said she realizes Spokane Valley does not take the 1%, but many cities do and some find even with the 1% increase, it is not enough to keep up with the cost of providing services, so AWC will be asking the legislators to replace the 1% cap with a growth inflator having a range between 2.5 and 2.8%. Ms. Taylor noted that the AWC has not yet finalized their legislative agenda. Mr. Jackson asked Council if the preference is to simply support the AWC agenda to the extent that it benefits Spokane Valley, or to enumerate some items on the Council's own agenda; and if Council prefers, he said he would move forward to articulate the capital request for Appleway Trail to fund a portion of Evergreen to Corbin and have public works come up with a more specific number. Councilmembers nodded in approval. Mr. Jackson said we can have a future discussion on code enforcement costs and hopefully by then, AWC would have their finalized legislative agenda. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested encouraging the reconciliation of medical and recreational marijuana regulations and that medical marijuana should be regulated through a pharmacy. Mr. Jackson said staff can research that for future discussions. Council Study Session 09-16-2014 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Wick asked about who has committee appointing rights for the PFD (Public Facilities District), and suggested exploring how to get more direct input, by perhaps changing the regulations to include the top three largest populations. Mr. Jackson said staff will continue researching these issues and bring this item back to Council again in early November. 2. Review of Library Services — Sonia Gustafson, Library Managing Librarian Via her PowerPoint presentation, Managing Librarian Sonia Gustafson gave a presentation on the various aspects of the Spokane County Library District services, including some general background information on the establishment of the library district and how it has changed over the years, and the District's programs and priorities, including programs such as Developing Young Learners, Explore and Discover, Supporting Job Seekers and Local Businesses, and Community Involvement. Council extended thanks to Ms. Gustafson for sharing her information about the library services. 3. Marijuana Abuse Awareness — Linda Thompson, Director Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council Ms. Thompson shared a PowerPoint presentation to cover issues such as marijuana characteristics, acute and long-term effects, potency, and highlights from the Health Youth Survey released March, 2013 showing statistics concerning student participation in drug and alcohol use as well as their perception of such use. Ms. Thompson also gave some examples about alcohol and drug use in advertising with use being associated with being popular and fun. After the PowerPoint, there was discussion concerning ideas such as community partnerships to advocate against all abuses. Council thanked Ms. Thompson for her presentation. Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 7:44 p.m., and he reconvened the meeting at 7:52 p.m. 4. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Proposed Projects — Mike Basinger Economic Development Coordinator Basinger explained that Spokane Valley is a member of the Spokane County Community Development Block Grant Consortium, that each year the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development provides CDBG entitlement funding to Spokane County and Spokane Valley receives a guaranteed 20% set-aside, with this year's funding estimated at $270,000 for eligible projects. Mr. Basinger explained that to be eligible, a project must be located in residential, low to moderate -income target areas, and the project must be ranked as a "high priority" in Spokane County's Consolidated Plan. This year's deadline, Mr. Basinger noted, is November 10, 2014; projects in the past included sewer projects, and currently the funding is used for sidewalk projects; he said according to a census survey, Greenacres is no longer eligible as a low and moderate income track, adding that he keeps track of those annual surveys to make sure our projects will remain on track. Mr. Basinger said there are two proposed projects: (1) the Seth Woodard Elementary School sidewalk improvement project which does not require purchase of any right-of-way; and (2) Park Road/Marietta to Buckeye, Sidewalk Improvement Project, which would require us to purchase right-of-way, and for such a project, we would need to relocate utilities and trees. Mr. Basinger recommended moving forward with the Seth Woodward Project for the increased amount of $300,000; said he would like to work with the public works department to make sure to get this to the County with good, solid estimates by the November 10 deadline. Mr. Basinger said the sidewalks could be constructed in 2015. Deputy Mayor Woodard said the funding level was increased this year and as soon as he receives those figures he will let Mr. Basinger know; said we want to make sure we don't underfund a project; and he agrees with the idea of trying to apply for more; and said the area is in dire need of sidewalks. There was Council consensus to move this forward. 5. Parks Capital Projects — Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that during the annual budget process, staff have the opportunity to request capital projects; he said there were several projects budgeted for 2014 and some Council Study Session 09-16-2014 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT projects which were not included in the 2014 budget, including the Appleway Trail Phase 2A, which funding he explained, is being taken from the Parks Capital budget. Mr. Stone said that due to some unanticipated circumstances and cost estimates that have changed, several capital projects for 2014 are currently underfunded; and that some projects scheduled for 2014 must be rescheduled in part or in whole, to 2015; and that the impact to the 2014 budget will necessitate that budget being amended. Mr. Stone explained the change in expenditures for the projects as listed on his revised spreadsheet; that the volleyball courts increased cost was due in part to going through the public master planning process, as well as acquiring a topographical survey of the park, and that the sand was much more expensive than anticipated, plus contingency and sales tax, all resulting in a need to amend the 2014 budget by $36,200 based on estimates, adding that he will have further information after tomorrow's bid. For the Edgecliff picnic shelter, Mr. Stone said demolition of the older shelter was not included, nor was the electrical cost including lighting, and the ADA (Americans with Disability Act) accessible path; and Mr. Stone explained about the cost associated with purchase and shipping of a pre-engineered kit, site work for turf repair, sod repair, concrete walkway, and having the shelter meet electrical standards so that plugging in a coffee maker as well as a crock pot would not cause electrical outages. Discussion ensued regarding the cost of the shelter, with Deputy Mayor Woodard stating that it seemed to be very high, and questioning why we would get a pre-engineered kit shipped to us instead of having the shelter built by a local construction company. Director Stone said the intent of tonight's discussion is to demonstrate how we got to the $116,000 by starting with the shelter and working through all those costs; and said discussion can continue further should Council feel the expenditures are too high. Concerning the Discovery Playground, Mr. Stone explained that it was completed within budget and there were available funds for a shade structure to try to cover the slide, which he said is made out of concrete and rock and which gets hot; and said he suggests postponing that project until next year. For the City entry signs, Mr. Stone said it has been a challenge to find a suitable site for our second gateway project and that staff is still researching some alternatives; he said the three park signs are based on the design of the gateway sign, but modified to use recycled materials to reduce cost and minimize maintenance; and said park signs will be made for Greenacres; and that the signs have fallen in disrepair and need to be replaced for Terrace View and Brown Parks. Mr. Stone stated that it was discovered that Edgecliff sewer was never connected when we incorporated, although it was assumed it had been; that we are required to connect and a consultant has been hired; adding that a contractor will start next week and make sure all our facilities are connected. Mr. Stone noted that for the Old Mission Trailhead, our portion includes paving the parking stalls, and some concrete and improvement work; and said that the Appleway Trail Phase 2A groundbreaking is scheduled for Thursday, and that these two projects, Appleway Trail and Mission Trailhead, came about mid -year so they will also be included in the budget amendment. Mr. Stone said it is up to Council on where we go from here on these projects. In response to Mayor Grafos' question about signs for the Mission Trailhead, Mr. Stone said that the project includes signs, paving, curbing, sidewalks, and that the $25,000 will cover the cost of the benches and drinking fountain, and he expects it will be a first class addition to that area. 6. Care of Stormwater Swales — Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth, through his PowerPoint presentation, gave some history on the City's use of swales, including who builds them and where they are placed, maintained and protected; he went over the basics of the function of swales, and showed some swale examples, such as the one on Trent and Pines which is maintained by Washington State Depaitment of Transportation, and the swale on Mission Avenue, which is City owned and maintained. Council Study Session 09-16-2014 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos Councilmember Pace suggested continuing with the drug and alcohol abuse presentation by having a presentation from the Police Department. 8. Information Only: Greater Spokane, Inc. Quarterly Report was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 9. Council Comments — Mayor Grafos Councilmember Pace suggested embracing a vision of zero tolerance for our city and working on specific policies and programs. 10. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson announced that Sunshine's new transfer station is scheduled to be opened November 17 and that staff is moving ahead to develop and advertise the educational campaign, and has hired MDI Company to draft a marketing plan, which should be finalized within the next several days and which will be public about two to three weeks prior to opening; he said staff is in the process of reviewing the comments from the Department of Ecology on the solid waste and hazardous waste plan, and will schedule time to come back with a revised version of the plan; and said the collection aspect with Waste Management is being negotiated, and all aspects are moving forward. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Potential Real Estate Acquisition; Review Performance of a Public Employee It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately ninety minutes to discuss potential real estate acquisition and to review the performance of a public employee, and that no action would be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:59 p.m. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Mayor Grafos declared Council out of executive session, at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session 09-16-2014 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, September 23, 2014 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole of Living Hope Community Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and audience rose for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Higgins: mentioned he participated in the Valleyfest parade. Councilmember Pace: reported he attended the Inland NW Foundation reception, that they pool their money together to do good things for the area; participated in the Governance Manual Committee meeting where the process of placing items on the agenda was discussed; attended the Appleway groundbreaking; went to the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board meeting where he expressed disappointment about the plaza renovation, and said he had hoped pedestrians, bus riders and businesses would all be stakeholders in the conversation, but they were not; went to the Chamber of Commerce monthly breakfast where they introduced their new CEO Katherine Morgan, who said at that meeting that she wants the organization to help make Spokane Valley the best place to live; and said he participated in the Valleyfest parade. Councilmember Hafner: said he attended the Visit Spokane meeting where they discussed different types of things involved for the benefit of arts; went to the STA meeting, said a study was conducted in 2009 at which time it was determined that downtown is the best location for the plaza and he mentioned that the recent meeting included a request for a three-month moratorium on the renovation in order to give all participants opportunities to consider various options; went to the Health Board workshop, and said they continue the evaluation of the Health District Officer, and also discussed the opiate program and situation in the area; went to the Appleway Trail groundbreaking; attended another Visit Spokane meeting; went to the Board of Health Executive meeting as well as their Governance Committee; and mentioned that the STA Board meeting addressed their "Moving Forward" program, which is a program to plan for transit needs in the next twenty years; participated in the Valleyfest parade; and this morning attended a Visit Minutes Regular Council Meeting 09-23-2014 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT Spokane conference where the guest speaker mentioned there were over three million visitors in Spokane County in 2013. Councilmember Bates: reported that he attended the Appleway Trail groundbreaking; went to the ribbon cutting of the new Grocery Outlet store at Pines and Sprague; and participated in the Valleyfest parade; and he mentioned the upcoming Sheriff and Police Department sponsored Prescription Drug Take -Back Event set for Saturday, September 27. Councilmember Wick: mentioned not only did we not receive any TIGER grant funds, no municipality in Eastern Washington received any funding; he mentioned the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) newsletter included information about diverting funds from the Transportation Improvement Board, and said he hoped that our lobbyist Briahna Taylor will be able to assist us in that regard. Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he also attended the Appleway Trail groundbreaking; went to the Inland NW Community Foundation 40th year celebration; attended the Chamber business connection meeting where he heard a speaker talk about how to entice television shows and movies to our state, said our state offers $10 or $11 million compared with other states which offer much higher incentives. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Grafos said he attended many of the same activities mentioned by other Councilmembers, including the Valleyfest parade, said he judged the bed race; spoke at the Appleway Groundbreaking; mentioned the health fair at Pines Manor today; and said that every month he signs letters thanking new Spokane Valley businesses, and he said one of the reasons we get new businesses is the outstanding customer service our staff provides, and he read a thank you letter expressing thanks to Planner Micki Harnois and Receptionist Roxanne Crafton for their extraordinary assistance in dealing with the business license application process. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comments. Mr. Ian Riley of Spokane Valley: said he is a business owner, just recently sold the Oz Fitness business and also owns the Black Pearl; said he understands taxes are a requirement, but that a 10% gaming tax is a gross tax and said this year he will pay about $330,000 in gaming taxes; said he obviously makes money to be able to pay that, but it includes B&O tax, payroll taxes, etc. and that all total taxes were in excess of $700,000; said he has 95 employees; said the gaming industry has declined over the years possibly due to taxation; and he mentioned other businesses that closed such as Ringo's and Players & Spectators; said Spokane Valley's budget is $70 million and his company's tax represents a significant amount of that and he would like some consideration to have taxes reduced; he said the City of Spokane is considering reducing their tax from ten to two percent, and if that goes through, it would offer a considerable advantage to his competitors, and said Airway Heights and other large casinos do not pay any taxes; and he asked for consideration of a tax reduction or moratorium for a time period. Ms. Marilyn Cline, Mr. Ray Ward, and Ms. Alberta Schmidt all spoke about their concerns with trucks parking in residential areas, with concerns including noise pollution, exhaust fumes, odor, being awakened by noisy trucks during pre -morning hours, parking on residential streets, blocking views, etc. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on Sept 23, 2014 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $967,864.55 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending September 15, 2014: $309,528.28 c. Approval of September 2, 2014 Council Study Session Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Minutes Regular Council Meeting 09-23-2014 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT NEW BUSINESS: 2. Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Allocations for 2015 — Mark Calhoun It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to allocate outside agency funds as follows: Greater Spokane, Inc: $23.286 Chamber of Commerce: $15,400 Arts Council: $12,000 Valleyfest: $19,714 *Big Brothers/Sisters: $2,214 *Children's Home Society: $2,571 *Meals on Wheels: $12,857 *Spokane Substance Abuse Council: $7,285 *Hearth Homes: $9,571 * SNAP: $4,000 * Valley partners: $33,142 *YWCA: $4,671 Deputy City Manager Calhoun explained the allocation process as noted on his Request for Council Action Form, and as what had been done in previous years, and of the various recommended allocations from Council as shown on the spreadsheet, noting that the recommended allocations left a balance of $3,287 from the original budgeted amount of $150,000. It was moved by Councilmember Hafner to amend the motion to split that $3,287 evenly among those eight social service agencies allocated above (as noted with *). After brief discussion, a vote by acclamation on whether to amend the motion resulted in those In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafner, Higgins, Wick and Bates. Those Opposed: Councilmember Pace. The motion passed. Vote by Acclamation on the fully amended motion: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 3. Proposed 2015 Property Tax Ordinance — Mark Calhoun Deputy City Manager Calhoun went over the upcoming 2015 budget process, and of the proposed ordinance to levy 2015 regular property taxes, which for 2015 is being proposed as it has been for several years past, that of a zero percent increase, except we will include new construction, and he explained that those figures won't be finalized by the County until November or later. Mr. Calhoun also explained banked capacity; and noted that this ordinance is scheduled for a first reading at the October 14 meeting, with the second reading scheduled for October 28. 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process — Lori Barlow Speaking for Planner Barlow, Mr. Hohman noted there have been no privately initiated comprehensive plan amendments, although the deadline for submitting such is November 1. Mr. Hohman also noted that this year staff does not expect to propose updates to the plan due to the upcoming legislative update, which has a deadline of June 30, 2017. Mr. Hohman said staff is negotiating with a company for the scope of working on the project, fees, etc., and hopes to accomplish those negotiations within the next few weeks. Mr. Hohman said he would keep Council updated should any privately -initiated proposals come forward. 5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos Councilmember Hafner suggested having an agenda item to discuss the full cost of police body cameras, and the remainder of Council appeared to concur. Councilmember Bates asked if we have a date yet for a meeting with the City of Spokane, and Mr. Calhoun said that Mr. Jackson is working on that but there is no date yet. Mayor Grafos said he would like to see something about gambling tax with our rates compared with others such as Liberty Lake, and to determine if Spokane is contemplating a rate change. Concerning last week's capital projects report from Director Stone, Deputy Mayor Woodard said he had challenged the parks department about the building, but that he did some research and said those buildings are different and it would probably be tough to beat that from a local standpoint, and he encouraged Council to go out and examine those shelters. Minutes Regular Council Meeting 09-23-2014 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): The (6) Department Reports; (7) Trial Court Decision on City of Fife Marijuana Ban; and (8) Draft 2014 Amended Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) were all for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Deputy City Manager Calhoun mentioned the November 18 meeting is being moved to Monday, November 17 in order to accommodate Council travel schedules; and he invited everyone to this Thursday's 3:30 p.m. Sullivan Bridge Project Launch Event. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting 09-23-2014 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington October 7, 2014 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Sean Messner, Senior Engineer John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Marty Palaniuk, Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. 1. Draft Amended 2014 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) — Steve Worley Senior Engineer Sean Messner, standing in for Mr. Worley, explained that this amendment represents the second amendment to the 2014 TIP and includes a portion of Wellesley just west of Sullivan, and includes the design and street lighting as noted on the Request for Council Action form as well as the accompanying memo. There was no objection to moving this forward. 2. Commercial Vehicles in Residential Areas (trucks, etc.) — Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell explained some options for Council's consideration, as contained in his Request for Council Action form, including an option not to amend the Municipal Code, an option to prohibit commercial trailers over 27 feet from parking on the public rights-of-way in residentially zoned areas for more than three hours; an option to prohibit any commercial vehicle over 22 feet from parking on the public rights-of-way in residentially zoned areas for more than three hours, and an option to prohibit any vehicle over 22' from parking on the public rights-of-way in residentially -zones areas for more than three hours. Councilmember Hafner said he spoke with many people who feel truck parking on public streets is inappropriate; and also spoke to some people who had safety concerns, and others who voiced a myriad of opinions; he said he researched on the Internet to see what other municipalities are doing, and again, found several examples with various regulations ranging from simple to complex; he said he feels this is a no-win situation but Council needs to make a decision of what is right for our City. Councilmember Pace said he has conflicting feelings about regulating and private property rights; said he checked with our Public Works Director about the design of residential streets, and Mr. Guth told him that the street's width is not necessarily designed for any on -street parking, although it is legal; said he was in several neighborhoods over the weekend and spoke with citizens on this issue, and most people feel allowing big semi -trucks to park on residential streets is "going too far" but that when it comes to parking a recreational vehicle on residential streets, the citizens had more of a laissez faire attitude. Council Study Session 10-07-2014 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Higgins said while he doesn't want to see a semi -truck as a permanent fixture, he also is not in support of the three hour time limit, and he asked what length of time does it take to declare a vehicle abandoned. Mr. Driskell replied that the time limit is twenty-four hours; and Councilmember Higgins suggested using that timeframe instead. Councilmember Bates said he also feels this is a no-win situation; but that Council needs to determine if parking large commercial semi -trucks in residential areas causes a problem for citizens; said he feels trucks and recreational vehicles are two separate issues; said some cities make the parking determination based on weight; and said he will reserve giving his opinion until he hears more from citizens. Councilmember Wick said it appears the concerns this time are related to safety and vehicle size; and suggested a compromise of more than the suggested three hours; he also noted we have wider roads than those in other cities such as Spokane, so a comparison might not be viable. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he also heard from several people; some said they didn't want trucks or recreational vehicles parked on the streets; said that the public streets vary so we shouldn't include all vehicles and all streets; said some residential areas have larger lots which could accommodate such vehicles; he asked how many complaints have been issued; and also asked about who will enforce this if an ordinance is passed. Councilmember Pace said he likes option 2, but prefers the time limit of 12-24 hours, and he asked if this could be enforced by SCOPE and said he doesn't want to see police doing that, and would rather police officers work on real crimes such as property crimes. Mayor Grafos read an e-mail he received from the Washington Trucking Association, which stated that their members do not condone commercial truck parking in areas of single and/or multifamily homes; it also brought up some examples they asked Council to consider as exceptions to make sure regulations aren't burdensome for homeowners or the occasional overnight stay at a truck driver's residence. Mayor Grafos then suggested an option 4A to prohibit any vehicle over 22 feet, and any commercial vehicle from parking on public rights-of-way in residentially zoned areas, and he gave a suggestion for the definition of "commercial vehicle." Mayor Grafos also suggested some exemptions such as moving trucks, or construction or emergency vehicles. The question came up about tow trucks and Mayor Grafos said they could be deemed an emergency vehicle. Councilmember Hafner suggested if such regulations were passed, to give the truck drivers about six months' notice before needing to comply. The issue of taking public comment or conducting a public hearing was also discussed; and City Manager Jackson said an option would be for Council to schedule a motion to move forward to a first reading, and that with any action item, comes the opportunity for public comment; or we could schedule a public hearing. It was ultimately determined to schedule a motion with additional discussion, for the October 28 Council meeting, for either option 2 or option 4a; with perhaps some parts of the motion such as a length of time to park, left blank for Council's determination. 3. Batch Code Amendments — John Hohman, Christina Janssen Community Development Director Hohman explained that tonight's presentation includes a large package of proposed code amendments; followed by Planner Janssen going through her PowerPoint to explain the various proposed amendments. Mr. Hohman also noted that slide 18 should have a designation of "S" instead of "P." Mr. Hohman also discussed the manufactured home park issue, and said if Council desired, he could include different layouts and they appeared to like that suggestion. Landscaping requirements were also discussed, as well as vehicle parking, bicycle parking, and what constitutes a manufactured home park as well as park density concerns. Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 7:53 p.m.; and resumed the meeting at 8:04 p.m. Council Study Session 10-07-2014 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT 4. Preliminary 2015 Budget — Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson explained that state statutes requires a budget to be approved at least sixty days prior to the end of the fiscal year, and that tonight he delivers his recommended budget to Council; and said he has some new issues to bring to Council's attention tonight as well. Mr. Jackson went through his PowerPoint presentation which such highlights as 2015 Council Goals, fiscal policies, challenges, future concepts, and he mentioned that the City is in excellent financial condition with a balanced budget. As shown on slide #12, Mr. Jackson explained that the projected ending fund balance was set to be 51.79% of recurring expenditures, but due to some added projects he mentioned, as shown on his additional handout, that ending fund balance will now be 50.01%, which he said comes extremely close to that 50% ending fund balance figure. Mr. Jackson mentioned that because the request for funding for the Appleway Trail was due, he submitted it and said we would match up to $200,000; and he mentioned the copy of the funding request left at the dais for each Councilmember. Mr. Jackson also noted several organizational changes for the Community Development Department, and said that none of those changes would result in an increased FTE (full time equivalent staff member). At the end of Mr. Jackson's presentation, Mr. Jackson again mentioned we have a balanced budget, and the City is in excellent financial condition. 5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos There were no suggestions for the Advance Agenda. 6. Information Only: these items were not discussed or reported: (1) Ecology Stormwater Grant Opportunities; and (b) CH2M Hill Contract Amendment 7. Council Comments — Mayor Grafos There were no additional comments. 8. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson Mr. Jackson mentioned the proposal to the Legislative Budget Committee concerning the funding request for the Appleway Trail Project, as noted on the material left at the dais for Council; and said another application is due to the legislators in December. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session 10-07-2014 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action October 14, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session X AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First reading of Ordinance #14-011 levying 2015 regular property taxes and authorizing Spokane County to collect the tax on behalf of Spokane Valley. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Through the 2015 Budget development process there have been discussions regarding the 2015 property tax levy including a public hearing that was held on September 9th. This topic was also addressed on September 23rd through an administrative report on this single topic. BACKGROUND: 2015 Levy and Estimated Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value • State law requires that the City pass an ordinance that establishes a property tax levy, and per our 2015 Budget calendar we are scheduled to adopt this legislation on October 28, 2014. • Our proposed 2015 property tax levy does not include the 1% increase allowed by State law. • The levy will include property taxes on new construction. • With the passage of this ordinance we estimate the City will collect between $11,239,803 (based upon the most recent Spokane County estimate) and $11,277,144 (based upon the City estimate). These estimates are computed as follows: • The $37,341 difference between the two revenue figures is a result of differences in the estimated new construction estimates. • Because Spokane County figures are still preliminary and don't include administrative refunds and other adjustments, I recommend we stay with the City of Spokane Valley estimate. • This levy is based upon a September 16th update to the preliminary estimate of assessed property values provided to the City by the Spokane County Assessor of $7,385,327,304. • Total property tax revenue of $11,277,144 on preliminary assessed values of $7,385,327,304 will produce a levy of approximately $1.526960 per $1,000 of assessed value in 2015 ($11,277,144 / ($7,385,327,304/1,000) = $1.526960). • The 2015 estimated levy rate of $1.529690 per $1,000 is $.0182 Tess than the 2014 levy rate of $1.545147. • It is important to note that that this estimate is based upon the Assessor's latest preliminary projections of assessed value as of 9/16/2014. A change in any of the elements including assessed value, new construction estimate and/or a change in the amount of our proposed levy will change the levy rate per $1,000. Spokane County Update as of City Estimate 9/16/2014 Difference 2014 Actual Levy 11,077,144 11,077,144 0 + 0% Increase 0 0 0 2015 Levy after increase 11,077,144 11,077,144 0 + Estimated new construction 200,000 162,659 37,341 Total estimated 2015 Levy 11,277,144 11,239,803 37,341 • The $37,341 difference between the two revenue figures is a result of differences in the estimated new construction estimates. • Because Spokane County figures are still preliminary and don't include administrative refunds and other adjustments, I recommend we stay with the City of Spokane Valley estimate. • This levy is based upon a September 16th update to the preliminary estimate of assessed property values provided to the City by the Spokane County Assessor of $7,385,327,304. • Total property tax revenue of $11,277,144 on preliminary assessed values of $7,385,327,304 will produce a levy of approximately $1.526960 per $1,000 of assessed value in 2015 ($11,277,144 / ($7,385,327,304/1,000) = $1.526960). • The 2015 estimated levy rate of $1.529690 per $1,000 is $.0182 Tess than the 2014 levy rate of $1.545147. • It is important to note that that this estimate is based upon the Assessor's latest preliminary projections of assessed value as of 9/16/2014. A change in any of the elements including assessed value, new construction estimate and/or a change in the amount of our proposed levy will change the levy rate per $1,000. Banked Capacity Banked capacity is the difference between what the City could levy and what it actually does. In the case of the City of Spokane Valley our maximum levy rate is $1.60 per $1,000 of assessed value. Any amount levied that is less than $1.60 per $1,000 of assessed value represents "banked capacity." Included in the analysis below is history of Spokane Valley levies including seven years of actual figures (2008 through 2014) and a preliminary estimate for 2015: Levy Year A B c D E F G H Taxable Value Highest Lawful Levy Actual Levy Refund Total Levy (= C + D) Levy Rate per $1,000 (= E /(A/1,0 00)) Maximum Levy Rate per $1,000 Banked Levy Rate per $1,000 (= G - F) Banked Capacity $7,385,327,304 2014 assessment for 2015 2013 assessment for 2014 $7,168,991,028 2012 assessment for 2013 $6,921,825,295 2011 assessment for 2012 $7,087,523,395 2010 assessment for 2011 $7,140,947,644 2009 assessment for 2010 $7,169,492,602 2008 assessment for 2009 $7,019,508,327 2007 assessment for 2008 $6,636,383,614 $11,749,677 $11,472,290 $11,074,920 $11,340,034 $11,138,355 $10,902,644 $10,600,725 $10,306,223 $11,277,100 ??? $11,049,400 $27,744 $10,899,437 $20,495 $10,808,900 $9,817 $10,700,000 $32,863 $10,799,500 $27,208 $10,500,000 $28,505 $9,868,940 $32,533 $11,277,100 $11,077,144 $10,919,932 $10,818,717 $10,732,863 $10,826,708 $10,528,505 $9,901,473 $1.526960 $1.545147 $1.577609 $1.526445 $1.503003 $1.510108 $1.499892 $1.491998 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $1.60 $0.073040 $0.054853 $0.022391 $0.073555 $0.096997 $0.089892 $0.100108 $0.108002 $539,424 $422,890 $175,483 $531,134 $438,355 $103,144 $100,725 $437,283 Note: Figures reflected for the 2015 levy are preliminary and subject to change. At this point the only known figure for 2015 is the Highest Lawful Levy. • Generally speaking, you'll note there is a direct relationship between the Taxable Value listed in column A, and the Banked Capacity in columns H and I. In other words, as the Taxable Value increases the Banked Capacity also increases. • Alternatively though, there is an inverse relationship between the direction of the Taxable Value in column A and the Levy Rate per $1,000 in column F. In other words, as the Taxable Value increases (as is the case in 2014 and 2015) the Levy Rate per $1,000 decreases. Essentially what occurs in this case is that even though the Levy Rate per $1,000 may decrease, the actual amount paid by a property owner may not change significantly because the value of the property has increased. By the same token, as the economy declines and Taxable Values decrease, the Levy Rate per $1,000 will likely increase. • It is also noteworthy that in the years the City does not levy the 1% increase in property tax revenue that is allowed by State law, that potential increase is "banked" for potential future use. • The banked capacity can be accessed by the City through the annual property tax levy ordinance adopted by the Council. However, the City may only take the banked capacity up to a level where the levy rate per $1,000 of assessed value does not exceed $1.60. • Accessing the banked capacity does not mean we can go back in time and collect the property taxes we've left behind. It simply means we can reset the base upon which the calculation is made. OPTIONS: Passage of this ordinance is required by law in order to levy 2015 property taxes; proceed to second reading of ordinance with or without modifications. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance #14-011 levying regular property taxes for 2015, to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This ordinance levies property taxes for the City's 2015 Budget where we anticipate property tax revenues to be approximately $11,277,100 or 29.33% of total General Fund recurring revenues of $38,442,200. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 14-011 Levying 2015 Regular Property Taxes DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 14-011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LEVYING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON FOR THE YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2015 TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR CITY SERVICES AS SET FORTH IN THE CITY BUDGET, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley has met and considered its budget for the calendar year 2015; and WHEREAS, the City's actual levy amount from the previous year was $11,077,144; and WHEREAS, the population of the City is more than 10,000. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, do ordain as follows: Section 1. Property Tax Levy. An increase in the regular property tax levy is hereby authorized for the levy to be collected in the 2015 tax year. The dollar amount of the increase over the actual levy amount from the previous year shall be $0.00 which is a percentage increase of 0.0% from the previous year. This increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred, and refunds made. Section 2. Transmittal of Budget. A complete copy of the budget as adopted, together with a copy of this Ordinance, shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal Corporations in the Office of the State Auditor, and to the Association of Washington Cities. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phase of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2014. ATTEST: Mayor, Dean Grafos City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Item 5 Ordinance 14-011 levying 2015 prop tax.docx Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 10-14-2014 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 14-010: Adoption of the Seconded Amended 2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: March 12, 2013: Council approval of CMAQ/TA Grant Applications May 28, 2013: Public Hearing, Draft 2014-2019 TIP June 11, 2013: Adopted 2014-2019 Six Year TIP via Resolution 13-006 July 30, 2013: Approved Washington Utilities and Transpiration Commission (WUTC) Grade Crossing Protection Fund (GCPF) application January 21, 2014: Draft Amended 2014 TIP, Informational Request for Council Action (RCA) February 4, 2014: Draft Amended 2014 TIP, Administrative Report June 10, 2014: Public Hearing on 1St Draft Amended 2014 TIP June 24, 2014: Adoption of Resolution 14-005, first amended 2014 TIP September 23, 2014: Draft Amended 2014 TIP, Informational RCA October 7, 2014: Draft Amended 2014 TIP, Administrative Report BACKGROUND: Council adopted the 2014-2019 TIP based upon information staff had at that time relative to available funds and how these funds could be utilized for transportation projects. 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. The estimated cost for City staff to prepare the plans and specifications for resurfacing work on Sullivan Road and Wellesley Avenue is $10,527. 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 lighting design work this year is $11,000. The total estimated cost for the replacement of these lights, including WSDOT's costs for design, construction, and project oversight, 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 OPTIONS: Motion to approve Resolution 14-010, with or without further amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve Resolution 14-010, adopting the second amended 2014 Transportation Improvement Plan as presented. 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 Resolution and Amendment #2 - 2014 TIP; SR 290 Lighting Replacement Memo DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 14-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE 2014 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley City Council adopted by Resolution No. 13-006, the 2014-2019 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), subsequently amended by Resolution No. 14-005, with such program acting as a guide for the coordinated development of the City's transportation system; and and WHEREAS, additional changes in certain funding sources and project schedules have occurred; WHEREAS, the attached 2nd Amended 2014 TIP incorporates said changes for year 2014; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the 2014 TIP are consistent with Spokane Valley's adopted Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the attached 2nd Amended 2014 TIP for the City of Spokane Valley for the purpose of guiding the design, development and construction of local and regional transportation improvements for the year 2014. Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are 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. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this day of October, 2014. City of Spokane Valley Dean Grafos, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 14-010 Second Amended 2014 TIP City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works DRAFT AMENDMENT #2 - 2014 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 14- , ( , 2014) Proj. # Project From To Primary Source City Amount Total 2014 Project Costs 1 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 2 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project (PE/RW Only) 3 0141 Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (PE Only) 4 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Conc. Intersections (PE/RW) 5 0145 Spokane Valley -Millwood Trail (PE Only) 6 0149 Sidewalk Infill Program - Phase 2 7 0155 Sullivan West Bridge #4508 8 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection Project 9 0159 University Rd/I-90 Overpass Study 10 0166 Pines (SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project 11 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements (Bike/Ped.) 12 0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 13 0176 Appleway Trail Phase 2 (RW & CN) 14 0201 ITS Infill Project (PE Only) 0202 2013 Street Preservation Projects - Phase 2 15 0179 - Argonne Rd Resurfacing Project 16 0179 - Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project (EB Lanes) 17 0179 - Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project 18 0179 - Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project 2013 Street Preservation Projects - Phase 3 19 0180 - Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project 20 2014 Street Preservation Project 21 0196 - 8th Ave Reconstruction Project 22 0205 - Appleway Ave Resurfacing 23 - Euclid Ave Resurfacing Project 24 - Mullan Rd Resurfacing Project 25 0181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 26 0186 Adams St. Resurfacing Project 27 0187 Sprague Avenue Resurfacing Project 28 0188 Sullivan Rd Resurfacing Project (PE Only) 29 0191 Vista Rd/BNSF RR Crossing Safety Improvements 30 Fancher Bridge over BNSF RR Expansion Joint Repair 31 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements (PE Only) 32 0211 Sullivan Preservation Project-SR290 to Wellesley 1-90 Flora Sullivan Broadway SCC Various locations Sullivan Pines (SR 27) University Pines (SR 27) @ Various locations 1-90 University Various locations Sprague Havana 1-90 Herald Park Various locations McKinnon Thierman Flora Dishman-Mica Various locations 4th Vista Sprague Vista @ Fancher @ Sprague @ SR 290 Trent Barker Euclid @Argonne/Mullan Valley Mall @Spokane River Houk St. 1-90 Grace Ave Wellesley Evergreen Broadway 1-90 Thierman University Vista Fancher Park Barker Broadway Sprague Herald Mission BNSF RR BNSF RR Barker Wellesley CMAQ STP(U) STP(U) STP(U) STP(E) CMAQ BR TIB -UCP CMAQ HSIP HSIP STP(U) CMAQ CMAQ STP(U) STP(U) STP(U) STP(U) STP(U) City City City City City QRSP CDBG STP(U) STP(U) WUTC City Private City 76,785 66,230 18,700 20,740 56,700 893,000 92,500 13,300 71,000 22,500 343,000 4,000 49,275 83,700 48,600 56,025 91,000 1,300,000 300,000 400,000 227,000 215,000 28,000 98,000 11,450 10,750 107,000 $ 21,527 568,800 490,600 138,500 153,650 440,000 226,800 8,440,000 1,850,000 98,500 648,500 472,000 166,700 2,542,000 26,000 365,000 620,000 360,000 415,000 670,000 1,300,000 300,000 400,000 227,000 215,000 133,800 206,550 725,000 84,800 50,750 107,000 55,000 21,527 $ 4,725,782 $ 22,518,477 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are 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 Funded Projects Added Projects 2013 Carry Over Projects 9/18/2014 Siiokane j Valley Memorandum Public Works Department Traffic Engineering 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org 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 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 14, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Services Contract GOVERNING LEGISLATION: chapter 39.04 RCW. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Report on 8/26/2014. BACKGROUND: The current Street and Stormwater Maintenance Contract expires at the end of 2014. This contract consists of asphalt repair, roadway shoulder repair and grading, gravel road grading, crack sealing, sidewalk and path repair, guardrail repair, fencing repair, drainage structure repair and installation, curb, gutter and inlet repair and installation, and other related work. City staff prepared a Request for Bids document that included revisions to the bid forms to align with State law and auditing requirements. The Request for Bids included rates for labor, equipment and material. Average labor, equipment and material rates from 2011 and 2012 were used to establish estimated quantities included on the bid forms. The contract shall commence in early 2015 and continue to December 31, 2015. The City may extend the contract for up to four additional one year terms, which will commence on January 1 of each year and end on December 31 of that year. The City will give the contractor written notice of its intent to extend the contract at least sixty days before the contract term expires. The total duration of the contract shall not exceed five years. The City advertised for bids on August 29th and Bids were opened publicly on September 18th 2014. The four bids received were from Poe Asphalt Paving, Inland Asphalt, Spokane Rock Products, and T. Lariviere Equipment & Excavation, Inc. Poe Asphalt Paving was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. OPTIONS: 1) Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, 2) or 2) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Services contract to Poe Asphalt Paving Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,366,663 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2015 budget for this work in 2015 is $1,366,663 and will be financed from Fund #101 Street Fund and Fund #402 Storm Management Fund. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation Spokane walleye 2015 Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Contract Bid Tabulation Bid # 14-048 SCHEDULE A - REGULAR HOURS Poe Asphalt Paving Occupation Inland Asphalt Spokane Rock Products Total T. LaRiviere Equipment Item # Trade Occupation Hours Total Rate Total Total Rate Total Foreman Rate Total $70.22 Rate Total 1 $2,800.00 Foreman 500 $2,680.00 $54.32 $27,160.00 $3,920.00 $53.60 $26,800.00 Journey Level $51.50 $25,750.00 $97.35 $65.00 $32,500.00 2 Cement Masons Journey Level 240 $1,780.00 $64.90 $15,576.00 $1,740.00 $60.00 $14,400.00 Fence Erector $59.00 $14,160.00 $94.19 $58.00 $13,920.00 3 Fence Erectors Fence Erector 20 $315.00 $77.69 $1,553.80 $355.00 $61.25 $1,225.00 $51.75 $1,035.00 $48.00 $960.00 4 Flaggers Journey Level 1900 $45.65 $86,735.00 $43.85 $83,315.00 $46.75 $88,825.00 $49.00 $93,100.00 5 Laborers General Laborer 2300 $46.62 $107,226.00 $44.75 $102,925.00 $49.25 $113,275.00 $52.00 $119,600.00 6 Laborers Asphalt Raker 120 $46.62 $5,594.40 $44.75 $5,370.00 $49.25 $5,910.00 $53.00 $6,360.00 7 Laborers Concrete Crewman 220 $64.90 $14,278.00 $58.00 $12,760.00 $59.00 $12,980.00 $52.00 $11,440.00 8 Laborers Guard Rail 10 $49.50 $495.00 $47.55 $475.50 $41.00 $410.00 $52.00 $520.00 9 Laborers Pipelayer 130 $58.30 $7,579.00 * $50.00 $6,500.00 $55.65 $7,234.50 $53.00 $6,890.00 10 Laborers Traffic Control Supervisor 40 $46.75 $1,870.00 $44.90 $1,796.00 $46.20 $1,848.00 $51.00 $2,040.00 11 Power Equipment Operators Blade(finish & bluetop) 200 $54.32 $10,864.00 $51.60 $10,320.00 $54.00 $10,800.00 $61.00 $12,200.00 12 Power Equipment Operators H.D. Mechanic 30 $54.32 $1,629.60 $51.60 $1,548.00 $54.00 $1,620.00 $61.00 $1,830.00 13 Power Equipment Operators Paving Machine 200 $52.37 $10,474.00 $51.25 $10,250.00 $54.00 $10,800.00 $61.00 $12,200.00 14 Power Equipment Operators Rollerman 400 $52.37 $20,948.00 * $51.25 $20,500.00 $54.00 $21,600.00 $61.00 $24,400.00 15 Power Equipment Operators Screed Operator 200 $52.37 $10,474.00 * $51.25 $10,250.00 $54.00 $10,800.00 $61.00 $12,200.00 16 Power Equipment Operators Power Broom 90 $52.37 $4,713.30 * $49.60 $4,464.00 $54.00 $4,860.00 $59.00 $5,310.00 17 Power Equipment Operators Backhoes & Hoe Ram 30 $52.37 $1,571.10 * $53.70 $1,611.00 $54.00 $1,620.00 $60.00 $1,800.00 18 Power Equipment Operators Vactor Guzzler, Super Sucker 10 $66.00 $660.00 $63.35 $633.50 $63.00 $630.00 $61.00 $610.00 19 Power Equipment Operators Roto Mill 90 $66.00 $5,940.00 $63.35 $5,701.50 $63.00 $5,670.00 $61.00 $5,490.00 20 Power Equipment Operators Posthole Auger or Punch 10 $52.80 $528.00 $50.70 $507.00 $45.00 $450.00 $60.00 $600.00 21 Power Equipment Operators Backhoe (45,000 GW & under) 380 $52.37 $19,900.60 * $53.70 $20,406.00 $53.00 $20,140.00 $60.00 $22,800.00 22 Truck Drivers Dump Truck (E. WA -690) 800 $49.66 $39,728.00 * $48.90 $39,120.00 $48.75 $39,000.00 $58.00 $46,400.00 23 Truck Drivers Dump Truck & Trailer (E. WA -690) 500 $49.88 $24,940.00 * $48.90 $24,450.00 $48.75 $24,375.00 $59.00 $29,500.00 24 Truck Drivers Other Trucks (E. WA -690) 30 $49.88 $1,496.40 * $48.90 $1,467.00 $48.75 $1,462.50 $58.00 $1,740.00 25 Truck Drivers Transit Mixer 10 $49.88 $498.80 * $48.90 $489.00 $48.75 $487.50 $56.00 $560.00 Schedule A - Regular Hours $422,433.00 ** $407,283.50 $425,742.50 $464,970.00 SCHEDULE B - OVERTIME HOURS Estimated Item # Trade Occupation OT Hours Rate Total Rate Total Rate Total Rate Total 26 Foreman 40 $70.22 $2,808.80 $70.00 $2,800.00 $67.00 $2,680.00 $98.00 $3,920.00 27 Cement Masons Journey Level 20 $97.35 $1,947.00 $71.30 $1,426.00 $89.00 $1,780.00 $87.00 $1,740.00 28 Fence Erectors Fence Erector 5 $94.19 $470.95 * $73.95 $369.75 $63.00 $315.00 $71.00 $355.00 29 Flaggers Journey Level 50 $59.40 $2,970.00 $59.15 $2,957.50 $57.75 $2,887.50 $74.00 $3,700.00 30 Laborers General Laborer 75 $60.15 $4,511.25 $60.90 $4,567.50 $64.00 $4,800.00 $78.00 $5,850.00 31 Laborers Asphalt Raker 25 $60.15 $1,503.75 $60.90 $1,522.50 $64.00 $1,600.00 $80.00 $2,000.00 32 Laborers Concrete Crewman 20 $97.35 $1,947.00 $76.25 $1,525.00 $89.00 $1,780.00 $78.00 $1,560.00 33 Laborers Guard Rail 5 $74.25 $371.25 $71.30 $356.50 $50.00 $250.00 $78.00 $390.00 34 Laborers Pipelayer 15 $86.90 $1,303.50 $68.00 $1,020.00 $83.00 $1,245.00 $80.00 $1,200.00 35 Laborers Traffic Control Supervisor 5 $61.60 $308.00 $59.15 $295.75 $57.75 $288.75 $76.00 $380.00 36 Power Equipment Operators Blade(finish & bluetop) 20 $70.22 $1,404.40 * $69.75 $1,395.00 $68.50 $1,370.00 $91.00 $1,820.00 37 Power Equipment Operators H.D. Mechanic 5 $70.22 $351.10 $69.75 $348.75 $68.50 $342.50 $91.00 $455.00 38 Power Equipment Operators Paving Machine 20 $67.44 $1,348.80 $69.20 $1,384.00 $68.50 $1,370.00 $91.00 $1,820.00 39 Power Equipment Operators Rollerman 40 $67.44 $2,697.60 * $69.20 $2,768.00 $68.50 $2,740.00 $91.00 $3,640.00 40 Power Equipment Operators Screed Operator 20 $67.44 $1,348.80 * $69.20 $1,384.00 $68.50 $1,370.00 $91.00 $1,820.00 41 Power Equipment Operators Power Broom 10 $67.44 $674.40 * $66.75 $667.50 $68.50 $685.00 $88.00 $880.00 42 Power Equipment Operators Backhoes & Hoe Ram 5 $67.44 $337.20 * $75.60 $378.00 $68.50 $342.50 $90.00 $450.00 43 Power Equipment Operators Vactor Guzzler, Super Sucker 5 $88.00 $440.00 $79.25 $396.25 $63.00 $315.00 $91.00 $455.00 44 Power Equipment Operators Roto Mill 5 $99.00 $495.00 $95.00 $475.00 $94.50 $472.50 $91.00 $455.00 45 Power Equipment Operators Posthole Auger or Punch 5 $79.20 $396.00 $76.00 $380.00 $63.00 $315.00 $89.00 $445.00 46 Power Equipment Operators Backhoe (45,000 GW & under) 30 $67.44 $2,023.20 * $75.60 $2,268.00 $65.80 $1,974.00 $90.00 $2,700.00 47 Truck Drivers Dump Truck (E. WA -690) 5 $62.52 $312.60 * $64.50 $322.50 $62.25 $311.25 $87.00 $435.00 48 Truck Drivers Dump Truck & Trailer (E. WA -690) 40 $62.74 $2,509.60 * $64.50 $2,580.00 $62.25 $2,490.00 $88.00 $3,520.00 49 Truck Drivers Other Trucks (E. WA -690) 10 $62.74 $627.40 * $64.50 $645.00 $62.25 $622.50 $87.00 $870.00 50 Truck Drivers Transit Mixer 5 $62.74 $313.70 * $64.50 $322.50 $62.25 $311.25 $84.00 $420.00 Schedule13 - Overtime Hours SCHEDULE C - EQUIPMENT HOURS $33,421.30 $32,555.00 $32,657.75 $41,280.00 Item # Equipment Type Unit Type Quantity Hourly Rate Total Hourly Rate Total Hourly Rate Total Hourly Rate Total 51 1 Ton Truck Hour 600 $19.55 $11,730.00 $43.80 $26,280.00 $24.00 $14,400.00 $25.00 $15,000.00 52 1 Ton/Trailer Hour 25 $8.05 $201.25 $43.80 $1,095.00 $17.25 $431.25 $12.00 $300.00 53 1/2 Ton Truck Hour 150 $6.90 $1,035.00 $17.00 $2,550.00 $17.25 $2,587.50 $18.00 $2,700.00 54 160 Blade Hour 250 $74.75 $18,687.50 $91.25 $22,812.50 $97.75 $24,437.50 $78.00 $19,500.00 55 3 Axle Tilt Trailer Hour 75 $31.05 $2,328.75 $94.00 $7,050.00 $28.75 $2,156.25 $40.00 $3,000.00 56 5th Wheel/Lowboy Hour 125 $93.15 $11,643.75 $94.00 $11,750.00 $92.00 $11,500.00 $60.00 $7,500.00 57 Arrowboard Day 50 $63.25 $3,162.50 $58.10 $2,905.00 $42.00 $2,100.00 $60.00 $3,000.00 58 Asphalt Saw Hour 25 $21.85 $546.25 $11.50 $287.50 $34.50 $862.50 $90.00 $2,250.00 59 Backhoe Hour 25 $46.00 $1,150.00 $110.00 $2,750.00 $69.00 $1,725.00 $60.00 $1,500.00 60 Broce Broom Hour 150 $49.45 $7,417.50 $67.50 $10,125.00 $50.00 $7,500.00 $95.00 $14,250.00 61 Chop Saw Hour 20 $2.30 $46.00 $10.00 $200.00 $17.25 $345.00 $15.00 $300.00 62 Crack/Joint Sealer Hour 250 $64.69 $16,172.50 * $55.00 $13,750.00 $57.50 $14,375.00 $60.00 $15,000.00 63 DD -110 Roller or Equivalent Hour 50 $74.75 $3,737.50 $103.40 $5,170.00 $81.65 $4,082.50 $90.00 $4,500.00 64 DD -34 Roller or Equivalent Hour 300 $37.95 $11,385.00 * $54.75 $16,425.00 $51.75 $15,525.00 $75.00 $22,500.00 65 End Dump Truck Hour 400 $62.10 $24,840.00 * $82.70 $33,080.00 $65.00 $26,000.00 $60.00 $24,000.00 66 End Dump/Pup Hour 200 $81.65 $16,330.00 * $85.15 $17,030.00 $85.00 $17,000.00 $95.00 $19,000.00 67 Grade Roller Hour 35 $47.15 $1,650.25 * $66.90 $2,341.50 $92.00 $3,220.00 $75.00 $2,625.00 68 Hoe Pack Hour 20 $44.10 $882.00 * $110.00 $2,200.00 $40.25 $805.00 $30.00 $600.00 69 Jumping Jack Wacker Hour 30 $2.30 $69.00 $13.50 $405.00 $11.50 $345.00 $20.00 $600.00 70 Nuclear Densometer Hour 150 $5.75 $862.50 $4.50 $675.00 $11.50 $1,725.00 $80.00 $12,000.00 71 Paver Hour 150 $178.25 $26,737.50 * $194.60 $29,190.00 $150.00 $22,500.00 $205.00 $30,750.00 72 Plate Wacker Hour 10 $2.30 $23.00 * $7.00 $70.00 $7.00 $70.00 $20.00 $200.00 73 Skippy Hour 200 $42.55 $8,510.00 * $52.00 $10,400.00 $69.00 $13,800.00 $35.00 $7,000.00 74 Super Dump Hour 450 $79.35 $35,707.50 * $82.70 $37,215.00 $85.00 $38,250.00 $80.00 $36,000.00 75 Traffic Control Vehicle Hour 400 $17.25 $6,900.00 $15.45 $6,180.00 $15.25 $6,100.00 $22.00 $8,800.00 76 Variable Message Sign Day 40 $201.25 $8,050.00 * $184.85 $7,394.00 $157.50 $6,300.00 $200.00 $8,000.00 77 Water Truck - LG Hour 200 $59.80 $11,960.00 * $53.50 $10,700.00 $74.75 $14,950.00 $45.00 $9,000.00 78 Water Truck - SM Hour 200 $48.30 $9,660.00 $53.50 $10,700.00 $57.50 $11,500.00 $40.00 $8,000.00 Schedule C - Equipment Hours SCHEDULE D - MATERIALS Unit Prices include materials only. Labor and Equipment will be paid separately. $241,425.25 $290,730.50 $264,592.50 $277,875.00 Item # Material Type Unit Type Quantity Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 79 HMA 3/8" PG 64-2850 Gyro Ton 500 $61.41 $30,705.00 * $67.25 $33,625.00 $63.75 $31,875.00 $70.00 $35,000.00 80 HMA 1/2" PG 64-2850 Gyro Ton 3500 $58.10 $203,350.00 * $61.00 $213,500.00 $62.50 $218,750.00 $68.00 $238,000.00 81 HMA 1/2" PG 70-28 75 Gyro Ton 1200 $56.82 $68,184.00 * $59.65 $71,580.00 $62.00 $74,400.00 $68.00 $81,600.00 82 HMA 1/2" PG 70-28100 Gyro Ton 500 $54.28 $27,140.00 * $60.00 $30,000.00 $61.25 $30,625.00 $68.00 $34,000.00 83 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE Ton 1500 $5.25 $7,875.00 $9.35 $14,025.00 $8.70 $13,050.00 $8.50 $12,750.00 84 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE Ton 200 $5.25 $1,050.00 $9.35 $1,870.00 $8.70 $1,740.00 $15.00 $3,000.00 85 GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR DRYWELLS Ton 700 $6.25 $4,375.00 $15.30 $10,710.00 $15.00 $10,500.00 $18.00 $12,600.00 86 TACK OIL Gallon 1500 $2.68 $4,020.00 * $3.00 $4,500.00 $6.00 $9,000.00 $8.00 $12,000.00 87 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL TYPE A EA 7 $431.24 $3,018.68 * $970.00 $6,790.00 $1,890.00 $13,230.00 $1,800.00 $12,600.00 88 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL TYPE B EA 7 $755.48 $5,288.36 * $1,290.00 $9,030.00 $2,205.00 $15,435.00 $2,100.00 $14,700.00 89 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 EA 5 $222.54 $1,112.70 * $565.00 $2,825.00 $1,575.00 $7,875.00 $1,500.00 $7,500.00 90 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 EA 5 $1,257.25 $6,286.25 $1,875.00 $9,375.00 $1,575.00 $7,875.00 $1,500.00 $7,500.00 91 TYPE 1 INLET EA 3 $161.46 $484.38 * $565.00 $1,695.00 $1,470.00 $4,410.00 $1,400.00 $4,200.00 92 GRATE INLET TYPE 2, WSDOT EA 3 $1,181.28 $3,543.84 * $1,400.00 $4,200.00 $2,100.00 $6,300.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 Schedule D - Materials $366,433.21 $413,725.00 $445,065.00 $481,450.00 * Bid item total was corrected based on the rate provided ** Reflects corrections previously made SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE B SCHEDULE C SCHEDULE D TOTAL SCHEDULE A -D $422,433.00 $33,421.30 $241,425.25 $366,433.21 $1,063,712.76 SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE B SCHEDULE C SCHEDULE D TOTAL SCHEDULE A -D $407,283.50 $32,555.00 $290,730.50 $413,725.00 $1,144,294.00 SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE B SCHEDULE C SCHEDULE D TOTAL SCHEDULE A -D $425,742.50 $32,657.75 $264,592.50 $445,065.00 $1,168,057.75 SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE B SCHEDULE C SCHEDULE D TOTAL SCHEDULE A -D $464,970.00 $41,280.00 $277,875.00 $481,450.00 $1,265,575.00 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ information AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Department Director Approval: ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation Motion Consideration: CH2M HILL Supplemental Agreement Number 12 — Construction Services for Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project #0155 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; Approval of award of Phase 2 construction contract on July 22, 2014, and Info RCA on October 7, 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. OPTIONS: (1) Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract amendment for construction phase services with CH2M HILL, or (2) Provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Contract Supplement #12 with CH2M HILL in the amount of $377,505 for construction phase services on the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project #0155. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The proposed increase of CH2M HILL's Contract amount has been included in prior Construction phase budget estimates. Below is a summary of the project budget Estimated Project Expenses PE ROW CN (w/out contingencies) $1,820,000 $81,503 $13,424,974 Total (rounded) $15,326,477 Project Funding Federal BR Grant State FMSIB Grant @ 10% (CN) State TIB (CN) Utility Reimbursement City Funds $8,000,000 $1,501,000 $3,500,000 $316,418 $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 Vbehington SW* RepswUrtort of °Itlutsportadlon Su lemental A reement p p g Number 12 Organization and Address CH2M HILL, INC. 999 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 500 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 747-2000 Original Agreement Number Sullivan Road W Bridge Replacement #0155 Project Number BRM 4103(007) Execution Date 11/8/2011 Completion Date 12/31/2016 Project Title SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE New Maximum Amount Payable $ 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 Fxhihit A-1 attached 11 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 atrthnri7es an additional 537505 The overall Total Amount Anthori7ed is revised to .S1,980,717 The overall Maximum 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: -R (lux W Flint By: Mike Inekson DOT Forrn 140-063 EF Revised 9/2005 Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature Date 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. SPSC1SRY1BR_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 42B859.CN.05 EXHIBITA-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_SUPPLI2_SDC_09102014 3 OF 6 428859.CN.05 EXHIBF f 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 -t 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 SUPPL12 SDC Og102014 5 OF 6 428859.CN.05 EXHie<TA 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 Sof 6 428859.CN.05 SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMENT CH2M HILL SUBMITTAL REVIEW LIST - Bridge/Retaining Wall Structural Items Date: 09/10/14 Number Specification Section Description of Item Submitted Budgeted Review 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 Number Specification Section Description of Item Submitted Budgeted Review 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 SULLIVAN ROAD WEST BRIDGE REPLACEMEN1 CH2M HILL SUBMITTAL REVIEW LIST - Signal/Illumination Items Date: 09/10/14 Number Specification Section Description of Item Submitted Budgeted Review 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 3of3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ Consent ❑ Old business ® New business ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Information ❑ Admin. Report ❑ Pending Legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration for 2015 Community Development Block Grant Program — CDBG Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: City Council reviewed potential sidewalk projects at the September 16, 2014 meeting. A public hearing on the project list was conducted on October 14, 2014. The following projects have been identified based on an evaluation of sidewalk needs in CDBG target areas. Recommended CDBG Sidewalk Projects Approximate Costs Mission Avenue, east of Lily Road to Park Road $281,194 Park Road, Mission Avenue to Nora Road $126,075 Total Infrastructure Cost Estimate $407,269 OPTIONS: Move to authorize staff to prepare grant applications as recommended or amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize staff to prepare CDBG applications for the following sidewalk projects in the following order of priority: (1) Mission Avenue east of Lily Road to Park Road; and (2) Park Road, Mission Avenue to Nora Road. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: CDBG grants are typically funded at 100% of the total project cost. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACHMENTS: None 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ Consent ❑ Information Department Director Approval: ❑ Old business ❑ New business ❑ Public Hearing ® Admin. Report ❑ Pending Legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Historic Preservation and Special Evaluations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A.020, and RCW 27.34 Historic Preservation. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On August 19, 2014, staff presented a brief overview of local historic preservation and special evaluations to City Council. At this meeting, Council requested to have the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) provide more information relating to the establishment of a local historic preservation program. BACKGROUND: A historic preservation program will enable the City to offer historic building rehabilitation project assistance, ranging from state and federal financial incentives to special consideration with building and zoning codes. To pursue an in-house historic preservation program, the City needs to become a Certified Local Government (CLG) which will allow the City to receive technical assistance, apply for special grant funding, offer special tax valuation to local register properties, and comment on federal and state historic preservation actions. The process for becoming a CLG requires the adoption of a historic preservation ordinance and the establishment a City Historic Preservation Commission. OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: SHPO Presentation Page 1 of 1 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM The "How-To's" 1 HOW TO BEGIN The first step is to pass an Historic Preservation Ordinance Easy enough by using the State's model ordinance: 2 THE H.P. ORDINANCE The ordinance will set up the Historic Preservation Commission - two professionals generally serve on the commission, although this requirement can be waived The ordinance also sets up the local register of historic places Discusses the design review process Allows incentives to be administered locally (Special Tax Valuation) 3 WHAT IS A CLG? The Certified Local Government Program is a Partnership between the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the National Park Service and local governments with preservation programs. NHPA (National Historic Preservation Act) of 1966 was amended to include the CLG program in 1980 It says that your local government has an approved HP program 4 WHY BECOME A CLG? WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS? Locally designated properties become eligible for Special Tax Valuation Your community becomes a partner in the national/state historic preservation program Access to technical assistance by the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Small grant funds available through the Historic Preservation Fund only for CLGs Participation in the nomination of local properties to the National Register of Historic Places HOW TO APPLY TO BE A CLG The process of application is pretty simple. Send your ordinance to DAHP's CLG Coordinator for review (hopefully before it is passed in case any revisions need to be made) Send DAHP a list of the new Historic Preservation Commissioners along with their statements of their experience or interest in historic preservation (professional members' resumes or vitaes) and the staff's resume If you can't fill the professional positions, send a letter from the Mayor with a brief explanation of what you did to advertise for those positions and your strategy for filling the positions in the future. A copy of the Commission's bylaws (state has a model as well) Since DAHP has the WISAARD data- base, they don't need survey forms or maps That's it! WHAT ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES? Maintain an active commission that meets at least 4 times per year (monthly is the norm) ■ Abide by all preservation laws at the Federal, State and Local levels ■ Get trained! DAHP can help with this Begin or continue survey and inventory work Administer the incentives (Special Tax Valuation) List properties on the City of Spokane Valley's Register of Historic Places EXAMPLES FROM WISAARD WISAARD Lynx h.ngtnn rIII rn .ttnn Ryxrwm fur Oarhrlwi.rrer nl rend arr.hrta nlnp3r.n1 A.-..ui Ac nnl.e Slrte. Vrtw <'• Pan 0 Znn m in • Znam Mil- 0 Prr.vrnrra D Ne.xl- Se.Ieet Cle•nr trlrntrty _® Prrn! Layers Find Lacat.an Welcan n to W 1%11111111! I LI nrlir i fnr ThP dPvelnPmant of This 91TP Wrn, provided by, • Federal Highway Administration National Park Service • USDA Natural RCoOurcC Conservation ervatiOn Service • Washington State Public Works Board Washington State Department of Transportation Washington State Department of Natural Rcoeurcc3 ^`P3.asp he aware rhern may he heamne pwv ,rtka, dr rci surveys witlJld r Vuur area of Internet rhar e*, nee- d.spiay en rhe map. r lsP rhe ' wearrh rah m find real tarn prnpPrnee dr.ral a'ur vats' 3r uur Jai dud... (221 1 ea:ur HI3iorIC ri3mc Common rl3mc dC :Mon Address T35 Parcel ®0000 bilUILIUgS taiLJUULd Prall E1 rnuriLn Sclluul Prall Elko r nun Lary 3 nliuu1 5905 E. Fuurlll, Spukarlx 35211.2102 Valley 99212 31 Pratt BCmCntary 6c11001 PTa11Elcmcntarl+ SCI1o01 5969 E. Fourtrl,SROkanc 35241.2402 Valla 55212 I InIIee Ann 4hP.rl Northern Pacific Railway BN3F Spokane River Steel 11n rine. SE11- 1 Vladprt BAI3F Millwood Connection 12A IIrnAn l lnrt3P FInllth Dan Mumma Trucking 1CIHC11 I 1 AIMP.W AVP. spokanO Valley. WA 9900706 Bridge over Spokane R. 3 en I rsn1 Ftnr1 I of I'InPR SPO15 kaValley, WR)0216 Intersection of BNSF main lino. Finn MIIIwnnri I.nnr Spokane Valley, WA 00206 0.210 E Railroad Ave, Etprrkane VAlley, WA E.11.3919 asn11 •11i 30141.0119 SI 31 SE Dun Murrlrna Trucking 5215ER'ailr u' ad Avu, 35111.0115 Spokane Valley, WA 55212 Sr Frank Currey, Inc. 5521 ERallr cad Aim, 35141.0107 Spukerlu Wallet, WA99212 ltFAR1MEM orARC I1ACCLOOr><11 RIO r•Esr1,4411an SPECIAL TAX VALUATION ■ Enabling legislation passed in 1985 ■ Local government implements the law through ordinance Local government determines which property types are eligible Can be used for a substantial rehabilitation (25% of structure value) for either residential or commercial property ■ 24 month period prior to application ■ Amount of rehab subtracted from property value for a period of ten years CLG GRANTS 10% mandated pass-through of the Historic Preservation Fund ■ FY 2007 = $110,000 ■ FY 2008 = $105,000 ■ FY 2009 = $102,000 ■ FY 2010 = $110,000 ■ FY 2011 = $125,000 ■ FY 2012 = $120,000 ■ FY 2013 = $125,000 ■ FY 2014 = $110,000 Grants may be used for: ■ FY 2015 = $105,000 Education Brochures, web sites, videos, classroom curriculum, workshops, training, presentations Planning Historic preservation plans, zoning, etc. 11 CLG GRANTS, CONT Grants may be used for: Survey/Inventory Documenting historic resources within jurisdiction, updating previous inventories, create electronic databases of survey information Nominations Prepare new National Register nominations, amend existing nominations Special Projects Prepare historic structure reports, create facade improvement programs, etc. 12 INTERLOCAL W/CITY? In order to attain CLG status, the City of Spokane Valley would have to have its own commission Potential to contract with City HPO for specific services - nominations, design review, special valuation preparation, etc. Would be a new model - you keep your own commission and do general administration of program, HPO for technical services 13 QUESTIONS? CLG Coordinator Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 360.586.3074 http://dahp.wa.gov/programs/certified-local-government- program 14 Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action October 14, 2014 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information X admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: In order for the City to amend an adopted budget, State law requires the Council to approve an ordinance that appropriates additional funds. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The Council last took formal action on the 2014 Budget when it was adopted on October 22, 2013. BACKGROUND: Since the initial adoption of the 2014 Budget on October 22, 2013, a number of events have transpired in the normal course of operations that necessitate a 2014 Budget amendment. They include: #001 - General Fund Provide additional appropriations (expenditures) of $2,755,507 comprised of: • $53,900 for a federal lobbyist (Gordon Thomas Honneywell) approved by Council 5/13/14. • $22,000 for professional legal services necessary for Shoreline and other legal services. • $14,500 for workstations at the police precinct. • $30,000 to begin the Comprehensive Plan process. • $20,000 for minor renovations to City Hall to bring the Permit Center into the main building and move Finance to the old Wells Fargo space. • $2,443,507 transferred to Capital Reserve Fund #312 which represents the 2012 yearend fund balance in excess of 50%. • $55,000 transferred to Park Capital Projects Fund #309 for the Old Mission Trailhead, • $60,000 transferred to Solid Waste Fund #106 for an educational campaign leading to the 11/17/14 change to the Sunshine/Spokane Valley University Road Transfer Station. • $56,600 for the installation of fiber service at SCRAPS Increase revenues by $656,600 comprised of: • A $56,600 reimbursement from SCRAPS for the fiber installation. • An estimated increase of $600,000 of sales tax recognizing 2014 receipts greater than anticipated during the 2014 Budget development process. #101 — Street Fund Increase expenditures by $29,830 comprised of: • $11,000 for software and improvements to our connection to City hardware managed by the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center. • $18,830 transferred to Street Capital Projects Fund #303 for the Sprague/Thierman intersection modification approved by Council 9/9/14. #103 — Paths and Trails Fund Increase expenditures by $50,000 reflecting a transfer to Park Capital Projects Fund #309 for the Appleway Trail — University to Pines project. H:IBudgets120141Amendment12014 10 14 Admin Rprt 2014 10 14 RCA admin rprt for 2014 budg amendmnt.docx #105 - Hotel / Motel Tax Fund The revenue estimate has been revised upward by $40,000 from $490,000 to $530,000. #106 — Solid Waste Fund Revenues and expenditures each increase by $60,000 reflecting a transfer from the General Fund for the purpose of conducting an education campaign leading to the 11/17/14 change to the Sunshine/Spokane Valley University Road Transfer Station, #204 -- LTGO Debt Service Fund Increase revenues and expenditures each by $7,661,000 reflecting the 8/27/14 refunding of the 2003 LTGO bonds and the issuance of the 2014 LTGO bonds. #301 — REET 1 Capital Projects Fund Expenditures are increased by $7,000 reflecting a transfer to Street Capital Projects Fund #303 for an additional 2014 project that repairs a driveway related to the 2013 Evergreen -16th-32nd project. #302 — REET 2 Capital Projects Fund Expenditures are increased by $14,000 reflecting a transfer to Street Capital Projects Fund #303 for 2014 expenditures that will be incurred on the Trent Lighting Project. #303 -- Street Capital Projects Fund This fund is being amended to reflect estimated actual progress on a number of projects. Changes include: • Amending revenues and expenditures related to the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project down by $4,888,189 from $8,888,1.89 to $4,000,000. This is necessary because the project began much later in the year than anticipated when the budget was adopted last year. These revenues and expenditures have been moved to the 2015 Budget. Changes for 2014 are: o Amend grant revenue down by $2,768,189,and o Amend the transfer from Capital Reserve Fund #312 down by $2,120,000 • Amending revenues and expenditures up by $7,000 reflecting a transfer from REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301 for a driveway repair related to the 2013 Evergreen -16th-32nd project. • Amending revenues and expenditures up by $14,000 reflecting a transfer from REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302 for the Trent Lighting project. • Amending revenues and expenditures by $18,830 reflecting a transfer from Street Fund #101 for the Sprague/Thierman Intersection Modification project. #309 — Park Capital Projects Fund This fund is being amended to reflect estimated actual progress on a number of projects. Changes include increases to revenues of $1,557,600 and increases to expenditures/ appropriations of $1,390,500. Revenues increases include: • A transfer of $1,452,100 from Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the Appleway Trail — University to Pines project. • A transfer of $50,000 from Paths and Trails Fund #103 for the Appleway Trail — University to Pines project. • A transfer of $55,000 from General Fund #001 for the Old Mission Trailhead project. • A $500 contribution directed towards capital projects. HABudgets12014 Amendment12014 10 14 Admin Rprt12014 10 14 RCA admin rprf for 2014 budg amendmnt.docx Expenditure changes include: • Moving the $40,000 initially appropriated for sand volleyball courts out of 2014 (and into the 2015 Budget through a separate Council action). • Moving $56,000 initially appropriated for the Edgecliff Picnic Shelter out of 2014 (and into the 2015 Budget through a separate Council action). • Adding $1,400 to the Discovery Playground Equipment project. • Moving $15,000 initially appropriated for the Discovery Playground shade structure out of 2014 (and into the 2015 Budget through a separate Council action). • Moving $70,000 initially appropriated for the City entry sign out of 2014 (and into the 2015 Budget through a separate Council action). • Adding a $13,000 appropriation for the Edgecliff sewer connection. • Adding a $55,000 appropriation for the Old Mission Trailhead project. • Adding $1,502,100 for the Appleway Trail — University to Pines project. #310 — Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund • Revenues increase by $839,285 reflecting the 1/1/14 Council action declaring 2.82 acres of property surplus to its needs and authorizing the sale to the Spokane Library District. The $839,285 includes $744,047 received by the City in 2012 for 2.5 acres plus an additional $95,238 received by the City in 2014 for .32 acres. • Expenditures increase by $30,000 for professional services. #311 — Pavement Preservation Fund This fund is being amended to reflect the Public Works Department's estimate of work that will be accomplished this year. • Appropriations (expenditures) are being increased by $320,865 to a total of $3,916,386. • Revenues will increase by $123,464 reflecting partial grant financing for a portion of the projects. #312 — Capital Reserve Fund • Revenues include a transfer of $2,443,507 from General Fund #001 which represents the 2012 yearend fund balance in excess of 50%. • Expenditures/appropriations include: o A reduction of $2,120,000 in transfers from Capital Reserve Fund #312 for the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project. The reduction is the result of the project beginning later in 2014 than anticipated when the budget was adopted last year. This expenditure has been moved to the 2015 Budget. o An increase of $1,452,100 reflecting a transfer to Capital Projects Fund #309 for the Appleway Trail University to Pines project. #402 — Stormwater Management Fund • Revenues increase by $50,000 reflecting the receipt of a DOE operating grant. • Expenditures/appropriations increase by $50,125 reflecting a transfer to Aquifer Protection Area Fund #403 for a grant funded decant facility feasibility study early in 2013. #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund • Expenditures/appropriations increase by $950,159 including: o $910,159 for the Decant Facility project that was carried forward from 2013 to 2014. o $40,000 for the Broadway Stormdrain Retrofit project. • Revenues increase by $824,648 including: o A $634,523 DOE grant for the decant facility project. o A $100,000 DOT grant for the decant facility project. o A $40,000 DOE grant for the Broadway Stormdrain Retrofit project. o A transfer from Stormwater Management Fund #402 for a grant funded decant feasibility study early in 2013. H:1Budgets12014V1 mendmentt2014 10 14 Admin Rprt12014 10 14 RCA admin rprt for 2014 budg amendmnt.docx #501 — Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund Expenditures/appropriations increase by $30,000 reflecting the 2014 replacement of a 2003 Chevy S10 pick-up for the Community Development Department that was initially scheduled for replacement in 2015. The replacement was moved ahead into 2014 in -lieu of incurring a needed $1,400 repair on the old vehicle. This was described in an 8/12/14 Information Report to Council. This budget amendment will also create one new fund: • Fund #106 — Solid Waste The 2014 Budget amendment reflects the changes noted above and will affect 16 funds resulting in total appropriation/expenditure increases of $7,832,727 and revenue increases of $9,407,745. Fund No. Fund Name Revenue Increase (Decrease) 001 General Fund 101 Street Fund 103 Paths & Trails Fund 105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund 106 Solid Waste Fund 204 LTGO Debt Service Fund 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 302 REST 2 Capital Projects Fund 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Park Capital Projects Fund 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 312 Capital Reserve Fund 402 Stormwater Management Fund 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund 656,600 0 0 40,000 60,000 7,661,000 0 0 (4,848,359) 1,557,600 839,285 123,464 2,443,507 50,000 824,648 0 Expenditure Increase (Decrease) 2,755,507 29,830 50,000 0 60,000 7,661,000 7,000 14,000 (4,848,359) 1,390,500 30,000 320,865 (667, 900) 50,125 950,159 30,000 9,407,745 7,832,727 OPTIONS: Future options are to accept the proposed amendments in whole or in -part. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff seek Council consensus to move forward with amendments to the 2014 Budget as presented. If approved, we anticipate the following calendar of events leading to Council approval of the amending ordinance. • October 28, 2014 — Public hearing on the 2014 Budget Amendment. • October 28, 2014 -- First reading of Ordinance #14-xxx amending the 2014 Budget. • November 17, 2014 — Second reading of Ordinance #14-xxx amending the 2014 Budget. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This action amends the estimated revenues and appropriations for the 2014 Budget that was adopted on October 22, 2013. There are adequate funds available to pay for these amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: Fund level line -item detail of revenues and expenditures. H:1Budgets120141Amendment,2014 10 14 Admin Rprt12014 10 14 RCA admin rprt for 2014 budg amendmnt.docx H:IBudgets120141Amendment12014 10 14 Admin Rprtlamendment no 1 detail.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2014 Budget - Amendment #1 Line Item Detail I 10/6/2014 Account Account Initial Amended Description Number Description / Justification Budget Amendment Budget #001 - General Fund Recurring Revenues Sales tax 001.000.000.313.11.00 Recurring Expenditures City Council Prof Svc -Fed Lobbyist 001.011.000.511.60.41.06 Legal 001.013.015.515.32.41.04 Nonrecurring Revenues SCRAPS pass through 001.090.000.386.00.00 Nonrecurring Expenditures Police Capital Professional services Facility repair & maint Transfer out -#312 Transfer out - #309 Transfer out -#106 SCRAPS pass through 001.016.000.594.21.64.01 001.058.099.558.60.41.05 001.090.099.518.30.48.01 001.090.0 0 0.597. xx. xx. xx 001.090.0 00.597 _ xx. xx. xx 001.090.000.597_xx.xx_xx 001.090.000.586.10.00.00 - revised estimate Total recurring revenues - federal lobbyist (Gordon Thomas Honneywell) - Shoreline and other legal services Total recurring expenditures - SCRAPS fiber installation Total nonrecurring revenues - work stations at Police Precinct - comp plan update - Permit Center to main building - 2012 #001 fund bal > 50% - old mission trailhead - Education campaign for 11/17/14 Sunshine - SCRAPS fiber installation Total nonrecurring expenditures 16,390,000 600,000 16,990,000 0 50,610 0 600,000 53,900 22,000 75,900 56,600 56,600 0 14,500 30,000 20,000 0 2,443,507 0 55,000 0 60,000 0 56,600 2,679,607 Total of all General Fund revenues Total of all General Fund expenditures 656,600 2,755,507 Page 1 of 7 53,900 72,610 56,600 14,500 30,000 20,000 2,443, 507 55,000 60,000 56,600 H_1Budgets120141Amendment12014 10 14 Admin Rprtlamendment no 1 detail.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2014 Budget - Amendment #1 Line Item Detail 10/6/2014 Account Account Initial Amended Description Number Description / Justification Budget Amendment Budget #101 - Streef Fund Expenditures Capital outlay Transfers out - #303 101.000.000.597.xx.xx.xx - Sprague/Thierman intersection 101.000.000.594.xx.64.xx - Transportation management center Total expenditures #103 - Paths and Trails Fund Expenditures Transfers out -#309 103.103.000.597.xx_xx.xx - Appleway Trail - University to Pines Total expenditures #105 - Hotel / Motel Tax Fund Revenues Hotel / Motel Tax 105.105.000.313.30.00 - revised estimate #106 - Solid Waste Fund 0 11,000 11,000 0 18,830 18,830 29,830 0 50,000 50,000 490,000 50,000 40,000 530,000 Total revenues 40,000 Expenditures Education/Contract Adr 106.000.000.537.10.41.10 - Education campaign for 11/17/14 Sunshine 0 60,000 60,000 Total expenditures 60,000 Revenues Transfer in -#001 106.000.000.397.xx.xx - Education campaign for 11/17/14 Sunshine 0 60,000 60,000 Total revenues 60,000 Page 2 of 7 H_1Budgets120141Amendment12014 10 14 Admin Rprtlamendment no 1 detail.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2014 Budget - Amendment #1 Line Item Detail 10/6/2014 Account Account Initial Amended Description _ Number Description / Justification Budget Amendment Budget #204 - LTGO Debt Service Fund Expenditures 2003 LTGO bond retire 204.204.000.5xx.xx.xx.xx 2014 LTGO bond issue 204.204.000.5xx.xx.xx.xx - '03 principal $7,435,000 + int. $114,000 - '14 LTGO bond issue costs Total expenditures Revenues 2014 LTGO bond procE 204.204.000.3xx.xx.xx - 14 LTGO bond issue proceeds Total revenues #301 - REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 0 7,549,000 7,549,000 0 112,000 112,000 7,661, 000 0 7,661,000 7,661,000 Expenditures Transfers out - #303 301.000.000.597.30.00.30 - Aalcazar driveway reconstruction 268,575 #302 - REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 7,661, 000 7,000 275,575 Total expenditures 7,000 Expenditures Transfers out - #303 302.000.000.597.30.00.30 - Trent lighting replacement 585,097 14,000 599,097 Total expenditures 14,000 Page 3 of 7 H:1Budgets120141Amendment12014 10 14 Admin Rprtlamendment no 1 detail.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2014 Budget - Amendment #1 Line Item Detail 10/6/2014 Account Account Initial Amended Description Number Description 1 Justification Budget Amendment Budget #303 - Street Capital Projects Fund Expenditures Capital outlay Capital outlay Capital outlay Capital outlay Revenues Transfers from - #312 Transfers from - #101 Transfers from - #301 Transfers from - #302 Grant revenue 303.303.155.595.xx.xx.xx 303.303.210.595.xx.xx.xx 303.303211.595.xx.xx.xx 303.303213.595. xx. xx. xx 303.303.155.397.31.20 303.303.213.397.xx.xx 303.303.210.397.xx.xx 303.303.211.397.xx.xx 303.303.000.330.00.00 - Sullivan Rd. W. Bridge Replacement - Alcazar dirveway reconstruction - Trent lighting replacement - Sprague/Thierman reconstruction Total expenditures - Sullivan Rd. W. Bridge Replacement - SpraguerThierman reconstruction - Alcazar dirveway reconstruction - Trent lighting replacement - Sullivan Rd. W. Bridge Replacement Total revenues Page4of7 8,888,189 0 0 0 2,320,000 0 0 0 11,092,997 (4,888,189) 4,000,000 7,000 7,000 14,000 14,000 18,830 18,830 (4,848,359) (2,120,000) 18,830 7,000 14,000 (2,768,189) (4,848,359) 200,000 18,830 7,000 14,000 8,324,808 1 H:1Budgets120141Amendment12014 10 14 Admin Rprtlamendment no 1 detail.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2014 Budget - Amendment #1 Line Item Detail 10/6/2014 Account Account Initial Amended Description Number Description 1 Justification Budget Amendment Budget #309 - Park Capital Projects Fund Expenditures Capital outlay 309.309.000.594.76.61.00 V Revenues Contributions/donation{ 309.309.000.367.11.00 Transfer in - #001 309.309.000.397.00.10 Transfer in - #103 309.309.000.397.00.10 Transfer in - #312 309.309.000.397.00.10 #310 - Civic Bldgs Capital Projects Fund Expenditures Professional services 310.xxx.000.594_xx.41.00 n/a Revenues Grants n/a 310.000.000.395.10.02 - sand volleyball courts (2) at Browns Park - Edgecliff picnic shelter - Discovery Playground equipment - shade structure at Discovery Playground - City entry sign - park signs (3) - Edgecliff sewer connections - Old Mission Trailhead Appleway Trail - University to Pines Tota] expenditures - contributions - old mission trailhead - Appleway Trail - University to Pines - Appleway Trail - University to Pines Total revenues - professional services - n/a Total expenditures 40,000 65,000 50,000 15,000 70,000 22,500 0 0 0 0 192,500 0 0 (40,000) (56,000) 1,400 (15,000) (70,000) 0 13,000 55,000 1,502,100 1,390,500 500 55,000 50,000 1,452,100 1,557,600 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 9,000 51,400 0 0 22,500 13,000 55,000 1,502,100 500 247,500 50,000 1,452,100 30,000 0 - Sale of 2.82 acres to Library District 0 839,285 839,285 Total revenues Page 5 of 7 839,285 H:1Budgets120141Amendment12014 10 14 Admin Rprtlamendment no 1 detail.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2014 Budget - Amendment #1 Line Item Detail 10/6/2014 Account Account Initial Amended Description Number Description 1 Justification Budget Amendment Budget #311 - Pavement Preservation Fund Expenditures Pavement Preservation 311.000.000.595.30.63.00 - Revised estimate based upon updated Public Works Department projections_ Revenues Grants Total expenditures 311.000.000.333.20.20 - Grant revenues #312 - Capital Reserve Fund Expenditures Transfer to - #303 Transfer to - #309 Total revenues 303.000.000.597.xx.xx.xx - Sullivan Rd. W. Bridge Replacement 303.000.000.597.xx.xx.xx - Appleway Trail - University to Pines 3,595,521 320,865 3,916,386 320,865 2,763,272 123,464 2,886,736 123,464 2,320,000 (2,120,000) 200,000 0 1,452,100 1,452,100 Total expenditures (667,900) Revenues Transfer in -#001 303.000.000.397.00.10 - 2012 #001 fund bal > 50% 0 2,443,507 2,443,507 #402 - Stormwater Management Fund Total revenues 2,443,507 Expenditures Transfer out #403 403.000.000.597.xx.xx.xx - feasibility study for Decant Facility project Revenues Grant DOE 0 50,125 50,125 Total expenditures 50,125 403.000.000.334.03.10 - operating grant 0 50,000 50,000 Total revenues 50,000 Page 6 of 7 H:\Budgets120141Amendment12014 10 14 Admin Rprtlamendment no 1 detail.