The URL can be used to link to this page

2015, 08-18 Study Session AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday,August 18,2015 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1.Mike Jackson Council Budget Goals, Capital Reserves Discussion/Information Fund#312 2.Erik Lamb Local Improvement District(LID) Discussion/Information 3. Erik Lamb Marijuana Regulations Discussion/Information 4.Mayor Grafos Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 5. Information Only: (will not be discussed or reported): a. Bus Shelter Pads b. Citywide Safety Project#0167 6.Mayor Grafos Council Comments Discussion/Information 7.Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information 8.EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending/Potential Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) ADJOURN Study Session Agenda August 18,2015 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 18, 2015 Department Director Approval: ❑ Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Potential Capital Projects & Council Goals for 2016 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code 2.15.020; Revised Code of Washington 35A.33. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On June, 16, 2014 Council and Staff met in an all-day 2016 Budget Workshop (agenda attached). Two items on the workshop agenda were deferred until a later date; Item 13, Potential Capital Projects and Item 15, Council Goals. BACKGROUND: This is an opportunity for Council to discuss potential Capital Projects to be funded from Fund 312, Capital Reserves. Based on tonight's discussion, the City Manager will make recommendations for Fund 312 as part of the September 8th presentation of the 2016 Preliminary Budget. Similarly, Council will provide input on 2016 Council Goals for inclusion in the 2016 Budget. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus for Capital Projects as well as 2016 Council Goals. (A formal motion will occur in the future for adoption of the 2016 Budget). BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Direct correlation with preparation of the 2016 Budget. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation: Graph of Ending Fund Balance Pending/Potential Projects Worksheet 7/31/2015 2015 Council Goals 2015 Budget Workshop Agenda AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING BUDGET Workshop Tuesday, June 16, 2015 8:30 a.m.—3:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague, Spokane Valley, Washington Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting WELCOME: Mayor Grafos Worksheet Overviews—Mike Jackson/Chelsie Taylor/Mark Calhoun (See Supplemental Overview) 1. Legislative—Mike Jackson; Council 2. General Government—Mark Calhoun 3. Executive& Legislative Support—Mike Jackson 4. City Attorney/Legal Support—Cary Driskell 5. Operations&Administration Services—Mark Calhoun 6. Finance& Information Technology—Chelsie Taylor 7. Human Resources— John Whitehead 8. Public Works—Eric Guth LUNCH BREAK 12:00—12:30 (Note: Council&Staff will move to the 2nd floor conference room for lunch, and reconvene in the Council Chambers at 12:30 pin.) 9.Public Safety • Spokane Valley Police Department—Rick VanLeuven; Morgan Koudelka • Court,Jail and Other Public Safety Contracts—Morgan Koudelka; John Pietro 10. Parks and Recreation—Mike Stone 11. Community Development—John Hohman 12. Supplemental Budget Requests—Chelsie Taylor 13. Potential Capital Projects—Mike Jackson; Mark Calhoun 14. Financial Objectives—Mike Jackson 15. Council Goals—Mike Jackson BRAINSTORMING ADJOURN Note: There will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions or Workshops. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council,the Council reserves the right to take"action"on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term"action"means to deliberate,discuss,review,consider,evaluate,or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical,hearing,or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Workshop Agenda 06-16-15 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 8/11/2015 S]i 1 no General Fund Summary of Revenues,Expenditures and Fund Balance po n Actual for the years ended December 31,2004 through 2014 and the 2015 Budget Actual Budget .000 Val lei 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Ending fund balance 4,793,460 7,047,499 8,706,611 13,747,197 21,692,296 24,626,550 27,461,703 28,128,517 28,801,231 23,582,344 24,573,898 23,034,816 Ending fund balance 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 Ending fund balance 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Note: --2011 Expenditures include$1,800,719 of nonrecurring expenditures including transfer of$1,084,681 transfer to Pavement Preservation#311 and a$551,730 to Street Capital Projects Fund#303 romift------ --2012 Expenditures include$2,302,432 of nonrecurring expenditures including a$2,045,203 transfer to Pavement Preservation Fund#311. --2013 Expenditures include$7,938,294 of nonrecurring expenditures including a$7,826,207 transfer to Capital Reserve Fund#312. The intent of this transfer was bring the General Fund fund balance to approximately 50%of recurring expenditures. --2014 Expenditures include$2,884,401 of nonrecurring expenditures including a$2,443,507 transfer to Capital Reserve Fund#312. 1 Capital Reserve Fund #312 ([IV 0"kan ' Sources General Fund - 2013 7,826,207 .000\ i11ey General Fund - 2014 transfer of 2012 fund bal>50% 2,443,507 General Fund - 2015 transfer of 2013 fund bal>50% 1,783,512 Developer contribution (Library District) - 2013 3,180 Developer contribution (Library District) - 2014 4,675 12,061,081 Uses Sullivan Rd. West Bridge Replacement 2,320,000 committed Appleway Trail - University to Pines 1,452,100 committed Appleway Trail - Pines to Evergreen 256,398 committed Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan 222,075 committed Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin 587,000 committed Appleway Trail - Balfour to University 101,250 committed 261,993 completed Business route signage 21,139 completed Joint Site Design - Balfour Park/Library 57,601 completed City Hall 5,221,088 committed City Hall contingency 360,437 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation 700,000 committed Pines Road Underpass 500,000 12,061,081 �,�erence 0 2 {II1Council Goals (201 5) Spowkane 40,00Valley • Pursue a legislative capital budget request for possible financial assistance for the Barker Road Bridge Grade Separation (overpass/underpass); the Appleway Trail Project; and parkland acquisition. • Pursue the Bridging the Valley concept at State and Federal levels, including long term funding for grade separation and corridor consolidation. • Continue and expand, where possible, economic development efforts, including review and evaluation of Spokane Valley's development regulations and how they compare with other jurisdictions; and including completion of the City Hall Plan. • Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preservation program, to include sustained funding in the City's Street Fund to address concerns beyond the year 2019. • Evaluate and discuss increasing costs to public safety, including law enforcement. Seek long-term solutions to keeping costs in check while better serving the community. • Work toward completion of the Comprehensive Plan review. 