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2014 Budget - Amendment #1 Line Item Detail 10/6/2014 Account Account Initial Amended Description Number Description / Justification Budget Amendment Budget #403 - Acquifer Protection Area Fund Expenditures Decant facility 403.000.173.589.31.63.00 Broadway SD retrofit 403.000.xxx.595.xx.xx.xx Revenues Grant DOE - Decant FE 403.000.173.334.03.10 Grant DOT - Decant FC 403.000.173.334.03.60 Grant DOE - Broadway SD retrofit Transfer in #402 403.000.000.397.xx.xx #501 - Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund Expenditures Vehicle purchase - carried forward from 2013 to 2014 - revised estimate Total expenditures - carried forward from 2013 to 2014 - carried forward from 2013 to 2014 - revised estimate - feasibility study for Decant Facility project Total revenues 501.501.000.594.58.64.00 - replace 2003 Chevy S10 pickup Total expenditures Totals Across all Funds 0 910,159 910,159 60,000 40,000 100,000 950,159 0 634,523 0 100,000 0 40,000 0 50,125 824,648 0 30,000 30,000 634,523 100,000 40,000 50,125 30,000 Total revenues Total expenditures 9,407,745 7,832,727 Page 7 of 7 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of October 9, 2014; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings October 21, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. STA Presentation of "Moving Forward" Plan - Karl 2. Solid Waste Franchises/Ordinances - Erik Lamb 3. Solid Waste Management Plan - Eric Guth 4. Moderate Risk Waste Plan - Eric Guth 5. Ecology Stormwater Grant Opportunities - Eric Guth 6. Alcohol/Drug Enforcement - Chief VanLeuven 7. Advance Agenda [due Mon, Oct 13] Otterstrom, Brandon Rapez-Betty (20 minutes) (30 minutes) (30 minutes) (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (30 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 150 minutes] October 28, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment - Mark Calhoun 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance #14-011- Mark Calhoun [due Mon, Oct 20] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-012 Repealing Ordinance 07-022 and 08-003 - Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-013 Repealing Ordinance 07-023 and 08-004 - Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-014 for 2014 Budget Amendment - Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 7. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-015 for 2015 Budget - Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 8. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-016 Code Amendment, Title 19 - Christina Janssen (10 minutes) 9. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-017 Code Amendment, Mfg'd Homes - Christina Janssen (10 minutes) 10. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-018 Code Amendment, Title 22 - Christina Janssen (10 minutes) 11. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-019 Code Amendment, Appendix A Definitions - C.Janssen (10 mins) 12. Motion Consider.: Determine Option for Draft Ord. Commercial Vehicles in Resid. Areas - C.Driskell(20 min) 13. Admin Report: Solid Waste Collection Services Contracts - Erik Lamb, Morgan Koudelka (30 minutes) 14. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 15. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 165 minutes] November 4, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 27] ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-012 Repealing Ordinance 07-022 and 08-003 - Erik Lamb (10 mins) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-013 Repealing Ordinance 07-023 and 08-004 - Erik Lamb (10 mins) 3. Proposed Resolution #14-011 Adopting Solid Waste Management Plan - Eric Guth (15 minutes) 4. Proposed Resolution #14-012 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 8. 2015 Fee Resolution -Mark Calhoun 9. Draft Legislative Agenda - Mike Jackson 10. Advance Agenda November 11, 2014 - no meeting - Veteran's Day (60 minutes) (15 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 170 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 10/9/2014 1:29:24 PM Page 1 of 2 Monday, November 17, 2014; SPECIAL MEETING: [due Mon, Nov 10] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-014 for 2014 Budget Amendment — Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-015 for 2015 Budget Ordinance —Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-016 Code Amendment, Title 19 — Christina Janssen (10 minutes) 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-017 Code Amendment, Mfg'd Homes — Christina Janssen (10 minutes) 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-018 Code Amendment, Title 22 - Christina Janssen (10 minutes) 7. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-019 Code Amendment, Appendix A Definitions — C.Janssen (10 mins) 8. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-020 Adopting Shoreline Master Plan — Lori Barlow 9. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution for 2015 — Mark Calhoun 10. Admin Report: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations — Mark Calhoun 11. Advance Agenda (30 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 120 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. 1. Beekeeping — Micki Harnois 2. Street Vacation Process — Karen Kendall 3. Advance Agenda 4. Info Only: Dept. Reports (normally due with the Nov 25 meeting) [due Mon, Nov 24] (20 minutes) (30 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] December 9, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-020 Adopting Shoreline Master Plan 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda December 16, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations for 2015 NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Advance Agenda December 23, 2014 no meeting [due Mon, Dec 1] (5 minutes) — Lori Barlow (20 minutes) (5 minutes) December 30, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee; Planning Commission NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports *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 Economic Incentives Governance Manual Updates Mayoral Appts Councilmbrs to Committees (Dec/Jan) SEPA/NEPA Process — Eric Guth [due Mon, Dec 8] (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, Dec 22] [*estimated meeting: minutes] Setback Requirements Spokane Regional Transportation Mgmt Ctr Street Sweeping Bike Lanes Draft Advance Agenda 10/9/2014 1:29:24 PM Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 14, 2014 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Solid Waste Management Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: With Council's decision to contract for solid waste management services, staff has prepared a Solid Waste Management Plan. This Plan is intended to provide guidance for the solid waste system within the City of Spokane Valley. The solid waste system includes garbage collection and disposal, and programs for waste reduction, recycling, organics, special wastes and the administration of these programs. This Plan is intended to provide guidance on program development and implementation for these activities for the next five to six years, while also attempting to anticipate the needs of the solid waste system 20 years from now. State law (Chapter 70.95 RCW) provides the authority for the City to adopt this Plan and also lists the requirements for the contents of the Plan. In preparing this Plan, the City is exercising its authority to "prepare and deliver to the County Auditor of the County in which it is located its plan for its own solid waste management for integration into the comprehensive county plan" (RCW 70.95.080). The City has conducted a public input process for the review of this Plan which took place from mid-July to August 31, 2014. City staff conducted an open house/public meeting on July 31, 2014 for the specific purpose of receiving public input. The review process for the Department of Ecology (DOE) consists of two parts, the first of which is a 120 -day draft plan review which was completed with comments received on August 21, 2014; and staff has prepared responses to these DOE comments and included revisions to the plan in response to these comments. The second part is a 45 -day final review and approval by DOE. Prior to this final review and approval from DOE, City Council will need to adopt the Plan by resolution. Staff anticipates bringing the final version of the Plan before Council in an administrative report on October 21, 2014, and Council Resolution consideration is scheduled for November 4, 2014. OPTIONS: Information RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Solid Waste Management Plan ne SI1TkI SPOKANE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED PLAN SEPTEMBER 2014 This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing. GREEN SOLUTIONS N/ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SPOKANE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED PLAN SEPTEMBER 2014 Prepared by: Green Solutions PO Box 680 South Prairie, WA 98385 rick@green-solutions.biz (360) 897-9533 This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Introduction E-1 Overview of Recommendations E-1 Waste Reduction Recommendations E-2 Recycling and Organics Recommendations E-3 Solid Waste Collection Recommendations E-3 Transfer and Disposal Recommendations E-3 Special Waste Recommendations E-4 Administration Recommendations E-4 Implementation Details for the Recommendations E-5 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1-1 1.2 Planning Area 1-1 1.3 Planning Authority 1-1 1.4 Required Plan Elements 1-1 1.5 Planning Goals 1-2 1.6 Solid Waste Planning History 1-3 1.7 Relationship to Other Plans 1-3 1.8 Public Participation in the Planning Process 1-4 2 Background of the Planning Area 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Demographics 2-1 2.3 Economy 2-2 2.4 Criteria for Siting Disposal Facilities in the Planning Area 2-4 2.5 Current Waste Generation 2-4 3 Waste Reduction 3.1 Existing Waste Reduction Activities 3-1 3.2 Waste Reduction Planning Issues 3-2 3.3 Alternative Waste Reduction Strategies 3-3 3.4 Evaluation of Waste Reduction Alternatives 3-8 3.5 Waste Reduction Recommendations 3-9 Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan i Table of Contents by Green Solutions 4 Recycling and Organics Collection 4.1 Existing Recycling and Organics Programs 4-1 4.2 Designation of Recyclable Materials 4-6 4.3 Planning Issues for Recycling and Organics 4-8 4.4 Alternative Recycling and Organics Strategies 4-8 4.5 Evaluation of Recycling and Organics Alternatives 4-9 4.6 Recycling and Organics Recommendations 4-1 1 5 Solid Waste Collection 5.1 Existing Waste Collection Activities 5-1 5.2 Waste Collection Future Planning 5-3 5.3 Alternative Waste Collection Strategies 5-3 5.4 Evaluation of Waste Collection Alternatives 5-4 5.5 Waste Collection Recommendations 5-5 6 Transfer and Disposal 6.1 Existing Transfer and Disposal Activities 6-1 6.2 Transfer and Disposal Planning Issues 6-3 6.3 Alternative Transfer and Disposal Strategies 6-3 6.4 Transfer and Disposal Recommendations 6-4 7 Special Wastes 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Asbestos 7-1 7.3 Biomedical Wastes 7-2 7.4 Construction and Demolition Wastes 7-4 7.5 Moderate -Risk Wastes 7-6 7.6 Street Sweepings and Vactor Wastes 7-10 7.7 Evaluation of Special Waste Alternatives 7-1 1 7.8 Special Waste Recommendations 7-12 8 Administration 8.1 Existing Administration Activities 8-1 8.2 Administration Planning Issues 8-3 8.3 Alternative Administration Strategies 8-4 8.4 Evaluation of Administration Alternatives 8-4 8.5 Administration Recommendations 8-5 Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan ii Table of Contents by Green Solutions 9 Implementation Plan 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Waste Reduction Recommendations 9-1 9.3 Recycling and Organics Recommendations 9-2 9.4 Solid Waste Collection Recommendations 9-2 9.5 Transfer and Disposal Recommendations 9-2 9.6 Special Waste Recommendations 9-3 9.7 Administration Recommendations 9-3 9.8 Six -Year Implementation Schedule 9-3 9.9 Implementation Responsibilities 9-5 9.10 Funding Strategy 9-6 9.11 Twenty -Year Implementation Schedule 9-6 9.12 Procedures for Amending the Plan 9-7 Attachments Glossary A. Environmental Checklist B. Resolution of Adoption LIST OF TABLES Executive Summary E-1, Implementation Summary for Recommendations E-6 2 Background of the Planning Area 2-1, Population of Spokane Valley 2-1 2-2, Size of Businesses in Spokane Valley 2-3 2-3, Types of Businesses in Spokane Valley 2-3 2-4, Estimated Composition of Solid Waste Disposed in Spokane Valley 2-6 2-5, Recycled and Diverted Materials 2-7 2-6, Projected Solid Waste and Recycling Quantities for Spokane Valley 2-8 3 Waste Reduction 3-1, Rating of the Waste Reduction Alternatives 3-9 Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan iii Table of Contents by Green Solutions List of Tables, continued 4 Recycling and Organics Collection 4-1, Materials Collected for Recycling by Waste Management 4-3 4-2, List of Designated Recyclable Materials 4-7 4-3, Rating of the Recycling and Organics Alternatives 4-10 5 Solid Waste Collection 5-1, Waste Collection Service Providers in Spokane Valley 5-1 5-2, Rating of the Waste Collection Alternatives 5-5 6 Transfer and Disposal 6-1, Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regional System 6-4 6-2, Rating of the Transfer and Disposal Alternatives 6-6 7 Special Wastes 7-1, Rating of the Special Waste Alternatives 7-12 8 Administration 8-1, Rating of the Administration Alternatives 8-5 9 Implementation Plan 9-1, Implementation Schedule for Recommendations 9-4 9-2, Implementation Responsibilities for Recommendations 9-5 9-3, Funding Strategies for Recommendations 9-6 LIST OF FIGURES 2 Background of the Planning Area 2-1, Population Distribution for Spokane Valley 2-2 4 Recycling and Organics Collection 4-1, Price Paid for Baled Aluminum Cans 4-5 4-2, Prices Paid for Select Recyclable Materials 4-5 6 Transfer and Disposal 6-1, Solid Waste Facilities in Spokane Valley 6-2 Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan iv Table of Contents by Green Solutions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for the SPOKANE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION The Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan (the "Plan") is intended to provide guidance for the solid waste system in the City of Spokane Valley. The solid waste system includes garbage collection and disposal, and programs for waste reduction, recycling, organics, special wastes and the administration of these programs. This Plan is intended to provide guidance on program development and implementation for these activities for the next five to six years, while also attempting to anticipate the needs of the solid waste system 20 years from now. State law (Chapter 70.95 RCW) provides the authority for the City to adopt this Plan and also lists the requirements for the contents of the Plan. In preparing this Plan, the City is exercising its authority to "prepare and deliver to the county auditor of the county in which it is located its plan for its own solid waste management for integration into the comprehensive county plan" (RCW 70.95.080). OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS The most significant recommendations in this Plan deal with the new programs and activities that will be necessary for the City of Spokane Valley to create its solid waste system. The City recently contracted with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. ("Sunshine"1) to provide solid waste transfer, transport, and disposal services for the City. This Plan designates the Sunshine Disposal & Recycling Transfer Station ("Sunshine Transfer Station") as the disposal facility for all solid waste from the City. An administrative fee paid by that facility will provide funding for the public education and other additional activities that the City will need to perform in support of the new system. This Plan also incorporates the changes resulting from the contracts with the waste haulers in the City (Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal). The process of contracting for waste collection services was already underway before the development of this Plan, and is a logical step for the City to take to ensure the appropriate services for their residents and businesses. 1 Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. operates a number of businesses providing transfer, disposal, and collection services. For the purposes of this Plan, "Sunshine" refers to that entity providing transfer, transport, and disposal services to the City pursuant to its recent contract, while "Sunshine Disposal" refers to the entity providing solid waste and recycling collection services. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-1 Executive Summary by Green Solutions All of the recommendations made in this Plan are listed below and are also summarized in Table E-1. Note that the recommendations are not listed in any particular order within each group (for instance, the three high-priority recommendations shown for waste reduction are not listed in any particular order, such as schedule or cost, within that group). WASTE REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste reduction programs (see Chapter 3 of the Plan for more details): High -Priority Recommendations WR1) The City of Spokane Valley will evaluate product stewardship programs as these are proposed on a statewide or national level, and support those if appropriate to the interests of their citizens and the business community. WR2) The business community in Spokane Valley may be encouraged to reduce waste through a recognition program that publicizes success stories. WR3) The City of Spokane Valley will adopt policies and practices to encourage City departments to reduce waste. WR4) Round -up events should be conducted at least annually by the City of Spokane Valley. Medium -Priority Recommendations WR5) Public education materials distributed by the City of Spokane Valley will include information on alternative handling methods for yard waste, the value of "smart shopping" methods, how to avoid wasting food, and the availability of volume -based garbage collection fees. Low -Priority Recommendations WR6) A ban on the disposal of yard waste within solid waste disposal containers may be considered in the future if public education and outreach efforts are not effective in diverting most of this material from the waste stream. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-2 Executive Summary by Green Solutions RECYCLING AND ORGANICS RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for recycling and organics collection programs (see Chapter 4 for more details): High -Priority Recommendations R1) Curbside recycling will continue to be included with garbage collection services for residential customers in Spokane Valley. R2) City residents and businesses will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for yard waste and organics ("Clean Green") drop-off services. Medium -Priority Recommendations R3) Weekly curbside recycling will be evaluated as part of the waste collection system changes expected to be implemented by Spokane Valley in 2018. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste collection programs (see Chapter 5 for more details): High -Priority Recommendations C1) When the City fully assumes control of collection services, anticipated to be in 2018, various options will be considered for providers and service levels, including negotiating versus bidding for haulers and collection frequency for recycling. Medium -Priority Recommendations C2) Educate the public on the benefits of curbside collection services and the comprehensive costs related to self -haul to transfer station. TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS Pursuant to the City's agreement with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc., the following recommendation is being made for transfer and disposal programs (see Chapter 6 for more details): Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-3 Executive Summary by Green Solutions High -Priority Recommendations D1) The Sunshine Transfer Station is designated as the disposal system for all solid waste from Spokane Valley, effective November 17, 2014. SPECIAL WASTE RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for special waste programs (see Chapter 7 for more details): High -Priority Recommendations SW1) Proper disposal options for residential sharps (syringes) will be promoted through a cooperative effort between the City of Spokane Valley, the Spokane Regional Health District ("Health District"), and the waste collectors. SW2) Green building practices will be promoted by distributing brochures and publicizing other sources of information. SW3) City residents will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for household hazardous wastes. SW4) Sunshine Recyclers should consider providing MRW disposal services to businesses (CESQGs) in the future. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for administration programs (see Chapter 8 for more details): High -Priority Recommendations Al) The additional services and programs needed by the City to support the City's solid waste system will be performed by contracted services to the extent feasible and appropriate. Existing City staff will be used to monitor the contracts and programs for solid waste in the City of Spokane Valley. Medium -Priority Recommendations A2) The additional funds needed to implement the City's solid waste system will be collected through surcharges on tipping fees collected at the Sunshine Transfer Station. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-4 Executive Summary by Green Solutions IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS Table E-1 shows a summary of the recommendations, including the following information: • Lead agency (or company): each recommendation requires an agency or company to verify that it is implemented in a timely fashion. The City of Spokane Valley is the lead agency for most of the recommendations, but in some cases this responsibility is shared with other parties. • Priority: the level of priority is shown for each recommendation in case limited resources should prevent the implementation of all of the recommendations in the future. • Cost: cost information is shown where available, and the cost figures shown are only the costs to the City. In some cases, there may be additional costs to others in terms of user fees and other expenses. For many of the recommendations, the primary expense is staff time. • Funding sources: the proposed source(s) of the funds to pay for recommended activities is shown in the last column of Table E-1. The funding source for several of the recommendations is shown as "Fee/CPG," which is an abbreviated way of saying that the funds would come from the fees charged to Sunshine (the administrative fee and the right-of-way maintenance fee, collectively referred to as a "disposal surcharge" throughout this Plan) and/or Coordinated Prevention Grant ("CPG") funds when those become available to the City in mid -2015. Additional details for most of the recommendations can be found in the appropriate chapters of this Plan. The recommendations are numbered according to the chapter where they are discussed for easier cross-referencing to other parts of the Plan. Recommendation #WR1, for instance, is the first recommendation shown in the Waste Reduction chapter (Chapter 3). Note that many of the recommendations are shown in an abbreviated form in Table E-1 due to space constraints. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-5 Executive Summary by Green Solutions Table E-1 Implementation Summary for Recommendations Recommended Activity Lead Agency Priority Annual Cost Funding Source Chapter 3, Waste Reduction WR1) Support product stewardship programs as appropriate City High Staff time NA WR2) Business waste reduction recognition program City High $25K Fee/CPG WR3) Adopt city waste reduction policies City High Staff time NA WR4) City will conduct round -up events City High Staff time Fee /CPG WR5) Promote waste reduction City Medium $100K* Fee /CPG WR6) Consider yard waste disposal ban City Low Staff time NA Chapter 4, Recycling and Organics R1) Continue to include curbside recycling with garbage service City High Staff time NA R2) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for Clean Green City High Staff time** Fee /CPG R3) Evaluate weekly curbside recycling City Medium Staff time NA Chapter 5, Solid Waste Collection 01) Contract for collection service City High Staff time NA C2) Increase curbside collection subscriptions City Medium Staff time NA Chapter 6, Transfer and Disposal D1) Designate Sunshine Transfer Station as the disposal site for all waste from Spokane Valley City High NA NA Chapter 7, Special Wastes SW1) Promote proper disposal of residential sharps Health District High $25-$50K Fee /CPG SW2) Promote green building City High $5K Fee /CPG SW3) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for MRW City High Staff time** Fee /CPG SW4) Sunshine should consider serving CESQG's. Sunshine High NA User Fees Chapter 8, Administration Al) Use existing staff City High Staff time NA A2) Disposal surcharge as funding source City Medium Staff time NA Notes: NA = Not Applicable. *The cost for Recommendation WR5 includes other public education. ** Includes expenses for public education, the cost of which are included in the cost shown to Recommendation WR5. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions E-6 Executive Summary CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1. PURPOSE This Plan is intended to guide the solid waste system in the City of Spokane Valley. The City's solid waste system (the "City's System") includes garbage collection and disposal, as well as programs for waste reduction, recycling, organics, special wastes, and for the administration of these programs. This Plan is intended to provide guidance for the implementation of the City's System for the next five to six years, while also attempting to anticipate the needs of the City's System for the next 20 years. 1.2. PLANNING AREA This Plan primarily addresses programs and activities for the incorporated area of the City of Spokane Valley, although a few of the activities extend beyond City limits. There are no known Tribal properties in the City, but there are eighteen federally - owned properties that could potentially choose to manage their solid waste separately from the City's System. The federal properties range in size from 0.15 to 21.1 acres. Figure 6-1 shows a map of Spokane Valley and local solid waste facilities. 1.3. PLANNING AUTHORITY State law (Chapter 70.95 RCW) provides the authority for the City to develop and implement this Plan. In preparing this Plan, the City is exercising its authority to "prepare and deliver to the county auditor of the county in which it is located its plan for its own solid waste management for integration into the comprehensive county plan" (RCW 70.95.080(3)(a)). 1.4. REQUIRED PLAN ELEMENTS RCW 70.95.090 establishes requirements for solid waste management plans. These requirements include the following elements: • An inventory and description of existing solid waste handling facilities including any deficiencies in meeting current needs. • The projected 20 -year needs for solid waste handling facilities. • A program for the development of solid waste handling facilities that meets all laws and regulations, takes into account comprehensive land use plans, contains a six - Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 1-1 Chapter 1: Introduction year construction and capital acquisition program, and contains a plan for financing the capital costs and operational expenses of the proposed solid waste system. • A program for surveillance and control (to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts of improper waste handling). • An inventory and description of solid waste collection operations, including the identification of collection franchise holders, municipal operations, population densities by service area, and the projected waste collection needs for six years. • A comprehensive waste reduction and recycling element that provides programs to reduce the amount of wastes generated, provides mechanisms and incentives for source separation, and establishes recycling opportunities. • A review of potential areas that meet the criteria for land disposal facilities (RCW 70.95.165). 1.5. PLANNING GOALS The goal of this Plan is to develop and maintain a solid waste management system that protects public health and the environment in a cost-effective manner. The specific goals of this Plan are to: • Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste. • Promote the use of innovative and economical waste handling methods. • Encourage public-private partnerships where possible. • Emphasize waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy. • Encourage the recovery of marketable resources from solid waste. • Assist the State in maintaining its goal of a 50 percent recycling rate. • Ensure compliance with state and local solid and moderate -risk waste regulations. • Assist those who sell and use products containing hazardous ingredients to minimize risks to public health and the environment. • Provide customers information and education to promote recommended waste management practices. • Support the State's Beyond Waste goals, especially for the five key initiatives: increased diversion of organic materials; increased use of green building methods; improved management of small -volume hazardous wastes; improved management of industrial wastes; and measuring progress. One of the six major goals of the Spokane Valley City Council for 2014 is to "implement solid waste alternatives for collection, transport and disposal in the best interest of the City of Spokane Valley." Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 1-2 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.6. SOLID WASTE PLANNING HISTORY The City of Spokane Valley was incorporated in 2003. Since that time, representatives of the City have participated in the Spokane County solid waste plan through an Interlocal Agreement effective July 15, 2003 through November 16, 2014. Since 2003, City representatives have participated in planning efforts through membership on the Spokane County Solid Waste Advisory Committee ("SWAC") and the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Liaison Board. Both of these groups were instrumental in the review and adoption of the Spokane County 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 1.7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS This Plan is designed to be consistent with a number of other plans. The most significant of these plans are described below. Spokane County Solid Waste Management Plan To date, the City of Spokane Valley has participated in the development of the Spokane County 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and has implemented programs consistent with that plan. Hence, the City is starting this planning process from a point that is consistent with the Spokane County plan. While future programs in the City may diverge from the County programs, the use of regional service providers and facilities will help ensure consistency for most programs. Washington State Solid Waste Management Plan In 2004, the Washington State Department of Ecology ("Ecology") prepared a statewide solid waste management plan, commonly referred to as the "Beyond Waste Plan." The Beyond Waste Plan adopted a vision that states that society can transition to a point where waste is viewed as inefficient and most wastes have been eliminated. This transition is expected to take 20 to 30 years or more. In the short term, the Beyond Waste Plan recommends actions that can be undertaken to achieve specific goals in five areas: • Increased diversion of organic materials; • Increased use of green building methods; • Improved management of small -volume hazardous wastes; • Improved management of industrial wastes; and • Measuring progress. The Beyond Waste Plan was updated in 2009 to refine the goals and recommendations of the 2004 plan. The 2009 update also addressed additional solid and hazardous waste Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 1-3 Chapter 1: Introduction issues. The Beyond Waste Plan is discussed in greater detail in several sections of this Plan as appropriate to the topics in each chapter. City Comprehensive Plan The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan ("SVCP") provides a 20 -year vision for the future of Spokane Valley. The vision statement adopted by the SVCP is that Spokane Valley will be "a community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and businesses will flourish and prosper." The SVCP was adopted April 25, 2006, and revisions to the SVCP are considered annually. The SVCP provides a significant amount of detail for policies and programs for related topics (land use, transportation, utilities, etc.), and as such it should be considered to have precedence over this Plan in those matters. Programs proposed in this Plan, especially those that might impact capital facilities, land use and transportation, should be checked against the SVCP to ensure consistency. 1.8. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS The City conducted a public input process for the review of the draft Plan from mid- July to August 31, 2014. When the draft Plan was released in July, a digital copy was placed on the City's website and hard copies were placed at the City Clerk's office and at the public library. Notices were provided to City residents and businesses as to the availability of the draft Plan and the process for providing comments. The public also had an opportunity to comment on this Plan at an open house/public meeting conducted on July 31 for the specific purpose of receiving public input, as well as through the SEPA review process. Comments could also be submitted through the City's website, www.spokanevalley.org. Despite these opportunities, no public comments were received on the draft Plan. Comments were received on the draft Plan from Ecology on August 25, 014. Revisions have been made in this Plan in response to Ecology's comments. The City will use its standard adoption process for the final Plan. This process includes three steps: an informational memo to the City Council, an administrative report and work session, and a formal meeting where the Plan will be approved and adopted. Public comment will be accepted at the formal meeting of the City Council prior to adoption, which is anticipated to occur in November 2014. The City will also provide additional opportunity for public comment prior to consideration of the Plan by City Council. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 1-4 Chapter 1: Introduction CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND OF THE PLANNING AREA 2.1. INTRODUCTION This chapter of the Plan provides basic information that is used in later chapters, including information on demographics, economic factors, and the amount and composition of waste generated in the City. It also discusses the criteria for siting disposal facilities (landfill or incinerator) in the City. 2.2. DEMOGRAPHICS Total Population The population of Spokane Valley has increased steadily since the City's incorporation in 2003 (see Table 2-1). Based on population, Spokane Valley is the tenth largest city in Washington State, and it is more populated than two-thirds (26 out of 39) of the counties in Washington State. Table 2-1 Population of Spokane Valley Year Total Population Annual Increase 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Projected Figures 2014 2020 2025 2030 82,985 83,436 84,465 86,601 87,894 88,513 88,969 89,755 90,110 90,550 91,490 92,600 96,657 100,175 103,820 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% 2.5% 1.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% 0.4% 0.5% 1.0% 1.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Source: Data for 2003-2013 is from the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM). Data for 2014 through 2030 is from the Spokane Valley Planning Division. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-1 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area Housing Based on the most recent census, in 2010 there were 89,755 people occupying 36,558 households. There were another 2,293 households that were vacant at that time. Over half (62%) of the households were owner -occupied. Two-thirds (67.4%) of the housing in 2010 was single-family homes, with another 5.0% in duplexes through quadplexes, 21.4% in multi -family units (five or more units per building), and 6.2% in mobile homes. Age of Population The population distribution for Spokane Valley according to age is illustrated in Figure 2-1. Compared to the age distribution for Washington State, Spokane Valley's population contains a slightly higher percentage of young children (ages 0-4), slightly fewer middle-aged residents (ages 30-44), and a slightly higher percentage of senior citizens (ages 65 and up). 8.0% 7.0% To 6.0% 1— 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% - 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Figure 2-1 Population Distribution for Spokane Valley Ch rn rn rn rn rn Ch Ch + O rI N N m m u1 u1 LID LID N N oo O u, o u, o u, o u, o u, o u, o u, 0 00 N N m m 7r u1 u1 LID LID N N 00 Age Groups Sources: Data is from the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM). 2.3. ECONOMY Washington State Spokane Valley The City of Spokane Valley has a stable business environment and recognizes the importance of businesses in providing a strong local economy. The City provides relatively more assistance to businesses than other areas, especially in permitting new businesses and developing new sites. The City has a large industrial park (one of the Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-2 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area largest industrial parks in the country). Tables 2-2 and 2-3 show basic information about businesses in Spokane Valley. For Table 2-3, this information is organized according to Standard Industrial Classification ("SIC") codes, which is a federal system of organizing businesses by type of activity. Table 2-2 Size of Businesses in Spokane Valley (2013) Business Size Number of Businesses Percentage 1-4 Employees 5-9 Employees 10-19 Employees 20-49 Employees 50-99 Employees 100-249 Employees 250-499 Employees 500-999 Employees 1,000+ Employees Total 2,754 909 496 361 121 69 10 4 1 4,725 58.3% 19.2% 10.5% 7.6% 2.6% 1.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.02% Source: Data is from the Spokane Regional Site Selector and is for 2013. Table 2-3 Types of Businesses in Spokane Valley (2013) Business Type Number of Employees Percentage Agricultural, Forestry and Fishing (SIC 1-9) Mining (SIC 10-14) Construction (SIC 15-17) Manufacturing (SIC 20-39) Transportation and Communications (SIC 40-49) Wholesale Trade (SIC 50-51) Retail Trade (SIC 52-59) Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (SIC 60-69) Services (SIC 70-89) Public Administration (SIC 90-98) Unclassified (SIC 99) Total 640 50 2,647 5,825 3,187 4,045 12,820 2,599 19,146 1,189 210 52,359 1.2% 0.1 5.1 11.1% 6.1 7.7% 24.5% 5.0% 36.6% 2.3% 0.4% Source: Data is from the Spokane Regional Site Selector and is for 2013. SIC = Standard Industrial Classification. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-3 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area 2.4. CRITERIA FOR SITING DISPOSAL FACILITIES IN THE PLANNING AREA The minimum required contents for a solid waste management plan include "a review of potential areas that meet the criteria for land disposal facilities" (RCW 70.95.090). These criteria are listed in a different section of State law, RCW 70.95.165, which refers to solid waste disposal facility siting, and include: (a) Geology (b) Groundwater (c) Soil (d) Flooding (e) Surface water (f) Slope (g) Cover material (h) Capacity (i) Climatic factors (j) Land use (k) Toxic air emissions (1) Other factors determined by Ecology Reviewing the siting factors in a solid waste management plan being prepared for a county, which would have a larger land area and potential landfill sites located away from urban areas, is more meaningful than addressing these criteria in this Plan. The area addressed by this Plan consists of only 38.2 square miles and has a population density of 2,394 people per square mile, making it highly unlikely that a solid waste disposal facility would be sited in the area. In addition, one of the standards adopted by Ecology prohibits the siting of MSW or limited purpose landfills over federally - designated sole source aquifers. The City of Spokane Valley is located over the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Aquifer, which has been designated as a sole source aquifer. Hence, no new or expanded MSW or limited purpose landfills may be sited in Spokane Valley. Other types of land disposal facilities, such as land application sites, piles, and surface impoundments, might be possible in the planning area, but the specific factors that affect the siting of these types of facilities vary widely and will need to be reviewed at the time a specific proposal is being considered. 2.5. CURRENT WASTE GENERATION The current amount of waste generated in the City of Spokane Valley is estimated at 55,540 tons per year (see Table 2-5). This estimate includes residential and commercial waste quantities collected by the two waste collection companies currently active in the City, as well as the amounts "self-hauled"2 by residents and businesses to a transfer station. There is no data specific to Spokane Valley for the composition of this waste or 2 "Self -haul" is the term used for the practice of a waste generator (the person or company that created the waste) to haul their own waste to a transfer station or other disposal facility. This is a common practice for construction contractors, for instance, and in Spokane Valley there are also a significant number of residents who choose to use this method rather than subscribe to garbage collection services. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-4 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area for the amounts of recyclable and compostable materials that are collected from the City, but the following sections describe the best available information for these. Composition of Spokane Valley's Solid Waste Table 2-4 shows the estimated composition of the solid wastes disposed from Spokane Valley. These figures are provided for planning purposes and are based on data developed for a 12 -county area in eastern Washington State. These figures can be used together with the waste disposal estimate of 55,540 tons per year to provide estimates for the amounts of specific materials disposed annually (as shown in the last column of Table 2-4). Amount of Recyclable Materials Collected from Spokane Valley Ecology conducts an annual survey of the amount of materials collected for recycling and composting in Washington State. This survey includes amounts collected through curbside recycling programs and also commercial and special collections for a wide variety of materials. Ecology can provide this data for each county, but the data is not available on a city -by -city basis. Prorating the data for Spokane County appears to be the best available source of data on how much recycling is currently conducted in Spokane Valley. Since 1999, Ecology has also collected data on the amount of "diverted" materials, which are materials that are diverted from disposal to beneficial uses that are not defined as recycling. Examples of diverted materials include asphalt and concrete that are recycled (these materials are not included in the definition of recycling) and wood waste burned for energy (incineration is also not defined as recycling). Table 2-5 shows the most recent recycling data for Spokane County (2012) and prorated figures for Spokane Valley based on the City's share of the County's population (19.0% in 2012). Table 2-5 uses a prorated share (55,540 tons) of the total solid waste amount for the County in order to provide a consistent analysis here. This figure is often called "MSW" (municipal solid waste), which does not include some types of industrial and other wastes. Construction and demolition ("C&D") wastes are also not generally included in MSW, although some amount of this is actually included in the MSW figures (to the extent that these materials are being handled as part of the regular waste stream and not being disposed at special facilities such as inert waste or limited purpose landfills). Industrial and C&D wastes are the primary sources of the amounts shown as "non -MSW disposed" in Table 2-5. As indicated in Table 2-5, the amount of waste "generated" includes both the waste disposed plus the amount recycled or diverted. Figures are provided in Table 2-5 for both MSW and also for the broader waste stream that includes non -MSW materials. The last two rows of Table 2-5 show per capita figures for recycling, disposal and waste generation. These figures are expressed in terms of pounds per person per day. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-5 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area Table 2-4 Estimated Composition of Solid Waste Disposed in Spokane Valley Materials Percent of Total (by weight) Amount Disposed (tons per year) Paper Newspaper 1.8 1,000 Cardboard 4.7 2,610 Other Recyclable Paper 9.5 5,280 Compostable Paper 4.4 2,440 Remainder/Composite 1.5 830 Total Paper 21.9 12,160 Plastics PET Bottles 0.8 440 HDPE Bottles 1.0 560 Other Plastic Pkg. 1.9 1,060 Film and Bags 4.2 2,330 Other Products 1.3 720 Remainder/Composite 1.4 780 Total Plastics 10.7 5,940 Glass Clear Glass Containers 0.8 440 Green Glass Containers 0.4 220 Brown Glass Containers 0.6 330 Stoneware, Ceramics 0.2 110 Remainder/Composite 0.3 170 Total Glass 2.3 1,280 Metals Aluminum Cans 0.4 220 Tin Cans 0.7 390 Other Non -Ferrous Metals 0.5 280 Other Ferrous Metals 2.6 1,440 Mixed Metal & Other 2.7 1,500 Total Ferrous Metals 6.9 3,830 Organics Food 10.8 6,000 Yard Wastes 9.8 5,540 Manures 2.8 1,560 Other Organics 2.4 1,330 Total Organics 25.8 14,330 Consumer Textiles 2.0 1,110 Products Furniture, Mattresses 2.7 1,500 All Other 2.1 1,170 Total Consumer Products 6.8 3,780 Other Wood 9.0 5,000 Construction 11.3 6,280 Hazardous/Special Wastes 3.7 2,050 Residues 1.5 830 Total Other 25.5 14,160 Totals 100.0% 55,540 Source: 2009 Washington Statewide Waste Characterization Study, Ecology 2010. Percentage figures are for the Eastern region (as defined by that study), which includes Spokane and 11 other counties. Figures may not add up exactly due to rounding. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-6 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area Table 2-5 Recycled and Diverted Materials (2012) Source: Data for Spokane County is from the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System webpage. Figures for the City of Spokane Valley are prorated from County data based on City's 19.0% of population in 2012. Municipal Solid Waste Planning Projections Table 2-6 shows figures for the amount of solid waste projected to be recycled, disposed and generated in Spokane Valley for the next 20 years. These figures do not include the diverted and disposed amounts of non -MSW wastes. These figures were derived using the per capita figures shown in Table 2-5 and the population projections shown in Table 2-1. In other words, these projections assume that the recycling rate and disposal rates will remain constant over the next 20 years (which is an unlikely scenario). It should also be noted that recycled and disposed quantities vary throughout the year. The lowest amounts of recycling and waste disposal generally occur in the winter months (but typically with a spike in waste quantities after Christmas), and the greatest amounts often occur in the spring and fall. Recent data for the Valley Transfer Station (2012) shows the greatest amounts of solid waste received in May and August, and the greatest amounts of Clean Green received in May and November. Better data on solid waste quantities for Spokane Valley will be available in the future as a result of the contract signed with Sunshine. That contract requires Sunshine to provide an annual report on the monthly amounts of waste disposed at their transfer station by type of waste (total solid waste, acceptable waste, recyclables, organics, which are the same as Clean Green, C&D, MRW, special waste and unacceptable Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-7 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area Spokane County Spokane Valley Recycled Amount 352,913 67,053 MSW Disposed 292,337 55,544 Total MSW Generated 645,250 122,597 Recycling Rate 54.7% 54.7% Diverted Amount (Non -MSW) 231,863 44,054 Non -MSW Disposed 147,711 28,065 Total Non -MSW Generated 379,573 72,119 Recycling Rate, Non -MSW Only 61.1% 61.1% All Recycling and Diversion 584,776 111,107 All Wastes (MSW and Non -MSW) 440,048 83,609 Total Generation, All Wastes 1,024,823 194,716 Diversion Rate 57.1% 57.1% Pounds per Capita (MSW Only) Recycled 4.07 4.07 Disposed 3.37 3.37 Generated 7.43 7.43 Source: Data for Spokane County is from the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System webpage. Figures for the City of Spokane Valley are prorated from County data based on City's 19.0% of population in 2012. Municipal Solid Waste Planning Projections Table 2-6 shows figures for the amount of solid waste projected to be recycled, disposed and generated in Spokane Valley for the next 20 years. These figures do not include the diverted and disposed amounts of non -MSW wastes. These figures were derived using the per capita figures shown in Table 2-5 and the population projections shown in Table 2-1. In other words, these projections assume that the recycling rate and disposal rates will remain constant over the next 20 years (which is an unlikely scenario). It should also be noted that recycled and disposed quantities vary throughout the year. The lowest amounts of recycling and waste disposal generally occur in the winter months (but typically with a spike in waste quantities after Christmas), and the greatest amounts often occur in the spring and fall. Recent data for the Valley Transfer Station (2012) shows the greatest amounts of solid waste received in May and August, and the greatest amounts of Clean Green received in May and November. Better data on solid waste quantities for Spokane Valley will be available in the future as a result of the contract signed with Sunshine. That contract requires Sunshine to provide an annual report on the monthly amounts of waste disposed at their transfer station by type of waste (total solid waste, acceptable waste, recyclables, organics, which are the same as Clean Green, C&D, MRW, special waste and unacceptable Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-7 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area wastes). The report will also include the number of trips by haulers and self -haulers, and the number of customer service inquiries. A review of the current programs operating in Spokane Valley concluded that they are fully capable of handling current disposed and recycled quantities, and that these programs should be able to continue handling future quantities (for the next 20 years) as well. Table 2-6 Projected Solid Waste and Recycling Quantities for Spokane Valley 2012 2020 2030 Population Recycled Amounts, tons/year Disposed Amounts, tons/year Total Waste Generated, tons/year 90,550 67,191 55,658 122,850 96,657 71,723 59,412 131,135 103,820 77,038 63,815 140,853 Source: Based on the per capita figures shown in Table 2-5 and population figures shown in Table 2-1. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-8 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area CHAPTER 3 WASTE REDUCTION 3.1. EXISTING WASTE REDUCTION ACTIVITIES Waste reduction refers to any action that avoids the generation of waste or reduces the toxicity of waste before it reaches the waste stream. Washington State law designates waste reduction as the highest priority waste management strategy. Examples of waste reduction methods include: • Reduce materials used in product manufacturing. • Increase the useful life of a product through durability and reparability. • Decrease the toxicity of products. • Reuse a product. • Reduce consumer use of materials and products. Existing waste reduction activities in Spokane Valley include public education, participation in regional programs, volume -based garbage fees, and backyard composting. These program elements are discussed below. Public Education To date, the City has distributed brochures developed by the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System (the "Regional System"). These brochures address waste reduction, reuse, mulching, composting, and household hazardous waste. Other Regional Programs The City has participated in regional programs to encourage waste reduction. These programs have included school and youth education, public education, coalitions with other entities, business and institution education, and home composting. More information about these programs can be found in the Spokane County 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Volume -Based Garbage Collection Fees Volume -based collection fees provide important feedback to residents and businesses and help educate them to the idea that there is a cost associated with the amount of waste they produce. In Spokane Valley, garbage collection costs vary according to the size of the container and frequency of collection for both residential and commercial customers. For residential customers, current garbage collection charges range from $14.45 per month for a 35 -gallon cart emptied weekly to $29.14 for a 96 -gallon cart emptied weekly (for carts provided by the waste hauler, Waste Management). Waste Management's website points out the potential for cost savings and provides tips for Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-1 Chapter 3: Waste Reduction reducing the amount of garbage. Private and Personal Reuse Efforts The reuse and other waste reduction efforts conducted by residents, businesses and non-profit groups in Spokane Valley should not be overlooked. Although many of these are individual efforts that only deal with a small amount of products, altogether these activities provide a huge benefit to the local economy and avoid additional waste generation. Examples of these activities include garage sales, donations to charitable and for-profit organizations, the use of Craigslist and eBay, collection and reuse of building materials by Habitat for Humanity, and many other related activities. Backyard Composting Backyard composting is addressed here (instead of in the next chapter) because it is considered a waste reduction method. The City has promoted backyard composting through local public education efforts and also through regional efforts. City Code The Spokane Valley Municipal Code does not specifically encourage or discourage waste reduction activities, but does provide a mechanism for controlling potential problems that could result from two waste reduction activities: garage sales and backyard composting. Garage sales lasting more than seven consecutive days or occurring on more than two consecutive weekends are not allowed by city code. Compost piles found to be attracting an infestation of insects or other vermin are also not allowed. 3.2. WASTE REDUCTION PLANNING ISSUES Waste reduction is the highest priority waste management strategy because it conserves resources, reduces waste management costs, and minimizes pollution. Waste reduction programs can be the most difficult to implement, however, because these programs may require changes in production methods and consumption patterns, and are influenced by national/global economies and other factors that are typically beyond the control of local government. Specific waste reduction issues are discussed below. Food Waste Food waste is one of the largest components of the waste stream (see Table 2-4) and as such deserves attention as to the waste reduction possibilities for it. At the same time, there is increasing national awareness as to the amount of edible food that is going to waste. According to a recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council,3 40% of 3 From "Wasted: How America is Losing up to 40 Percent of its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill," by Dana Gunders, staff scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, August 2012. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-2 Chapter 3: Waste Reduction edible food is wasted as it travels from farms to kitchen tables. According to the USDA, a family of four could save $2,275 per year by making simple changes in the way they handle food purchases and storage. Implementation Difficulty Despite its high priority, waste reduction is a difficult topic for municipalities to address because it often requires either additional public education efforts or mandatory requirements (which are generally unpopular). The City must remain sensitive to the needs of local businesses, so product bans and other mandatory measures must be evaluated carefully. Measuring and Evaluating Waste Reduction Activities Measuring waste reduction is also difficult because the amount of waste generated in a specific area fluctuates with many variables, including economic conditions, seasonal changes and local weather. Hence, it can be difficult to demonstrate the cost- effectiveness or productivity of specific waste reduction techniques. 3.3. ALTERNATIVE WASTE REDUCTION STRATEGIES Many of the potential waste reduction methods, especially those regarding reductions in the degree of toxicity of specific products and waste reduction for manufacturing in general, are beyond the scope of what a single city can accomplish. Many of these are also beyond the scope of what a county or even a state can accomplish, but instead require action on a federal or international level. Perhaps the one exception to this principle is the idea of banning specific products, which can be done on a city or county level in order to force the use of a different product that has better waste reduction potential. The following alternatives were considered for new or expanded waste reduction activities. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is considered feasible or desirable, nor that is recommended (see Section 3.5 for waste reduction recommendations). Alternative A - Support New Product Stewardship Programs Product stewardship is a concept designed to alleviate the burden of end -of -life product management on local governments. Product stewardship programs typically address a specific type of product and provide an alternative collection or disposal system. One of the principles that this approach is based on is that the manufacturers of a product should bear the cost of collecting and recycling (or disposing of) that product, and that this will create an incentive for them to reduce the weight and/ or toxicity of their products. Retailers, if they are involved in a program, would have an incentive to carry products that are easier (and so less expensive) to collect and recycle. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-3 Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Developing new product stewardship programs is beyond the scope of a city, but Spokane Valley could participate in such programs developed by others. Any new product stewardship proposals at the county, state or federal levels could be evaluated and supported as appropriate to the City's interests. The cost for implementing this alternative would primarily be a small amount of staff time. Alternative B - Ban Specific Products or Materials The City could consider banning specific products that are difficult to recycle and/or causing problems such as litter. Examples of such bans include single -use plastic bags and Styrofoam carry -out containers, both of which have been banned by other cities (such as Seattle, Portland, and Issaquah). Implementing this approach could potentially require a substantial amount of staff time to research and defend, plus additional staff time and outreach costs for informing the affected parties and possibly enforcing a ban. Alternative C - Ban Yard Waste from Garbage Disposal Of all of the materials in the waste stream, yard waste is probably the easiest material to handle through other means. Yard waste can be left on the lawn (mulching of grass clippings), applied as a top -mulch in landscaping and gardens, handled through backyard composting (for leaves, grass clippings and some types of food wastes), chipped on-site (for branches and other woody materials), or recycled through residential and commercial yard waste collection programs. If an outright ban on disposal of yard waste within solid waste disposal containers is not feasible or desirable at this time, additional public education could be conducted instead to promote mulching of grass clippings, backyard composting, and even vermicomposting (using worm bins to convert food wastes into a desirable soil amendment). Banning yard waste from being placed in solid waste disposal containers could then be reconsidered at a later date. Alternative D - Promote Smart Shopping The City could conduct more promotion on the subject of smart shopping, such as using durable grocery bags and buying in bulk. Businesses could be encouraged to promote the use of durable grocery bags and to offer durable bags for customer use (as many grocery stores are already doing). The City could conduct a campaign that encourages: • Buying in bulk. • Buying concentrates. • Purchasing reusable products. • Buying secondhand items. • Avoiding over -packaged items. • Avoiding products containing hazardous ingredients. • Borrowing or renting when possible. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-4 Chapter 3: Waste Reduction • Purchasing durable and repairable products. • Using reusable shopping bags. Another idea that is gaining in popularity is the use of fix -it workshops, where people can bring items in need of repairs and knowledgeable volunteers show them how to fix the item. Organizing this type of workshop is probably better accomplished by a non- profit group, but the City could help promote the workshops, provide space for the events, and possibly assist in other ways. Alternative E - Focus on Food Waste Food waste can be recycled through the yard waste collection program (see Chapter 4 for more details about that approach), but this does not address the fact that a substantial amount of edible food waste is unnecessarily discarded. A public education campaign could be used to inform residents of the meaning of expiration dates, opportunities to donate food, and other steps that could be taken to reduce food waste. Alternative F - Promote Volume -Based Collection Fees Waste Management already provides a system of volume -based fees for residential customers in Spokane Valley and surrounding areas, and rates charged by both haulers for commercial customers are also based on volumes. The availability of volume -based rates for residential customers could be publicized more to highlight the potential cost savings from waste reduction. The success of this approach could be monitored by the number of people who are signed up for the lower service levels. Furthermore, the City could require a rate system that provides greater incentive by reducing the cost for lower levels of service and increasing the cost of higher levels of service. For instance, the rate for a 64 -gallon can emptied weekly could be set at an amount that is twice that of a 35 -gallon can emptied weekly, and the rate for a 96 -gallon can could be triple that of a 35 -gallon can. This approach provides greater incentive for waste reduction and is used by many cities. Collection rates are discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 5. Alternative G - Business Waste Reduction Activities Business waste reduction programs are typically custom designed for each specific operation. Hence, this type of program is generally beyond the scope of a single city (to date, this approach has been conducted on a regional basis in the Spokane area). The City could, however, encourage businesses to examine their own wastes to look for ways to reduce the amounts of wastes, and to look for ways to recycle more (including the use of alternative products and materials that would be more recyclable). Business waste reduction programs typically include the following components: • Support and policy directives from upper management. • A waste reduction team or coordinator. • An accounting of materials purchased and waste produced. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-5 Chapter 3: Waste Reduction • A reduction plan targeting specific materials or practices. • Employee education. • Ongoing feedback (to employees and others as appropriate) and evaluation. The City could request that the Chamber of Commerce or another group help promote these ideas and institute a recognition program for businesses that successfully reduce the amount of their wastes. With the Chamber's assistance, the cost for this program would be minimal, limited perhaps to only $25,000 for outreach materials, awards or plaques, and related expenses. Alternative H - Government Sector Leading by Example The City could set an example for local businesses and organizations, and become an even greater force in the marketplace, by broadening and upgrading procurement policies. The City could target products that: • Allow for greater waste reduction, such as purchasing copy machines that make double -sided copies more easily and setting duplex copying as default. • Require replacement or repair less often, such as rechargeable batteries and durable furniture. • Are easily repaired, such as machinery with standardized, replaceable parts. • Can be reused, such as washable plates and glasses. • Are nontoxic or less toxic, such as many cleaning agents and solvents now available. The City could also develop a more comprehensive in-house waste prevention program. By monitoring and reporting on effectiveness, costs, avoided costs, and program revenues for various waste reduction activities, the City could provide a model for local businesses and schools. In-house waste prevention programs could include: • Double -sided copying. • Routing slips instead of circulating multiple copies. • Electronic mail for intra -office messages. • Scrap pads from used paper. • Reusing large envelopes. • Use of very small cans for trash in individual offices, with larger containers provided for recycling. To ensure the program's continued success, employees need to receive regular updates about new waste reduction techniques. This information could be provided by informational notices or newsletters that are routed electronically on a regular basis. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-6 Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Alternative I - Monitoring Waste Prevention Results It would be useful to have a mechanism for monitoring the results of waste prevention programs in order to provide feedback to participants and to provide a basis for future adjustments in the approaches being used. For many communities, this is typically done by periodically calculating the waste generation rate on a per capita basis. Unfortunately, changes in the generation rate due to waste prevention programs are typically very small in a given time period and so are easily masked or overwhelmed by other factors, such as economic problems or natural disasters. In the latter case, floods and storms can create large amounts of waste and it can be difficult to fully identify and separately account for these amounts. One alternative to calculating per capita rates is to periodically conduct surveys of residents or businesses about their activities to reduce waste, or to conduct waste stream surveys for specific materials, products or packaging. Both of these activities can be expensive and may still lead to ambiguous results, and so should be considered carefully and designed properly to achieve the desired measurement goals. Another approach is to gauge success using a "performance-based standard." This is where waste prevention activities are presumed to be successful based on achieving a specific level of effort or other criteria. An example of this approach is to use the number of backyard composting bins that are distributed as a measure of the amount of yard debris that may be kept out of the waste stream. Other criteria can be used and these need to be tailored to each specific waste prevention activity. This method also has its drawbacks but can still provide viable data in some cases. Alternative J - Promote Reuse and Recycling through Round -Up Events The City could conduct "round -up" events annually, or even two to three times per year, to promote reuse, recycling, and proper disposal of special wastes such as MRW. Reuse could be promoted through these events by collecting reusable items such as clothing, books, and other materials (depending on the availability of vendors to take these materials). Recycling could be promoted by providing opportunities for residents to drop off scrap metals and other difficult -to -recycle items. In addition to MRW, or perhaps a limited range of MRW (such as oil, antifreeze and/or paint), disposal options could be provided for bulky objects (furniture, large pieces of wood, and other large items that might otherwise tend to accumulate in yards). This type of event could be held outside (weather permitting), use private vendors or charities to accept specific types of materials, and thus could be conducted at a relatively low cost to the City. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-7 Chapter 3: Waste Reduction 3.4. EVALUATION OF WASTE REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES Review of Rating Criteria The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including consistency with solid waste planning goals, technical and political feasibility, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative. Based on the ratings for these criteria, each alternative can be given an overall rating and a decision can then be made as to whether to pursue it or not. Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: All of these alternatives support the goal of emphasizing waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy, and support other planning goals as well. Feasibility: In judging the alternatives for technical and political feasibility, most of the alternatives can be adopted without controversy or legal issues. Two alternatives (B and C) have potential issues with public acceptability and impacts to business practices and so are rated low for this criterion as a result of those questions. Monitoring the results of waste reduction programs could be technically challenging, and so this alternative is also rated medium for feasibility. Round -up events may be complex to arrange, and so this alternative is also rated medium for feasibility. Cost Effectiveness: Several of the waste reduction alternatives can be implemented without a significant investment in staff time or other resources, and so are rated high for cost-effectiveness. Alternative B would require significant amounts of staff time and other expenses such as outreach and enforcement, while possibly only affecting a small portion of the waste stream, and so this alternative is rated low for cost-effectiveness. A yard waste ban could require a significant amount of outreach to implement but also affects a significant portion of the waste stream, leading to a medium rating for this alternative. Monitoring the results of waste prevention programs has an uncertain return for the investment that could be necessary for this activity but can yield important data, so this alternative has a medium rating for cost-effectiveness. Round- up events would require staff time and other City resources, but provides a high level of service to City residents and possibly businesses, and so merits a high rating for cost- effectiveness. Rating of Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives is summarized in the following table. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-8 Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Table 3-1 Rating of the Waste Reduction Alternatives Alternative A, Support product stewardship programs B, Ban specific products C, Ban yard waste D, Promote smart shopping E, Focus on food waste F, Promote volume -based fees G, Business waste reduction H, Government sector leading by example I, Monitoring waste prevention J, Round -up events Consistency with Planning Feasibility Goals H H H H H H H H H H H L L H H H H H M M Cost - Effectiveness H L M H H H H H M H Overall Rating H L M H H H H H M H Rating Scores: H — High, M — Medium, L — Low 3.5 WASTE REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste reduction programs. For the proposed measures to monitor waste prevention (and other programs), see Recommendation Al (Chapter 8). High -Priority Recommendations WR1) The City of Spokane Valley will evaluate product stewardship programs as these are proposed on a statewide or national level, and support those if appropriate to the interests of their citizens and the business community. WR2) The business community in Spokane Valley may be encouraged to reduce waste through a recognition program that publicizes success stories. WR3) The City of Spokane Valley will adopt policies and practices to encourage City departments to reduce waste. WR4) Round -up events should be conducted at least annually by the City of Spokane Valley. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-9 Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Medium -Priority Recommendations WR5) Public education materials distributed by the City of Spokane Valley will include information on alternative handling methods for yard waste, the value of "smart shopping" methods, how to avoid wasting food, and the availability of volume -based garbage collection fees. Low -Priority Recommendations WR6) A ban on the disposal of yard waste within solid waste disposal containers may be considered in the future if public education and outreach efforts are not effective in diverting most of this material from the waste stream. The lead agency responsible for implementing and funding these recommendations will be the City. Funds are expected to come from a surcharge on tipping fees at the transfer station, other available City funds, and the CPG grant program administered by Ecology. The costs for four of these recommendations (WR1, WR3, WR4, and WR6) consist primarily of staff time (although if a yard waste ban were actually implemented, there would be additional future expenses for informing the public of this and possibly also costs for enforcement activities). Recommendation WR2 could cost about $25,000, depending on how it is actually implemented. The cost for Recommendation WR5 is not high if waste reduction tips and information is included in general public education efforts. Since the City is pursuing its own management of its System, it will need a broad public education effort to inform residents and businesses about waste collection services, self -haul options, and recycling and yard waste programs as well as waste reduction. Since WR5 is the only recommendation that addresses public education, the full costs of those efforts is shown here and are estimated at $50,000 to $100,000 per year. The funding for Recommendations WR2 and WR5 would initially come from the disposal surcharge and other available City funds, and then be at least partially covered by CPG funds when the City becomes eligible for that grant in mid -2015. Recommendation WR1 should be implemented on an as -needed basis. The implementation of recommendations WR2, WR3 WR4, and WR5 should begin next year (2015), and WR6 should be evaluated in 2018. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-10 Chapter 3: Waste Reduction CHAPTER 4 RECYCLING AND ORGANICS COLLECTION 4.1. EXISTING RECYCLING AND ORGANICS PROGRAMS "Recycling" refers to the act of collecting and processing materials to return them to a similar use. Recycling does not include materials burned for energy recovery or destroyed through pyrolysis and other high-temperature processes. The State's definition of recycling is "recycling means transforming or remanufacturing waste materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill disposal or incineration. Recycling does not include collection, compacting, repackaging, and sorting for the purpose of transport" (Chapter 173-350 WAC). As indicated in the definition, the common use of the term "recycling" to refer to the act of placing materials in a special cart or other container to be collected separately from garbage is a misnomer, and recycling does not actually occur until the materials are processed and then used to create new products. On the other hand, keeping recyclable materials separate from garbage at the point of generation is typically a critically -important first step in ensuring that the materials are actually recycled. Organics (Clean Green) are also addressed in this chapter of the Plan. In the past, programs addressing organics have largely focused on yard debris (grass clippings, leaves and brush), but now these programs often include food waste and food -soiled paper. Previous processing methods for organics have consisted primarily of composting, but the addition of food waste is increasingly leading to the use of anaerobic digestion and other processing methods. The State's definition of composting is "composting means the biological degradation and transformation of organic solid waste under controlled conditions designed to promote aerobic decomposition. Natural decay of organic solid waste under uncontrolled conditions is not composting" (Chapter 173-350 WAC). Existing recycling and organics programs in Spokane Valley are primarily directed at the collection and transfer of these materials to facilities outside of the City. While the curbside and commercial collection programs operated by local haulers are the most visible examples of these programs, there is also a significant amount of other activities being conducted in the City. These activities are described in more detail below. Drop -Off and Buy -Back Programs The "typical" recyclables can be dropped off at several locations in and near the City for recycling, including the Sunshine Transfer Station and various other locations. Many of the other private companies and non-profit groups collect only a limited number of materials, but three such facilities in Spokane collect the full range of materials (Du -Mor Recycling, Earthworks Recycling, and Pacific Recycling). Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-1 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection by Green Solutions Examples of other drop-off activities include: • E -waste (electronics) can be dropped off at a Salvation Army and several Goodwill locations in Spokane Valley. • Ink cartridges can be returned for recycling at several local stores, or sent back to manufacturers through the mail. • Rechargeable batteries can be dropped off at certain hardware stores and other locations (depending on the type of battery). • Clothing can be dropped off at collection kiosks. Options for dropping off yard debris and food scraps are less common and only two of these are known to exist currently in Spokane Valley (the Sunshine Transfer Station and the County -owned Valley Transfer Station). The Sunshine Transfer Station accepts Clean Green (including mixed yard debris, food scraps and food -soiled paper) for a fee ($50 per ton as of November 2014, with a minimum charge of $10). Curbside and Commercial Collection Programs Residents in Spokane Valley are provided with recycling collection services by Waste Management. The types of materials, collection frequency and other details for the curbside recycling program in Spokane Valley (and other urban areas) have been guided to date by a service level ordinance adopted by Spokane County. This ordinance has been codified as Chapter 8.58 of the Spokane County Code. The County Code requires that all subscribers to garbage collection services in Spokane Valley receive (and pay for) curbside recycling services. This Code also requires that certified haulers provide this service, and that the haulers must collect newspaper, cardboard, aluminum and steel cans, and plastic bottles (types 1 and 2) at a minimum. At the hauler's options, they may also collect a variety of other materials, including mixed paper, glass bottles, and other types of plastics and metals. The actual types of materials currently collected by Waste Management in Spokane Valley are listed in Table 4-1. The curbside recycling program is currently conducted on an every -other -week basis. For the mixed organics collection program (yard debris and food waste), the collection frequency is weekly from March through November and monthly from December through February. For the curbside recycling program, there is no extra charge for additional materials placed in paper bags or cardboard boxes next to the recycling cart. For the mixed organics collection program, there are extra charges levied for additional materials placed outside of the cart. Both the recycling and mixed organics carts are 96 - gallon carts provided by Waste Management. Multi -family buildings (apartments) in Spokane Valley are also provided with recycling and mixed organics collection services by Waste Management. These services are provided on a subscription basis, meaning that the manager or owner of an apartment Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-2 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection by Green Solutions building may choose to subscribe to one or both of these services and thus make them available to their tenants. Materials collected for multi -family buildings are the same as for the residential curbside program (see Table 4-1). The size and number of containers, collection frequency and other details depend on the subscription level for the multi- family building. Table 4-1 Materials Collected for Recycling by Waste Management Program Acceptable Materials Unacceptable Materials Residential Curbside, Multi -Family and Commercial Recycling Programs Mixed Organics Clean paper and cardboard (including office paper, magazines, paperback books, mail and food boxes) Clean glass bottles and jars Aluminum and tin/steel cans, scrap metal, aluminum food containers, and empty/non- hazardous aerosol cans Plastic bottles, jars and tubs Yard debris (leaves, grass clippings and small branches) Food scraps (fruits, vegetables, bread, grains, meat, dairy, and coffee grounds) Food -soiled paper (paper towels, food -soiled paper bags, and greasy pizza boxes) Laminated and food -soiled papers Light bulbs, window and mirror glass, and ceramics Sharp metals and batteries Electronics Styrofoam Plastic bags Garbage (including diapers, syringes and hazardous waste containers) Diapers Pet waste and litter Plastics Foil Liquids Shredded paper Other types of non- compostable materials Source: Waste Management website, 2/24/14. Note: See http://wmnorthwest.com/Spokane/index.html for complete list of acceptable and unacceptable materials, and other important details. Businesses in Spokane Valley are provided with recycling collection services by the two certificated haulers, Sunshine Disposal and Waste Management, and several other companies. Since recycling by and for commercial and industrial companies is defined as a "free market" system by law, a variety of additional private companies can provide collection services for these businesses. Companies such as Earthworks Recycling, Diversified Wood Recycling, American Recycling Corporation, Baker Commodities, Dickson Iron and Metal, Pacific Steel Hide and Recycling, Action Recycling, Du -Mor Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-3 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection by Green Solutions Recycling, Clark's Recycling and others provide pickup and drop-off services for materials such as metals, paper, and grease in commercial quantities. It is difficult to adequately describe all of these activities here, and such a description would also quickly become outdated and hence would not be useful in a long-term document such as this Plan. Current information on these activities can be obtained from other sources, such as Ecology's 1 -800 -recycle website. Recycled Tonnages It is currently not feasible to precisely quantify the tonnages collected by the many companies involved in recycling and organics collection in the City. Although Ecology collects data on current recycling amounts on an annual basis, that data is only available on a county level. Pro -rating the amount of recycling occurring in Spokane County, however, provides an estimate of 67,053 tons recycled and composted in 2012 in Spokane Valley (see Table 2-5). This is equivalent to a recycling rate of 54.7%. If "diverted materials"4 are also included in this analysis, the amount of recycled and diverted materials increases to 111,107 tons per year (in 2012). Including diverted materials means that additional types of wastes must also be included, and so the diversion rate only increases slightly to 57.1%. Recycling Markets State regulations (RCW 70.95.090(7) (c)) require "a description of markets for recyclables," hence a description of the markets for recyclable materials collected in Spokane Valley is provided below. This is intended to be only a brief report of current conditions, and it should be noted that market conditions for recyclables can undergo substantial changes in a short amount of time. Market demand and prices for recyclables have fluctuated significantly over the past several years, just as prices for all commodities fluctuate with demand and other factors. Some recyclable materials have seasonal cycles in supply and demand, but all materials exhibit long-term trends with the possibility of sudden price spikes or dips. In some cases, long-term contracts with price floors can help moderate the swings in market revenues, but this isn't possible for all materials. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show how the prices for aluminum cans and a few other materials collected from residential sources in the Pacific Northwest have fluctuated over the past 20 years. As can be seen in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, market prices dipped for most materials from 2008 to 2009 due to the slump in demand caused by the recession. 4 Diverted materials are materials that are handled separately from solid waste and instead directed to a beneficial use, but that do not meet the definition of recycling. Examples include construction wastes that are recycled and wood wastes that are burned for energy recovery. See Section 2.5 for more details. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-4 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection by Green Solutions Figure 4-1 Price Paid for Baled Aluminum Cans (Annual Averages) $2,000.00 $1,800.00 $1,600.00 $• 1,400.00 • $1,200.00 a $1,000.00 0.1 $800.00 $600.00 $400.00 $200.00 $0.00 M 111 to N 00 61 O -i N M t o to N 00 61 O c-1 N CO 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 O O O O O O O O O O c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 c-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Source: Seattle Public Utilities website (original data source: American Metal Markets). Price per Ton Figure 4-2 Prices Paid for Select Recyclable Materials (Annual Averages) $600.00 $500.00 $400.00 $300.00 $200.00 $100.00 $0.00 M Lt r\ 61 ci M Lt r\ 61 ci M 61 61 61 61 O O O O O -1 -1 61 61 61 61 O O O O O O O -1 ci ci c 1 N N N N N N N - Plastic - Mixed Paper Baled News Source: Seattle Public Utilities website (original data sources are Mill Trade Journal's Recycling Markets, Pulp and Paper Week, Recycling Times, and Waste News). Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-5 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection by Green Solutions Another important factor for marketing of recyclable materials collected in Spokane Valley is the cost of transporting the materials to end -markets, many of which are outside of Washington State. Recyclers in eastern Washington are farther from most markets and so have less access to these markets because the transportation cost is a barrier. The low market value of many recyclable materials limits the number of materials that can be cost-effectively moved to markets. 4.2. DESIGNATION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS The designation of recyclable materials has taken on more importance with the adoption of Chapter 173-350 WAC, which defines recyclable materials as being those materials "that are identified as recyclable materials pursuant to a local comprehensive solid waste plan." Since market conditions for recyclables can change drastically in a short amount of time, the list of designated materials is also accompanied by a description of the process for revising that list. Table 4-2 shows the list of designated recyclable materials. This list is not intended to create a requirement that every recycling program in the City collect every designated material. Instead, the intent is that through a combination of programs, residents and businesses should have an opportunity to recycle all of the designated materials through at least one program. In other words, if plastics are on the designated materials list, then at least one program in the city must collect plastics. The list has been prioritized to indicate the degree of access that residents and businesses should have for these materials (in other words, greater access should be available for the higher - priority materials). The list of "designated recyclable materials" shown in Table 4-2 should be used for guidance as to the materials to be recycled in the future. This list is based on existing conditions (collection programs and markets), and future markets and technologies may warrant changes in this list. The following conditions are grounds for additions or deletions to the list of designated materials: • The market price for an existing material becomes so low that it is no longer feasible to collect, process and/or ship it to markets. • Local markets and/or brokers expand their list of acceptable items based on new uses for materials or technologies that increase demand. • New local or regional processing or demand for a particular material develops. • No market can be found for an existing recyclable material, causing the material to be stockpiled with no apparent solution in the near future. • The potential for increased or decreased amounts of diversion. • Legislative mandate. • Other conditions not anticipated at this time. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-6 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection by Green Solutions Table 4-2 List of Designated Recyclable Materials Priority Level Material High Priority Materials: Materials that should be collected by the curbside, multi -family and commercial recycling programs, or by the mixed organics collection programs, in the city. Recyclables Clean paper and cardboard Clean glass bottles and jars Aluminum and tin cans, scrap metal, aluminum food containers, and empty/non- hazardous aerosol cans Plastic bottles, jars and tubs Mixed Organics Yard debris Food scraps Food -soiled paper Medium Priority Materials: Materials that should be collected at drop-off and buy-back locations (in the city or nearby), or through other collection services. Edible food (donated) Cell phones Electronics (e -waste) Clothing, textiles Oil and oil filters Antifreeze Asphalt and concrete Batteries (all types) All metals, inc. appliances Plastic bags Reusable building materials Low Priority Materials: Hard to recycle materials that should be recycled if markets are available. Wood Carpet Drywall Roofing materials Mixed construction and demolition Shrink wrap, building wrap, and other film plastics Tires Any proposed changes in the list of designated materials should be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director, and minor changes in this list may be adopted without formally amending this Plan. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-7 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection by Green Solutions 4.3. PLANNING ISSUES FOR RECYCLING AND ORGANICS The City of Spokane Valley is currently well -served by a variety of recycling and composting programs, but several improvements and issues could be addressed by this Plan. The most significant of these are noted below. The collection frequency for the residential curbside recycling program is currently every -other -week. Other studies have repeatedly shown that more frequent collections will lead to more diversion. Some communities have gone so far as to make garbage collection every -other -week and recycling weekly to encourage more recycling. Glass is currently included in the curbside recycling program and is mixed with other materials. When mixed with other materials, glass both contaminates the other materials and the glass itself is difficult to recycle. Recycling services in the City of Spokane Valley have been guided to date by a service level ordinance adopted by Spokane County. Since the City has assumed management of its System (see Chapter 6), it may be necessary or desirable for the City to adopt its own service level ordinance or otherwise ensure that garbage customers must also be provided with curbside recycling services. 