3 C:\Users\cbainbridge\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\01G8M96U\potential and pending projects.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA I 8/12/2015 Pending I Potential Projects Worksheet Project Financing Estimated Grant Financed City Financed Total Potential/ Fund 001 Fund 103 Fund 310 Fund 312 Fund 3011302 Project Secured Anticipated General Paths& Civic Buildings Capital Bond Cost Grants Grants Fund Trails Capital Projects Reserve REET Financed Total Unfunded Capital Projects -Sullivan Road West Bridge replacement 15,350,000 13,030,000 0 0 0 0 2,320,000 0 0 15,350,000 0 -Balfour Park development 3,866,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,866,000 -Appleway Trail-University to Pines 1,502,100 0 0 0 50,000 0 1,452,100 0 0 1,502,100 0 -Appleway Trail-Pines to Evergreen 1,899,250 1,642,852 0 0 0 0 256,398 0 0 1,899,250 0 -Appleway Trail-Evergreen to Sullivan 1,645,000 1,422,925 0 0 0 0 222,075 0 0 1,645,000 0 -Appleway Trail-Sullivan to Corbin 2,400,000 1,813,000 0 0 0 0 587,000 0 0 2,400,000 0 -Appleway Trail-Balfour to University 750,000 0 648,750 0 0 0 101,250 0 0 750,000 0 -Phase 1-Appleway Landscaping(Dora to Park) 268,000 0 0 0 0 0 261,993 0 0 261,993 6,c07 -Phase 2&3-Appleway Landscaping(Park to University), 3,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,000,000 - 21,139 0 0 0 0 0 21,130 0 0 24,439 0 57,601 0 0 0 0 0 57,601 0 0 57-0-4 0 -City Hall 14,400,000 0 0 0 0 1,081,213 5,221,088 0 8,097,669 14,400,000 0 -City Hall-contingency 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 9 360,437 0 1,139,563 1,500,000 0 -Sewer and roads at industrial property east of Flora Rd. 10,500,000 0 2,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500,000 8,000,000 -Park land acquisition 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 I Bridging the Valley -Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation* 29,200,000 5,840,000 20,451,000 0 0 0 700,000 2,209,000 0 29,200,000 0 -Pines Road Underpass' 17,527,752 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 17,027,752 I -Pinecrott land acquisition($500,000) Railroad Quiet Zones study 85,000 0 0 85,000 0 0 0 0 0 85,000 0 Total of Capital Projects _ 104,971,842 23,748,777 23,599,750 85,000 50,000 1,081,243 12,061,081 2,209,000 9,237,232 72,072,063 32,899,759 included in 6-year TIP _----' _..- Convert City Hall Lease Payment to a Bond Payment " -Canoed annual lease payment for City Hall to an LTGO bond issue for the . construction of a City Hall(assumes the$434,600 annual lease payment --- for City Hall space is converted to a bond payment with bonds issued for 30-years at 4.50%with an issue cost of 2%) " This won't be an option for the City before April 1.2016 which is the first ____- ---opportunity the City will have to exit its'current lease. 6,940,000 , -Future bond payments(cost per$1 million issued) 62,650 • (assumes a 30-year LTGO issue at 4.50%with an issue cost of 2%) Capital Reserve Fund#312 I Sources General Fund-2013 7,826,207 General Fund-2014 transfer of 2012 fund bal>50% 2,443,507 General Fund-2015 transfer of 2013 fund bal>50% 1,783,512 Developer contribution(Library District)-2013 3,180 Developer contribution(Library District)-2014 4,675 12,061,081 Uses Sullivan Rd.West Bridge Replacement 2,320,000 committed Appleway Trail-University to Pines 1,452,100 committed Appleway Trail-Pines to Evergreen 256,398 committed Appleway Trail-Evergreen to Sullivan 222,075 committed Appleway Trail-Sullivan to Corbin 587,000 committed Appleway Trail-Balfour to University 101,250 committed 261,993 completed 21,139 completed; Future Potential Recurring General Fund Expenditures 52;603 completed -Balfour Park maintenance 211,000 City Hall 5,221,088 committed (3 acres @$15,000 each+8.3 acres @$20,000 each) City Hall contingency 360,437 , -Appleway Trail maintenance(approximately$20,000 per mile) Barker Road I BNSF Grade Separation 700,000 committed Pines to Corbin(-3 miles) 60,000 Pines Road Underpass 500,000 jiii -Appleway Landscaping maintenance(per acre estimate) 9,500 12,061,081 280,500 Difference 0 2015 08 12 RCA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 1a, 2015 Department Director Approval: O. Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑ old business G new business D public hearing 0 information 0 admin. report ❑ pending legislation Q executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Local Improvement Districts GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapters 35.43—35.56 RGW. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion of local improvements during February 17, 2015 Council Workshop. BACKGROUND: As part of the discussion regarding economic development and incentive tools during the February 17, 2015 Council Workshop, staff provided general information regarding the use of local improvement districts (`LIDS) as financing tools for capital improvement projects, especially for street and sidewalk improvements. As part of that discussion, Council requested further information on the use of LIDs by local neighborhoods to finance smaller neighborhood projects such as sidewalks. Although LIDs may be initiated by resolution of the City Council or citizen-petition initiated, based upon the nature of Council's request for more information, this report will provide greater detail only on the procedures for LIDs formed by citizen-initiated petition. Further, two example °case studies' based upon prior sidewalk improvement projects are attached to show estimated assessment costs to property owners and the City. Generally Local improvement districts { LIDs ) are a well-established means under state law (chapter 35.43 — 35.56 ROW) for cities to finance a variety of public improvements 5uch as roads and streets, sidewalks and utilities. An LID is a special assessment district established by a city pursuant