4.4. ALTERNATIVE RECYCLING AND ORGANICS STRATEGIES The following alternatives were considered for new or expanded recycling and organics activities. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is considered feasible or desirable, nor that is recommended (see Section 4.6 for recycling and organics recommendations). Alternative A - Increase Curbside Recycling to Weekly Collection Studies have repeatedly shown that more frequent collection of recyclables leads to increased tonnages collected. Several cities have recently gone so far as to make recycling collections weekly and changed garbage collection to every -other -week (although a recent proposal by Seattle to do this failed due to questions about costs versus service levels). In general, weekly recycling collections are not double the cost of every -other -week collections, but the additional cost is in the range of 30 to 50% more than every -other -week collections. Weekly collection programs can be expected to collect about 30 to 40% additional tonnages over every -other -week collections. It should be noted that the additional tonnages more than make up for the greenhouse gas emissions related to the additional fuel consumed to run the route twice as much, since every additional ton of recyclables carries with it a huge benefit in greenhouse gas reductions. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-8 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection by Green Solutions Alternative B - Switch to Dual Stream Collection to Collect Glass Separately Glass is a serious problem when mixed with other materials for recycling. Broken glass contaminates the other materials, especially paper and plastic, and makes it more difficult to recycle those materials. The glass that is carried along with the other materials causes problems with the processing equipment for paper and plastic and does not get recycled but ends up in landfills near the processing plants for the other materials. The glass that is recovered from a curbside mixture is also difficult to recycle because it consists of mixed colors and is also highly contaminated by other materials. Even if collected separately, however, markets for glass in Eastern Washington are nearly non-existent (although conversion to fiberglass and other alternative uses may be options), and the value of glass does not pay for the costs of shipping it to markets in Seattle and Portland. Alternative C - Minimum Service Level to Include Curbside Recycling When Spokane Valley creates its System, the City could continue to require curbside recycling services for residential garbage customers through a variety of means, such as by contract with the garbage haulers or through a service level ordinance. Alternative D - Drop -Off Site for Mixed Organics When the City of Spokane Valley leaves the Regional System, there is a question about the level of access that residents and local businesses will continue to have to the services provided by that system, including the Clean Green drop-off program at the Valley Transfer Station. This service will instead be provided by a drop-off site at the Sunshine Transfer Station. The contract signed with Sunshine in June 2014 provides for this and other services. Spokane Valley residents and businesses should be encouraged to use the Clean Green drop-off site at the Sunshine Transfer Station. 4.5. EVALUATION OF RECYCLING AND ORGANICS ALTERNATIVES Review of Rating Criteria The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including consistency with solid waste planning goals, technical and political feasibility, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative. Based on the ratings for these criteria, each alternative can be given an overall rating and a decision can then be made as to whether to pursue it or not. Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: All of these alternatives support the goal of increasing the recovery of marketable materials and providing convenient services for solid waste management. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-9 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection by Green Solutions Feasibility: Alternatives C and D appear relatively easy for the City to implement, while Alternative A could be difficult due to the increased costs. Alternative B would also be difficult to implement, since it too would be more expensive but more importantly it would be very difficult for residents and businesses to switch to a dual - stream system after they have enjoyed the convenience of a single -stream system. Cost Effectiveness: Alternative A would cost more but would also lead to more tons collected for recycling, resulting in a cost per ton for recycling similar to the current system. Alternative B would be relatively expensive to implement, since additional bins or carts would be needed for curbside recycling program participants, although it could potentially result in more tons of material being actually recycled in the end. Alternative C would not cost much to implement but could provide significant advantages. Alternative D will require significant capital investment but will be self - funding (from tipping fees) and is very cost-effective compared to the alternative (disposal of yard and food waste as garbage). Rating of Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives is summarized in the following table. Table 4-3 Rating of the Recycling and Organics Alternatives Consistency with Planning Alternative Goals A, Weekly curbside recycling B, Dual -stream approach C, Continue to include curbside recycling with garbage service D, Encourage City residents and businesses to use Sunshine Transfer Station clean green site H H H H IMF Feasibility 1 L L H H Cost - Effectiveness M L H H Overall Rating M L H H Rating Scores: H — High, M — Medium, L — Low Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 4-10 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection 4.6 RECYCLING AND ORGANICS RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for recycling and organics programs: High -Priority Recommendations R1) Curbside recycling will continue to be included with garbage collection services for residential customers in Spokane Valley. R2) City residents and businesses will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for Clean Green drop-off services. Medium -Priority Recommendations R3) Weekly curbside recycling will be evaluated as part of the waste collection system changes expected to be implemented by Spokane Valley in 2018. The City has determined that it will implement its own System and so will implement R1 and has entered into a contract with Sunshine to implement R2. The City will be responsible for implementing Recommendation R3 as part of the changes anticipated in the future for the waste collection system (see next chapter). None of these recommendations will result in direct costs to the City, although two of the recommendations (R2 and R3) will result in additional costs to others, and those costs will be funded by user fees. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 4-11 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-12 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection by Green Solutions CHAPTER 5 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION 5.1. EXISTING WASTE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES Existing Waste Haulers There are two solid waste collection service providers in Spokane Valley. As further described below, the City currently has franchises with both haulers, Sunshine Disposal and Waste Management. Under the current franchises, Sunshine Disposal collects waste from large containers (i.e., roll -offs and stationary compactors) for non - subscription customers, and Waste Management collects waste from containers (i.e.. compactors, roll off containers smaller dumpsters, and residential garbage carts) from residential and commercial customers. Sunshine Disposal provides recycling services to commercial customers, and Waste Management provides collection and recycling services for both residential and commercial customers, and Clean Green for residential customers. The City is in the process of negotiating contracts with both haulers. While negotiations are still ongoing, the City anticipates that the contracts will be for a term ending in 2018 and that both haulers will continue to provide the same services as they are currently providing. The mailing addresses and current population density for the service areas of the two collection service providers are shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Waste Collection Service Providers in Spokane Valley Service Provide Sunshine Disposal Waste Management Totals 11320 W. McFarland Road, Airway Heights, WA 99001 11321 E. Indiana Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 "II Population Land Area, Served square miles NA 91,490 91,490 38.22 38.22 38.22 Density (people per square mile) NA 2,394.0 2,394.0 Source: Population and land area figures are from the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) for 2013. There are also other collection services active in the City for special types of waste. Two companies have been issued statewide authority by the UTC to collect biomedical waste, for instance. These companies are Stericycle of Washington and Waste Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 5-1 Chapter 5: Solid Waste Collection Management Healthcare Solutions of Washington. Other companies collect hazardous wastes. "Self -haul" by the waste generator (transportation of a person's or company's own waste) is also allowed, as long as the waste is brought to a properly -permitted facility. Regulations Concerning Waste Collection The Washington State authorities that govern collection activities are Ecology and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ("UTC"). RCW 70.95.020 also assigns responsibilities to local government for the management of solid waste handling while encouraging the use of private industry. The various laws that may apply to solid waste collection companies include: • Chapter 81.77 RCW, Solid Waste Collection Companies: This law establishes the state regulatory authority for solid waste collection companies and the procedures and standards with which they must comply. • Chapter 35.21 RCW, Cities and Towns: This law establishes authority of towns and cities in regard to solid waste and the procedures and standards with which they must comply. • Chapter 480-70 WAC, Rules for Solid Waste and/or Refuse Collection Companies: This chapter establishes standards for public safety, fair practices, reasonable charges, nondiscriminatory application of rates, adequate and dependable service, consumer protection, and compliance for solid waste collection companies. • Chapter 480-07 WAC, UTC Procedural Rules: This chapter addresses how to conduct business with the UTC. Three forms of collection services are allowed by State law in the City: • Certificated: With this collection method, cities are not actively involved in the management of garbage collection. Instead, it allows the UTC -certificated hauler to provide service under UTC regulation. • Municipal: Municipal collection utilizes municipal employees to collect waste (such as is done in the City of Spokane). • Licensed collection: This method applies to municipalities that require private collectors to have both a city -issued license as well as a UTC certificate. This approach gives the municipality limited control over collection services. Pursuant to state law, the City has assumed control and management of solid waste collection within its boundaries by entering into seven-year franchises with Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal for solid waste, recycling, and organic collection in 2008. Pursuant to state law, the City is currently negotiating contracts for the extinguishment of the haulers' statutory rights for measurable damages. Under such contracts, the City anticipates the haulers will continue to provide the same services as Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 5-2 Chapter 5: Solid Waste Collection they have provided under the existing franchises. The City anticipates that it will enter into the contracts with Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal in 2014 to provide for full extinguishment of haulers' statutory rights by March, 2018. After completion of the contracts with Waste Management and Sunshine, the City anticipates submitting a request for proposals for a long-term contract for solid waste, recycling, and organic collection in 2018. 5.2. WASTE COLLECTION FUTURE PLANNING When the City seeks a new contract for waste collection in 2018, the City will have the opportunity to develop a collection system from the ground up. The City could maintain the existing system or make changes to improve recycling and waste reduction options. The following are possible changes the City may consider: • Encourage more favorable recycling rates as a waste reduction initiative. • Encourage homeowners to participate in subscription waste collection and recycling services. • Explore innovative ways to increase recycling activities. • Explore citywide cleanup events and seasonal moderate -risk waste roundups. The City anticipates conducting a public participation program prior to going out for a new contract in 2018 to determine desired services and the acceptability of some of these options. 5.3. ALTERNATIVE WASTE COLLECTION STRATEGIES The following alternatives were considered for new or expanded waste collection activities. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is considered feasible or desirable, nor that is recommended (see Section 5.5 for waste collection recommendations). Alternative A - Contracted Collection Services The City is currently negotiating contracts with existing waste collection companies (Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal) that are anticipated to be executed in 2014 with terms lasting until 2018. As the 2018 expiration date draws near with Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal, the City will utilize a process to receive public input on various options for service levels for the subsequent collection contract. Such options will include: collection frequencies, recycling options, citywide cleanup programs, moderate -risk waste roundup, and other aspects of solid waste collection. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 5-3 Chapter 5: Solid Waste Collection Alternative B - Increase Curbside Collection Subscriptions The City would encourage increasing subscriptions for curbside collection through educating customers of the benefits of collection services. This approach reduces the amount of illegal dumping and "junk" properties, and leads to lower per-unit collection fees. Collection fees are lower on the average because collection services can operate more efficiently when more households and businesses participate. This approach is also more efficient because it reduces individual trips that people make to a transfer station to drop off their garbage, with the resulting congestion there and the increased impact to the environment due to fuel consumption. Finally, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that people who self -haul their garbage do not recycle as much as those who subscribe to garbage collection and curbside recycling services. 5.4. EVALUATION OF WASTE COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES Review of Rating Criteria The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including consistency with solid waste planning goals, technical and political feasibility, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative. Based on the ratings for these criteria, each alternative can be given an overall rating and a decision can then be made as to whether to pursue it or not. Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: Both of these alternatives support the goal of providing convenient and reliable services, although some people may take issue with the idea that curbside garbage collection is better than self -haul to the transfer station. Feasibility: In judging the alternatives for technical and political feasibility, Alternative A can actually be considered more feasible than maintaining the status quo, whereas Alternative B is rated medium because customers may not want to subscribe to curbside collection. Cost Effectiveness: Both Alternatives A and B should be cost-effective. Rating of Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives is summarized in the following table. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 5-4 Chapter 5: Solid Waste Collection Table 5-2 Rating of the Waste Collection Alternatives Alternative A, Contracted collection service B, Increase curbside subscriptions Consistency with Planning Feasibility Goals H M H M Cost - Effectiveness H M Overall Rating H M Rating Scores: H — High, M — Medium, L — Low 5.5 WASTE COLLECTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste collection programs: High -Priority Recommendations C1) When the City fully assumes control of collection services, anticipated to be in 2018, various options will be considered for providers and service levels, including negotiating versus bidding for haulers and collection frequency for recycling. Medium -Priority Recommendations C2) Educate the public on the benefits of curbside collection services and the comprehensive costs related to self -haul to transfer station. The City is the lead agency for both of these recommendations. Recommendation C1 should be implemented by 2018 through a competitive or negotiated process. Recommendation C2 could be evaluated at the time that the collection contract changes. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 5-5 Chapter 5: Solid Waste Collection This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 5-6 Chapter 5: Solid Waste Collection CHAPTER 6 TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL 6.1. EXISTING TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES Overview There are currently two transfer stations operating in Spokane Valley: a private station owned and operated by Sunshine and a public facility, the Valley Transfer Station (see Figure 6-1). There are three additional transfer stations operating in Spokane County (but outside of the City limits for Spokane Valley): the North County Transfer Station (also known as Colbert Transfer Station), the City of Spokane Waste -to -Energy (W 1'h) Facility (which also acts as a transfer station), and a transfer facility operated by Stericycle (for biomedical wastes). There are no disposal facilities in Spokane Valley. In other areas of Spokane County, there is the City of Spokane W 1'h Facility, one active municipal solid waste ("MSW") landfill (Northside Landfill), one limited purpose landfill (Graham Road Recycling and Disposal), and six permitted inert waste landfills. The Northside Landfill is not open to the public, but is used by the City of Spokane for emergency disposal purposes (in case the W I'h Facility is temporarily shut down) and for disposal of materials that cannot be processed at the WTE Facility. The Graham Road Landfill is open to the public and handles primarily construction and demolition waste, petroleum -contaminated soils, inert wastes, asbestos and other wastes. All of the six inert waste landfills are privately owned and operated. Three of these are not open to the public, and one of the inert landfills is permitted but not currently operating. The two inert waste landfills that are open to the public (Busy Bee Landfill and Spokane Rock Products) handle primarily concrete and asphalt. There are also a number of closed landfills in Spokane County (most notably Colbert Landfill, Greenacres Landfill and Mica Landfill), some of which are still undergoing monitoring and remedial actions. Sunshine Disposal & Recycling Transfer Station The Sunshine Transfer Station is a privately owned and operated transfer station located at 2405 University Road in Spokane Valley. This transfer station has been in operation at that location since 1983. The transfer station is currently open to contractors and commercial haulers for waste disposal. Residential and commercial waste collected by Sunshine Disposal is delivered here. Depending on the type of waste, these wastes are consolidated into transfer trailers or intermodal containers, which are used to transport waste to its final disposal site. Waste from contractors is generally transferred to the Graham Road limited purpose landfill. Cardboard and other recyclables collected from local businesses are delivered to the station and prepared for transport to markets by sorting and baling. Workers also separate some recyclables (primarily metals and wood) from mixed loads on the station's tipping floor. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 6-1 Chapter 6: Transfer and Disposal by Green Solutions Figure 6-1 Solid Waste Facilities in Spokane Valley WASHINGTON SPOKANE COUNTY ■ Valley Transfer Station Sunshine Disposal Transfer Station City of Spokane Valley Note: Although the Valley Transfer Station is located in Spokane Valley, it is part of the Spokane County system and is not part of the City's System. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 6-2 Chapter 6: Transfer and Disposal by Green Solutions Plans for the Sunshine Transfer Station were recently modified to include an MRW drop-off site, the capability to serve residential self -haul customers, a drop-off area for Clean Green, recycling drop-off containers, and other changes. Valley Transfer Station The Valley Transfer Station has been in operation since 1991. Previously, this station was owned and operated by the Regional System, but a recent agreement between the City of Spokane and Spokane County has transferred the ownership of this and the North Side Transfer Station to Spokane County. This transfer of ownership will become effective in November 2014. This agreement also includes provisions for the County to direct waste from the transfer stations to the City's WTE Facility. At the time that this Plan was being developed, the County was going through the process of hiring a private company to operate the transfer stations. The Valley Transfer Station is open to residential and commercial customers, and accepts solid waste for disposal at the WTE Facility. The Valley Transfer Station also accepts recyclable materials, Clean Green and moderate -risk waste ("MRW"), and has a separate area for collecting white goods (large appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines). 6.2. TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL PLANNING ISSUES The interlocal agreement for the Regional System expires on November 16, 2014. The City of Spokane Valley has entered into a contract with Sunshine to provide transfer, transport, and disposal services through its transfer station. The contract has a term of 10 years, with the option for two three-year extensions. Certain disposal options, including but not limited to incineration facilities and landfills located within the City of Spokane Valley, are not considered feasible options and so are not discussed in this Plan. 6.3. ALTERNATIVE TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL STRATEGIES The City recently went through an evaluation process to evaluate using the new County system and Valley Transfer Station versus use of the Sunshine Transfer Station. The City Council selected Sunshine and recently entered into a new contract with Sunshine to provide transfer and disposal services, so no additional options for these services need to be evaluated at this time. This contract is anticipated to save a substantial amount of money for City residents and businesses. The contract that the City of Spokane Valley has signed with Sunshine provides for a tipping fee (disposal charge) of $98.15 per ton for solid waste, with a minimum fee of Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 6-3 Chapter 6: Transfer and Disposal by Green Solutions $15.20 per load. Clean Green will be accepted at the Sunshine Transfer Station for $50.00 per ton with a minimum fee of $10.00 per load. Separated recyclables and MRW will be received at the Sunshine Transfer Station at no charge. All rates will be paid by customers directly to Sunshine. The City will receive an administrative fee of $125,000 per year from Sunshine, a portion of which will be used to pay for staff administration of the City's contract with Sunshine. A copy of this agreement can be viewed by interested parties upon request to the Public Works Director. The City and Sunshine, with the assistance of a media campaign firm, designed a public outreach plan to inform the citizens and businesses of Spokane Valley about the availability and desirability of using Sunshine's transfer station. This plan addresses both short-term and long-term strategies, including booths at a local fair, newspaper ads, information on websites, brochures, a call center, and other activities. 6.4 TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendation is being made for transfer and disposal programs: High -Priority Recommendations D1) The Sunshine Transfer Station is designated as the disposal system for all solid waste from Spokane Valley, effective November 17, 2014. The City is the lead agency for this and related activities. Funding for transfer and disposal costs will be derived from surcharges on tipping fees. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 6-4 Chapter 6: Transfer and Disposal by Green Solutions CHAPTER 7 SPECIAL WASTES 7.1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to review the generation, handling and disposal methods for special wastes in Spokane Valley. These wastes generally require special handling and disposal due to regulatory requirements or for one or more other reasons. Hence, these wastes are currently managed and disposed of separately from the solid waste disposal system, and may not actually be defined as solid waste. The following special wastes are discussed in this chapter: 7.2 Asbestos 7.3 Biomedical Wastes 7.4 Construction and Demolition ("C&D") Wastes 7.5 Moderate -Risk Waste 7.6 Street Sweepings and Vactor Waste The source(s) and current handling practices for each special waste are described in this chapter. All of the wastes are also examined for needs and issues, but only those that pose disposal problems were further examined for alternatives and recommendations. 7.2. ASBESTOS Existing Management Practices for Asbestos The harmful effects of microscopic airborne asbestos fibers have been recognized for many years. When inhaled, these fibers lodge in the lungs and can cause asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung cancer up to 30 years later. These problems caused many uses of asbestos to be banned in the 1970's and 1990's, but some uses of asbestos are still allowed, particularly in construction materials. Hence, a building of any age could have asbestos -containing materials in it. Some of these materials are well-known (such as pipe insulation and "popcorn" ceiling material), but asbestos has been used in over 3,000 different construction materials and other products over the years and many of these products are not easily identified. The ongoing use of asbestos led to a new state law, effective January 1, 2014, that requires labeling of asbestos -containing products. The primary agency that regulates asbestos in the Spokane area is the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). The regulations adopted by SRCAA primarily focus on renovation and demolition projects. Two categories are recognized for these types of Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-1 Chapter 7: Special wastes projects: 1) a single-family home with the owner or occupant conducting the renovation or demolition work, and 2) all other projects (including work being done by landlords and contractors). In the first case, the owner or occupant of a single-family home is exempted from survey, notification and fee requirements, but must still dispose of any asbestos -containing materials properly. All other renovation or demolition projects must first have a survey conducted for asbestos by an AHERA-certified building inspector, must notify SRCAA of any asbestos found and file for a removal permit (a Notice of Intent permit), and properly remove and dispose of the asbestos -containing materials. In the past five years (December 29, 2009 to September 19, 2014), there have been 88 penalties assessed by SRCAA for asbestos survey, notification, removal and disposal violations. These penalties have ranged from $250 to $27,241. Most of the asbestos waste from Spokane County is disposed at the Graham Road Recycling and Disposal facility located west of the City of Spokane. This landfill also accepts construction and demolition wastes, tires, and other special wastes. According the facility's owner, Waste Management, this site has sufficient additional capacity to continue to operate for another 103 years. According to Ecology's records, this facility received 1,664 tons of asbestos wastes in 2012. In the same year, an additional 30 tons of asbestos -containing wastes from Spokane County were disposed at the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County. The City of Spokane Valley has helped address proper asbestos disposal by including a statement on renovation permits to the effect that people should contact the SRCAA for information about asbestos, and by requiring evidence of contact with the SRCAA on demolition permits. Planning Issues for Asbestos There appear to be no significant known disposal problems with asbestos -containing wastes, although education is needed on an ongoing basis. The City of Spokane Valley will continue to inform the public where possible about the need to conduct an asbestos survey prior to renovation activities, and will continue to require evidence of this for demolition permits. 7.3. BIOMEDICAL WASTES Existing Management Practices for Biomedical Wastes State law (Chapter 70.95K RCW) defines biomedical wastes to include: Animal waste: animal carcasses, body parts and bedding of animals that are known to be infected with, or have been inoculated with, pathogenic microorganisms infectious to humans. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-2 Chapter 7: Special wastes Biosafety level 4 disease waste: biosafety level 4 disease waste is waste contaminated with blood, excretions, exudates, or secretions from humans or animals who are isolated to protect others from highly communicable infectious diseases that are identified as pathogenic organisms assigned to biosafety level 4 by the centers for disease control, National Institute of Health, biosafety in microbiological and biomedical laboratories, current edition. Cultures and stocks: wastes infectious to humans and includes specimen cultures, cultures and stocks of etiologic agents, wastes from production of biologicals and serums, discarded live and attenuated vaccines, and laboratory waste that has come into contact with cultures and stocks of etiologic agents or blood specimens. Such waste includes but is not limited to culture dishes, blood specimen tubes, and devices used to transfer, inoculate, and mix cultures. Human blood and blood products: discarded waste human blood and blood components, and materials containing free flowing blood and blood products. Pathological waste: human source biopsy materials, tissues, and anatomical parts that emanate from surgery, obstetrical procedures and autopsy. Does not include teeth, human corpses, remains and anatomical parts that are intended for interment or cremation. Sharps: all hypodermic needles, syringes and IV tubing with needles attached, scalpel blades, and lancets that have been removed from the original sterile package. The UTC regulates transporters of biomedical wastes. The UTC has issued statewide franchises to Waste Management and Stericycle to transport biomedical wastes. Their regulations also allow regular solid waste haulers to refuse to haul wastes that they observe to contain infectious wastes as defined by the UTC. Individual residents who generate hypodermic needles are not regulated as are clinics and agencies. Residents may collect used hypodermic needles in either labeled sharps containers made for that purpose or in empty rigid plastic bottles such as detergent bottles (preferably labeled). Full containers can be dropped off at MRW collection sites, including the new MRW collection facility at the Sunshine Transfer Station. Planning Issues for Biomedical Wastes Most biomedical wastes generated in Washington State are currently being handled properly. There are occasionally problems with small amounts of biomedical wastes being improperly disposed from small generators such as veterinarians and dental offices, but in general these can be addressed on an as -needed basis. Residential "sharps" (syringes), however, can be a problem. Sharps and other biomedical wastes are generated at residential locations from home health care, especially for diabetes and other health problems, and from illegal drug use. Residential sources often lack access Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-3 Chapter 7: Special wastes to proper disposal methods, and residential sharps thrown in the garbage can pose a hazard to waste collectors and others. Alternative Strategies for Biomedical Wastes The following alternative was considered for biomedical wastes. Special Waste Alternative A - Publicize Proper Disposal Options for Residential Sharps: An ongoing campaign could be conducted to publicize and promote the proper disposal options for residential sharps. This could be accomplished through a multi -prong effort involving the City, the Health District and local pharmacies that sell syringes. The Health District and local pharmacies could take the lead on establishing programs to handle the syringes and publicizing the availability of these programs. For the City, a brief explanation of the problems and proper disposal opportunities could be included on general information that is distributed about the waste collection system. This alternative is evaluated further at the end of this chapter (see Section 7.7). 7.4. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES Existing Management Practices for C&D Wastes This section of the Plan also addresses "green building," which is a topic closely related to construction and demolition wastes. C&D wastes are defined simply as the wastes that are generated from construction and demolition activities. These wastes consist primarily of new and used building materials (wood, sheetrock, pipe and other metals, shingles, etc.), concrete and asphalt. Land clearing wastes, including soil, stumps and brush, are also sometimes included in this category, but these materials are rarely treated as a waste. To the extent these materials are taken off-site, the materials can be handled as a valuable product, clean fill or inert wastes (in the case of clean soils), or as a wood waste. A category related to C&D wastes is "inert wastes." State rules adopted in February 2003, Chapter 173-350 WAC, created this category of waste. Inert wastes are defined to include some types of construction wastes, such as concrete, asphalt, brick, and ceramic tile, but specifically excludes sheetrock. Inert wastes also include glass, stainless steel, aluminum, and other wastes that can meet the criteria for inert wastes (will not burn, creates no harmful leachate or gases, etc.). The regulatory status of inert wastes differs from mixed C&D wastes, with disposal requirements that are less strict. The total amount of C&D wastes generated in Spokane Valley is unknown, but for most communities, C&D wastes are generated in quantities equal to half or more of the regular solid waste stream. C&D wastes are generated at a rate that is proportional to construction activity, and so annual amounts will vary depending on population Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-4 Chapter 7: Special wastes growth, the economic climate and other factors. Large commercial developments and other one-time projects can have a significant impact on annual amounts, as can natural disasters. C&D wastes can be handled in a variety of ways. Some of this waste can be reused or recycled at facilities in the area (such as Habitat for Humanity, Brown Building Materials and Greenacres Gypsum), and much of it is brought to one of the landfills in the area (Graham Road Recycling and Disposal or one of the inert waste landfills). A significant amount of C&D wastes are disposed with solid wastes. According to the estimated waste composition figures (see Table 2-4), there are 5,000 tons of wood and 6,280 tons of construction waste in the solid waste stream from Spokane Valley. Beyond Waste Plan: Increasing the amount of green building practices is one of the five key initiatives identified in the State's Beyond Waste Plan. Green building is defined by the Beyond Waste Plan as "design and construction practices that significantly reduce or eliminate the negative impact of buildings on the environment and occupants in five broad areas: sustainable site planning; conservation of materials and resources; energy efficiency and renewable energy; safeguarding water and water efficiency; and indoor air quality." The Beyond Waste Plan adopted a short-term goal of "dramatically increasing adoption of environmentally preferable building construction, operation and deconstruction practices throughout the state and the region." A separate long-term goal was also adopted, which is for "green building to be a mainstream and usual practice throughout the state." Planning Issues for C&D Wastes There appears to be no significant problems currently with the management of C&D wastes in Spokane Valley, although reuse and recycling opportunities for these materials could likely be used more. Alternative Strategies for C&D Wastes Possible alternatives for C&D wastes are described below. Special Waste Alternative B - Install Collection Areas at the Transfer Stations: An area at the two local transfer stations could be set up as a collection and temporary storage point for reusable building materials. Materials could be placed in this area by either the customers or by transfer station staff (time permitting). The area should be close to the tipping floor but also distinctly separated from it, to avoid confusion about what materials are permissible to take (scavenging directly from the tipping floor should not be allowed due to safety and regulatory concerns). Rules would need to be established as to whom may take materials from this area, and in any case solid waste customers should be required to weigh and complete their garbage transaction before taking materials from this area. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-5 Chapter 7: Special wastes Special Waste Alternative C - Promote Green Building: As mentioned earlier in this section, Ecology has adopted green building as one of the five primary initiatives in the Beyond Waste Plan. The scope of green building is very broad, however, and there are only a few of these topics that fit within the context of this Plan. For instance, issues dealing with energy efficiency, water conservation and indoor air quality have little to do with topics such as C&D recycling or even the use of recycled products. The green building activities that are relevant to this Plan are limited to: • Promoting de -construction activities that allow reuse and recycling. • Encouraging builders and others to recycle C&D materials. These activities could be promoted using a variety of tactics, ranging from providing links to other sources of information, to recycling requirements attached to new building permits. For the City of Spokane Valley, an appropriate level of involvement might be to provide brochures and other information developed by others, as these are available. Alternatives B and C are evaluated further at the end of this chapter (see Section 7.7). 7.5. MODERATE -RISK WASTES Introduction Residents and businesses in Spokane Valley produce small amounts of hazardous wastes, such as used solvents or other chemicals and leftover amounts of products such as garden chemicals and paints. For most businesses and virtually all residents, the amount of hazardous waste produced falls below the amount that is regulated and so is classified by Washington State law as a "moderate -risk waste." Businesses that create larger amounts of these wastes are regulated as hazardous waste generators and are subject to stricter requirements. Hazardous wastes as defined by State law (RCW 70.105.010) are excluded from the definition of solid waste, and so are not required to be addressed in a plan such as this. MRW generators are not required to retain the services of a hazardous waste disposal company (as larger generators must do), however, MRW will be disposed with solid waste if a convenient alternative is not provided. In other words, solid waste systems must provide an alternative disposal method for MRW or by default these materials will end up in the wastes that are sent to landfills or incinerators. In recognition of this need, a State law (RCW 70.105.220) required local governments to produce a "local hazardous waste plan" that was to be implemented by December 31, 1991. This section of the Plan addresses MRW in recognition of the need for a solid waste system to provide a viable alternative for the proper disposal of these wastes. This Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-6 Chapter 7: Special wastes section is not intended to satisfy the requirements for a local hazardous waste plan, which would require more extensive analysis and program development. Regulations for Moderate -Risk Wastes MRW includes waste materials that have the characteristics of and pose the same risks as hazardous wastes, but are generated in relatively small quantities by individual households and in small quantities by businesses. In other words, these wastes are flammable, corrosive, toxic, and/or reactive. Federal law does not currently regulate these wastes as hazardous, but each state can adopt stricter regulations for hazardous waste from households and small quantity generators. Washington State has chosen to regulate these materials as solid waste, so long as they are managed properly. Ecology has created a waste classification called MRW that includes household hazardous waste (or HHW, which is generated by residential sources) and small quantity generator waste (which is generated by businesses, but in quantities below the current threshold for hazardous waste regulations). A State law adopted in 1991 also added used oil to the list of materials to be addressed by MRW programs. Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Waste: Many businesses and institutions produce small quantities of hazardous wastes. Conditionally exempt small quantity generators ("CESQGs") may produce hazardous waste at rates less than 220 pounds per month or per batch (or 2.2 pounds per month or per batch of extremely hazardous waste) and accumulate less than 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste on-site (or 22 pounds of extremely hazardous waste). Extremely hazardous wastes include specific pesticides and other poisons that are more toxic than other hazardous wastes. At amounts above these limits, the businesses become medium or large -quantity generators and must comply with the reporting and other requirements for hazardous waste management and disposal. CESQGs are conditionally exempt from State and Federal regulation, meaning that they are exempt only as long as they generate less waste than the threshold amounts, and properly manage and dispose of their wastes. Used Oil: Washington State law (Chapter 70.95I RCW) requires that local governments manage used oil in conjunction with their MRW programs and submit annual reports to Ecology. The Beyond Waste Plan Ecology is required by law (Chapters 70.105 and 70.95 RCW) to develop and update the statewide hazardous waste and solid waste plans. In 2004, Ecology simultaneously updated the 1991 State Solid Waste Management Plan and the 1994 State Hazardous Waste Management Plan. In 2004, the updated plans were published together as the Beyond Waste Plan. An updated version of the Beyond Waste Plan became available at the end of 2009. The Beyond Waste Plan's 30 -year vision states: "We can transition to a society where waste is viewed as inefficient, and where most wastes and toxic substances have been Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-7 Chapter 7: Special wastes eliminated. This will contribute to economic, social and environmental vitality." The Beyond Waste Plan recognizes that "waste generation in Washington continues to increase, and that toxic substances are more prevalent in our everyday lives now than they were just few years ago." It explains why it is important to move beyond waste and concludes "to lower the risks to people and the environment, Washington needs to shift to an approach that will significantly reduce wastes and toxic substances over time." The Beyond Waste Plan adopted five initiatives as starting points for reducing solid and toxic wastes in Washington. One of these initiatives is "reducing small -volume hazardous materials and wastes." This initiative addresses products and substances commonly used in households and in relatively small quantities by businesses. Ecology included this initiative in the Beyond Waste Plan for three reasons: 1. The Beyond Waste Plan assumes that MRW affects everyone. A major premise of the Beyond Waste Plan is that small -volume hazardous materials and wastes are everywhere and that people come into contact with them daily. As a result, chronic and acute exposure to hazardous chemicals in homes and businesses can be a significant health risk, which can be very costly to businesses and society due to health care costs, environmental degradation, insurance and liability. 