to statutory procedures for the financing of public improvements, The LID process is about financing infrastructure improvements, not constructing them. Special assessments may be levied against properties specially benefitted by the improvements, and may be used to finance the improvements directly, to reimburse the city for costs of the improvements (such as through an interfund loan), or to pay debt service on bonds issued to finance the improvements, Bonds secured by such assessments may be sold at tax-exempt interest rates if certain conditions are met, typically resulting in overall lower borrowing costs from conventional market rates. In the last several years, the use of LIDS has declined in Washington due to the challenges faced in selling LID bonds, This is due in part to increased payment-security requirements from the underwriters and banks purchasing LID bonds. Special versus General Benefit LIDs are creatures of statute and thus formation, allowable uses, financing procedures, and assessment administration and collection is subject to strict compliance with the applicable RCiNs. LiDs are financing mechanisms to finance public improvement projects. One of the primary fundamental concepts behind LIDs is that public improvements may confer both general benefits to the public and special benefits to particular properties or citizens. As a gene=al rule, assessments cannot exceed the special benefit to the assessed property, as measured by its increased appraised value, resulting from the improvement (the fair market value after the special benefit compared with the fair market value before the special benefit). The rationale is that the property specially assessed receives a like amount of special benefit, and therefore those property owners do not pay anything in excess of the benefit received by the improvement. Any general benefit above the special benefit cannot be assessed against the properties in the LIDs and therefore must be paid by the City. Thus, a particular key aspect of Page 1 of 4 LID financing is that even in citizen-initiated LIDs, there is typically a general benefit to the public and associated cost that must be paid by the City. Purposes LIDs may be used to finance numerous types of public improvements. Improvements include: Streets, sidewalks, water systems, recreational, playground, museum, cultural, or arts facilities, bridges, bulkheads, dikes, sewer systems, street lighting systems, underground utilities transmission lines, water mains and hydrants, canal and ditches and related improvements, transportation systems, programs of aquatic plant control, railroad crossing protection devices (provided assessments cannot be levied against railroad owned property), and research laboratories. Process The general process for formation of an LID by petition is as follows: Petition A petition signed by a majority of property owners within a proposed LSD must be submitted to begin the LID formation process. ale Preliminary Assessment Estimates City prepares scope, cost, and estimated and preliminary assessments, and disperses information to property owners, Preliminary designs are completed during this time period. At the very least, preliminary SEPA review should be conducted during this stage to determine if there are any likely environmental issues and conditions that might require modifications to the proposed project. Method of assessment. Washington law allows local jurisdictions great flexibility in setting the method of assessment_ The method of assessment is the means in which the special benefit is calculated. The traditional method is to designate zones parallel to the improvements and ascertain the benefit on a square foot basis in each zone in proportion to the total project costs. There are specific methodologies for calculating this set forth in statute. However, if the City believes there are other methods that more fairly ascertain the special benefit, they may use such methods. These include methods based upon frontage or lot size. Allowable Costs: Costs that may be financed as part of the assessment include engineering, design, assessment analysis, administration, legal (including bond counsel fees), environmental review, surveying, right-of-way acquisition (if necessary), construction, interim financing, and permanent financing costs. Resolution of!nternt City Council adopts resolution of intent to proceed with formation of the LID. The resolution of intent includes a description of the boundaries of the proposed LID, a description of the project, preliminary assessment estimates (and thus also the amount of City contribution) and sets a hearing date for a public hearing on formation of the proposed LID. IV. Public(Hearing on Forma#ion City Council conducts a public hearing on formation of the LID. Notice of the public hearing is critical and the City must publish notice and mail individual notice of the public hearing and preliminary assessment estimates to property owners within the proposed LID, During this public hearing, public testimony is taken on whether to form the LID and proceed with the project, not on the validity or amount of assessment. Page 2 of 4 V. Formation of LILA After the public hearing, City Council may create the LID by ordinance. After formation, there is a 30 day protest period. if &0% or more of the property owners within the LID protest formation, the City loses its authority to form the LID and it cannot be created at that time. After the protest period, property owners have an additional 30 days to appeal the formation of the LID in Superior Court. VI. Interim financing and construction After formation, the City designs, bids, and awards the project pursuant to statutory bidding requirements just as it would for other public works projects. The City procures short-term financing for construction costs, which typically consists of short-term bond anticipation notes that are secured by payment from the safe of LID bonds upon completion of construction. However, the City may use any method of short-term funding such as bank loans, lines of credit, or interfund loan by the City. After financing, the project is constructed. Vii. Determination of Final Assessment Roll; Public Hearing After completion of construction, the final assessment roll is prepared based upon actual costs. The time period for repayment is set (typically 10-20 years). Notice is sent to property owners of the final assessment roll amounts payable by each owner and the City Council conducts a public hearing on the final assessment roil. At the public hearing, property owners may protest the amount of benefit their property will receive and the amount of assessment that should be paid by them. The City Council may modify the final assessment roll. Once confirmed by ordinance, the final assessment roll is transmitted to the City Finance Director for collection. Property owners may file an appeal of the assessment roll in Superior Court within 10 days of the confirmation ordinance. After the appeal period, owners may prepay part or all of the assessments during a 30-day pre-pay period. After the pre-pay period, the remaining unpaid assessments become liens on the properties within the LID. Note that the City must pay all general benefit costs that cannot be assessed to property owners, VW. Long-term financing is obtained. Once the remaining unpaid amounts from the final assessment roll are set, the City issues bonds secured by and payable from the LID assessments. Interest on LID bonds is generally tax-exempt so the bonds are less expensive than traditional commercial loans. IX. Collection of assessments and payment of bonds. The City is required to collect assessments and make payments on the bonds. Ultimately if a property owner refuses to pay an assessment, the City's remedy is to foreclose on the property to pay off the assessment amount, and the City is required to foreclose on the property. While assessments are a lien against the benefited property, assessments may be deferred indefinitely for qualified senior citizens (chapter 84.38 RON) and up to four years for economically disadvantaged property owners (RC' l 35.43150 and RCW 35. 3.250). Guaranty Fund and Reserves Underwriters and investors will almost certainly require additional security for any LID bonds in the form of either establishment of an LID guaranty fund or a reserve fund that is built into the costs of the LID bonds and assessments. LID guaranty funds are established through property taxes and are typically set in an amount of 10% of the outstanding LID bonds. Upon failure to pay assessments, the City will use funds in the guaranty fund to make bond debt service payments. However, the City must gyre-stock" the guaranty fund which must come from taxes or the City's general fund. If there are not sufficient funds in the guaranty fund, the City may be Pogo 3 of 4 required to make debt service payments from its general fund. Reserve funds are funds that are established through the LID bond sale, so they increase the cost of assessments to assessed property owners. The City may still be required to make debt service payments if all of the reserve funds are used. City LID Policies While not required by State Law, many jurisdictions adopt policies regarding the process and procedures for creating and using LIDs, These policies can include items such as minimum and maximum project costs that may be financed through LIDs, policies as to when City WI proceed based upon a citizen-initiated petition, maximum percentage of property one owner may own within an LID (e.g., LID cannot be formed when one owner owns more than 50% of the property in order to lessen risk to bondholders and City of non-payment), procedures far public participation throughout process, setting methods of assessment, types of short-term financing, and term for bonds. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. OLIaOETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A at this time, as any impacts would be project specific it an LID financing occurred. STAFF CONTACT. Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Case Study Spreadsheets Case Study Maps Presentation Page 4 of 4 Sidewallc&Transit Stop Accessibility#0149(16th to 23rd east and west sides) Total Project Cost:$480,000 Total Estimated 10-year Bonds: $ 463,594.30(assume 30%general benefit paid by City;2%issuance costs;2%reserve;5.5%interest during term of bonds) Total Estimated 20-year Bonds:$ 584,818.20 (assume 30%general benefit paid by City;2%issuance costs;2%reserve;5.5%interest during term of bonds) Annual Parcel Annual Parcel Parcel Linear Feet/Parcel* Percentage of Total linear Feet Assessment(10 year bonds) Assessment(20 year bonds) 45281.0102 87.62 3.62 $ 1,679.53 $ 1,059.35 45281.0103 90.7 3.75 $ 1,738.57 $ 1,096.59 45281.0104 93.55 3.87 $ 1,793.20 $ 1,131.05 45281.0105 89.43 3.70 $ 1,714.23 $ 1,081.24 45281.0106 94.53 3.91 $ 1,811.98 $ 1,142.90 45281.0107 108.24 4.48 $ 2,074.78 $ 1,308.66 45281.0201 2.5 0.10 $ 47.92 5 30.23 45281.0205 2.5 0.10 $ 47.92 $ 30.23 45281.0601 2.5 0.10 $ 47.92 $ 30.23 45281.0610 2.5 0.10 $ 47.92 $ 30.23 45281.0737 2.5 0.10 $ 47.92 $ 30.23 45281.0730 2.5 0.10 5 47.92 $ 30.23 45281.1601 2.5 0.10 5 47.92 $ 30.23 45281.1644 2.5 0.10 $ 47.92 $ 30.23 45272.1031 141.15 5.84 $ 2,705.61 $ 1,706.55 45272.1032 100.88 4.17 $ 1,933.70 $ 1,219.67 45272.1035 89.64 3.71 $ 1,718.25 $ 1,083.78 45272.1144 113.12 4.68 $ 2,168.32 $ 1,367.66 45272.1143 113.59 4.70 $ 2,177.33 $ 1,373.34 45272.1142 128.3 5.30 _ $ 2,459.30 $ 1,551.19 45272.1245 133.05 5.50 $ 2,550.35 $ 1,608.62 45272.2517 119.5 4.94 $ 2,290.62 $ 1,444.79 45272.2140 121.86 5.04 $ 2,335.86 $ 1,473.33 45272.2132 79.8 3.30 $ 1,529.63 $ 964.81 45272.2133 83.21 3.44 $ 1,595.00 $ 1,006.04 45272.2244 105.73 4.37 $ 2,026.67 $ 1,278.31 45272.2245 100.39 4.15 $ 1,924.31 $ 1,213.75 45272.2246 105.97 4.38 $ 2,031.27 5 1,281.21 45272.9028 298.28 12.33 5 5,717.54 $ 3,606.30 Total 2418.54 *Sidewalk feet per parcel is based upon GIS data and not a project breakdown. The total sidewalk installed was 2,425 linear feet and is greater than listed due to curved corners on corner lots. However,this analysis gives an example breakdown that is relatively close in terms of the proportion of assessment per parcel. Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility#0154(Park Rd and Montgomery Ave) Total Project Cost:$231,000 Total Estimated 10-year bonds: $ 223,104.70 (assume 30%general benefit paid by City;2%issuance costs; 2%reserve; 5.5%interest during term of bonds) Total Estimated 20-year bonds: $ 281,443.80 (assume 30%general benefit paid by City;2%issuance costs; 2% reserve; 5.5%interest during term of bonds) Annual Parcel Annual Parcel Parcel Linear Feet/Parcel* Percentage of Total Linear Feet Assessment(10 year bonds) Assessment(20 year bonds) 35244.0101 171.2 10.40 $ 2,320.22 $ 1,463.47 35244.0118 176.4 10.72 $ 2,390.70 $ 1,507.92 35244.0829 120.7 7.33 $ 1,635.81 $ 1,031.78 35244.0830 61.2 3.72 $ . 