2. The Beyond Waste Plan also assumes that the current management system is not sustainable over the long term. Government funds pay for special collections, fixed facilities, and treatment and disposal programs to keep MRW out of municipal solid waste landfills and away from illegal disposal, but currently only a portion of all MRW is actually captured. Achieving future goals will require a better approach, including safer alternatives, product stewardship, waste reduction, recycling and convenient collection opportunities that do not rely primarily on public systems and finances. 3. Finally, the Beyond Waste Plan assumes that great strides are possible, and that many opportunities exist to reduce and eliminate risks associated with MRW. This is based in part on the idea that consumer demand is building for less harmful products, as well as for more reuse and recycling. Several regional and national initiatives are already underway, such as E -Cycle, the Take -it -Back Network and fluorescent lamp recycling, which lend credence to these ideas. The Beyond Waste Plan identifies the following recommendations for the small -volume hazardous materials initiative to succeed: 1. Eliminate or minimize groups of the most toxic chemicals as part of the Ecology's Reducing Toxic Threats work. 2. Reduce threats from mercury. 3. Reduce threats from Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-8 Chapter 7: Special wastes 4. Develop a more comprehensive list of covered electronics through a product stewardship infrastructure. 5. Reduce the use of high-risk pesticides, emphasize proper use, and encourage effective alternatives. 6. Reduce and manage all architectural paint wastes. 7. Implement and promote Environmentally Preferable Purchasing at state and local governments and in institutional settings, with Ecology leading by example. Support the Climate Action Team proposals and other initiatives. 8. Ensure MRW and hazardous substances are regulated and managed according to hazards, toxicity and risk. 9. Support full implementation of local hazardous waste plans. 10. Ensure businesses and facilities handling MRW comply with environmental laws and regulations. Encourage as much reuse and recycling of MRW as possible. 11. Educate the public and businesses on prevention, proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous products and wastes. Encourage safer alternatives to minimize toxic threats, especially to vulnerable populations. 12. Develop and implement a strategy for a more regionally focused MRW program by evaluating the most significant threats and effective approaches, including safer alternatives, to reducing those threats. The Beyond Waste Plan adopted "five-year milestones" for these recommendations. Existing Management Practices for Moderate -Risk Wastes To date, moderate -risk wastes generated in Spokane Valley have been handled through drop-off collection sites at the Valley Transfer Station and two other locations operated by the Regional System. The drop-off site at the Valley Transfer Station is open from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. seven days per week (except major holidays). Only household hazardous wastes are accepted for free at this site. CESQG's are referred to a private contractor for disposal of their wastes, and the private contractor periodically conducts collection events for CESQGs at the transfer station. Ongoing funding for the MRW program is provided through a portion of the tipping fee and Ecology's CPG grant program. Public education and information about the MRW program, including technical assistance to commercial generators, has been provided to date by Regional System staff. Others in the area, including garbage haulers and recycling companies, also provide information on proper handling and disposal of MRW. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-9 Chapter 7: Special wastes Planning Issues for MRW Wastes Because the City of Spokane Valley has chosen to leave the Regional System, an alternative program will be needed for MRW. Access to the MRW services at the Valley Transfer Station and other County -owned facilities may not be available. Sunshine has agreed to provide this service at its transfer station, and it is anticipated that they will collect a similar range of materials. Alternative Strategies for MRW Wastes Special Waste Alternative D - Encourage City Residents to Use the New Program for HHW: When the City leaves the Regional System in November 2014, city residents could be encouraged to use the MRW collection site at the Sunshine Transfer Station because access to existing County -owned sites may no longer be available. Special Waste Alternative E - Encourage Sunshine to serve CESQGs at their MRW Facility: When the City leaves the Regional System in November 2014, conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) could be initially served by a referral service and periodic collection events. If these generators could, however, have access to the MRW facility at Sunshine's transfer station, they would have a much better level of service and convenience, and overall administrative demands and costs would be lower. This type of customer could be asked to pay a disposal fee for the wastes that they are dropping off at this site. Sunshine could consider adding services to CESQGs after they have operated the MRW site for a sufficient time to adequately accommodate this type of customer. These alternatives are evaluated further at the end of this chapter (see Section 7.7). 7.6. STREET SWEEPINGS AND VACTOR WASTES Existing Management Practices for Street Sweepings and Vactor Wastes Street sweepings and vactor wastes are two different wastes that are often managed together and are sometimes collectively called "street wastes." Street sweepings are the result of sweeping streets and parking lots to remove litter, sand and other materials. Vactor waste, which gets its name from the brand name of a vacuum truck that is often used to collect this material, is the result of pumping out stormwater catch basins, ditches, detention and retention ponds and similar structures. Both of these materials are potentially contaminated with heavy metals, petroleum products, and other chemicals, as well as being contaminated with litter (paper, plastic and metals). Only in extreme cases would the street sweepings or vactor waste be so contaminated that it would be necessary to handle these wastes as a dangerous waste, but the physical and chemical contaminants do limit the options for using these materials as clean fill or in other reuse applications. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-10 Chapter 7: Special wastes In Spokane Valley, street sweeping and the collection of vactor wastes are done by private companies under contract with the City. In the past, the City has provided a temporary storage site where wood pellets were added to the wastes to soak up excess water, and then the mixture was hauled to a landfill for disposal. At the time this Plan was being developed, however, the City was constructing a "decant facility," which will allow excess liquids to drain out of these wastes. This approach will avoid the need for adding wood pellets and also reduce the number of trips needed to the landfill. Planning Issues for Street Sweepings and Vactor Wastes With the construction of the decant facility, there are no additional known issues for street sweepings and vactor wastes, and so there is no need to examine additional alternatives for these materials. 7.7. EVALUATION OF SPECIAL WASTE ALTERNATIVES Review of Rating Criteria The special waste alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including consistency with solid waste planning goals, technical and political feasibility, and the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative. Based on the ratings for these criteria, each alternative can be given an overall rating and a decision can then be made as to whether to pursue it or not. Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: All of the special waste alternatives support the goals of providing reliable solid waste services and encouraging recycling and/or proper disposal as appropriate to the type of waste. Feasibility: Alternatives A (publicizing proper disposal methods for residential sharps) and C (promoting green building) are feasible although may lead to a minor amount of additional expenses not currently being incurred by the City. Alternative B (installing set-aside areas at the two transfer stations in the City) is not likely to be technically or politically feasible (due to cost and space constraints). Alternative D (using the Sunshine Transfer Station for HHW) is feasible and has been contractually arranged. The ability for Sunshine to serve CESQGs at their MRW facility appears feasible but time should be allowed for Sunshine to address this issue properly. Cost Effectiveness: Alternative A (publicizing proper disposal methods for residential sharps) is cost-effective in the sense that this may avoid a significant personal injury (should a waste collector or other person be stuck by an improperly -disposed syringe). Alternative B (installing set-aside areas at the two transfer stations in the City) may not be cost-effective in the sense that it would be hard to recover the capital costs of constructing the area for this activity. Alternative C (promoting green building) could be considered cost-effective in the sense that an investment in education and outreach would lead to future cost savings (from energy and water savings) in the ownership of Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-11 Chapter 7: Special wastes homes and commercial buildings. Alternative D (using the Sunshine Transfer Station for HHW) should be cost-effective in the sense that a proper disposal system for HHW could avoid injuries or environmental damages. Alternative E is cost-effective in that the CESQGs using Sunshine's facility would be asked to pay a fee to cover the disposal costs of their wastes. Rating of Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives is summarized in the following table. Table 7-1 Rating of the Special Waste Alternatives Alternative Consistency with Planning Feasibility Goals Cost - Effectiveness Overall Rating Biomedical Wastes A, Publicize proper disposal options for residential sharps C&D Wastes B, Collection areas at transfer stations C, Promote green building Moderate -Risk Wastes D, Use Sunshine Transfer Station for HHW E, Sunshine to consider serving CESQGs H H H H H M L M H M H L H H H H L H H H Rating Scores: H — High, M — Medium, L — Low 7.8 SPECIAL WASTE RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for special waste programs: High -Priority Recommendations SW1) Proper disposal options for residential sharps (syringes) will be promoted through a cooperative effort between the City of Spokane Valley, the Health District, and the waste collectors. SW2) Green building practices will be promoted by distributing brochures and publicizing other sources of information. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-12 Chapter 7: Special wastes SW3) City residents will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for household hazardous wastes. SW4) Sunshine Recyclers should consider providing MRW disposal services to businesses (CESQGs) in the future. For Recommendation SW1, implementation responsibility should be shared by the City and the Health District, with assistance and cooperation from the two waste collection companies. The City will be the lead agency for Recommendations SW2 and SW3. The decision on whether and how to serve CESQGs at their MRW facility should be made by Sunshine. The cost for Recommendation SW1 could be in the range of $25,000 to $50,000, depending on the extent of the public information and outreach campaign, and the potential to "piggy -back" on related public information efforts. The cost for Recommendation SW2 would be minimal, assuming the City would at most need to pay for minor modifications to the City's website and for printing of brochures developed by others. The cost for Recommendation SW3 will be significant, but this cost will be embedded in the disposal costs at the Sunshine Transfer Station and will be funded by Sunshine through tipping fees. The cost for Recommendation SW4 is expected to be covered by user fees. Recommendation SW3 will be implemented after November 2014, although publicity activities may begin before that date. Recommendation SW4 would likely not be implemented until 2015 or later. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-13 Chapter 7: Special wastes This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 7-14 Chapter 7: Special wastes CHAPTER 8 ADMINISTRATION 8.1. EXISTING ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES City of Spokane Valley The City of Spokane Valley, which incorporated March 31, 2003, is a non -charter code city that operates under a Council -City Manager system of government. This form of government provides a separation of politics from day-to-day administration of the City's activities, and also allows for professional management of the City's activities. The Council consists of seven elected officials serving staggered four-year terms. All of the seven positions are "at large." Every two years, the City Council members choose one member to serve as the Mayor of the City Council, and a second person to serve as Deputy Mayor. The City Council is generally responsible for adopting legislation and policies, adopting the City's budget, approving contracts, and hiring the City Manager. The City Manager is responsible for implementing City ordinances, preparing the City budget, negotiating and overseeing contracts, managing City operations and staff, and managing other aspects of the City's operations. Prior to this Plan, the City of Spokane Valley participated in local solid waste programs largely though the Regional System, which included the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and other regional cities. This involvement guided policies and programs in the City and throughout the region. Solid waste services are performed by private companies, although the City and others have been involved in public education and other support activities. The City is also involved in solid waste though the City Code, which has provisions that address problems with properties that accumulate junk, such as inoperable cars and badly -managed piles of organic materials that are attracting pests. The City of Spokane Valley recently entered into a contract with Sunshine that stipulates that Sunshine will provide solid waste transfer, transport and disposal services for City residents and businesses. A clause of that contract provides that an administrative fee be paid to the City. This fee is to be paid in quarterly installments for a total annual amount of $125,000. There is also a provision of that contract that provides for a "Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee" to be paid by Sunshine, in the amount of $1.00 per ton for each ton of solid waste over 45,500 tons per year. Together, these funds are referred to as a "disposal surcharge" in other parts of this Plan, and these funds are expected to cover the City's expenses for operating the City's System. Spokane County and the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Until recently, solid waste programs in Spokane County were largely managed through the Regional System. Spokane Valley and the other cities in Spokane County have Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 8-1 Chapter 8: Administration participated in this Regional System while maintaining some autonomy in solid waste collections and other programs (the City of Spokane, for instance, operates its own collection system for recycling and solid waste). The Regional System will cease to exist in November 2014, however, and Spokane County will become the lead agency for many of the programs that had been handled by the Regional System. Spokane Regional Health District The Health District is responsible for health programs throughout Spokane County, including Spokane Valley. In addition to programs addressing personal health problems and food safety, the Health District has an Environmental Public Health Division that conducts inspections of solid waste facilities and handles complaints related to solid waste. Washington State Agencies and Regulations The two State agencies that are primarily involved in solid waste management are Ecology and the UTC. Washington Department of Ecology: The Solid Waste Handling Standards (Chapter 173-350 WAC) were promulgated by Ecology under the authority granted by Chapter 70.95 RCW. In addition, Chapter 173-351 WAC, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, contains the current standards for municipal solid waste landfills. The Model Litter Control and Recycling Act (RCW 70.93.060) prohibits depositing garbage on any property not properly designated as a disposal site. There is also a "litter fund" that has been created through a tax levied on wholesale and retail businesses, and the monies from this fund have been used for education, increased litter clean-up efforts, and contracts to eligible county entities for illegal dump clean-up activities. Under the Model Toxics Control Act (Chapter 70.105D RCW), grants are available to local governments for solid waste management plans and programs, hazardous waste management plans and programs, and remedial actions to clean up existing hazardous waste sites. Solid and hazardous waste planning and programs are funded through the CPG program administered by Ecology's Solid Waste and Financial Assurance Program. Ecology also responds to complaints regarding hazardous material spills or releases. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission: The UTC regulates privately - owned utilities and companies that provide public services such as electric power, telephone, natural gas, private water systems, transportation, and waste collection. The UTC's authority over solid waste collection is established in Chapter 81.77 RCW and Chapter 480-70 WAC. The UTC regulates residential and non-residential garbage collection services, primarily in unincorporated areas and also for incorporated areas that have not taken control of Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 8-2 Chapter 8: Administration the collection system. Cities are permitted by State law to choose their form of waste collection regulation. Many cities in Washington contract with a private hauler for garbage collection services (or collect it with city crews as in the case of Spokane), and only a few rely on the UTC to regulate a private garbage hauler as if they were an unincorporated area. UTC authority does not extend to companies operating under contract with any city or town, or to any city or town that undertakes solid waste collection. This regulatory system was set up by the State Legislature in the 1960's to ensure that every citizen and business, no matter how remotely located, can get garbage collection service. The UTC regulates solid waste collection companies by granting "certificates of convenience and necessity" that allow companies to operate in specified service areas. It also regulates solid waste collection, under authority of RCW 81.77.030, by: • Fixing collection rates, charges, classifications, rules, and regulations. • Regulating accounts, service, and safety of operations. • Requiring annual reports and other reports and data. • Supervising collection companies in all matters affecting their relationship to their customers. • Requiring collection companies to use rate structures consistent with state waste management priorities. The UTC requires certificate holders to provide the minimum levels of solid waste collection and recycling services established by a local solid waste management plan and enacted through a service level ordinance. Federal Agencies and Regulations At the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 6901-6987), is the primary body of legislation dealing with solid waste. Subtitle D of RCRA deals with non -hazardous solid waste disposal and requires the development of a state comprehensive solid waste management program that outlines the authorities of local, state and regional agencies. Subtitle D requires that the state program must prohibit "open dumps" and must provide that all solid waste is disposed in an environmentally - sound manner. 8.2. ADMINISTRATION PLANNING ISSUES No City personnel are currently assigned responsibility for solid waste management and recycling issues. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 8-3 Chapter 8: Administration When the City leaves the Regional System, the City will begin to incur costs for activities that are currently handled by the Regional System. These costs are not well- defined at this time, but are anticipated to be in the neighborhood of $50,000 to $100,000, primarily for various education and outreach activities. The City will also become eligible for CPG funds from Ecology beginning July 1, 2015, and these funds could be used to cover these costs and/or help defray the expense of the MRW program or other programs. As of July 1, 2015, Spokane Valley will be eligible for approximately $250,000 in CPG funds (for a two-year period), although the City will need to provide a 25% match ($83,300, or $41,650 annually) for those funds. 8.3. ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATION STRATEGIES The following alternatives were considered for new or expanded administration programs. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is considered feasible or desirable, nor that is recommended (see Section 8.5 for administration recommendations). Alternative A - Hire Staff to Manage the Solid Waste System None of the existing City employees are specifically assigned to solid waste activities, and so these duties currently fall on the Public Works Director and others. With its new System, additional work will be required for managing contracts, conducting public education activities, and also possibly grant management and reporting. One full-time employee may be needed to manage the System. If the collection system is changed to one where the City handles the billing, then additional personnel would be needed for that as well. Alternative B - Use Private Contractors and Existing Staff to Manage the Solid Waste System It should be noted that the idea of hiring additional staff is contrary to the typical approach for Spokane Valley, and it is more likely that the City will wish to contract for as many of the activities as possible and then have existing contracts management staff monitor the progress of those activities. Existing staff can use a variety of techniques to monitor contracts and programs, including retaining the services of private vendors (such as survey firms) as appropriate and necessary (see also Alternative I in the Waste Reduction chapter for more on monitoring methods). 8.4. EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATION ALTERNATIVES Review of Rating Criteria The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including consistency with solid waste planning goals, technical and political feasibility, and the Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 8-4 Chapter 8: Administration relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative. Based on the ratings for these criteria, each alternative can be given an overall rating and a decision can then be made as to whether to pursue it or not. Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: Both of these alternatives support the goals for this Plan. Feasibility: Between Alternatives A (hiring new staff) and B (the use of existing staff), Alternative B is more technically and politically feasible. Cost Effectiveness: Alternative B (using existing staff) is more cost-effective than Alternative A (hiring new staff). Rating of Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives is summarized in the following table. Table 8-1 Rating of the Administration Alternatives Alternative A, Hire new staff B, Use existing staff Consistency with Planning Feasibility Goals H H L H Cost - Effectiveness L H Overall Rating L H Rating Scores: H — High, M — Medium, L — Low 8.5 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for administration programs: High -Priority Recommendations Al) The additional services and programs needed by the City to support the City's solid waste system will be performed by contracted services to the extent feasible and appropriate. Existing City staff will be used to monitor the contracts and programs for solid waste in the City of Spokane Valley. Medium -Priority Recommendations A2) The additional funds needed to implement the City's solid waste system will be collected through surcharges on tipping fees collected at the Sunshine Transfer Station. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 8-5 Chapter 8: Administration The City of Spokane Valley is the lead agency for both of these recommendations, which will be implemented in November 2014. The funding source is defined above, plus CPG funds can be used when the City becomes eligible for those. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 8-6 Chapter 8: Administration CHAPTER 9 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 9.1. INTRODUCTION This chapter lists all of the recommendations from previous chapters and presents a plan to implement the recommendations. These recommendations are intended to guide decision-making activities for Spokane Valley for the next six years, while also providing direction for the next 20 years. Implementation of individual program elements will be accomplished through annual budgets and contracts. 9.2. WASTE REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste reduction programs (see Chapter 3 for more details): High -Priority Recommendations WR1) The City of Spokane Valley will evaluate product stewardship programs as these are proposed on a statewide or national level, and support those if appropriate to the interests of their citizens and the business community. WR2) The business community in Spokane Valley may be encouraged to reduce waste through a recognition program that publicizes success stories. WR3) The City of Spokane Valley will adopt policies and practices to encourage City departments to reduce waste. WR4) Round -up events should be conducted at least annually by the City of Spokane Valley. Medium -Priority Recommendations WR5) Public education materials distributed by the City of Spokane Valley will include information on alternative handling methods for yard waste, the value of "smart shopping" methods, how to avoid wasting food, and the availability of volume -based garbage collection fees. Low -Priority Recommendations WR6) A ban on the disposal of yard waste within solid waste disposal containers may be considered in the future if public education and outreach efforts are not effective in diverting most of this material from the waste stream. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 9-1 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan 9.3. RECYCLING AND ORGANICS RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for recycling and organics collection programs (see Chapter 4 for more details): High -Priority Recommendations R1) Curbside recycling will continue to be included with garbage collection services for residential customers in Spokane Valley. R2) City residents and businesses will be encouraged to use Sunshine Transfer Station for Clean Green drop-off services. Medium -Priority Recommendations R3) Weekly curbside recycling will be evaluated as part of the waste collection system changes expected to be implemented by Spokane Valley in 2018. 9.4. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for waste collection programs (see Chapter 5 for more details): High -Priority Recommendations C1) When the City fully assumes control of collection services, anticipated to be in 2018, various options will be considered for providers and service levels, including negotiating versus bidding for haulers, and collection frequency for recycling. Medium -Priority Recommendations C2) Educate the public on the benefits of curbside collection services and the comprehensive costs related to self -haul to transfer station. 9.5. TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendation is being made for transfer and disposal programs (see Chapter 6 for more details): High -Priority Recommendations D1) The Sunshine Transfer Station is designated as the disposal system for all solid waste from Spokane Valley, effective November 17, 2014. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 9-2 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan 9.6. SPECIAL WASTE RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for special waste programs (see Chapter 7 for more details): High -Priority Recommendations SW1) Proper disposal options for residential sharps (syringes) will be promoted through a cooperative effort between the City of Spokane Valley, the Health District, and the waste collectors. SW2) Green building practices will be promoted by distributing brochures and publicizing other sources of information. SW3) City residents will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for household hazardous wastes. SW4) Sunshine Recyclers should consider providing MRW disposal services to businesses (CESQGs) in the future. 9.7. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are being made for administration programs (see Chapter 8 for more details): High -Priority Recommendations Al) The additional services and programs needed by the City to support the City's solid waste system will be performed by contracted services to the extent feasible and appropriate. Existing City staff will be used to monitor the contracts and programs for solid waste in the City of Spokane Valley. Medium -Priority Recommendations A2) The additional funds needed to implement the City's solid waste system will be collected through surcharges on tipping fees collected at the Sunshine Transfer Station. 9.8. SIX-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The proposed implementation schedule is shown in Table 9-1. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 9-3 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan Recommendation Table 9-1 Implementation Schedule for Recommendations 2015 016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Waste Reduction WR1) Support product stewardship programs as appropriate WR2) Business waste reduction recognition program WR3) Adopt city waste reduction policies WR4) Conduct round -up events WR5) Promote waste reduction WR6) Consider yard waste disposal ban Recycling and Organics R1) Continue to include curbside recycling with garbage services R2) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for Clean Green R3) Evaluate weekly curbside recycling Solid Waste Collection 01) Contract for collection service C2) Increase curbside subscriptions Transfer and Disposal 01) Designate Sunshine Transfer Station as disposal site Special Wastes SW1) Promote proper disposal of residential sharps SW2) Promote green building SW3) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for HHW SW4) Sunshine to consider serving CESQGs Administration Al) Use existing staff A2) Disposal surcharge as funding source 44444 X X X X X X X (2014) X X X — indicates a singular or short-term event. Shading indicates ongoing activities. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 9-4 by Green Solutions Chapter 9: Implementation Plan 9.9. IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES The City of Spokane Valley is primarily responsible for most of the recommendations made in this Plan, but that responsibility is shared with others as appropriate to the nature of the recommended activity. Implementation responsibilities for the recommended activities are summarized in Table 9-2. Table 9-2 Implementation Responsibilities for Recommendations Recommendation City County Health District Waste Haulers Others Waste Reduction WR1) Support product stewardship programs as appropriate X WR2) Business waste reduction recognition program X O WR3) Adopt city waste reduction policies X WR4) Conduct round -up events X WR5) Promote waste reduction X WR6) Consider yard waste disposal ban X Recycling and Organics R1) Continue to include curbside recycling with garbage services X O R2) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for Clean Green X O R3) Evaluate weekly curbside recycling X 0 Solid Waste Collection 01) Contract for collection service X 0 C2) Increase curbside subscriptions X Transfer and Disposal D1) Designate Sunshine Transfer Station as disposal site X Special Wastes SW1) Promote proper disposal of residential sharps O O X O SW2) Promote green building X SW3) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for HHW X X O SW4) Sunshine to consider serving CESQGs Sunshine Administration Al) Use existing staff X A2) Disposal surcharge as funding source X X — indicates primary responsibility. 0 — indicates secondary responsibility. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 9-5 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan 9.10. FUNDING STRATEGY The recommended programs will be funded through garbage rates, tipping fees, a disposal surcharge, other user fees, and State grants (CPG funds). It should be noted here that none of the recommendations in this Plan require additional construction or other capital acquisition activities (beyond the recent modifications that Sunshine has opted to make at the Sunshine Transfer Station), and so the costs addressed in this Plan are solely for operating expenses for a variety of programs. A summary of the funding sources for the recommended programs is shown in Table 9-3. Garbage rates will be used to fund waste collection, curbside recycling and commercial recycling programs. Tipping fees will be used for the recommended waste reduction, transfer, transport and disposal, household hazardous waste, and administration. Special user fees will fund small quantity generator and other special waste programs. Table 9-3 Funding Strategies for Recommendations Project or Activity a) c� 0) o (u o L Q N L VJ as a) a) 0LL VJ c c V Waste Reduction Recycling and Organics Solid Waste Collection Transfer and Disposal Special Wastes Administration X X X X X X X X X X X 9.11. TWENTY-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE It is anticipated that programs and facilities in Spokane Valley will generally be able to stay on the course established by this Plan for the next twenty years. The waste stream for the City is not expected to increase so much (see Table 2-6) as to create capacity issues for the collection and disposal system that the City is proposing to use. The recently -executed contract with Sunshine will provide disposal services for at least the next ten years (with two three-year extensions possible). The contracts for waste collection services will provide for those services through 2018, at which time the City anticipates it will enter into a long term contract for solid waste collection services (as Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 9-6 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan described in Chapter 5). Recycling and organics collection services will continue to be provided through the collection and disposal contracts. Hence, the twenty-year implementation strategy is much the same as the implementation details shown in the previous tables in this chapter. Changes will likely continue to occur, however, in the local, statewide and national solid waste arena, and should any of these changes require an amendment or revision to this Plan, then the steps described in the next section can be taken to address those. 9.12. PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE PLAN The Solid Waste Management -Reduction and Recycling Act (Chapter 70.95 RCW) requires local governments to maintain their solid waste plans in current condition. Plans must be reviewed and revised, if necessary, every five years. Assuming a timely adoption process for this Plan, with the process completed in late 2014, this Plan should be reviewed and, if necessary, revised or amended in 2019 or 2020. According to Ecology's guidelines5, "amendments" are more minor changes that generally occur within the five-year time period after a solid waste plan is approved, whereas "revisions" are more significant changes that could require more opportunities for public review and comment. Individuals or organizations wishing to propose Plan amendments before the scheduled review process must petition the City of Spokane Valley in writing. The petition should describe the proposed amendment, its specific objectives, and explain why immediate action is needed prior to the next scheduled review. The Public Works Director will investigate the basis for the petition and prepare a recommendation for the City Manager. If the City Manager decides that the petition warrants further consideration, the Public Works Director will draft a proposed amendment. This process will also be used if City staff initiate amendments to the Plan. The proposed amendment must be submitted to the City Council and undergo the normal review and approval process for this type of Plan amendment. As an amendment, a SEPA Checklist will likely not be necessary, but the proposed amendment should be reviewed by Ecology (the extent and timing for their review should be determined at a later date on a case-by-case basis). Once adopted, the amendment should be submitted to Ecology for review and approval. The Public Works Director may develop reasonable rules for submitting and processing proposed Plan amendments, and may establish reasonable fees to investigate and process petitions. All administrative rulings of the Public Works Director and City Manager may be appealed to the City Council. s Guidelines for Development of Local Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions, by the Washington Department of Ecology, February 2010, Publication #10-07-005. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 9-7 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan Minor changes that may occur in the System, whether due to internal decisions or external factors, can be adopted without the need to go through a formal amendment process. Implicit in the development and adoption of this Plan is the understanding that emergency actions may need to be taken by the City in the future for various reasons, and that these actions can be undertaken without needing to amend this Plan beforehand. For instance, an accident, fire or other mishap could interrupt transfer or disposal services and create a temporary or longer term need for alternative disposal arrangements. In the case of an emergency situation, City staff will endeavor to inform Ecology and other key stakeholders as soon as feasibly possible, but not necessarily before new actions are implemented. If the emergency results in permanent and significant changes to the System, an amendment to this Plan will be prepared. If, however, the emergency actions are only undertaken on a temporary or short-term basis, an amendment will not be considered necessary. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 9-8 Chapter 9: Implementation Plan GLOSSARY The following definitions are provided for various terms used in the Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan: Biomedical waste: infectious and injurious waste originating from a medical, veterinary, or intermediate care facility, or from home use. Buy-back recycling center: a facility that pays people for recyclable materials. Commercial solid waste: solid waste generated by non -industrial businesses. This includes waste from business activities such as construction; transportation, communications and utilities; wholesale trades; retail trades; finance, insurance and real estate; other services; and government. This term is also used to refer to all waste except residential, or is used by waste collectors to refer to all waste that is collected using dumpsters. Commingled: recyclable materials that have been collected separately from garbage by the generator, but the recyclable materials have been mixed together in the same container (see also single stream). Composting: the controlled biological decomposition of organic wastes to produce a humus -like final product that can be used as a soil amendment. In this Plan, backyard composting means a small-scale activity performed by homeowners on their own property, using yard debris that they generate. CPG: Coordinated Prevention Grants, a grant program administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Curbside recycling: the act of collecting recyclable materials directly from residential generators, usually after the recyclable materials have been placed at the curb (or at the side of the street if no curb exists in the area) by the residents. EPA: the United States Environmental Protection Agency; the federal agency responsible for promulgation and enforcement of federal environmental regulations. Ferrous metals: materials that are predominantly (over 75% by weight) made of iron. Includes cans and various iron and steel alloys that contain enough iron such that magnets adhere to them, but for recycling this generally does not include paint cans or other containers that may contain hazardous residues. Groundwater: water present in subsurface geological deposits (aquifers). Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan G-1 Glossary by Green Solutions HDPE: high-density polyethylene, a type of plastic commonly used in milk, detergent, bleach bottles and other containers. Also used for products that line and cap landfills. Household hazardous waste (HHW): wastes that would be classified as hazardous due to their nature or characteristics, except that the amount is too small to be regulated and the wastes are generated by households (which are exempt). Includes aerosol cans, solvents, some paints, cleaners, pesticides, herbicides, compressed gases, oil, other petroleum products, car batteries and other materials. Industrial waste: solid waste generated by various manufacturing companies. Includes waste generated by businesses that manufacture the following products: food, textile mill products, apparel, lumber, paper, printing, chemicals, stone, clay, glass, fabricated metals, equipment, and miscellaneous other products. Does not include hazardous wastes generated by these industries. Inert wastes: includes wastes that are inert in nature, such as glass, concrete, rocks, gravel, and bricks. Mixed paper: all other types of recyclable paper not included in newspaper, cardboard or high-grade papers. Includes materials such as "junk mail," magazines, books, and white and colored printing and writing papers. Moderate -risk wastes (MRW): includes household hazardous waste (see definition above) and wastes produced by businesses that potentially meet the definition of a hazardous waste except the amount of waste produced falls below regulatory limits. MSW: municipal solid waste (see also "solid waste"). Mulching: includes 1) leaving grass clippings on the lawn when mowing; 2) placing yard debris, compost, wood chips or other materials on the ground in gardens or around trees and shrubs to discourage weeds and retain moisture. Non-ferrous metals: materials predominantly made of copper, lead, brass, tin, aluminum, and other metals except iron. PET: polyethylene terephthalate, a type of plastic. Commonly used to refer to 2 -liter beverage bottles, although other containers are also increasingly being made from this material, including containers for liquid and solid materials such as cooking oil, liquor, peanut butter, and many other food and household products. Public education: a broad effort to present and distribute informational materials. Public information: the development of educational materials for the public, including brochures, videos, and public service announcements. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan G-2 Glossary by Green Solutions RCW: Revised Code of Washington. Recycling: the act of collecting and/ or processing source -separated materials in order to return them to a usage similar in nature to their previous use. Reusable items: items that may be reused (or easily repaired), including things such as small electronics, household items such as dishes, and furniture. Roll -off: large open -topped container, generally 8 to 40 cubic yards in volume, used for collecting and transporting wastes. Self -haul waste: waste that is brought to a landfill or transfer station by the person or company that created the waste. The former is called residential self -haul and the latter is called either non-residential or commercial self -haul. SEPA: State Environmental Policy Act. Single stream: refers to the practice of placing all recyclable materials together in one container for curbside collection. This is similar to "commingled" except that glass bottles may or may not be included in a commingled mixture, whereas glass bottles are mixed with the other materials in single stream collection programs. Solid waste: solid and semisolid wastes, including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition and construction wastes, discarded commodities, wood waste, and various special wastes. Special wastes: wastes that have particular characteristics such that they present special handling and/or disposal problems. Spokane Regional Solid Waste System: The name of the system that operated the public transfer stations and other aspects of the solid waste system through November 2014. This system was created by Interlocal agreements between Spokane County and the cities in the county, and was administered by the City of Spokane. Stationary compactor: A compaction unit installed at an apartment building or medium to large-sized business, used for compacting and transporting wastes. Tipping fee: The rate charged by transfer and disposal facilities, generally on a per -ton basis. Transfer station: an intermediate solid waste disposal facility at which solid waste is temporarily deposited to await transportation to a final disposal site. UGA: Urban Growth Area, see Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan for more details. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan G-3 Glossary by Green Solutions UTC: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. WAC: Washington Administrative Code. Waste reduction or waste prevention: reducing the amount or type of solid waste that is generated. Also defined by state rules to include reducing the toxicity of wastes. White goods: large appliances such as refrigerators. Yard debris: includes leaves, grass clippings, brush and branches. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan G-4 Glossary by Green Solutions ATTACHMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing. C1TY ©F Spokane ValleyE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE 1.1707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane VaIIey WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org FILE NUMBER: SEP -2014-0009 Solid Waste Management Plan PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Environmental review of the Solid Waste Management Plan. The plan provides guidance for the solid waste system in the City of Spokane Valley, which includes garbage collection and disposal, and programs for waste reduction, recycling, organics, special wastes and the administration of these programs. The Plan provides guidance on program development and implementation for these activities for the next five to six years, and anticipates the needs of the solid waste system 20 years from now. PROPOSAL LOCATION: This is a non -project action. The plan will impact the solid waste system for the City of Spokane Valley. OWNER: City of Spokane Valley, Eric Guth, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley, Eric Guth, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This deeision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: ❑ There is no comment period for this Determination ofNon-Significance (DNS). ❑ This DNS is issued using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further continent period on the DNS. ® This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on his proposal for 14 days from the date issued. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner, City of Spokane Valley; 11707 E Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720-5335/FX (509) 688-0037, lbarlow(spokanevalley.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: John Hohman, Community Development Director DATE ISSUED: Auf ust 15, 2014 SIGNAURE: .04" 5, APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and specific factual objections made to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at the time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. SEP -2014-0009 August 15, 2014 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION Ecology guidelines for solid waste plans require that the potential impacts of this Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan (this "Plan") must be evaluated according to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. This checklist has been prepared to fulfill that requirement. SUMMARY The SEPA checklist prepared for this Plan is intended only to address those programs specifically recommended by the CSWMP. Any new facilities or other activities proposed subsequent to this Plan will need to undergo their own SEPA review process. No negative environmental impacts are anticipated to result from the programs recommended in this Plan. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Flan by Green Solutions A-1 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist Spokane Vaileyt STAFF USE ONLY SEPA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 Community Development -- Planning Division 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite B-3 + Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 • Fax: 509.688.0037 0 planning@spokanevaitey.org Date Submitted: u,Ei l.5i2 tLt Received by: f d to v $ Fee: 3. PLUS #: File #: 3 P - 2of4 -Ut f9 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed protect, if applicable: Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 2. Name of applicant: Spokane Valley Public Works Department 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Eric Guth, 509-720-5000, 11707 East Sprague Ave., Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. Date checklist prepared: June 12, 2014 5. Agency requesting checklist: Washington Department of Ecology 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The recommendations contained in the Solid Waste Management Pian will be implemented primarily over the next five years. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The permit for one of the facilities mentioned in this Plan, the Sunshine Disposal Transfer Station, was recently modified to allow some of the proposed activities to proceed. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan A-3 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Careen Solutions 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NA 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. This Pian must be adopted by the Spokane Valley City Council and then the Washington Department of Ecology must approve the pian. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, Including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Recommendations are made in this Plan for solid waste, moderate -risk waste and other aspects of the solid waste management system. Recommended actions include education and promotion, assignment of implementation responsibilities, and a funding strategy. 12. Location of the proposal. The activities described In the plan will take place primarily in the City of Spokane Valley. 13. Does the proposed action Ile within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? The general Sewer Service Area? Priority Sewer Service Area? Yes, the activities described in this Plan will take place In the City of Spokane Valley. 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1, Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). NA 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? NA 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. NA Spokane Valley Solki Waste Management Plan A-4 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site In a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? NA b, Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? NA 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. NA B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): ❑ flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other Does not apply b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Does not apply c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Does not apply d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Does not apply e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. Does not apply f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Does not apply g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction? Does not apply EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan A-6 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other Impacts to the earth, if any: Does not apply 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Does not apply b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Does not apply c, Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Does not apply 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows Into. Does not apply 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Does not apply 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed In or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Does not apply 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Does not apply EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Solid waste Management Plan A-6 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Does not apply 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Does not apply b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Does not apply 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Does not apply c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Does not apply 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Does not apply d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Does not apply 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other El evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs ❑ grass EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan A-7 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Careen Solutions ❑ pasture ❑ crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other 0 other types of vegetation Does not apply b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Does not apply c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Does not apply d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, If any: Does not apply 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: 0 mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other; Does not apply b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Does not apply c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Does not apply d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Does not apply 6) Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc, EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan A-8 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions Does not apply b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Does not apply c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy Impacts, If any: Does not apply 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe Does not apply 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Does not apply 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Does not apply b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Does not apply 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a Tong -term basis? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Does not apply 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Does not apply 8) Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Does not apply b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan A-9 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions Does not apply c. Describe any structures on the site. Does not apply d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Does not apply e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Does not apply f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Does not apply g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Does not apply h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive area? If so, specify. Does not apply I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Does not apply J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Does not apply k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Does not apply Proposed measures to ensure the proposal Is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any; Does not apply 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions A-10 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply 10) Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Does not apply b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Does not apply 11) Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Does not apply b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or Interfere with views? Does not apply c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Does not apply d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any: Does not apply 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Does not apply b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe, EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management pian A-11 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, If any: Does not apply 13) Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Does not apply b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural Importance known to be on or next to the site. Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Does not apply 14) Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Does not apply b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Does not apply c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Does not apply d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Does not apply e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Does not apply EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions A-12 Attachment A Environmental Checklist f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Does not apply g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts if any: Does not apply 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Does not apply b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct Impacts on public services, if any. Does not apply 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: 0 electricity, 0 natural gas, ❑water, 0 refuse service, ❑ telephone, 0 sanitary sewer, ❑ septic system, ❑ other -- describe Does not apply b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Does not apply C. SIGNATURE EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions A-13 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS 1. How would the proposal be likely to Increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Implementation of the proposed recommendations should help reduce the amount of water and air discharges, while increasing the proper handling of any solid or toxic wastes that are generated in the City. There should not be an increase or reduction in noise. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not Applicable. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No impacts to plants, animals, fish and marine life are anticipated. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not Applicable. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed recommendations should help reduce energy demands and help to conserve natural resources, by increasing waste reduction and other activities. Increased recycling leads to conservation of natural resources and also reduces energy demands. In general, using recycled materials In place of virgin materials requires significantly Tess energy In the manufacturing process. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not Applicable. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? None of these areas will be negatively impacted by the recommendations In this Plan. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not Applicable. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No direct Impacts to land or shoreline use are anticipated to result from the proposed recommendations. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are Not Applicable. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan A-14 Attachment A: Environmental checklist by Green Solutions 8. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed recommendations should lead to minor reductions in transportation requirements and public services, although if curbside recycling is increased to weekly then there would be additional traffic In the City. Transportation of solid waste out of the city should be lessened by increased waste reduction and recycling. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not Applicable. 7. identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No such conflicts are likely. The intent of creating this Plan is to comply with various laws and requirements (especially on the state level) regarding environmental protection and other factors. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge, I aiso understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: 745` Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: Eric Guth Address: 11707 East Sprague. Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: 509-720-5000 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Rick Hiavka, Green Solutions Address: PO Box 680, South Prairie, WA 98385 Phone: 360-897-9533 Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan A-15 Attachment A Environmental Gheckllst by Green Solutions ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION Pending (this section will contain the City's resolution adopting this Plan, which will be nearly the final step of the process). CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 14, 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: Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: With Council's decision to contract for solid waste management services, an alternative program will be necessary for Moderate Risk Waste (MRW) Management. As part of this new program staff has prepared a MRW Management Plan. This Plan is intended to provide guidance for the moderate -risk waste management system in the City of Spokane Valley. The moderate -risk waste system includes hazardous wastes generated in small quantities by residents and businesses. This MRW Management Plan is also intended to provide guidance on program development and implementation for these activities for the foreseeable future. The MRW programs are intended to complement and be integrated with the City's solid waste system, which includes garbage collection and disposal, waste reduction, recycling, organics, other special wastes, and the administration of these programs. State law (Chapter 70.105 RCW) provides the authority for the City to develop and implement this MRW Plan. Washington State lists several elements that are required in local hazardous waste plans (RCW 70.105.220). Specific components that are required include: • A program to manage moderate -risk wastes from households and businesses; • An ongoing public education program; • An inventory of existing hazardous waste generators and facilities to manage hazardous waste (based on data provided by the Department of Ecology); • A description of the public involvement process used in developing the plan; • A used oil recycling element (per RCW 70.951); • A description of the eligible zones designated in accordance with RCW 70.105.225; and • Other elements deemed appropriate by local government. These components are addressed in this MRW Management Plan to the extent necessary and possible. The City will use its standard adoption process for this MRW Plan. This process includes three steps: an informational memo (October 14, 2014) to the City Council, an administrative report (October 21, 2014) and work session, and a formal meeting (November 4, 2014) where the MRW Plan will be considered for approva; and adoption. Public comment will be accepted at the formal meeting of the City Council prior to adoption. OPTIONS: Information RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan SPOKANE VALLEY MODERATE -RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT PLAN SEPTEMBER 2014 This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing. GREEN SOLUTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SPOKANE VALLEY MODERATE -RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT PLAN SEPTEMBER 2014 Prepared by: Green Solutions PO Box 680 South Prairie, WA 98385 rick@green-solutions.biz (360) 897-9533 This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Introduction E-1 Recommendations E-1 Implementation Details for the Recommendations E-2 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 1-1 1.2 Planning Area 1-2 1.3 Planning Authority 1-2 1.4 Required Plan Elements 1-2 1.5 Planning Goals 1-3 1.6 Relationship to Other Plans 1-3 1.7 Public Participation in the Planning Process 1-6 2 Existing System 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Regulations 2-1 2.3 Inventories and Zoning 2-3 2.4 Current Programs 2-5 3 Alternatives 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Planning Issues 3-1 3.3 Alternatives 3-1 3.4 Evaluation of Alternatives 3-3 4 Recommendations 4.1 Recommended Activities and Programs .4-1 4.2 Implementation Schedule 4-2 4.3 Implementation Responsibilities 4-2 4.4 Funding Strategy 4-3 4.5 Twenty -Year Implementation Schedule 4-4 4.6 Procedures for Amending the Plan 4-4 Attachments Glossary A. Environmental Checklist B. Resolution of Adoption Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan i Table of Contents by Green Solutions LIST OF TABLES Executive Summary E-1, Implementation Summary for Recommendations E-4 3 Alternatives 3-1, Rating of the Moderate -Risk Waste Alternatives 3-4 4 Recommendations 4-1, Implementation Schedule for Recommendations 4-2 4-2, Implementation Responsibilities for MRW Recommendations 4-3 Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan ii Table of Contents by Green Solutions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for the SPOKANE VALLEY MODERATE -RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION The Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan (the "MRW Plan") is intended to provide guidance for the moderate -risk waste management system in the City of Spokane Valley. The moderate -risk waste system includes hazardous wastes generated in small quantities by residents ("household hazardous wastes") and small quantities generated by businesses ("small -quantity generators"). This MRW Plan is intended to provide guidance on program development and implementation for these activities for the foreseeable future. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations in this MRW Plan address new programs and activities that will be necessary for the City of Spokane Valley to create its solid waste system. The City recently contracted with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. ("Sunshine" 1) to provide solid waste transfer, transport, and disposal services for the City. As part of that contract, Sunshine Disposal will provide MRW drop-off collection services for Spokane Valley residents. The recommendations made in this MRW Plan are listed below and are summarized in Table E-1. High -Priority Recommendations MRW1) City residents will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for household hazardous wastes. MRW2) City residents should have continued access to County MRW facilities through June 30, 2015. MRW3) The City of Spokane Valley will evaluate product stewardship programs as these are proposed on a statewide or national level, and support those if appropriate to the interests of their citizens and the business community. 1 Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. operates a number of businesses providing transfer, disposal, and collection services. For the purposes of this Plan, "Sunshine" refers to that entity providing transfer, transport, and disposal services to the City pursuant to its recent contract, while "Sunshine Disposal" refers to the entity providing solid waste and recycling collection services. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan E-1 Executive Summary by Green Solutions MRW4) Public education materials distributed by the City of Spokane Valley will include information on the proper handling and disposal of MRW. MRW5) The City of Spokane Valley and Sunshine Recyclers will refer businesses to collection services and other sources of information for MRW disposal. MRW6) Sunshine Recyclers should consider providing MRW disposal services to businesses (CESQGs) in the future. MRW7) If necessary, the City will adopt ordinances and take additional steps to address problems with MRW handling and disposal. MRW8) The City will adopt an ordinance requiring used oil signage and container sales for retailers selling significant amounts of oil and oil filters. Medium -Priority Recommendations MRW9) The City will conduct annual collection events for CESQGs until Sunshine begins providing service for businesses at their MRW facility. IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS Table E-1 shows a summary of the recommendations, including the following information: • Lead agency (or company): each recommendation requires an agency or company to take charge of ensuring that it is implemented in a timely fashion. The City of Spokane Valley is the lead agency for several of the recommendations, but in some cases this responsibility is shared with Sunshine. • Cost: cost information is shown where available, and the cost figures shown are only the costs to the City. In some cases, there may be additional costs to others in terms of user fees and other expenses. For many of the recommendations, the primary expense is staff time. • Funding sources: the proposed source(s) of the funds to pay for recommended activities is shown in the last column of Table E-1. The funding source for several of the recommendations is shown as "Fee/ CPG," which is an abbreviated way of saying that the funds would come from the fees charged to Sunshine (the administrative fee and the right-of-way maintenance fee, collectively referred to as a "disposal surcharge" throughout this Plan) and/or Coordinated Prevention Grant ("CPG") funds when those become available to the City in mid -2015. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan E-2 Executive Summary by Green Solutions Note that the many of the recommendations are shown in an abbreviated form in Table E-1 due to space constraints. Additional details for most of the recommendations can be found in the appropriate chapters of this MRW Plan. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan E-3 Executive Summary by Green Solutions Table E-1 Implementation Summary for Recommendations Recommended Activity Lead Agency Annual Cost Funding Source High -Priority Recommendations MRW1) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for HHW City and Sunshine Included in other tasks NA MRW2) Continued use of County MRW facilities County NA NA MRW3) Support product stewardship programs as appropriate City Staff time NA MRW4) Public education City and Sunshine Included int other tasks NA MRW5) Refer businesses to collection services as requested City and Sunshine Staff time NA MRW6) Sunshine will consider serving CESQGs Sunshine Varies User fees MRW7) City will adopt ordinances if necessary to support MRW programs City Staff time NA MRW8) City to adopt ordinance for used oil signage and container sales City Staff time NA Medium -Priority Recommendations MRW9) City to conduct annual collection events for CESQGs City Staff time NA Notes: NA = Not Applicable. 1. "Included in other tasks" = costs for these activities are already covered by tasks described in the Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan E-4 by Green Solutions Executive Summary CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1. PURPOSE The Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan (the "MRW Plan") is intended to guide the moderate -risk waste management system in the City of Spokane Valley. The moderate -risk waste system includes hazardous wastes generated in small quantities by residents ("household hazardous wastes") and small quantities generated by businesses ("small -quantity generators"). This MRW Plan is intended to provide guidance on program development and implementation for these activities for the foreseeable future. The MRW programs are intended to complement and be integrated with the City's solid waste system (the "City's System"), which includes garbage collection and disposal, waste reduction, recycling, organics, other special wastes, and the administration of these programs. Definition of Moderate Risk Waste Moderate risk waste (MRW) refers to waste materials that have the characteristics of and pose the same risks as hazardous wastes, but are generated in relatively small quantities by individual households and in small quantities by businesses. In other words, these wastes are flammable, corrosive, toxic, and/or reactive. Federal law does not currently regulate these wastes as hazardous, but each state can adopt stricter regulations for hazardous waste from households and small quantity generators. Washington State has chosen to regulate these materials. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) created a waste classification called MRW that includes household hazardous waste (which is generated by residential sources) and small quantity generator waste (which is generated by businesses, but in quantities below the current threshold for hazardous waste regulations). A State law adopted in 1991 also added used oil to the list of materials to be addressed by MRW programs. Household Hazardous Waste (HHW): When generated in a residence, products that are flammable, corrosive, toxic or reactive become household hazardous wastes when they are discarded. Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) Waste: Many businesses and institutions produce small quantities of hazardous wastes. Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) may produce hazardous waste at rates less than 220 pounds per month or per batch (or 2.2 pounds per month or per batch of extremely hazardous waste) and accumulate less than 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste on-site (or 22 pounds of extremely hazardous waste). Extremely hazardous wastes include specific pesticides and other poisons that are more toxic than other hazardous wastes. At Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 1-1 Chapter 1: Introduction amounts above these limits, a business becomes a medium or large -quantity generator and must comply with the reporting and other requirements for hazardous waste management and disposal. CESQGs are conditionally exempt from State and Federal regulation, meaning that they are exempt only as long as they generate less waste than the threshold amounts and properly manage and dispose of their wastes. 1.2. PLANNING AREA This MRW Plan addresses programs and activities for the incorporated area of the City of Spokane Valley. Additional information about the City's population, economy, land use and other factors can be found in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan ("SVCP") and the Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan ("SVSWMP"). 1.3. PLANNING AUTHORITY State law (Chapter 70.105 RCW) provides the authority for the City to develop and implement this MRW Plan. 1.4. REQUIRED PLAN ELEMENTS Washington State lists several elements that are required in local hazardous waste plans (RCW 70.105.220). Specific components that are required include: • A program to manage moderate -risk wastes from households and businesses; • An ongoing public education program; • An inventory of existing hazardous waste generators and facilities to manage hazardous waste (based on data provided by the Department of Ecology); • A description of the public involvement process used in developing the plan; • A used oil recycling element (per RCW 70.95I); • A description of the eligible zones designated in accordance with RCW 70.105.225; and • Other elements deemed appropriate by local government. These components are addressed in this MRW Plan to the extent necessary and possible. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 1-2 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.5. PLANNING GOALS Mission Statement for the City of Spokane Valley MRW Plan The mission for this MRW Plan is to protect public health and the environment by reducing the threats posed by the production, use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Vision Statement for the City of Spokane Valley MRW Plan The vision for this MRW Plan is that residents, businesses and government will demand, use and produce products that are the least harmful to the environment and to all segments of the population. Goals for the City of Spokane Valley MRW Plan The specific goals of this MRW Plan are to: • Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing MRW. • Promote the use of proper waste handling and disposal methods. • Encourage public-private partnerships where possible. • Emphasize waste prevention and reduction as a fundamental management strategy. • Ensure compliance with state and local solid and moderate -risk waste regulations. • Assist those who sell and use products containing hazardous ingredients to minimize risks to public health and the environment. • Provide customers information and education to promote recommended waste management practices. • Support the State's Beyond Waste goals, especially for the five key initiatives: increased diversion of organic materials; increased use of green building methods; improved management of small -volume hazardous wastes; improved management of industrial wastes; and measuring progress. 1.6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS This MRW Plan is designed to be consistent with a number of other plans. The most significant of these plans are described below. Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan ("SVCP") provides a 20 -year vision for the future of Spokane Valley. The vision statement adopted by the SVCP is that Spokane Valley will be "a community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and businesses will flourish and prosper." The SVCP was adopted April 25, 2006, and revisions to the SVCP are considered annually. The SVCP provides a significant Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 1-3 Chapter 1: Introduction amount of detail for policies and programs for related topics (land use, transportation, utilities, etc.), and as such it should be considered to have precedence over this MRW Plan in those matters. Programs proposed in this MRW Plan, especially those that might impact capital facilities, land use and transportation, should be checked against the SVCP to ensure consistency. Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan The Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan ("SVSWMP") provides both a short- term and long-term vision for the future solid waste management system for the City of Spokane Valley. The SVSWMP was adopted in November 2014, and that plan provides direction for a wide range of related topics (recycling, waste collection, transfer and disposal, other special wastes). Programs proposed in this MRW Plan, especially those that might impact solid waste activities should be checked against the SVSWMP to ensure consistency. Spokane County Solid Waste Management Plan The City of Spokane Valley previously participated in the development of the Spokane County 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and implemented programs consistent with that plan. Hence, the City is starting this planning process from a point that is consistent with the Spokane County plan. While future programs in the City may diverge from the County programs, the use of regional service -providers and facilities will help ensure consistency for most programs. The Spokane County solid waste plan, which is actually a combined solid waste and moderate -risk waste plan, was undergoing an update at the time this MRW Plan was being developed and the 2009 county plan expected to be replaced by this update. Washington State Solid Waste Management Plan Ecology is required by law (RCW 70.105 and 70.95) to develop and update the statewide hazardous waste and solid waste plans. In 2004, Ecology simultaneously updated the 1994 State Hazardous Waste Management Plan and the 1991 State Solid Waste Management Plan. The updated plans were published together as the Beyond Waste Plan in November 2004. An updated version of the Beyond Waste Plan, which shows recommendations and milestones for the next five years, became available at the end of 2009. The Beyond Waste Plan's 30 -year vision states: "We can transition to a society where waste is viewed as inefficient, and where most wastes and toxic substances have been eliminated. This will contribute to economic, social and environmental vitality." The Beyond Waste Plan recognizes that "waste generation in Washington continues to increase, and that toxic substances are more prevalent in our everyday lives now than they were just few years ago." It explains why it is important to move beyond waste and concludes "to lower the risks to people and the environment, Washington needs to Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 1-4 Chapter 1: Introduction shift to an approach that will significantly reduce wastes and toxic substances over time." The Beyond Waste Plan adopted five initiatives as starting points for reducing solid and toxic wastes in Washington. One of these initiatives is "reducing small -volume hazardous materials and wastes." This initiative addresses products and substances commonly used in households and in relatively small quantities by businesses. Ecology included this initiative in the Beyond Waste Plan for three reasons: 1. The Beyond Waste Plan assumes that MRW affects everyone. A major premise of the Beyond Waste Plan is that small -volume hazardous materials and wastes are everywhere and that people come into contact with them daily. As a result, chronic and acute exposure to hazardous chemicals in homes and businesses can be a significant health risk, which can be very costly to businesses and society due to health care costs, environmental degradation, insurance and liability. 2. The Beyond Waste Plan also assumes that the current management system is not sustainable over the long term. Government funds pay for special collections, fixed facilities, and treatment and disposal programs to keep MRW out of municipal solid waste landfills and away from illegal disposal, but currently only a portion of all MRW is actually captured. Achieving Beyond Waste goals in the future will require a better approach, including safer alternatives, product stewardship, waste reduction, recycling and convenient collection opportunities that do not rely primarily on public systems and finances. 3. Finally, the Beyond Waste Plan assumes that great strides are possible, and that many opportunities exist to reduce and eliminate risks associated with MRW. This is based in part on the idea that consumer demand is building for less harmful products, as well as for more reuse and recycling. Several regional and national initiatives are already underway, such as E -Cycle, the Take -it -Back Network and fluorescent lamp recycling, which lend credence to these ideas. The Beyond Waste Plan identifies the following recommendations for the small volume hazardous materials initiative to succeed: 1. Eliminate or minimize groups of the most toxic chemicals as part of the Ecology's Reducing Toxic Threats work. 2. Reduce threats from mercury. 3. Reduce threats from PBTs (Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins). 4. Develop a more comprehensive list of covered electronics through a product stewardship infrastructure. 5. Reduce the use of high-risk pesticides, emphasize proper use, and encourage effective alternatives. 6. Reduce and manage all architectural paint wastes. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 1-5 Chapter 1: Introduction 7. Implement and promote Environmentally Preferable Purchasing at state and local governments and in institutional settings, with Ecology leading by example. Support the Climate Action Team proposals and other initiatives. 8. Ensure MRW and hazardous substances are regulated and managed according to hazards, toxicity and risk. 9. Support full implementation of local hazardous waste plans. 10. Ensure businesses and facilities handling MRW comply with environmental laws and regulations. Encourage as much reuse and recycling of MRW as possible. 11. Educate the public and businesses on prevention, proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous products and wastes. Encourage safer alternatives to minimize toxic threats, especially to vulnerable populations. 12. Develop and implement a strategy for a more regionally focused MRW program by evaluating the most significant threats and effective approaches, including safer alternatives, to reducing those threats. The Beyond Waste Plan adopted "five-year milestones" for these recommendations. 1.7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS The City will use its standard adoption process for this MRW Plan. This process includes three steps; an informational memo to the City Council, an administrative report and work session, and a formal meeting where the MRW Plan will be approved and adopted. Public comment will be accepted at the formal meeting of the City Council prior to adoption Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 1-6 Chapter 1: Introduction CHAPTER 2 EXISTING SYSTEM 2.1. INTRODUCTION This chapter of the MRW Plan provides information about the current conditions and management practices for MRW in the City of Spokane Valley, and information about the existing regulatory requirements for MRW. 2.2. REGULATIONS A review of the federal, state and local regulatory framework for managing hazardous waste is provided below. Federal Regulations The primary federal laws relating to hazardous waste are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Other federal legislation such as the Universal Waste Rule and the Mercury -Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act establish rules for specific types of hazardous waste. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. s/s 6901 et seq.): The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes responsibility and authority for managing hazardous waste. Subtitle C of the law establishes requirements for generators, transporters, and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Hazardous wastes must be tracked from the time they are generated until the time they are disposed using a manifest system. Subtitle D of RCRA establishes minimum requirements for construction and operation of solid waste disposal facilities. It seeks to ensure that landfills receiving household hazardous waste and small quantity generator waste meet minimum design and construction standards. The Washington State Department of Ecology has been delegated the authority to enforce the provisions of RCRA. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. s/s 9601 et seq.) : CERCLA, also known as the Superfund act, provides the Environmental Protection Agency with the authority to clean up disposal sites contaminated with hazardous waste. The legislation enables the agency to identify responsible parties and assess liability for cleaning up individual sites. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act established requirements related to emergency response planning and community notification of chemical releases. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-1 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area Enhancing Hazardous Materials Transportation Security (HM -232): HM -232, which went into effect March 25, 2003, amended transportation rules to require that persons who transport, or offer for transportation, certain types of hazardous materials develop and implement a security plan. This rule also requires that employees be provided with security awareness training. This rule applies to many MRW facilities due to the types and quantities of wastes collected and shipped. The intent of the security plan is to prevent theft of flammable or explosive materials that could be used in acts of terrorism. State Regulations Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70.105 RCW): The Hazardous Waste Management Act establishes requirements for state and local hazardous waste management plans, rules for hazardous waste generation and handling, criteria for siting hazardous waste management facilities, and local zoning designations that permit hazardous waste management facilities. The Hazardous Waste Management Act also establishes waste management priorities for hazardous wastes. In order of decreasing priority, the management priorities are waste reduction; recycling; physical, chemical and biological treatment; incineration; solidification/ stabilization; and landfilling. Rules implementing the Hazardous Waste Management Act are codified in the Dangerous Waste Regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC). This regulation defines dangerous waste materials and establishes minimum handling requirements. State rules specifically exclude household hazardous waste and small quantity generator wastes from the dangerous waste regulation. The Dangerous Waste Regulations have been amended several times over the years, most recently in 2009. The 2009 amendments incorporated federal requirements into the state's rules and updated state - specific requirements, including technical corrections and other improvements. One example is the addition of two database resources for toxicity book designation that addresses aquatic toxicity that in not listed NIOSH R l'ECS database. Model Toxics Control Act (Chapter 173-340 WAC): The Model Toxics Control Act assigns responsibilities and provides a funding source for cleaning up hazardous waste disposal sites in Washington. The act establishes state and local toxics control accounts as funding sources for hazardous waste related activities. The state account funds Ecology's solid and hazardous waste management planning activities, enforcement and technical assistance, remedial actions, public education and emergency response training. The local account provides grants to local governments for solid and hazardous waste programs including remedial actions. Used Oil Recycling Act (Chapter 70.95I RCW): The Used Oil Recycling Act requires local hazardous waste management plans to include plans for collecting used motor oil, enforcing sign and container ordinances, and conducting public education. Local governments are also required to submit annual reports identifying used motor oil collection sites and the quantity of used motor oil collected from households. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-2 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area Solid Waste Management Act (Chapter 70.95 RCW): The Solid Waste Management Act prohibits the disposal of automobile batteries and requires retail vendors to accept used batteries for recycling. Solid Waste Handling Standards (Ch. 173-350 WAC): The 2003 Solid Waste Handling Standards provide guidance on the design and operation of MRW facilities. Mercury Education and Reduction Act (Chapter 70.95M RCW): The Mercury Education and Reduction Act of 2006 made it illegal to sell most items that contain mercury in Washington State, including thermometers, manometers, toys, games and jewelry. Mercury -Containing Lights - Proper Disposal (Chapter 70.275 RCW): As of January 1, 2013, all users must recycle mercury -containing lights. The program that was intended to provide a statewide collection system for the lights has been postponed, however, due to funding problems, but the collection program is expected to become operational on January 1, 2015. Local Regulations Spokane County Regulations: MRW is addressed in Chapter 8, Health and Sanitation, of the Spokane County Code. Chapter 8.56, Regulation of Solid Waste Disposal, prohibits the disposal of hazardous wastes at solid waste facilities. Chapter 8.60, Used Oil Recycling, requires persons who sell 1,000 gallons or more per year of lubricating oil to post signage about used oil recycling and to sell reusable containers that can be used to hold used oil. Spokane Valley Codes: Chapter 21.40 of the City Code prohibits the disposal of hazardous materials or wastes within "critical aquifer recharge areas." The handling and storage of these materials within those areas also requires notifications and spill containment facilities. Chapter 19.120 of the City Code identifies hazardous waste treatment and storage as an allowable use in industrial areas (zones I-1 and I-2), but is only permitted there with supplemental conditions. 2.3. INVENTORIES AND ZONING RCW 70.115.220(1)(a) requires MRW plans to contain an assessment of the quantities, types, generators and fate of MRW in each jurisdiction. The following information addresses potential MRW generators, dangerous waste generators (i.e., large -quantity generators), contaminated sites, transporters and processing facilities, and locations where hazardous waste facilities are allowed to be sited ("zone designations"). Potential MRW Generators and Participation in MRW Collections The data necessary to conduct an assessment of the current rate of MRW generation and Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-3 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area participation in MRW collection programs is unavailable, since Spokane Valley has not previously operated their own MRW collection program. Dangerous Waste Generators Ecology's records show that the following numbers of businesses and institutions in Spokane Valley were registered as hazardous waste generators as of August 2014: • 7 large -quantity generators • 6 medium -quantity generators • 9 small -quantity generators2 • 9 non -generating sites and transporters with active EPA or state identification numbers, but who did not generate waste in the most recent year. In addition, there are other businesses in the City of Spokane Valley that could be small generators of hazardous wastes, including car repair shops, hospitals, dentists, furniture refinishers, veterinarians, and various construction companies. Many of these companies are likely SQGs that are handling their wastes properly and hence not subject to reporting requirements. Remedial Action Sites Ecology's list of confirmed and suspected contaminated sites in Spokane Valley can be found at www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/cleanup.html. The sites can be summarized in five categories (data on the number of sites shown below is current as of August 2014): 1. Brownfield Sites: There are no brownfield sites identified in Spokane Valley. Brownfield sites are abandoned or under-utilized properties where potential liability due to environmental contamination and clean-up costs complicate redevelopment. 2. Environmental Covenants Register: There are two sites in Spokane Valley that are identified for the environmental covenants registry. This registry is a list of sites that have residual contamination after clean-up has been completed. These sites have environmental covenants or deed restrictions limiting the types of uses for the property. 3. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: There are no leaking underground storage tank sites identified in Spokane Valley. In other words, there are no sites that require further clean-up. 4. State Clean -Up Sites: There are eleven sites shown for Spokane Valley on the list of 2 This figure includes only those small -quantity generators that have chosen to get an EPA identification number (which is not required for SQGs), and the actual number of SQGs (or CESQGs) is higher. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-4 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area cleanup sites: a) Contaminated Sites - 4 sites. There are four sites in Spokane Valley where cleanup activities have been initiated but not yet completed. b) No Further Action Sites - 7 sites. These sites were previously on the Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Site list but have now received a No Further Action decision. Two of these sites have deed restrictions or environmental covenants. 5. Regulated Underground Storage Tanks: There are 235 tanks shown on Ecology's list of regulated underground storage tanks (as of August 2014). Of these, 136 are listed as operational, 84 have been removed, ten are exempt and five are temporarily closed. Most of these sites are gas stations, but the list also may include industries, commercial properties, and governmental entities. Hazardous Waste Services (Transporters and Facilities) There are numerous companies that are registered in Washington as hazardous waste transporters and that could potentially provide services in Spokane Valley. Zone Designations As part of the development of the original MRW plans, local jurisdictions were required by State law (RCW 70.105.225) to designate zones within their borders where hazardous waste facilities would be permitted to operate and to notify Ecology by 1988 of those designations. The City of Spokane Valley was not incorporated until 2003 and so could not perform this activity in 1988, but the current City Code does address hazardous storage and treatment facilities as an allowable use in industrial zones (with supplemental conditions). 2.4. CURRENT PROGRAMS To date, moderate -risk wastes generated in Spokane Valley have been handled through drop-off collection sites at the Valley Transfer Station and two other locations operated by the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System. The drop-off site at the Valley Transfer Station is open from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. seven days per week (except major holidays). Only household hazardous wastes are accepted for free at this site. CESQGs are referred to a private contractor for disposal of their wastes, and the private contractor periodically conducts collection events for CESQGs at the transfer station. Ongoing funding for the MRW program is provided through a portion of the tipping fee and an Ecology grant program (the Coordinated Prevention Grant, or CPG). Public education and information about the MRW program, including technical assistance to commercial generators, has been provided to date by regional system staff. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-5 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area Others in the area, including garbage haulers and recycling companies, also provide information on proper handling and disposal of moderate risk wastes. Additional information about the existing MRW activities, including an evaluation of the performance of these programs, can be found in the Spokane County Solid and Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 2-6 Chapter 2: Background of the Planning Area CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES 3.1. INTRODUCTION This chapter of the MRW Plan identifies planning issues (service gaps and other needs) and options that could be used to address the planning issues. Options are evaluated according to several criteria to determine which of the options should move forward as recommendations. 3.2. PLANNING ISSUES Because the City of Spokane Valley has chosen to leave the regional system, an alternative program will be needed for MRW. Access to the MRW services at the Valley Transfer Station and other County -owned facilities may not be available in the future. Sunshine Recyclers has agreed to provide this service at their transfer station, and it is anticipated that they will collect the same range of materials. Ecology's guidelines (Guidelines for Developing and Updating Local Hazardous Waste Plans, February 2010) state that MRW plans should address services in six areas: 1. HHW collection 2. Household and public education 3. Small business technical assistance 4. Small business collection assistance 5. Enforcement 6. Used oil education and assistance 3.3. ALTERNATIVES Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Alternatives MRW Alternative A - Encourage City Residents to Use New Program for MRW: When the City leaves the regional system in November 2014, local residents should be encouraged to use the MRW collection site at the Sunshine Disposal Transfer Station because access to existing County -owned sites may no longer be available. MRW Alternative B - Continued Access to County MRW Collection Sites: Since the County MRW services are funded in large part by Coordinated Prevention Grant (CPG) funds from Ecology, and those funds were awarded to Spokane County based in part on the County's population (including the population of Spokane Valley), then City Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-1 Chapter 3: Alternatives residents should have access to those services for at least the duration of the grant (through June 30, 2015). If the County chooses to bar Spokane Valley residents from access to MRW collection services after that date, the interim period should be used to educate participants by posting signs and distributing information that their new HHW service location is at the Spokane Valley University Road Transfer Station operated by Sunshine Disposal. MRW Alternative C - Support for Product Stewardship Programs: The E -Cycle program has been successful at addressing electronic wastes and demonstrates that other materials could potentially be handled by manufacturer -funded programs. Retailer -based programs, such as the oil and vehicle battery take -back programs, have also proven very successful for ensuring proper handling of toxic wastes. These and similar approaches could be used to address additional materials that are being generated in large volumes, such as paint, or that are highly toxic, such as pesticides. Rather than address each material individually, one option would be for the State to adopt framework legislation, while voluntary take -back programs could continue to be encouraged. The City could support this and other product stewardship legislation as appropriate. This could be done through letters of support and other activities, and there would be negligible cost for this. Household and Public Education MRW Alternative D - Public Education for HHW: Household hazardous waste education programs typically focus on identifying household products that contain hazardous ingredients, encouraging safer alternatives and explaining how to dispose unwanted products that contain hazardous substances. Rather than conduct an independent education program for HHW, this alternative proposes that the appropriate messages for HHW be incorporated into the City's broader public education for the solid waste system. Public education opportunities will also be available at the HHW facility and scale houses at the Transfer Station. Small Business Technical Assistance MRW Alternative E - Technical Assistance for Businesses: Businesses in Spokane Valley, and small businesses in particular, may occasionally have questions about the proper disposal of special or hazardous wastes that they generate. If these businesses happen to call the City offices or Sunshine's Call Center for information about the disposal of these materials, it would be helpful if both organizations could train staff to refer them to collection services or other sources of information. Small Business Collection Assistance MRW Alternative F - Collection Assistance for Businesses: Businesses in Spokane Valley could be served by periodic (annual) collection events. The City could simply provide a site for one or more private collection services to set up a collection event and help promote it through existing channels. Businesses that participate in this collection Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-2 Chapter 3: Alternatives event would pay for the service based on the amounts and types of wastes being disposed. With sufficient participation, the cost to the businesses for this approach should be less than individual collection services. MRW Alternative G - Expand MRW Collection Services at Sunshine Disposal: As the MRW collection site at the Sunshine Disposal transfer station is developed and refined, consideration could be given to the idea of expanding those services to allow CESQGs to drop off waste at this site. This service would not need to be provided for free, but could charge a fee that covers the additional cost of handling the waste from businesses. Enforcement MRW Alternative H - Enforcement: The City of Spokane Valley already requires businesses to notify the Fire Department about the use and storage of a long list of chemicals in critical aquifer recharge areas, and requires spill containment facilities for these chemicals. If necessary, additional steps could be taken based on incidents and reports of problems. Load inspections at the transfer stations as specified in the Spokane Valley University Road Transfer Station Operations Plan could also lead to follow-up activities by a range of agencies, depending on the nature of the problem. One additional step that could be taken in the future, should it prove necessary, is for the City to adopt an ordinance banning disposal of hazardous waste with solid waste. Used Oil Education and Assistance MRW Alternative I - Used Oil Education and Enforcement: RCW 70.95I.040 requires persons who sell 1,000 gallons or more per year of lubricating oil, or 500 or more oil filters per year, to post signage about used oil recycling and to sell containers that can be used to hold used oil. This RCW also requires local governments that are preparing an MRW Plan such as this to adopt an ordinance to allow enforcement of these requirements. 3.4. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Review of Rating Criteria The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including consistency with planning goals, technical and political feasibility, and the relative cost- effectiveness of the alternative. Based on the ratings for these criteria, each alternative can be given an overall rating and a decision can then be made as to whether to pursue it or not. Consistency with Planning Goals: All of the alternatives described above agree with the planning goals, in particular those goals having to do with publicizing the need for Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions 3-3 Chapter 3: Alternatives proper handling and disposal of hazardous wastes and providing convenient services for proper disposal. Feasibility: In judging the alternatives for technical and political feasibility, all of the alternatives can be considered feasible. Implementation of Alternatives F (collection assistance for businesses) and G (expanding MRW collection services at Sunshine's facility to CESQGs) will require significant details to be worked out, so these are only rated as medium in feasibility. Cost Effectiveness: Several of the alternatives can be implemented without a significant investment in staff time or other resources, and so are rated high for cost- effectiveness. Alternatives D (public education) and F (collection assistance for business) will require a significant investment in staff time with an uncertain return on this investment, and so are only rated as medium for this criteria. Rating of Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives is summarized in the following table. Table 3-1 Rating of the Moderate -Risk Waste Alternatives Alternative Consistency with Planning Feasibility Goals Cost- Overall Rating Effectiveness A, Encourage residents to use Sunshine Disposal facility for MRW B, Continued use of County sites C, Support product stewardship programs D, Public education for HHW E, Technical assistance for businesses F, Collection assistance for businesses G, Collect CESQG wastes at Sunshine Disposal H, Enforcement I, Used Oil Education and Enforcement H H H H H H H H H H H H H H M M H H H H H M H M H H H H H H H H M H H H Rating Scores: H — High, M — Medium, L — Low Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan 3-4 by Green Solutions Chapter 3: Alternatives CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1. RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS The following recommendations are being made based on the service gaps, alternatives and evaluation of alternatives identified in previous sections of the MRW Plan. The recommendations are prioritized in order to help guide the City's allocation of resources in the future. There are no low -priority recommendations being made. High -Priority Recommendations MRW1) City residents will be encouraged to use the Sunshine Transfer Station for household hazardous wastes. MRW2) City residents should have continued access to County MRW facilities through June 30, 2015. MRW3) The City of Spokane Valley will evaluate product stewardship programs as these are proposed on a statewide or national level, and support those if appropriate to the interests of their citizens and the business community. MRW4) Public education materials distributed by the City of Spokane Valley will include information on the proper handling and disposal of MRW. MRW5) The City of Spokane Valley and Sunshine Recyclers will refer businesses to collection services and other sources of information for MRW disposal. MRW6) Sunshine Recyclers should consider providing MRW disposal services to businesses (CESQGs) in the future. MRW7) If necessary, the City will adopt ordinances and take additional steps to address problems with MRW handling and disposal. MRW8) The City will adopt an ordinance requiring used oil signage and container sales for retailers selling significant amounts of oil and oil filters. Medium -Priority Recommendations MRW9) The City will conduct annual collection events for CESQGs until Sunshine begins providing service for businesses at their MRW facility. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan 4-1 Chapter 4: Recommendations by Green Solutions 4.2. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The proposed implementation schedule for the recommendations is shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Implementation Schedule for Recommendations Recommendation AiL 020 High Priority Recommendations MRW1) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for HHW e fer/l MRW2) Continued use of County MRW facilities MRW3) Support product stewardship programs as appropriate MRW4) Public education MRW5) Refer businesses to collection services as requested MRW6) Sunshine will consider serving CESQGs //// MRW7) City will adopt ordinances if necessary to support MRW programs r MRW8) City to adopt ordinance for used oil signage and container sales X Medium Priority Recommendations MRW9) conduct annual collection events for CESQGs X X — indicates a singular or short-term event. Shading indicates ongoing activities. 4.3. IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES The City of Spokane Valley is primarily responsible for most of the recommendations made in this MRW Plan, but that responsibility is shared with others as appropriate to the nature of the recommended activity. Implementation responsibilities for the recommended activities are summarized in Table 4-2. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan 4-2 Chapter 4: Recommendations by Green Solutions Table 4-2 Implementation Responsibilities for MRW Recommendations Recommendation , ounty Sunshine Recycling High Priority Recommendations MRW1) Encourage use of Sunshine Transfer Station for HHW X X MRW2) Continued use of County MRW facilities X MRW3) Support product stewardship programs as appropriate X MRW4) Public education X X MRW5) Refer businesses to collection services as requested X X MRW6) Sunshine will consider serving CESQGs X MRW7) City will adopt ordinances if necessary to support MRW programs X MRW8) City to adopt ordinance for used oil signage and container sales X Medium Priority Recommendations MRW9) City to conduct annual collection events for CESQGs X X — indicates primary responsibility. 0 — indicates secondary responsibility. 4.4. FUNDING STRATEGY The recommended programs will be funded through garbage rates, tipping fees, a disposal surcharge, other user fees, and State grants (CPG funds). It should be noted here that none of the recommendations in this MRW Plan require construction or other capital acquisition activities (beyond the recent modifications that Sunshine has made at the Sunshine Transfer Station), and so the costs addressed in this MRW Plan are solely for operating expenses for a variety of programs. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan 4-3 Chapter 4: Recommendations by Green Solutions 4.5. TWENTY-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE It is anticipated that programs and facilities in Spokane Valley will generally be able to stay on the course established by this MRW Plan for the next twenty years. The recently -executed contract with Sunshine will provide disposal services for at least the next ten years (with two three-year extensions possible). Hence, the twenty-year implementation strategy is much the same as the implementation details shown in the previous tables in this chapter. Changes will likely occur, however, in local, statewide and national MRW standards, and should any of these changes require an amendment or revision to this MRW Plan then the steps described in the next section can be taken to address those. 4.6. PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE PLAN The Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70.105 RCW) clearly states that local governments are not required to update or otherwise maintain their moderate -risk waste plans. Should the City, however, choose to update this MRW Plan in the future, a process similar to the development and adoption process for a new plan should be followed if the revisions being made to the MRW Plan are significant or occur more than ten years after the adoption of this plan. Updates to the MRW Plan that are needed before the initial ten-year period and/or that are relatively minor should be handled as an amendment to this MRW Plan that is approved by the City Council. For either approach, Ecology should be notified of any changes made to this MRW Plan. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan 4-4 Chapter 4: Recommendations by Green Solutions GLOSSARY The following definitions are provided for various terms used in the Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan: Biomedical waste: infectious and injurious waste originating from a medical, veterinary, or intermediate care facility, or from home use. CESQG: Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) are businesses that produce hazardous waste at rates less than 220 pounds per month or per batch (or 2.2 pounds per month or per batch of extremely hazardous waste) and accumulate less than 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste on-site (or 22 pounds of extremely hazardous waste). CPG: Coordinated Prevention Grants, a grant program administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology. EPA: the United States Environmental Protection Agency; the federal agency responsible for promulgation and enforcement of federal environmental regulations. Household hazardous waste: wastes that would be classified as hazardous due to their nature or characteristics, except that the amount is too small to be regulated and the wastes are generated by households (which are exempt). Includes aerosol cans, solvents, some paints, cleaners, pesticides, herbicides, compressed gases, oil, other petroleum products, car batteries and other materials. Moderate -risk wastes (MRW): includes household hazardous waste (see definition above) and wastes produced by businesses that potentially meet the definition of a hazardous wastes except the amount of waste produced falls below regulatory limits. MSW: municipal solid waste (see also "solid waste"). Public education: a broad effort to present and distribute informational materials. Public information: the development of educational materials for the public, including brochures, videos, and public service announcements. RCW: Revised Code of Washington. SEPA: State Environmental Policy Act. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan G-1 Glossary by Green Solutions Spokane Regional Solid Waste System: The name of the system that operated the public transfer stations and other aspects of the solid waste system through November 2014. This system was created by interlocal agreements between Spokane County and the cities in the county, and was administered by the City of Spokane. Transfer station: an intermediate solid waste disposal facility at which solid waste is temporarily deposited to await transportation to a final disposal site. WAC: Washington Administrative Code. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan G-2 Glossary by Green Solutions ATTACHMENT A ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Spokane Valley G APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION Ecology guidelines require that the potential impacts of this MRW Plan must be evaluated according to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. This checklist has been prepared to fulfill that requirement. SUMMARY The SEPA checklist prepared for this MRW Plan is intended only to address those programs specifically recommended by the MRW Plan. Any new facilities or other activities proposed subsequent to this MRW Plan will need to undergo their own SEPA review process. No negative environmental impacts are anticipated to result from the programs recommended in this MRW Plan. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-1 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions SEPA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 Community Development — Planning Division 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite 6-3 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0037 ♦ planning@spokanevalley.org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File #: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan 2. Name of applicant: Spokane Valley Public Works Department 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Eric Guth, 509-720-5000, 11707 East Sprague Ave., Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. Date checklist prepared: September 23, 2014 5. Agency requesting checklist: Washington Department of Ecology 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The recommendations contained in the Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan will be implemented primarily over the next ten years. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The permit for one of the facilities mentioned in this Plan, the Sunshine Disposal & Recycling Transfer Station, was recently modified to allow some of the proposed activities to proceed. The permit is issued by the Spokane Regional Health District and the modifications were reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of Ecology. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-2 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NA 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. This Plan must be adopted by the Spokane Valley City Council. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Recommendations are made in this MRW Plan to allow the City of Spokane Valley to maintain its own MRW program. 12. Location of the proposal. The activities described in the plan will take place primarily in the City of Spokane Valley. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? The general Sewer Service Area? Priority Sewer Service Area? Yes, the activities described in this Plan will take place in the City of Spokane Valley. 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). NA 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? NA 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. NA 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? NA Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-3 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? NA 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. NA B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): ❑ flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other Does not apply b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Does not apply c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Does not apply d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Does not apply e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. Does not apply f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Does not apply g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction? Does not apply h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Does not apply EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-4 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Does not apply b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Does not apply 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Does not apply 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Does not apply 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Does not apply 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Does not apply 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Does not apply 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-5 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Does not apply b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Does not apply 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Does not apply c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Does not apply 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Does not apply d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Does not apply 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ❑ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs ❑ grass ❑ pasture ❑ crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-6 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions Does not apply b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Does not apply c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Does not apply d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Does not apply 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Does not apply b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Does not apply c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Does not apply d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Does not apply 6) Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Does not apply b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Does not apply c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-7 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control EVALUATION FOR energy impacts, if any: AGENCY USE ONLY Does not apply 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe Does not apply 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Does not apply 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Does not apply b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Does not apply 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Does not apply 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Does not apply 8) Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Does not apply b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Does not apply c. Describe any structures on the site. Does not apply d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Does not apply Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-8 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Does not apply f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Does not apply g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Does not apply h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Does not apply i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Does not apply J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Does not apply k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Does not apply I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Does not apply 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Does not apply b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply 10) Aesthetics a.What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Does not apply EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-9 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions b.What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Does not apply 11) Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Does not apply b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Does not apply c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Does not apply d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Does not apply 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Does not apply b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Does not apply 13) Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Does not apply EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-10 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, EVALUATION FOR archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or AGENCY USE next to the site. ONLY Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Does not apply 14) Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Does not apply b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Does not apply c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Does not apply d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Does not apply e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Does not apply f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Does not apply Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts if any: Does not apply 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions A-11 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist Does not apply b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Does not apply 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ❑ electricity, ❑ natural gas, ❑water, ❑ refuse service, ❑ telephone, ❑ sanitary sewer, ❑ septic system, ❑ other — describe Does not apply b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Does not apply C. SIGNATURE EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-12 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Implementation of the proposed recommendations should help reduce the amount of water and air discharges, while increasing the proper handling of any toxic wastes that are generated in the City. There should not be an increase or reduction in noise. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not Applicable. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No impacts to plants, animals, fish and marine life are anticipated. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not Applicable. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? No changes in energy or natural resource demands are anticipated. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not Applicable. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? None of these areas will be negatively impacted by the recommendations in this Plan. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not Applicable. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No direct impacts to land or shoreline use are anticipated to result from the proposed recommendations. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are Not Applicable. Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-13 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No changes in transportation or public services and utilities demands are anticipated. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not Applicable. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No such conflicts are likely. The intent of creating this MRW Plan is to comply with various laws and requirements (especially on the state level) regarding environmental protection and other factors. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: Eric Guth Address: 11707 East Sprague, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: 509-720-5000 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Rick Hlavka, Green Solutions Address: PO Box 680, South Prairie, WA 98385 Phone: 360-897-9533 Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan A-14 Attachment A: Environmental Checklist by Green Solutions ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION Pending (this section will contain the city's resolution adopting this Plan, which will be nearly the final step of the process). Spokane Valley Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan by Green Solutions B-1 Attachment B: Resolution of Adoption Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action October 14, 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: Spokane Valley Public Safety Contract Quarterly Cost Projections (2Q Report) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: At the June 17, 2014 budget workshop a new report was presented to Council. The report compared the budget for each of our Public Safety Budgeted contracted services to our projections of actual costs for those services. The projections factor in current period Spokane Valley usage. The purpose of the report is to allow staff to investigate changing trends and to allow Council and the City Manager to gauge the financial commitment necessary to accommodate public safety needs. This report is the second report provided thus far and covers the period of usage from April -June 2014. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: John Pietro, Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: 2014 City of Spokane Valley Public Safety Contract Quarterly Cost Projections 2014 City of Spokane Valley Public Safety Contract Quarterly Cost Projections Cost Projection Table User's Guide: The City of Spokane Valley contracts for public safety services. All these services are provided by Spokane County and, therefore, these costs are not controlled by the City's budget appropriations. In most cases, the costs are not fixed. For these reasons, it is important to track the City's usage and project annual City costs for these contracts to insure that the City's budget can accommodate the associated public safety costs. These projections are guides to allow staff to investigate changing trends and project whether actual costs will be substantially different from estimated costs. These projections are also useful in helping the City Manger and City Council gauge the annual financial commitment necessary to accommodate public safety needs. Steps in Public Safety Contracting Cycle Step 1 City staff prepares Public Safety budget based upon multiple years of usage and cost trends Step 2 County provides contract estimates to City Step 3 County provides quarterly usage figures for City Step 4 City staff prepares annual cost projections, updated quarterly Step 5 City staff calculates final end -of -year cost projection Step 6 City staff calculates a liability to book and prepare an accompanying budget amendment if necessary Step 7 Spokane County staff calculates the actual contract costs for Spokane Valley and reconciles those costs to the estimated costs that were paid during the year Step 8 City staff reviews County calculations for accuracy and appropriateness of costs Step 9 If the actual costs are less than the estimated costs, a credit is issued to the City; if the actual costs are greater than the estimated costs, the City Manager authorizes payment to County for the difference This quarterly cost projection report is the result of Step 4 above. City staff has prepared cost projections based upon the most recent information available. During the course of the year, projections will incorporate the latest Spokane Valley usage statistics as the City's usage often determines how much of the total costs are charged to the City. At the end of the year, staff will also incorporate any actual cost data that is available from Spokane County into the cost projections. Table 1 on the following page displays, by contracted service, the County provided cost estimate and usage estimate, the County provided current quarter's City usage, the City staff calculated cost projection for each of the eight public safety contracts, the City budget amount, and the difference between the budget and the projection; represented either as a cost overage or a cost savings. These costs are only specific to the contracts listed and do not represent the entire Public Safety budget but they do represent the majority of that total budget. Tables 2 and 3 show in greater detail the calculations for Law Enforcement and District Court. 1 2014 City of Spokane Valley Public Safety Contract Quarterly Cost Projections Table 1. 2014 Public Safety Contract Cost Projections Incorporating 2nd Quarter Usage Statistics Contracted Service County Provided at Beginning of Year County Provided Quarterly City Calculated 2014 Spokane Valley Cost Estimate 2014 Spokane Valley Usage % Estimate 2014 Year to Date Spokane Valley Usage 2014 Spokane Valley Projected Annual Cost 2014 Spokane Valley Budgeted Difference: Cost Overage/(Cost Savings) Animal Control $ 287,081 n/a n/a $ 287,081 $ 287,081 $ - District Court $ 818,313 Refer to District Court Table $ 813,507 $ 891,304 $ (77,797) Emergency Mgmt. $ 82,542 19.06% 18.99% $ 82,237 $ 81,398 $ 839 Detention Services $ 1,464,592 4.46% 3.57% $ 1,173,982 $ 1,501,222 $ (327,240) Pretrial $ 114,812 16.91% 17.46% $ 118,494 $ 102,894 $ 15,600 Prosecutor $ 415,137 36.12% 33.83% $ 390,791 $ 406,777 $ (15,986) Public Defender $ 617,431 37.23% 33.95% $ 563,441 $ 852,965 $ (289,524) Law Enforcement $ 17,709,872 Refer to Law Enforcement Table $ 18,054,948 $ 18,144,552 $ (89,604) Total $ 21,509,779 $ 21,484,481 $ 22,268,193 $ (783,712) Notes: 1. Annual increases in Animal Control costs can increase no more than the increase in the CPI. Usage statistics are not used. There is no settle and adjust provision i.e. the estimate and the projection are the same 2. The County does not provide a District Court cost estimate at the beginning of the year. Instead, we receive estimated Cost Per Case (CPC) rates which are calculated using prior year cases and costs. These rates are then applied to our current period case totals and constitute our estimate. Until the final quarterly usage report is prepared, the total Annual District Court cost estimate in the table above is the annualized amount paid year to date and will change each quarter. This differs further from the Projected Annual Cost which involves our recalculating the estimated CPC to factor in changes to the total number of cases per case type, which is a component of the calculation of the actual CPC for the year. CPC= Case Type $'s/#of cases by case type. 2 2014 City of Spokane Valley Public Safety Contract Quarterly Cost Projections Table 2. 2014 District Court Projections Incorporating Current Usage Case Type Estimate Paid Projected Total District Court $'s Per Case Type 2013 Total All Jurisdictions Cases 2014 Cost Per Case 2014 Annualized Spokane Valley Cases YTD 2014 Annualized Spokane ValleyCost Paid Estimate 2014 Annualized Total All Jurisdictions YTD 2014 Projected Per Case 2014 Spokane Valley End of Year Projection Infraction $ 1,153,689 37,568 $ 30.71 6,828 $ 209,683 39,750 $ 29.02 $ 198,173 DUI $ 815,389 1,820 $ 448.02 284 $ 127,237 2,084 $ 391.26 $ 111,118 Criminal Traffic $ 759,300 4,862 $ 156.17 1,006 $ 157,107 4,546 $ 167.03 $ 168,028 Misd. Domestic Violence $ 396,549 850 $ 466.53 278 $ 129,695 814 $ 487.16 $ 135,431 Criminal Non -Traffic $ 501,598 1,758 $ 285.32 682 $ 194,590 1,704 $ 294.37 $ 200,757 $ 818,313 $ 813,507 Notes: 1. The "Total District Court $'s Per Case Type" use to determine the 2014 estimated Cost Per Case (CPC) rates include 2013 actual direct costs and 2012 actual indirect costs. 3 2014 City of Spokane Valley Public Safety Contract Quarterly Cost Projections Table 3. 2014 Law Enforcement Costs Projection Incorporating Current Usage 2014 Law Enforcement Contract's Cost Component / Department County Provided City Calculated 2014 Contract Estimate's Usage (Actual2012 Usage) 2014 Actual YTD Usage 2014 Estimated Annual Cost 2014 Projected Annual Cost Forensic Unit 49.63% 51.71% $ 271,100 $ 282,450 Crime Check 54.96% 53.40% $ 202,229 $ 196,471 Property Room 54.43% 63.74% $ 150,172 $ 175,862 SIRT(IncidentResponse) 45.61% 35.42% $ 18,773 $ 14,578 Radio Dispatch 45.01% 47.43% $ 798,694 $ 841,776 Records Management 53.61% 53.61% $ 655,974 $ 655,980 K9 55.45% 75.99% $ 429,367 $ 588,422 Investigative 51.98% 54.46% $ 2,428,643 $ 2,544,489 Items below are not impacted by quarterly statistics projections County Explosive Disposal 34.09% 34.09% $ 4,451 $ 4,451 Spokane Explosive Disposal 34.09% 34.09% $ 813 $ 813 Helicopter 19.04% 19.04% $ 16,935 $ 16,935 SCOPE 38.84% 38.84% $ 137,923 $ 137,923 Dedicated SV Admin 100.00% 100.00% $ 331,370 $ 331,370 Intelligence Led Policing 47.83% 47.83% $ 203,682 $ 203,682 Dedicated Officer Charge 47.17% 47.17% $ 11,614,918 $ 11,614,918 School Resource Officers 57.14% 57.14% $ 542,754 $ 542,754 Public Safety Bldg Usage Credit $ (97,926) $ (97,926) Total Projected Cost $ 17,709,872 $ 18,054,948 Notes: 1. Law Enforcement estimate excludes the two year prior S&A which is paid with booked prior year expenses 2. Explosive Disposal, Helicopter, and SCOPE usage is only available at year end 3. Dedicated SV Admininstration, Intelligence Led Policing, Dedicated Officer Charge, and SROs are allocated using Spokane Valley FTE totals that are kept constant in this projection (Spokane Valley FTE totals are only modified through Council action) 4 2014 City of Spokane Valley Public Safety Contract Quarterly Cost Projections $22,400,000 $22,200,000 $22,000,000 $21,800,000 $21,600,000 $21,400,000 2014 Public Safety Budget Contract Cost Projections $21,691,209 $21.484,481 $22,268,193 10 2Q 3Q 4Q Budget f Projected 5 2014 City of Spokane Valley Public Safety Contract Quarterly Cost Projections Additional Narrative: • Sheriff's Office deputies are negotiating a cost of living adjustment which may represent additional costs in 2014 (2014 cost impact unknown) • Spokane County is selecting a vendor to overhaul the Police dispatch and integrated record management system. The bulk of the costs will occur in 2015 but some project costs incurred this year may represent additional, unbudgeted law enforcement costs. (estimated 2014 cost impact ^'$150,000) • There is a modification to our Public Defender contract currently being drafted that would more fairly and accurately account for the time that Public Defender's office investigators spend on our cases. The existing basis is fixed at one percent of investigator salaries with no provision for actual work effort. This particular amendment would represent additional costs (estimated 2014 cost impact ^'$40,000) 6