829.43 $ 523.16 35244.0821 179.5 10.90 $ 2,432.71 $ 1,534.42 35244.0901 177.1 10.76 $ 2,400.18 $ 1,513.90 35244.0917 177.8 10.80 $ 2,409.67 $ 1,519,89 35244.1501 206.9 12.57 $ 2,804.06 $ 1,768.64 35244.1605 175.4 10.65 $ 2,377.15 $ 1,499.37 35244.9043 200.00 12.15 $ 2,710.54 $ 1,709.66 Total 1646.2 *Sidewalk feet per parcel is based upon GIS data and not a project breakdown. The total sidewalk installed was 1,650 linear feet and is greater than listed due to curved corners on corner lots. However,this analysis gives an example breakdown that is relatively close in terms of the proportion of assessment per parcel. SIDEWALK INFILL .BROADWAY u.)yy-- x F �_ 7 - • i 94 SPRAGUE • 94 a� 94 SPRAGUE 4TH E • .4TH LEGEND . 94 96 8TH TRANSIT ROUTE AND 1 . . '.s rte'-s.oms • s• -s •s �� 8 �� s s r�e� ■ m: ROUT .v, — — — — — 1 (PHASE 1) 121 • tun s a ammo,* s aa+ai o s araors s — :SRI0IODDUEUETINWAALLN:KIIIINENBF5FEIILLRLL 12TH PHE M• 11 -PHASE 1 '� a� +s�� ' d 16TH• ATTENDANCE AREA \•y 96, '16TH " • • s �" i,f.,,,,,,1/4 , . mums s sit sso..e DOWOPSH MIDDLE r 12..• ATTENDANCE AREA , '.1•0 �v.�T EI ,c�� `l +� 20TH TRANSIT SHELTER LEY ARY .: I �j LOCATION • \ . • . , 20TH ■■ 1 I a {PHASE 2) • I BOWOISM. 1 1 ' 1 HIGH DENSITY $ Miti.. LE SCH•Odf '•� L J: 27TH HOUSING 97 24TH . PRI:VA'I 97 k SCI�QOL a e i 97 e s \ s x •e 32ND SjÔIZ 'lla 32ND r.rs s.we' r.- r■o+r "ma ,w�K. ,�.� eMamre m m a Ms > r . �rt+ rserm:smrs� sa eewr.+�m Valley t- SITY UNIVER440001F HIGH SCHOOL ' I I II 4.1.rml 4 1 / / 4 lj } , I iI rITT; • , { f ( I awwl I • i }j 1 I MAW. 1 .• 1- I j ^444 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 , ii 7 —TI 1 v., �� I w 1 i 2 1 NM F 1 iONAVE, 1 I ! \'a 11 . IrN • t 1 r' 1 I L----- 1 I '. { f a ii AVE • i / P II' 1 mIar. 2 Iv I illf f2�JfAVE. = I i ,c:/r'----,..., .1 I 2.11:1-1 I : . ___ II . ( ili I LEGEND I FMK Ra-six TO 1211-1 sronviALK SURVEY+.l0 1 t5. PROPOSE0 PLAN Seat LK tral1LE 1'.70G' - pp nt - Erik Lank De•uL .Ci Attorney f backg r unR Council request additional information on potential use of citizen-initiated petitions to use local improvement districts to fund neighborhood improvements Focus solely on petition method City ar Syrak.al i e'4Fal l ck-Of ict i r f the Ci Ly A Ltn m ey 1 Generally :e LIDS are solely a financing tool (not an engineering tool) Used to finance a variety of public improvements through a special assessment on those properties that directly benefit from the improvements Typically bonds payable from the special assessments are used as the source of financing the project. LID use has declined in Washington in recent years e e e i5f ii': c i'el• -57-pedal versus General Benefit Public improvements may confer both a general benefit (to the general public) and a special benefit (direct to property owner) Washington Law Assessments may not exceed the special benefit to the property Amount of special benefits is generally considered the difference in fair market value of property after the special benefits attached (i.e., after improvements) and the fair market value of the property before the benefits have attached City ofSpkwe 1 IkEv-Office ache Ci.cy Aittarney .1 2 at versus General Benefit cont. Property that is not specially benefitted may not be assessed Assessments must be proportionate to one another City must payfor any general benefit (any costs above the special benet) Method of Assessment City has great flexibility Types include fair market value consideration, zone and termini, frontage basis or lot basis City of Spok.aFiE'veil _(N.;4ti r,f thi CI Ly Atm;:lel. Improvements include: Streets, sidewalks, transportation systems Water systems, sewer systems, street lighting systems, underground utilities transmission lines, water mains and hydrants, canal and ditches and related improvements Recreational, playground, museum, cultural, or arts facilities Bridges, bulkheads, dikes, programs of aquatic plant control Railroad crossing protection devices (provided assessments cannot be levied-against railroad owned property), and research laboratories. CiL}Qi Spok�� VA!fey-office o'she Ckry Artoriw 3 Irby S "" -- - �_ "�-�-+ � -_�—a-• ,. . • I. Petition Must be signed by majority of owners within proposed LID II. Preliminary Assessment Estimates Scope, costs, preliminary designs, SEPA Allowable Costs? Engineering, design, assessment analysis, administration, legal (including bond counsel fees), environmental review, surveying, right-of=-way acquisition, construction, interim financing costs, permanent financing costs (it, r,F NA-ar, vol!_6 a the Ci{y Antal ile• process cant . III. Resolution of Intent Boundaries, description of project, preliminary assessment estimates, and sets hearing date for public hearing on formation of proposed LID IV. Public Hearing on Formation Notice is critical - established statutory requirements including mailing preliminary assessment estimates to property owners Public testimony on formation only Not a hearing on assessments amounts at this time city ofSpokane Valley -Office atile City Attorney 4 _ _ cont . V. Formation of LID Formation ordinance passed 3o day protest period Additional 30 day appeal period (so total of 6o days after formation before any further action may taken) VI. Interim Financing and Construction Construction financed through interim measure City funds, short-term bond anticipation notes, bank loans, interfund loans, etc. Construction bid out under statutory bidding requirements and completed ti'ilr ,i 4 VV,,l In. Office uFChe Cita Atcnrtne} cA r'r: , VII. Final Assessment Roll Final assessment roll is prepared based upon actual costs ▪ Some estimates based upon anticipated bond issuance amount and bond issue costs Public hearing on final assessment roll amounts • Quasi-judicial hearing • Challenges only to special benefit/amount of assessment, not validity of LID Confirmed by City Council and transmitted to City Finance Director for collection Property owners may appeal within io days 30 day pre-pay period Assessments become liens on the properties within the LID City orSptrkatae Valley-Dflice of the City Atttaraey ao 5 _ - - - - ___ ______ _________------------7---- -- cont . VIII. Long term financing City issues bonds to pay for all costs Bonds are secured by and payable from LID assessments Interest on bonds is generally tax-exempt so the bonds are less expensive than traditional commercial loans IX. Collection of assessments and payment of bonds City collects assessments and makes debt service payment on bonds. Failure to pay assessment? Foreclosure t.r1) ,;S,lul,a4letallr,g•-CItticec;ftilt City AILoi hle ' ition l Bond Security? Additional security is nearly always required ' Guaranty fund From property tax From reserves generated from assessments Typically 5-10% of outstanding bonds If guaranty fund is used up, City may be required to pay from general funds c iry at Spokane Valley-Oifece of she City AezurRey - - -- --- City LID Policies Assist in setting parameters for use of LIDS Examples include minimum and maximum project costs, policies as to when City will proceed with citizen-initiated petition, maximum percentage of property any owner may own within LID, methods of assessment, types of short-term financing, and term for bonds cit.cel Spa 1°aiiay°=°I k of the City Art. ev -.-, -_ _--- �� — Case Studies Sidewalk & Transit Stop Accessibility #0154 (Park and Montgomery) Sidewalk Infill - Phase I #0i.49 (16th to 23rd (east and west sides)) orSpa,mite Palle'-Office of thedity-Attorney '•I 7 Studies cont.-- #01 Total project cost: $231,000 9 parcels with sidewalk frontage Total estimated assessment (assume 30% general benefit and City contribution; 2% issuance costs; 2% reserve; 5.5% bond interest) 10 year bonds: $2.23,104.70 20 year bonds: $281,443.80 Range of annual assessments io year bonds: $829.43 - $2,804.06 20 year bonds: $523.16 - $1,768.64 i:iasnrfi� l; ncVaaley-Officer,ftinCii-Att rre% w,- Stuciies cont. #01-49- Total project cost: $480,000 .1 parcels with sidewalk frontage + 8 parcels with ramp improvements Total estimated assessment (assume 30% general benefit and City contribution; 2% issuance costs; 2% reserve; 5.5 'a bond interest) io year bonds: $463,594.30 20 year bonds: $584,818.20 Range of annual assessments 10 year bonds: $47.92 -- $5,717.54 20 year bonds: $30.23 - $3,606.30 Cay of SvokaL e -Office of the City Alsoune) 1,1 8 Questions ? Any questions? Ciry o#`Spokane Valle}-Ohio:of the City Arra9ney 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 18, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Marijuana Regulations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 69.50 (Initiative 502 has been codified as RCW 69.50) and WAC 314-55; RCW 69.51A (governing medical marijuana); Second Substitute Senate Bill 5052 (Cannabis Patient Protection Act); Second Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2136; SVMC 19.85 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council adopted regulations governing locations and buffers for recreational marijuana on July 22, 2014. Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses on December 9, 2014. BACKGROUND: The City Council previously adopted permanent regulations governing the zoning and locating of recreational marijuana on July 22, 2014. Specifically, these regulations are set forth in SVMC 19.85 and provide: - State Licensed Marijuana Production is a permitted use in Heavy Industrial and Light Industrial zones, and indoor growing only is permitted in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones. - State Licensed Marijuana Processing is a permitted use in the Heavy Industrial and Light Industrial zones, and packaging and labeling of useable marijuana only is permitted in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones. - Both Production and Processing uses may not be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, and vacant school property. Production and Processing may be located within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail, provided that it is in the appropriate zone (there are few Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail). - State Licensed Marijuana Sales are permitted in the Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Community Commercial zones. - Licensed retail sales may not be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, vacant school property, the Appleway Trail, and the Centennial Trail. City staff is recommending the following proposals to amend the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to address the changes adopted with the passage of the Cannabis Patient Protection Act (SB 5052) and HB 2136 during the 2015 Legislative Session: - Modify definition of "Marijuana Sales" to include licensed retailers that receive a medical marijuana endorsement. This will treat all recreational and medical retail sales the same under the City's land use regulations, including for zoning and buffer requirements. - Recommend no changes to the zoning or buffer requirements set forth above that are currently in effect. - Prohibit cooperatives within the City of Spokane Valley. Cooperatives may have up to 60 plants, but are required to be located in a domicile, and staff believes that a 60-plant grow operation is not appropriate in the residential zones of the City given the access to licensed retail shops within the City and surrounding areas. - Allow qualified patients and designated providers that wish to grow plants to do so only in single family residential zones, and require that any home-growing be done in an enclosed structure (e.g., greenhouse or shop) that is opaque and site-screened from the right-of-way. Further, staff recommends that the City require qualified patients and designated providers to work with the City to ensure receipt of proper building permits for any structures that are constructed or modifications that are made to a residence (such as electrical or ventilation modifications). This may take the form of a license or a requirement in the SVMC. Any permit or license would specify that compliance with the City's building code does not render any particular use a lawful use and the applicant must still comply with all state and federal laws. Staff is planning to prepare these proposals for Planning Commission review beginning in early September, 2015, with a recommendation forwarded to City Council for its consideration by late- October, 2015. Under this schedule, staff does not believe it will be necessary to extend the ongoing moratorium, which expires at 11:59 pm on December 8, 2015. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director ATTACHMENTS: N/A DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of August 13,2015; 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 August 25,2015,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Aug 17] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2016 Budget Revenues,including Property Taxes—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes,motion to set Sept 22 Budget Hearing) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-015 Adopting Mining Findings—Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Citywide Safety Project#0167— Steve Worley (10 minutes) 5.Mayoral Appointment: Lodging Tax Member—Mayor Grafos (5 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Spokane County Library District Update— Sheree West and Diane Brown (15 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Legislative Update—Briahna Taylor,Alex Soldano (30 minutes) 8.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 9. Info Only: Dept. Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 100 minutes] September 1,2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Aug 24] 1. Outside Agency Presentations (Economic Development, & Social Service; 5 minutes each) (-90 minutes) 2. Property Tax—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 3. LED Lights—Eric Guth (15 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 125 minutes] September 8,2015,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Aug 31] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: City Manager Presentation of 2016 Preliminary Budget—Mike Jackson (30 minutes) 3. Traffic Detection Equipment— Sean Messner (20 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] September 15,2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 7] 1. Historic Preservation—Gloria Mantz (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) September 22,2015,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 14] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2016 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 2.First Reading Property Tax Ordinance—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Grant Allocations—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 4.Admin Report: 2015 Budget Amendment—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: Dept.Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 80 minutes] September 29,2015, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 21 1.Advance Agenda October 6,2015,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 28] 1.Advance Agenda October 13,2015,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 5]] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2015 Budget Amendment— Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Property Tax Ordinance —Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 4.First Reading Ordinance Adopting 2016 Budget— Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 8/13/2015 3:58:55 PM Page 1 of 2 5.First Reading Ordinance Amending 2015 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) October 20,2015, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 12] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) October 27,2015,Formal Meetin2 Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 19] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Adopting 2016 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance Amending 2015 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 5. Info Only: Dept.Monthly Reports November 3, 2015,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 26] 1.Fee Resolution for 2016—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) November 10, 2015,Formal Meetin2 Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 2] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Lodging Tax Advisory Cmte (LTAC)Recommended Allocations—Mark Calhoun(25 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) November 17,2015, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 9] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) November 24,2015—no meeting(Thanksgiving week) December 1,2015, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 23] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) December 8,2015,Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 30] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Proposed Fee Resolution for 2106—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: LTAC Allocations—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) December 15 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 7] December 22,2015—no meeting December 29,2015, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 21] January 5,2016,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 28] 1. Council Officer Elections for Mayor and Deputy Mayor—Chris Bainbridge (15 minutes) *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Appts(either Dec 29 or Jan 12)— 3 Planning Comm Public Safety Quarterly Costs Appointments(either Dec 29 of Jan 12) -2 LTAC Sidewalks and Development Appts: Various Committees(Dec 29 or Jan 12) SRTMC Interlocal Agreement(prior to end of year) Avista Electrical Franchise(2nd read Ord 15-011) Sullivan Park,nearby property for sale Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Detection Equipment(loops vs cameras) False Alarm Program Used Oil Signage Ordinance Hauling Uncovered Loads Draft Advance Agenda 8/13/2015 3:58:55 PM Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 18, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing ® information [' admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Bus Stop Enhancement Plan PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report on City's bus stop plan, June 23, 2015. BACKGROUND: Following the discussion with Council on June 23rd, staff met with Spokane Transit Authority (STA) to discuss how we could partner to address bus stop enhancements needed in our City. Specifically, we let them know it is the Council's desire to install additional bus shelters throughout the City. We discussed which stops qualify for a shelter based upon STA criteria. We also reviewed each of these stops and developed a short-term priority list based upon ridership, location and cost. Finally we discussed funding and how these stops could be funded through both entities participating, and take advantage of any grant opportunities. In reviewing the 23 stops that warrant a shelter, STA and City staff developed a short- term priority list as follows: Sprague at University (westbound) Sprague at Custer (westbound) Sprague at Havana (westbound) Westbound Indiana just east of Pines Road Sprague at Pines (westbound) In speaking with STA they acknowledged that they likely wouldn't be able to improve all these stops next year due to various budget and program constraints, but this would provide a priority list moving forward and in the event funding is available. The STA Board is considering approving a modest request to increase funding for bus stop improvements in their Capital Improvement Program. If this increase is approved, it would allow for more bus stop improvements throughout the system. Additionally, we discussed, reviewing our TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan) with STA staff to identify opportunities for integrating transit stop improvements into planned transportation projects. We are currently performing that review. We will also pursue partnering with WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) to include bus stop improvements on Trent Avenue as part of their preservation project scheduled for 2017. WSDOT is planning to improve Trent from Mission to Sullivan, which could provide an opportunity to partner with WSDOT to install bus shelter pads as part of this project, and then STA could install shelter at a later time. Staff will continue to develop this plan in conjunction with STA staff. As we complete the list of short-term priority locations, we will develop the next priority locations. STA staff have committed to integrating these improvement efforts into their current investment framework for bus stop improvements over the next several years. We will also make it part of the plan to take advantage of paving projects and partnering opportunities with other agencies such as WSDOT when applicable. Currently we do not have a funding mechanism for these improvements, but we will continue to seek grants and partnering opportunities with other public agencies. As we further develop this plan and design some of the higher priority bus stop improvements, staff will bring that information forward for Council consideration of funding options. OPTIONS: Information RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: List of Bus Stops Qualifying for Shelters Stoped IvrNum StopAbbr StopName Shelter Boardings Alightings ROW Comments 2210 3209 VTC Valley Transit Center 1409 1099 Transit Center 1804 2803 MIRABEAW Mirabeau Point Park&Ride 422 443 Transit Center 1990 2989 SPRHAVWN Sprague @ Havana 101 89 Private UPRR,Requires lease w/payment to UPRR at amount to be determined 1969 2968 SPRFARWF Sprague @ Farr(Winco) 100 34 Shelter Installed Fall 2014 1988 2987 SPRCUSWC Sprague @ Custer 97 28 Private 1965 2964 SPRUNIWF Sprague @ University 92 3 Public Slope rises above bus stop 2190 3189 HAVSPRNN Havana @ Sprague 91 45 Private McDonalds 2981 3980 LEAVVTC Leave @ Valley Transit Center 80 0 Transit Center 3010 4009 IN12410W Indiana @ E.12410 Sounds on Wheels 56 13 Public site lacks ADA access/sidewalks 1971 2970 SPRMULWF Sprague @ Mullan 47 12 Shelter Installed Fall 2014 1981 2980 SPRTHEWN Sprague @ Thierman 47 19 Private Adjacent owner has asked repeatedly to have stop removed 2744 3743 MOTARGEF Montgomery @ Argonne 44 23 Private 1959 2958 SPRPINWF Sprague @ Pines 44 23 Private 1947 2946 SPRSULWF Sprague @ Sullivan 39 17 Private 1894 2893 SPRPINEF Sprague @ Pines 36 44 Private 2945 3944 MANPINWF Mansfield @ Pines 35 13 Private Stop proposed to be relocated west,shelter pad provided by owner 1906 2905 SULSPNF Sullivan @ Sprague 32 26 Private 1868 2867 SPRCUSEN Sprague @ Custer 30 101 Private 1885 2884 APPFAREN Appleway @ Farr(Winco) 28 101 Shelter Installed Fall 2014 2401 3400 BLACKANW Indiana @ Valley Mall(Black Angus) 28 8 1888 2887 SPRUNIEF Sprague @ University 28 2 Public Central Valley School District 2978 3977 ARGMONSM Argonne @ Montgomery 27 0 Private 3138 4137 BROELLWN Broadway @ Ella 27 6 Private 3219 4218 PINBROSN Pines @ Broadway 27 11 Private 1956 2955 SPRMCDWN Sprague @ McDonald 27 7 Public Verify ROW 1986 2985 COSTCOW Sprague @ Light Entrance to Costco 26 13 Private 2886 3885 MANPINEN Manfield @ Pines 26 38 Private Routing anticpated to change,stop may move farside 1950 2949 SPRADAWF Sprague @ Adams 26 0 Private Site may have portion of public ROW 2399 3398 INDHANWN Indiana @ Hanson Cntr Signal Light 25 10 Private 1870 2869 SPRCAREF Sprague @ Carnahan 25 35 1916 2915 SPRSULEF Sprague @ Sullivan 25 66 Private CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 18, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Citywide Safety Program Project#0167 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 3.35.10 — Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Info memo on 2014 City Safety Program Call for Projects, June 10, 2014; Admin report on 2014 City Safety Program Call for Projects, June 24, 2014; Adoption of the 2015-2020 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) on June 24, 2014 (Resolution #14-006) which included this project; Motion for consideration on 2014 City Safety Program Call for Projects, July 8, 2014; Adoption of the 2016-2021 Six Year TIP on June 23, 2015, Resolution #15-005. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley was successful in receiving a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant for design and construction of citywide safety improvements. The citywide safety project was split into two categories: local forces work and publically bid work. The local forces work includes upgrading regulatory and warning signs, upgrading pedestrian indicators at traffic signals, and installing bike route signing. The publically bid work includes the installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at the intersections of Valleyway/Argonne, Valleyway/Mullan, Indiana/Twigs entrance, and 32nd Avenue/Collins. The RRFB construction was publically advertised on July 31, 2015, and bids are scheduled to be opened on August 21, 2015. Once the bids are open and the results are tabulated, staff will identify the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Staff will present a motion for an award of the contract at the August 25, 2015 formal Council meeting. OPTIONS: Information Only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information Only. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The project budget is $503,424. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant covers $400,000 and the City's local share is $103,424, of which will be paid by Fund 302. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Map INDIANA SITE 2 w L6i tel Lai 7" �. WELL a EY o I ll SPOKANE RIVET r K ANA% co I _I' I EU[tI I EUCLID 5 i "do 4..i.. ti-- _. .. '1 r_ iii z 6000 A+": . . yID1e ' I I P NE COM LAITY � .S I►ns rl `� • .� INSSI 'COLLEGE —" r__...,.._ " X{ 5+x1 ' #— a I p r e waw "` I _ :R.„� I i BIfibA61i Y t , J ctgi,VALLE ' AY i IVALLE ViiiAV t WDM ..-y N' I LIBERTY �_ -- r . #Tli --- w ;J 4TH I I I LADE 7 «iH = u RT II I rEIREMOISIKE' 'l li I . ' r 16Th — _ 1._ 4:+■= J VI g . ay +ryy8 . ' EC 11 1LLE�A' a �— `TEz. \\:\ip..\\L iii SP it j g � a�TM r 32ND SITE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 18, 2015 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Potential Litigation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)] PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I move that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss potential litigation, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: City Attorney Cary Driskell ATTACHMENTS: