The URL can be used to link to this page

2016, 03-15 Special Meeting, Spring Workshop AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP Tuesday,March 15,2016 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague, Spokane Valley,Washington Please Silence Your Cell Phones during the Meeting WELCOME: Mayor Higgins ROLL CALL: Overview: Discussion Topics—Mark Calhoun Information Items • 2016 Work Plan • 2016 Business Plan(under separate cover) 1. Legislative Update(30 min.)Briahna Murray 2. Continue to work with state and federal legislators for possible financial assistance for the Barker Road Bridge Grade Separation.(30 min.)Eric Guth,Mark Calhoun A. 2016 TIGER&2016 FAST(Guth) B. Potential and Pending Projects(Calhoun) 3. Develop a strategic plan for funding and completion of all grade separation projects. (Including other funding priorities for the City).(30 min.)Mark Calhoun, Chelsie Taylor,Erik Lamb A. Sales tax and Property Tax Implications(Taylor) B. Banked Capacity(Taylor) C. Developer Contributions—impact fees,LIDs,etc. (Lamb) D. REET Funds(Taylor) E. Utility Taxes—Capacity(Taylor) 4. Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Pavement Preservation program to include sustained funding in both the Street Operating Fund#101 and Pavement Preservation Fund#311 to address concerns beyond the year 2020. (30 min.)Eric Guth, Chelsie Taylor A. 2016 Street Preservation Plan(Guth) i. Delta to maintain desired condition(Guth) ii. Pavement Preservation Fund#311 Forecast(Taylor) iii. Street Fund#101 Forecast(Taylor) iv. Options(Guth,Taylor) a. Maintain Status Quo-discussion and no handout b. Transportation Benefit District-Tab Fees 5. Continue and expand,where possible economic development efforts,including construction of the new City Hall.Complete retail and tourism studies,develop and implement strategies. (45 min.)John Hohman A. Economic Development Initiatives i. Economic Development Marketing Project ii. Retail iii. Tourism iv. Facility Specific-Plante's Ferry Improvements&Liberty Lake Ballfields(Calhoun) v. Comprehensive Plan B. Economic Development Infrastructure Plan. Workshop Agenda 03-15-16 Page 1 of 2 6. 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.(3.5 hours) A. Law Enforcement-Morgan Koudelka,John Pietro, Cary Driskell, Chief Van Leuven,Lt.Matt Lyons i. Review existing contract. a. Term and Renewal(four years)—Contract Section#4.1 (Koudelka). b. Process for Termination(minimum 18 months) —Contract Section#4.2(Koudelka) c. Transition—Contract Section#4.3(Koudelka) d. Community Identity—Contract Section#12(Koudelka,Pietro) e. Independent Contractor Relationship-Contract Section#15 (Driskell) f. Modification to contract—Contract Section#34 • Only by mutual agreement but at any time(Driskell) • Dedicated officer numbers can be modified by City-only decision(Koudelka) ii. Uniforms—Purchase new Spokane Valley Uniforms(Van Leuven) • Cost and other considerations iii. Patrol Vehicles(Van Leuven) • Repaint used vehicles-cost estimate(Van Leuven) • Marked and Unmarked Cars Discussion iv. Update on Power Shift,addition of officers and staffing levels(Lyons) LUNCH BREAK 12:30—1:00 (Note: Council&Staff moves to a separate room for lunch.Reconvene in Council Chambers) v. Recruitment(Van Leuven,Lyons) vi. Accountability documentation of Spokane Valley law enforcement personnel(Van Leuven) a. Roll-Call,Mark-ups&Schedules b. Vehicles outside City limits;Take-home vehicles vii. Cost saving strategies(no handout)— (Van Leuven) viii. SV Police Commissioned Officers by function(Koudelka) ix. SV Police costs by function(Koudelka) x. Law Enforcement comparison to other cities(Koudelka,Pietro) xi. City growth and Calls for Service trends(Koudelka) B. Public Safety Services(Koudelka) i. Public Safety historical trends,challenges,cost control measures ii. Public Safety cost comparison a. Comparable cities b. Compared to average iii. Revenue comparison a. Spokane to Spokane Valley b. Specific revenue sources 7. Work toward completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. (10 min.)John Hohman 8. 2017 Budget Calendar(10 min.)Mark Calhoun, Chelsie Taylor 9. Council Brainstorming Workshop Agenda 03-15-16 Page 2 of 2 Sö1ane Valle Y _ :;..; Annual Work Plan for 2016 2016 Budget Goals Including Tasks & Timeline and Department Objectives Executive &Legislative Support Operations &Administrative Services Community &Economic Development Public Works Parks &Recreation Public Safety/Police 2016 Work Plan Table of Contents 2016 Budget Goals 1 Department Objectives Finance 2 Deputy City Manager 4 Community & Economic Development 6 Public Works 7 Parks & Recreation 12 Public Safety 16 2016 Budget Goals The 2016 budget reflects the distribution of resources consistent with the Council's determination of core services priorities. The following goals, listed in no particular order of priority, represent broad areas of concentration important to the well-being of the community. The City Manager works with the departments to ensure necessary resources are available and to ensure development and execution of the work plan toward achievement of the goals. 1. Continue to work with state and federal legislators for possible financial assistance for the Barker Road Grade Separation. 2. Develop a strategic plan for funding and completion of all grade separation projects. 3. Continue and expand, where possible, economic development efforts, including construction of the new City Hall. Complete retail and tourism studies, develop and implement strategies. 4. Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preservation program, to include sustained funding in the City's Street Fund #311 to address concerns beyond the year 2020. 5. Evaluate and discuss increasing costs to public safety, including law enforcement. Seek long-term solutions to keepings costs in check while better serving the community. 6. Work toward completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. Department Objectives Executive & Legislative Services Ql 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Finance Division Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Close the 2015 books and prepare the related annual financial report with a CAFR opinion which will allow 4 • the City to issue an annual report under our own cover. 2. Successfully undergo an annual audit conducted by the State Auditor's Office and receive a clean opinion. • 3. Implement additional State Auditor suggestions and • IIIIimprove financial statement process and accuracy. 4. Coordinate 2017 Budget Development process • 5. In conjunction with the City's Deputy City Manager and Legal Departments,work with a financial advisor and bond underwriter towards the issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds,the proceeds of which will be used towards the construction of a new City Hall building. 2015 Complete the 2016 Budget development process,2015 Budget amendment,property tax ordinance,fee COMPLETED resolution,outside agency funding process and lodg- ing tax award process. 2015 Close the 2014 books and prepare the related annual financial report with a CAFR opinion which will allow COMPLETED the City to issue an annual report under our own cover. 2 Department Objectives Executive & Legislative Services Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Information Technology Jan Feb Mar A r May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Complete the third and final phase of a network switch replacement project. 2. Update cash register system at each of the three City swimming pools. • • 3. Install Eden/Laserfiche System that will allow Finance Staff to scan expense voucher information into Laserfiche resulting in the ability to view check,in- 0 voice,purchase order,and quote information electron- ically. 4. Replace approximately 30 desktop computers that will reach the end of their life cycle. 5. Replace storage area network(SAN)device at Center Place. • 0 6. Continue process of acquiring and deploying IP phones throughout City. • 0 7. Continue process of virtualizing physical servers using VMware. • 0 8. Plan for a seamless transfer of technology including computer network,desktop computers,phone system, • 0 TV studio(to record Council meetings)and Council Chambers. 2015 Replace 30 leased computer workstations that will reach the end of their life cycle. COMPLETED 2015 Complete phase 1 and 2 of a network switch replacement program. COMPLETED 3 Department Objectives Operations & Administrative Services Deputy City Manager Q12016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Division Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J 1. Provide support to Administration in the advancement and completion of Council Goals. 4 • 2. 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(2015 Goal). 3. Evaluate Public Defender service,identifying the most efficient way to accommodate caseload • • standards. 4. Establish benchmarks and implement performance measures specific to recent implementation of • • staffing analysis recommendations. 5. Evaluate Public Safety contracts and agreements • • 6. In conjunction with the Finance and Legal Departments,work with a financial advisor and bond underwriter to towards the issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds,the proceeds of which will • be used towards the construction of a new City Hall building. 7. Coordinate efforts of the City Hall construction team. • 2015 Develop and implement methodology to account for COMPLETED Public Defender investigative standards. 2015 Work with staff to complete the move of the Finance COMPLETED Department and Permit Center to new location in the main building. 4 Department Objectives Operations & Administrative Services, continued Deputy City Manager Division Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Public Information Office Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Provide public information as necessary in support of the Council goal to pursue legislative financial assis- • • tance for the Barker Road Bridge Grade Separation. 2. Continue public information support that informs and engages the public for Sullivan Bridge Replacement • • (continued from 2015). 3. Send four quarterly full-city mailers of HotTopics • • newsletter. 4. Assist Public Works with implementation of CPG grant-funded activities,public information outreach, • • and budgeting/reporting. 5. Provide Community Development with public information support as needed for Economic Devel- opment efforts,including construction of the new City Hall. (Council goal) 6. Work toward expanding public information services • using video capabilities. • 2015 Provide public information support for Council goals COMPLETED to pursue a legislative capital budget request or other grant/funding for the Appleway Trail project,City Hall,parkland acquisition,the Barker Road grade separation,and other major projects to be identified. (Council Goal). Ql 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Human Resources Division Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Enhance Wellness Program for the City (ONGOING) • • 2. Evaluate the City's Labor and Industries'programs to reduce labor costs • • 3. Continue to refine the City's Mobile App to market the City's attributes (ONGOING) • • 2015 Successfully negotiate a successor labor agreement Completed that continues to reward employees for high levels of performance and supports the City's financial goals. 5 Department Objectives Community & Economic Development Community & Economic Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Development Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Comprehensive Plan Update • a. Update Comprehensive Plan • b. Update development regulations • • c. Complete EIS • 2. Manage Design process for City Hall • 3. Economic Development • a. Implement retail recruitment strategy • b. Business recruitment and retention • c. Develop tourism program • d. Develop a marketing plan 4 • e. Continue to expand Express Permitting • f. Maintain efficient permitting process • g. Collaborate with economic development partners 4 • h. Expand civic and event opportunities • • 4. Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments • 5. Complete Floodplain restudies • 6. Develop GIS content, standards and workflows • • 7. Regional partnering for consistent permitting and in- • spection standards 8. Records management and retention • 9. Coordinate in completing and implementing a regional • • special inspection and fabricator process 6 Department Objectives Public Works Administration Q12016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 u u Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec . . 1. Continue to work with State and Federal legislators for possible financial assistance for the Barker Road • Grade Separation. (Council Goal) 2. Develop a strategic plan for funding and completion of all grade separation projects. (Council Goal) • 3. Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preservation program,to include funding • • beyond the year 2020. (Council Goal) 4. Develop 2017 annual PW budget to provide all neces- sary services and programs within the parameters set • • by the budget team and City Council. 5. Provide Construction Management for new City Hall 4 • 6. Manage the Solid Waste Program.Develop a RFP to solicit future collection services. • 7. Continue to engage in the discussion surrounding Oil and Coal Train impacts to the Valley,region and the • • State. 8. Develop a maintenance program for traffic signal components to address aging infrastructure.Devise a • financial plan to address these needs and incorporate Ali into the budget. 7 Department Objectives Public Works �rtoymwatey, Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 ►J Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Update six-year Stormwater Capital Improvement • 0 Plan(2017-2022) orlow Renew and manage contracts with private contractors for Stormwater maintenance services(street sweeping, 4 0 landscape and storm drain cleaning) 3. 2016 Small Works Projects • 4. Lead the EW Stormwater Effectiveness Studies Project on behalf of Eastern Washington Communities 4 • and Counties- (Phases 2&3) 5. Complete design for the Sprague LID Project 0 6. Continue to implement the Ecology Phase II 0 Stormwater permit 7. Continue development and document the City's • stormwater inspection program 8. Complete stormwater assessment rolls—update commercial impervious surfaces map for 1/5 of com- mercial �rr�rr�rr�rr�rr�rr�rr�rr�rr�� parcels for 2017 9. Decant Canopy Project- (Phase 3) 0 10. Start design for Appleway,Farr to University storm drain Retrofits; Chester Creek Diversions 0 11. Start design for Ponderosa Dr.&Havana Stormwater -Diversons 12. Continue retrofit work with pavement preservation 0 13. Apply for 2018 stormwater construction grants as • approved by council,and if available 8 Department Objectives Public Works, continued Capital Improvement Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Update six-year Transportation Improvement Plan for arterial roadways • • Identify&recommend new projects Public hearing on draft plan Seek Council approval of plan •—• Submit CMAQ,TA, CDBG,TIB &other grant re- quests as available 2. Implement approved Capital Projects • • Broadway/Argonne/Mullan Concrete Intersection • • (ROW) Pines(SR27)&Grace Ave. Intersection Safety(ROW &Construction) Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS)Infill- Broadway,Fancher,University(Construction) Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access Improvements • • (Design&Construction) Mission Avenue reconstruction—Flora to Barker • • (Design&ROW) McDonald Rd Diet- 16th to Mission(Construction) 4 • Citywide Reflective Signal Back Plates • • Sullivan/Euclid Concrete Intersection(Design) • • Sullivan Road W.Bridge Replacement(Construction) 4 • Seth Woodard Elementary Sidewalk Imp-Mission& Park(Construction) • • Fancher Rd Bridge#3502 Expansion Joint Repair (Construction) City Hall(Design&Construction) • • Pines Rd/Mirabeau Parkway Traffic Signal(Design& • • Construction) Bowdish& 11th Sidewalk Imp(Design&Construc- tion) Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements(Design) 4 Appleway Resurfacing-Park to Dishman Mica (Design) • • Appleway Shared Use Path-Pines Rd to Evergreen Rd(Design) • Appleway Trail- Sullivan Rd to Corbin Rd(Design) 4 • 9 Department Objectives Public Works, continued Capital Improvement Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 continued Jan Feb Mar A r May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Overlay Projects,Arterials and Collectors • • Broadway- Sullivan to Moore Preservation • 0 32nd Ave-Dishman Mica to Pines Rd Preservation • 0 NB Sullivan Rd, Spokane River Bridge-North • 0 Preservation 101.11111111111111111111 Residential/Local Street Overlay and • • Reconstruction Saltese-Houk to 24th • • N. Sullivan Corridor Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS) • • 2015 Argonne Rd. Corridor Upgrade COMPLETED 2015 Citywide Safety Improvements(Bike/Ped) COMPLETED 2015 Mansfield Ave. Connection COMPLETED 2015 Sidewalk Infill Project—Phase 2 (Design& COMPLETED Construction) 2015 2015 Street Preservation—Sullivan Rd/Sprague to COMPLETED Mission(Design&Construction) 2015 Appleway Trail—University to Pines COMPLETED 2015 Sprague/Long Sidewalk COMPLETED 2015 Sullivan—Trent(SR-290 to Wellesley)overlay COMPLETED 2015 Montgomery—Dartmouth to University COMPLETED 2015 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell COMPLETED 2015 Misc.bridge repair COMPLETED 2015 Mullan St Preservation COMPLETED 2015 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade COMPLETED 2015 University Rd Overpass Study COMPLETED 2015 Sullivan Rd Corridor Traffic Study COMPLETED 10 Department Objectives Public Works, continued Street Fund Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Operations & Maintenance Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Update the 2015 Street Master Plan • • 2. Issue/Renew annual contracts for Street Maintenance 4 • activities 3. Manage the Bridge Maintenance Program • • 4. Bid and construct bridge maintenance projects on City • Bridges and overpasses Traffic Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Optimize traffic signals on selected corridors and implement timing plans 2. Attend monthly TTC, CMP& SRTC Board meetings • • 3. Review and assist with traffic on all capital projects • • 4. Reflective Backplate Installation • 6. Implement,operate,and maintain City Transportation 4 • Operation Center 7. Install new street signs and pedestrian countdown • heads 8. Provide assistance and review of Comprehensive Plan • 9. Review and monitor Mirabeau Sub-Area Traffic • Study 10. Review of private development Traffic Studies 4 • 11 Department Objectives Parks & Recreation Administration Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Maintenance Division Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Construct Splashpad and Championship Sand Volleyball Court at Browns Park Develop plans and specifications Bid project Complete Construction 2. Pursue land acquisitions for priority facilities such as disc golf, skateboard park,etc. Research and locate potential properties • • 3. Design Appleway Trail—Sullivan to Corbin Section �suuuuuuuu Select consultant through RFQ process • 0 Prepare plans&specifications for 2017 construction • 0 4. Construct Pocket Dog Park—Phase 2 Complete plans, specification&bid process Complete construction 5. Install new park signs at Valley Mission,Edgecliff •and Dog Park •—• 2015 Construct Edgecliff Park Picnic Shelter COMPLETED 2015 Construct Sand Volleyball Courts at Browns Park COMPLETED 2015 Pocket Dog Park—Phase 1 COMPLETED 2015 Discovery Playground Shade Structure COMPLETED 2015 Develop and finalize Centennial Trail Capital Repair COMPLETED Program 2015 Construct Mission Trailhead COMPLETED 12 Department Objectives Parks & Recreation, continued Recreation /Aquatics Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Division Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Research and re-evaluate our pool rental pricing structure • • 2. Update cash register systems at all three pools Research potential Wi-Fi upgrades Install upgrades at our pools • • 3. Actively look for sponsorships opportunities within 0 the Community for the summer outdoor movies 4. Design Recreation Brochure in-house utilizing Adobe Creative Suite software 5. Continue to foster relationships with community partners • 0 (ONGOING) ummmmm Continue to provide quality recreation programs for 0 the Spokane Valley Community 7. Maintain full summer swimming program (ONGOING) 8. Install pool stairs at Valley Mission Pool • 2015 Install stairs and railing at Terrace View Pool COMPLETED 2015 Solicit Sponsorships for the summer outdoor movies COMPLETED 2015 Paint Park Road Pool COMPLETED 13 Department Objectives Parks & Recreation, continued Senior Center Division Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Offer more Tuesday evening classes in the Senior Wing of CenterPlace • • (ONGOING) 2. Develop and foster relationship with Walgreens to bring pharmacy students to counsel seniors on medi- • 0 cations,provide blood pressure checks and offering flu shots 3. Work closely with the Parks and Recreation Director on programs being offered to seniors • • 4. Continue relationship with YMCA to offer reduced daily rates for senior center members • • (ONGOING) 5. Research and develop classes and training for seniors needing IT assistance Work with Community Colleges to develop program and curriculum Implement program on a trial basis • 2015 Offer annual resource referral fair to provide COMPLETED information to the senior population 2015 Continue relationship with YMCA to offer reduced COMPLETED daily rates for senior center members 2015 Develop and facilitate a new agreement with Meals on COMPLETED Wheels 14 Department Objectives Parks & Recreation, continued CenterPlace Division Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Jaliiireb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec mem Increase Events by 10%over 2015 11 (ONGOING) 2. Continue to repair Leaks in CenterPlace roof Develop repair plans and complete repairs • 0 3. Improve sound in Small Dining Room • 0 4. Ensure a long-term catering contract 2015 Renovate Lounge kitchen and replace Lounge carpet COMPLETED 2015 Host 10th Anniversary Celebration Event COMPLETED 2015 Repair Roof Leaks COMPLETED 15 Public Safety/ Police Build Upon Our Multi-jurisdictional Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Working Partnerships Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Continue to enhance departmental,regional and com- munity public safety efforts in cooperation with citi- • zens and businesses,with assistance of Crime Check • 2. Increase interest in community involvement in pro- grams such as SCOPE,Neighborhood Watch, Crime • • Prevention,Reserves,Explorers,etc. 3. Continue involvement in Inland Northwest Law En- forcement Leadership Group, sharing intelligence with • • state,federal and other public safety agencies. Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Continue to Work Toward Disaster Preparedness Jan Feb Mar Apr Mar Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Continue involvement in public safety table top exercises with other agencies, including Spokane Val- • • ley departments and Department of Emergency Man- agement. 2. Maintain compliance with National Incident Manage- • ment System(NIMS)training requirements. • 3. Continue progression of the implementation of our collaborative Rescue Task Force,Active Shooter Emergency Response Team with Spokane Valley Fire • • Department. 4. Continue involvement and collaboration with Spokane Co.Dept. of Emergency Management in the Spokane County All Hazards Evacuation Plan and Comprehen- • • sive Emergency Management Plans. 2015 Continue progression of the implementation of our COMPLETED communications interoperability plan including train- ing and equipment installation. Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Staff Goals Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1. Identify and implement specific training needs for • Spokane Valley Police Department. • 2. Continue to provide effective leadership training to all supervisors to enhance our mission. • • 3. Continue to implement crime prevention efforts to keep Spokane Valley a"safe city"to live and work. • 0 16 Public Safety/ Police Staff Goals, continued Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 4. Continue to improve the false alarm program with Public Safety Corp./Cry Wolf in an effort to further • • reduce false alarms in the City of Spokane Valley. 5. Maintain the principles of Intelligence Led Policing through the use of RIG 9 Intelligence Group to identify crime trends to better utilize resources,and • 0 strengthen the relationship between Patrol and Detectives. 6. Enhance the public's perception of law enforcement through community education on recognized police • 0 best practices regarding accredited police services. 7. Continue to review accreditation files and focus on reaccreditation in 2019. • 0 8. The Traffic Unit will place a proactive emphasis on drivers who are texting/talking on cell phones while 0 driving. 9. In compliance with NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System)maintain a high degree of accurate 0 report writing to reflect the crimes occurring in the City of Spokane Valley and values of property associated with those crimes. 10. Continue to plan and implement effective succession 4 • planning to ensure essential leadership positions are filled and work with Public Safety Testing to fill vacant positions to maintain safe staffing levels. 11. Implement a new CAD/RMS System to efficiently and accurately record crime stats and work load • 0 performance measures. 17 if! __ .,, - _ -.1mrtlf, ., 4,___---7:,--2- - 9 _.,.„. , ____:.... , . ./. , . ,.. , ,.. , . , , , . __ i - .-R,,, ,, - ?..,r;7-z!..•.=0..imi il‘_.,,,,, ,I.---',. -.- Fye fr,f-7f-- I ___ c. X751 m ir __ _ - _. 11.°°\eafthr, C[TY��ne ft- 2016 Business Plan \'ii.11& yConce tual of the new Hall. Conceptual Rendering City Vol. 9 ContentsI Business Plan 2016 Organizational Overview . 3 Executive Summary . 4 Business Plan Process 16 Strategic Service Delivery Areas 17 Understanding the Departmental Business Plan 19 Department Business Plans: Legislative—City Council. . . . . . . . . . 20 General Government Budget Impact Summary . . . 22 Executive/Legislative Support—City Manager/City Clerk . . 24 Executive/Legislative Support—City Attorney . . . . . 34 Operations & Administrative Services . . . . . . 41 Finance and Information Technology Services . . . . 56 Community and Economic Development. . . . . . 62 Parks & Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 ADDENDUM A: Spokane Valley Police Department (Contract Services) . 107 ADDENDUM B: Foundation of the City of Spokane Valley. . . . . 128 City of Spokane Valley Values . . . . . . . 129 Core Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Customer Service Program . . . . . . . . 132 Customer Service Definition . . . . . . . . 133 Information Input . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Council Goals . . . . . . . . 136 Summary - Citywide Business Plan137 PAGE 2 Vol. 9 Organizational Overview 2016 Ctiy Mow' Ezrc Poke Chef #y r Fiance DMIEIC • ({ Omni) (Contra) Deputy City Manager I I I Cliv CM tir.rrarr R .t e . Ad rnrau altre Acciarritng Mdanac r AuMstarl Manager_ ITSF142 1E: .Arrrinlstraire (2.A FTE) Parks a dPsralysF: Deputy Cty tart Re€reation I4urran Resouces rw�r"' I I Deputy Cly rn ` e Da ce Teciiridan A rhlstr�ive fie!' {3.7 Anaryt P rfrsLabor Artrrlrlsn Recreation I Analyst Assislaln — Corichnatcx Office I CAbACCO Lilting Hep Desk X2.0 FTE) IITedTt i Tedxr Yar Ix iMcxrnaJon (2.D FTE) hail Facri 'CHt'Ie V4hMaioF�tli e6 =Miff I (2o FTE:) Senor Curteroer�maiZe IrStrecLaikat t CEIIIW01.3CE ORlce a Prtrwc Wants DPW- AWWLE. rt I - E�rlltll [rtlelal �t�rrrer serwbe er I (1.0 FTE) fletrirdstrOive rH Call€IIIIICMIL ,ham — Senor Ptah Engineer 011/De l4sslstrrt I peseroornsr ae alopment (2.0 FTE) Exarri9er e^v oe :sf urs .sfedal st e EngineerA ar = hrici i Senior -WINEffir A Tl� Stormier Cl '`Fiona l a©rnhu� FTE) Te _AldrVclar _ rtarmenance [3 E -7r�fc I1ssistartEnginaer- Selo Errgrr�er- I AArnI1IEDanve Errlltll I ex *;LowInrpe — CInspeacc on -Suter Prowl Managers Aosstri loped& _ n9 ;2.0 FTE} 1 D FTE) Code Er une-a Englreerir g ssslstart Er red I E nee Arg Ulcer 1 Terndar II- I I Te#rrrli%ar II Teetnldar ricir (111 [1.D FT i f 11 I IEngneer- Flamer — TE mIclan I I I Pians rg:lasts - Plalr7er [2 D FTE) (2.D FTEl (2.D FTE) PAGE 3 Vol. 9 Executive Summary-City Manager's Message 2016 Each year, the City of Spokane Valley prepares a business plan to guide in the preparation of the annual budget. The 2016 Business Plan links to- gether community priorities, the Financial Projection, Council goals, and the proposed 2016 Budget. Each department within the City of Spokane Valley participates in the business plan process, developing new objectives guided by Council goals, public input, staff input and strategic planning. Departments also refine existing goals based on new information and the updated Financial Projection. Strategies accompany each goal in order to illustrate and define how departments will accomplish these goals. City Council reviews the Business Plan as part of the annual budget process. Integration with the Budget: The Business Plan is integrated with the Budget to create a plan of action to meet the essential needs of our citizens. In large part, the Business Plan charts the course that leads to the strong financial position of the City. Prioritized spending, lean staff and a commitment to basic values has allowed the City to address the needs of the community and enhance infrastructure while maintaining fiscal reserves. Hope for the best— prepare for the worst: The Business Plan also helps the City prepare for cyclical downturns in the economy. To meet this objective, each department prepares a theoretical set of 3%, 6%, and 9% budget reductions. These reductions are not budget proposals, but tools to test the base level of services provided by the City and anticipate potential future revenue shortfalls. Since experiencing a significant decline in revenue sources, such as sales tax, from 2007-2010, (Table 1.1, pg. 13), there has been a moderate increase from 2011-2015. The Financial Projection, (Table 1.2, pg. 14 & 15), reflects this slightly pos- itive trend with a modest increase of about 3.0% per year through 2019. Therefore, the 2016 Business Plan has been created during a time of a moderately strengthening economy. Within this document, each department has defined its programs and has identified the services each program provides. With projected economic constraints, the ability to sustain programs in 2016 at the 2015 levels is feasible. With existing Operations and Maintenance (O&M) held to a 1% increase, with a few exceptions, the City does not anticipate utilizing reserves for O&M in 2016. Looking ahead: Looking forward, in order to meet the City's budget objectives, departmental goals and strategies have been adjusted from the 2015 plan. This Busi- ness Plan is the tool we use to guide the City forward to accomplish the Council's goals, while remaining squarely within the current budget and fore- casted projections. For example, in June, 2014, the Council goal to implement solid waste transfer, transport and disposal in the best interest of Spo- kane Valley, was accomplished by Council authorizing a private contract with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. This enabled the City to achieve one of its Core Values to contain or impede the rising cost of governmental services by examining public/private partnerships. Further, to help us monitor the success of each of the City's programs, such as solid waste, the business plan includes performance measures to determine the amount of effective- ness and efficiency in which work is performed. Over time, the City will have a good indicator of the progress the City is making to provide high quali- ty services in a cost-effective way, while remaining within budget and the forecasted projections. (continued) PAGE 4 City Manager's Message Based on the Financial Projection, department budgets have been thoroughly reviewed to keep 2016 expenditures in line with projected revenues. The City views the changes in economy as an opportunity to reevaluate goals and strategies to meet the challenges set before us. As an open collaborative government, we continue to encourage our citizens to provide the necessary feedback we need as we endeavor to plan our City's future together. Although the Business Plan is based on a 6-year cycle, the Financial Forecast is limited to 5 years. The reason for this discrepancy is that it becomes increasingly difficult to forecast economic indicators beyond 2020. It is important to note the Business Plan and Projec- tion are imperfect tools and is precisely why both documents are updated on an ongoing basis. Fiscal Policies: Financial Management: The City proposes to: 1. Maintain basic service levels with minimal resources to achieve success. 2. Minimize personnel costs/overhead by continuing to contract for many services. 3. Continue the 6-year Business Plan process. 4. Leverage City funds with grant opportunities. *5. Minimize City debt with a "pay as you go" philosophy. • The State of Washington sets the maximum level of allowable debt for cities based on assessed value of property. The City of Spokane Valley currently utilizes only 1.20% of its total allowable debt capacity, and more importantly, only 6.02% of non-voted bond capacity. This is extremely low debt. 6. Strive to prioritize spending in the annual budget process and minimize mid-year addition of projects and appropriations. *The City has made a decision to use a combination of cash and debt to finance the new City Hall to be completed in the spring of 2017. Essentially, the City will trade rent payments for mortgage payments but will own the building at the end of 30 years. In addition to the finance charges, the City will incur approximately $271,700 in operation cost. This is detailed in Table 1.2 on page 14. (continued) PAGE 5 City Manager's Message Financial Objectives: The City's financial objectives through 2016 are: 1. Maintain a minimum General Fund ending balance of 50% of recurring expenditures, which is the equivalent of six months of general fund operations. 2. If necessary, utilize the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund ($5.5 million) to maintain ending fund balance minimum. 3. Commitment to the strategy that the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund will not reduce below $3.27 million (60% of$5.5 million). 4. Maintain the property tax assessment the same as 2015 with the exception of new construction. As in the previous four years, the City will forego the 1% annual increase allowable by RCW 84.52.050. We anticipate this will result in a levy of$11,279,200 plus estimated new construction of$200,000 for a total levy of$11,479,200. The 1% increase capacity will be banked for future use as provide by law. This effectively makes the 7th year in a row we have not increased our City property tax assessment. 5. Grow our economy so our existing tax base can support our basic programs. Commitment: By committing to these policies and the checks and balances they afford, the City will ensure financial sustainability well into the future. Challenges: Beyond the General Fund, the City of Spokane Valley has 4 main financial challenges for 2016: 1. Railroad Grade Separation & Quiet Zone Projects: (Barker & Trent Road Overpass; Pines Road Un- derpass; Park Road Overpass & Sullivan Road Overpass improvements). 2. Pavement Preservation: Street preservation needs must be met with other needs; the 2016 budget achieves this balance. 3. Grants & Declining Matching Funds: City staff actively pursues funding commitments from other sources to help pay the cost of needed capital improvements— roads, bridges, Stormwater and parks that benefit the community. 4. Local Street Maintenance Combination of Funding: This fund derives its revenues from an allocation of the State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax distributed to cities and a 6% City utility tax on telephone usage. PAGE 6 Executive Summary-Program Descriptions GENERAL GOVERNEMENT General Government • This budget accounts for activities not specific to the functions of any particular General Fund department or operation. Ex- penditures recorded here are composed of election costs and voter registration fees paid to Spokane County; the cost of the City's annual audit paid to the State of Washington; City Hall rent; most information technology expenses including annual computer leases; annual repair and maintenance contracts for servers and copiers, monthly telephone and internet charges, and computer and copier purchases. Also charged to this area are payments to outside agencies for economic development and social service purposes; annual property and liability insurance premiums; and transfers to other funds representing General Fund investments or grant matches in a variety of capital projects including pavement preservation. LEGISLATIVE & EXECUTIVE City Council • The Council is the community's legislative and policymaking body. The Council focuses on the community's goals, major projects, and long-term considerations such as community growth, land use development, capital improvement, financing, and strategic planning. The Council hires a professional manager to implement the administrative responsibilities related to these goals and supervises the manager's performance. City Manager • Per the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (2.15.020), the City Manager, as the chief executive and administrative officer of the City, supervises, administers and coordinates the activities and functions of the City departments as established by the City's ordinances and the policies of the City Council. All City employees report directly or indirectly to the City Manager. The program ensures development and execution of the City's strategic plans and budget, and assists staff in support of the City's mission, operating plans and objectives. The program consists of three full-time employees, which includes an assis- tant to the Councilmembers. City Clerk • Per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 35A.13.090), one of the appointed offices for the City includes a City Clerk. This program keeps a full and true record of every act and proceeding of the City Council and keeps such books, accounts and reports as may be required by the state auditor; processes all ordinances and resolutions; prepares all agendas and packets for Council meetings; publishes all legal notices and manages record archival and public disclosure requests; and supervises the City business registrations. The program has two full-time employees; with Central Reception assisting in the business registrations. City Attorney • Provides timely advice to the City Council and staff on a full range of municipal issues, including assisting the Council in achieving its annual legislative goals. This advice allows the Council to reasonably consider among available policy choices. Drafts or reviews all contracts, ordinances, and resolutions. Assists City departments in reviewing and amending relevant City Code provisions. Provides legal review on certain public records requests. The Office is staffed by the City Attorney, Deputy City Attorney, Legal Administrative Assistant, and two Legal Interns. The Office occasionally utilizes the services of private counsel to address areas of specialty, or due to unusual workload demand issues. OPERATIONS &ADMINISTRATION Deputy City Manager • Oversees the daily operations and administrative services of the City including the Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Community and Economic Development Departments. Directly manages information technology and public information services. Represents the City on various local, regional and state projects. Works closely with the Finance Department on the development of a variety of financial analysis and directs the process leading to the issuance of general obligation bonds. This position interacts with citizens and staff to ensure quality customer service, as well as confers with the city, county, state and federal agencies regarding the City's existing and planned programs. PAGE 7 Executive Summary-Program Descriptions OPERATIONS &ADMINISTRATION Public Information • Supports government transparency and generates community interest and involvement through development and dissemi- nation of timely, accurate and complete information on City programs, projects, activities and issues using a variety of channels. Provides emergency information and instructions for the safety and well-being of citizens, Council &staff (i.e., Windstorm 2015, Valley View Fire 2007, Snow Emergency 2008-2009, and Declaration of Pandemic Influenza 2008). Serves at the primary contact for media and for general information about the City. This program has one full-time employ- ee and one part-time intern. Contract Administration and • A priority of the City is to use taxpayer funds in the most efficient and effective ways possible. This program employs two Analysis full-time employees who work with the City Manager and City Attorney to administer the City's contracted public safety services. It is an essential priority for the City to provide citizens with the highest quality of services at the best value, while accounting for the services provided. For 2016, this meant$24.7 million or nearly 63%of the General Fund recurring ex- penditure budget, was administered, evaluated and accounted for by this program. Human Resources • Provides the labor related services for the City to include recruitment, appointment, compensation, union bargaining, well- ness, employee appreciation, and employment law compliance. Manages the Risk Management and Americans with Dis- ability Act(ADA) programs within the City. These essential services help to minimize employment and claims costs to the City and help to provide reasonable access to the City's Services when special accommodations are requested by its citi- zens. Develops and maintains the City's Website and Mobile App. Through these functions, HR staff consults with vari- ous departments to relay information concerning City services to the public. Provides research and analysis of both hu- man resource and non-human resource related subjects for the City Manager's Office. This program consists of two full- time employees. Central Reception • Supervised by the Human Resources Department, Central Reception has two full-time employees who are the first-touch between the citizens and the City. Central Reception is the citizen's directory to all the City's departments and services. Customer service is the key priority for this program as it provides assistance to the citizens, clients, and staff in the daily operations of the City. Finance • Administers, coordinates, supervises and controls financial activities engaged in by the City. These functions are per- formed through a combination of interrelated activities including financial management, general accounting and infor- mation technology. • Financial management responsibilities include activities such as budget development and monitoring, treasury control and management of the City's cash and investment portfolio, debt financing and management, and working with pub- lic works staff on financing options for capital projects. • General accounting responsibilities include activities such as internal and external financial reporting, general ledger accounting, audit coordination, cash receipting, processing of payroll and accounts payable, grant accounting and reimbursements, as well as project accounting and reimbursements. • Information technology responsibilities include the design, maintenance and support of the City's data network. They order, deliver, repair and maintain all desktop, iPad laptop and peripheral equipment as well. Responsibilities also include the broadcast of City Council meetings which entails the acquisition and ongoing maintenance and support of the related hardware and software as well as working with the vendor involved with the actual recording of the meet- ings. PAGE 8 Executive Summary-Program Descriptions COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Administration • Director: Oversees the daily operations of the Community& Economic Development Department, prepares the budget and yearly work program. Supervises the Building Official, Development Services Manager, the Economic Development per- sonnel and the Administrative Assistant. Monitors the Planning Commission assignments and provides training programs for the department and the Planning Commission. • Administrative Assistance: One administrative assistant assists in preparation of the budget, administrative support to the Planning Commission, provides first review of floodplain development permits, finalizes all correspondence and staff re- ports, prepares mailings, maintains the department file system, responds to public record requests, processes the bills, orders and maintains office supplies for the department, prepares monthly and weekly calendars, maintains the depart- ment web pages, and provides back-up to the front desk reception and permit center. Building Division • Permit Center: These team members staff the front counter for technical assistance and plan intake, review building per- mit plans, process applications and distribute to other internal divisions and outside agencies. They inspect development projects; participate in the regional building official group: Homebuilders Association; follow state legislation on building codes and provide input on how new regulations impact Spokane Valley; work with the Fire District on mutual projects and prepare local amendments to the State Building Codes. • Staff: (1) Building Official; (1) Senior Plans Examiner; (1) Plans Examiner; (3) Building Inspectors; (1) Development Ser- vices Coordinator; (2) Planners; (2) Permit Facilitators; (1) Engineering Technician; and (1) Office Assistant/Cashier. Development Services • Development Services Division: Provides professional policy guidance to the City Manager, City Council and Planning Commission on such issues as land use, access management, Shoreline Management Act, annexation, growth targets, water quality, privately funded infrastructure issues and more. The staff is responsible for processing land use and home business permits, reviewing environmentally sensitive areas for the review and inspection of stormwater management in private development, reviewing access management and other improvements in private development applications and administering the State Environmental Protection Act. • Staff: (1) Development Services Manager; (1) Senior Planner; (1) Code Enforcement Officer; (2) Development Engineers; (1)Asst. Development Engineer; (2) Planners; (1) Right-of-Way Inspector; (1) Construction Inspector; and (1) Office Assistant. • Development Engineers: Review private development plans for compliance with the Storm Water Manual and Street Standards, assist customers with engineering requirements, coordinate the Floodplain Management Program for the City, inspect development construction, write and update corresponding regulations, work with the Traffic Engineer on development traffic mitigation and work on special projects (i.e. Hanson Agreement). PAGE 9 Executive Summary-Program Descriptions COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Development Services, cont. • Planners: Prepare staff reports and present land use cases to the Hearing Examiner for subdivisions, zone changes, vari- ances, conditional use permits and appeals. Planners assigned to the Permit Center counter assist citizens and develop- ment professionals with zoning questions, review and process applications, review business registrations and process adult entertainment applications. Process updates to the Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis, as required by RCW 36.70A, including both private and City initiated amendments. Coordinate and update capital facilities plan as part of the annual comprehensive plan update process as required by RCW 36.70A. Prepare development regulation text amend- ments. Manage City initiated planning projects, such as the Shoreline Management Program Update and the Comprehen- sive Plan legislative update. Participate in regional planning processes, including the Urban Growth Area Update, and coordinate, review and comment on land use proposals from adjacent jurisdictions. Participate on the Planning Advisory Technical Committee, and attend the Steering Committee of Elected Officials meetings. Collect, analyze and interpret data on local economic, population and land use trends. Coordinate with Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) to ensure land use, population and job projections data are properly represented in regional transportation models. Also par- ticipate on the Regional Site Selector committee. • Code Enforcement: (1) One Code Enforcement Officer investigates all code compliance complaints, prepares paper work, testifies in hearings, and court if necessary, and prepare the documentation and staff reports and appeals. • Right-of-Way Inspections: (1) One Right-of-Way Inspector reviews all private construction occurring in public right-of-way including pavement patches, curb cuts, etc., responds to complaints about work occurring in the right-of-way and inspects warranty work. During construction season, there is a peak of activity which requires we supplement the inspector with as- sistance from other inspectors within the department. Economic Development • The Economic Development division is under the direct supervision of the Director. Oversight of these activities is also co- ordinated closely with the City Manager. The functions of the Economic Development division are to pursue infrastructure improvements that foster economic development; find opportunities to improve and streamline permit processes and regu- lations; maintain an efficient permitting process; create strategies to attract and retain businesses; develop collaborative relationships to promote business retention and expansion; develop and execute a comprehensive economic development strategy; develop and execute a comprehensive marketing program; coordinate with regional and local economic develop- ment partners; use information technology to support economic development; promote Spokane Valley to businesses and visitors; strengthen and expand event and civic opportunities for citizens, visitors, and businesses to engage with Spokane Valley businesses and,foster an educated and job-ready local workforce. • Staff consists of: (1) Economic Development Coordinator& (.5) Economic Development Engineer PAGE 10 Executive Summary-Program Descriptions PARKS & RECREATION Parks Administration • This division provides direction and leadership for the Department with its 180 acres of park land which includes 12 devel- oped parks and three outdoor pools, one mile of the Appleway Trail and approximately seven miles of the Centennial Trail. It also manages and oversees private contracts for park maintenance, aquatics, CenterPlace janitorial services, Center- Place food and beverage services, the Splash Down lease and the Police Precinct facility. Additional duties include: admin- istering the City's special use permits, developing policies and procedures, scheduling all park facility reservations and managing various construction projects. • Staff: (1) Director and (1) Administrative Assistant Parks Maintenance • This division is responsible for the maintenance of all of our developed parks and open park land including the Centennial and Appleway Trails. This maintenance work is contracted with a private contractor whose contract is managed by the Ad- ministration Division. Recreation • This division develops, coordinates and facilitates the delivery of recreation programs, services and events throughout the City, including over 21 different recreation programs year-round and partnerships with the YMCA, East Valley School District, Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley Partners, City of Spokane and a variety of other programs within Spokane County. • Staff: (1) Recreation Coordinator Aquatics • This division includes three outdoor swimming pools: Valley Mission, Park Road & Terrace View • It provides open swim opportunities, swim lessons, swim teams and facility rentals. The operation and maintenance of these pools is contracted out to a private contractor. Senior Center • This Division coordinates the use of the Spokane Valley Senior Center and assists in the planning, organizing, coordination and administration of leisure and human services programs for senior citizens, including cultural arts, physical activities, special interest classes and programs. There are over 950 members of the Spokane Valley Senior Citizens Association that are under the direction of the Spokane Valley Senior Citizens Association Board. • Staff: (1) Senior Center Specialist CenterPlace • This division oversees the scheduling and room setups for CenterPlace Regional Event Center, a gathering place for the community to enjoy public and private events while showcasing the City's state of the art venue. It is also home to the Spo- kane Valley Senior Center. CenterPlace hosts hundreds of events each year and promotes regional tourism exposing guests to the benefits of our community. • Staff: (1) CenterPlace Coordinator; (2) Maintenance Workers; (1)Administrative Assistant; and (1) Office Worker 1. PAGE 11 Executive Summary-Program Descriptions PUBLIC WORKS Administration & • The Public Works Department oversees the City's transportation system, which includes construction and maintenance of streets, Capital Improvements stormwater systems, operations and maintenance of traffic signs and signals and transportation planning. The Department provides coordination with other City departments on the planning, design and construction of City parks and civic facilities, along with participa- tion in regional public works issues such as solid waste, wastewater, and high-capacity transportation. The Department plans, designs and constructs new facilities owned by the City of Spokane Valley. These projects include roads, bridges, trails, civic and community buildings. This requires long-range planning, acquisition and management of state and federal grant funding, coordination with stake- holder groups, and project management. The Public Works Director oversees all divisions. This division funds (1) Senior Engineer- Capital Improvement Program; (2) Senior Engineers-Project Managers; (.375) Engineer-Planning/Grants; (1)Assistant Engineer; (1) Engineering Tech 2; (2) Engineering Tech 1; (.5) Maintenance/Construction Inspectors; (2)Administrative Assistants; and (3) Limited Term Construction Inspector Street Maintenance Fund • Provides responsive and effective management and maintenance of City streets, snow and ice control, and debris removal, allowing for safe transportation throughout the community. Many different types of services are required to maintain the entire infrastructure. Pro- vides traffic engineering for safe and efficient multi-faceted transportation systems throughout the City. Oversees the operation of traffic signals and installation and maintenance of signing and striping. Provides transportation planning and design support to the capital im- provement program. This division funds (1) Street Maintenance Superintendent, (1) Senior Engineer-Traffic, (.375) Engineer-Planning/ Grants, (1)Assistant Engineer-Traffic, and (2) Maintenance/Construction Inspectors. Stormwater Fund • The Stormwater Utility oversees stormwater in the City to effectively collect, treat, store, and discharge stormwater, managing the risks to public safety, health, and property from flooding, erosion, ponding, and degradation. Provides development and oversight to individ- ual stormwater system projects and improvements in conjunction with projects led by others including County Sewer and City Street projects. Develops a Six Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to assist in prioritization of projects to improve stormwater collec- tion, treatment, storage, and discharge. Oversees the requirements of the Clean Water Act for stormwater discharges including imple- mentation of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, Underground Injection Control (UIC) rules, and monitoring regulations for discharges to Aquifer Protection Areas and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements for the Spokane River. Provides required annual reporting to the Washington State Department of Ecology. Oversees street sweeping, in- spects and prioritizes stormwater structure cleaning and maintenance and oversees landscape maintenance of swales and landscaped areas. Reviews and updates all commercial and residential parcels and provides certification to the County Assessor for the storm and surface water utility charge on all City parcels. This division funds (1) Engineer-Stormwater; (.25) Engineer-Planning/Grants; (1)Assis- tant Engineer; (1) Engineering Tech 1; and (1.5) Maintenance/Construction Inspectors. PAGE 12 Executive Summary—Revenues Table 1.1* $45,000,000 38,960,466 $40,000,000 38,396,726 36,777,598 35,974,204 35,911,071 $35,000,000 — 38,417,366 37,208,871 35,883,904 35,196,075 $30,000,000 — $25,000,000 — 19,672,640 t General Fund Revenue 19,707,676 f Sales Tax Revenue $20,000,000 18,706,461 16,841,447 Property Tax Revenue 16,317,067 20,581,821 19,707,676 $15,000,000 , • 17,437,732 10,475,75116,050,284 10,681,620 10,841,559 11,129,377 9,522,358 $10,000,000 10,799,123 11,129,377 11,280,147 9,836,088 10,741,306 $5,000,000 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 *2015 figures are preliminary and unaudited. 2016 figures reflect adopted budget estimates. PAGE 13 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 21412016 Wc._7 General Fund Budget Projection a 2016 Adopted 2017 2018 2019 2020 Budget 1 Projection Projection Projection Projection RECURRING ACTIVITY ,Revenue§, Property Tax 1 11.479,200 11,679,200 11,879.200 12..079,200 12.279,200 Sales Tax 2 18,210,500 18,756.800 19,319,500 19.899,100 20.496,100 Sales Tax- Public Safety 3 867.400 893.400 920,200 947,800 976,200 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 4 1,556.400 1,603.100 1,651,200 1.700,700 1,751,700 Gambling &Leasehold Excise Tax 5 333,700 343.700 354,000 364,600 375,500 Franchise Fees/Business Registration 6 1,154.000 1,188.600 1.224,300 1.261,000 1.298,800 State Shared Revenues 7 2,024,528 2.085,300 2.147,900 2.212,300 2.278,700 Fines and Forfeitures 1 Public Safety 8 1,443.500 1,486.800 1.531,400 1.577,300 1.624,600 Community Development 9 1.491,500 1,536,200 1,582,300 1.629,800 1,678,700 Recreation Program Revenues 10 595.200 613.100 631,500 650,400 669,900 Miscellaneous Department Revenue 11 95.900 98,800 101,800 104,900 108,000 Miscellaneous&Investment Interest 12 103.500 106,600 109,800 113,100 116,500 Transfer-in -#101 (streetardmin) 13 39.700 40,500 41.300 42,100 42,900 Transfer-in -#105 (Wm tax-CP advertising) 14 30,000 30.000 30.000 30,000 30,000 Transfer-in -#402 (storm admin) 15 13.400 13.700 14,000 14,300 14,600 Total Recurring Revenues 39,438.428 40,475.800 41,538.400 42.626,600 43.741,400 Expenditures City Council 16 506.869 522.100 537.800 553,900 570,500 City Manager 17 717,303 738,800 761,000 783,800 807,300 Legal 18 479.951 494.300 509.100 524,400 540,100 Public Safety 19 24,703.749 25,444.900 26,208,200 26.994,400 27.804,200 Deputy City Manager 20 737.002 759.100 781,900 805,400 829,600 Finance 1 ET 21 1,253,080 1,290.700 1.329,400 1.369,300 1.410,400 C Human Resources 22 255.694 263.400 271,300 279,400 287,800 O Public Works 23 966,870 995.900 1.025,800 1.056,600 1,088,300 • Community Development-Administration 24 272.107 280.300 288,700 297,400 306,300 0 Community Development- Economic Develpmnt 25 545.157 561.500 578,300 595,600 613,500 A+ Community Development- Development Services 26 1.486.637 1,531.200 1.577,100 1.624,400 1,673,100 Community Development- Building 27 1,344,165 1,384,500 1.426,000 1.468,800 1.512,900 O Parks&Rec-Administration 28 281.871 290.300 299,000 308,000 317,200 L Parks& Rec-Maintenance 29 838,343 863;500 889,400 916,100 943,600 0... Parks&Rec-Recreation 30 228.197 235.000 242,100 249,400 256,900 Parks& Rec-Aquatics 31 461..200 475.000 489,300 504,000 519,100 Parks&Rec-Senior Center 32 95.781 98,700 101,700 104,800 107,900 Parks& Rec-CenterPlace 33 882.223 908,700 936,000 964,100 993,000 • 0 Pavement Preservation 34 943.800 972,100 1,001,300 1.031,300 1.062,200 C General Government 35 1,097.400 1,130,300 1,164.200 1.199,100 1.235,100 CCI City Hall lease payment(A) 36 434,600 434.600 0 0 0 Transfers out #502(insurance premium) 37 325.000 334.800 344.800 355,100 365,800 C Transfers out-#309 park capital projects) 38 160,000 164.800 169,700 174,800 180,000 j� Bond payment>$434.600 lease payment(A) 39 72.500 72.500 507.100 507,100 507,100 I••I� City Hall O&M costs 40 271.700 279.900 288,300 296,900 305,800 LTotal Recurring Expenditures 39,361.199 40,526.900 41,727,500 42.964,100 44.237,700 Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 77.229 (51,100) (189,100) (337,500) (496,300) ENONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues ETransfers in-#106(solid waste repayment) 40.425 40,425 40,425 40,425 0 M Total Nonrecurring Revenues 40,425 40.425 40.425 40,425 0 CO Exoenditures General Government IT replacements 108.000 0 0 0 0 �♦ Community& Econ Dev(comp plan update) 350.000 0 0 0 0 W Parks& Rec(upgrade dial-up modem at pools) 15,000 0 0 0 0 Police Department(CAD!RMS) 140.281 0 0 0 0 rte/ Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 613.281 0 0 0 0 r Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) 0co Nonrecurrng Expenditures (572.856) 40,425 40,425 40,425 0 G) �'0 EXCESS(DEFICIT)OF TOTAL REVENUES W OVER(UNDER)TOTAL EXPENDITURES (495,627) (10,675) (148.675) (297,075) (496,300) N• ESTIMATED BEGINNING UNRESTRICTEDFUND BAL. 24,426.574 23,930.947 23.920,272 23.771,597 23.474,522 W r a) ESTIMATED ENDING UNRESTRICTED FUND BAL. 23,930,947 23,920,272 23,771,597 23.474,522 22.978,222 .171 Ending fund balance as a%or recurring expenditures 60.80%[ 59.02%1 56.97%1 54.64%1 51.94% CO 1— w c7 d a Projection Assumptions 2017 2018 2019 2020 Projection Projection Proection Projection Proiection assumes: 1 An increase of 0.00% plus new construction of $200,000 per year through 2020 2 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2018,and 3.00% in 2020 3 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2018,and 3.00% in 2020 4 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 5 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 6 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 7 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 8 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 9 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 10 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 11 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 12 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 13 An increase of 2.00% in 2017. 2.00% in 2018, 2.00% in 2019,and 2.00% in 2020 14 An increase of 0.00%in 2017. 0.00% in 2018, 0.00% in 2019,and 0.00% in 2020 15 An increase of 2.00% in 2017, 2.00% in 2018, 2.00% in 2019,and 2.00% in 2020 16 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 17 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 C 18 An increase of 3.00%in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 O 19 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00%%in 2020 20 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 I - 21 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 Cir)A+ 22 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019.and 3.00% in 2020 W 23 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 ■O 24 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 25 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 ^L 26 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 11 27 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 28 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 A� 29 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 `v 30 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 •- 31 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 32 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 33 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 CO 34 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00%,in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00%,in 2020 C 35 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 ■� 36 An increase of 0.00% in 2017. -100.00% in 2018, 0.00% in 2019,and 0.00% in 2020 LL 37 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 I 38 An increase of 3.00% in 2017. 3.00% in 2018, 3.00°6 in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 39 An increase of 0.00°h in 2017. 599.45% in 2018, 0.00% in 2019,and 0.00% in 2020 LI% 40 An increase of 3.00% in 2017, 3.00% in 2018, 3.00% in 2019,and 3.00% in 2020 Cli Table 1.2 Financial Forecast and Pro©ram Impact Summary E The General Fund forecast for the years 2017 through 2020 uses the adopted 2016 Budget as a beginning point and currently assumes levels of service that are identical to those provided by the City in 2016. Rather than a hard and E fast prediction of the City's future finances,this is a planning tool that allows us to determine how best to match existing and proposed programs and levels of service with anticipated financial resources and make adjustments if Mnecessary. V/ It is noteworthy that the Estimated Beginning Unrestricted Fund Balance figure listed in 2016 is as of February 3.2016, W\ and is based upon preliminary and unaudited figures. As we progress through the process of"closing the 2015 books" we anticipate this figure will change due to the fact we will continue to record both 2015 revenues and expenses as we / become aware of them. • (V jAy A new City Hall building is expected to be contructed and operational by mid to late 2017.The City will be issuing bonds For the construciton of the City Hall building in early 2016 with the first bond payment expected at the end of that year.Once the City has 0303 moved into the new building,the lease payment will no longer be required.For purposes of this analysis,we show the lease a) Q payment separate from the other General Government expenditures in order to highlight that the lease payment will drop off in 2018 and the lease payments will continue for approximately the same amount. W ,1 W la Ca I- Business Plan Process This proposed six-year Business Plan for 2016-2021 is based on the fulfillment of the City's Vision Statement: "A community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and businesses will flourish and prosper.° City Foundation In order to execute the Vision, the City Council, with public par- Core Beliefs, Vision Statement, Values, Customer Service Standards ticipation, established core beliefs, values, and annual budget goals, all of which provide direction for the City's six-year busi- 1 ness plan. The Appendix includes a comprehensive discussion of the Foundation on which Spokane Valleywas built, which Internal Input City Council External Input includes Core Beliefs, our Vision Statement, our Values, our Budget Goals • Comprehensive Plan • Citizen Ser- commitment to Customer Service, a summary of Internal and • 5-Year Financial vice Request External Input Methodology, and the Council's Goals for 2016. Forecast System • CenterPlace Marketing Strategic Service • Citizen Survey The City Foundation, as established by City Council Goals and Plan Delivery Areas • Comment influenced by formal employee input, City planning process • Parks Master Plan Cards analysis and other forms of Internal Input, along with citizen • 5-Year Transportation Focus Groups surveys, comment cards, focus groups and other Improvement Plan • Customerre Y 9 p External/n� • Street Master Plan- Correspond- pUt, is the foundation of the six-year business plan. Each of the Pavement Manage- Departmental Business ence Strategic Service Delivery Areas is supported by a Depart- ment Program Plans • Lunch with the mental Business Plan. The initial Departmental Business Plans • Performance Analysis Mission Statement City Manager Goals were developed through participatory meetings open to all City • Employee Focus Strategies employees. A SWOT analysis identifying the strengths, weak- Groups Workload Indicators • Commute Trip Reduc- nesses, opportunities and threats for each department was Performance Measures tion Survey *Information is conducted. Mission statements and goals were established by • Resource Analysis added as it employees. Audits becomes • Employee SWOT available In 2013, another SWOT analysis was conducted. Each depart- Analysis ment participated in identifying internal strengths and weak- Citywide Business Plan nesses and external opportunities and threats. This evaluation Encompasses All Items provides key directional information which assists the depart- Above ments in the Budget planning process. PAGE 16 Strategic Service Delivery Areas The City of Spokane Valley is classified by five strategic service-delivery areas of one or more departments, as seen below. The five strategic service areas have mission statements that guide the departments within the strategic area. Additionally, in two of the strategic service areas, divisions were further defined. First, the Office of the City Attorney is a division within the Executive & Legislative Support Department which provides City-wide legal services such as litigation, legislation, contracts, and code enforcement. The second is the Finance & Information Technology Division within the Operations and Administrative Services Department. Strategic Service-Delivery Areas and Respective Departments Executive& Operations& Parks Public Legislative Support Administrative Community& Works Services Economic Dev. Recreation Office of the Finance& — City Attorney — Information Technology PAGE 17 Service Delivery The City's Foundation includes Core Beliefs created by Council upon incorporation. Within these Core Beliefs, City Council, through Resolution 07-019 (Amending 03-027), established a general policy to help guide legislative and executive decisions toward effective, responsive, and open government. Within this General Policy Resolution of Core Beliefs, Section 8, part (d) states the following: We solicit the City Manager's support in conducting the affairs of the City with due regard for: (d) Seeking creative ways to contain or impede the rising cost of governmental services, including examination of private sector alter- natives in lieu of governmentally provided services. Putting this Core Belief into action, the City of Spokane Valley utilizes public-private partnerships to reduce expenses while preserving services to its citizens. Specialized businesses often can provide services more efficiently and effectively than government. The City of Spokane Valley operates very lean; for 2016, 87.4 regular status employees provide services to a city holding a population of approxi- mately 93,340. Contracting most of the City's services helps keep the personnel overhead costs at a minimum while still being able to provide quality services through a competitive bidding process. During each annual budget cycle, every service is reviewed by each program to determine if any changes are needed to improve ser- vice. The Business Plan is the tool used to guide each program in planning the best way to provide services to the citizens in the most cost-effective way. Through Workload Indicators and Performance Measures, explained in detail on the next page, data is accumulat- ed for the services provided. This data helps each strategic service delivery area determine its effectiveness and efficiency in provid- ing services to both internal and external customers. As data is accumulated and added each year, a better picture of the quality of each service is documented and appropriate changes are made based on performance measures. PAGE 18 Understanding the Departmental Business Plan The 2016 Business Plan provides a detailed description of each department's programs which define the Strategic Service-Delivery Areas discussed on the previous pages. Along with a description of each program, goals and strategies necessary to implement the plan to de- liver services effectively and efficiently are also provided. These goals encompass a six-year period and are intended to make departments re- sponsive to the community. How does each department know if they are providing services effectively and efficiently? As with previous plans, the 2016 plan continues to provide Workload Indicators and Performance Measures. This data is the measure to evaluate the service the City provides so we can make the appropriate adjustments to the plans in order meet the objective of providing our citizens with the highest level of service possible. This data will continue to be updated as the information becomes available. Further definition follows: Goals and Strategies in the Business Plan provide direction for the future; Workload Indicators and Performance Workload Indicators are data compiled to demonstrate the amount of Measures help ensure desired results work performed, services received, and/or resources consumed. This are achieved and that citizens are re- type of information will be collected annually to identify trends that are ceiving the value they expect. occurring in our city that affect the government organization. Such infor- mation can be utilized to make staffing decisions, prioritize purchases to best meet the needs of our customers, and forecast budgetary needs for the future. Examples of workload statistics are the number of road miles cleaned and the number of permits issued. Performance Measures are necessary to determine whether services are delivered effectively and efficiently. Although most basic City services provided are consistent across jurisdictions, the City of Spokane Valley has great discretion in deciding how to provide those services. Each task performed by a City employee has a desired effect attached to it. If we do not take steps to determine whether the desired effect is being The Target is the desired end result which,when accomplished, we do not know if we are effectively meeting the needs of our citizens met, confirms the effectiveness and efficiency of the and customers. For example, a survey of citizens will tell us if we are providing the safe service provided. When the target is not met, ad- community they desire, and an assessment of the condition of our streets will tell us if justments in strategies and staffing most likely will we are maintaining our streets to a sufficient degree. The counterpart of the effective- be necessary to meet the intended target. Several ness measure is the efficiency measure. We must also determine whether the cost to factors can determine whether or not the depart- provide each service is a good value to our customers. These efficiency measures will ment can meet their desired target, two of which let us know whether we need to improve the workflow process or provide better re- are: 1)funding sources available to provide a quali- sources to accommodate the customer in a timelier manner. Examples of efficiency ty service; and 2) number of employees needed to results are the cost per capita of delivering a service or the number of days to issue a provide the highest level of service. permit. PAGE 19 Vol. 9 Legislative—city Council 2016 Our Mission is to be responsive, focused on customer service, open to the public, progressive, efficient, lean, fair, and committed to providing a high quality of life. Overview: 2016 Councilmembers The City of Spokane Valley incorporated March 31, 2003, is a non-charter code city and operates under a Council-Manager plan of government. It is governed under the optional municipal Rod Higgins It Position 1 code of RCW Chapter 35A. Under this form of government, leg- 2014-2017 islative authority is concentrated in the elected City Council, which hires a professional administrator to implement its poli- Posltaan 2 Dean Grafos cies. — 2016-2019 There are seven positions on the City Council, all of which are Deputy Mayor, jib at-large positions. At-large means all Councilmembers repre- Arne Woodard — Position 3 sent all of the citizens of Spokane Valley versus each Coun- 2016-2019 cilmember representing a specified area within the city. Coun- Positton Ed Pace cilmembers are generally elected to four-year terms, with elec- 2014-2017 tions held every two years. For continuity, position terms are staggered by two years so that all positions are not open for election at the same time. Chuck Hefner II Position 5 2014-2017 ' . Pursuant to RCW 35A.13.030, biennially the members choose a chair of the council who receives the title of Mayor. The Mayor Position 6 Sam Wood presides over all meetings and is recognized as the head of the — 2016-2019 city for ceremonial purposes. Bill Bates 2014-2017 Position In addition to the position of Mayor, pursuant to RCW — 35A.13.035, a Mayor pro tempore or Deputy Mayor is chosen by the council. This position runs in concert with the position of Mayor and fulfills the duties of the Mayor during any absence or disability. PAGE 20 Legislative—City Council 2016 Council Goals Continue to work with state and federal legislators for possible financial assistance for the Barker Road Bridge Grade Separation (overpass/underpass). Develop a strategic plan for funding and completion of all grade separation projects. Continue and expand, where possible, economic development efforts, including construction of the new City Hall. Complete retail and tourism studies, develop and implement strategies. Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preservation program, to include sustained funding in the City's Street Fund #311 to address concerns beyond the year 2020. 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. PAGE 21 Legislative-City Council-2016 Budget Impact Summary Increase/Reduction • The Executive City Council line-item portion of the budget (not including wages, payroll taxes and benefits) is able to operate 2016 Budget with a 3.85% decrease over the 2015 adopted budget. The following line-items have been adjusted to reflect changes made -3.85% from the 2015 budget: x$11,500 0 Decrease Broadcasting from $42,000 to $30,000 0 Increase advertising from $500 to $1,000 based on spending trends in previous years Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise • To meet a 3% reduction from the proposed 2016 budget, the following line items have been reduced: -3% 0 Office Supplies 75%; Publications 100%; Meeting Supplies 52%; Small Tools 100%; Subscriptions 100% & Postage ($ 15,808) 50%. These reductions do not provide the materials needed for adequate function. 0 Travel/Mileage has been reduced by 31%. This reduction will have an effect on the Councilmembers' ability to attend conferences and meetings out of the area. 0 Registrations have been reduced by 25% also having an effect on Councilmembers' ability to attend conferences and meetings out of the area. • In addition to the 3% reductions noted above, to meet a 6% reduction the following line items have been reduced further or 6°! eliminated: ($ 15,808+ 0 Meeting supplies have been reduced by another 28% $15,442) 0 Travel/Mileage has been reduced by another 52%. Only local meetings can be attended. 0 Software licenses have been eliminated. 0 Registrations have been reduced by another 52%. Meeting attendance will be limited to local meetings. • In addition, to the 3% & 6% reductions noted above, to meet a 9% reduction, the following line items have been reduced -9% further or eliminated: ($31,250+ 0 Meeting supplies 50% & Printing & Binding 50%. These reductions do not allow for daily function of the department. $15,675) 0 Memberships reduced by 3.7% 0 Travel/Mileage has been reduced by another 95%. Council will not be able to travel. 0 Registrations have been reduced by another 92%. Council will not be able to attend meetings. *Budget Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. PAGE 22 General Government-2016 Budget Impact Summary • This budget accounts for those activities that are not specific to the functions of any particular General Fund department or operation. Expenditures recorded here are composed of election costs and voter registration fees paid to Spokane County; the cost of the City's annual audit paid to the State of Washington; City Hall rent; most information technology expenses including annual computer leases, annual repair and maintenance con- tracts for servers and copiers, monthly telephone and internet charges, and computer and copier purchases. Also charged to this area are payments to outside agencies for economic development and social service purposes; annual property and liability insurance premiums; and transfers to other funds representing General Fund investments or grant matches in a variety of capital projects including pavement preservation. 2016 Budget • The recurring General Government portion of the budget reflects an overall reduction of$20,500 or .62% which is primarily the result of moving a $200,000 appropriation for economic development to the Community and Economic Development De- -.03% partment and reclassifying a $160,000 transfer to Park Capital Projects Fund #309 from nonrecurring to a recurring $1,200 appropriation. Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise • To meet a 3% reduction from the proposed 2016 budget, the following line items have been reduced: -3®/0 0 Reduce Professional Services — Miscellaneous Studies by $50,000 to $100,000. ($99,150) * This will reduce the City's ability to address unforeseen issues that may arise through the year. 0 Reduce the interfund transfer to Fund #309 for park capital projects by $49,150 to just $110,850. * This will further impact the City's ability to finance future park capital projects. • In addition to the 3% reductions: -6%® 0 Reduce the Employee Recognition line-item by the entire $3,000. ($198,300) 0 Reduce the Outside Agency funding by $11,158 to $95,842. 0 Reduce the interfund transfer to Fund #309 for park capital projects by an additional $84,992 for a total reduction from the original $160,000 of$134,142 to just $25,858. * This will impact the City's ability to finance future park capital projects. • In addition to the 3% and 6% reductions: -9%® 0 Reduce the Professional Services — Miscellaneous Studies by an additional $25,000 to $75,000. ($297,450) * This will further reduce the City's ability to address unforeseen issues that may arise through the year. 0 Reduce Outside Agency funding by an additional $48,292 to a total of$47,550. 0 Reduce the inerfund transfer to Fund #309 for park capital projects by an additional $25,858 resulting in a reduction of the entire $160,000 initially budgeted. * This will further impact the City's ability to finance future park capital projects. *Budget Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. PAGE 23 These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. Vol. 9 Executive & Legislative Support-City Manager/City Clerk 2016 Our Mission is to provide the City Council and employees with leadership, useful advice, and implementation of best practices to achieve adopted goals and deliver quality services to the community. Overview: The Executive & Legislative Support Department is accountable to the City Council for the opera- tional results of the organization, effective sup- city Manager port of elected officials in achieving their goals, fulfillment of the statutory requirements of the Cit eputy y ger, p y ManaMana im lementation of Cit Council DManagCity Executive ger Assistant policies, and provision of a communication link- age among citizens, the City Council, City de- I I Administrative Police Chief partments, and other government agencies. City Attorney City Clerk Assistant Human Resources (Contract Manager City Council Services) Executive and Legislative Support includes the City Clerk and Human Resources, as well as Deputy City �.: Resources Deputy City Clerk oversight of the Police Services Contract for the Attorney c t nician City. While the Office of the City Attorney is in- cluded in the Executive and Legislative Support Administrative Department, it works directly with all other de- Assistant — Office Assistant I partments and has its own Mission Statement and Goals following this section. Rule 9 Legal Cce Assistant II Interns(4) PAGE 24 Executive & Legislative Support-City Manager Program Description City Manager: As the City's Chief Executive Officer, the City Manager has overall responsibility for policy development, program planning, fiscal management, administration, and operation of all City functions, programs and activities. The City Manager's administrative direction is provided by the City Council. The City Manager assesses community and citizen needs and ensures objectives and priorities are focused on meeting those needs in an effective, cost-efficient manner; directs development and implementation of initiatives for ser- vice quality improvement; provides day-to-day leadership and works with the City's management team to ensure a high-performance, service-oriented work environment consistent with sound management principles. All City employees report directly or indirectly to the City Manager. The City Manager performs the following essential services: • Directs the implementation of the City Council's annual goals • Develops and directs the implementation of policies, procedures, and work standards for the City • Prepares and recommends long-range plans for City services and programs • Monitors status of contracts • Develops and recommends adoption of the annual budget • Coordinates the preparation of reports or presentations to the City Council or outside agencies • Develops specific proposals for action on current and future City needs • Acts as the Emergency Management Coordinator for the City • Monitors staff performance on qualitative and quantitative measures • Participates with local, regional, state and national jurisdictions to represent Spokane Valley's interests • Maintains good working relationships with community constituents Police Services: Police services are contracted through the Spokane County Sheriff's Department. The City of Spokane Valley Police Chief reports to the City Manager. PAGE 25 Executive & Legislative Support—city Clerk Program Description City Clerk: The Clerk's Office, which consists of the City Clerk and Deputy City Clerk, manages the City's official records and public disclosure, supports the City Council, including agenda development and preparation of the official minutes, provides legal notices to the public regarding city business; supports all City departments and provides initial customer contact at City Hall. As the custodian of all City records, the Clerk's Office oversees record archival and all document imaging for state compliance. In 2015, 85 boxes were archived into storage; there are now a total of 114,645 documents scanned into Laserfiche. The City Clerk's office provides the following services: • Prepares City Council Agendas and Packets • Certifies official City documents • Is Custodian of City Seal • Supervises City's official file record maintenance • Administers insurance claims • Administers the City's Municipal Code • Is the Public Records officer and handles public record requests • Ensures proper format for and processes resolutions and ordinances • Is responsible for business registrations • Administers oath of office for City Council, City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Finance Director & Police Chief • Monitors contracts and other documents for signature, recording and posting • Coordinates Volunteer Opportunities for City boards, committees and commissions • Responsible for set-up and clean-up of Council meetings • Attends all Council meetings and transcribes minutes • Presides at bid openings • Is responsible for publication of all legal notices • Serves as City's Election Official • Communicates with and provides citizens information • Administers Consultant, Small Works and Vendor rosters • Processes requests for use of City Logo • Serves as official Parliamentarian at Council meetings PAGE 26 Executive & Legislative Support-Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-1 2016-2021 Facilitate the achievement of annually established Council Goals (all years). • Annually develop objectives and strategies to accomplish Council Goals • Report goal attainment progress to the community in the City Manager's Budget Message G-2 2016-2021 Update the General Fund Budget Projection. The Budget Projection estimates • Update the General Fund Budget Projection on an ongoing basis expected revenues and expenses, incorporates the fiscal elements of depart- • Update departmental business plans mental business plans, identifies fiscal constraints and proposes formulas for • Calculate the fiscal impacts identified in business plans Council consideration in composing a budget-balancing approach that itemiz- • Assess revenue and expenditure trends es necessary service reductions or increased revenues, or a combination • Merge trend data with business plan cost data thereof. • Determine the financial delta • Develop best case and worst case scenarios • Formulate revenue and expenditure options • Determine affordable service levels • Select budget-balancing options to implement • Obtain Council authorization to proceed with selected option(s) G-3 (Council Goal) 2016 Prepare Legislative Agenda for Council consideration. • Present to Council a draft Legislative Agenda to consider what matters the City Council wishes to promote on behalf of the city for the potential inclusion in the Governor's Budget PAGE 27 Executive & Legislative Support-Workload Indicators Goal Workload 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 G-1 Weekly Meetings with Department Heads to attain Council Goals 53 52 52 Goal Attainment Progress(Business Plan) posted to website by Febru- ary 25 annually(after the winter Council Workshop) Number of established Council Goals 5 6 6 Number of Council meetings 53 50 48 G-2 Draft of Departmental Business Plans completed annually by June 30 General Fund Budget Projection reviewed and updated annually Balanced budget presented to City Council annually CC* Number of boxes archived 53 36 85 Number of public record requests processed 297 276 296 Number of boxes destroyed — 40 42 Number of files/documents destroyed — 1,233 759 Address files scanned and destroyed — 3,221 7,001 Number of contracts processed 234 243 238 Ordinances passed 20 21 26 Resolutions passed 13 15 12 *CC = City Clerk workload indicators PAGE 28 Executive & Legislative Support-Workload Indicators Goal Workload 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 G-1 Weekly Meetings w/Department Heads to attain Council Goals 53 52 52 52 51 Goal Attainment Progress(Business Plan) posted to website by Febru- ary 25 annually(after the winter Council Workshop) Number of established Council Goals 6 7 6 6 6 Number of Council meetings 55 59 52 51 49 G-2 Draft of Departmental Business Plans completed annually by June 30 General Fund Budget Projection reviewed and updated annually Balanced budget presented to City Council annually CC* Number of boxes archived 181 195 82 91 109 Number of public record requests processed 347 324 333 310 352 Number of contracts processed 166 216 171 192 206 Prepare analysis of electronic filing annually Ordinances passed 28 41 26 22 29 Resolutions passed 24 18 20 12 14 *CC = City Clerk workload indicators PAGE 29 Executive & Legislative Support—Performance Measures Goal Performance 2013 2014 6 Yr. Avg. 2015 2016 Target G-1 Percent of citizens satisfied with Council Goals and City's direction A A 83.5% " (citizen survey) Average percent of citizens who attend Council meetings(citizen A A 18% " survey) Percent of citizens who rated the services provided by the City with a A A 92.5% " positive rating(citizen survey) Pertaining to living in Spokane Valley, percent of citizens who gave a A A 98% " positive rating(citizen survey) Pertaining to the City listening to its citizen's, percent of citizens who A A 75% " gave a positive rating(citizen survey) Pertaining to the City welcoming citizen involvement, percent of citi- A A 82% " zens who gave a positive rating(citizen survey) G-2 Pertaining to the overall value of services received for City tax dollars A A 83% " paid, percent of citizens who gave a positive rating(citizen survey) Dollars spent City-wide per capita(all accounts year-end figure) $58,446,721 $63,302,877 $350,284,741 " pending year-end adjustments 1 _91,490 _92,050 +543,055 $639/capita $687/capita $645/capita CC Percent of response per public record requests completed in 5 days 98.9% 99.6% 99.75% 98.98% Average number of days to respond — .59 .59 1.07 Average number of days to completion — 5.65 5.65 4.60 Percent of all documents and forms indexed on City's website by year 100% 100% 100% 100% end Percent of prompt indexing of Council documents within 5 working 100% 100% 100% 100% days 1 Includes local revenue as well as grant funds and other external revenues. PAGE 30 Executive & Legislative Support-Performance Measures Goal Performance 2008 2009" 2010 2011" 2012 Target G-1 Percent of citizens satisfied with Council Goals and City's direction — 82% — 85% — (citizen survey) Average percent of citizens who attend Council meetings(citizen survey) — 21% — 15% — Percent of citizens who rated the services provided by the City with a — 91% — 94% — positive rating(citizen survey) Pertaining to living in Spokane Valley, percent of citizens who gave a — 98% — 98% — positive rating(citizen survey) Pertaining to the City listening to its citizen's, percent of citizens who — 75% — Question not — gave a positive rating(citizen survey) in survey Pertaining to the City welcoming citizen involvement, percent of citizens — 85% — 79% — who gave a positive rating(citizen survey) G-2 Pertaining to the overall value of services received for City tax dollars — 83% — 83% — paid, percent of citizens who gave a positive rating(citizen survey) Dollars spent City-wide per capita(all accounts year-end figure) $58,936,857 $67,574,808 $49,530,368 $54,347,028 $57,082,939 pending year-end adjustments 2 _88,920 _89,440 _90,210 _89,7551 _90,1103 $663/capita $756/capita $549/capita $606/capita $633/capita CC Percent of response per public record requests completed in 5 days 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Percent of all documents and forms indexed on City's website by year 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% end Percent of prompt indexing of Council documents within 5 working days 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 This number is based on the 2010 Census. 2 Includes local revenue as well as grant funds and other external revenues. 3 Per the Washington State Office of Financial Management PAGE 31 Executive & Legislative Support- Performance Measures Summary Dollars Spent City-Wide Per Capita 2008-2014 $800 $ Per $600 Capita $400 — Year Over Year % Increase in Total Per Capita Spending 2009-2014 $200 — $0 - 2014 17 67% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2013 ] 0.95% 2012 � 4.461 2011 10.38% 0% Per Capita _ I 27.3:% I 2010 2009 - I 14.03% -30.00% -20.00% -10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 6 Year Performance Measures Summary G-2: • The 6-year average per capita expenditure is $645.03. • The highest expenditure per capita is seen in 2009 at $756. This year also has the highest revenue over the past 6 years with $67,574,808. This is directly related to the Barker Bridge reconstruction projected completed this year. • Even though there was a 27.38% decrease in 2010, every subsequent year has seen a steady climb, up close to the levels seen in 2009. • The variance in results is due to capital project spending. For instance, the decline in 2010 is a direct result of the Barker Bridge reconstruction (mentioned above) at $5.7 million and Street Capital Projects at $6.3 million. PAGE 32 Executive & Legislative Support - 2016 Budget and Staffing Impact Summary City Manager & City Clerk Increase/Reduction • The Executive & Legislative line-item portion of the budget (not including wages, payroll taxes and benefits) is able to 2016 Budget operate with a 1% increase over the 2015 adopted budget. The following line-items have been adjusted to reflect 1% changes made from the 2015 budget: $650 0 Reduced postage by$600 0 Increased travel by $1,250 due to increased travel costs and additional legislative trips. (Although budgeted, the City has not used a federal lobbyist to date in 2015). Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise -3% • To meet a 3% reduction from the proposed 2016 budget, the following line items have been reduced or eliminated: ($21,535) 0 Reduce overtime hours by 100% 0 Reduce a staff position from 1.00 to .75 FTE 0 Reduced office supplies by 55% • In addition to the 3% reduction noted above, to meet a 6% reduction from the proposed 2016 budget, the following line -6% items have been reduced or eliminated. ($21,535+ 0 Reduce a staff position from .75 to .50 FTE $21,540) 0 Reduce memberships by 50% 0 Reduce registrations by 45% 0 Eliminate miscellaneous services -9% • In addition to the 3% & 6% reductions noted above, to meet a 9% reduction from the proposed 2016 budget, the ($43,075 + following line items have been reduced or eliminated which limits the ability to perform daily functions: $21,670) 0 Reduce a staff position from .50 to .25 FTE 0 Reduce travel & mileage by .20% *Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. PAGE 33 Vol. 9 Executive & Legislative Support—Office of the City Attorney 2016 Our Mission is to implement Council policy by providing clear direction and meaningful assistance to employees administering city government and citizens who use city government. Ensure that all City actions are consistent, timely and helpful. Maintain a positive and creative workplace. Overview: City Attorney The Office of the City Attorney represents the City's legal interests, including oversight of claims and litigation. The City Attorney drafts ordinances and resolutions; negotiates contracts, inter-local agree- ments, franchises, leases, and agreements; and supports depart- ments in enforcing associated laws. The Office of the City Attorney also provides specialized employee training regarding existing law. Administrative deputy City The City Attorney supervises and directs the work of Rule 9 Legal Interns. Assistant I Attorney Rule 9 Interns PAGE 34 Executive & Legislative Support—Office of the City Attorney Program Description Office of the City Attorney: Overview of operations of Office of the City Attorney: The Office of the City Attorney is responsible for providing legal advice and sup- port to the City Council and City employees, as well as to prosecute and defend all civil matters not assigned to outside counsel. This office works extensively with all City departments. The Office of the City Attorney provides the following services: • Negotiate and draft and/or review all contracts • Negotiate and draft franchise agreements with utility providers • Meet and negotiate with Spokane County on service contracts • Meet and negotiate with other jurisdictions on a variety of matters, including interlocal agreements • Defend City in litigation and administrative hearings • Represent City in code compliance litigation and collections • Maintain office and document organization necessary to successfully complete all tasks • Advise on labor relations and employment law • Advise on Community and Economic Development issues • Advise on numerous miscellaneous issues of general governance on a daily basis • Draft, or review and revise, ordinances, resolutions, and policies as appropriate • Draft legal memoranda on a full range of municipal issues • Review and compile responses to public record requests when necessary • Provide training to staff on legal issues with broad application, such as public records, the Open Public Meeting Act, public disclosure rules, ethics, administrative and land-use regulations, contracts and purchasing, and ordinance drafting • Attend all Planning Commission meetings • Review and advise on all real property transfers (easements, deeds, etc.) • Participate on the Governance Manual Committee The Office of the City Attorney has been staffed with two attorneys, one administrative assistant, and from one to three legal interns for the past 11 years. The daily work largely consists of providing timely advice on a full range of municipal issues to City staff and the City Council. The most common examples involve reviewing public record request responses to determine compliance with disclosure and privacy laws; drafting and reviewing contracts for all departments; advising or drafting legal memoranda on a wide range of municipal issues; reviewing and advising Community and Economic Development on proposed private land development in order to proactively identify and avoid potential legal difficulties; and representing the City in litigation. PAGE 35 Executive & Legislative Support—Office of the City Attorney Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-1 2016-2021 To have a fully operational City Attorney's Office that proactively assists in pro- • Review programs gram development, advises all departments on legal issues in a timely manner, . Monitor workload & workload changes and manages all potential and existing litigation. • Track response times • Identify deficient areas G-2 2016-2021 To assist other departments in analyzing and mapping existing processes to • Maintain and update all form contracts used by all departments determine compliance with the law and whether higher levels of customer ser- • Attend internal planning meetings to identify and resolve potential issues vice can be achieved. • Review and revise administrative policies and procedures as appropriate G-3 2016-2017 Provide legal support to other departments and to the Council in furtherance of • Assist Council in identifying long-term land use priorities the Council goal to develop and adopt a Comprehensive Plan Update and • Assist in identifying legal options for framing policy decisions relating to refine necessary development regulations to implement the Comprehensive updating the Comprehensive Plan Plan Update. • Advise Council on procedural issues regarding successful adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and implementing development regulations • Assist in drafting/revising development regulations to implement Comprehensive Plan Update G-4 2016-2021 Negotiate and draft utility franchise agreements on an as-needed basis with • Finalize and begin negotiations to establish and update franchise utility providers. agreements • Draft model language for franchise agreements G-5 2016-2021 Assist Community and Economic Development to identify options for economic • Flexible zoning techniques development • Organize and update all rules regarding vesting and imposition of condi- tions on development • Assist with development of functional economic development tools PAGE 36 Executive & Legislative Support—Office of the City Attorney Workload Indicators and Performance Measures Goal Workload 2013 2014 6 Yr. Avg. 2015 2016 Target Dept. Work order requests processed 251 274 261 254 related Legal memoranda 27 26 69 28 Public record requests processed(does not include day-to-day file re- 19 11 15 22 view in response to public record requests processed by City Clerk) Litigation matters including enforcement matters. Enforcement—Opened 25 21 17 44 Closed 16 15 36 37 Training classes taught 5 10 6 6 Average number of days for completion of tasks 18 17 19 18 Ordinances and resolutions drafted 33 36 41 38 Contracts reviewed 206 209 150 214 Goal Performance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Target Dept. Legal service cost per hour compared to outside counsel $82 vs$250 $88 vs$265 $91 vs$265 related Percent of internal clients reporting legal advice was timely 67% 100% 95% 95% Percentage of internal clients reporting that legal advice was clear and 77% 100% 98% relevant PAGE 37 Executive & Legislative Support—Office of the City Attorney Workload Indicators and Performance Measures Goal Workload 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target Dept. Work order requests processed 388 252 283 259 249 related Legal memoranda 90 114 83 111 50 Public record requests processed(does not include day-to-day file re- 29 29 15 6 9 view in response to public record requests processed by City Clerk) Litigation matters including enforcement matters. 105 68 70 61 32 Enforcement—Opened 94 21 7 9 17 Closed 71 58 67 39 21 Training classes taught 8 11 3 3 4 Average number of days for completion of tasks — — 12 24 22 Ordinances and resolutions drafted 40 59 39 34 43 Contracts reviewed 166 75 93 125 190 Goal Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target Dept. Legal service cost per hour compared to outside counsel $73 vs$250 $74 vs $250 $65 vs$250 $79 vs$250 $79 vs$250 related Percent of internal clients reporting legal advice was timely 91% 63% 82% 84% 80% 95% Percentage of internal clients reporting that legal advice was clear and 95% 94% 74% 87% 77% relevant PAGE 38 Executive & Legislative Support—Office of the City Attorney Performance Measures Summary I Performance Measures 2141 2015 254 209 2014 274 206 2013 251 190 2512! 249 2011 1 s� 259 93 2011E 83 0 50 IOC 15:: 200 250 300 Contracts Reviev,Ld Work Urder .a e_ts Lce _ev 6 Year Summary: • The Work Order Requests Processed graph reflects individual tasks the office is requested to do, or tasks the office identifies as needing some analysis. These work load indicators have remained fairly level over the past six years. Each task varies widely in terms of how much time it takes. • The Contracts Reviewed graph reflects the number of contracts, contract amendments, and interlocal agreements executed by the office annually.The level of work for each varies significantly, depending on whether our office is negotiating the contract, advising another department on contracting options or contracting law, or whether we are simply reviewing and signing.This number has increased over the past several years as the contracting process has been improved. PAGE 39 Executive & Legislative Support—Office of the City Attorney 2016 Budget and Staffing Impact Summary* Increase/Reduction • The Office of the Attorney was able to keep the same level of service and meet the directive to produce an initial 2016 Budg- et at the targeted 1% increase over the 2015 Budget (not including wages, payroll taxes and benefits) as a result of carefully 2016 Budget examining the expenditure history in all accounts and reducing the budget requests in a variety of line items to more closely +1% $823.00 reflect previous spending. Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise -3%® • To meet a 3% reduction from the proposed 2016 budget, the following line items have been reduced or eliminated: ($14,376) 0 Office supplies-reduced by$330 (25%) * Every effort will be made to reuse items that can be reused and go without wherever possible. 0 Outside legal counsel-reduced by$12,926 (26%) * This will increase workload for in-house attorneys, slowing response times and in some cases, expertise. We would have to reprioritize issues. 0 Registrations—reduced by$290 (15%) * This will reduce/eliminate training for the administrative assistant 0 Filing/recording fees - reduced by$500 (14%) * Will need to prioritize documents to be recorded if possible o • In addition to the 3%cuts mentioned above: -6%® 0 Eliminate one of two legal interns-reduced by$12,990 (50%) ($28,774) * The interns do research for the attorneys and work the code compliances cases. They also attend hearings upon receiving their Rule 9 license. Elimination of an intern would slow the production for the attorneys on issues as they would have to take on these tasks as well. 0 Outside legal counsel—reduced an additional $1,409 (1%) * These would have a substantial impact on the workload for the two attorneys and remaining intern, significantly reducing effi- ciency, total work product completed, as well as timeliness of completed work. • In addition to the 3% and 6%cuts mentioned above: -9% 0 Eliminate both legal interns-reduced by additional $12,990 (50%) ($43,172) * The interns do research for the attorneys and work the code compliance cases.. They also attend hearing upon receiving their Rule 9 license. Elimination of the interns would greatly slow the production for the attorneys on other issues and reprioritiza- tion of issues would have to occur with code compliance cases handled only when time would allow 0 Outside legal counsel—reduced an additional $1,408 (1%). * These would have a substantial impact on the workload for the two attorneys, significantly reducing efficiency, reducing total work product completed, as well as timeliness of completed work. *Budget Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. PAGE 40 Vol. 9 Operations and Administrative Services 2016 Our Mission is to support the organization and provide exceptional customer service by assessing and addressing the needs of customers and employees, emphasizing public accountability, fostering community involvement, and managing the delivery of services to the people. Overview: The Operations & Administrative Services Depart- Deputy City ment includes contract administration and public Manager information functions of the City. This section of the Business Plan reflects the operations oversight division of the department. I I Administrative Senior Public Analysist Administrative Information Analyst Officer Public — • Information Intern PAGE 41 Operations and Administrative Services—Deputy City Manager Program Description Deputy City Manager: Oversee the Operations and Administrative Services Department for the City. The Deputy City Manager works under the gen- eral direction of the City Manager and works with the City's management team to coordinate their efforts toward the achievement of departmental objectives and the objectives of the city government as a whole. The Deputy City Manager participates in and makes suggestions to the City Manager in the formulation of strategy and City policy involving organization, procedures, and ser- vices. Duties also include advising the City Manager in the determination of program needs, the preparation and presentation of programs for approval by the City Manager and City Council, and the coordination of the implementation of approved programs. The Deputy City Manager performs operations oversight for the Community & Economic Development, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation departments. The Deputy City Manager performs the following essential services: • Works with the City Manager and department heads in planning, organizing, coordinating and implementing programs affecting assigned areas of responsibility • Coordinates with other managers of City services on matters affecting their areas of responsibility • Briefs the City Manager on issues of concern in the departments and functions in assigned area of responsibility to as- sure proper action • Meets and corresponds with various citizens, professional, business and other groups to answer questions and secure their help in carrying out various programs • Coordinates the preparation of annual budget for departments within assigned area • Reviews results of major studies and coordinates the preparation of reports and recommendations • Attends Council meetings and makes reports concerning activities for which responsible as requested by the City Manag- er; confers with officials of city, county, state and federal agencies regarding plans and priorities for existing and planned programs • Demonstrates continuous effort to improve operations, decrease turnaround times, streamline work processes, and work cooperatively and jointly to provide quality seamless customer service PAGE 42 Operations and Administrative Services—Public Information Office Program Description Public Information: The Public Information Office provides professional communications services that result in the distribution of complete, accurate and timely information on City programs, projects and activities using a variety of communication tools and channels to create public aware- ness, understanding, interest, input and involvement in city government. Essential services: • Help ensure government transparency through development and dissemination of timely, accurate and complete information on City programs, projects, activities and issues • Provide emergency information and instructions for the safety and well-being of citizens, City Council and City staff in the event of emergencies (i.e., Windstorm 2015, Valley View Fire, Snow Emergencies, and Declaration of Pandemic Influenza) • Provide winter snow plowing notifications and information on road construction impacts to police, fire, emergency responders, public transit, school transportation offices and the community using a variety of channels • Support economic development by researching, proposing and developing informational and marketing materials, including bro- chures, newsletters, mailings, advertising, graphic design, photography, and videography • Support Council goals through communications that facilitate citizen understanding and engagement • Utilize a variety of channels and resources for dissemination of City information including printed brochures, newsletters, media re- leases, feature stories, social media, website postings, RSS feeds, video Public Service Announcements, media interviews/features, presentations, and email notification lists, as well as telephone and personal contact • Serves at the primary contact and coordination for interaction with media • Serves at the primary contact for general information about the City of Spokane Valley programs, projects, issues, and services • Facilitate representative government through two-way communications between Council and staff/businesses/citizens/visitors • Propose/plan/coordinate public meetings as needed for departments, and Council, including community information meetings, spe- cial events such as the State of the City address, and participation in a variety of community events • Coordinates required public education and outreach on the Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, including activities funded under the WA State Department of Ecology Coordinated Prevention Grant PAGE 43 Operations and Administrative Services—Public Information Office Program Description Key Results for 2015 include: MEDIA Contacts 96 Releases 247 Earned stories 320 Total stories 575 *Equivalent ad value of earned stories $85,425.18 NEWSLETTERS Inserts7distribution: Spokesma1 $14,000 &$16,400 OTHER Citizen contacts: 208 Mailed to all businesses/residences - 2- $45,462 &$47,168 Website updates: 194 Hand distributed 2- 538 & 332 City Hall at the Mall/State of City 1 Valleyfest parade & booth 1 Appleway Trail Unveil the Trail 1 Solid Waste CPG application & public 1 outreach implementation Windstorm emergency response/ 1 recovery outreach *Based on cost to purchase ad space in equivalent column inches. Does not include radio coverage, or television broadcast not archived by station online. "Earned" media are stories that result from a media release or media contact initiated by the Public Information Office. Print/broadcast"impressions" per story: Spokesman Review-163,800 to 307,516. Valley News Herald-5,022. Broadcast media "impressions"vary by source from 50,000 to 250,000. Does not include web, RSS, radio or media website/enews impressions. "Impressions" are the numbers of readers that are estimated to have seen each story they've reported. Media outlets provide these figures, which are typically reported as a range of numbers that take into account circulation, multiple readers, and those who see or hear a story but don't read or engage with it. PAGE 44 Operations and Administrative Services—Contract Administration & Analysis Program Descriptions Contract Administration: The Contract Administration Program is responsible for negotiating and administering all public safety contracts, including law enforcement, jail, and the district court, which totals $24.2 million or 63% of the 2015 General Fund recurring expenditure budget. Ensures contract services are delivered to citizens and businesses at a high level for a good value and that all locally generated revenue goes toward serving City of Spokane Valley customers. Interacts with customers to answer questions and provide information on services such as Animal Control, Solid Waste and Cable Television. Analysis: Evaluates current service delivery based upon current and anticipated demand while employing the best business practices and sound fiscal policy to ensure that staffing levels match demand and all efficiencies are incorporated. PAGE 45 Operations and Administrative Services—Human Resources Program Description Human Resources: The Human Resources office is responsible for providing personnel consultation and employee services to the management of the City of Spokane Valley and its employees, supporting a workforce that is motivated to deliver quality services to the community. This is accomplished through the following responsibilities: • Compliance w/Employment • Compensation • Policy Development and Law Administration Administration • Employee Wellness • Health Care and other • Orientation • Performance Management Benefits Administration • Website Administration Human Resources conducted 122 interviews, filling 37 positions in 2015. The office maintains a greater than 94% satisfaction rate with the services provided to City employees and managers. The office, along with the Wellness Committee, continues to achieve the WellCity Award by developing a qualified Wellness Program which is anticipated to reduce employee health care expense by more than $20,000 per year. The HR office provides Risk Management services to the City in the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks followed by coordinated and economical application of resources to minimize, monitor, and control the probability and/or impact of such risks. Further, the Human Resources manager functions as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator guiding the City's efforts to promote access to its citizens. As the City's designated contact for persons requesting accommodation, the HR manager works with the public to provide reasonable access to City services. HR prepares the City for the many changes in the external business environment, including increased governmental mandates and legislation, recruitment needs as the pool of skilled workers decreases, the increasing cost of labor, and changing workforce demographics. PAGE 46 Operations and Administrative Services—Central Reception Program Description Central Reception: Central Reception consists of two full-time employees who serve as the primary point of contact for the City while providing the highest level of customer service for citizens, clients and staff. Central Reception greets and assists all visitors, provides information, assists in business registration applications, makes community referrals, answers incoming telephone calls, takes messages, and directs calls to staff members. During 2015, two full-time employees assisted with 1,572 new business registration applications, 6,847 annual business registration renewals, answered and directed 7,100 phone calls to staff, greeted 3,023 visitors, and reported 1,383 Citizen Action Requests. Additional services include: • Receive Home Occupation • Receive Public Record • Traffic Related Requests Applications Requests • Street Maintenance Requests • Non-Domestic Animal Issues • Maintain City Directories on website • Snow Plow/Street Sweeping • Order Business Cards/Name • Database Maintenance for Information Plates Business Registrations • Maintain Literature for City Services • Database Maintenance for • Abandoned Vehicles Public Works • Business Registrations & welcome • Citizen Action Requests • Internal Mail Distribution letters to new businesses PAGE 47 Operations and Administrative Services—Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-1 2016-2021 Respond to internal and external impacts on the City's human resources function • Evaluate City's work environment to encourage retention of existing staff in order to recruit and retain a well-qualified workforce. • Expand New Employee Orientation and ongoing training • Develop processes that improve employee access to information, and make the best use of technology in order to administer cost effectively • Evaluation of employment costs to identify opportunities to reduce those costs G-2 2016-2021 Enhance community interest and involvement in City government. • Involve all departments in Council goals & enhancing community interest& involve- ment in City government • Expand communications with internal and external constituencies through re- search, recommendation and implementation of new communications methods and technologies • 4 full-city mailers of i/ot Topics Community Newsletter • Continue implementation of 2015-2017 Solid Waste CPG-funded outreach • Work to expand public information services using video capabilities G-3 2016-2021 Formalize public accountability in City operations through incorporating the Busi- • Incorporate the Business Plan in the City's decision-making process to enhance ness Plan into decision making and establishing a toolbox for evaluating the accountability through implementation of performance results City's contract services. An open, collaborative government is the third Core Val- • Evaluate City's contract services ue adopted by City Council. • Implement contract audit program • Create custom feedback system G-4 2016-2021 Audit of existing risk management practices and further development of the Risk • Assess whether City property is properly insured Management Program for the City • Develop procedures for minimizing claims costs • Provide recommendations to the City Manager for program development G-5 2016-2017 Refine the plan to finance the design and construction of a new City Hall building • Teaming with the City Manager, Finance Department and Legal department, work which will include a combination of cash on hand and the issuance of limited tax with bond counsel, financial advisor and bond underwriter to create an official general obligation bonds. statement and other relevant documents leading to the issuance of limited tax gen- eral obligation bonds in early 2016. G-6 2015-2017 Coordinate the efforts of the City Hall construction team. • Work with the City Hall Construction Team towards the design, construction and equipping of a City Hall structure that will meet the long-term needs of the City. PAGE 48 Operations and Administrative Services Workload Indicators Goal Workload 2013 2014 2015 2016 Target G-1 Number of City employees 97 108 112 Personnel action forms processed 100 157 166 Number of training classes facilitated or coordinated 5 8 6 Interviews conducted 75 77 122 Employees hired(*regular employees—permanent FT/PT employees; 9 8 12 limited term;does not include temporary/seasonal employees) Average number of applications received per recruitment cycle 31.95 29.7 24.08 G-2 Media releases issued 309 241 247 208 Earned media stories 434 354 320 200 Total Media stories 828 756 575 680 Public Information contacts with the media 146 144 96 200 Community newsletters produced 2 3 4 4 Citizen contacts(phone&email) 332 219 208 275 Number of City-presented Special Events(City Hall at the Mall, State of 5 5 3 5 the City, Valleyfest and other outreach events) PAGE 49 Operations and Administrative Services—Workload Indicators Goal Workload 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target G-1 Number of City employees 89 88 79 84 85 Personnel action forms processed 148 168 260 118 162 Number of training classes facilitated or coordinated 9 11 12 6 4 Interviews conducted 154 66 73 101 75 Employees hired(*regular employees—permanent FT/PT employees; 15 9 6 16 6 limited term;does not include temporary/seasonal employees) Average number of applications received per recruitment cycle 94.8 77.8 41.5 67 39.28 G-2 Media releases issued 203 201 167 219 206 185 Total Media stories 673 556 855 723 5071 680 Public Information contacts with the media 273 201 193 219 1512 200 Community newsletters produced 3 regular 3 regular 3 regular 2 regular3 2 regular 2 11 special 1. Police stories no longer included 2. Media now contacts many departments directly 3. Reduced to 2 due to reduction in budget PAGE 50 Operations and Administrative Services—Performance Measures Goal Performance 2013 2014 6 Yr. Avg. 2015 2016 Target G-1 Percentage rating for employee satisfaction with Human Resources 93% 92% 90.4% 94.7 95% Percentage rate of employee turnover 5.9% 5.9% 6.57% 6.09% Human Resource full-time employees(FTE) per 100 employees 2 2 2 2 Percentage of annual non-manager performance reviews completed 83% 52% 44.71% 43.33 within 30 days of anniversary date Average number of days to complete recruitment 40 64 58.89 70.08 G-2& Customer satisfaction re:contact with City Hall as it pertains to a positive G-3 impression of employees(citizen survey): Knowledge A A A A 92% Responsiveness A A A A 94% Courtesy A A A A 93% Overall impression A A A A 90% Customer use of website(citizen survey): 30.5% A 36% Customer satisfaction with Public Information services(citizen survey): 91.5% A 97% Earned media stories per FTE in Public Information Office 200 272 167 320 180 Community Newsletter distribution per capita(residences/businesses for 51.6%' 24% 2013 and after) NO LONGER USED—SEE DISTRIBUTION FIGURES BELOW Newsletter distribution to households& businesses (target 4 issues/yr.): Form of Winter issue: (mailed& handouts) – – measurement 47,268&332 Fall issue: (newspaper inserts& handouts) – 46,267&233 changed in 15,767&233 Summer issue: (mailed& handouts) – 16,841 &725 2014 45,462& 1,538 Spring issue: (newspaper inserts& handouts) – 17,426& 124 13,349&323 Read community newsletter(citizen survey) 47% A 24% Watched Council meetings on cable or web-streaming(citizen survey) 28% A 30% 1 2013 figure is based on the U.S.P.S. newsletter mailed to 46,577 addresses and emailed to 597 addresses and divided by City population of 91,490 per AWC survey. PAGE 51 Operations and Administrative Services—Performance Measures Goal Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target G-1 Percentage rating for employee satisfaction with Human Resources 97.6% 98% 97.8% 96.6% 65% 95% Percentage rate of employee turnover 9% 6.2% 8.2% 4.74% 8.48% Human Resource full-time employees(FTE) per 100 employees 2 2 2 2 2 Percentage of annual non-manager performance reviews completed 53.42% 37% 39.7% 21.54% 35% within 30 days of anniversary date Average number of days to complete recruitment 130 55.8 50.54 67 75.95 G-2& Customer satisfaction re:contact with City Hall as it pertains to a positive G-3 impression of employees(citizen survey): Knowledge — 88% — 94% — 92% Responsiveness — 90% — 87% — 94% Courtesy — 89% — 88% — 93% Overall impression — 86% — 86% — 90% Customer use of website(citizen survey): — 26% — 35% — 36% Customer satisfaction with Public Information services(citizen survey): — 92% — 91% — 97% Earned media stories per FTE in Public Information Office 162 96 166 115 154 180 Community Newsletter distribution per capita .0031% 22.76% 22.6% 22.6% 21.6% 24% Read community newsletter(citizen survey) — 23% — 71% — 24% Watched Council meetings on cable or web-streaming(citizen survey) — — — 28% — 30% PAGE 52 Operations and Administrative Services—Performance Measures Summary Human Resources: 6 Year Summary G-1: • Percentage rating for employee satisfaction with Human Resources o In 2012, the percentage of employees satisfied with the Human Resources Department was 65%. This measurement was taken in the first quarter of 2013, when the City made two dramatic changes to its personnel systems; the elimination of certain health plans, moving employees to plans having less benefits and the movement of the City's compensation system to performance based. Since then, we had two successive measurement periods showing a return to former levels of satis- faction; in 2013, the percentage increased to 93% and 92% in 2014. o Timely completion of employee evaluations has also changed significantly; however, very close to all evaluations are com- pleted within 45 days. o The number a days to complete a recruitment also increased in 2014 to 64 days. However, a review of the 6-year average of 59 days, 2014 was close to the normal range. This will be an important metric to watch in the future as the job market be- comes more competitive for employers. Public Information Office: 6 Year Summary G-2: • Media releases issued o Media releases issued peaked in 2013 at 309 due to promotions and partnerships for the City's 10-Year Anniversary. o Earned media stories have only been tracked since 2013 to help demonstrate the effect of pushing information out to the media. Equivalent cash value of earned media is also now reported quarterly. If the City had to pur- chase the media coverage received as direct result of PIO outreach, it would have cost more than $57,000, which does not include the added value of media blogs and radio stories. PAGE 53 Operations and Administrative Services-2016 Budget & Staffing Impact Summary Deputy City Manager, Central Reception, Public Information, Contract Administration Increase/Reduction • The Operations and Administrative Services Department line-item budget (not including wages, payroll taxes and benefits) 2016 Budget reflects a reduction of$10,324 or 16.18%. To the best of our ability, we make certain the budget requests for individual line- -16.18% items closely approximate the average actual expenditures in the previous three-years, however some variations exist in the $10,324 2016 Budget as we work towards developing a consistent means of accounting for the cost of the Hot Topic newsletter. Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise • In order to meet the directive to reduce the budget by 3%: -3%® 0 Reduce staff by .25 FTE. ($21,408) 0 Reduce the public information office intern position by .25%. 0 Reduce professional services by $1,036. 0 Reduce copier maintenance by $500. • In order to meet the directive to reduce the budget by 6%: -6% 0 Reduce staff by .50 FTE. ($21,408 + 0 Eliminate the public information office intern position. $21,438) 0 Reduce professional services by $2,500. 0 Reduce copier maintenance by $500. 0 Reduce printing by $100. • In order to meet the directive to reduce the budget by 9%: -9% 0 Reduce staff by .74 FTE. ($42,846+ 0 Eliminate the public information office intern position. $21,836) 0 Reduce professional services by $2,500. 0 Reduce copier maintenance by $500. 0 Reduce printing by $100. *Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. PAGE 54 Operations and Administrative Services-2016 Budget & Staffing Impact Summary* Human Resources Increase/Reduction 2016 Budget • The Human Resources department is able to provide the services within the 2016 budget at 1% increase over the 2015 +1% Budget (not including wages, payroll taxes and benefits). Reducing legal services by 45% is necessary to remain within a $230 1% increase: Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise • The 3% overall operating cost changes include: -3% ($7,296) 0 Reduction in legal services by 35% reducing access to counsel concerning employment issues. 0 Reduction of advertising for employee recruitment by 42%. 0 Reduce use of postage by 33%. 0 Reduction in Training and Travel expense impacting employee development and awareness of industry practices. 0 No City-wide training event. Individual training as necessary. 0 Reduction in Wellness budget by 32%. 0 Reduction in professional memberships, decreasing information concerning changes in employment practices. -6% • The 6% overall operating cost changes include the above-noted $7,4296, and: 0 Reduction of legal services by 68% providing very limited advice on employment issues. $7,296+7,620) 0 Further reduction in employee training provided through the HR Office by 77%. 0 Reduction of pre-employment physicals and criminal history checks. 0 Reduction in office supplies by 43% 0 Elimination of Employee Recruitment Advertising. 0 Elimination of Postage. 0 Reduction in training registrations for HR staff by 55% . 0 Reduction in travel by HR Staff by 67%. -9% • The 9% overall operating cost objective includes the above-noted $14,916, and: 0 Elimination of legal counsel for all personnel issues. ($14,916+ 0 Further reduction in professional services eliminating pre-employment physicals and some criminal history checks. $ 7,680) 0 Elimination of staff training. 0 Elimination of the WellCity Award, increasing healthcare premiums by 2%. 0 Elimination of office supplies. *Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. PAGE 55 These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. Vol. 9 Operations and Administrative Services— 2016 Finance & Information Technology The Mission of the Finance and Information Technology Department is to assist the City Council, City Staff and Citizens in the areas of financial planning, budgeting, financial reporting and overall stewardship of the City's Resources. Overview: The Finance and IT Department provides financial management services for all City departments. Programs include accounting and financial reporting, payroll, accounts payable, some purchasing, budgeting and financial planning, treasury, investments and infor- mation technology. The department is also responsible for generating and analyzing financial data related to the City's operations. IFfinance Director 1 1 I I l l I Accountant! Database IT Specialist (2) Help Desk Budget Analyst Accounting Accounting Administrator Technician (1) (3.75) Manager Technician (2) PAGE 56 Operations and Administrative Services—Finance & Information Technology Program Descriptions Finance & Information Technology: The Mission of the Finance and Information Technology Department is to assist the City Council, City staff and citizens in the areas of financial planning, budget- ing, financial reporting and overall stewardship of City resources. Our information technology (IT) group seeks to understand technology and how it can best serve internal and external IT users. Finance is charged with the responsibility of administration, coordination, supervision and control of financial activities engaged in by the City. These functions are performed through a combination of interrelated activities including financial management, general accounting and information technology. • Financial management responsibilities include: 0 Budget development and monitoring 0 Preparation of periodic budget amendments 0 Treasury control and management of the City's cash and investment portfolio 0 Debt financing and management 0 Collaboration with Public Works staff on financing options for capital projects • General accounting responsibilities include: 0 Internal and external financial reporting including preparation of the Annual Financial Report 0 Coordination with the Washington State Auditor's Office for the City's annual audit which on average represents approximately 800 auditor hours each year 0 General ledger accounting 0 Audit coordination 0 Cash receipting including preparation of daily deposits for City departments 0 Tracking and receipting telephone utility tax payments 0 Tracking and receipting quarterly gambling tax payments 0 Processing of payroll and accounts payable for 87.4 full-time equivalent employees as well as seasonal and temporary employees 0 Process approximately 3,500 accounts payable checks 0 Grant accounting and reimbursements 0 Project accounting and reimbursements 0 Advertise and call for applications for Outside Agency grants for both social service and economic development agencies 0 Advertise and call for applications for Lodging Tax grants • Information technology responsibilities include: 0 Design, maintenance and support of the City's data network 0 Research, order, deliver, repair and maintenance of all desktop, iPad, laptop, and peripheral equipment 0 maintenance of all primary computer applications including the financial management and permitting systems 0 broadcasting of City Council meetings which entails the acquisition and ongoing maintenance and support of the necessary related hardware and software as well as working with the vendor involved with actual recording of the meetings PAGE 57 Operations and Administrative Services—Finance & Information Technology Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-1 2016-2021 Maintain a consistent level of service in payroll, accounts payable, • Work with Finance staff to cross-train position responsibilities and knowledge base where possi- budget development, periodic and annual financial report prepara- ble.Also, provide adequate training opportunities to allow staff members to remain current with tion and information technology services. changes in pronouncements by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), chang- es in the Eden financial management system, and changes in the electronic technology that al- lows all City employees to be more efficient and effective. G-2 2016 Complete the 2015 Annual Financial Report by May 30, 2016, and • This can be accomplished through a combination of cross-training responsibilities between the receive a "clean audit opinion"from the Washington State Auditor's Accounting Manager and Staff Accountants as well as remaining current on GASB pronounce- Office. ments. G-3 2016 Refine the plan to finance the design and construction of a new City • Teaming with the City Manager, Deputy City Manager and Legal department, work with bond Hall building which will include a combination of cash on hand and counsel,financial advisor and bond underwriter to create an official statement and other relevant the issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds. documents leading to the issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds by early 2016. G-4 2016-2021 Continue with the process of virtualizing servers using VMware. • The core of the City's existing server infrastructure has historically consisted of 15 Windows based servers, 3 domain controllers, 1 Linux based server for the phone system, 1 Linux server for backup, and 2 SANs (22 pieces). This configuration has served the City well but provided no "fail-over"/redundancy in the event of a server failure. Through virtualization we can partition a single server to appear as multiple servers hosting multiple operating systems. The physical servers are then configured in a manner that allows them to run parallel to one another and pro- vide fail-over/redundancy in the event of a server failing. Ultimately, we believe our network configuration will consist of"clusters" located at City Hall and CenterPlace, each of which will be composed of 3 physical servers, 1 domain controller, 1 Vsphere server(which manages virtual machines) and 1 SAN -for a total of 12 pieces plus 2 additional servers for phone and VLS. The long-term benefit to the City is currently anticipated to be replacing just 14 pieces of hardware as opposed to the 22 we currently use, and more importantly having fail-over protection in the event of hardware failure. Planning for this project began in 2014 and the actual conversion started in 2015 with an anticipated conclusion in 2016. G-5 2016-2021 Continue with the ongoing process of refining the replacement pro- • Update the existing inventory of all related equipment currently deployed including when it was gram for IT hardware resources including server hardware, network acquired, its expected useful life, anticipated replacement date and replacement cost. hardware, printers and network based appliances (firewalls, e-mail backup, network switches, intrusion prevention hardware, etc.), desk top computers and the phone system. This will continue to be the foundation for future budget developments and in large part dictate operational workload through the course of the next year. PAGE 58 Operations and Administrative Services—Finance & Information Technology Workload Indicators and Performance Measures Goal Workload 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Dept. #of accounts payable checks(Includes wires& payroll benefit checks) 3,509 3.623 3,673 related Total City expenditures $58,574,535 $66,015,503 $69,977,095' Number of phone lines 39 - - Number of computer workstations 134 140 140 Number of i-Pads 18 20 27 Number of servers&appliances supported 40 — — Number of physical servers supported — 17 22 Number of virtual servers supported — 8 15 Number of appliances supported — 55 45 Number of PC's installed or replaced 0 54 39 Goal Performance 2013 2014 6-Year 2015 2016 Avg. Dept. Finance Department operating expenditures/Total City expenditures 1.76% 1.66% 1.65% 1.52% related Dollar value of accounts payable checks processed $45,834,493 $47,730,365 $47,880,596 $54,540,205 Dollar value of wages paid including OT and seasonal help $6,066,394 $6,399,115 $5,835,225 $6,686,197 Help desk requests per IT FTE per month 35 31 54 29 Workstations per number of IT FTE's 67 47 68.59 47 Network availability% 99% 99% 99% 99% 12015 figure is as of 2/2/2016 and is preliminary and unaudited. PAGE 59 Operations and Administrative Services—Finance & Information Technology Workload Indicators and Performance Measures Goal Workload 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target Dept. #of accounts payable checks (Includes wires& payroll benefit checks) 2833 3073 2910 3312 3486 related Total City expenditures $58,936,857 $67,574,808 $49,530,368 $54,347,028 $57,082,393 Number of phone lines 28 35 36 39 41 Number of computer workstations 140 145 148 150 152 Number of i-Pads 0 0 0 0 6 Number of servers&appliances supported 33 37 39 40 40 Number of PC's installed or replaced 20 40 4 63 36 Goal Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target Dept. Finance Department operating expenditures/Total City expenditures 1.1% 1.2% 1.75% 1.9% 1.62% related Dollar value of accounts payable checks processed $48,558,039 $59,319,241 $41,250,522 $44,981,566 $48,167,392 Dollar value of wages paid including OT and seasonal help $4,849,357 $5,407,369 $5,829,128 $5,494,477 $5,814,867 Help desk requests per IT FTE per month 55 75 80 48 55 IT FTEs per number of workstations 70 72.5 74 75 76 Network availability% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 6 Year Summary : • The dollar value of accounts payable checks processed varies over the 6-years due to variances in Capital Projects from year-to-year. PAGE 60 Operations and Administrative Services-2016 Budget & Staffing Impact Summary Finance & Information Technology Increase/Reduction 2016 Budget . The Finance Department line-item budget (not including wages, payroll taxes and benefits) reflects a reduction of$96 $- 96 or .31%. To the best of our ability, we make certain the budget requests for individual line-items closely approximate the aver- ( ) age actual expenditures in the previous three-years. Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise _3% • In order to meet the directive to reduce the budget by 3%: ($37,636) 0 Reduce staff by .55 FTE 0 Reduce OT by $500 0 Reduce training and related travel costs by $2,200 * No immediate check requests will be processed which will have the greatest impact on City construction projects. * City payments to vendors will be slower * Ability to analyze cost savings on some purchases will take more time • In order to meet the directive to reduce the budget by 6%: -6% 0 Reduce staff by 1.09 FTEs ($37,638 + 0 Reduce OT by $500 ($37,612) 0 Reduce training and related travel costs by $2,200 * Ability to accommodate the outside agency granting process and lodging tax granting process will be slowed. * Segregation of duties required by the State Auditor's Office may be compromised * Ability to produce an error free annual financial report receiving a "clean audit opinion" from the State Auditor's Office may be compromised -9% • In order to meet the directive to reduce the budget by 9%: ($75,250+ 0 Reduce staff by 1.46 FTEs ($37,611) 0 Reduce OT by $500 0 Reduce training and related travel costs by $2,700 * City payments to vendors will likely be processed once every two weeks as opposed to the current practice of processing payments weekly * Ability to accommodate the outside agency granting process and lodging tax granting process will be seriously compromised without assistance from other City departments * Segregation of duties required by the State Auditor's Office will be difficult to maintain due to the overlap in account- ing system responsibilities necessitated by the staff reduction *Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. PAGE 61 These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. Vol. 9 Community & Economic Development 2016 The Mission of the Community & Economic Development Department is to foster vibrant growth in the City by providing streamlined services and support to encourage private investment for a safe well-designed physical environment, maintain regional competitiveness, assist business development and recruitment, and promote a strong, diverse, and competitive local economy. Overview: Community and Economic The Community and Economic Development Director 1 FTE Development Department pro- vides engineering, planning, design review, construction Administrative Assistant inspection, permitting, code 1 FTE enforcement and economic development to preserve and , enhance the quality of life for Development Services the residents and improve the Manager Building Official growth, expansion, and reten- 1 FTE 1 FTE Economic tion of businesses. Development Senior Planner Engineer Coordinator 9 Sr Plans Examiner _ Development Services 1 FTE 2 FTE 1 FTECoordinator - 1 FTE 1 FTE —•—•—�—•— Economic I Planning I Planner Assistant Engineer Development Commission 2 FTE 1 FTE Plans Examiner _ Engineer 1 FTE Permit Facilitator 0.60 FTE 2FTE Office AssistantI — — J 1 FTE ROW Inspector Economic 1 FTE Building Inspector Office Assistant Development 3 FTE 2 FTE Specialist Construction Inspector 1 FTE 1 FTE Planner _ _ Code Enforcement 2 FTE 1 FTE Engineering Technician - 1 FTE PAGE 62 Community & Economic Development —Administrative Division Administrative Division: The Administrative Division provides overall management and oversight of the Community and Economic Development Depart- ment, including the economic development efforts, permitting operations, planning, development engineering, and code enforce- ment. Provides staff support through administration of the department budget, administrative support and department training. • Budget • Staff maintenance • Work program • Monthly reports, weekly calendars • Document Management • Planning Commission support • Format correspondence, public notices, staff reports • Back up coordination for both front reception and permit center phone and counter coverage • Public record requests • Website maintenance The administrative division prepares the department budget, monitors expenditures and authorizes payments. A department work program is developed every year based on the goals of the Council, state mandates, forums, and staff recom- mended improvements. The work program progress is monitored and revised as goals change or new priorities are acknowledged. Staff development is maintained through performance evaluations, measurement and creation of personal and department goals, department-wide training, recognition and team building. Administrative support is provided to the Planning Commission; preparation of monthly reports and weekly calendars; formatting correspondence, staff reports, public notices, and documents for 29.65 FTE; providing website maintenance, coordinating backup phone and counter coverage for the front reception area and permit center cashier. The division is responsible for maintaining and preserving the department files, and preparing record requests for the department. PAGE 63 Community & Economic Development— Building Division Program Description Building Division: The Building Division is responsible for implementing and enforcing the State Building Code as required by state law. • Commercial construction plan review • Residential construction plan review • Accessibility (handicap) plan review • Commercial and Residential construction inspection • Permit intake, processing, and issuance • Permit coordination • Fire District coordination • Outside agency coordination (including Regional Health, Clean Air, Utilities, and water district) • Monitor building code legislation • Public assistance with Code compliance • Issuance and maintenance of Certificates of Occupancy (required for every building/tenant space in multi-tenant structures) • Economic and business development coordination Building Official: The Building Official oversees the operations of all Building Division programs and supervises the Permit Center staff. The Building Official monitors bills before the state legislature and provides technical testimony and /or input about the impacts of the legislation to our community. The Building Official is charged with the task of interpreting code requirements for proper implementation given regional characteristics such as snow load, seismic zone, and soil classification. Permit Center Coordination: Permit applications associated with pre-construction land development, fire protection systems, plumbing/HVAC installations, work within the City right-of- way, as well as traditional Building Permits are all processed, routed, tracked, issued, and maintained by Permit Center staff. Staff members also assist the public with general inquiries and ensure that they are directed to the appropriate review staff member or agency when seeking information. Development Review: The primary function of the Development Review team is the review of commercial and multi-family construction plans for compliance with the aforemen- tioned Codes. The review team consists of the plans examiners, planners, permit facilitators, and the development services coordinator to promote a high level of communication and coordination of the various review components of the building permit process. The review team is often a first contact for build- ing owners and property managers seeking information as to the feasibility of re-use/conversion of existing buildings and tenant spaces. Team members are also the primary contact for design professionals (engineers, architects, and draftspersons) and contractors seeking code-related assistance with the proper use and interpretation of the international, state, and municipal codes. PAGE 64 Community & Economic Development— Building Division Program Description Development Inspection: Inspection staff members perform multiple inspections of each and every construction and development project in the City. They work as a team to ensure that requested inspections are completed on the same working day of the request in the most efficient manner possible through route planning and coordination. Inspection staff members also investigate citizen complaints of non-permitted or deficient construction practices and perform in- spections following structure fires and other types of damage resulting from natural disasters and accidents. The purpose of the International Codes, as adopted by the State of Washington and the City of Spokane Valley, is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants or users of the building and structures and the general public by requiring minimum performance standard for structural strength, exit systems, stability, sanitation, light, and ventilation, energy conservation, and fire safety through the: • International Building Code • International Residential Code • International Mechanical Code • International Fuel Gas Code • Uniform Plumbing Code • International Fire Code • International Existing Building Code • ICC A117.1 Accessible & Usable Buildings and Facilities standard • Washington State Energy Code Implementation of these regulations through plan review and inspection of construction projects assures that citizens can correctly assume that the buildings and structures in which they spend more than eighty percent of their time are safe. The Permit Center has issued 18,849 permits over the last five years for a broad range of projects including new homes, residential remodels, multi-story office buildings, medical centers, apartment com- plexes, and nationally-recognized retail developments. Each issued permit requires multiple inspections during the course of construction, typically between two and fifteen site visits per project. Development Inspectors have performed over 51,318 inspections over the last five years as they assist builders, developers, and tradespeople through the completion of their projects. This vast range and volume of projects represents countless hours of support to permit applicants and developers and heavily contributes to the economic development of the community in ways that are not necessarily reflected in permit revenues. The Building Division services provided for a typical development project include: • Site selection/feasibility research assistance (both for new development and the re-use of existing buildings) • Pre-application review of rough development/construction proposals • Support during permit review process • Support during construction inspection process • Coordination of final inspections associated with City and outside agency reviews • Issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy PAGE 65 Community & Economic Development— Building Division/Development Services Program Description Code Enforcement: Over the last three years, Code Enforcement has responded to 1,074 citizen initiated reports regarding junk vehicles, garbage, unsafe structures, various zoning violations and traffic safety hazards while conducting pro-active enforcement of sign code violations as directed by administration. Their work with neighborhoods helps to maintain both residential and commercial properties in a safe and clean condition. They regularly coordinate with police and fire to mitigate life and fire safety hazards as well as working with the Health Department and Department of Social and Health Services on issues related to sen- iors and families in distress. In addition, Code Enforcement acts as a community resource directing citizens to other agencies for help as appropriate. Development Services Division: Planning General Description: Planning staff is cross-trained and work on different kinds of planning projects. This provides the organization greater flexibility in completing the Divi- sion's work program by having planning staff that understand the processes and procedures. The planning function is responsible for ensuring the City's plans are consistent with applicable state laws, primarily the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and reflect the community's vision; processing appropriate changes to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations consistent with adopted plans and participating in regional planning efforts. The Planning Program's current primary responsibilities include processing revisions to the City's municipal code, reviewing land use applications to en- sure compliance with adopted development regulations, ensuring compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)(RCW 43.21C) and the state subdivision law (RCW 58.17). The activities generally fall into the following categories: • Comprehensive Plan: Legislative and Annual Updates • Regional Planning Efforts • Shoreline Management • Environmental Review: SEPA and Critical Areas Review • Code Amendments • Subdivisions/Short Subdivisions/Binding Site Plans • Plat Alterations, Boundary Line Adjustments, • Special Projects • Rezones/Variances • State & Federal Reporting • Planning assistance at the Permit Center PAGE 66 Community & Economic Development—Development Services Division Program Description Growth Management Act (GMA): The State mandates the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) (GMA) and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA - RCW 90.58). Under GMA, the City is required to prepare a comprehensive plan that reflects the community's 20-year vision. The Plan has a number of required elements including a Capital Facilities Element that contains a list of capital projects that the City intends to undertake during the ensuing 6 year time frame. Several funding sources require projects to be included in the City's Capital Facilities Element for them to be eligible for funding and utilize the City's real estate excise tax (REET). To accomplish the maintenance of the Plan, state law provides for an annual update process. This allows the City to make necessary updates and also provides property owners the ability to propose amendments to the Plan. The City has adopted an annual update process that begins in November and is typically concluded in April/May timeframe of the following year. Comprehensive Plan Updates: The Development Services Division will continue working on the Comprehensive Plan update as required by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.130). Work completed includes updating the City's Public Participation Program, preparing a work program and documenting issues that should be addressed during the update process. Work to be completed includes the update of Comprehensive Plan chapters, development of implementation strategies, as well as the update of the development regulations to ensure consistency with the Plan. Shoreline Management Act (SMA): The SMA requires all jurisdictions that include "shorelines of the state" as defined by SMA to prepare a Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The SMP is re- quired to include a number of elements, goals, policies and regulations related to any shoreline of the state. When Spokane Valley incorporated the exist- ing Spokane County SMP (adopted in 1974) was adopted as an interim program. The SMP is a long range vision for the City's shoreline areas; includes goals and policies for the shoreline area and regulations that implement the policy direction of the SMP. RCW 90.58.080 requires the SMP to be periodi- cally updated. The SMP was updated in 2015 and the plan, complete with public access and restoration guidelines, is being implemented. Code Amendments: Amendments to the City's development codes are often necessary to correct errors and omissions, stay current with new laws and trending issues or to ensure consistency between the City's adopted plans and implementing regulations. This process includes research/preparation of the staff report; study session and public hearing before the Planning Commission; and review and adoption by the City Council. Regional Planning Efforts: City staff supports regional planning efforts by participating on the Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) and providing staff support to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO). The SCEO was formed in response to the requirements of GMA which call for regional planning and co- ordination on issues such as establishing urban growth area (UGA) boundaries and developing county-wide planning policies. The PTAC is comprised of planning department staff from various jurisdictions throughout the county and was formed by the SCEO to advise on issues related to the requirements of the GMA. PAGE 67 Community & Economic Development— Development Services Division Program Description Other Planning Responsibilities: Planning staff is the primary support for land use applications that include short subdivisions (up to 9 lots), long subdivisions (10 or more lots), binding site plans, rezones, conditional use permits, temporary use permits and variances. Planning staff routes applications to various reviewing departments and agencies; coordinates comments received and processes the application to its conclusion. Long subdivisions, rezones, conditional use permits, variances and occasionally alterations include a public hearing before the City's hearing examiner. Planning staff assist home owners and developers in facilitating a stream type change in coordination with other state agencies when conditions have changed to allow for development. Planning staff also reviews all Washington State business registration applications to ensure proposed uses are consistent with City zoning. Staff is also responsible for processing home occupation licenses. Planning staff assists in providing coverage in the Permit Center from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. responding to walk-in customers as well as answering phone calls. This coverage is in concert with building and development engineering staff. The State of Washington requires certain reports prepared on an annual basis to provide information about growth, housing and employment. Planning Staff provides this information on behalf of the City. Staff also provides information to the Census Bureau on an as needed basis. Development Engineering General Description: Development Engineering (DE) ensures that land actions and commercial building permits comply with the adopted codes for private infrastructure de- velopment through plan review and construction inspection. DE also provides floodplain management to enforce FEMA requirements. DE periodically updates the City's development code pertaining to construction activities to ensure adherence to federal and state requirements and the adopted com- prehensive plan. • Engineering plan review • Code amendments • Construction oversight • Floodplain management • Grading Permits • Right-of-way Permits • Right-of-Way Inspections • Watershed Planning • Wellhead Protection Committee PAGE 68 Community & Economic Development— Development Services Division Program Description Development Projects: DE facilitates the construction of public and private infrastructure completed by private development projects for land actions and commercial building per- mits, and assists the development community by answering questions, reviewing plans, providing construction and inspection oversight, reviewing required easement and right-of-way dedications, and reviewing preliminary and final plats. These requirements are based on the scope of the project, the impact of the project to City infrastructure, the Street Standards, Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, floodplain regulations, and other applicable state or federal requirements. Once the construction starts, DE has oversight of the public and private improvements. The City follows the inspection procedures put in place by Spokane County in which the projects are inspected by private inspectors. The development inspector coordinates with private inspectors, answers questions, and reviews inspection and certification documentation to ensure projects are constructed per the approved plans and City's code. In addition to development projects, DE provides inspection for all right-of-way and approach permits. Code Amendments: DE makes periodic updates to the City's development code related to engineering. DE goes through the public adoption process by holding public meet- ings, presenting changes to Planning Commission and City Council, and preparing ordinances. Local Regulations: DE coordinated the development of the Street Standards that were adopted in 2009. The Street Standards establish minimum requirements for land actions and commercial projects, provide engineering design criteria, and incorporate local, state and federal requirements such as the Regional Pavement Cut Policy and the American with Disabilities Act. In 2008, the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, and the City of Spokane adopted the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM). The SRSM incorporates state and federal requirements, such as Clean Water Act, Washington Department of Ecology's (DOE) Underground Injection Control pro- gram, Construction Stormwater permit, and the Eastern WA Municipal Stormwater National Pollution Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit. Floodplain Administration: The Development Services Manager is the City's Floodplain Administrator. The City is required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to administer the National Floodplain Insurance Program (NFIP) to correct and prevent flood damage. These include requirements for zoning, subdivision or building, and special-purpose floodplain ordinances. DE enforces the City's local floodplain management ordinance which provides flood loss reduction building standards for new and existing development. DE assists home owners, developers, and citizens in determining base flood elevations (BFE) from FEMA maps to be used on applications for elevation certificates, Letters of Map Amendments (LOMA), and Letters of Map Revisions (LOMR). In areas that have not been studied by FEMA and have an approximate "A" flood zone designation, DE will use floodplain modeling software with accepted basin flow data to determine an appropriate BFE for the parcel in question. PAGE 69 Community & Economic Development— Development Services/Economic Development Divisions Program Description Local and Regional Committees: Participation in local and regional committees is necessary to stay informed and provide input on important regional issues and topics. DE staff are in- volved in multiple such committees including well head protection, water shed planning, Aquifer Protection Council (APC), and Idaho Washington Aquifer Collaborative (IWAC). Contract Services: The City does not have surveyors on staff. A surveying consultant reviews the surveying information provided in plats, binding site plans (BSPs), ease- ments and right-of-way dedications to ensure accuracy and compliance with state law. Development Services administers this surveying contract. Economic Development Division: The Economic Development division assists the City in the development of economic strategies which help to promote the City inside and outside of the region. Oversight of these activities is also coordinated closely with the City Manager. The functions of the Economic Development division are to: • Develop and implement strategies to promote business growth, attraction and retention to secure a strong City revenue base • Encourage a diverse and stable business environment • Conduct special studies and prepare comprehensive reports related to economic development, retail recruitment, tourism, and the economic impact of capital projects or initiatives • Assist with the Comprehensive Plan update • Coordinate with business owners and developers to provide possible site locations, market research and related information to assist business development, facilitate project processing and permitting, assist with the interpretation of codes, negotiate and resolve sensitive and controversial issues • Establish and maintain communication and cooperative relationships with business leaders, developers, private and public agencies, educational institutions, real estate community, and the general public to promote and facilitate the implementation and execution of the City's economic and development strategies • Coordinate with regional and local economic development agencies to ensure their efforts reflect the City's priorities and goals • Perform a full range of marketing activities including: • Developing and implementing a strategic marketing plan • Creating and distributing marketing materials • Preparing and presenting information at meetings of various organizations and groups • Managing the content of the City's economic development webpage • Use information technology to assist citizens and potential and existing business owners PAGE 70 Community & Economic Development—Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-1 2016-2017 Update the Comprehensive Plan • Implement public participation program, update current public participation guidelines as needed • Incorporate new state mandated information • Analysis of land quantity and economic trends • Develop alternatives to update Comprehensive Plan and conduct EIS review • Conduct audit of development regulations • Develop short and long term implementation strategies to use as benchmark • Develop draft Comprehensive Plan • Draft development regulations to support updated Comprehensive Plan • Process through Planning Commission and City Council G-2—(Council Goal) 2016-2017 Develop an economic development strategic plan Formalize City economic development efforts by developing a written strategic plan incorporating the following elements: • Economic development strategic goals • An existing conditions report focused on identifying the scope of existing economic development services • Short, mid, and long term enhancements to existing services • Strategic actions based upon recommended service enhancements • Implementation options for the identified initiatives including budget and staffing requirements • Implementation timelines • Relevant performance measures G-3 2016-2021 Maintain an efficient permitting process • Continue to implement enhancements to the permitting process • Foster relationships with outside agencies to streamline permitting and encourage development • Develop a multi-use construction plan program • Implement a permit satisfaction survey • Examine code provisions for administrative exceptions and tiny homes G-4 2016-2021 Retail Recruitment • Develop and implement the retail recruitment strategy • Mobilize resources to institute recruitment campaigns • Develop a list of desirable retail businesses with a local, regional, or statewide presence • Establish connections with local and regional brokerage firms and commercial developers • Identify local property and building owners with available land and spaces in key locations within the City of Spokane Valley • Prioritize available spaces and match with potential retail types and specific businesses • Identify any zoning, permitting and/or fire and building code issues that may need to be resolved PAGE 71 Community & Economic Development—Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-5 2016 Develop a Tourism Program • Develop and analyze strategies to improve the tourism industry in the City • Identify and pursue tourism attraction strategies to leverage lodging tax G-6 2016-2021 Pursue infrastructure improvements which foster economic • Investigate and pursue strategic infrastructure development development • Coordinate with Spokane Valley Public Works to improve transportation infrastructure to enhance development opportunities • Collaborate with Spokane County Utilities Division to facilitate the development of sewer infrastruc- ture in City's industrial areas • Collaborate with water districts and dry utility providers to identify infrastructure needs to meet devel- opment demands and available infrastructure that could be marketed to attract businesses • Conduct cost benefit analysis and feasibility studies to prioritize projects • Collaborate with property owners on a traffic study of the Mirabeau area to expedite development G-7—(Council Goal) 2016-2021 Business Recruitment, Retention and Expansion • Continue to recruit new businesses • Continue to meet with existing businesses to assist with retentions and expansion efforts • Participate in business and trade shows • Continue to implement the Certified Sites Program • Collaborate with the regional partners to support business recruitment • Continue to research available State and Federal tax credits; promote availability of all tax credit pro- grams on the City's website and in the permit center • Research state and federal business assistance programs to support business recruitment and make this information available on the City's website and in the Permit Center • Attend meetings with the Spokane Regional Site Selector partners to continue to provide information relating to available properties in the City • Develop tools and compile information of resources available for business owners • Map out the permitting processes and requirements for different industries to facilitate the permitting process like the restaurant regulatory reform project • Host forums with regional real estate brokers, management associations, developers and property owners to identify issues, gather data, and introduce the City's economic development program • Establish relationships with existing businesses to identify issues, gather data, and offer services from City and partners that foster their business efforts • Identify the industry clusters, growing and declining industries • Periodically conduct stakeholder focus group discussion to determine the challenges and opportuni- ties facing the business community • Identify retail zoned sites adjacent to the Appleway trail and coordinate with representative brokers to market trail access PAGE 72 Community & Economic Development—Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-8—(Council Goal) 2016-2020 Develop an economic development marketing program • Develop and implement marketing strategies for attraction and retention of businesses and citizens while also improving tourism • Develop a strong image for the City that supports economic development efforts and differentiates the City from other communities • Develop marketing material for business and tourism attraction, trade shows, and data sheets for target industries • Work with Visit Spokane to develop a tour guide identifying recreational, cultural, and historic assets with a particular focus on marketing the City a destination for active, outdoor recreation • Review the City's existing marketing collateral to ensure their consistency with the established theme G-9 2016-2021 Use Information Technology (IT) to support the department's mission • Continue to develop a records management system that enhances transparency and creates efficiencies • Implement SMARTGov Web Portal Upgrades • Expand online permitting types • Configure & launch online inspection scheduling • Implementation of Contact Us module • Implement SMARTGov Inspection Module Enhancements • Update inspection listing types • Integrate inspection workflow • Expand inspection scheduling options by: • Permit Center Staff(in person) • Owner/Contractor(online) • Continue to work with businesses to add their business information to Google Places. G-10—(Council Goal) 2016-2021 Collaborate with economic development partners and related service providers • Participate in Visit Spokane, GSI, Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce and other partners meetings and events. • Coordinate with Visit Spokane and GSI to ensure their marketing is consistent with the City's branding message. • Continue to partner with GSI, the region's Associate Development Organization (ADO),for business recruitment and retention PAGE 73 Community & Economic Development—Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-11—(Council Goal) 2016-2021 Strengthen and expand civic and event opportunities • Evaluate opportunities to support amateur and youth sports organizations • Continue to partner and promote community events such as Valleyfest, the Bike Swap and the Cycle Celebration • Support efforts to create new events in Spokane Valley that build a sense of identi- ty and promote Spokane Valley • Develop tools that connect citizens with community assets G-12 2016-2019 Develop a robust Geographical Information System (GIS) with modern web applica- • Coordinate with utilities and special purpose districts to incorporate their available tions. infrastructure information into a GIS centralized database housed at the City • Create an interactive online map to replace the County's SCIMAP for public and city staff use • Create ESRI story maps of things to do and places to go and showcase success stories and new businesses • Create an inventory of vacant properties and their features to assist in the site se- lection process in coordination with brokers and the Fire Department • Develop a site selection tool to enable a quick evaluation of City facilities, utilities, socio-economic, demographics and other relevant information for business devel- opment • Create an online tool to allow citizens to report citizen service request, such as pot- holes, downed trees, graffiti, etc. • Develop a tool that provides information to citizens in an emergency situation • Develop an interface to allow field personnel to provide information to the City's centralized database enabling real time updates • Develop an asset management program G-13 2016 Floodplain Revisions • Develop Forker Draw final map products and submit to FEMA 2016-2021 • Develop Glenrose Creek Hydrology data • Develop Glenrose Creek Hydraulic data • Initiate coordination with City of Spokane and Spokane County • Develop Glenrose Creek floodplain mapping • Develop Glenrose Creek preliminary map products PAGE 74 Community & Economic Development—Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-14—(Council Goal) 2016-2021 Foster an education and job ready workforce • Develop relationships with local community colleges, Spokane Valley Tech, high schools and workforce development council to determine how to support their ef- forts and ensure business owners utilize these resources G-15 2016-2021 Emergency Management • Continue coordination on Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan • Update City website and provide information about emergency shelters and status of necessary facilities during emergencies such as gas stations, banks, pharmacies, hospita Is G-16 2016 Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) • Identify high priority projects consistent with Spokane County CDBG Consortium policies • Identify infrastructure limitations that impact development G-17 2016-2021 Records Retention • Continue scanning historical residential address files into Laserfiche • Continue scanning permit related documents into SMARTGov • Work on Electronic plan submittal acceptance guidelines G-18 2016-2021 Regional Special Inspection and fabricator process • Coordinate with Regional Building Officials, Local Special Inspection Agencies and Local Fabricators • Coordinated regional consistency in implementation of the International Building Code, Chapter 17, Special Inspection and Fabrication. • Incorporate consistency required for Special Inspection and Fabrication reporting and product certificates of compliance submittals to all participating jurisdictions • Develop and provide training programs/presentations for outreach to local: • Special Inspection Agencies • Steel/Concrete Fabricators • Association of General Contractors (AGC) • Association Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) • American Institute of Architects (AIA) • Structural Engineers Association of Washington PAGE 75 Community & Economic Development—Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-19 2016-2020 Small Business Assistance Program • Continue to improve the new business welcome program • Publicize local business success stories and events • Explore the feasibility of a façade improvement grant or loan program for property owners that voluntarily make physical improvements to their properties • Work with partners and local business owners to develop a "Taste of Spokane Val- ley"week G-20 2016-2021 Continue participation in Spokane Regional Code Group Meetings • Take a regional leadership role amongst peers • Discuss International Residential Codes • Follow current trend by researching other Washington State adopted codes • Continue to advocate for a Regional All Code Group to incorporate regional con- sistency in interpretation and implementation of State adopted building codes G-21 2016 and on going Annual updates of the Comprehensive Plan • Process privately initiated Comprehensive Plan change requests PAGE 76 Community & Economic Development Workload Indicators Goal Workload 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Dept. Permit Center counter walk-ins 4,428 4,511 4,572 related Pre-Application Meetings-Commercial 85 79 88 Pre-Application Meetings-Land Use 25 30 32 Construction Applications Received 2,798 4,704 4,536 Land Use Applications Received 624 719 660 Construction permits Issued 2,668 3,961 3,993 Land Use Applications Approved 33 659 561 Development Inspections Performed 10,736 13,534 13,848 Code Enforcement complaints investigated 360 354 383 Number of On-Line permits Issued - 1,314 2,828 Number of hearings conducted by the Hearing Examiner 33 7 6 Municipal Code text amendments processed 5 12 2 Planning Commission meetings participated in 23 20 21 Number of businesses assisted - 23 27 Meetings with regional partners - 51 54 Marketing media created - 9 12 Service Population 91,490 92.050 93,340 Beginning in 2013,new or reworded Workload Indicators were included to better define the workload of the department. PAGE 77 Community & Economic Development—Performance Measures Goal Performance 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Target Dept. Percent of construction permits issued in less than 3 days - 79% 85% related Average number of days for new Residential building permit review 5 5 5 5 work days Average number of days for tenant improvement permit review 10 10 10 10 work days Average number of days for new Commercial permit review 10 10 10 10 work days Percent of Citizens who gave the City a positive rating as it pertains to 99% - - 95% satisfaction with services regarding Land use, planning and zoning Business Retention/Expansion meetings held - - 27 15 Business Recruitments—Ongoing - - 3 5 Business Recruitments—Completed - - 2 1 Economic Development Workshops held - - 2 2 Beginning in 2014, new Performance Measures (above) were included to better identify the performance of the department. Historical data is provided below for 2013 (2008-2012 are on the next page). Goal Performance 2013 5 Yr. Avg. Dept. Number of permits issued/processed/reviewed 889 547.82 related per FTE(Plan Exam-2; Build. Insp-3; Permit Spec-2) Residential building permit issuance(April &July) 100% 76.8% 5 work days Average tenant improvement permit issuance (May&August) 100% 94.8% 25 work days Average response time for first review 100% 99.8% 25 work days Percent of Citizens who gave the City a positive rating as it pertains to 99% 70.4% 95% satisfaction with services regarding Land use, planning and zoning *The summary of performance measures represents a 5 year period since new measures were included in 2014 as noted above. PAGE 78 Community & Economic Development— Workload Indicators & Performance Measures Goal Workload 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target Dept. Permit Center counter walk-ins 31431 39711 39211 4545 4812 related Permit Center phone calls2 4472 4945 4890 4919 5021 Construction permits issued 3535 2993 3340 3454 4010 Building inspections performed- 4480 5241 5610 5701 4039 Residential Building inspections, performed- 2177 2504 2324 2287 1571 Commercial Code compliance complaints 931 840 617 532 397 investigated Right-of-Way inspections performed 5183 7379 6708 7777 3858 Service population 88,920 89,440 90,210 89,7553 90.550 Number of Planning Commission meetings 24 13 14 15 23 Number of code amendments 7 7 12 6 8 Goal Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target Dept. Number of permits issued/processed/reviewed 392.78 332.55 417.50 431.75 668.304 related per FTE(Plan Exam-2; Build. Insp-3; Permit Spec-3) Residential building permit issuance(April &July) — 65% 68% 60% 91% 5 work days Average tenant improvement permit issuance (May&August) — 100% 77% 100% 97% 25 work days Average response time for first review — 99% 100% 100% 100% 25 work days Percent of Citizens who gave the City a positive rating as it pertains to — 83% — 75% — 95% satisfaction with services regarding Land use, planning and zoning 1. An error was found in the Permit Center walk-in numbers,a set of numbers had been duplicated. These numbers have now been corrected to reflect an accurate count. 2. No longer tracking this workload after 2012. 3. This number is based on the 2010 Census. 4. 2012 Changed to Plan Exam—1;Build. Insp-3;Permit Spec-2=6 total FTE's PAGE 79 Community & Economic Development— Performance Measures Summary construction Permits permit Valuatio 42R73.9 3993 $200. 3961 *in millions 73'9 4000 Issued 3800 $150.0 - $109.2 $111.9 $98.2 "AV' 3600 3454 3431 $100.0 $65.4 3400 3200 if $50.0I I f, 3000 ,.._ , t' $- 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 • Construction permits issued by the Department is on a steady and upward trend.2013 had the lowest number of permits issued. The upward trend is a result of an improving economy that has been assisted by streamlined policies implemented by the City. • Permit Valuation gages the level of private investment in the City.After hitting a low in 2011, investment in the community is on a strong upward trend. Many large medical, retail, multi-family housing, and manufacturing projects have been constructed over the past 3 years. 1 27.93% Permits Received through the Online Public Portal 85% of our permits are processed in 3 days or less Total Permits Received in 2015 Total Permits Received Online • The charts above show the City continues to process permits in a very timely manner:85%of permits are issued in 3 days or less.The City also began tracking permits pro- cessed on-line.2014 was the first full year of the permit public portal; now more than a third of our permits are received in this manner.The City expects this number to con- tinue to grow in the coming years and is looking to expand the types of permits available over the internet.The City's frequent customers are very satisfied with this service. PAGE 80 Community & Economic Development-2016 Budget & Staffing Impact Summary Administrative, Planning, Development Engineering, Building & Economic Development Increase/Reduction 2016 Budget • The community and economic development budget reflects a 1.02% increase (not including wages, payroll taxes & benefits or +1.02% vehicle replacement)for 2016. This includes increases related to training and registrations for Economic Development. When $4,400 including a $7,600 increase in the vehicle replacement program, the increase in the non-payroll portion of the budget is 2.72% or$12,000. Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise 3% • A 3% cut in the department would reduce 1.5 FTE. This reduction would limit the department's ability to be able to process per- ($116,483) mits, land actions, and provide customer service to our citizens. 6% • A 6% cut in the department would reduce 2.5 FTE. This would significantly limit the department's ability to be able to process ($206,959) permits, land actions, and provide customer service to our citizens. • A 9% cut in the department would reduce 3.5 FTE. This would drastically limit the department's ability to be able to process 9% permits, land actions, and provide customer service to our citizens. ($311,827) *Department Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These sum- maries may or may not be implemented in the approved, final budget. PAGE 81 Vol. 9 Parks and Recreation 2016 The Mission of the Parks and Recreation Department is to enrich the quality of life for everyone who lives, works in or visits Spokane Valley through quality programs, parks and events. Overview: Parks& Recreation Director With offices located in the CenterPlace Regional Event Center, the Parks and Recreation Department consists of six divisions: Parks Administration; Parks Maintenance; Recreation; Aquatics; Senior Center; and CenterPlace. The Park Operations& Administrative Department is comprised of nine FTEs. Parks Maintenance Maintenance — and Aquatics services are contracted with external busi- (Contract Services) Assistant nesses/agencies. The Parks & Recreation Department also maintains a database of local recreation programs and ser- vices to help match citizens with existing services. Aquatics Operations CenterPlace & Maintenance •••• Janitorial Services (Contract Services) (Contract Services) Precinct Maintenance (Contract Services) I 1 1 1 Senior Center Recreation CenterPlace Maintenance Worker Specialist Coordinator Coordinator Facilities (2) Center Place 1 Administrative CenterPlace Assistant Office Assistant I PAGE 82 Parks and Recreation—Parks Administration/Maintenance, Recreation & Aquatics Program Descriptions Parks Administration / Parks Maintenance Vision: To provide and maintain quality parks that offer a diverse range of experi- ences in a safe and beautiful environment; to provide enjoyable, restorative and memorable places to spend time; and to provide physical amenities that support and enhance active living and social interaction opportunities. • Implements the goals and objectives of the City Council • Develops policies and procedures • Facilitates the upkeep & use of parks and public areas including the Appleway and Centennial Trails • Manages the private park maintenance, aquatic operation and janitorial contracts • Works to acquire and develop new park facilities • Provides facility maintenance at the Police Precinct • Administers City Special Event permits Recreation Vision: To deliver diversified recreational and educational experiences for all ages; to foster vigorous community part- nerships; and to advocate health, wellness and physical activity. • Summer day camp, winter break camp, summer park program & outdoor movies • Designs and publishes the Recreation Program brochure twice a year • Coordinates and offers over 21 different recreation programs year round • Partners with YMCA, East Valley School District, Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley Partners, City of Spokane & Spo- kane County • Maintains database of local recreation programs & services to help match citizens with existing services Aquatics: The City of Spokane Valley owns three outdoor swimming pools which provide: • Open swim opportunities • Swim lessons, swim team, and facility rentals • The city leases a portion of Valley Mission Park for Splash Down — a privately operated water park PAGE 83 Parks and Recreation—CenterPlace and Senior Center Program Description CenterPlace Regional Event Center Vision: To promote corporate and private events which will help stimulate our local economy; to produce customized, high quality events; and to provide an experience that showcases the values of Spokane Val- ley. Facility Maintenance is to maintain this facility through sustainability, energy efficiency and maintaining building integrity. • Regional focal point for NE Washington, Northern Idaho and Western Montana • 54,000 square foot facility located in Mirabeau Point Park • Open seven days a week, this is the home of the Parks and Recreation Department and the Valley Senior Center • Reserves and rents to over 900 educational, corporate and social events annually • Provides set up and take downs for all activities • Manages long-term leases of space • Manages food services & marketing contract • Partners with Spokane Community College and Central Valley School District • Rooms include a great room, commercial kitchen, fireside lounge, auditorium and numerous meeting rooms Senior Center Vision: To empower adults 50+ for personal independence, healthy aging, social connection and life-long learn- ing experiences; to serve as a hub and focal point, to complement existing services and provided programs, activities and op- portunities for the aging population; and to operate as a multi-purpose senior center to provide health, social, educational, refer- ral and recreational services. • Manages the Senior & Wellness Center at CenterPlace from 8-4 Monday through Friday • Coordinates all activities and programming - over 50 different programs • Utilizes over 75 volunteers • Facilitates Meals on Wheels program • Maintains an active membership of over 1000 PAGE 84 Parks and Recreation—Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-1 2016-2021 Implement recommendations of the newly updated Parks and Recreation • Implement six-year capital improvement program Master Plan, including the continued development of aquatic and recreation • Pursue park acquisitions and development programs that serve the needs of our citizens. • Explore adding additional recreation programs to meet customer need • Add Splashpad to Browns Park • Continue to contract for park maintenance& aquatic operation services • Add sand volleyball courts to Browns Park • Construct Phase 2 of Valley Mission Pocket Dog Park G-2 2016-2021 Implement the updated CenterPlace Regional Marketing and Communications • Increase seasonal staffing to accommodate a higher level of service Plan. • Develop "CenterPlace's Partner Services"with local event planners • Contract marketing services to help implement marketing plan • Work with Visit Spokane to reach out to meeting planners • Expand Catering involvement in events G-3 2016-2021 Make facility improvements to CenterPlace. • Make parking lot improvements for safety • Schedule preventative maintenance and facility updates to maintain CenterPlace in good condition • Add wedding gazebo on west lawn • Explore updating sound systems in the Great Room & Lounge • Continue to replace flooring and furniture throughout building • Continue to repair roof leaks IG-4 2016-2021 Expand senior services to serve changing needs and expectations of the • Challenge to serve current age demographics and to attract new partici- senior population. pants • Add new, active programming • Increase involvement with neighboring retirement communities • Educate the community at-large about the purpose and potential of the Senior Center G-5 2016-2021 Work with Centennial Trail Partners to implement new maintenance • Seek grant opportunities for capital repairs agreement. • Develop a six-year maintenance plan PAGE 85 Parks and Recreation—Workload Indicators Goal Workload 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Target G-1 Developed acres maintained 133.6 133.6 133.6 Trees Planted 10 10 10 10 new per year Overall number of park facility 399 428 425 +10 per year reservations per year Number of recreation classes offered 129 158 189 +10 per year Spokane Valley population2 91,490 92,040 93,340 Number of open swim hours available/season 1,221 1,251.5 1,465 Maintain 2008 hours Number of swim lesson/team registrations 1,547 1,510 1,582 G-2 Number of area businesses/hotels contacted for use of CenterPlace 14,651 7,300 5,617 Contact all in region Number of reservations per year 815 844 919 +10% per year Number of operating hours per year 4,633 4,633 4,633 Number of room use hours booked per year 6,120 4,040 6,503 G-4 Number of participants in Senior programs 36,343 34,193 26,329 +10% per or workshops per year year Average age of Seniors participating 75.5 74.7 75.5 in programs Number of Senior programs offered per year 50 50 39 60 per year (ultimate) G-5 Miles of Centennial Trail 6.78 6.78 6.78 Number of grants applied for 0 0 0 1 per year (Applied for by Trails Partners) Labor hours to maintain Centennial Trail 900 900 900 Maintain 2008 level 'revised tracking of reservations due to new software. 2Population based on Association of Washington Cities data. PAGE 86 Parks and Recreation Workload Indicators Goal Workload 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target G-1 Developed acres maintained 126 126 126 126 126 Trees Planted 5 11 25 10 17 10 new per year Overall number of park facility 222 258 252 308 407' +10 per year reservations per year Number of recreation classes offered 77 75 90 100 100 +10 per year Spokane Valley population2 88,920 89,440 90,210 90,110 90,550 Number of open swim hours available/season 980 1,200 1,326 1,326 1,326 Maintain 2008 hours Number of swim lesson/team registrations 1,220 1,430 1365 1,244 1,351 G-2 Number of area businesses/hotels contacted for use of CenterPlace 24,400 24,400 24,400 21,649 21,650 Contact all in region Number of reservations per year 721 815 823 816 950 +10% per year Number of operating hours per year 4,633 4,633 4,633 4,633 4,633 Number of room use hours booked per year 4,780 5,514 5,441 5,379 6,119 G-4 Number of participants in Senior programs 36,840 38,001 34,624 34,442 35,678 +10% per or workshops per year year Average age of Seniors participating 74.85 75.70 74.90 75.70 74.50 in programs Number of Senior programs offered per year 50 50 50 50 50 60 per year (ultimate) G-5 Miles of Centennial Trail 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.78 Number of grants applied for 0 0 0 0 0 1 per year (Applied for by Trails Partners) Labor hours to maintain Centennial Trail 900 900 900 900 900 Maintain 2008 level 'revised tracking of reservations due to new software. 2Population based on Association of Washington Cities data. PAGE 87 Parks and Recreation—Performance Measures Goal Performance 2013 2014 6 Yr. Avg. 2015 2016 Target G-1 Developed park acres per 1000 population 1.4 1.4 1.44 1.4 Recreation program recovery vs direct cost 99.9% 104% 100.56% 104% Maintain 2008 recov- ery Parks& Recreation recurring budget per capita 29.14 29.43 29.25 26.6 Percentage of citizens who participated in a recreation program or activity(citizen survey) " " " Percentage of citizens who have visited a City of Spokane Valley park(citizen survey) " " " Percentage of citizens rating recreation programs or classes with a positive rating(citizen survey) " " " Percentage of citizens rating recreation centers or facilities with a positive rating(citizen survey) " " " Percentage of citizens rating quality of parks with a positive rating (citizen survey) " " " " G-2 Percentage of facility capacity per Great Room reserved 27% 23.7% 22.10% 27% Percentage cost recovery per CenterPlace 45% 54% 54.5% 52% (CenterPlace revenues covered %of the expenses. Expenditures do not include building replacement funds) Percentage of area businesses utilizing CenterPlace' 3% 5% 1.35% 3.7% Reach for 25% Percentage of facility capacity per Lounge reserved 10% 9% 15.84% 22% Percentage of regional use of facility 5% 9.1% 5% 4.2% 30% (ultimate) 1 Registered businesses with the City of Spokane Valley PAGE 88 Parks and Recreation—Performance Measures Goal Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target G-1 Developed park acres per 1000 population 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 Recreation program recovery vs direct cost 167% 105% 110% 92.44% 92% Maintain 2008 recovery Parks& Recreation recurring budget per capita $29.74 $31.44 $28.71 $27.68 $29.08 Percentage of citizens who participated in a recreation — 45% — 46% — program or activity(citizen survey) Percentage of citizens who have visited a City of — 84% — 82% — Spokane Valley park(citizen survey) Percentage of citizens rating recreation programs or — 95% — 92% — classes with a positive rating(citizen survey) Percentage of citizens rating recreation centers or — 93% — 93% — facilities with a positive rating(citizen survey) Percentage of citizens rating quality of parks with a positive rating — 98% — 98% — (citizen survey) G-2 Percentage of facility capacity per Great Room reserved 26% 21% 19% 20.2% 21.7% Percentage cost recovery per CenterPlace 68% 63% 61% 51% 53% (CenterPlace revenues covered %of the expenses. Expenditures do not include building replacement funds) Percentage of area businesses utilizing CenterPlace' .0067% .0079% .0075% .0095% .0215% Reach for 25% Percentage of facility capacity per Lounge reserved 15.7% 11% 23% 19% 23% Percentage of regional use of facility 18% 24% 16% 14% 18% 30% (ultimate) ' Registered businesses with the City of Spokane Valley PAGE 89 Parks and Recreation—Performance Measures Goal Performance 2013 2014 6 Yr. Avg. 2015 2016 Target G4* Level of satisfaction(a positive rating)for quality of Senior services (citizen survey) " " " Percentage of Seniors over 60 in Spokane Valley 19.71% 19.71% 18.61% 18.52% per capita (Census data is not current)' What percentage of City of Spokane Valley Seniors who 45% 56% 39.84% 30% participate in programs attend Health&Wellness Programs?2 (age 50 and up) G-5 Cost to maintain per capita per trail mile $.05 $.05 $.05 $.05 Percentage of successful grant applications 0 0 0 0 (Applied for by Trails Partners) Miles of Trail per 1000 households .076 .076 .076 .076 'Senior numbers will vary because different ages are used. Some use age 50, others age 60 2Question reworded for clarity and adjustments made to measures to reflect change in wording PAGE 90 Parks and Recreation—Performance Measures Goal Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target G-4* Level of satisfaction(a positive rating)for quality of Senior services — 91% — 92% — (citizen survey) Percentage of Seniors over 60 in Spokane Valley 14.5% 15.76% 17.01% 19.71% 19.71% per capita (Census data is not current)' What percentage of City of Spokane Valley Seniors who 14% 24% 34% 40% 40% participate in programs attend Health&Wellness Programs?2 (age 50 and up) G-5 Cost to maintain per capita per trail mile $.04 $.04 $.04 $.05 $.05 Percentage of successful grant applications 0 0 0 0 0 (Applied for by Trails Partners) Miles of Trail per 1000 households .076 .076 .076 .076 .076 'Senior numbers will vary because different ages are used. Some use age 50, others age 60 2Question reworded for clarity and adjustments made to measures to reflect change in wording 6 Year Performance Measures Summary G-1: • The 6 year average Parks & Recreation recurring budget per capita is $29.25. The City has increased the budget to remain consistent with population growth. 0 Population increase from 2010 to 2014 is 2.56% (=92,050/89,755) per State of Washington Office of Financial Management 0 Per capita recurring budget increase from 2010-2014 is 2.51% (=$29.43/$25.87) • The 6 year average of percentage of cost recovery per CenterPlace is 54.5%. While there was a decrease over a few years, there was an in- crease in 2014 due to added events and growth in catering revenues. As the recession has subsided, events have increased with a dramatic growth in business and corporate events. 0 In 2010, the cost recovery was 61%; this decreased to a low of 45% in 2013 and was up again in 2014 at 54%. The downward trend that occurred for a few years coincided with the recession we experienced. • Noteworthy to mention is the percentage of businesses registered with the City of Spokane Valley who utilize CenterPlace have remained steady and then have started to increase the past 3 years. PAGE 91 Parks and Recreation-2016 Budget and Staffing Impact Summary Parks Administration/Maintenance, Recreation and Aquatics, Senior Center & CenterPlace Increase/Reduction 2016 Budget • The Parks and Recreation Department budget, not including wages, payroll taxes and benefits, reflects an overall decrease -2.86 of$53,439 or-2.86% for 2016. $53,439 Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise • To achieve a 3% reduction in the proposed 2016 budget the following reductions are offered for consideration: -3%® 0 $34,000-Reduction in Aquatics Professional Services. This will eliminate one week of the summer pool season at all three ($84,450) outdoor pools. 0 $23,000—Reduction in Maintenance Parks Maintenance Contract. This will eliminate the maintenance of the city gateway, the new Balfour Park addition and the newly developed section of the Appleway Trail. 0 $5,000-Reduction in CenterPlace Small Tools and Minor Equipment. This will eliminate our ability to replace 10 classroom tables. 0 $7,500—Reduction in Recreation Professional Services. This will eliminate the third free summer in the park movies for 2016. These movies were attended by over 1,300 people last year. 0 $5,000—Reduction in Administration Professional Services. This will eliminate the Professional Services budget for 2016. 0 $9,950-Reduction in misc. supplies & other expenditures -6% • In addition to the 3% reductions, add the following for consideration: ($84,450 + 0 $34,000—Reduction in Aquatics Professional Services. This will eliminate one week of the summer pool season at all three out- $75,525) door pools. 0 $22,000—Reduction in Maintenance Parks Maintenance Contract. This will reduce the summer park season by one week for access to water, restrooms, etc. 0 $2,450—Reduction in Recreation Travel/Mileage and Conference Registrations. This will eliminate travel to the NRPA Supervi- sors School Year 2. 0 $2,600—Reduction in Senior Center Small Tools & Minor Equipment and Equipment Repair and Maintenance. This will elimi- nate all funding in these line items which includes replacing card and classroom tables. 0 $10,000-Reduction in CenterPlace Advertising. This will negatively impact our ability to market CenterPlace. 0 $4,475-Reduction in misc. supplies & other expenditures • In addition to the 3% & 6% reductions, add the following for consideration: -9% 0 $34,000—Reduction in Aquatics Professional Services. This will eliminate one week of the summer pool season at all three out- ($159,975+ door pools. $72,900) 0 $22,000—Reduction in Maintenance Parks Maintenance Contract. This will reduce the summer park season by one week for access to water, restrooms, etc. 0 $16,900-Reduction in CenterPlace Advertising. This will reduce the marketing budget by 50%critically impacting our ability to market CenterPlace. *Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. PAGE 92 Vol. 9 Public Works 2016 The Mission of the Public Works Department for the City of Spokane Valley is to provide overall planning, construction, operations and maintenance of the city's public works infrastructure and facilities. Public Works Director Administrative Assistant 1 1 I - I I I . Public Works Senior Engineer Engineer Assistant Engineer Engineering '• ,or Engineer Maintenance Engineer Traffic Technician!! Stormwater Stormwater Traffic Superintendent Stormwater OP Maintenance Construction senior Engineer Inspector[4) Project Manager(2) Tanning Grants Engineer Overview: Engineer CI The Public Works Department oversees the City's transportation system, which includes construction and maintenance of streets, bridges, stormwater systems, operations and maintenance of traffic signs and signals, and transportation planning. The Department i,.gineering rLhnician II provides management and control of Solid Waste, coordination with other City depart- ments on the planning, design and construction of City parks and civic facilities, along with participation in regional public works issues such as wastewater, stormwater and Engineering Technician I high-capacity transportation. (2) PAGE 93 Public Works— Administration and Capital Improvement Program Descriptions Administration: Provides direction, support, and coordination to Public Works staff facilitating the delivery of services throughout the community. Develops, oversees and implements the expenditures of all Public Works budgets. In November 2014, The City took over the management and control of Solid Waste and entered into a 10-year contract with Sunshine Recyclers to provide transfer, transport and disposal services Direct responsibilities of Public Works Department Include: • Pavement Management Plan • Capital Improvement Program • Solid Waste Management and Comprehensive Planning • Street Maintenance Operations • Traffic Management and Operations • Snow Operations • Stormwater Utility • Fleet Maintenance Program (In conjunction with the Finance department) • Contract management and future renewals • Coordination with other regional public organizations such as the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Spokane County Traffic Safety Commission and the Spokane Regional Traffic Management Center PAGE 94 Public Works— Administration and Capital Improvement Program Descriptions Capital Improvement Program: Plan, design and construct new facilities and maintain, preserve, and reconstruct existing facilities owned by the City of Spokane Valley. These projects include roads, bridges, trails, civic and community buildings. This requires careful prioritized long-range planning, acquisition and management of state and federal grant funding, coordination with stakeholder groups, and proficient pro- ject management. Tasks include: • Development of annual 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) • Prioritization, development and submittal of grant requests for: o Washington State - Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) o Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) o Washington State - Highway Bridge Program (BP) o Washington State - Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) o Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) o And other State and Federal Funding Sources • Implementation of Capital Projects o Manage Project Budgets o Project Design (Consultants and in-house staff) o Survey o Right-of-Way Acquisition o Bidding o Construction o Inspection, Documentation, Contract Management o Warranty/Closeout o Compliance with Grant Agency Requirements • Coordination with SRTC and other jurisdictions on regional transportation policies and projects • Collaboration of Capital Projects with Maintenance, Stormwater, Traffic, Parks, and Community & Economic Development PAGE 95 Public Works—Street Fund Program Description Street Maintenance Operations: This program provides responsive maintenance and repairs for 460 center line miles of City streets. Most services provided by the street fund are contracted services. City staff will provide direction and oversight of all contracted operations. Contracted Services: Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair • Expend about $1.3 million dollars annually • Contract activities include asphalt patching, crack sealing, gravel shoulder repairs, curb and sidewalk repairs, gravel road grading, storm- water repairs, etc. Snow Removal • Operates and maintains 9 City-owned snow plows • Maintains all priority 1, 2, and 3 streets with City snow plows • Priority 4 streets are plowed with contracted road graders Street Sweeping • Sweeping programs provide routine monthly maintenance as well as a Spring and Fall sweep • City sidewalks along arterial streets are cleaned in the spring Roadway Landscaping Services • Maintains all City owned right-of-ways • Provides weed control on all major arterials including sidewalks Geiger Work Crew • Provides litter and trash control on arterial streets • Provides weed control and trash cleanup as requested • Mows and maintains all City dry land grass • Removes snow from sidewalks on bridges Storm Drain Cleaning Program • Cleans drywells, catch basins, culverts, swale inlets and bridge drains PAGE 96 Public Works—Street Fund Program Description Traffic Management and Operations: Provides traffic engineering for safe and efficient multi-faceted transportation systems throughout the City. Oversees the operation of traffic signals and the installation and maintenance of signing and striping. Responsible for transportation planning and design support to the Capital Improvement Program and to Community and Economic Development. • Optimizes and coordinates traffic signals • Prepares traffic control, signal, signing, and striping plans and specifications in cooperation with the Capital Improvement Program • Reviews traffic studies for all development projects within and outside of City limits • Applies for funding, installs and maintains school zone flashing beacons • Assists in the preparation of grant applications for capital project funding • Analyzes collision data Citywide • Develops clear view triangle standards and coordinates with code enforcement to correct safety problems • Oversees and monitors traffic level of service for all arterial intersections • Reviews traffic control plans for oversize loads, special events, and some right-of-way permits • Works with Community & Economic Development on bicycle and pedestrian planning, development permitting, City Hall Planning Comprehensive Plan update • Coordinates with SRTC on regional traffic modeling • Organizes the collection of annual traffic counts on arterial streets • Coordinates with SRTMC for regional transportation management • Plans, applies for funding, installs and maintains Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) equipment • Coordinates with Capital Programs on Capital projects • Maintains the City Traffic Operation Center The traffic division contracts with Spokane County and WSDOT for maintenance of our 85 traffic signals, 36 flashing school beacons, 8 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), 12 traffic cameras, 21,000+ traffic signs, and all roadway striping. Collectively the City staff and contract employees evaluate and respond to over 400 traffic-related citizen requests per year. While some of the citizen requests are maintenance related and get forwarded directly to our contractors, the Traffic Division directly handles concerns regarding traffic signal tim- ing, stop or yield signs, changes to speed limits, school zone modifications, crosswalks, illumination, and many others. Participates as a member of the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center (SRTMC), which is a multi-jurisdictional control facility developed to enhance and support advanced transportation management capabilities throughout the Spokane Area. PAGE 97 Public Works—Stormwater Utility Program Description Stormwater Utility: The Stormwater Utility (SW) oversees stormwater in the City to effectively collect, treat, store, and discharge stormwater, managing the risks to public safety, health, and property from flooding, erosion, ponding, and degradation. This is accomplished through the following responsibilities: • SW System Inventory, Inspection and Investigation • Geographic Information System (GIS) Mapping • Compliance with Environmental Law • SW Capital Improvement Program Development and Management • Street Sweeping Operations • Drainage Structure Cleaning Operations • Engineering Design • SW Maintenance Projects • Swale and Landscape Area Maintenance • SW Public Education & Outreach • Response to Citizen Action Requests • City Parcel Certification and Fee Administration The Utility provides development and oversight to individual stormwater system projects and improvements in conjunction with pro- jects led by others including Utility and City Street projects. The Utility manages a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to assist in pri- oritization of projects to improve stormwater collection, treatment, storage, and discharge. The Utility oversees the requirements of the Clean Water Act for stormwater discharges including implementation of the City's Nation- al Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, Underground Injection Control (UIC) rules, and monitoring regulations for discharges in Aquifer Protection Areas and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements for the Spokane River. The Utility pro- vides required annual reporting to the Washington State Department of Ecology. The Utility provides street sweeping, inspects and prioritizes stormwater structure cleaning and maintenance and provides landscape maintenance of swales and landscaped areas. The Utility reviews and updates all commercial and residential parcels and provides certification to the County Assessor for the storm and surface water utility charge on all City parcels. PAGE 98 Public Works—Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies (Council Goal) 2016-2021 Continue to work with state and federal legislators for possible financial assistance • Provide project specific support to Council and administration for the Barker Road Grade Separation. • Continue to seek support from local legislators and interest groups such as GSI, and Valley Chamber of Commerce (Council Goal) 2016-2021 Develop a strategic plan for funding and completion of all grade separation • Pursue grant opportunities at the state and federal levels including long - projects. term funding for grade separation and corridor consolidation • Include Bridging the Valley projects in the City's 6-year TIP • Work with City Management to develop funding alternatives to construct all grade separation projects (Council Goal) 2016-2021 Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preservation • Work with City Management to find a solution to this funding shortfall. program to include sustained funding in the City's Street Fund #311 to address • Continue to seek out grants and alternative funding to assist with the funding concerns beyond the year 2020. for pavement preservation projects G-1 2016-2021 Maintain City streets at lower costs to retain a higher overall pavement condition. • Continue to update and implement the Pavement Management Plan • Improve PMP by identifying alternative and less costly treatment methods • Provide routine maintenance such as pothole repairs quickly and effectively • Continue to monitor, update, and implement the Transportation Improvement Plan G-2 2016-2021 Develop a maintenance program for traffic signal components to address aging • Perform a condition assessment of existing traffic signal components and infrastructure. Devise a financial plan to address these needs and incorporate into equipment the budget. • Develop a maintenance program and budget to replace aging equipment and components PAGE 99 Public Works—Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-3 2016-2021 Continue to engage in the discussion surrounding Oil and Coal Train impacts to the • Monitor federal and state proposed regulations related to transport of oil and Valley, region and the State coal • Continue to seek support for overpass improvements for at grade crossings • Support and ask for support from local and regional agencies to encourage funding agencies to help with implementation of improvements 2016-2021 G-4 • Develop plan for storm drain maintenance& operations Continue implementation of the Stormwater program • Update and implement stormwater program plan • Refine and Update the six-year capital program for stormwater facilities • Continue to assist in meeting the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimi- nation System (NPDES) Phase II permit requirements G-5 2016-2021 Manage Solid Waste Program • Continue to implement public outreach and education program • Manage the Department of Ecology Coordinated Prevention Grant Program • Manage the contract for transfer, transport and disposal services • Develop an RFP for consulting services to assist with development of new collection services contract G-6 2016-2021 Identify projects and funding that will encourage economic development • Implement ideas from Economic Development Study. • Possible examples: Appleway Trail, Barker Rd BNSF grade separation, In- stalling sewer on Barker Rd, City Center Infrastructure. PAGE 100 Public Works Workload Indicators Goal Workload 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 G-1 Centerline lane miles of streets maintained 461 461 461 Number of citizen action requests for street maintenance 859 1147 897 Street sweeping(in tons) 804 874 1,370 G-2 Traffic signals maintained 86 85 85 Traffic counts performed 140 137 146 School beacons maintained 32 36 36 Traffic signs maintained' 21,000 21,000 21,000 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons(RRFB) maintained - 2 8 Stand alone radar speed signs and intersection control beacons - 5 5 Traffic Cameras maintained - 10 12 G-3 Number of drywells 7,437 7,428 7,346 Number of drywells cleaned 402 206 263 New drywells registered 3 4 0 G-4 Number of Vehicles maintained - 28 28 1 Spokane County revised the database regarding traffic signs in 2011 to obtain a more accurate number of street signs PAGE 101 Public Works Workload Indicators Goal Workload 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target G-1 Centerline lane miles of street maintained 438 460 460 461 461 Number of citizen action requests for street maintenance 1875 1078 1166 1066 1027 Street sweeping(in tons) 545.4 472.92 796.5 695.25 894 G-2 Traffic signals maintained 84 86 86 85 86 Traffic counts performed 159 158 133 135 202 School beacons maintained 16 20 20 26 32 Traffic signs maintained 14,000 14,000 14,000 21,0001 21,000 G-3 Number of drywells 7,300 7,330 7343 7376 7,416 Number of drywells cleaned 267 245 167 175 206 New drywells registered 30 33 10 14 10 G-4 Dollars of Capital Improvements(actual dollars spent) $17,475,243 $21,482,584 $7,008,066 $5,882,924 $9,086,820 Number of construction projects managed 18 28 30 32 44 Full-time employees for Capital Improvement Projects(CIP) 9 9 9 9 8 'Spokane County revised the database regarding traffic signs in 2011 to obtain a more accurate number of street signs PAGE 102 Public Works—Performance Measures Goal Performance 2013 2014 6 Yr. Avg. 2015 2016 Target G-1 Percent of citizens who rated snow 76.5% " removal as positive(citizen survey) A " Ton of cold patch for potholes 68.34 72.14 46.60 32.15 Percent of citizens who rated street repairs - 70.5% " as positive(citizen survey) " Percent of citizens who rated clean streets - 87.5% " as positive(citizen survey) " Street maintenance cost per capita $51.29 $53.11 $49.36 $48.11 Lane miles maintained per 1000 population 5.12 5.12 5.12 4.94 Street sweeping expenditures per capita $5.35 $5.29 $5.01 $5.25 Street condition based on the Pavement Condition Index(PCI) 75 - 77.5 71 G-3 Percent of citizens who rated quality of storm - 91.5% " drainage as positive(citizen survey) " Cost per ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 Cubic yards of new drywells constructed 120 cy 160 cy 493.34 0 G-4 Maintenance Cost Per Vehicle(PW Non-Snow vehicles) - $237.14 $237.14 $548.73* Maintenance Cost Per Snow Plow - $8,744.40 $8,744.40 $8,944.89 * Due to major repair on 2005 Dakota. PAGE 103 Public Works—Performance Measures Goal Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Target G-1 Percent of citizens who rated snow — 73% — 80% — removal as positive(citizen survey) Ton of cold patch for potholes 27 17.55 8.10 36.10 77.36 Percent of citizens who rated street repairs — 73% — 68% — as positive(citizen survey) Percent of citizens who rated clean streets — 88% — 87% — as positive(citizen survey) Street maintenance cost per capita $44.83 $49.67 $42.88 $58.00 $41.19 Lane miles maintained per 1000 population 4.926 5.14 5.10 5.12 5.12 Street sweeping expenditures per capita $5.24 $3.83 4.86 4.92 5.77 Street condition based on the Pavement Condition Index(PCI) - - 80 — — G-3 Percent of citizens who rated quality of storm — 92% — 91% — drainage as positive(citizen survey) Cost per ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 21.00 Cubic yards of new drywells constructed 1,200 cy 1,320 cy 400cy 560cy 400cy G-4 Dollars of Capital Improvement Projects $1,941,694 $2,386,954 $778,674 $653,658 $1,135,852 managed per FTE Percent of grant funds vs. City funds 73%grant 72%grant 64%grant 76%grant 71%grant 27%City 28%City 36%City 24%City 29%City PAGE 104 Public Works—Performance Measures Summary 50 Current Pavement Condition Index(PCI)Distribution by Area Pavement Conditon Comparison 2010 to 2015 45 35 •SV 2010 Pavement Condition Index=80,Backlog=2% Current Network Average Condition=71,Backlog=10% 40 ■SV 2013 Pavement Condition Index=75,Backlog=6% . 30 ■SV 2015 Pavement Condition Index=71,Backlog=10% -0 35 25 30 20 0 25 m 15 c 20 $ 10 0 — • 11 II1 1s 10 O T 700 200 X00 X00 S0,, 6`00 '00 X00 900 5 0 �0 `�O �O `r0 60 'O �O `90 �O 0 0 Pavement Condition Index(PCI) Very Poor Poor Marginal Fair Good Very Good ExceIIent (0 to 30) (30 to 45) (45 to 55) (55 to 65) (65 to 75) (75 to 85) (85 to 100) • At the current funding level, it is projected the PCI of the streets will continue to decrease at the current funding level of about$4 million per year. • Based on the Pavement Management Analysis performed in 2015, $7.0 million would need to be budgeted annually to keep the roads at a pCI of 71. • The analysis will be updated in 2017; the updates occur every 2 years as funding allows. Citizen Action Requests for Street Maintenance 2000 • On average, the City receives 1,371 requests per year related to Street Maintenance. The requests include potholes, roadway hazards, stormwater, traffic, dead 1500 animals and other various requests. • Citizens may report problems through our website or loon by calling City Hall. 500 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 PAGE 105 Public Works - 2016 Budget and Staffing Impact Summary Administration & Capital Improvement, Street Maintenance and Stormwater Increase/Reduction • The public works budget reflects a 1.02% increase (not including wages, payroll taxes and benefits or vehicle replacement) for 2016. 2016 Budget This includes increases related to the purchase of aerial photos which are used by Public Works and Community& Economic Develop- +1.02% Increase ment for various tasks and solid waste training. The aerial photos are purchased every 2 years, and have previously not been budgeted. $855 When including a $2,100 increase in the vehicle replacement program, the increase in the non-payroll portion of the budget is 3.38% or $2,955. Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise -3% • To meet a 3% reduction: ($29,000) 0 Reduce staff by .3 FTE * The reduction of staff will reduce services provided to citizens 0 Reduce Engineering &Architectural line item by $8,000 leaving $0 * The reduction of Engineering &Architectural funding will impact staff's ability to hire consultants to assist in the development of state/federal grant applications and to support other miscellaneous projects that come up throughout the year. This will result in a reduced level of service by not being able to complete some normal, annual tasks as well as other miscellaneous projects. -6% • In addition to the 3% reduction: ($58,350) 0 Reduce staff by .6 FTE * The reduction of staff will reduce service provided to citizens. 0 Reduce Travel and Mileage by $4,000 * Travel and mileage reductions will not allow staff the proper training and continuing education that is needed to stay current on Public Works issues. 0 Reduce Conference Registrations by $4,350 * City Staff will not be able to attend continuing education and conferences to keep the City up to date on current practices. -9% • In addition to the 6% reduction: ($87,200) 0 Reduce staff by 1 FTE * The reduction of staff will reduce services provided to citizens 0 Reduce all travel and mileage to $1,000 0 Eliminate Conference Registrations to $0 *Department Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. PAGE 106 Vol. 9 ADDENDUM A: Spokane Valley Police Department 2016 Contract Services — Spokane Valley Police Department (Commissioned Officers) Spokane Dedicated Resources Spokane Valley County Sheriff 100% Spokane Valley City Manager Shared Police Chief Resources Split County/Cit Precinct Commander Lt. Training/Professional Standards 7 FTE Marine Patrol/Search & Rescue Administrative Dayshift Nightshift 1.75 Deputies Sergeant Commander Commander Intelligence Led Policing 1 Detective Precinct Front Traffic Patrol Patrol Desk Deputy 1 Sergeant 4 Sergeants 5 Sergeants K-9 (Dayshift Patrol) 1 Detective 19 Deputies 27 Deputies 5 Deputies 5 Deputies Investigations Investigative Captain—1 FTE Property and Drug Crime Investigations Investigative Lt.—2 FTE 1 Sergeant Comm. Srvs. Major Crimes-7 FTE 10 Detectives School Domestic Sex Crimes—7 FTE 1 Deputy Resource Violence 4 Deputies Joint Terrorism Task Force—1 Det. (Dedicated but also supervised by Inv. Lt.) 2 Deputies Safe Streets (Drug&Gang)—6 FTE PAGE 107 Spokane Valley Police Department Vol. 9 Contract Services Introduction: The Spokane Valley Police Department (SVPD) is included as an Addendum to the plan because their services are provided by contract with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. The Spokane Valley Police Chief, Rick Van Leuven, reports to the City Manager and to the Spokane County Sheriff. The SVPD information in the Business Plan is important to: • Provide information as to the police department's structure and how that translates into services to the city's citi- zens. • Gain an understanding of the costs involved in providing these services. In reviewing the police department Business Plan, it is important to note that the Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement Services specifies the type and timing of budgetary changes that the city can make to law enforcement. The city conducted a study in 2013-2014 to assess the current staffing level of the Spokane Valley Police Department to determine if the staffing level was appropriate to meet the law enforcement needs of the community. The goal when embarking on this study was to ensure that every opportunity to maximize efficiency was explored prior to considering adding personnel. Spokane Valley City staff in conjunction with Spokane Valley Police Command staff identified several opportunities to enhance the service delivered to the citizens. The result was a plan that was adopted by Council in 2014. The plan was a combination of enhancements to existing resources and included utilizing two new Patrol deputies in the most efficient way possible. In or- der to assess the value and return on the city's investment, new performance measures were added to the plan. In time, this data will provide the information needed to determine whether or not these changes are meeting the service needs of the com- munity. PAGE 108 Spokane Valley Police Department Administrative and Patrol Divisions Spokane Valley Police Department Staffing Administrative Staffing Level: Chief-1 Precinct Commander-1 Administrative Sergeant-1 Patrol Staffing Level: Lieutenants-2 Sergeants-8 Deputies-47* Canine-3 Spokane Valley of 5—Shared Marine Deputies-2—Shared *Of the 47 deputies, one of those positions is used to staff the front desk Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Patrol Division: Our Patrol Division operates under a broad philosophy that embraces a whole-hearted determination to protect and sup- port individual rights, while at all times providing for the security of persons and property within the community. This division is the backbone of an organization whose very existence is justified solely on the basis of community service. In general, Patrol's function is to respond to calls for assistance, act as a deterrent to crime, enforce state and local laws and re- spond to emergencies 24 hours per day seven days per week. Specifically, this division provides the following services within the lim- its of available resources: • Monitor, report, and investigate suspicious persons and situations, safety hazards, and unusual or illegal activity in the patrol area, to include vigilant observations of suspicious activity that may be tied to domestic or international terrorism; • Use Intelligence-Led Policing (ILP) methods, working in concert with Investigations and the RIG 9 Intelligence Group, to implement an operational strategy to reduce crime through the combined use of analysis and criminal intelligence, focusing on active and recidivist offenders. The goal with ILP is to identify crime patterns, groups, and linked crimes to anticipate the crime in an effort to reduce criminal opportunities through directed patrolling; • Maintain order, respond to emergencies, and conduct criminal investigations in an effort to identify, pursue, and arrest sus- pects and perpetrators of criminal acts; this also includes the collection of evidence, complete written reports, issue citations or warnings, and testify in court, when applicable; PAGE 109 Spokane Valley Police Department Patrol Divisions, continued • Build relationships between Patrol, SCOPE members, and neighborhood citizens in an effort to provide a safe living environment for the community and increase citizen awareness and involvement in community-oriented services; and, • Inspect public establishments to ensure compliance with state law and jurisdictional ordinances. Impact of Staffing: Patrol deputies are the primary responders with respect to calls for service, and are the backbone of the agency. It is imperative that re- sponse times be as short as possible, as increased response times only cause more risk to both the public as well as officer safety. Staff- ing levels can have a severe impact on response times and the ability to answer lower priority calls. Population growth has been slowly but steadily increasing. Citizen-initiated calls for service have been increasing at a more rapid pace and have experienced a significant jump recently. For the first time in SVPD history, CAD Incidents topped 6,000 in July 2015. Best practice for law enforcement identifies Patrol deputies spending one-third of their time on proactive policing, initiating service incidents, interacting with the public, and providing deterrent patrolling. Spokane Valley Police have always had a higher standard as nearly half of their calls were officer-initiated in the first couple of years of the City's existence. As Spokane Valley deputies have faced a higher call load, their ability to be proactive has steadily decreased. Additionally, because of the increased call load, the number of lower priority calls without an officer response has increased. The City of Spokane Valley is split into six Patrol districts. There are four Patrol platoons comprised of 10 deputies each, two day platoons and two night platoons, each working 12-hour shifts. Each night shift platoon works when the other platoon is off and the same is true of day platoons. The deputies in each platoon have staggered start times so that approximately half start an hour and a half later than the others. This insures that there is not a transition gap when the day shift is over and the night shift begins. In addition, Power Shift covers the period of peak call load and the transition from day to night shift. Power Shift was partially implemented in March '15. Additionally, specialty units such as SWAT and EDU (Bomb Squad) are made up of deputies assigned to Patrol as well as detectives as- signed to the Investigative Unit. Many hours are invested in the training of these individuals in specialty fields. PAGE 110 Spokane Valley Police Department Power Shift Power Shift: In 2015, the Power Shift was created, which overlaps the existing day and night platoons. There are seven Power Shift positions; however, due to manpower shortages, the platoon currently has five deputies assigned. Members of the Power Shift platoon work each day from 3:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. during the highest concentration of calls for service. When fully staffed, the greatest number of deputies per shift are on weekends. Power Shift Schedule: M T W TH F SA SU Assigned 3 3 4 4 4 7 3 Minimum 2 2 3 3 3 5 2 PAGE 111 Spokane Valley Police Department Patrol Division, wiltlnu44 Current Staffing: As with most law enforcement agencies across the country, the Spokane County Sheriff's Office is struggling with retention and recruitment of commissioned personnel. For the period 2003-2013, SCSO averaged eight commissioned losses annually. Losses for 2014 and 2015 were 21 and 24 respectively. These unprecedented losses are primarily due to three factors. First, the demographic age distribution of the Sheriff's Office has resulted in an increased number of retirements. This trend will continue for the next several years. Second, SCSO is not competitive compared to many other regional law enforcement agencies with regard to pay and benefits. This has resulted in the loss of personnel to other agencies and increased difficulty in attracting qualified candidates. Lastly, the attrition rate of newly hired personnel is currently at 25%. Unfortunately, many of these are deputies successfully complete the training (nearly one year) only to discover that a career in law enforcement is not for them. As of February 1, 2016, the anticipated 2016 retirements of commissioned personnel within the Sheriff's Office stands at 9 and the number of trainees (at various stages of training) is 13. With trainee attrition and other unexpected losses of commissioned personnel, it appears that 2016 will be a "break even" year with regard to commissioned personnel. Therefore, it is expected that SVPD staffing levels will remain at, or near status quo, as SVPD carries a portion of the SCSO vacancies. Current vacancies within SVPD include 1 Traffic Unit sergeant, 1 traffic deputy, 2 detectives, and 1 investigative deputy. This does not include two Patrol deputy positions filled with injured personnel. PAGE 112 Spokane Valley Police Department Community Services Function: The Spokane Valley Crime Prevention program is a proactive effort to educate the public and provide material and training that will reduce opportunities for crime in our city. One deputy is assigned to the Spokane Valley Police Department and provides: • Security surveys on request for commercial, residential and multi-family housing sites; • Training to the public on a wide variety of topics including: personal safety, internet safety, drug awareness, fraud and identity theft, terrorism awareness, workplace violence prevention, and crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED); • Information to citizens of community services and recommends options to facilitate long-term problem resolution; • Supports Neighborhood Watch; and, • Resource to City Department Heads • This is provided at no cost to the community. Other Education Programs: • Child-Stranger Danger and Safety • Residential and Commercial Security • Robbery Prevention and Procedures • Crime Free Multi-housing • Nuisance/Safe Streets • Firearms Safety • Disaster Preparedness/Emergency Response • Rural Crime Prevention • Bicycle Safety/Safety on the Centennial Trail • DUI aggressive driving • Active Shooter Survival Training • Personal Safety Training Impact of Staffing: This is one of the most important pro-active, crime-fighting assets provided to the community by the Spokane Valley Police Depart- ment. The performance of these functions requires a level of expertise that could not easily be replaced. Other positions within the Spokane Valley Police Department do not have the time to adequately address these issues. PAGE 113 Spokane Valley Police Department Traffic Division Function: • Promote safe and efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians through Education, Enforcement, and Engineering • Monitor traffic flow to ensure public safety and enforce motor vehicle and criminal law through the issuance of citations and/or warnings to those persons not adhering to the law; • Investigate motor vehicle crash scenes as well as provide expertise to other investigators, including but not limited to major crimes scenes for Total Station services; • Direct traffic flow, reroute traffic, and evaluate in case of emergencies; • Assist local agencies in emergency situations by providing traffic control; and, • Reduce serious injuries and fatalities by using increased traffic enforcement; statistics show that increased citations in high- travel areas throughout the city reduce serious collisions/fatalities. Traffic Staffing Level: 1 Sergeant 1 Corporal/Detective 5 Deputies. Impact of Staffing: A tremendous amount of specialized training is invested in the officers assigned to the Traffic Division. With that training, they are able to effectively investigate a variety of collisions to include fatal, pedestrian, and motorcycle, often taking days and weeks to ana- lyze the collision and complete a thorough investigation. The loss of a trained collision detective would not easily be replaced by any other deputy or investigator who would have none of the specialized training held by a traffic detective. Washington State Traffic Commission grants pay for extra traffic enforcement in the Spokane Valley for DUI and Pedestrian Safety. Although grant funds pay for these emphasis patrols, a portion of the revenue generated comes back to the City of Spokane Valley. Most importantly, without deputies on the streets writing tickets for collision violations and putting emphasis on safety, our fatalities may increase. Traffic School for drivers cited in the Spokane Valley began in 2012. The primary goal was to reduce collisions through education and is an example of how law enforcement can work with the public toward a safer community. Education and interaction with the citizens is one of the best ways for this to happen. What seems to be commonly noted from people who have gone through Traffic School is they don't mind spending their time and money when they get more out of the experience than paying a fine. This type of program not only edu- cates, it builds trust, changes perceptions and provides an invaluable service to the community. PAGE 114 Spokane Valley Police Department School Resource Deputies School Resource Deputies (SRD's) are an invaluable resource to Spokane Valley school districts by providing a uniformed presence within the schools, responding to crimes and other non-criminal related situations within the district, and providing assistance to include, but not limited to, criminal arrests, notice of infractions, informational reports, assisting with trespass order service, student education and awareness, and answering all other crime or non-crime related questions asked by district employees. SRD's often attend district meetings at various schools and buildings to provide expert advice on security and safety, give presen- tations to staff and students covering various subjects related to law enforcement, and act as a liaison and a source of information for the Patrol Division or any other law enforcement agency and the schools. One of the school administrator's goals in handling situations at each school is to return to a normal atmosphere as soon as possi- ble to minimize the distraction to the educational environment. Because the SRD is at the school, there is no waiting on a response from an deputy, and the issue can be dealt with immediately. SRD Staffing Level: 4 Deputies Impact of Staffing: Early intervention benefits younger students who engage in activity that doesn't amount to criminal activity. The SRD's are often called to speak with students at the middle and elementary schools for this purpose, which is key to preventing potential criminal activity. This creates a "feeling of security" in the school that comes from having a marked patrol car at the various locations within the district, and a police presence with the contract based school and alternative school in the district. SRD's provide input to the safety and security policies and practices that are discussed and developed at monthly security meetings within the school districts. This helps keep school policies on safety and security in line with law enforcement and helps aid with emergency response to situations affecting the schools. The SRD's are working with the schools to develop a school discipline policy and a set of standards for the students to assist them with handling issues ranging from drug and gang intervention, criminal activity at school, and welfare checks at home. These efforts by the SRD's provide the tools for this unique group of students to become successful adults and not fall prey to criminal activities. The proactive efforts of our SRD's to deter such incidents as the "Columbine shooting" is a critical function for the safety of our children, citizens, and officers. PAGE 115 Spokane Valley Police Department Training Impact of Staffing — TRAINING PROVIDED BY SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT The Spokane Sheriff's Regional Training Center moved from it's Spokane Valley location at U-City to the former Mountainview Middle School in Newman Lake. Revenue previously realized by local City of Spokane Valley visitors to the Training Center was lost with this relo- cation. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Students Trained 118 1074 2516 2521 3096 3220 3163 3365 3190 1119 Total Hotel Rooms Booked* 84 1254 3252 2911 4084 3217 3065 2823 2872 961 *Total number of hotel rooms booked (i.e. students attends a three day class, counts as three hotel rooms booked).Numbers were figured conservatively, assum- ing that the student leaves Spokane the day of the last class. However, some students may elect to stay another night and travel back the next day. The Regional Training Center has spent the last few years establishing itself as a law enforcement training establishment, building itself up to the level where students travel from around the world to attend classes here. There were a total of 94 classes held at the Training Center in 2015. Students attending were not only from local law enforcement, but also included students from all over the United States as well as foreign countries. The Training Center has hosted students last year as well as previous years from the countries of Canada, Australia, Israel, Micronesia, Guam, Japan, and most recently China. Often times, if there are enough attendees paying for attendance at a scheduled training class, members of the Sheriff's Office are provided the opportunity to attend at no cost. Investment in the Training Unit results in a win-win situation for the citizens and law enforcement of Spokane County and surrounding areas. In addition, the Sheriff's Office has realized significant savings by providing training locally for its officers instead of sending them out of town. It is extremely likely that our officers would not have been afforded the opportunity to attend the same amount of training, due to the cost of travel, lodging, and food, if the training was not provided locally. PAGE 116 Spokane Valley Police Department Investigative Division The Investigative Division serving the City of Spokane Valley consists of the dedicated Spokane Valley Investigative Unit that has traditionally been responsible for investigating Spokane Valley property crimes. Organizational changes approved by Spokane Valley City Council in 2014 added additional investigative personnel and the responsibility for investigating Spokane Valley drug crimes. The Investigative Division also includes other units that are shared with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. The primary func- tion of the Investigative Division is to provide investigative services and support that cannot be wholly accomplished by the Patrol Division. The Investigative Division is comprised of the following Units: Major Crimes Unit - SHARED • Responsible for investigating crimes against persons to include homicides, robberies, felony assaults, and officer- in- volved fatal or near-fatal incidents. • This unit is comprised of: 1 Captain 1 Lieutenant 1 Sergeant 6 Detectives 1 Domestic Violence Detective (Dedicated Spokane Valley) PAGE 117 Spokane Valley Police Department Investigative Division, wiltinued Sexual Assault/Sex Offender Registration Unit - SHARED • Responsible for investigating assaults that are sexual in nature, crimes against young children and the registration of sex offenders as well as insuring the sex offender's compliance with registration requirements. • This unit is comprised of: 1 Sergeant 6 Detectives 1 Deputy • Three detectives are primarily responsible for investigations, 2 detectives are primarily responsible for registering of sex offenders, and 1 detective and the deputy are primarily responsible for address verification of those registered. The cost and services of the sergeant and 5 detectives are shared between the City of Spokane Valley and the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. The sex offender address verification duties of the sixth detective are also shared between Spo- kane County and Spokane Valley; however, the position is fully grant-funded. • Partnerships supported in this unit are the Child Sexual Predator Task Force and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. PAGE 118 Spokane Valley Police Department Investigative Division, 00/70jd Spokane Valley Investigative Unit(SVIU) - DEDICATED • Responsible for property and drug investigations. SVIU, in collaboration with the Patrol Division and the RIG 9 Intelligence Group, has been operating effectively under the Intelligence Led Policing (ILP) philosophy. As the name implies, the ILP concept involves focusing investigative and enforcement efforts on targets that are identified through statistical analysis and intelligence gathering so that subsequent enforcement efforts are more fruitful with regard to a reduction in crime. This allows us to use our investigative resources more effectively and efficiently. • From 2010 forward, SVIU successfully implemented the Intelligence Led Policing principles recognizing a substantial increase in solvability over the years. Detectives have forwarded numerous cases to the Prosecutor's Office where they have been able to connect a suspect to as many as 100 incidents, in some cases more, and often charge them with leading organized crime, traf- ficking in stolen property, etc. The pawn database has also been an invaluable tool to detectives as they track down items of sto- len property being pawned and connect the suspects to the crime. In addition, SVPD's use of Facebook has been a benefit as a way of communicating with the community to identify the owners of recovered stolen property. SVIU also enjoys the assistance of two SCOPE volunteers who have assumed many tasks that save our detectives countless hours, enabling them to work more cases and solve more crimes. • Partnered with ATF, Dept. Of Corrections, Secret Service, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Social Security Administration, and U.S. Marshal Service working joint cases. Participate in two State grant funded task forces: Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authori- ty (WATPA) and the Financial Fraud Identity Theft (FFIT) task forces. SO/SVPD Personnel Funded: 1 Lieutenant (Shared, this Lt. also oversees other shared units.) 1 Sergeant 10 Detectives 1 Deputy PAGE 119 Spokane Valley Police Department Investigative Division, int%,iqeci Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) - SHARED • One detective is assigned to the JTTF, which is a collection of Federal, State and Local officers primarily responsible for matters relating to Domestic and International Terrorism. The funding for this detective is shared between Spokane County Sheriff's Of- fice and the City of Spokane Valley. SO/SVPD Personnel Funded: 1 Detective Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force - SHARED • Formerly the Spokane Violent Crime/Gang Enforcement Team (SVGET) and Spokane Regional Drug Task Force (SRDTF) • At the beginning of 2015, these two units formally merged into one unit. The new unit will continue their now-joint missions in re- gards to middle and upper-level narcotics investigations, gang-related criminal investigations, intelligence collection and dissemi- nation, investigative support and prevention/intervention efforts. • Partners with FBI, SPD, WSP, DOC, and ATF working joint investigations. Those sworn in as Federal Task Force Officers are provided a vehicle, cell phone, fuel and overtime funded by the FBI. SO/SVPD Personnel Funded: 1 Sergeant 4 Detectives 1 Deputy 1 Support Staff (100% funded by grant and seizure funds) PAGE 120 Spokane Valley Police Department Investigative Division, o,ytimeci Spokane Crime Analysts Team (RIG 9 Intelligence Group) - SHARED • Responsible for providing research and analytical support to all of our investigative functions and are a critical component to ILP efforts. • Operates our Regional Intelligence Group where information sharing occurs with other law enforcement agencies and with the Washington State Fusion Center. • Produces most of the statistical data for the Sheriff's Office and the Spokane Valley Police Department. SO/SVPD Personnel Funded: 1 Detective (Shared ILP Detective) In addition, this unit includes Capt. Ellis as supervisor/Analyst and 2 Civilian Analysts. • Partnerships supported by this unit intimately are the Financial Fraud/Identity Theft Task Force and the Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority. • The impact of insufficient staffing on this team deprives Patrol and Investigative Units dependent on that intelligence in identify- ing suspects and solving crimes. PAGE 121 Public Safety— Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies G-1 2015-2021 To provide a professional and trustworthy police department • Maintain professionalism in Spokane Valley Police Department's interac- tions with our citizens • Track data to determine the effectiveness in meeting this goal G-2 2015-2021 To respond to citizen calls for service as promptly as call volume and staffing • Collect and examine data to determine the effectiveness of Spokane Valley levels permit Police Department's response times G-3 2015-2021 To control crime rates within the City of Spokane Valley • Promptly recognize anomalous increases in crime • Identify and eliminate causes within Spokane Valley Police Department's control • Track data to determine the effectiveness in meeting this goal G-4 2015-2021 To investigate and work traffic related issues and respond to citizen traffic re- • Work to reduce traffic collisions by identifying areas within our control quests as call load and staffing levels permit to minimize traffic collisions within through the use of statistical analysis, enforcement, education, and collabo- our City ration with City of Spokane Valley traffic engineers • Track data to determine the progress in meeting this goal PAGE 122 Public Safety— Workload Indicators Goal Workload Indicator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 G-2 Total incidents per deputy per shift 10.27 9.78 9.43 9.00 8.63 8.70 9.18 9.01 Total citizen initiated CFS 30238 29168 31576 31396 34026 35897 37226 40151 Total citizen initiated CFS with deputy response 21924 20044 21054 20609 22288 23065 23975 25511 Total deputy initiated incidents 29693 30465 26612 23794 22716 20815 22333 22624 Total deputy involved incidents 51617 50509 47666 44403 45004 43880 46308 48186 Average patrol staffing per shift 6.89 7.08 6.93 6.76 7.14 6.91 6.91 7.33 2 Total incidents requiring written documentation - - - 17614 16382 15171 15727 15122 G-3 Total property crimes 3 - - - - 7883 8304 8336 8068 Total crimes against persons 4 - - - - 1170 1140 1374 1318 Total incidents resulting in custodial arrest 5 - - - 1782 1833 1970 2213 2354 G-4 Total traffic infractions/citations issued - - - 13359 12462 10950 11279 11310 Traffic infractions/citations from citizen complaints - - - - 184 24 32 98 Total reported collisions 2440 2104 2183 2014 2203 2141 2210 2560 1 Mathematically adjusted to include power shift. 2 Mathematically adjusted to include power shift. 3 Includes:burglary,forgery,theft,vehicle theft,vehicle prowling,malicious mischief. 4 Includes: homicide,assault,kidnap,robbery,rape,child abuse, stalking. 5 This figure includes the number of incidents resolved by custodial arrest;it does not include the total number of charges. PAGE 123 Public Safety- Performance Results Goal Performance Results 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 G-1 Citizen complaints per 1,000 deputy incidents - - - - .244 .706 6 .518 .415 Outcome of complaint investigations: % Sustained - - - - 11.1% 11.1% 0.0% 6.7% % Not Sustained - - - - 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% % Exonerated - - - - 55.6% 55.6% 0.0% 20.0% % Unfounded - - - - 0.0% 33.3% 79.2% 3.3% % Investigation Pending - - - - 11.1% 0.0% 12.5% 3.3% % Complaint forms not returned - - - - 11.1% 0.0% 8.3% 60.0% Use of force per 1,000 deputy incidents - - - - 1.755 3.258 ' 3.153 3.549 Outcome of use of force incidents: %Justified - - - - 100% 100% 99.32% 99.42% % Excessive - - - - 0.0% 0.0% 0.68% 0.58% G-2 Average response time to priority 1 CFS 8 - - - - - 3-6 min 3-6 min N/A Percentage of CFS with deputy response 72.50% 68.72% 66.68% 65.64% 65.50% 64.25% 64.40% 63.33% Percentage of incidents that were deputy initiated 57.53% 60.32% 55.83% 53.59% 50.48% 47.44% 48.23% 46.95% Percentage of citizens who rate L.E. positively - - - - - - - - G-3 Percentage of solvable property crimes cases as- - - - 67.29% 66.21% 43.88% 68.46% 64.55% signed Percentage of assigned cases solved - - - 91.60% 87.92% 95.09% 79.69% 88.44% Percentage of assigned cases solved by arrest - - - 84.00% 81.88% 74.42% 74.24% 75.43% Total unassigned cases - - - 243 245 495 211 190 Cases inactivated due to lack of evidence or leads - - - 42 58 65 34 65 G-4 Collisions per capita - - - 0.022 0.024 0.023 0.024 0.027 Percentage of traffic complaints worked - - - - 100% 100% 100% 100% 6 Changing methodology in obtaining complaint data has resulted in what appears to be a large increase in complaints. Changing methodology in acquiring UOF data for 2013 has resulted in what appears to be a large increase in UOF. s The current CAD system does not facilitate extracting an accurate number. PAGE 124 Public Safety 2016 Budget and Staffing Impact Summary* Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise—Submitted by Chief Rick VanLeuven Spokane Valley Police Department/Spokane County Sheriffs Office Impact of Potential Budget Decrease "The ultimate priority for the Spokane Valley Police Department is Public Safety" At the request of the Spokane Valley, SVPD has again been asked to evaluate the impact of a 3%, 6% & 9% budget cuts for F.Y. 2016. Prior to assessing the impact of these cuts, it is appropriate to review the status of the current budget and the level of service provided in exchange for those funds. Assessing the impact of a 3% budget reduction intuitively leads one to assume that it would result in a 3% reduction in police services. This, however, is not the reality. Effective law enforcement is synergistic in nature. In other words, the loss of any part reduces the overall effectiveness of the whole by an amount greater than the loss. A 3% cut equates to the loss of approximately four to five full time employees. These employees could be removed from any one of a number of functional units, each with its own negative outcome. The following is a summary of the expected impact of the loss of the contributions of these employees based, on the proposed budget reductions. Impact of 3% Budget Cut: • Minimum staffing levels would be much more difficult to meet. As a result, overtime expenditures can be expected to rise. • Overall staffing levels would be consistently lower, resulting in: • Elimination of Power Shift; move deputies to day/night shifts to meet minimum staffing • Longer response times • Reduction in services provided • Police service becomes more reactive rather than proactive resulting in increased crime • Insufficient personnel to safely and effectively handle more than one major incident at a time, which increases the possibility of serious injuries or fatalities • Decreased citizen satisfaction with police services • Officers are reduced to documenting crime rather than solving crime and arresting the perpetrators • Call load per officer per year would be expected to increase • Reduction of community oriented policing *Department Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. PAGE 125 Public Safety 2016 Budget and Staffing Impact Summary* Impact of 3%Cut, continued... • The loss of a single traffic deputy results in • Significant reduction (8.25%) in traffic enforcement and subsequent revenue • Increase in the number of collisions, with a decrease in the ability to investigate them • Increased insurance premiums in the region • Loss of specific traffic investigation expertise that is expensive to replace • Decreased DUI emphasis resulting in additional DUI-related collisions • There currently are insufficient traffic personnel to handle the volume of traffic complaints; any reduction would exacerbate this problem. • We will lose valuable intelligence that will inhibit the success of the ILP program and other proactive projects; • Specialty units such as SWAT and EDU (Bomb Squad) are made up of officers assigned to patrol as well as detectives assigned to the In- vestigative Unit. Many hours are invested in the training of these individuals in specialty fields. Any reduction in personnel would impact the sustainability of specialty units; • Currently, about 35% of the property crimes cases with potential solvability are not investigated due to a lack of investigators. This problem be- comes significantly worse with the reduction of just one detective; • Should the Crime Prevention officer position be eliminated, the majority, if not all, of the crime prevention programs would be lost, reducing the overall safety of our community and resulting in increased crime • Any reduction of School Resource Deputies (SRD's) would: • Further increase the call load for patrol • Decrease the level of safety in Spokane Valley schools • Increase the crime in Spokane Valley schools • Reduce valuable intelligence that is currently gathered by the SRD's • The SRD's proactive efforts to deter such incidents as the "Columbine shooting" is a critical function that, if reduced, would jeopardize the safety of our children, citizens, and officers • In working with the contract school, the last-ditch efforts made by the SRD to provide tools for this unique group of students to become successful adults and not fall prey to criminal activities would be lost *Department Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. PAGE 126 Public Safety 2016 Budget and Staffing Impact Summary* Impact of 6% Budget Cut: • A 6% cut would result in the loss of 8 to 10 personnel • It would no longer be possible to consistently meet current minimum staffing levels. Overtime will dramatically increase to make up for the loss of person- nel. Officer and public safety will be critically reduced • A reduction of 4 Patrol deputies would result in a 10% call load increase for the remaining Patrol personnel • The elimination of entire units such as Traffic, Crime Prevention, or SRD's will be necessary to maintain basic police functions • Expectation levels would be diminished to such an extent that certain investigations and types of calls for service will not be pursued • Would not have sufficient personnel to respond to low-priority crimes • Response times would increase significantly Impact of 9% Budget Cut: • A reduction of roughly 15% of the personnel would create a catastrophic impairment in the ability of SVPD to provide basic law enforcement ser- vices. The resulting increase in crime will jeopardize public and officer safety and decrease the quality of life for all Spokane Valley residents • Under these conditions it becomes extremely difficult to attract quality applicants to the police department. This results in a reduction in the qual- ity and professionalism of the personnel and creates a police department with a mercenary attitude lacking dedication to the community. In addi- tion, high turnover rates will result as officers leave to work for other departments • Anticipate significant officer-safety complaints from the Deputy Sheriff's Association and other labor unions • This would inhibit the ability to work WA Traffic Safety Commission Emphasis Grants that will result in more serious and fatal collisions • The economic impact on our city will suffer due to the overall impact of reduced services *Department Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved,final budget. PAGE 127 Vol. 9 ADDENDUM B: Foundation of the City of Spokane Valley 2016 The City of Spokane Valley evolved from a mixture of neighborhoods that incorporated as a city on March 31, 2003. The new City gov- ernment was charged with providing services to 82,000 people. City leaders knew that a clear direction with a consistent message was needed to be successful in this endeavor. This new government had a different mentality than the other governments in the area and Spokane Valley leaders understood how important it was to solidify that different way of thinking from the very beginning. This City was to be responsive, focused on customer service, open to the public, progressive, efficient, lean, fair, and committed to providing a high quality of life. Vision Statement: The first step was to establish a vision statement- that sets the City in motion on a course of success. Our Council believes that all people in Spokane Valley should have an opportunity to succeed, both in work and in personal lives. A well-balanced community ensures a strong economy will exist to allow residents to enjoy life. The following vision statement was adopted to signify this belief. KA community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and businesses will flourish and prosper. Next, the City founders and leaders felt it was important to provide direction to the new City government organization and ensure this community is unique. Developing the following values for the City accomplished these goals. PAGE 128 City of Spokane Valley Values Community Identity and Pride: Spokane Valley promotes an environment that supports the home and family, and job and education opportunities. Ff1ghl/gilt areas: • A friendly, wholesome, safe place to live and raise a family • An economically healthy and diverse business community • Preservation of neighborhoods Focus on the Future: Spokane Valley is a visionary city encouraging its citizens and their government to look to the future beyond the present generation, and to bring such ideas to public discussion, enhancing a sense of community identity. kiigill/gilt areas: • A balanced approach to growth and development • Stewardship of land and resources, such as parks, recreation and natural areas • Preservation and growth of the economic and commercial job base of the community Open, Collaborative Government: Spokane Valley values a "user-friendly" government, in which governance practices and general operations consider how citizens will be served in the most responsive, effective and courteous manner. N/gill/gilt areas: • Citizen participation in the decision-making process • Strategic use of public/private and other partnerships • A "can-do" attitude on the part of City employees, and fair and consistent interpretation and implementation of regulations With these values, the City's foundation begins to take shape. The City now knows how it will operate. This will be a government that encourages participation, promotes a collaborative approach to problem-solving, inspires creativity, cultivates respect, and provides the highest level of services without over-burdening its citizens or businesses. PAGE 129 Core Beliefs Section 1. We believe Spokane Valley should be a visionary city encouraging its citizens and their government to look to the fu- ture beyond the present generation and to bring such ideas to public discussion and to enhance a sense of community identity. Section 2. We believe that elected body decision-making is the only lawful and effective way to conduct the public's legislative business and that careful observance of a clear set of Governance Coordination Rules of Procedure can best enhance public participation and decision making. Section 4. We believe in hearing the public view. We affirm that members of the public should be encouraged to speak and be heard through reasonable rules of procedure when the public business is being considered, thus giving elected officials the broadest perspectives from which to make decisions. Section 5. We believe that the City of Spokane Valley's governance should be known as "user friendly," and that governance practices and general operations should consider how citizens will be served in the most responsive, effective and courteous manner. Section 6. Section 7. We believe that Councilmembers set the tone for civic discussion and should set an example by: (a) Setting high standards of decorum and civility. (b) Encouraging open and productive conversation amongst themselves and with the community about legislative matters. (c) Demonstrating respect for divergent points of view expressed by citizens, fellow Councilmembers and the staff. (d) Honoring each other and the public by debating issues within City Hall and the community without casting aspersions on members of Council, the staff, or the public. (e) Accepting the principle of majority rule and working to advance the success of"corporate" decisions. PAGE 130 Core Beliefs Section 8. We solicit the City Manager's support in conducting the affairs of the City with due regard for: (a) Promoting mutual respect between the Citizens, City staff and the City Council by creating the organizational team- work necessary for effective, responsive and open government. (b) Providing the City Council and public reasonable advance notice when issues are to be brought forward for discus- sion. (c) Establishing and maintaining a formal city-wide customer service program with emphasis on timely response, a user- friendly atmosphere, and an attitude of facilitation and accommodation within the bounds of responsibility, integrity, and financial capability of the city, including organizational and job description documents while pursuing "best prac- tices" in customer service. (d) Seeking creative ways to contain or impede the rising cost of governmental services, including examination of private sector alternatives in lieu of governmentally provided services. (e) Providing a data base of future projects and dreams for the new City of Spokane Valley so that good ideas from its citizens and leaders are not lost and the status of projects can be readily determined. PAGE 131 Customer Service Program The City of Spokane Valley established a level of commitment to customer service that will help the City achieve all future goals. Our goal is to deliver service that is complete, consistent, and equitable to all our customers, and is based on the principles of integrity, re- spect, and responsiveness. Regardless of the reason for, or the method or frequency of contact, our customers will be treated with courte- sy, respect, and professionalism. 1. Identify Our Customers Assessment aiStOirier Define 4. & Samba 2. Customer Improvement Service 3. Communicate Our Goals Standards PAGE 132 Customer Service Definition Customer Service Key Statement: Tha City ofSe e/anekane Valley shims ,mWda wridda in a raspeMit knowiedgeabiei and welcoming manner. Respectful Knowledgeable Welcoming • Demonstrating courtesy and • Fostering a team-oriented • Acknowledging customers when professionalism approach they enter • Listening effectively • Providing alternatives • Steering customers in the right direction • Responding in a timely manner • Anticipating questions • Promoting an enjoyable work • Exemplifying a no-surprise • Having/knowing your resources environment atmosphere • Being organized • Maintaining a clean and unclut- tered work environment • Treating people as individuals The foundation is now set. The City staff, management, and Council now have a clear understanding of what is expected of them and they have a solid support structure to give them confidence in the performance of their duties. PAGE 133 Information Input Information will come from inside the organization, from staff and management, as well as from outside the organization from citizens, busi- ness-owners and others who frequent our community (workers, tourists, etc.). Internal Input Council utilizes information from employees in a number of ways. Employee Feedback Staff Analysis Strategic Planning Employees are often the information conduit The City of Spokane Valley government is corn- Several long-range plans that look at current from the customers to the Council, relaying de- prised of knowledgeable professionals. Staff is trends to make future forecasts are continually mands or changing trends and they can often charged with providing the specialized updated. While much public input goes into bring forward innovative ways of providing effi- knowledge that allows the Council to make in- these documents, the forecasting and planning cient service-delivery. Information from em- formed decisions. From demand analysis, is done by skilled staffers who must create in- ployees can be received in a variety of ways. which determines when the workload is heavi- novative ways of achieving our future vision Following is a list of employee feedback tools, est and how to best accommodate it, to staff while meeting current needs, complying with some that are currently utilized and some that reports that consider alternative methods of the law, and operating within financial con- may be used in the future. service delivery or other cost-saving measures, straints. employees are invaluable in providing complex • Employee Survey information. An audit program can be utilized to • Comprehensive Plan • Internal Customer Survey ensure efficiency of service delivery for both in- • 6-Year Transportation Improvement • Commute Trip Reduction Survey house services and contracted services. In ad- Plan dition, performance measure results will be an- • 6-Year Financial Forecast alyzed, summarizing multi-year performances • Business Plan linked to targets and making comparisons to • CenterPlace Marketing Plan other entities. • Parks Master Plan • Street Master Plan—Pavement Man- • Demand Analysis agement Program • Staff Reports • Audits (future) • Performance Analysis PAGE 134 Information Input External Input As representatives of the citizens of Spokane Valley, the City Council must form policy that fairly represents all segments of our community, including residents, businesses, and those visiting our City. To maintain balance in serving the different needs that exist in Spokane Valley, it is necessary to receive feedback from customers and constituents. The City has already utilized citizen surveys to gain feedback while developing the Comprehensive Plan and for the needs assessment of the cable franchising process. In the future, citizen surveys can be utilized in an ongoing basis as part of strategic planning and performance measurement that are integral components of the Business Plan. Customer surveys can also play an important role in obtaining feedback by polling individuals and businesses that have had a recent interaction with the City. Comment cards and correspondence through phone calls and e-mails provide easy ways for customers to relay their experiences to Council and management. These unfiltered accounts of interaction with City staff allow those in charge of keeping the City on course to react immedi- ately if necessary or to further cultivate and reward improvement if a process is working well. The public can also choose to take a more active role in participation through public forums such as public hearings and open house functions as well as through service on advisory committees. In the future, focus groups may be utilized to allow for more focused feedback on a particu- lar subject so Council and staff can get a better feel for how a particular subject is received in the community-allowing customers to play active roles in guiding the way services are delivered. • Customer Survey • Citizen Survey • Customer Service Request System • Comment Cards • Conversations with the Community • Lunch with the City Manager • Public Forums • Advisory Committees • Focus Groups • Customer Correspondence PAGE 135 Council Goals Once the information has been gathered it can be included in the policy-making process. The City Council first looks at where we need to go based on the feedback from the community. Then they must determine the best way to get there based on input from employees and customers. The most challenging phase for the Council is to then allocate available resources in a way that ensures all components are well-maintained and stay in good-working order so goals are reached as quickly and efficiently as possible while still adhering to the high- standards set by the over-arching principles of the City. New goals will be set by Council annually while progress toward previous years' goals will be measured. Though goals are set by Council they represent the goals of the citizens of the community. Major Goal Statements for 2016: The 2016 budget reflects the distribution of resources consistent with the Council's determination of core services priorities. The following goals represent just the very broad areas of concentration important to the well being of the community. • Continue to work with state and federal legislators for possible financial assistance for the Barker Road Bridge Grade Separation (overpass/ underpass). • Develop a strategic plan for funding and completion of all grade separation projects. • Continue and expand, where possible, economic development efforts, including construction of the new City Hall. Complete retail and tourism studies, develop and implement strategies. • Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preservation program, to include sustained fund- ing in the City's Street Fund #311 to address concerns beyond the year 2020. • 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. PAGE 136 Summary: Citywide Business Plan The Departmental Business Plans for 2016-2021 have been completed and compiled in the Citywide Business Plan. The Citywide Business Plan pulls all the functions of the City to- gether into one common purpose - to achieve service deliv- PLAN ery goals. The Citywide Business Plan allows decision mak- ers to understand the interrelationship between and impacts of all departments and programs. Comprehensive Plan Business Plan Planning is the strength of government and is vital to ensure Budget Process future community needs are met. Planning is continuous 6-Year Transportation Plan within the City organization in areas such as transportation 5-Financial Forecast 4. improvement, finance, parks and recreation, and the ongo- CenterPlace Master Plan in Comprehensive Plan. Theseplans flow into strategic CenterPlace Regional Marketing Plan g p g Focus Groups goals of departmental plans. Now plans are in place and steps have been taken to imple- ment them, Performance Results have been included to as- Quarterly Reports Performance Measures Conversations with the Community Customer Satisfaction Survey sess the City's performance in achieving strategic goals. Customer Comments Progress toward achieving strategic goals is assessed through electronic data gathering or through report cards collected via citizen surveys. Some Performance Measure- ment results included in the 2016 Business Plan are based )K- on information collected in 2008 which provide benchmarks for 2016-2021. Other measurements not currently displayed will continue to be collected to establish the basis for bench- MONITOR marking in subsequent years' plans. Therefore, the business plan is not a once-a-year process; rather it is one that is continually monitored and refined. De- partments meet on a regular basis to assess measurements and maintain focus on their goals. Employees let the City Manager know how things are going at the customer interac- tion level, while citizens let the Council and Mayor know how they perceive the strategies are working. PAGE 137 Federal and State Grant Opportunities for City Capital Projects FAST Act - FASTLANE Grant TIGER Grant Opportunity Other (FMSIB, CMAQ, STP, TIB) Before we Discuss the Grant Opportunities here is a bit of History ■ 2004 Bridging the Valley was funded for the 30% design and 100% Environmental clearance ■ Subsequent years further funding did not materialize ■ In 2013 City met with UP and BNSF to discuss track consolidation, City was told No ■ With little or no hope for consolidation, the City applied for TIGER grants in 2014(TIGER VI) and 2015(TIGER VII) for just the Barker Overpass 2 a bit of History. . . .Continued ■ For TIGER VI, the City hired a consultant to develop the application including a financial cost/benefit analysis ■ For TIGER VII, City staff updated and modified the previous consultant's application ■ Staff was told through debriefings with USDOT that our applications were very good and to keep trying for future TIGER grants 3 Fast forward to. . . .Today ■ There are two grant opportunities for large freight and surface transportation projects ■ Both grant opportunities are applicable to the Bridging the Valley projects Potential City grade-separation projects that meet grant criteria: ■ Barker Road Overpass - still need approx. $21M in grant assistance ■ Pines Underpass - Currently no funding, total project cost = approx. $ 18M 4 Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) Grants Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy United States Department of 5 FASTLANE Grants Overview ■ $4 . 5 billion authorized through FY 2020 $800 million for FY 2016 (25%) for rural projects ■ 10% for small projects ■ Not more than $500 million in aggregate of the $4 . 5 billion for FY 2016 - 2020 can be used for freight rail , ports, or intermodal projects ■ There will be a Call for Projects every year for the next 5 years 6 Eligible Projects ■ Highway freight projects carried out on the National Highway Freight Network ■ Highway or bridge projects carried out on the National Highway System, including : Projects that add Interstate System capacity to increase mobility ■ Projects located in a national scenic area ■ Grade crossing or grade separation projects ■ Other freight projects that are : Intermodal/rail freight project ■ Within the boundaries of a public or private freight rail, maritime (including ports) or intermodal facility Minimum Project Size ■ Large Projects* — The lesser of: ■ $ 100 million ■ 30 percent of State's FY 2015 apportionment, if project is located in one State ■ 50 percent of larger participating State's FY 2015 apportionment, if project located in more than one State ■ Small Projects* — Doesn't meet large project minimum project size *Previously incurred expenses may count toward meeting minimum project size requirement if they are eligible project costs and were expended as part of the project for which the applicant seeks funding. 8 Grant Amounts and Cost Share ■ Minimum FASTLANE Grants — $25 million for large projects — $5 million for small projects ■ Cost Share — Up to 60 percent FASTLANE grants — Up to 80 percent total Federal Previously incurred expenses cannot count toward cost share 9 Eligible Project Costs ■ Development phase activities, including planning, feasibility analysis , revenue forecasting, environmental review, preliminary engineering, design work, and other pre-construction activities ■ Construction activities including new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, property or equipment acquisition, environmental mitigation, construction contingencies, and operational improvements 10 Program Requirements and Considerations • Large Project Requirements — Generates national or regional economic, mobility, or safety benefits — Cost-effective — Contributes to one or more 23 U .S.C. 150 goals — Based on the results of preliminary engineering — One or more stable and dependable funding or financing sources — Cannot easily be completed without Federal funding — Reasonably expected to begin construction 18 months from obligation • Small Project Considerations — Cost-effectiveness — Effect on mobility in the project's State or region 11 Merit Criteria ■ Economic Outcomes Improving efficiency and reliability to increase global economic competitiveness ■ Mobility Outcomes Improving the movement of people and goods ■ Safety Outcomes Reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries ■ Community Outcomes How and whether the project mitigates harm and extends benefits to communities and the environment 12 Other Review Criteria ■ Partnership and Innovation — Strong collaboration among a broad range of stakeholders — Innovative strategies to pursue outcomes ■ Cost Share — One or more funding sources 13 If a FASTLANE Grant was Awarded Barker Road Grade Separation ■ Estimated Project Cost $29,200,000 ■ Secured Grants — FMSIB Grant ($5,840,000) — Federal Earmark ($720,000) ■ City Match — REET Fund #'s 301 & 302 ($2,209,000) — Capital Reserve Fund #312 ($700,000) ■ FASTLANE(60% of Project Cost) ($17,520,000) ■ Remaining amount needed* $2,211,000 * Remaining amount needed could be reduced by a combination of other potential grant awards (FMSIB, TIB, STP) plus the possibility of other City resources including REET Fund #'s 301 and 302 and Capital Reserve Fund #312. 14 If a FASTLANE Grant was Awarded Pines Road Underpass ■ Estimated Project Cost $ 17,200,000 • Secured Grants ($0) ■ City Match — REET Fund #'s 301 & 302 (ROW acquisition) ($500,000) ■ FASTLANE(60% of Project Cost) ($10,320,000) • Remaining amount needed* $6,380,000 * Remaining amount needed could be reduced by a combination of other potential grant awards (FMSIB, TIB, STP) plus the possibility of other City resources including REET Fund #'s 301 and 302 and Capital Reserve Fund #312. 15 2016 USDOT FASTLANE Application • Final application - www.Grants.go\i • Final applications due April 14, 2016 Staff Recommendation: • Submit two applications, one for the Barker Overpass & Pines Underpass • Hire a consultant to assist with the full application for Pines Underpass, and for the BCA portion of the Barker Overpass application • Request the max allowable (60% of Project costs) for both projects • Continue to pursue other grant opportunities to assist with funding and decrease local match commitment 16 USDOT TIGER VIII Call for Projects ■ Call for projects on February 23, 2016 (eighth round of funding) ■ $500M for transportation & multimodal projects across the country ■ Competitive program with preference given to projects that significantly impact the nation, a metropolitan area or a region . TIGER Overview ■ Rewards — transformative projects — Leveraged resources — Partnerships — Merit-based awards ■ Cost Share / Match - TIGER funds cover 80% of project costs ■ Projects must be greater than $5M 18 Demand for TIGER ■ Over past seven grant opportunities, 6% of applications funded ■ 6,727 applications received ■ $ 135 billion requested ■ 381 projects awarded ■ Most awards were partial funding 19 Which Projects Compete Well ■ Demonstrated strength in selection criteria ■ Projects which are difficult to fund elsewhere ■ Strong partnerships ■ Strong Local match ■ Project has timeline for success ■ Clear project impact 20 TIGER Evaluation Process • Does project align with long-term USDOT priorities? • Does application demonstrate jurisdictional and or disciplinary partnerships? • Is the project innovative? • Does the application leverage significant non- federal resources (Match)? • Do the projects benefits exceed the costs? • Will DOT be able to obligate federal funds by September 30, 2019? 21 TIGER Selection Criteria • Primary Selection Criteria — Safety — State of Good Repair — Economic competitiveness — Quality of life — Environmental sustainability • Secondary Selection Criteria — Innovation — Partnerships 22 Project Readiness and BCA ■ Project Readiness — Technical feasibility — Financial feasibility — Project schedule — Required approvals — Assessment of project risks and mitigation strategies ■ BCA — Identify, quantify, and compare expected benefits and costs 23 If a TIGER Grant was Awarded Barker Road Grade Separation ■ Estimated Project Cost $29,200,000 ■ Secured Grants — FMSIB Grant ($5,840,000) — Federal Earmark ($720,000) ■ City Match* — REET Fund #'s 301 & 302 ($940,000) — Capital Reserve Fund #312 ($700,000) ■ TIGER(80% Project Cost) $21,000,000 * City match could be reduced by other potential grant awards (FMSIB, TIB, STP) 24 If a TIGER Grant was Awarded Pines Road Underpass ■ Estimated Project Cost $17,200,000 ■ Secured Grants ($0) ■ City Match — ROW acquisition (REET) ($500,000) ■ TIGER(80% of Project Cost) $13,760,000 ■ Remaining amount needed* $2,940,000 * Remaining amount needed could be reduced by a combination of other potential grant awards (FMSIB, TIB, STP) plus the possibility of other City resources including REET Fund #'s 301 and 302 and Capital Reserve Fund #312. 25 2016 USDOT TIGER Application ■ Final application - www.Grants.gov ■ Final applications due April 29, 2016 Staff Recommendation: ■ Submit an application for the Barker Overpass ■ Hire a consultant for the BCA portion of the application ■ Request $21M in TIGER funds ■ Continue to pursue other grant opportunities to assist with funding and decrease local match commitment 26 C:\Users\csinger\Desktop\Docs\Copy of potential and pending projects.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA I 3/8/2016 Pending/Potential Projects Worksheet Project Financing Estimated Grant Financed City Financed Total Potential/ Fund 103 Fund 310 Fund 312 Fund 301/302 Project Secured Anticipated Paths& Civic Buildings Capital Bond Cost Grants Grants Trails Capital Projects Reserve REET Financed Total Unfunded Capital Projects -Sullivan Road West Bridge replacement 15,350,000 13,030,000 0 0 0 2,320,000 0 0 15,350,000 0 -Balfour Park development 3,866,000 00 0 0 0 0 3,866,000 -Appleway Trail-University to Pines 1,605,400 00 59-,099 0 1,452,100 49399 0 1,605,400 0 -Appleway Trail-Pines to Evergreen 2,134,107 1,845,9590 0 0 288,148 0 0 2,134,107 0 -Appleway Trail-Evergreen to Sullivan 1,645,000 1,422,9250 0 0 222,075 0 0 1,645,000 0 -Appleway Trail-Sullivan to Corbin 2,130,000 1,783,0000 0 0 347,000 0 0 2,130,000 0 -Appleway Trail-Balfour to University 750,000 0 648,750 0 0 101,250 0 0 750,000 0 -Phase 1 Appleway Landscaping(Dora to Park) 261,993 9 9 9 9 261,993 9 9 261,993 9 -Phase 2&3-Appleway Landscaping(Park to University) 3,000,000 00 0 0 0 0 3,000,000 -Business Routc Signage 21,139 9 9 9 9 21,139 0 9 21,139 9 --- - --- - -- - -- 57,601 0 0 0 0 57,601 0 0 57,601 0 -City Hall 14,400,000 00 0 1,102,512 5,221,088 0 8,076,370 14,400,000 0 -Sewer and roads at industrial property east of Flora Rd. 10,500,000 0 2,500,000 0 00 0 0 2,500,000 8,000,000 -Park land acquisition 1,000,000 00 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 Bridging the Valley -Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation* 29,200,000 6,560,000 19,731,000 0 0 700,000 2,209,000 0 29,200,000 0 - -Pines Road Underpass* 17,527,752 00 0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 17,027,752 -Pinecroft land acquisition($500,000) -Railroad Quiet Zones study 85,000 00 0 0 85,000 Total of Capital Projects 103,533,992 24,641,884 22,879,750 50,000 1,102,542 11,492,394 2,312,300 8,076,370 70,555,240 32,978,752 *included in 6-year TIP Convert City Hall Lease Payment to a Bond Payment -Convert annual lease payment for City Hall to an LTGO bond issue for the construction of a City Hall(assumes the$434,600 annual lease payment for City Hall space is converted to a bond payment with bonds issued for 30-years at 4.50%with an issue cost of 2%) This won't be an option for the City before April 1.2016 which is the fist 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 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 288,148 committed Appleway Trail-Evergreen to Sullivan 222,075 committed Appleway Trail-Sullivan to Corbin 347,000 committed Appleway Trail-Balfour to University 101,250 committed Appleway-Lafferscaping 261,993 completed 21,139 complete. Future Potential Recurring General Fund Expenditures - - -- 57,601 comple-d -Balfour Park maintenance 211,000 City Hall($58,324 to#310+$5,162,764 to#313) 5,221,088 com r tted (3 acres @$15,000 each+8.3 acres @$20,000 each) Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation 700,000 co emitted -Appleway Trail maintenance(approximately$20,000 per mile) Pines Road Underpass 500,000 Pines to Corbin(-3 miles) 60,000 11,492,394 -Appleway Landscaping maintenance(per acre estimate) 9,500 Difference 568,687 280,500 2016 03 15 H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 3A-grade separation projects -estimated annual bond payments.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 1/14/2015 2/9/2016 Bridging the Valley 8/10/2015 3/7/2016 Estimated Annual Bond Payments 8/30/2015 Barker Rd Pines Rd Park Rd I Sullivan Rd Overpass Underpass Overpass Improvements Total Estimated cost of project (PW update Jan. '15) $29,200,000 $17,184,071 $18,992,920 $16,150,442 $81,527,433 Bond issue costs (assumed at 2%of proceeds) $584,000 $343,681 $379,858 $323,009 $1,630,549 Bond issue amount $29,784,000 $17,527,752 $19,372,778 $16,473,451 $83,157,982 Repayment period (years) 30 N w W W Interest Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Rate Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond Assumptions Payment Payment Payment Payment Payment 4.00% $ 1,722,412 $ 1,013,632 $ 1,120,330 $ 952,661 $ 4,809,034 4.25% $ 1,775,074 $ 1,044,623 $ 1,154,584 $ 981,789 $ 4,956,070 4.50% $ 1,828,486 $ 1,076,056 $ 1,189,325 $ 1,011,331 $ 5,105,197 4.75% $ 1,882,630 $ 1,107,920 $ 1,224,543 $ 1,041,278 $ 5,256,371 5.00% $ 1,937,492 $ 1,140,205 $ 1,260,227 $ 1,071,622 $ 5,409,546 5.25% $ 1,993,054 $ 1,172,903 $ 1,296,367 $ 1,102,353 $ 5,564,677 5.50% $ 2,049,300 $ 1,206,004 $ 1,332,952 $ 1,133,462 $ 5,721,717 Sales Tax Solution If it were assumed that increases in sales tax revenues would make the above debt service payments, then sales in Spokane Valley would have to increase as follows (a single sale of $117.65 will generate $1.00 of sales tax revenue): 4.00% $ 202,641,700 $ 119,253,800 $ 131,806,800 $ 112,080,600 $ 565,782,900 4.25% $ 208,837,500 $ 122,899,900 $ 135,836,800 $ 115,507,500 $ 583,081,600 I 4.50% $ 215,121,300 $ 126,598,000 $ 139,924,100 $ 118,983,000 $ 600,626,400 I 4.75% $ 221,491,500 $ 130,346,700 $ 144,067,500 $ 122,506,300 $ 618,412,000 5.00% $ 227,945,900 $ 134,145,200 $ 148,265,700 $ 12 ,076,300 $ 636,433,100 5.25% $ 234,482,800 $ 137,992,100 $ 152,517,600 $ 1 ,691,800 $ 654,684,300 5.50% $ 241,100,100 $ 141,886,400 $ 156,821,800 $ 1 3,351,800 $ 673,160,000 Noteworthy is that sales in Spokane Valley during calendar year 2015 were $2,142,302,000 so based upo9 this analysis, the increase in sales necessary to accommodate the estimated bond payments would range from 5.2% to 31.4% Page 1 of 2 H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 3A-grade separation projects -estimated annual bond payments.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 1/14/2015 2/9/2016 Bridging the Valley 8/10/2015 3/7/2016 Estimated Annual Bond Payments 8/30/2015 Barker Rd Pines Rd Park Rd I Sullivan Rd Overpass Underpass Overpass Improvements Total Estimated cost of project (PW update Jan. '15) $29,200,000 $17,184,071 $18,992,920 $16,150,442 $81,527,433 Bond issue costs (assumed at 2%of proceeds) $584,000 $343,681 $379,858 $323,009 $1,630,549 Bond issue amount $29,784,000 $17,527,752 $19,372,778 $16,473,451 $83,157,982 Repayment period (years) 30 Interest Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Rate Bond Bond Bond Bond Bond Assumptions Payment Payment Payment Payment Payment 4.00% $ 1,722,412 $ 1,013,632 $ 1,120,330 $ 952,661 $ 4,809,034 4.25% $ 1,775,074 $ 1,044,623 $ 1,154,584 $ 981,789 $ 4,956,070 4.50% $ 1,828,486 $ 1,076,056 $ 1,189,325 $ 1,011,331 $ 5,105,197 4.75% $ 1,882,630 $ 1,107,920 $ 1,224,543 $ 1,041,278 $ 5,256,371 5.00% $ 1,937,492 $ 1,140,205 $ 1,260,227 $ 1,071,622 $ 5,409,546 5.25% $ 1,993,054 $ 1,172,903 $ 1,296,367 $ 1,102,353 $ 5,564,677 5.50% $ 2,049,300 $ 1,206,004 $ 1,332,952 $ 1,133,462 $ 5,721,717 Property Tax Solution If it were assumed that voted bonds (requiring 60% voter approval) would make the above annual debt service payments, then based upon the 2015 assessed property value of $ 7,748,275,097 , the property tax cost per $1,000 of assessed value would be as follows: 4.00% $ 0.2223 $ 0.1308 $ 0.1446 $ 0.1230 $ 0.6207 4.25% $ 0.2291 $ 0.1348 $ 0.1490 $ 0.1267 $ 0.6396 I 4.50% $ 0.2360 $ 0.1389 $ 0.1535 $ 0.1305 $ 0.6589I 4.75% $ 0.2430 $ 0.1430 $ 0.1580 $ 0.1344 $ 0.6784 5.00% $ 0.2501 $ 0.1472 $ 0.1627 $ 0.1383 $ 0.6982 5.25% $ 0.2572 $ 0.1514 $ 0.1673 $ 0.1423 $ 0.7182 5.50% $ 0.2645 $ 0.1557 $ 0.1720 $ 0.1463 $ 0.7385 Page 2 of 2 H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 3B - Estimated Annual Bond Payments.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2/9/2016 Estimated Bond Issue Amount Based Upon 3/7/2016 Banked Property Tax Capacity 2016 Banked Capacity /Annual payment $ 490,992 Interest Repayment period yrs.) Rate 20 25 I 30 Gross Bond Issue Amount 3.00% $ 7,304,700 $ 8,549,700 $ 9,623,700 3.50% $ 6,978,200 $ 8,092,300 $ 9,030,300 4.00% $ 6,672,700 $ 7,670,300 $ 8,490,200 4.50% $ 6,386,800 $ 7,280,500 $ 7,997,700 4.75% $ 6,250,700 $ 7,096,800 $ 7,767,700 5.00% $ 6,118,800 $ 6,920,000 $ 7,547,700 5.25% $ 5,991,200 $ 6,749,900 $ 7,337,300 5.50% $ 5,867,500 $ 6,586,100 $ 7,135,900 Net Bond Proceeds (after 2% issue costs) 3.00% $ 7,161,500 $ 8,382,100 $ 9,435,000 3.50% $ 6,841,400 $ 7,933,600 $ 8,853,200 4.00% $ 6,541,900 $ 7,519,900 $ 8,323,700 4.50% $ 6,261,600 $ 7,137,700 $ 7,840,900 4.75% $ 6,128,100 $ 6,957,600 $ 7,615,400 5.00% $ 5,998,800 $ 6,784,300 $ 7,399,700 5.25% $ 5,873,700 $ 6,617,500 $ 7,193,400 5.50% $ 5,752,500 $ 6,457,000 $ 6,996,000 Bond issue CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 15, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Developer Contributions: impact fees, LIDs, and contributions to mitigate direct impacts of development GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter RCW 36.70A; RCW 82.02.050-.110; Chapter 39.92 RCW; Chapter 36.73 RCW; Chapters 35.43-35.56 RCW; RCW 82.02.020; Chapter 43.21C RCW . PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Variety of past City Council meetings discussing aspects of these options separately, though not as part of discussions on funding Bridging the Valley. BACKGROUND: The City has been working for several years on finding funding sources for Bridging the Valley projects. One potential area is to look to developer and private contributions. There are a variety of means by which the City may request or require private individuals to contribute to or pay for City capital projects such as the Bridging the Valley projects. These range from broadly applicable options such as impact fees or the creation of a transportation benefit district to more targeted local improvement districts (LIDs) to the contributions required from developers to mitigate direct impacts of their developments. However, there are limitations on each of these options, as for example impact fees may not be used to correct existing deficiencies and LIDs require the City to pay for any general public benefit. Further, these tools generally are prospective, in that they are typically used to provide funding for public projects that are necessary to accommodate the new development. They are generally not used to finance existing issues, which may limit their use for Bridging the Valley projects since the primary issue with grade-separation projects are the very existence of the at- grade crossings. Finally, given the size and scope of Bridging the Valley and nature of these tools, it is unlikely that private contribution or payments through these means could be used as a standalone mechanism to pay for any particular grade-separation project. Ultimately, contributions or payments from the private sector could assist with funding Bridging the Valley, but using such options would require substantial contributions from other City sources as well. Following this introduction, we've provided three handouts: (1) An overview of broadly applicable fees and funding sources (such as impact fees); (2) A copy of the August 18, 2015 RCA for the administrative report covering local improvement districts; and (3) an overview of the laws governing developer contributions to mitigate direct impacts from their development. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: A. Overview of broadly applicable fees (impact fees) B. Copy of August 18, 2015 RCA for administrative report covering LIDs C. Overview of laws governing developer contributions to mitigate direct impacts of development developments Attachment"A" Impact Fees and other broadly applicable fees Growth Management Act Impact Fees (RCW 82.02.050-.110) Impact fees are charges assessed by local governments against new development projects. The charges attempt to recover the cost incurred by government in providing the public facilities required to serve the new development. Impact fees are only used to fund facilities that are associated with the new development. They may be used to pay the proportionate share of the cost of public facilities that benefit new development; however, impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. This legal restriction may limit the ability to use impact fees to assist with funding of Bridging the Valley projects. In Washington, the term "impact fee" is often used for a variety of types of fees: broadly applicable impact fees under the Growth Management Act ("GMA") (RCW 82.02.050-.110), narrowly applicable fees as part of"voluntary agreements" under RCW 82.02.020, and as direct mitigation for impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA - chapter 43.21C RCW). In this handout, the reference to "impact fees" is limited to those broadly applicable fees authorized under the GMA (RCW 82.02.050-.110). The Washington Administrative Code outlines impact fees in WAC 365-196-850. The GMA authorizes cities or counties that plan under the GMA to impose impact fees on development activity in order to finance certain public facility improvements that are addressed by a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive land use plan. Impact fees are specifically authorized only for the following public facilities: "(a) public streets and roads; (b) publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; (c) school facilities; and (d) fire protection facilities." RCW 82.02.090(7). GMA impact fees may be imposed only for system improvements that are reasonably related to new development, and that will benefit new development. Impact fees cannot exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements, and they cannot be used to cover the full cost of new facilities. There must be a balance between impact fees and other sources of public funds. RCW 82.02.050(2). A city or county may not impose fees outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. Under RCW 82.02.060, local governments must adopt a schedule of impact fees for each type of development activity, specifying the amount of the impact fee to be imposed. The schedule is to be based on a formula or other method of calculating impact fees. In determining proportionate share, the formula for calculating impact fees must incorporate a list of factors that are set out in the statute, such as cost of the facility, and the availability of other public funds, among other factors. So this becomes a somewhat complicated process and the city or county must be able to demonstrate that the result is based on justifiable criteria. Typically, cities employ a detailed rate study analysis to calculate the appropriate impact fees. Impact fees must be expended or encumbered within ten years. Impact fees may be held longer for"an extraordinary and compelling reason." RCW 82.02.070(3). In 2015, the Legislature enacted changes to how impact fees are to be collected by Washington counties, cities, and towns. The changes require counties, cities, and towns to adopt a system to defer collection of impact fees for new single-family detached and attached residential construction until certain points after the construction is completed. Attachment"A" Local Transportation Act(chapter 39.92 RCW) Similar to GMA impact fees, the State has also authorized other resources more directly linked to transportation projects. Chapter 39.92 RCW, enacted in 1988, authorizes local governments to develop and adopt programs for the purpose of jointly funding, from public and private sources, transportation improvements necessitated in whole or in part by economic development and growth within their respective jurisdictions. Cities operating under this chapter are authorized to impose transportation impact fees on development to pay for "reasonable and necessary off-site transportation improvements to solve the cumulative impacts of planned growth and development in the plan area." RCW 39.92.030(4). Chapter 39.92 RCW specifies various requirements for transportation programs. The authorized programs must be based on an adopted transportation plan and the fee must be calculated from a specified list of capital projects. Transportation impact fees under chapter 39.92 RCW cannot exceed an amount that the city can demonstrate is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development. Again, there may be limitations since the needs for the Bridging the Valley projects originate from the existing at-grade crossings, though future development could add to traffic congestion or safety issues. Another limitation is that most likely traffic impact fees under chapter 39.92 RCW would not be available in addition to GMA impact fees for the same project, as collection of both overlapping fees would lead to"double dipping" and having the development pay for the same project twice. Transportation Benefit Districts (chapter 36.73 RCW) Another broadly applicable option would be the creation of a transportation benefit district. Pursuant to chapter 36.73 RCW and RCW 35.21.225, counties and cities are authorized to establish one or more transportation benefit districts to fund the capital improvement of city streets within the district, usually through vehicle license fees or sales taxes. The improvements must be: (1) consistent with state, regional, and local transportation plans; (2) necessitated by congestion levels attributable to economic growth; and (3) partially funded by local government and/or private developer contributions. Transportation benefit districts are quasi-municipal corporations with independent taxing authority. RCW 36.73.040. Although they are created as quasi-municipal corporations separate from the city creating them, if the transportation benefit district has the same boundaries as the establishing jurisdiction, the governing body will be the jurisdiction's legislative body, and pursuant to legislation in 2015, the city may assume the transportation benefit district's powers. Transportation benefit districts are given authority to impose vehicle license fees (RCW 36.73.040(3)(b)), levy a sales and use tax after approval by a majority of voters (RCW 36.73.040(3)(a)), levy an excess property tax (RCW 36.73.060), issue general obligation bonds (RCW 36.73.070), establish local improvement districts (RCW 36.73.080), and impose impact fees (RCW 36.73.120) to fund transportation improvements. However, the impact fees may be imposed only on commercial and industrial development. Locally, the City of Spokane, City of Liberty Lake, and City of Airway Heights have transportation benefit districts. Attachment "B" 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: Local Improvement Districts GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapters 35.43— 35.56 RCW. 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 RCW) for cities to finance a variety of public improvements such 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 RCWs. 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 general 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 Attachment "B" 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 LI Ds 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: I. Petition A petition signed by a majority of property owners within a proposed LID must be submitted to begin the LID formation process. ll. 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. Ill. Resolution of Intent 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 Formation 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 Attachment "B" V. Formation of LID After the public hearing, City Council may create the LID by ordinance. After formation, there is a 30 day protest period. If 60% 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 sale 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 roll. 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. VIII. 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 RCW) and up to four years for economically disadvantaged property owners (RCW 35.43.250 and RCW 35.43.250). 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 "re-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 Page 3 of 4 Attachment "B" 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 will 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 for public participation throughout process, setting methods of assessment, types of short-term financing, and term for bonds. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A at this time, as any impacts would be project specific if an LID financing occurred. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Case Study Spreadsheets Case Study Maps Presentation Page 4 of 4 Attachment"C" Developer Contributions for Direct Impacts of Development There are numerous provisions in State law that authorize the City to impose conditions or require contributions from developers to mitigate the direct impacts of their developments. These may include improvements to rights-of-way, sidewalk improvements, stormwater improvements, and various other improvements. However, all such conditions or contributions must be carefully tailored so that they comply with Constitutional and State law limitations. Under both the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Washington Constitution, the City may not take private property without providing just compensation. This has been determined through numerous Court decisions to apply to conditions of approval and other monetary exactions imposed by local jurisdictions through project permit processing. In such instances, there must be a nexus between the conditions or exactions and the impact from the development, and the required condition or exaction must be roughly proportional to the impact. Further, State law provides similar limitations pursuant to RCW 82.02.020, which is discussed in further detail below. Due to the Constitutional and State law limitations, requiring contributions from developers for direct impacts from their development may not be an especially feasible method of paying for Bridging the Valley projects. While new development may add to traffic issues at train crossings, the primary issue is the fact of the crossings themselves. Thus, the use of direct contributions would be somewhat limited in terms of how much funding could be raised, if any. Also, direct contributions only occur at the time of that development, which further limits the usefulness of obtaining funding through such source. Voluntary Agreements (RCW 82.02.020) RCW 82.02.020 prohibits fees on development collected as part of a voluntary agreement between the developer and the permitting agency unless they are in lieu of a dedication of land or they mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed development. The permitting agency must be able to establish that an impact fee collected pursuant to a voluntary agreement is "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat." (These impacts are typically identified through the SEPA process). Funds collected under voluntary agreements must be held in a reserve account and expended on agreed upon capital improvements. Fees must also be expended within five years or be refunded with interest. Note that RCW 82.02.020 is not independent authority to impose conditions or fees, but is a restriction when those conditions or fees are imposed. Other independent authority is necessary to impose such conditions or fees. Examples of other authority in include concurrency requirements, SEPA, and local subdivision or other planning regulations. These types of agreements must be "voluntary," though not voluntary in the usual sense of the term. When a local government presents a developer with the choice of dedicating or reserving land for park or open space or the like or paying a fee in lieu of such dedication or reservation, the developer's agreement to pay a fee in lieu of the dedicating is "voluntary" for purposes of RCW 82.02.020. Attachment"C" SEPA - The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (chapter 43.21C RCW) Chapter 43.21C RCW grants wide-ranging authority to impose mitigating conditions relating to a project's environmental impacts. A local government's authority under SEPA to mitigate environmental impacts includes the authority to impose conditions or fees on a particular developer to pay for the mitigation of impacts on public facilities and services. Note, however, that a municipality pursuing this course must establish a proper foundation. Local SEPA policies authorizing the exercise of SEPA substantive authority must be adopted and fees imposed must be rationally related to impacts identified in threshold determination documents (primarily environmental checklists) or environmental impact statements. Fees collected under SEPA may not duplicate fees collected under other sources of authority. Unlike GMA impact fees, which may be uniform and based upon a pre-determined schedule, direct mitigation fees imposed through SEPA must be based on an individualized assessment of a development's direct impact on each improvement. While GMA impact fees and direct mitigation fees imposed under SEPA both may be imposed for the same project, care must be taken to avoid "double dipping." Local governments may not require any person to pay for system improvements under SEPA when they have paid a fee for the same system improvements under GMA or any other authority. RCW 43.21C.065. Similarly, a developer may not be required to pay GMA impact fees for system improvements that were subject to SEPA-based mitigation fees. RCW 82.02.100. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/26/2016 Analysis of Real Estate Excise Tax(REET) Revenues 3/7/2016 and Scheduled Disbursements 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Estimated REET available on January 1 2,752,101 3,322,385 3,110,642 1,148,479 296,121 158,531 Estimated REET revenues 2,134,894 1,602,000 1,602,000 1,602,000 1,602,000 1,602,000 Estimated approved capital expenditures (Engineers estimate) (898,212) (916,371) (51,905) 0 0 0 Potential capital expenditures(Top 2 Outstanding Grant Applications) 0 0 (950,000) 0 0 0 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation 0 0 (1,109,000) (1,000,000) 0 Transfer to Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation (502,098) (730,572) (1,290,358) (1,290,358) (1,290,358) (1,290,358) WSDOT Potential Grant Repayment 0 0 0 0 (284,282) (105,095) June 1 debt service payment on 2014 LTGO bonds (19,650) (18,400) (16,450) (14,500) (12,475) (10,375) December 1 debt service payment on 2014 LTGO bonds (144,650) (148,400) (146,450) (149,500) (152,475) (150,375) Estimated REET available on December31 3,322,385 3,110,642 1,148,479 296,121 158,531 204,328 CURRENT PENDING GRANT APPLICATIONS 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1 0141-Sullivan Euclid PCC(CN)" 0 0 950,000 0 0 0 2 3 Total 0 0 950,000 0 0 0 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation 0 0 1,109,000 1,000,000 0 0 Shaded areas reflect known figures. All other figures are estimates. * As discussed at Feb 16 Council Meeting ACTUALS Fund 301 Fund Balance @ 1/1/2015 1,426,957 Fund 302 Fund Balance @ 1/1/2015 1,325,144 2,752,101 H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 3D- REET PROJ 20160216 with CLT edits.xlsx REET Projection 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Transfers out -#311 EMTransfers out -#303 Transfers out-#204 •Revenues ♦Ending Fund Balance CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Utility Taxes Available to the City As of March 15, 2016 Utility Tax Limited to 6%Allowed for: • Electricity • Gas • Steam • Telephone The 6% limitation applies to taxes without voter approval. Cities may impose a higher tax rate with voter approval. Utility Tax With No Rate Limits Allowed for: • Sewer/Stormwater • Solid Waste • Water • Cable Television (however,the rate must be the same or similar to other utilities in order to not be discriminatory) Current City Conditions: Currently, the City only imposes a utility tax of 6% on Telephone providers, which was effective beginning January of 2009. The revenue is generated by this tax is designated in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.70.140 for exclusive use in the City road fund (Street Fund #101). Limitations on Use of Utility Tax Revenues: There are no statutory limits on how cities may use utiltiy tax revenues. Any tax rate changes for electric, telephone, and gas utilities are effective 60 days after an ordinance is passed. H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 3E - Utility Taxes Available to the City.xlsx lill --- 1 Liur SpOkaiic � 2015 State of the Roadway .000 Val Network in the Cityley of Spokane Valley Roadways are the economic lifeline of a community; they provide the means for communities to thrive and commerce to flourish. As such they are an investment to be maintained. Prepared by: IMS Infrastructure Management Services Scale a fImmestm en t. . .. Network value = $135M, or about $1,500 per person 436 CL +/- miles of city owned roadways 9.0111 square yards of pavement — enough material to build a road from Spokane Valley to Salem, OR C&G & Drainage 14% Sidewalks & Ramps Pavements 29% Signs & Striping 2% - - - -----�---__Landscaping Miscellaneous 1% 5% Subgrade & Base 43% Total Network Valuation = $134.8M Cost Per Mile = $766k Early look at the condition score: PCI = 71 (Good) Back log = 10% (target < 15%) Rates a solid A- Concept of Pavement Management... 0 City Objectives, ?lir I, Policies & Budgets Bi ced ________ A 1 oach Priorities, _ 0_ ,,,i..„ ,, titi . i` itM + � Analysis Technigt & Reporting Wi.y do Pavement Managemeni ? 40%of pavement life 3 Excellent has a 15%drop in quality Very Good 15%of pavement life Good $1 spent now a has a 40%drop in quality Fair a Poor Costs $8 if delayed Aavettieh A Very Poor c„ rforrh ve aoce Time Pavement Life Cycle Curve ts" Target Zone for Pavement Rehabilitation z a • •� '•, Increased Pavement Life E a Vn'rehabthtated.. Pavement Pertorance Time Tools to Rate the Streets = Objee14ie Sunseys %.I. 0 } t Condition focuses on o 0 Fatigue/Alligator Cracking Wheel path Rutting 11 Cracking s e ; £€ al s *\ Distortions & Weathering . : 1M 5'i fi Patching & Potholes Roughness tin deUnderstandingInckx.thePavement Condition , ,, 100 City of pokane Valley Pavement Condition Definitions UsingExcelter�t Routine arid preventative rnairtiaer�a ce, 9 Common Terms some crack and+oint sealing_ Iocalized repairs 80 - Very Good-Surface treatments(slurry, micro surface,chip seals), FCC localized remove and replace,crack seal and joint sealing .- Good-Surface treatments with localized repair to thin overlays, 70 PCC =!.;i' raiel replacement to _ Fair=Thin to moderate overlays with some remove and c replace, PCC moderate panel replacement 0 *, 50 _ Marginal- Progressively thicker overlays with remove and replace.FCC extensive panel replacement c t., - Poor-Thick overlays to partial r orf:;;,i::.;K2.n (surface removal, compaction, etc j,FCC Q.) r si{-e panel replacement and grinding a 30 -Ira 20 - Very Poor-Fa reconstruction and base stabilization 10 0 7 ! I ! I I 1 k I 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (Years) tin ders tan dinthe PCL VerPoor fO _ 30 ,,,,,,,,.. . .. 3'f ki:00' ... , IS'D:14036 Vera Crest Dr, PCI 22 Spokane Image:SPOK00400000349 0018CF.jpg ' Base or structural failu . e ' ..„ ,. . .„4,„ . w ... Excessive rutting : , -;..• __..,_ --)„,.:. , �g` , �. ,, „,.. o.'71. .,:-. ...P Rough. �r. •' {Excessive cracking & patching --, .. . "s , .,-__. __..- . ..,.. -,., ..,.. ., ,., ..:--- -,..:;'.. .;'.-•-•;;,,,i age S. OK004 _I Sonora Dr, PCI 25 1- .. m _ %l 117.1801 ii- Pastpoint of overlay ‘. Rehab o ten driven by complaints R - " . _.,#,.„.,..:.:_ _,. .,.... ., ,.. ~~ .- -w Ery Say1becomes a concern 2015/06/03 15:06:43 Unde:rstanding the PCL ., „Poo 0 _ 45) _ c, ---..., GIi°: 11259McKee Rd., PCI 41 H Image: SPOKCII__00001530_0007_CF.Jpg .....Valley. J 1. # ti r F 1 J r1Iyr1 c' r, 1c'J1ii - ; 1Jndertan din the PCI. . ..Ftsir to Margin at 45 _ 65) w _ if U"s` 'U`°° Adams Rd PCI 48 5ptikane Image:SPOK006_00000531 0013 CF jpg ......1FUalky Progressive cra ,._1k-, _ � ,5 Few base fail f) _ - Localized distrj .j T3r33 ,T?3 , : ,.. .. . . M_ - i . • ' x�" , 11 m'�'°:sP Pro:ress Rd, PCI 59 .~ 9 �I ,off' ''""'�� " ' § r � :d' r N47.6347 117. 974 Optimum tforij . `' � � Benefits to selectingthese streets : 3, { . 1 ..;,,,74,'',.•::444,!-Vx . - z early lower cost g,� . . �;:. w _ .. urn. on investment less �. � in in Aa n, esources consumed F .016EMS less effe t50n:idrainage and crown Understitnalitz the iiCt. % %. 6t4od (65 im 75) i;* ,., GISID: 12886 Bowdish Rd PCI 74 _,_., __ _ ----- -- ----- . ___, simkan.,,•.„ Image: SPOK005_00000479_0014 - .00.0Valley' (1,... 4 I Dc'ill17 P (‘ I r 1_,,,'" rr 1'''' P -JI . ___I ....,.......___ )•••, ..L.... __ -...9.... :' . , .1,,,i . , 4 i • 1 4 ' r r I 1". 1, I.s '.•.-A 1', '-,.-1 f\• IF' t 1 .."1 I I \1' ri ' Drrl 1 nu rot) .) _,1-4, Til-,7,- Dr ra_ \ r , , , 1,.:1) t 1 ....'; -_. . . -,i,,,,-..,;.,....t. .,,,,„,.,.4 . _. ••- ij . -- - .- •.4•:- ,.._ . - • • • ••• , -..• •„,-,..,... , 0' --,, ' , • , . ' yr-1 r \ r7) \i‘ Dil ' a - '- 1 I Ill 'CP I ..,./, .- ,-....,. -...,..." •,,ir ".,L),:i':' r ' f-,0'. 3 - -------- , .-, :,,. , . , ...-- — .--.046 ''' 20,- '. 4-pdt -'77-- ..•,,' :',;'. :!,'- . :4 . . I - - ----, 0.-_-.—_ - 111 : . '• ' •. __ , li — ' .„..' :.;',e, •*. •';. i' •-:-.. ' 141r- 4- ' ,VI, - ' V 11 •. . , v 3 •!.,.?.`...11!'.,_ ' . i — - • ... , 430 . , If sr. -71: fressed due to loading ( ,1 9, ,.... _ . r..gr....—.. . , . , . ,...,,, . . ., may need thin overlay, otherwise R&R and surface treatment. N47.6577 W117.2505 ..--; -_,-;--:-- .. . - FC016EIMS 7---------:- ,• ,,_:„._,,,...„=„___„„,...,„,„,„ 2015/06/03 21 :10:53 4,7,.. ---,,„--••••:. ,•,, •_,,__, '.7 _ I Un ders tan din; 11w PCL Veay Good (75 w �if 5 i ___ _ _ _, . , ___ ___a GIS1D: 14678 17th Ave PCI 84 _e nr Image: SPOK006 00000662_0020 C'. -- ` - -£ . -- -_ ,_ � ller ''', ,.,,_.: _ �. y _. • — r T.y i -�'ys e __ .e _ . e - - . . .-7,..[..: .. ...-- . ..,...‘ .. -:,:.: .,-.;:v1-2.4.,,,,,...1-‘,-...:,;,-. _-_ . . _, . _ __ . _ :-...: ,:tf*.4...„- _ ._ No ruttin. r _ , _ E r ` .1` _ .. - • : r2 * ' Smooth wi a goos r'i..„ ..„, . . . ,:.. ..;.• .,.-.. _ :: .,,, . ; le , • d .: , . ..... .. , . , . ,,,„„.. , • . _ . ....37.,1 • -1., • _. � Pátchcrackseal & su -ace : f ` . g : 4'r r. treatment. _ _ A0., "'-.: ii --..-.„ '--.-..-,.-- .." ,. .,•,-.....,.,,. ,•.,,..._1,- ..,,,..;.;.,.:' 4 , . . , 1 ,. ._,. __, . ,,, •._.. ,-, Maintain i E s .i - Lc' (I ,ii)i ll() D. P� ••/:ii♦ .a . xi t i r .. i' Extends F rile _ .._,,,,..„--f-,_,,__-„--_,.._. _ � � ,.. . � _ .,......._ ...„,_. ___ ________,_____ „..._____. _ _ , -ISO to __..., ...,,TH -.- _ - _ t L¥� / 1 1 I �!� I' � 'I :421 '� Understand:nil the lICL . ..Exeellent (85 im I 00) is,,,,,,okane --GIST): 14831 Image: SPOK002_00000113_0029_CF.jpg Sprague Ave, PCI 99 .0...Valley' _ ______4 _ ', . , 4' . - r_....-r-41 . L' IIP ii- r-)-liv , (-1D11 (II _ ,------------- ---- ---.-. . .. __„,,_• „.—,. ,r,1 -,-.,. .---,-- _-------_-_-___-__ _-_-_--___'_--- y ---- r _ J. iw.. a— 'U., 1l D U r i_., • d. e , .„ _ „ __- .,_,,,,yr -------------_ _„ - . . .. . - Dv, -1 lig MN 114i, -. • 'e — ,—,_____--T____. r-i 1 . • A • 11'7-'11; -- ' ' : I I . A Troviue 5 to 10 ..,,.-.,„,.... - _ ,,. • ....,.._.„.=,.__, . . ,--. ars prior to first _ . __ ,„ii;lispeow ., - ----7•-. i /.--- / ___------- reisition with . _ ____ .„.„ routin ai _ ntenance ._.__ .... ,„.,•,., N47.6570 W117.2968 FC016EIM5 2015106/02 21 :01:43 Spoluaw Valley Fwwthint1 Class Review. . .. 0 / t„, Functional class split is / \ Pri�ci pal Arterial, reaso ble as locals s ld 10% represent 60% to 75% of the Local 67% network, with the rest being • Minter Arterial 169 sL s and collectors f ollea#or ,' Total Mileage=435.7 Miles x\ 7% Total Area=8955k&I Yds Spokane PCI R ut or 2015 40 City of Spokane Valley, WA Current Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Distribution by Area 30 - U O Current Network Average Condition = 71, Backlog = 10% Plot Date = 10120/2015 w Above average corti w average backlog We I d u pe 0 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 80 to 90 90 to 100 Pavement Condition Index(PCI) Spokane Valle Ressstt .... A w , 413 City of Spokane Valley, WA Current Pavement Condition Rating Using Descriptive Terms > 15% 30 ' • d Excell: Current Network Average Condition = 71, Backlog= 1t? Plot Date= 10/20/15 ca 20 o 303 Backlog < 15° c1 Very Poor;Ota 30) Poor(30to45) Marginal(45 to 55) Fair(55 to 65) Good (E5 to 75) N'eryGood (75 to 85) Excellent (85to100) Pavement Condition Using Descriptive Terms GoodFaw.Poorlies ul t , • •• okane Valley PCI _Gth, _ _ „:„.1,,:it, , , ..lira, *= g 3 . s T . , t s Z i -------.-J f1 :111f11f Y _IUUff wa' .1- t ;mow. �� . "'' tib / f '+. s +ylP ogitirea - - c.� i� _ �s■.il ��fPi 1 ,e : � [a1p 3,, 3 f� fif .rifil J I - WO u i' r r _ � z ! 1/111 mien ._.J __....., N.,,„,, !s ____Iiirmiltffl=-9- : L-, t';': ,/fCir--, _ i_.,c4.144_ - :.; Y ■ NW r it lit ":1pl:11111141=11=Ligal.„7,212{,q1-74.711....a/' 4 4 - ,---7: '47 —.11 .4 '-'.---:.: '-. 4', s.N': ' ''I =,..."....1' '''Etit'llibillITIFIFILP ill ' ''''; ';- 1:- -,3 44f • ,Ovie ll a solid "A" • erlo mance for the Cit 1"*,-x Spakant! Vctl 'ey Annual Funding Estimates . . .. -E- . ......_ _,_ ,,.-.- 1 . ›_ ,..,.0 - a a1- Y. cc kelial: AEtir�ity N. 117 PI[-..iFril,ili.M I Phil+-ri:alrr_H t .5iftfs 9ff7 2 753.0110 717 ;r Jr r,ICH Tr+u•tIr r Hrll 3,978,1'n n 5 7 f11f1 : 41 FikU- MMI + -frill OwHrl:ir (15 - 7f1) 74 :19I5,7f1(1 15 1,57.6..f1f3 40 LT4FY hr1+ Nt'J&rate r-erlay (2.0 - 3.0) 22 7107,900 15 1.510.000 50 FVY M I Thick Overlay{> 2.0 - 3.0) 22 192,100 15 1.470.000 €1) Surface nee an r' FINT'il r Base Rehab 1 May 12,-001,000 35 343,410 70 Full Depth nee on:struction 11,641,900 5O 233.000 510 PCC Joint Rehab SE Crack Seating 4-8,600 2 24,000 b!U 1-c;L: L•c.lr!cd kchab 16,300 b 3,4.11.11 530 POC Slight Fill F Icrrrit 0 -15 0 4U I I dcratc -171 Hp lc mit U 2U U 550 Fly. EctGn ive F1r1 RpIcni1t 769,804 25 31,000 560 Fes. Partial Reconstruction 0 50 0 570 Flu Fu II Ficonstrtictioi7 0 75 0 Totals 99,3.14.CIO L-I 6,806,000 Spokane Valley's steady state budget is estimated at $6.8 million annually (Not including any curb or gutter repairs, right of way improvements or ADA compliance) Spokanc Vale� Iistorical Pavement Condo 50 City of Spokane Valley, WA Pavement Condition Comparison 2010 to 2015 410 30% Drop In Excellent Str eg 5V 2010 Pavement Condition Index= 80.Backlog =2% >.. 30 SV 2013 Pavement Condition Index=75,Backlog =6% a3 Lag SV 2015 Pavement Condition Index=71 ,Backlog = 10% ♦�'� co- 's d Oeo� 1 . Increasing Backlog Vi_m= .11111 111 ery Poor(0 to 30) Poor{30 to 451 Marginal(45 to 55) Fair(55 to 65) Good(t 5 to 75) Very Goad(75 to 85) Excellent(85 to 100) Pavement Condition Using Descriptive Terms ( Apr 140 City of Spokane Valley , WA Annual Condition for Various Budget Levels Ili 94 0 4, 0 -Fix All Steady State PCI Budget=$70130 Wear —Maintain Ebsdng Backlog Budget=$6250 kflear 80 -C wt-ol PCI/Backlog Budget=$5250 Wear -Selected Budget=$MOD Wear ua =Do Nothing d 4 l GC 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2020 Year Steady State Buda et vs. City Actual Bu4etb . ,, 75 _ City of Spokane Valley, WA Five Year Post Rehab PCI Versus Annual Budget — 2015 Current PCI=71 O i+ la 70 0 Steady State PCI Budget PC:I=71,Bat klog=8,5% OD Annual Budget=57000k/Yr G7 c Maintain Existing Backing PCI=70;Backlog=9.9% Annual Budget=56250k/Yr 1112S 65 — — — — ———— Recamms nded P{7=.5 .moi vi a s PCI BL Bdget 5 PCI Control Backlog=1296 ri Annual Budget=55250k/fr Controled by Backlog Selected Budget PCI=65,Backlog=16.59& Annual Budget=53090k/Yr 60 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 56 DC 6000 ?CCC BCCC Annual Budget Each Year for Five Years($1,00D/Yr) City of Spokane Valley Looking Forward. . .. Spokane Valley places a value on its roadway network (Arterials — Collectors — Residentials) . Funding is not $0, nor is it unlimited . Identify annual budget to maintain current PCI • Examine effects of current funding levels • Prevent deterioration in pavement quality . Identify Work Plan to Fit Current Annual Budget Cuy of Sp Spokane Viey Rteim m endations ... 1. Target PCI => 71 with no backlog increase This equates to $6.8 M annual budget and maintains backlog at <15% 2. All budgets are in constant 2015 dollars, network growth and inflation must be added. 3. Following business processes should be reviewed/confirmed: pavement mix design & specifications structural cross-section routine maintenance activities rehabilitation strategies and unit rates FIaumthsI Summary. . . 4 Life Cycle Funding As . halt Treatment Cost $ Source Full Reconstruction 576,000 Thick Overla 1 ,879,000 Grant Funds or Moderate Overla 1 ,518,000 City Preservation Thin Overla 1 ,626,000 Funds Surface Treatment 585,000 Slur Seal 500,000 Maintenance Funds Routine Maintenance i.e. Crack Seal 122,000 Total Asphalt Network: $6,806,000 Avera•e Grant Funds $1 ,000,000 Avera•e Pavement Preservation Funds $2,300,000 Avera•e Maintenance Funds $900,000 Total Current Fundin • $4,200,000 Amoun nderfunded • M / year Current and Future Funding Discuion 0 City's Current Funding: o Commit the equivalent of 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures for Pavement Preservation o Continue to seek grant funding o Current commitment including grants, 6% GF, and Maintenance = $4.2M ($6.8M needed for Status Quo) o Current Funding is sustainable until 2020 (additional REET funds required) City's Future Funding: o After 2017 the GF and Street Funds only contribute $ 1 .OM, and the balance of $1 .3M is from REET. o REET fund balance is trending downward, so beyond 2020 these funds may not be available. o In order to maintain status quo, we may need to find alternative funding source(s), new Revenue, up to $1 .3M/yr. to replace or supplement REET H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 4Aii-311 Forecast.xlsx CTIY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/29/2016 March 15, 2016 Workshop Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation (1) Projection with Current Conditions Preliminary Actual Actual Actual Budget Projected 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 I 2019 2020 Revenues Transfers in-#001 General Fund 0 888,823 920,000 943,800 943,800 943,800 943,800 943,800 Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 282,000 282,000 206,618 67,342 67,342 67,342 67,342 67,342 Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund 616,284 616,284 616,284 559,786 0 0 0 0 Transfers in-#301 REET 1 150,000 184,472 251,049 365,286 645,179 645,179 645,179 645,179 Transfers in-#302 REET2 150,000 184,472 251,049 365,286 645,179 645,179 645,179 645,179 Grants 35,945 2,042,665 835,224 0 1,211,433 1,856,722 0 0 Miscellaneous 2,800 1,903 3,390 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 1,237,029 4,200,619 3,083,614 2,301,500 3,512,933 4,158,222 2,301,500 2,301,500 Total expenditures 1,387,153 3,077,215 2,400,408 3,050,000 2,156,051 2,196,500 2,156,051 2,156,051 Revenues over(under)expenditures (150,124) 1,123,404 683,206 (748,500) 1,356,882 1,961,722 145,449 145,449 Beginning fund balance 948,733 798,609 1,922,013 2,605,219 1,856,719 3,213,601 5,175,323 5,320,772 Ending fund balance 798,609 1,922,013 2,605,219 1,856,719 3,213,601 5,175,323 5,320,772 5,466,221 Pavement Preservation Project Totals and Revenues Sources Pavement Preservation Fund#311 1,387,153 3,077,215 2,400,408 3,050,000 2,156,051 2,196,500 2,156,051 2,156,051 General Fund#001 855,841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,242,994 3,077,215 2,400,408 3,050,000 2,156,051 2,196,500 2,156,051 2,156,051 Computation of Pavement Preservation Commitment General Fund recurring expenditures prior to addition of pavement preservation 33,629,496 37,418,882 38,357,999 Amount equivalent to 6% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% Pavement preservation expenditures 2,017,770 2,245,133 2,301,500 Components of Pavement Preservation Financing #001 General Fund 888,823 920,000 943,800 #101 Street Fund 282,000 206,618 67,342 #123 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 616,284 616,284 559,786 #301 Capital Projects Fund 184,472 251,049 365,286 #302 Special Capital Projects Fund 184,472 251,049 365,286 2,156,051 2,245,000 2,301,500 (1) The actual numbers presented for 2015 are preliminary as of February 29, 2016. They are subject to change as we complete the yearend close process. 2016 02 29 H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 4Aii-311 Forecast.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Trends Pavement Preservation Fund#311 Revenues Excluding Grants and Misc Projection with Current Conditions Actual 2014 2016 Budget 365,286 .... _ ■Transfers in-#001 General 16% •Transfers in-#001 General Fund Fund •Transfers in-#101 Street Fund •Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 88: 943,800 4 365,286 41% •Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility 16% ■Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility Replacement FundReplacement Fund L` 616,284 •Transfers in-#301 REET 1 1 - •Transfers in-#301 REET 1 29% ■Transfers in-#302 REET 2 ■Transfers in-#302 REET 2 282,000 559,786 67,342 13% 24% 3% Iiir ie Preliminary Actual 2015 2017- 2020 Projection 251,049 11% •Transfers in-#001 General •Transfers in-#001 General Fund Fund 645,179 251,049 28% ■Transfers in-#101 Street Fund ■Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 11% 920,000 943,80 41% 41% ■Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility •Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility - Replacement Fund Replacement Fund ■Transfers in-#301 REET 1 ■Transfers in-#301 REET 1 616,284 28% , •Transfers in-#302 REET 2 •Transfers in-#302 REET 2 206,618 645,179 67,342 28% 3% 9% Page 1 of 1 H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 4Aiii-101 Forecast.xlsx CTIY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 3/3/2016 March 15,2016 Workshop Fund#101 -Street Fund (1) Projection with Current Conditions Preliminary Actual Actual Actual Budget I Projected 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 I 2018 2019 I 2020 (RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Utility Tax 2,562,722 2,461,060 2,257,184 2,340,000 2,224,872 2,115,408 2,011,330 1,912,373 (2) Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,868,055 1,878,476 1,935,629 2,004,900 2,004,900 2,004,900 2,004,900 2,004,900 Investment Interest 2,920 2,037 3,212 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Insurance Premiums& Recoveries 1,790 4,204 4,319 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Revenue 12,911 5,209 9,647 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total Recurring Revenues 4,448,398 4,350,986 4,209,991 4,357,900 4,242,772 4,133,308 4,029,230 3,930,273 Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 582,013 681,165 739,186 734,604 734,604 734,604 734,604 734,604 Supplies 108,110 460,844 119,014 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 Services&Charges 2,152,294 2,197,089 2,061,298 2,132,754 2,132,754 2,132,754 2,132,754 2,132,754 Snow Operations 485,717 0 465,232 430,000 430,000 430,000 430,000 430,000 Intergovernmental Payments 797,275 876,680 727,591 771,000 771,000 771,000 771,000 771,000 Interfund Transfers-out-#001 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 Interfund Transfers-out-#311 (pavement preservation) 282,000 282,000 206,618 67,342 67,342 67,342 67,342 67,342 Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (non-plow vehicle rental) 10,777 10,777 12,077 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (plow replace.) 150,000 75,000 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Total Recurring Expenditures 4,607,886 4,623,255 4,370,716 4,357,900 4,357,900 4,357,900 4,357,900 4,357,900 (3) Recurring Revenues over(under) Recurring Expenditures (159,488) (272,269) (160,725) 0 (115,128) (224,592) (328,670) (427,627) INONRECURRING ACTIVITY (5,716) (85,721) (105,697) (25,000) 0 0 0 0 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (165,204) (357,990) (266,422) (25,000) (115,128) (224,592) (328,670) (427,627) Beginning fund balance 2,228,438 2,063,234 1,705,244 1,438,822 1,413,822 1,298,694 1,074,102 745,433 Ending fund balance 2,063,234 1,705,244 1,438,822 1,413,822 1,298,694 1,074,102 745,433 317,805 (1) The actual numbers presented for 2015 are preliminary as of February 29, 2016. They are subject to change as we complete the yearend close process (2) Estimated future telephone tax revenues are calculated at an annual decrease of 4.92%, which is the average decrease seen since 2009 (3) For purposes of this projection, expenditures are kept at 2016 Budget levels with no increases Est with 101 H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 4Aiii - 101 Forecast.xlsx CTIY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA March 15, 2016 Workshop Fund #101 -Street Fund Projection with Current Conditions Street Fund Projection 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Recurring Revenues — Total Recurring Expenditures Ending fund balance 101 Current Chart CTIY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 3/7/2016 March 15, 2016 Workshop Calculation of Transportation Benefit District Revenues - Estimated Tab Fee Average Vehicle Count Subject to Fee 72,417 (1) Tab Fee $ 20.00 Estimated Revenue Generated $ 1,448,340.00 Less: Dept of Licensing Administrative Fee (1%) $ (14,483.40) Estimated Net Revenue Received by the City $ 1,433,856.60 Assumption: The net revenues would be receipted at 50% of the amount each to the Street Fund #101 and the Pavement Preservation Fund#311. $ 1,433,856.60 x 50% Estimated Revenue to#101 and#311 $ 716,928.30 (1) Estimated vehicles in the City subject to the fee per the Washington State Department of Licensing. H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 4Aii-311 Forecast.xlsx CTIY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/29/2016 March 15,2016 Workshop 3/7/2016 Fund#311 -Pavement Preservation (1) Projections with Estimated Transportation Preliminary Benefit District Revenues Actual Actual Actual Budget I Projected 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 I 2018 I 2019 I 2020 Revenues Transfers in-#001 General Fund 0 888,823 920,000 943,800 943,800 943,800 943,800 943,800 Transportation Benefit District-Tab Fee 0 0 0 0 716,929 716,929 716,929 716,929 Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 282,000 282,000 206,618 67,342 0 0 0 0 Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund 616,284 616,284 616,284 559,786 0 0 0 0 Transfers in-#301 REET 1 150,000 184,472 251,049 365,286 320,385 320,385 320,385 320,385 Transfers in-#302 REET 2 150,000 184,472 251,049 365,286 320,386 320,386 320,386 320,386 Grants 35,945 2,042,665 835,224 0 1,211,433 1,856,722 0 0 Miscellaneous 2,800 1,903 3,390 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenues 1,237,029 4,200,619 3,083,614 2,301,500 3,512,933 4,158,222 2,301,500 2,301,500 Total expenditures 1,387,153 3,077,215 2,400,408 3,050,000 2,156,051 2,196,500 2,156,051 2,156,051 Revenues over(under)expenditures (150,124) 1,123,404 683,206 (748,500) 1,356,882 1,961,722 145,449 145,449 Beginning fund balance 948,733 798,609 1,922,013 2,605,219 1,856,719 3,213,601 5,175,323 5,320,772 Ending fund balance 798,609 1,922,013 2,605,219 1,856,719 3,213,601 5,175,323 5,320,772 5,466,221 Pavement Preservation Proiect Totals and Revenues Sources Pavement Preservation Fund#311 1,387,153 3,077,215 2,400,408 3,050,000 2,156,051 2,196,500 2,156,051 2,156,051 General Fund#001 855,841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,242,994 3,077,215 2,400,408 3,050,000 2,156,051 2,196,500 2,156,051 2,156,051 Computation of Pavement Preservation Commitment General Fund recurring expenditures prior to addition of pavement preservation 33,629,496 37,418,882 38,357,999 (2) 38,357,999 38,357,999 38,357,999 38,357,999 Amount equivalent to 6% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% Pavement preservation expenditures 2,017,770 2,245,133 2,301,500 2,301,500 2,301,500 2,301,500 2,301,500 Components of Pavement Preservation Financing #001 General Fund 888,823 920,000 943,800 (2) 943,800 943,800 943,800 943,800 Transportation Benefit District 0 0 0 (3) 716,929 716,929 716,929 716,929 #101 Street Fund 282,000 206,618 67,342 0 0 0 0 #123 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 616,284 616,284 559,786 0 0 0 0 #301 Capital Projects Fund 184,472 251,049 365,286 320,385 320,385 320,385 320,385 #302 Special Capital Projects Fund 184,472 251,049 365,286 320,386 320,386 320,386 320,386 2,156,051 2,245,000 2,301,500 2,301,500 2,301,500 2,301,500 2,301,500 (1) The actual numbers presented for 2015 are preliminary as of February 29, 2016. They are subject to change as we complete the yearend close process. (2) No increases were calculated for General Fund recurring expenditures and General Fund Pavement Preservation contributions for future years. (3) Tab Fee estimate is based on 72,417 vehicles multiplied by$20 less a 1%DOL admin fee times 50%. The number of vehicles was received as an estimate from the Washington State Department of Licensing.For purposes of this estimate,no increases are assumed for future years. 2016 02 29 with Tab Fee H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 4Aii-311 Forecast.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Trends Pavement Preservation Fund#311 Revenues Excluding Grants and Misc Projections with Estimated Transportation Benefit District Revenue Actual 2014 2016 Budget •Transfers in-#001 General 365,286 •Transfers in-#001 General Fund Fund 16% ■Transportation Benefit District- ■Transportation Benefit District- ,r Tab Fee Tab Fee `88:8_. 943,800_ ' ''` '� ■Transfers in-#101 Street Fund _ ■Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 41 = 365,286 41/ •Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility •Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility 616,284 t Replacement Fund = Replacement Fund 29% •Transfers in-#301 REET 1 •Transfers in-#301 REET 1 •Transfers in-#302 REET 267,342 •Transfers in-#302 REET 2 282,000 0% 559,786 13% 24% 3% ill 4 Preliminary Actual 2015 2017- 2020 Projection 251,0-•j. •Transfers in-#001 General if 320,386 •Transfers in-#001 General Fund 11% Fund 14% ■Transportation Benefit District- ■Transportation Benefit District- 251049 -- Tab Fee Tab Fee 11% 920,000. 320,385 943,800 4 - •Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 41% •Transfers in-#101 Street Fund 14% ■Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility ■Transfers in-#123 Civic Facility Replacement Fund Replacement Fund '616 2:?- ■Transfers in-#301 REET 1 ■Transfers in-#301 REET 1 28% ._ 716,929 206,618 ' •Transfers in-#302 REET 2 31% •Transfers in-#302 REET 2 Page 1 of 1 H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 4Aiii-101 Forecast.xlsx CTIY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 3/3/2016 March 15,2016 Workshop Fund#101 -Street Fund (1) Projection with Estimated Transportation Benefit Preliminary District Revenues Actual Actual Actual Budget I Projected 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 I 2018 2019 I 2020 (RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Utility Tax 2,562,722 2,461,060 2,257,184 2,340,000 2,224,872 2,115,408 2,011,330 1,912,373 (2) Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,868,055 1,878,476 1,935,629 2,004,900 2,004,900 2,004,900 2,004,900 2,004,900 Transportation Benefit District-Tab Fee 0 0 0 0 716,928 716,928 716,928 716,928 (3) Investment Interest 2,920 2,037 3,212 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Insurance Premiums& Recoveries 1,790 4,204 4,319 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Revenue 12,911 5,209 9,647 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total Recurring Revenues 4,448,398 4,350,986 4,209,991 4,357,900 4,959,700 4,850,236 4,746,158 4,647,201 Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 582,013 681,165 739,186 734,604 734,604 734,604 734,604 734,604 Supplies 108,110 460,844 119,014 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 111,500 Services&Charges 2,152,294 2,197,089 2,061,298 2,132,754 2,132,754 2,132,754 2,132,754 2,132,754 Snow Operations 485,717 0 465,232 430,000 430,000 430,000 430,000 430,000 Intergovernmental Payments 797,275 876,680 727,591 771,000 771,000 771,000 771,000 771,000 Interfund Transfers-out-#001 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 39,700 Interfund Transfers-out-#311 (pavement preservation) 282,000 282,000 206,618 67,342 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (non-plow vehicle rental) 10,777 10,777 12,077 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (plow replace.) 150,000 75,000 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Total Recurring Expenditures 4,607,886 4,623,255 4,370,716 4,357,900 4,290,558 4,290,558 4,290,558 4,290,558 (4) Recurring Revenues over(under) Recurring Expenditures (159,488) (272,269) (160,725) 0 669,142 559,678 455,600 356,643 INONRECURRING ACTIVITY (5,716) (85,721) (105,697) (25,000) 0 0 0 0 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (165,204) (357,990) (266,422) (25,000) 669,142 559,678 455,600 356,643 Beginning fund balance 2,228,438 2,063,234 1,705,244 1,438,822 1,413,822 2,082,964 2,642,642 3,098,243 Ending fund balance 2,063,234 1,705,244 1,438,822 1,413,822 2,082,964 2,642,642 3,098,243 3,454,885 (1) The actual numbers presented for 2015 are preliminary as of February 29, 2016. They are subject to change as we complete the yearend close process (2) Estimated future telephone tax revenues are calculated at an annual decrease of 4.92%, which is the average decrease seen since 2009 (3) Tab Fee estimate is based on 72,417 vehicles multiplied by$20 less a 1%DOL admin fee times 50%. The number of vehicles was received as an estimate from the Washington State Department of Licensing.For purposes of this estimate, no increases are assumed for future years (4) For purposes of this projection, expenditures are kept at 2016 Budget levels with no increases Est with 101 with tab fee H:\Winter Council Workshop\March 15 2015 Workshop\Item 4Aiii - 101 Forecast.xlsx CTIY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA March 15, 2016 Workshop Fund #101 -Street Fund Projection with Estimated Transportation Benefit District Revenues Street Fund Projection 6,000,000 5,000,000 f ■ ■ ■ 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Recurring Revenues — Total Recurring Expenditures Ending fund balance 101 with Tab Fee Chart City Council Work 2016 Community & Economic Development John Hohman, Director Spokane a CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 1 Valley March 15, 2016 Presentation Discussion Points ■ Economic Development City of Spokane Valley RETAIL Strategic Plan ( EDSP) IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY January,2016 Economic Development �.,. „�f s� Ee sling Public ySa =IT Initiatives I` n Intlust I A a / . '.fix i'o G _ ,', �1 l %ice//////�/i zd , s;K � ;, , L G Economic Development e'9////// µay a, a( 6 iu /1 iiiii /��I V��e�rt,� , / / , I/ ,iii % a' . ''.i/ ,, ,,,, Infrastructure Plans t �! MI' --",..„.,„„.„„ ..,,, .,-4:. . , \0 76.211.1111*. rtr° it Spokan CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 2 Valley March 15, 2016 Economic Development Strategic Plan Purpose and Intent ■ Formalize the City's economic development efforts • A plan that clearly identifies goals and strategies that support business opportunities and quality of life • A plan that prioritizes economic development efforts and allocates resources to accomplish them • A plan that ensures that the expectations of City Council and the efforts of City Staff and partners are aligned Spokan'a CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 3 Walley March 15, 2016 Economic Development Strategic Plan - Proposed Process ECO,.O .CQPaoa.LiNgr: •■ Assess -�_ . Wit _ _._ , = Stakeholder and Council member interviews, _ �,� local economy assessment including SWOT analysis �'' • Engage • Community survey, public events, open house, Council discussion : � I, n c_:s - • Review z Open house, Council update, Adoption ..... ........ =I',' `i I I lig' '` y ` Spokan'e— CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 4 Valley March 15, 2016 Economic Development Strategic Pla n unsyetym ,ww.vtstespokaa..zom Elements of the EDSP The City of OFNCIAt, � S Oane 'h��"' p ■ Existing conditions reportort UaIIeg A Spokane Region • Analyze quantitative and qualitative data Distiuocttve Community ■ Strategic goals and actions • Reviewed, developed, and vetted by City Council and department leaders fern nNIFusP Implementation directives SPO • Timelines, priorities, partners, resource requirements • Relevant performance measures Spokane ` CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 5 March 15, 2016 Economic Development Initiatives _ __ ____ 11111 - - - - - — • E. D. marketing program City of Spokane Valley RETAIL ■ Retail improvement IMPROVEM r. I STRATEGY � • Tourism enhancement Request for qualifications(RFQ) SPOKANE VALLEY Economic Development ■ Facility specific studies — TOURISM AND LOD( Marketing Program RFQ City orSpokane Valley,Washington ANALYSIS Plante's Ferry improvements & Liberty STAKEHOLDER PRESENT sisokall�1 December 10,2015 jVa„ey Lake eallfields I* -- ■ Comprehensive Plan update Spokane CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 6 'Valley March 15, 2016 Economic Development Marketing Program Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to market Request for Qualifications(RFQ) the City to businesses, developers, residents, Economic Development and visitors Marketing Program REQ Lily of Sikre Van ey.Washington Five-year strategic marketing plan ■ Spokane • �vatIcyEconomic development marketing and Doe onFebruary s,2016 at OAP pm PT "ic °a4 enaryez°s plan implementation Spokane `` CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 7 March 15, 2016 Economic Development Marketing Program BRING YOUR BUSINESS TO SPOKANE VALLEY ' Five-year strategic marketing plan • Message development a. = s • ED program recommendations ''''",:-:,;.....,::.::-...:;,-7- '- • • - Schedule, costs, and performance measures m . . • .' [. ` 'tri ° � . . .: ■ Economic development marketing and 0 `• plan implementation • Identify unique characteristics and assets (brand We'll Get You Through The Process Rapidly! Spokane ldwr,Mini Ora Wave located Nelle CO of SpokueYy4e! identify) Practical Regulations Start your business today • Marketing material development Streamlined Permitting in the City of Spokane Valley! Exceptional Customer Service www.spokanevalley.org/ed • Advertising recommendations (who, how, when, Quick Reviews where, what) *Wane ' CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 8 _Valley March 15, 2016 Retail Improvement Strategy ■ Provide City staff and policy makers data on : • Retail Trade Area, demographics, and retail City of Spokane Valley demand RETAIL ■ A tool to attract businesses and facilitate IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY growth in the City's retail footprint January,2016 • Identify retail recruitment work program actions for the City Spokane CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 9 Walley March 15, 2016 Retail Improvement Strategies : Key Themes • Regional draw for shoppers • Spokane Valley Mall is a major throughout the region retail draw • There are few neighborhood • Few full-service restaurants serving retailers • Some retail properties are • Big box stores represent underperforming or underutilized significant portion of sales • Retail is anchored by big box Spokane CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 10 Walley March 15, 2016 Retail Improvement Strategy: Targets & Next Steps Targets Next Steps • Auto Dealers ■ Meet with retailers, restaurateurs, • Local production retailers and property owners and developers shops • • Local and regional restaurants Develop a list of suitable spaces/ • Niche grocery store/ food store properties for future retail recruitment • Special events • Consider hiring a retail recruiter to • Incentivize catalytic projects that incorporate good design fill identified retail gaps Spokane CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 11 ��dlley March 15, 2016 Tourism Enhancement Study: Questions , , , I `W ,4 44; What are the key drivers of Tourism in City? 1 , ,' :',x ,tr Y X k s' • '; ' 0 • What is the City's role in fostering tourism in WIIt Spokane Valley? t 0 FAIL&EXPO • What investments and strategies can the City `ty C, E Nt C R V SPOKd NE COUNTY undertake to improve tourism? ,t a fano STA., ate ' J • What impact would proposed strategies have on attracting visitors? *Wane CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 12 Valley March 15, 2016 Why do people come to Spokane Valley? N Volleyball iv r I+rleighb©rhoods} n. r Fairgrounds Safety t AvistaGolf L Bikingwres Tung YMCA=% Access Events Entertainment shopping a Hiking y a P a rk in9 y Roads �■� • WineTriIs IBusines -5 Recreation si 4. CE CU Lk Spokane' CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 13 Walley March 15, 2016 Challenges Identified by Stakeholders • No distinct community identity or city brand • Absence of central activity core, spread out attractions & services • Limited sit-down dining options • Competition with downtown Spokane • Lack of investment • Few minor local attractions, need a regional draw Spokane CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 14 Walley March 15, 2016 Opportunities Identified by Stakeholders ■ Potential for multipurpose sports facility ■ Create and enhance local/regional recreation opportunities ■ Create a defined center by encouraging a concentration of businesses ■ Promote Spokane Valley as gateway to Mt. Spokane and other ski resorts ■ Attract shoppers from outside region and Canada Spokan'a CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 15 Walley March 15, 2016 Tourism Enhancement Study : Goals SUSTAIN Spokane Valley's existing high- CREATE new, standalone attractions that will value/high-volume tourism segments assert Spokane Valley's position as a superior (e.g. business travelers) tourism destination (e.g. riverfront park, arts walk) INVEST in long-term improvements that will make Spokane Valley a more attractive destination and competitive market (e.g. new trail connections) Spokane CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 16 Walley March 15, 2016 Tourism Enhancement Study : Strategies .,, ■ Identify potential locations for riverfront development -� • Develop connections to recreation amenities ■ Expand or create special events in the City • Develop/expand sports complex oriented _, _ J , towards youth and family sports ii T • Develop concert facility/grounds T Spokane` CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 17 Valley March 15, 2016 Pla nte's Ferry Improvement & Liberty Lake Ballfields • Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County, City of Liberty Lake, Central Valley School District, Sports Commission. • Five responses to RFP were received . • CSL International was selected at a cost of $47,000 that will be split 4 ways. • Anticipated completion the study is 4/29/2016. Spokane CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 18 March 15, 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update ■ Strong focus in economic development ■ Incorporate goals, policies and strategic actions identified in the economic development initiatives and vetted by City Council Spokane CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 19 Walley March 15, 2016 Mirabeau Traffic Study Subarea traffic study in partnership �r�' �` —r i �� `' . T, a with property owners • Existing conditions and deficiencies i 1 ! NEP= A,� • Future conditions travel model ,F ap 4._ • Capital project list . iirLit.- � ■ Transportation mitigation program �- �.\ :,: i 1 iF 1 f `, --, t ��'�f� �l 1 / `=-�T _ ■ Streamline permittingprocess of �I � �,� -�_,`t1 —_ �_ �� _ �- �-- �4 \-�-s_r • �� affected parcels —150 acres Spokane CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 20 'Valley March 15, 2016 Industrial Infrastructure Needs : Sewer �,i �'�- Norm East Industrial Lands • A majority of industrial vacant s ! Land Use Designations a<<.g, and underutilized land is i ,I '' Meaium Dens - ntiaV underserved by sewer/streets ' g ay aeata ' -:`a�\ / Y Com ryearca \\ • -P C ma ai p spaco ■ Area mayneed new pump ,a°Bova,0 p p i' •• L1B.it ,'�-� stations, force mains, gravity — - ::=1,11-� collection system, and streets ..... . .. . . . ..1 *a neCED Presentation for City Council Workshop 21 .000 Valley March 15, 2016 Industrial Infrastructure Needs : Water ,. rt.., El r Existing Public Water .11 ( ■ Existing main lines are �r� Infrastructure in I_� Industrial Area ,L ilii I I .�• HI iili i� _ ,� - ` -1_a. 1,,.2..., acceptable !11 3m' 2a1EfeNeed a loopconnection Ss a _ 1 s■, is \,, r z L a°e a�Q mI.L� bl� A between Flora and Barker -illitffiN i ' north of Euclid Legend 101, . Pie Hydrants , ' VVater iz Developed Industrial t'esq" j, lip=parcels g 1 City of Spokane Valley .e eee ,.al' Spokane a CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 22 Valley March 15, 2016 Industrial Infrastructure Needs : Transportation - / ■ Street removal a n d ir.r replacement ■ Barker Road grade separation project Spokane CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 23 Valley March 15, 2016 Questions _ , . ,_ ,_., „„ , ._ . .,. • _ANL la . rP 0 ,,,,,,..:.,.. - , --- .. ::C —IT. I,•., d. ' - j ,.. 01;;;;::,,,: 1, ) Ti 70.1,, :1 r 1 - d —y4 i� dyd l k' ..:_.,. :: 1! iit- 4 . . . . _ _ - . . ..._ �s 1 � -' x ,„:.,,,,,,,, __ _,„,,,,N7,_,:„.. , rir.--k1 — -,-- . , _ . . __e„..„, 1.‘ _, ,,.._ ,, z \ --.-.-i r �� ____ r , r L .4, --, a \ ! hI :a ` - •t r Spokane a CED Presentation for City Council Workshop 24 �'Vdlley March 15, 2016 Return to: Daniela Erickson CIerk of the Board 1115 W.Broadway ( Spokane,WA 99260 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COSTS INCIDENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY /0 —0717 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into among Spokane County, a political subdivision of the state of Washington,having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," the Spokane County Sheriff, a separate elected official of Spokane County, having offices for the transaction of business at 1100 West Mallon Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "SHERIFF" and the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the state of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "CITY,"jointly hereinafter referred to as the "Parties" and individually referred to as"Party". COUNTY, SHERIFF and CITY agree as follows. SECTION NO. 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS 1.1 Under RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, acting on behalf of Spokane County, has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business. 1.2 Under chapter 39.34 RCW("Interlocal Cooperation Act"),public agencies may contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform. • 1.3 Under chapter 36.28 RCW, the Spokane County Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and Conservator of the Peace of Spokane County. 1.4 The City of Spokane Valley desires to utilize the services of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office to provide law enforcement services. Page 1 of 18 linin- 1043 Return to: Daniela Erickson Clerk of the Board 1115 W.Broadway Spokane,WA 99260 1.5 The direct and indirect costs for law enforcement services will be set forth in the Law Enforcement Cost Allocation plan ("LECAP"), attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION NO.2: DEFINITIONS 2.1 Agreement: "Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement among Sheriff; City and County regarding law enforcement services. 2.2 City: "CITY"means the City of Spokane Valley. 2.3 County:"COUNTY"means Spokane County. 2.4 Services: "Services"means those services identified in Exhibit 1. 2.5 Sheriff: "SHERIFF" means the duly elected sheriff of Spokane County possessing those general duties set forth in chapter 36.28 RCW. 2.6 Uncontrollable Circumstances: "Uncontrollable Circumstances" means the following events: riots, wars, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism, external fires and floods, volcanic eruptions, lightning or earthquakes at or near where the Services are performed and/or that directly affect providing of such services. SECTION NO.3: PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce to writing the Parties' understanding as to the terms and conditions under which SHERIFF will provide Services to CITY. The services will be consistent with the City's council/manager form of management. RCW 35.A13 SECTION NO.4: DURATION AND TERMINATION 4.1 Initial term and Renewal. The initial term of this Agreement shall commence as of 12:01 A.M. on January 1, 2010, and run through Midnight,December 31,2013. Thereafter, this Agreement shall automatically renew for four-year time frames, unless the termination process outlined herein is invoked. 4.2 Process for Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by any party by providing written notice on or after June 30, 2012 to all other Parties. COUNTY shall consult with SHERIFF prior to providing written notice of termination under this subsection. SHERIFF shall consult with COUNTY prior to providing written notice of termination under this subsection. This termination will be effective (18) eighteen months Page 2 of 18 after written notice is provided as long as such written notice is provided prior to Midnight December 31, 2013. The same time intervals for terminations shall apply to future terms if the termination process is not invoked during the initial contract period. 4.3 Implementation of Termination. When notice of termination is given, SHERIFF and CITY agree to jointly prepare a Transition Plan. 4.3.1 Transition Plan. The Transition Plan shall identify and address, among other items (i) personnel issues; (ii) workload; and (iii) ongoing case assignments. If the SHERIFF and CITY cannot mutually agree to the terms of the Transition Plan,either Party can request arbitration as provided in Section No. 18. SHERIFF and CITY shall equally share the cost of said arbitration. 4.3.2 Implementation of Transition Plan. Parties agree to use all best efforts to create and effectuate a mutual implementation of the Transition Plan. 4.4 Termination of the Agreement-Vehicles and Equipment. At the termination of this Agreement, CITY shall have the option to purchase, subject to agreement of SHERIFF and COUNTY, COUNTY-owned vehicles and/or equipment used to provide Services. 4.5 Waiver of Statutory Terms. To the extent that it is applicable to law enforcement services, the Parties hereby waive the statutory termination rights of RCW 39.34.180(3) and elect instead to follow these contractual termination procedures as the sole method of terminating this Agreement, the terms of which are detailed in this subsection. 4.6 Termination of the Agreement and Settle and Adjust. The Parties recognize that Cost for Services under the Agreement is calculated utilizing the LECAP. The LECAP is based on actual costs from two years prior to the current contract year. As such, in the event this Agreement is terminated as provided for in Sub-section 4.2 hereinabove, the Agreement will be subject to a settle and adjust for the last two years of the term of the Agreement based upon the LECAP for the two (2) subsequent years after termination. In the event of termination, the Parties shall follow the process set forth in Section No. 6 to determine the settle and adjust for each of the last two (2)years of the Agreement as well as the process to object to the final adjustment determined for each of the last two (2) years to include dispute resolution as set forth in Subsection 6.7 set forth hereinafter. SECTION NO. 5: SERVICES 5.1 Services Provided and Service Levels. The Sheriff shall provide those Services set forth in Exhibit"1" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CITY may unilaterally, on an annual basis, adjust the service level FTE's set forth in Category One of Exhibit "1." Written notice of such an adjustment to Category One shall be provided by CITY to COUNTY and SHERIFF no later than November 30th with the adjustments Page 3 of 18 • • to be effective on Januarylst of the following year. If COUNTY fails to provide the third quarterly report or changes to the LECAP allocation as set forth in Section 5.2 below, said notice is required to occur 30 days after this information is provided. Any other adjustments in Category One•services may occur by mutual agreement as set forth in Section 6.6. CITY and SHERIFF, by mutual agreement may also adjust the level of service F'1'E's set forth in Category Two of Exhibit "1." Such agreement shall be executed no later than November 30th preceding the contract year. Any adjustments in services under this section shall only be operative after relevant notice and impact bargaining negotiations for reductions in force are satisfied with the relevant Collective Bargaining Units but in no event shall the delay in implementation exceed 60.days. Notwithstanding the above, SHERIFF'S ability to fulfill his statutory obligation to provide law enforcement services to COUNTY and CITY shall not be limited. 5.2 Periodic Reporting Requirements. SHERIFF shall provide to CITY quarterly reports, within 30 days from the end of each quarter, that identify statistics used to calculate CITY'S cost in the LECAP referenced in Section No. 6 below. Those statistics i which are only available to COUNTY on an annual basis shall be provided annually within 30 days of the end of each calendar year. However, records and property room statistics shall be provided within 15 days after they are provided by CITY. These reports will allow CITY to monitor service consumption and cost accrual throughout the year. COUNTY will provide to CITY any changes in the allocation of law enforcement services set forth in the adopted LECAP as defined in Section 6.3 SECTION NO.6: COST OF SERVICES 6.1 Basis. Cost for services shall be based upon the Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Plan(LECAP) as previously identified and incorporated herein. 6.2 Methodology. Costs for Services will be calculated utilizing the Cost Calculation Model (CCM) as shown in Exhibit"2"which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 6.3 COCAP and LECAP. Once the Countywide Cost Allocation Plan ("COCAP") and LECAP are fmalized, no changes will be made to any department cost or allocation basis until the following year other than as indicated in the MID-YEAR FULL TIME EQUIVALENT FTE ADJUSTMENTS defined in sub-section 6.6. Each year, Page 4 of 18 departments within the Sheriff's Office will be reviewed to determine if the costs are being appropriately allocated. Each allocation basis will be reviewed to determine if it is the best basis for allocating the costs. Any changes in allocating department costs or changes in allocation basis will be provided to CITY with explanations for any deviation from the initial plan no later than the end of the third quarter. Both the COCAP and the LECAP will be prepared in accordance with U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87. The LECAP referenced herein shall not contain COUNTY costs as set forth in Category Four of Exhibit"1" and further the COCAP shall not contain COUNTY costs for treasurer tax collections. The COCAP and the LECAP will be completed by September 30th of each year for determining the actual costs for the prior year. For example, the actual cost for the calendar year 2009 would be completed by September 30, 2010. 6.4 CCM. Costs for Services shall be calculated utilizing the LECAP. The LECAP will be based on actual costs. The model based on the LECAP costs from two years prior will estimate costs for the current agreement year. The Per Commissioned Officer Rate as well as the dollar amount for Other Allocations for the contract year will be multiplied by (1) any cost of living or wage change(s) granted commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement for the calendar year immediately following the LECAP year; and by (2) a 1.25% multiplier for the calendar year immediately following the LECAP year; and by(3)any cost of living or wage change(s) granted commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement for the calendar year two years subsequent to the LECAP year; and by (4) a 1.25%multiplier for the calendar year two years subsequent to the LECAP year. After generating the Per Commissioned Officer rate for the interlocal agreement year using the Commissioned Officer Worksheet (Exhibit "1"), the number of Category One and Category Two officers will be updated to reflect current year staffing levels. The total contract costs then will be automatically calculated. This model can also be used for any MID-YEAR FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) ADJUSTMENTS. The CCM shall be provided by COUNTY to CITY by September 30 for the following year. 6.5 Retro-Active Salary Adjustments. Should any applicable bargaining agreement not • be settled in time to include any salary adjustments granted commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement in the contract calculation model for a given year, and that collective bargaining agreement is settled during that year, and the settlement contains a retroactive salary adjustment, COUNTY will bill CITY for the full amount of CITY's portion of the retroactive payment. CITY will be responsible for paying COUNTY within thirty (30) days of the billing date. Additionally, COUNTY will recalculate the estimated L Interlocal Agreement amount employing the cost of living or wage increase(s) granted Page 5 of 18 commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement and adjust the remaining monthly payments. 6.6 Mid-Year Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Adjustments. In the event the Parties negotiate a change in full time positions, mid-year, such change, for purposes of calculating costs under the LECAP, can occur only once during any interlocal agreement year and in any event no later than August 30th of such year. Additionally, COUNTY will recalculate the estimated interlocal agreement amount and adjust the remaining monthly payments. Any reduction would become operative only after the relevant notice and impact bargaining obligations for reductions in force are satisfied with the effected Collective Bargaining unit but in no event shall the delay in implementation exceed 60 days. 6.7 Settle and Adjust. The LECAP will be used to reconcile the actual Agreement cost for the year for which it is calculated to the amount the CITY paid the County during that same year as set forth in Section 6.9. After completing the Cost Calculation Model for the current Agreement year, any overage or underage from the settle and adjust will be applied to the total amount. This combined figure will follow the billing procedure. COUNTY shall provide CITY with its final adjustment in writing no later than September 30th of any calendar year. The adjustment will include a copy of the full LECAP. CITY ( will have thirty (30) calendar days from its receipt of the written adjustment to provide COUNTY with any written objections to the amounts set forth therein. COUNTY agrees to consider all written objections received from CITY and reply to CITY no later than fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of CITY'S objections. In the event that the Parties cannot mutually resolve any written objections(s) submitted by CITY within an additional fifteen (15) calendar day time frame, or such other time frame as the Parties may mutually agree to, the objections shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth in Section No. 18. 6.8 Capital Purchases. Capital items deemed necessary for all commissioned officers, excluding vehicles, with a cost greater than COUNTY capital threshold (currently $2,000) and less than$10,000, as well as capital items with a cost equal to or greater than $50,000, will be billed to CITY at the time of purchase contingent upon prior CITY authorization. CITY will be billed according to CITY'S current usage percentage of the items. COUNTY will bill CITY for this cost at the time of the purchase and payment will be due within 30 days of the billing date. After the LECAP is completed for the year of the purchase(s), COUNTY will give CITY credit for the full amount paid in that year. All capital items purchased will become the property of COUNTY. Capital items that have been purchased with grant funds by either CITY or COUNTY, or other funding sources, and capital items that are not utilized in providing law enforcement service to CITY, will not be charged to CITY. All capital items that are utilized in providing law Page 6 of 18 (` enforcement service to CITY and that were not purchased with other funding sources will be incorporated as fixed assets in the COCAP and reimbursed through depreciation. The COCAP is a cost within the LECAP. 6.9 Billing Procedure. COUNTY will bill CITY for one-twelfth of COUNTY'S calculated contract amount as determined in contract calculation model during the first week of the month. Regular monthly payments by CITY will be due by the end of the month in which they are billed. 6.10 Penalty. At the sole option of COUNTY, a penalty may be assessed on any late payment of the monthly calculated contract amount owed by CITY in an amount equal to lost interest earnings had the payment been timely paid and invested in the Spokane County Treasurer's Investment Pool. Any resolution of a disputed amount through use of the arbitration process identified in Section No.18 shall include at the request of any Party, a determination of whether interest is appropriate, including the amount. SECTION NO.7: MUNICIPAL POLICE AUTHORITY CITY shall retain all police powers and by virtue of this Agreement CITY confers i - municipal police authority on the SHERIFF. SECTION NO. 8: OFFICER ASSIGNMENT, RETENTION, DISCIPLINE AND HIRING. COUNTY is acting hereunder as an independent contractor as to: 8.1 Hiring. The SHERIFF shall hire, assign, retain and discipline all employees/deputies according to the collective bargaining agreement, civil service rules, and state and federal laws. 8.2 Standards of Performance Governed by the SHERIFF. Control of personnel, standards of performance, discipline and all other aspects of performance shall be governed by the SHERIFF. Provided, however that only qualified, trained personnel meeting all of the requirements of applicable state laws or regulations shall be utilized in the performance of Services. 8.3 Assignment of Deputies. SHERIFF shall use, whenever possible, deputies who volunteer for duty within CITY. In those instances where there are an insufficient number of deputies who volunteer for duty within CITY, then SHERIFF shall determine who shall be assigned for duty. SHERIFF and CITY will work together to encourage deputy retention to provide continuity of service. Page 7 of 18 �. 8.4 Patrol Districts. CITY's Police Chief will establish patrol districts within CITY in order to assure accurate collection of data related to criminal traffic activity. The patrol districts will coincide within CITY limits as closely as possible without compromising efficient use of reactive patrol deputies. A patrol district is a geographical area of a size and configuration designed to minimize response times to citizen's calls for services. Response is typically measured from the time a call is received to the time the unit arrives on the scene. 8.5 Dedicated Patrol Units. SHERIFF recognizes that it is providing sworn police services dedicated to CITY. In so doing, the law enforcement services shall be dedicated to CITY and shall not be used elsewhere within COUNTY. Provided however, in the event of an emergency or a call by a deputy for assistance, mutual aid may be rendered. SECTION NO. 9: CITY POLICE CHIEF AND PRECINCT COMMANDER SELECTION, REMOVAL AND DUTIES, AS WELL AS CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSIBILITIES THERETO. 9.1 Selection of Police Chief or Precinct Commander. When, for any reason, there occurs a vacancy in the position of Police Chief or Precinct Commander, the SHERIFF shall designate three or more SHERIFF Deputies of the rank of Lieutenant or higher, or as otherwise agreed by the parties, as candidates for each of the positions of CITY Police Chief or Precinct Commander. The positions of Police Chief or Precinct Commander shall be appointed from said lists of qualified candidates by the City Manager. 9.2 Removal of Police Chief or Precinct Commander. 9.2.1 Removal by SHERIFF. The SHERIFF may remove the Police Chief or Precinct Commander at any time after consultation with the City Manager. 9.2.2 Removal By City Manager. The SHERIFF shall remove the Police Chief or Precinct Commander at any time after the written request and consultation of the City Manager. 9.2.3 Reduction of Precinct Commander's Rank Due to Economic Conditions. A reduction in Sheriff's Office Civil Service Rank due to economic necessity shall not be the sole basis for the removal of the appointed Precinct Commander by either the City Manager or the SHERIFF. 9.3 Duties of Police Chief. The Police Chief shall report to the City Manager or his/her designee and to the existing command structure within SHERIFF's Office. The duties of the Police Chief shall include: Page 8 of 18 9.3.1 Working with the City Manager or his/her designee to establish goals, objectives and performance measures for CITY police services which reflect specific needs within CITY; 9.3.2 Coordinating police activities within CITY, including hours of operation and CITY specific protocols and procedures, attending meetings and providing reports as requested by the City Manager and such other duties common to a City Police Chief including enforcement of CITY codes and ordinances; 9.3.3 Reviewing the performance of deputies assigned to CITY. Reporting to CITY Manager or his/her designee and SHERIFF any serious recommendations for performance improvement; 9.3.4 Identify duties of deputies assigned to CITY as specific needs arise or as requested by the City Manager or his/her designee within the context of established policies and procedures. Reporting to SHERIFF any changes in duty of CITY assigned deputies; 9.3.5 Overseeing implementation within CITY of all SHERIFF policies and procedures. Maintaining a copy of SHERIFF procedures on file at City Hall for CITY'S reference. SHERIFF shall be notified of any public disclosure requests to view or obtain a copy of the policies and procedures on file. 9.3.6 Notifying the City Manager or his/her designee of any change in SHERIFF procedures or policies, or resource as permitted by this agreement; 9.3.7 Identifying areas of supplemental training for deputies assigned to CITY. Making recommendations to SHERIFF for supplemental training. Making recommendations to the City Manager or his/her designee for training not provided by SHERIFF; 9.3.8 Providing supervision and direction to the Precinct Commander, Lieutenants and Sergeants assigned to CITY as well as other assigned personnel, and acting as liaison with SHERIFF Command Staff; 9.3.9 Maintaining communication between the City Manager and SHERIFF command structures to ensure that changes in SHERIFF policies are agreeable to CITY and that change in CITY policies are agreeable to SHERIFF. In the event a CITY procedure, policy, goal or operation differs from the SHERIFF'S, CITY Manager or his/her designee, SHERIFF and COUNTY shall meet and mutually ( determine which policy will prevail; and Page 9 of 18 9.3.10 Notifying the City Manager or his/her designee of any significant criminal occurrence or civil emergency within CITY or Region that would impact the public safety or operations of CITY. 9.4 Duties of the Precinct Commander. The Precinct Commander shall act as Chief in his/her absence and under the Chief as CITY Police Department's primary administrative assistant. 9.5 Duties of the City Manager. The City Manager or his/her designee shall have the responsibility of providing general direction and supervision to the assigned Police Chief relative to the furnishing of law enforcement services to CITY as set forth in chapter 35A.13 RCW and the terms of this Agreement. 9.6 Quarterly Meetings - Sheriff and City Manager. The SHERIFF and the City Manager shall meet on a quarterly basis to ensure regular communication and to seek joint consideration of all matters of concern regarding the law enforcement Agreement. Either party may invite representatives from their respective organizations to attend. It is intended that the Parties in these meetings review the Interlocal Agreement and discuss matters of mutual interest; monitor cost trends, work jointly on potential cost savings, revenue sources and other budgetary matters that may impact service levels; seek long- term sustainability of contract terms; consider changes in labor contracts, allocation of resources or other potential cost changes and changes to the cost allocation plan that may impact either party. The dates of these meetings will be determined by mutual agreement but should coincide with the budget cycles of each party. 9.7 Quarterly meeting — Financial Representatives. Representatives for CITY and COUNTY shall meet quarterly to discuss potential cost changes and changes to the COCAP,the LECAP or the CCM. SECTION NO. 10: OBSERVATION OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS CITY may participate with other cities that contract with COUNTY for law enforcement services to select no more than two(2)representatives from the contracting cities to observe labor negotiations between COUNTY, SHERIFF and the Collective Bargaining units representing the employees of the SHERIFF, provided that such observers adhere to rules established by COUNTY,the SHERIFF and the bargaining units for the negotiations. SECTION NO. 11: PROPERTY,EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING 11.1 Ownership of Property and Equipment. The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in association with either SHERIFF or CITY meeting their responsibilities under the terms of this Agreement, shall remain with the original owner at Page 10 of 18 all times to include termination, unless otherwise specifically and mutually agreed upon in writing by the Parties to this Agreement. 11.2 Stationery, Notices and Forms. CITY shall supply at its own cost and expense any special supplies, logos or patches, stationery, notices, forms where such must be issued in the name of CITY. 11.3 Additional Technology. CITY desires to maintain a police force that is trained and equipped with the latest technology. SHERIFF agrees to provide police service personnel providing services under this agreement that are trained and equipped with such technology as is customarily provided to deputies providing law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of Spokane County. Any technology not currently in use or not customarily provided to patrol deputies, may be requested by CITY or SHERIFF. Parties agree to meet and confer over the need for the acquisition, training, or use of new technology with the final decision regarding the acquisition and use of new technology resting solely with the SHERIFF so long as CITY and COUNTY have the necessary financial resources to acquire such technology and train deputies in its use. Such costs shall be incorporated into the LECAP. 11.4 Training. CITY has indicated that it may desire to have the deputies providing ( Services to CITY under the terms of this Agreement attend additional or supplemental training. The SHERIFF agrees not to unreasonably withhold approval of any written request(s) by CITY for deputies providing Services under the terms of this Agreement to attend additional or supplemental training. The SHERIFF may also require staff assigned to provide Services to CITY under the terms of this Agreement to participate in necessary state and federal training and conferences that focus on the prevention of crime and the protection of CITY'S citizens. The costs of any additional or supplemental training requested by CITY under this section and approved by the SHERIFF, or determined necessary by the SHERIFF shall be born solely by CITY. 11.5 Police Department Building, Maintenance, and Janitorial. CITY will provide offices, to include sufficient parking, for the City of Spokane Valley Police Department located at 12710 E. Sprague Avenue, City of Spokane Valley, 99216 or at such other location mutually agreed to between the CITY and SHERIFF. CITY shall provide all operation,maintenance and janitorial services for said offices. SECTION NO. 12: COMMUNITY IDENTITY 12.1 Patrol Vehicles. Patrol vehicles that are assigned to CITY may display the color, identification and other logo of CITY at CITY's sole expense. Additionally, the vehicles will indicate that they are SHERIFF vehicles. SHERIFF and CITY will determine the form of identification jointly. Page 11 of 18 12.2 Uniform. SHERIFF maintains a uniform directed by state law. It is a uniform that carries a great deal of pride. CITY recognizes that the assigned personnel will retain the uniform of the Spokane County Sheriffs Office; however, SHERIFF agrees that assigned personnel may wear additional identification in the nature of a pin,patch, uniform items, or other like identification indicating affiliation with CITY. The nature and design of any additional identification will be determined jointly by SHERIFF and CITY and provided to SHERIFF by CITY at CITY's sole expense. SECTION NO. 13: RECORDS All records prepared, owned, used or retained by COUNTY or SHERIFF in conjunction with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed COUNTY property and shall be made available to CITY upon request by the City Manager subject to the records retention schedule set forth by the Washington State Secretary of State, the attorney client and attorney work product privileges set forth in statute, court rule or case law. The Parties agree to cooperate in complying with the provisions of Chapter 42.56 RCW. SECTION NO. 14: UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES/IMPOSSIBILITY A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement I resulting from uncontrollable circumstances shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement. A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from any change in or new law, order, rule or regulation of any nature which renders providing of services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement legally impossible, and any other circumstances beyond the control of the SHERIFF, which render legally impossible the performance by the SHERIFF of its obligations under this Agreement, shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement. SECTION NO. 15: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES For the purpose of this section, the terminology "COUNTY" shall also include SHERIFF. The Parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. COUNTY shall be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of CITY,that CITY is interested only in the results to be achieved and that the right to control the particular manner, method and means in which the Services are performed is solely within the discretion of the SHERIFF. Any and all employees who provide services to CITY under this Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of the SHERIFF. The SHERIFF shall be solely responsible for the conduct and actions of all employees under this Agreement and any liability that may attach thereto. Likewise, no agent, employee,servant Page 12 of 18 or representative of CITY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the SHERIFF or COUNTY for any purpose. SECTION NO. 16: LIABILITY For the purpose of this Section, the terminology "COUNTY" shall also include the "PROSECUTING ATTORNEY." (a) COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against CITY, COUNTY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against CITY,and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against CITY and COUNTY and their respective officers, agents, and employees,COUNTY shall satisfy the same. (b) CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of CITY, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against COUNTY, CITY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against COUNTY and CITY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, CITY shall satisfy the same. (c) If the comparative negligence of the Parties and their officers and employees is a cause of such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the Parties in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such proportion. (d) Where an officer or employee of a Party is acting under the direction and control of the other Party, the Party directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity and/or omission giving rise to liability shall accept all liability for the other Party's officer or employee's negligence. • (e)Each Party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. (f) The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the Page 13 of 18 other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified Party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indemnitor's employees. The Parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. (g) COUNTY and CITY agree to either self insure or purchase polices of insurance covering the matters contained in this Agreement with coverages of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence with $5,000,000 aggregate limits including professional liability and auto. SECTION NO. 17: INITIATIVES AND LOCAL BUDGET REDUCTIONS The Parties recognize that revenue-reducing initiative(s)passed by the voters of Washington and/or local revenue reductions (i.e. loss of sales tax) and/or local government mandates may substantially reduce local operating revenue for CITY, COUNTY or both Parties. The Parties agree that it is necessary to have flexibility to reduce the contracted amount(s)in this Agreement in response to budget constraints resulting from the passage of State-wide revenue-reducing initiative(s) and/or local revenue reductions and/or local government mandates. If such an event occurs, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution in a timely fashion. SECTION NO. 18: DISPUTE RESOLUTION Any dispute regarding the interpretation of, failure to perform, or the costs for services assessed under the terms of this agreement between the SHERIFF, COUNTY or CITY which cannot be resolved between the respective parties shall be subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to writing and considered by the COUNTY CEO ("Chief Executive Officer") and the City Manager if it is a monetary dispute. If it is a non-monetary dispute, it shall be reduced to writing and considered by the SHERIFF and City Manager. If the COUNTY CEO or SHERIFF respectively and the City Manager cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. COUNTY or SHERIFF,respectively, and CITY shall have the right to designate one person each to act as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the Parties and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04A RCW. The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the respective Parties. SECTION NO. 19: ASSIGNMENT Page 14 of 18 No party may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written �t approval of the other Parties. Nothing in this section shall prohibit COUNTY or SHERIFF from contracting with third parties for services provided for in this Agreement. SECTION NO.20: NOTICES All notices called for or provided for in this Agreement shall be in writing and must be served on any of the Parties either personally or by certified mail, return-receipt requested, sent to the Parties at their respective addresses herein above given. Notices sent by certified mail shall be deemed served when deposited in the United States mail,postage prepaid. SECTION NO.21: VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each Party that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. SECTION NO.22: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The Parties shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. SECTION NO. 23: DISCLAIMER Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall not be construed in any manner that would limit either Party's authority or powers under law. SECTION NO. 24: HEADINGS The Section and subsection headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to, define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. SECTION NO.25: ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties. Parties have read and understand the whole of Page 15 of 18 the above Agreement and now state that no representations, promises or agreements not expressed in this Agreement have been made to induce either to execute the same. SECTION NO. 26: COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in any number of multiple signed originals, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. SECTION NO.27: AGREEMENT TO BE FILED COUNTY shall file this Agreement with such offices or agencies as required by chapter 39.34 RCW. SECTION NO. 28: TIME OF ESSENCE OF AGREEMENT Time is of the essence of this Agreement and in case any Party fails to perform the obligations on its part to be performed at the time fixed for the performance of the respective obligation by the terms of this Agreement, the other respective Party may, at its election, hold the other Party liable for all costs and damages caused by such delay. ( SECTION NO. 29: CHAPTER 39.34 RCW REQUIRED CLAUSES A. Purpose. See Section No. 3 above. B. Agreement to be Filed. See Section No.27 above. C. Duration. See Section No. 4 above. D. Termination. See Section No.4 above. E. Organization of Separate Entity and Its Powers. No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this Agreement. F. Responsibilities of the Parties. See applicable Sections within Agreement. G. Property upon Termination. See Section Nos. 4.4 and 11 above. SECTION NO.30: SEVERABILITY Page 16 of 18 The Parties agree that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision. SECTION NO. 31: THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement is intended for the benefit of COUNTY, CITY and SHERIFF and not for the benefit of any third parties. SECTION NO. 32. SURVIVAL Without being exclusive, Section 16, 20, and 21 of this Agreement shall survive any termination, expiration or determination of invalidity of this Agreement in whole or in part. Any other Sections of this Agreement which, by their sense and context, are intended to survive shall also survive. SECTION NO.33. MEDIA RELEASES Media releases concerning law enforcement activities covered under this Agreement will be prepared by the SHERIFF'S Public Information Officer. Any such release of information to the media that is deemed to be sensitive or likely to cause concern or alarm shall be provided to the City Manager before its release. CITY shall not issue any media releases regarding law enforcement activities covered under this Agreement without prior approval of the SHERIFF unless otherwise agreed by the Parties. SECTION NO.34: MODIFICATION This Agreement may only be modified in writing by the mutual written agreement of the Parties. (This space intentionally left blank) Y=, Page 17 of 18 ,----- IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the ( date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: Vi 7/./0 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ...-----;04:; `‘‘‘ OF SPOKANE CO Y, HINGTON ,--- 0 kibb4A 'II i4. '.6il 1:t: TA i 49 .i ° "eY ' .• it MARK RICHARD hair i • . • , / • , ATTEST: / ' • # . • ./ # • . -• • A. .., k , .• SEAL.•' 41" ,"' CLERK.OF THE B il,,•‘?is.•••:.•_• .ck‘./ Am414. — AO.:A / BONNIE MAGER, ice-Chd0 hrisi. , • DANIELA El CKSON /. , tf -, . 16 — 07/ TO a a MIELKE, Commissioner ********** DATED: aataat ir Zey) SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF: i ,---, ( 0 )00.--01.'"i'VICH * ******** DATED: atzi3 .„1"— //, c:).2d/e) CITY OF SliiVALLEY: Ag, , _ 1 I JACKS. ' terim City Manager (____2(4,)-- STINE BAINBRIDGE p•• City Clerk • Approved as to form os : . .4/ OF / 0* ce of the City Attorney ( , Page 18 of 18 • 1 i k • Sitandka • (- valley. .00 ( 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 4 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000+ Fax: 509.921.1008* cityhall@spokanevalley.org March 27, 2014 Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich 1100 West Mallon Public Safety Bldg, First Floor Spokane, WA 99260-0300 Dear Sheriff Knezovich, Based upon a joint effort of the City of Spokane Valley and the Spokane County Sheriffs Office, and following approval by the Spokane Valley City Council, I am pleased to request the following changes to the City's law enforcement services. The changes were mutually agreed upon in a meeting between the City and the Sheriffs Office held on February 26, 2014 and are pursuant to Section 5.1 of the Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Law Enforcement Services in the City of Spokane Valley. A ( ( 1. Adjust the service level FTEs set forth in Category One of Exhibit 1 of the Agreement by adding two (2) Patrol Deputies increasing the total patrol deputies by two (2). 2. Eliminate the position of Patrol Corporal from the dedicated patrol positions for Spokane Valley and use the six (6) Corporal positions to create two (2) additional Property Crime Detectives, one (1) new Patrol Deputy to work the Power Shift, and three (3) Patrol Sergeants. All these positions would be dedicated to the City of Spokane Valley Police Department. 3. Transfer three (3) Detectives from Shared Investigative Services to Category 1 and combine with the existing Spokane Valley Property Crimes Unit of six (6) Detectives and one (1) Sergeant, and enhance by transferring two (2) Patrol Corporal positions to Property Crime Detectives. This new unit will investigate both property crimes and drug crimes and will be comprised of one (1) Sergeant and eleven (11) Detectives, all of whom will be located at the Valley Precinct, and will be dedicated to Spokane Valley. 4. Form a Patrol Power Shift by taking one (1) Deputy from each of the four (4) ( existing patrol platoons, adding the two (2) new Patrol Deputies, and adding one (`---- 1 in-101 .D r (1) Deputy from the ranks of Corporal, creating a platoon of seven (7) Deputies who will work 10 hour shifts. Police Chief VanLeuven and Lt. Lyons have identified 3:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. as the best time for this shift. The shift schedule may be modified in the future to match the peak call-load period. The assigned staffing levels associated with the Power Shift will be three (3) Deputies on Monday, Tuesday, and Sunday; four (4) Deputies on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday; and seven (7) Deputies on Saturday. The minimum staffing levels of the Power Shift will be two (2) Deputies on Monday, Tuesday, and Sunday; three (3) Deputies on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday; and five (5) Deputies on Saturday. This letter serves as formal notification of the above listed requests pursuant to Section 5 of the Interlocal Agreement. The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley has authorized these requests and the costs associated with them. Thank you for your continued support in providing Law Enforcement services to the City of Spokane Valley. Sincerely, Mike ckson, City Manager Cc: Marshall Farnell, CEO Approved by ' -pc"eriff Ozzie Knezovich Date 2 c101-1Q6. SVPD Uniform and Patrol Vehicle Identity SVPD Uniform Options Members of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office regardless of assignment have the same uniform options. Deputies permanently assigned to SVPD wear the SVPD patch rather than the SCSO patch. The uniform options include a tan/green uniform (class-A and class-B), black jumpsuit, and a green jumpsuit. The green jumpsuit was authorized in September of 2015 to replace the black jumpsuit. The black jumpsuits are authorized for wear by deputies until September 20181 at which point they will be discontinued. The move to the green jumpsuit was initiated in part to help distinguish deputies from the officers of other regional agencies including SPD, Cheney PD, Liberty Lake PD, and WSP that all authorize a black jumpsuit. _- ._* .. .a+' Y o.1c. 1t y > arts t ,. s. , 1 I I MY= T ~ . .v.';., 9 • 7 4` l 4. r k ii„ ,, iii , _ _ _ , 443, An effort to further identify SVPD officers with a uniform that differentiates from the uniforms worn by other deputies or by officers from surrounding jurisdictions is somewhat problematic. Traditional municipal police uniforms are dark navy blue. This is true of all Spokane County municipalities that have their own police force. The Washinton State Patrol wears a medium blue uniform. Few options remain among traditional police uniforms. Another significant factor is the potential cost. Deputies typically maintain both the tan/green uniform (required by policy) and a jumpsuit. A change would necessitate the purchase of uniforms for nearly the entire Sheriff's Office since deputies often transfer between precincts or work overtime shifts 1 Three years is considered to be the useful life of the uniform. throughout the county or Spokane Valley. The initial cost outlay for a SVPD specific uniform breakes down as follows: Jumpsuit Light weight jumpsuit with patches and tax=$519.35 Medium weight jumpsuit with patches and tax=$568.43 Heavy weight jumpsuit with patches and tax=$594.55 Class-A Uniform One complete set including tax= $137.01 Class-B Uniform Two complete sets including tax= $252.12 To provide a light weight jumpsuit, one class-A uniform, and two class-B uniforms would cost$908.48 per deputy. Assuming that all 86 Spokane Valley dedicated personnel receive new uniforms the total cost is$78,129.28. Often, deputies assigned outside of Spokane Valley are transferred to Spokane Valley or work overtime shifts within Spokane Valley. To maintain uniformity and the Spokane Valley police identity would require outfitting an additional 60 (or so) deputies with SVPD uniforms for an additional cost of $54,508.80. Spokane Valley Police Vehicles Spokane Valley Police patrol vehicles have been primarily "ice blue" since incorporation in 2003. Ford discontinued ice blue as a standard color some years ago and for a time the cost of an "optional" color was paid2 to maintain uniformity. 40666 l 1 ammo t P*., Olt. ry yap.:.a wmmm , . w ., Ice Blue Ford Explorer3 based interceptor Beginning in 2014$900 per car was saved by purchasing interceptors painted the standard color"light blue metalic". This color is slightly darker than ice blue and generally not distinguishable unless the two colors are viewed together. __ „. ti � pLiki P a_ v t „ 4 all Q Light Blue Metalic Ford Explorer based interceptor 2 Optional color added approximately$900 to the cost of a new interceptor. 3 Ford discontinued the Crown Victoria in 2011. It was replaced by interceptors based on the Explorer or Taurus. Another cost saving4 measure in 2015 involved the purchase of three low mile, lease return interceptors from other departments. Two of these cars were Crown Victorias while the third was a Taurus. All three were dark blue. They were marked with contrasting color SVPD graphics. P I L IACA`E� �� Dark Blue Taurus based lease return interceptor It was the opinion of SVPD staff and then City Manager Jackson that the cost savings justified the departure from the traditional look of SVPD patrol vehicles. There was consensus that Spokane Valley citizens would clearly recognize the vehicles as Spokane Valley Police patrol vehicles. The cost estimate to paint these vehicles to match the traditional light blue SVPD patrol vehicles is$6,500 per car. Unmarked SVPD Vehicles Spokane Valley Police also uses a number of unmarked patrol vehicles. With the exception of traffic unit vehicles and vehicles assigned to SVPD patrol sergeants and lieutenants this was not intentional. In the effort to implement the take-home car program four unmarked vehicles that had previously been assigned to the disbanded unincorporated traffic unit were asigned to SVPD. 34.!R I i 0 \ r r I . ilmit I 1 1 as-_-0. I 1 � „ irr"wt6(6�(4&diISSIN{l{(1(llllllllQVr(�( .,,,.., ear Unmarked SVPD patrol vehicle 4 These vehicles cost approximately$12K each and had about 30K miles. SVPD staff plans to replace these unmarked vehicles with fully marked, lightbar equipped interceptors as soon as is practically possible. These are high mileage vehicles nearing the end of their useful service life and consequently, we do not have plans to repaint them. It is the intent of SVPD to continue to take advantage of the cost savings available in purchasing low mile lease return interceptors. In addition, SVPD will soon be testing the value of having SVPD Crown Victoria based interceptors refurbished. The refurbishment process includes rebuilding or replacing all mechanical components, repaint, refurbish or replace interior components, etc. This will be done at a cost substantially lower that the cost of a new interceptors. Since the refurbishment process includes repainting the vehicle all refurbished SVPD vehicles will be painted the appropriate shade of light blue. Unmarked Police Vehicles It is the perception of some citizens that the use of unmarked police vehicles violates Washington state law. This is based on a perception of what RCW 46.08.065 requires. Simply put, this statute requires that publicly owned vehicles be marked with the identity of the governing agency that owns the vehicle. The statute goes on however, to exempt law enforcement vehicles, "This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, or vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes". Some have taken this portion to mean that the exemption applies only to "undercover" police vehicles. This is an incorrect interpretation of the statute. Clearly established legal construction principles, specifically, the use of the word "or" indicate that the statue should be interpreted as applying the exemption individually and inclusively to: all sheriff's office vehicles, all local police department vehicles, or all vehicles used by any other local peace officers for undercover purposes. This interpretation of the exemption is shared by legal counsel representing Spokane County. A good example for comparison purposes is RCW 9A.36.031 Assault in the third degree. This statute applies to eleven different sets of elements, each separated by the word "or". Each set of elements stands on its own. For example, 9A.36.031(e) states that the statue applies to anyone assaulting a firefighter who is performing his official duties. While subsection (g) states that the statue applies to anyone assaulting a law enforcement officer who is performing his official duties. There is no dependent connection between these subsections. Perhaps rendering the entire issue moot is the last sentence of the statute: "The appropriate governing body may provide by rule or ordinance for marking of passenger motor vehicles as prescribed in subsection (2) of this section or for exceptions to the marking requirements for local governmental agencies for the same purposes and under the same circumstances as permitted for state agencies under subsection (3) of this section. The Spokane BoCC took the further step of specifically exempting Spokane County Sheriff vehicles from this marking requirement by passing Resolution 15-0553. 5 New Ford Explorer interceptor with up fit costs(specific to the Explorer) is approximately$37K. Refurbished Crown Victoria =$20K with no significant up fit costs since shields,light bars,and other Crown Victoria specific equipment is already owned by the Sheriff's Office. OLIC,6, WA 2003 SVPD Vehicle Use Advantages of Take-Home Patrol Vehicle Policy The primary advantages include: • Additional deputy time in the field—Prior to the take-home car program deputies were required to respond to the Spokane Valley Precinct at the beginning of their shift. For accountability purposes the deputies were required to inspect the vehicle for damage and the presence and proper function of vehicle equipment (including rifle and shotgun). A vehicle search was also required to verify that no property or contraband had been left in the vehicle by a prior user or detainee. The deputy would then load their gear and if necessary warm or cool the vehicle to ensure that the interior temperature of the vehicle was compatible with the mobile data computer(MDC)1. Finally,the deputy would dock the MDC and complete the procedure of logging into the computer aided dispatch (CAD) system. This entire process typically required about 20 to 25 minutes and occurred at both ends of the shift. In contrast, the take-home car policy requires deputies to be within their district ready to work at the beginning of their shift resulting in an additional 45 minutes of availability per deputy per shift. • Ability to put additional deputies in the field for major events—With individually assigned patrol vehicles SVPD is far more able to meet the needs of the community during a major event. For example, during the recent wind storm event patrol staffing levels were doubled by holding over all day shift patrol personnel for the duration of the storm to assist nightshift with the enormous call load. This would not have been possible without individually assigned vehicles. • Improved Morale—Take-home cars are obviously viewed as a perk by patrol deputies. Not only is there a cost saving for the deputy, but the deputy's personal vehicle is not identified or vandalized by anti-police elements within the community. It is noteworthy that the assignment of take-home vehicles is an advantage that the Sheriff's Office has over SPD. • Improved Accountability—Individually assigned patrol vehicles are generally better cared for than rotational pool vehicles. In addition, it is a simple matter for supervision to identify and correct any employees that are not meeting the vehicle care and use standard set forth in policy. Implementation of SVPD Take-Home Vehicle Program Since no additional funding for vehicles was available it took several years to gradually build the fleet to the required number of patrol cars. This required a concerted effort by SCSO garage mechanics maintaining the vehicles and the deputies driving them to extend the life of the vehicles. In March of 2015 sufficient vehicles were available to assign a patrol vehicle to all patrol deputies assigned to SVPD. 1 Mobile data computers become inoperable at the hot or cold temperature extremes common within a vehicle interior. Vehicle Use A common question from Spokane Valley Council and staff members is why SVPD vehicles are seen outside of the city limits of Spokane Valley. While there are numerous legitimate reasons why this may occur the following summarizes the most common: • Driving to or from duty • Driving to or from training2 • Follow-up investigation on a Spokane Valley call outside Spokane Valley • Driving to or from jail,juvenile detention, hospital, court, etc. • Providing back-up assistance to officers, deputies,troopers outside of Spokane Valley • Travel to search warrant service, critical incident, special unit (SWAT, EDU, etc.) response 2 The SCSO Training Center,SPD Police Academy,and all shooting ranges and EVOC courses are all outside Spokane Valley. O LIC SVPD Power Shift Update In 2014 Spokane Valley City Council approved a plan that facilitated the creation of Power Shift. The plan added two patrol deputy positions to SVPD and converted the six previously underutilized Patrol Corporal positions into three patrol sergeant positions, two detective positions, and one patrol deputy position. Normal patrol platoon staffing was reduced from 11 to 10, freeing up four more deputies for Power Shift. Power Shift Personnel 4 deputies from current patrol platoons 2 new deputies approved by SV City Council 1 deputy from converted patrol cpl. position 7 Power Shift positions Power Shift Schedule Analysis of call load data revealed the period of peak call load. Power Shift was designed to cover this period (1500-0100)with other factors necessitating that the Power Shift hours be shifted somewhat into the nightshift period. SVPD Citizen Initiated CFS Average CFS per Hour per Year 350 - /111116. 300 Air 1 250 200 Sun-Th / Avg Fri-Sat 150 Avg 100 \ 50 / 0 I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I IIII I 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Power Shift Staffing The following illustrates how Power Shift will look when fully implemented: Hours: 1500-0100 Days: 1 Sergeant plus 4 deputies work Wed.-Sat. 3 deputies work Sat.-Tue. Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Assigned Staff 3 3 4 4 4 7 3 Minimum Working 2 2 3 3 3 5 2 Power Shift Partial Implementation In March of 2015 sufficient staffing became available for partial implementation of Power Shift. A sergeant and four deputies were assigned to work Wednesday through Saturday. Initial analysis of 2015 response time data shows that the presence of Power Shift reduces response times by approximately 68%1 between the hours 1500 and 1930. In addition,the partial implementation of Power Shift has improved average patrol staffing levels2 for 2015 by 6.1%when compared to 2014 levels. With SVPD staffing levels expected to remain roughly the same throughout 2016, full implementation of Power Shift is not anticipated in 2016. Other Effects of Staffing Reorganization In addition to Power Shift,the staffing reorganization approved by SVCC in 2014 included the conversion of 3 patrol corporal positions into patrol sergeant positions. One of these sergeants is responsible for the supervision of Power Shift. The other two are assigned to the patrol platoons such that there are two sergeants assigned to each platoon. This reduces supervisor overtime and allows for improved continuity of supervision. Two patrol corporal positions were converted to detective positions and attached to the Spokane Valley Investigative Unit. Unfortunately, staffing shortages have prevented the ability to consistently place personnel in these detective positions. 1 68%for priority 2 CFS and 65.5%for priority 3 CFS. 2 Based on overall hourly coverage. OLICF' Law Enforcement Recruitment, Retention, and Staffing Levels A new paradyme exists with regard to the recruitment and retention of law enforcement personnel. In the past, law enforcement agencies need only post openings to generate a large list of potential candidates from which they could select the the most talented personnel. For example, in Spokane County in the early 1990s it was not uncommon to see over 900 applicants take the civil service test for deputy sheriff. Unfortunately, by 2004 there were only 333 applicants and by 2014 the number of applicants had dropped to 93. Additionally, cultural changes have reduced the proportion of law enforcement applicants that meet the standards of SCSO. Extensive drug use, criminal activity, sexual deviancy, etc. have increased among the applicants reducing the number of potentially acceptable candidates. Currently, it is necessary to process approximately 20 candidates from the civil service eligibility list to obtain 1 worthy of hiring. Regionally, there are a number of law enforcement agencies vying for applicants within this dwindling pool of potential candidates, SCSO and SPD being the largest. SCSO has lost eight deputies to SPD through lateral transfer and instances where SCSO is processing an applicant that is subsequently hired by SPD are not uncommon. Contributing to the competition between agencies is the fact that law enforcement personnel throughout the state are aging. SCSO Commissioned Age (as of 3/1/16) 14 - 13 12 12 12 10 10 10 0 0 0 8 8 8 - 8 8 7 - - / / - - 66 - - 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 - 4 44 4 - 3 I 3 I 3333 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 III I IIII , io I0 °111 0000 ' 0 21222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869 The average age of Sheriff's Office commissioned personnel is 43.87 years with 19%of the force currently eligible to retire. Only 28%of the commissioned force is under the age of 40. These numbers closely match the statewide figures' illustrating that Washington law enforcement agencies are in hiring mode to replace losses due to an unprecedented number of retirements2. 1 According to the LEOFF Plan 2 Retirement Board Jan. 2016 newsletter the average age of all LEOFF Plan 2 members is 43.6 with 25%of Plan 2 members eligible to retire and 33%under the age of 40. 2 According to the LEOFF Plan 2 Retirement Board Jan. 2016 newsletter,there were a record number of LEOFF retirements in 2014. This record was subsequently broken in 2015 with a new record high. In recent years, SCSO has been hiring commissioned personnel as quickly as possible. For the period Jan.1, 2013 through the end of 2015 SCSO hired 48 new deputies of which 35 remain, resulting in an attrition rate for new deputies of over 27%. During this same period SCSO lost a total of 52 deputies for a net loss of 17 commissioned personnel. The graph below summarizes the reasons for the loss of these personnel. SCSO Commissioned Personnel Loses 2013-2015 25 — 22 20 15 10 9 8 5 5 5 0 Retire* Lateral to Termination** New hire Fail to Suicide Resign to other Resignation Complete Other Career Department Training Field *Includes 3 medical retirements **Includes resign in lieu of termination In 2015 SCSO contracted with Public Safety Testing in an effort to gain access to a larger, higher quality pool of applicants. In addition, a recruiting team was created and tasked with recruitment at regional colleges, universities, Fairchild Air Force Base, etc. While it is premature to judge the success of these measures, early indications are that the efforts will be fruitful. It is important to note at this point that from the decision to hire a deputy until a viable law enforcement officer is created is approximately 17 months. Also recall that about 20 candidates must be processed for every viable applicant selected and that over one out of every four applicants hired will not successfully complete training. This means that for every successful new law enforcement officer the Sheriff's Office must process over 27 applicants. The prehire process takes approximately 12 weeks and includes a written test, physical ability test, background check, integrity interviews, polygraph, psychological exam, medical exam, and oral boards. Contracting with Public Safety Testing has reduced the burden on SCSO staff by conducting the initial written test and physical ability test. Once hired, new candidates are placed in the soonest available 19 week academy class. Recent waiting periods for the next available academy class have been approximately 5 months. Following the academy, new deputies begin a three to four week post academy orientation and training program and are then placed in the field training program for an additional 14 to 18 weeks. Those successfully completing the training process are then eligible for assignment to autonomous patrol duties. From the decision to hire a new deputy to the point at which a new deputy is working a patrol district is approximately 17 months. • Pre-hire process= 12 weeks • Wait for next available academy= 22 weeks • WSCJTC Academy= 19 weeks • Post academy orientation = 3 weeks • Field training program = 14 to 18 weeks Total =70 to 74 weeks Currently (March 1, 2016), SCSO has 11 vacant comissioned positions, but this does not tell the entire story. There are also 143 additional personnel in various stages of training that are not yet available for assignment to autonomous law enforcement duties. This results in 25 unfilled positions out of a total commissioned force of 222 deputies. These open positions are distributed throughout the Sheriff's Office with 12 of these open positions currently carried within SVPD. With anticipated 2016 retirements and the current number of new personnel within the training pipeline it is expected that 2016 will end with SVPD staffing levels remaining status quo; however, fluctuations are expected. ' Eight currently in the Basic Law Enforcement Academy and Six in various stages of field training. QOLlC4 sp AsATK WA 2003 SVPD Unit Accountability A frequent question from Spokane Valley council and staff personnel has been, "How do we know that deputies assigned to Spokane Valley are actually working within Spokane Valley?" Notwithstanding the presence of active supervision that oversees call response within Spokane Valley, the predominant factor that keeps Spokane Valley personnel within Spokane Valley is the significantly greater call load within Spokane Valley when compared to the adjacent unincorporated districts. The map below shows Spokane Valley and portions of the adjacent Sheriff's Office districts. Districts 9 and 10 continue south to include the entire southern portion of Spokane County including the numerous municipalities contracting with the Sheriff's Office. District 8 continues north for several miles and east to the state line. District 8 is also responsible for Millwood. mil ntib _ . I:IIIRIIIIII . g-11 - 'Oi. t iU■31�w� �n :tail nmm�nin__€ _._ s� I - ■l' osidill. _ 1...■ 111111111?:'1:-___-� Illl. �r Ti.m�■,�- —per � �-'E7t•■•- .Ildllll;'i EFEL� , o � �1.�.'•- . =_=Ill _ � :•� : � loam , `.Mill:==• � � - ��n- .��11��o�" ,� ....fes. r 11531E1—.07s42.,,.��9n NX �� - ... . =■ t:..n-02.,- _ _. Glomi■tial_. : ,r .- ,. 91.�N1.i..11.CJI r fi.E�lig■� Y �� MM. l'�� '�7�.R..III.Y1l�l��II��ll��g■ I��ti�� nll ■......la .. i u M ri■.r.... . ■ems,■lanam w e I. 111 1' ��... ia� 'J6`'.v�111:�... ,,;.:..i1g.1- g �.:.�F-,I��.17�mmur�. �� --"" I,!1,==i " 1� = rmar;.'Ar.o=ZFr ■ ■o itilligziin:nompk , _41), _ riegoamunii j tel laa. - :e _ 211• -.44111i1. ,w\il y� ..4.-,. arn.-- -- 44- h fir ■11 I Wilt 4 y, :::•;.__: 1 ir 11.1 Bum* A e3617.1.-=L:Lima'_ .11 'IMI Wildi iygll it • nftmini .4- AL . ik + ° 2I S okane Coun Sheriff Districts — The average annual call load1 for districts 8, 9, and 10 which include Millwood and the south county municipalities is 1,735 calls for service (CFS) per district. By comparison, the six Spokane Valley districts average 4,243 CFS. The large call load simply prevents Spokane Valley deputies from leaving Spokane Valley unnecessarily. A Spokane Valley deputy would be swiftly corrected by his sergeant and/or his peers if he were to be unnecessarily unavailable for calls in his district. 1 Counting 2015 citizen initiated CFS where at least one deputy responded. Average Annual Citizen Initiated CFS SVPD vs. Adjacent County Districts 2015 4500 4243 4000 3500 3000 2500 ■Districts 8,9,and 10 2000 1735 ■SVPD Districts 1500 1000 500 0 Districts 8,9,and 10 SVPD Districts Unfortunately,the current computer aided dispatch (CAD) system does not provide the ability to determine how often unincorporated Sheriff's Office units are assisting on CFS within the city limits of Spokane Valley or vice versa. However, from experience in monitoring radio traffic it is clear that unincorporated Sheriff's Office (and Liberty Lake PD) units frequently assist SVPD deputies within Spokane Valley. Another deficiency of the CAD system is the inability to determine the number of CFS per deputy. SVPD provides Spokane Valley with a "calls per deputy"figure annually for the purpose of establishing trends. This figure is computed by adding the total annual number of CFS receiving deputy response plus deputy initiated incidents and dividing the total by the average annual staffing level. It is important to understand that this number is far below the true number of calls per deputy because the majority (in excess of 60%) of the CFS require multiple deputy response. In 2011, changes were made to the CAD system in an attempt to capture a meaningful figure for calls per deputy. The change (called SSTAT) consisted of the addition of a series of codes that individual deputies append to a call prior to clearing. The CAD system can then generate statistics based on the entered clearance codes. Unfortunately,this system is not foolproof. It requires all involved deputies to memorize and append the appropriate codes to each call upon clearance and most call types require that multiple codes be entered. Entering the codes is burdensome and time consuming and often incomplete, particularly during periods of peak call load where deputies are responding continuously from call to call. Individual spot checks show that Spokane Valley deputies are underreporting their activity;yet, SSTAT data for 2013 show a minimum average of 11.06 calls per Spokane Valley deputy per shift. Supervision SVPD schedules are structured to provide continuous supervision of patrol personnel. One of the primary duties of a patrol sergeant is to manage call response when necessary. Experienced patrol deputies typically handle call volume appropriately; nevertheless, patrol sergeants maintain a continuous connection to CAD which provides an instantaneous summary of the current status of each deputy under their command along with a list of CFS that are waiting for deputy response. Sergeants ensure that calls are handled in appropriate order with regard to priority. Another question raised by SV staff regards the process used to determine that deputies are actually working when assigned. This question stems from the take-home car program that allows deputies to check into service in their district without checking in to the Spokane Valley Precinct. Two patrol sergeants are assigned to each platoon and are, in addition to the aforementioned duties, responsible for scheduling their platoon personnel. The sergeants maintain a schedule of the entire six month long markup'and also create daily schedules. Patrol sergeants work a schedule that puts them at work 30 minutes prior to the start time of their personnel. One of their first steps upon arrival at work is to check the message phone used by deputies to call in sick and to adjust the schedule accordingly. The daily markup' is then created from the six month schedule including any changes from the sick message line. Patrol sergeants use CAD to verify that the deputies scheduled to work are logged into the CAD system and available at the beginning of their shift. Heavy call load and the geographic compactness of Spokane Valley facilitate the sergeant's ability to ensure that their personnel are appropriately working when and where they should. 2 A sample page showing one month of the six month markup is included at the end of this document. 3 A sample of a daily markup is included at the end of this document. Spcik n Val ley Police Officers by Unit 2016 Spokane Valley Police: Commissioned Officers by Function 70 60 58 50 ' 40 ' 30 ' 20 I 12 10 7 4.5 4 3.5 3.5 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Qa,��°\ .e, ��a•\° . e, �� .ec,, d,sk a,s. .,.cf, �� .,, \a�°a ok, 6., ac, (<0c°a \``\,coo `�e, ��% •OCL �e9\)- 64-L cSb. •'' c'�� 0;\� c e'� G�° ,sept t2< \'1 �a, aQ° �e �� °� ��°° P� e�� e \�°� Sea het a °e Q fir° \�\Qt <a�- Oe' �a Se+O \C` \Cy" aie Spok e Valley 2016 Contract Law Enforcement Cost by Function �, Spokane Valley Police Cost by Function 00 $10,000,000 N I V l0 $9,000,000 N $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 iri- I-• $3,000,000 00 U"I -VI- -.00 00 o -VI- $2,000,000 �+ $2,000,000 00 'N l.0 Cn v+ _ _ V l0 In In A A to t/,. tn. N Ln W W Ol Ol W tW N N i4- t/) /)- -../?- t ) 1/2- tri- Co O$1,000,000UJ cr,00 LO VlW W W W L. ?in ?in py N N o -NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - • Qa'c.( •�e��a\•SQa�CS`�e�Q�'\C�`�ac" caa�ada' °p��.Oe°°�a� *�°° c`c)\`Cre e�`°��e'°°e°�`c) .5-� a`°�,�9 �°�`eo`°>�`°e��c°��SQ°�a\c'\�� J� .°k O 0- cca \•', v t'ca <,6"�e 5 •` �e boy �a� aQ ae� ¢�` �O �6 �a�°,,cce `�`°�a� Pale Oa° Q�oC 0��°� ee,c- c .ae��e a•�4 �`e, J° oGi.4 ��Ja ��e� sce`'Z °�` co� ° \� Seems 5`¢0��`°Oe k+ e °° Qt° �� °•` at OC&S �e Ne Q.co� �r \�`��\ e�,`a5 ems`, �` fie+ �� \o • 5 5ae \,°�c Is Spokane _Val ley Law Enforcement Comparison 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Patrol Officers Calls for (Does not Comparable Police Costs Service Crime Rate Commisioned Comm.Officers include Patrol Officers Police Costs Per Capita Per Patrol Group A City Population Officers per 1,000 Pop. Supervisors) per 1,000 Pop. (2015 Budg.) Calls for Service Officer Offenses Everett 105,800 201 1.90 104 0.98 $ 33,922,861 $ 321 175,424 1,687 80.4 Renton 98,470 120 1.22 70 0.71 $ 27,720,705 $ 282 61,537 879 88.4 Yakima 93,220 151 1.62 123 1.32 $ 30,589,258 $ 328 81,000 659 99.3 Federal Way 90,760 131 1.44 76 0.84 $ 24,592,324 $ 271 59,731 786 105 Bellingham 83,580 110 1.32 69 0.83 $ 26,881,872 $ 322 54,498 790 105.8 Kirkland 83,460 98 1.17 58 0.69 $ 21,072,474 $ 252 48,000 828 49 Kennewick 78,290 101 1.29 47 0.60 $ 18,309,559 $ 234 101,622 2,162 74.7 Auburn 75,545 110 1.46 64 0.85 $ 23,975,619 $ 317 71,825 1,122 121.1 Average 1.43 0.85 $ 291 1,114 90.46 Spokane Valley 93,340 105 1.12 47 0.50 $ 19,485,950 $ 209 56,712 1,207 73.9 - Kennewick voters approved 2.5%utility tax in 1995 to fund 21 police and 11 fire positions. (Rates have since been raised by Council). - Federal Way has a voter approved 1.75%utility tax that helps fund 24.5 police FTEs. Other Cities Patrol Officers Calls for (Does not Comparable Service Crime Rate Commisioned Comm.Officers include Patrol Officers Police Costs Police Costs Per Patrol Group A City Population Officers per 1,000 Pop. Supervisors) per 1,000 Pop. (2015 Budg.) Per Capita Calls for Service Officer Offenses Spokane 213,100 309 1.45 197.00 0.92 $ 60,028,545 $ 282 147,451 748 116.1 Lakewood 58,400 100 1.71 51 0.87 $ 21,114,213 $ 362 55,000 1,078 112.5 Average 1.58 0.90 $ 322 913 114.30 Spokane Valley 93,340 105 1.12 47 0.50 $ 19,485,950 $ 209 56,712 1,207 73.9 Spokane Val ley Growth Trends 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Avg. %Increase Citizen-Initiated Calls For Police Service 21,054 20,609 22,288 23,065 23,975 25,511 3.84% #of taxed parcels 34,085 34,209 34,266 34,286 34,454 34,512 0.25% Assessed Value $ 7,169,492,602 $ 7,140,947,644 $ 7,087,523,395 $6,921,825,295 $7,168,991,028 $7,393,971,582 0.62% Value per Parcel $ 210,342 $ 208,745 $ 206,838 $ 201,885 $ 208,074 $ 214,243 0.37% Population 89,755 90,110 90,550 91,490 92,050 93,340 0.78% Sales Tax Receipts $ 14,097,300 $ 14,857,749 $ 15,427,377 $ 16,587,617 $ 17,440,083 $ 18,209,568 5.12% Sptkan4000 � Val ley Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Actual % Change 2010 $ 16,409,822 2011 $ 16,687,516 1.7% 2012 $ 17,053,167 2.1% 2013 $ 17,420,905 2.1% 2014 $ 17,181,226 -1.4% Avg % change 1.15% Provider: Spokane County Current Agreement Start Date: January 1, 2010 Current Agreement End Date: Four-year original term and then automatic four-year renewals. Termination Notice: 18 months but current term must be completed. Current term ends December 31, 2017. History ➢ 2003 Original Interlocal Agreement ➢ 2003 SCOPE Amendment ➢ 2008 Forensic Accounting Review of Charges ➢ 2009 ICMA Study— Evaluation of contracted cervices and in-house estimate. ➢ 2010 New Interlocal Agreement— Revised Cost Methodology ➢ Added an Administrative Lt (Asst. Chief), School Resource Officer, and two patrol officers. ➢ Eliminated corporals and created dedicated property and drug crime unit. ➢ Created a Power Shift to better address high call loads. Challenges ➢ Filling vacant positions and retaining experienced officers. Cost Control Measures ➢ Negotiating exclusion of LEOFF 1 charges. ➢ Eliminating duplicative jail charges ➢ Negotiating credit for public safety building and garage charges in recognition of Valley precinct. ➢ Negotiating reduction in commissioned officer charge in recognition of vacant positions. Sptkan4000 � Val ley Detention Services Detention Services Cost $ % Change Usage 2010 Actual $ 1,113,641 3.70% 2011 Actua I $ 1,226,600 9.2% 4.00% 2012 Actua I $ 1,362,020 9.9% 4.50% 2013 Actual $ 1,201,659 -13.3% 3.76% 2014 Actual $ 1,168,024 -2.9% 3.43% 2015 Estimated $ 1,159,853 -0.7% 3.00% Avg % change 0.81% Provider: Spokane County Current Agreement Start Date: January 1, 2010 Current Agreement End Date: Three year original term and then automatic one-year renewals. Termination Notice: 180 days History ➢ 2003 Original Jail and Geiger Agreements ➢ 2005 Replacement Agreements ➢ 2010 Combined Jail and Geiger agreements into single Detention Services Agreement. ➢ 2012 Settlement Agreement for duplicate charges claim. ➢ Combined separate programs with separate rates into one cost with simplified methodology. ➢ Electronic Home Monitoring was brought back after earlier elimination. Challenges ➢ Deferred Capital Improvements and Maintenance ➢ Overcrowding ➢ Fixed costs, Geiger costs, other users reducing days Cost Control Measures ➢ Reduce incarceration due to Driving While License Suspended Charges by utilizing Pre- File Diversion Program. ➢ Increase usage of alternatives to incarceration when appropriate by maximizing use of prosecution and court services. ➢ Evaluate housing options. ➢ Offset costs by increasing revenue from other agencies (Federal and State) Sptkan.000 � Val ley District Court District Court Total Cases % Change Cost $ % Change 2010 13,137 $ 946,353 2011 10,519 -19.9% $ 996,205 5.0% 2012 10,015 -4.8% $ 917,135 -8.6% 2013 9,088 -9.3% $ 868,862 -5.6% 2014 8,763 -3.6% $ 805,811 -7.8% 2015 7,255 -17.2% $ 670,945 -20.1% Avg %change -11.87% Avg %change -6.88% Provider: Spokane County Current Agreement Start Date: January 1, 2005, Amended 2010 and 2012. Current Agreement End Date: One year original term and then automatic one-year renewals. Termination Notice: 180 days but subject to RCW 3.50.810 requiring at least one year prior to February 1st of the year in which all District Court Judges are subject to election. The next elections will be in 2018 which means notice would have to occur by February 1 of 2017. History ➢ 2003 Original Interlocal Agreement ➢ 2005 Replacement Interlocal Agreement ➢ 2012 Amendment incorporating a workload analysis, full allocation of cases, and pay as you go features with quicker reconciliations. ➢ 2009 Spokane Valley study conducted by State Department of Commerce with support by internal analyst. Challenges ➢ Coordination between Court and Public Safety Goals (Use of Alternatives, Docket Schedules, True Diversion) Cost Control Measures ➢ Replaced outdated weighted measures from the state with local workload analysis. ➢ Incorporated new methodology that properly accounts for civil, small claims, and mental health cases, placing larger share of cost allocation to these cases that are not the City's responsibility. ➢ Pre-file Diversion Program for DWLS3 cases. ➢ True diversion for electronic tickets. ➢ Pursue Court budget reflective of workload. Sptkan � Val ley Public Defender Public Defender Usage %Change Cases %Change Cost %Change 2010 35.05% 2,885 $ 561,229 2011 34.99% -0.2% 2,731 -5.3% $ 700,950 19.9% 2012 37.85% 8.2% 3,298 20.8% $ 699,294 -0.2% 2013 33.94% -10.3% 2,795 -15.3% $ 647,135 -8.1% 2014 33.69% -0.7% 2,744 -1.8% $ 614,944 -5.2% 2015 33.10% -1.8% 2,536 -7.6% Avg %change -1.14% Avg. %change -2.58% Avg %change 4.75% Provider: Spokane County Current Agreement Start Date: January 1, 2005 Current Agreement End Date: Automatically renews each year Termination Notice: 180 Days History ➢ 2003 Initial Interlocal Agreement ➢ 2005 Replacement Interlocal Agreement ➢ 2008 and 2009 Interlocal Agreement and amendments for participation in relicensing program. ➢ 2009 Spokane Valley study conducted by State Department of Commerce with support by internal analyst. ➢ 2012 Evaluation of public defender service options by internal team and consultant (temporary employee) ➢ 2015-16 Amendment adopting new methodology for enhanced investigator services Challenges ➢ Caseload Standards ➢ Required Investigative Support ➢ Adequate Representation Cost Control Measures ➢ Proper Accounting of State Patrol Cases ➢ Negotiated investigator cost methodology ➢ Evaluation of weighted caseloads and calendaring of cases ➢ Successfully applied for state grants to offset impacts of caseload standards Sptkan � 4,00.0*Va1ley Prosecutor Prosecutor Usage % Change Cases % Costs $ % Change 2010 34.15% 3,018 $ 395,389 2011 34.11% -0.1% 3,147 4.3% $ 412,370 4.1% 2012 37.66% 10.4% 3,370 7.1% $ 424,375 2.8% 2013 33.28% -11.6% 2,819 -16.4% $ 389,626 -8.9% 2014 34.02% 2.2% 2,840 0.7% $ 393,890 1.1% Avg %change -0.09% Provider: Spokane County Current Agreement Start Date: January 1, 2005 Current Agreement End Date: Automatically Renews for One Year Terms Termination Notice: 180 Days History ➢ First Agreement from 2003-2004 ➢ New Agreement started in 2005 ➢ Memorandum of Understanding— City zoning and adult entertainment cases have separate hourly charge. ➢ Amended in 2010—Changing indirect cost calculation, moving some costs to indirect costs and modifying the infraction cost methodology. ➢ 2009 Spokane Valley study conducted by State Department of Commerce with support by internal analyst. ➢ 2012 Evaluation of prosecution service options by internal team and consultant (temporary employee) ➢ 2013 Staff analysis of effectiveness of attorneys attending infraction dockets Challenges ➢ Increased supervisory costs ➢ Additional attorneys added in 2015 Cost Control Measures ➢ Negotiated methodology that spreads costs among all departments and funds that utilize services ➢ Resolve land use cases without going to court and incurring additional contract charges Sptkan � 4,00.0*Va1ley Animal Control Animal Control #of incidents %Change Actual %Change 2004 8,479 $ 375,137 2005 9,063 6.9% $ 372,491 -0.7% 2006 8,798 -2.9% $ 377,232 1.3% 2007 8,644 -1.8% $ 387,190 2.6% 2008 8,417 -2.6% $ 329,642 -17.5% 2009 7,737 -8.1% $ 322,570 -2.2% 2010 7,648 -1.2% $ 299,319 -7.8% 2011 7,064 -7.6% $ 334,696 10.6% 2012 7,356 4.1% $ 319,382 -4.8% 2013 6,714 -8.7% $ 343,877 7.1% 2014 6,714 0.0% $ 287,081 -19.8% 2015 6,043 -10.0% $ 290,228 1.1% 2016 $ 291,209 0.3% Avg %change -3.08% Avg %change -2.11% Provider: Spokane County Current Agreement Start Date: January 1, 2014 Current Agreement End Date: December 31, 2033. Termination Notice: 180 days (Debt Service Obligation remains) History ➢ 2003 Interim Animal Control Services Memorandum of Understanding ➢ 2003 Interlocal Agreement ➢ 2005 Interlocal Agreement ➢ 2010 Discussions with Spokane and County regarding Regional System ➢ 2011 County-initiated ballot measure for new shelter failed ➢ 2012 City undertook competitive process, selecting SCRAPS at a cost reduction over existing services, even with the addition of a new shelter, without raising taxes. ➢ 2014 New Interlocal Agreement for Regional System and New Shelter Challenges ➢ Lower than anticipated license revenue Cost Control Measures ➢ Negotiated Fixed Rate with CPI cap ➢ Cultivate revenues (licenses, boarding,vet, retail) Sptkan � Val ley Pre-Tria I Pretrial Usage % Change Actual % Change 2010 32.84% $ 91,735 2011 31.48% -4.1% $ 106,362 13.8% 2012 32.95% 4.7% $ 111,480 4.6% 2013 31.82% -3.4% $ 108,314 -2.9% 2014 36.11% 13.5% $ 117,048 7.5% Avg %change 2.37% Avg %change 6.09% Provider: Spokane County Current Agreement Start Date: January 1, 2005 Current Agreement End Date: Automatically renews each year. Termination Notice: 180 Days. History ➢ 2003 Initial Interlocal Agreement ➢ 2005 Replaced with New Interlocal Agreement ➢ 2013 Amendment to change calculation of indirect costs. ➢ 2009 Spokane Valley study conducted by State Department of Commerce with support by internal analyst Challenges ➢ Large cost increases from inception (Some additional functions such as Early Case Resolution) Cost Control Measures ➢ Evaluating options for consolidation ➢ Evaluating usage calculation Sptkan4,000 � Val ley Emergency Management Emergency Management Costs $ % Change 2010 $ 73,657 2011 $ 79,758 7.6% 2012 $ 73,026 -9.2% 2013 $ 80,338 9.1% 2014 $ 82,237 2.3% 2015 $ 88,070 6.6% Avg % change 3.57% Provider: Spokane County Current Agreement Start Date: 2012 Current Agreement End Date: Until Terminated Termination Notice: 180 Days History ➢ 2005 Interlocal Agreement ➢ 2012 Replacement Interlocal Agreement Challenges ➢ Fluctuating Indirect Costs Cost Control Measures ➢ Costs determined by population percentage, controlling costs ➢ City Manager serves on Emergency Management Policy Board and provides policy guidance, budget review and approval of goals, objectives and expense prioritization Sptkan � .00*Va1ley Probation Provider: Spokane County Current Agreement Start Date: January 1, 2005 Current Agreement End Date: Automatically renews each year Termination Notice: 180 Days History ➢ 2003 Initial Interlocal Agreement ➢ 2005 Replacement Interlocal Agreement allowed County to keep all probation fees in return for providing the service. Challenges N/A Cost Control Measures N/A Spcikanc\ `` .000\a1 lei 2014 Public Safety Services Cost Comparison Population Jail Per Capita Cost Population Public Defender$ Per Capita Cost Everett 104,900 $ 2,199,054 $ 21 Everett 104,900 $ 1,147,819 $ 11 Renton 97,130 $ 4,160,380 $ 43 Renton 97,130 $ 450,000 $ 5 Yakima 93,080 $ 3,530,104 $ 38 Yakima 93,080 $ 604,480 $ 6 Federal Way 90,150 $ 4,004,633 $ 44 Federal Way 90,150 $ 464,380 $ 5 Bellingham 82,810 $ 2,352,528 $ 28 Bellingham 82,810 $ 772,996 $ 9 Kirkland 82,590 $ 3,782,939 $ 46 Kirkland 82,590 $ 254,400 $ 3 I Kennewick 77,700 $ 2,750,871 $ 35 Kennewick 77,700 $ 368,649 $ 5 I Auburn 74,630 $ 3,898,128 $ 52 ,Auburn 74,630 $ 405,000 $ 5 Avg.Cost $ 38.50 Avg.Cost $ 6.23 Spokane Valley 92,050 $ 1,168,024 $ 13 Spokane Valley 92,050 $ 614,944 $ 7 Population Court Per Capita Cost Population Prosecutor$ Per Capita Cost Everett 104,900 $ 1,490,489 $ 14 Everett 104,900 $ 859,965 $ 8 Renton 97,130 $ 1,990,917 $ 20 Renton 97,130 $ 875,485 $ 9 Yakima 93,080 $ 1,288,302 $ 14 Yakima 93,080 $ 818,062 $ 9 Federal Way 90,150 $ 1,507,213 $ 17 Federal Way 90,150 $ 745,094 $ 8 Bellingham 82,810 $ 1,322,897 $ 16 Bellingham 82,810 $ 1,678,592 $ 20 Kirkland 82,590 $ 1,746,662 $ 21 Kirkland 82,590 $ 386,700 $ 5 Kennewick 77,700 $ 1,386,000 $ 18 Kennewick 77,700 Unknown I Auburn 74,630 $ 1,359,562 $ 18 Auburn 74,630 $ 636,251 $ 9 Avg.Cost $ 17.31 Avg.Cost $ 9.68 Spokane Valley 92,050 $ 805,811 $ 9 Spokane Valley 92,050 $ 393,890 $ 4 Population Animal Control$ Per Capita Cost Population Law Enforcement$ Per Capita Cost Everett 104,900 $ 1,351,325 $ 13 Everett 104,900 $ 31,056,562 $ 296 Renton 97,130 $ 120,0001 $ 1 Renton 97,130 $ 24,828,634 $ 256 Yakima 93,080 $ 256,500 $ 3 Yakima 93,080 $ 25,985,815 $ 279 Federal Way 90,150 $ 350,000 $ 4 Federal Way 90,150 $ 26,999,939 $ 300 Bellingham 82,810 $ 231,745 $ 3 Bellingham 82,810 $ 26,866,990 $ 324 Kirkland 82,590 $ 30,700 $ 0 Kirkland 82,590 $ 20,304,898 $ 246 Kennewick 77,700 $ 200,000 $ 3 Kennewick 77,700 $ 20,510,773 $ 264 Auburn 74,630 $ 50,000 $ 1 Auburn 74,630 $ 19,026,455 $ 255 Avg.Cost $ 3.40 Avg.Cost $ 277.45 Spokane Valley 92,050 $ 287,081 $ 3 Spokane Valley 92,050 $ 17,506,840 $ 190 Population Emergency Mgmt.$ Per Capita Cost Everett 104,900 $ 395,374 $ 4 Renton 97,130 $ 331,623 $ 3 Yakima 93,080 $ 246,238 $ 3 Federal Way 90,150 $ 180,7731 $ 2 Bellingham 82,810 $ 384,285 $ 5 Kirkland 82,590 $ 198,743 $ 2 Kennewick 77,700 Unknown Auburn 74,630 $ 271,743 $ 4 Avg.Cost $ 3.22 Spokane Valley 92,050 $ 82,237 $ 1 Spt kannee .., Val ley Spokane Valley Public Safety Costs Compared to Average Service SV Per Capita $ Per Capita Avg. SV Actual $ SV$with Per Capita Avg. Police $ 190 $ 277 $ 17,506,840 $ 25,538,923 Jail $ 13 $ 38 $ 1,168,024 $ 3,543,843 Court $ 9 $ 19 $ 805,811 $ 1,761,400 Public Defender $ 7 $ 6 $ 614,944 $ 573,086 Prosecution $ 4 $ 10 $ 393,890 $ 890,825 Animal Control $ 3 $ 3 $ 287,081 $ 312,623 Emergency Mgmt. $ 1 $ 3 $ 82,237 $ 296,166 Total $ 227 $ 358 $ 20,858,827 $ 32,916,866 Spokane� Val ley Spokane/Spokane Valley Revenue Comparison Revenue Type Spokane Spokane Valley Property Tax $ 52,424,285 $ 11,129,377 Sales Tax $ 39,313,498 $ 17,440,083 Natural Gas Sales Tax $ 229,205 $ - Public Safety Sales Tax $ 5,275,918 $ 2,267,593 Utilities Sales Tax $ 58,460,567 $ 2,461,060 Gambling Excise Tax $ 592,773 $ 506,251 Leasehold Excise Tax $ 163,346 $ 6,932 Admissions Tax $ 737,584 $ - Franchise Fees $ 2,676,666 $ 1,053,986 Business Licenses/Permits $ 3,796,544 $ 1,655,316 State Shared Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $ 4,355,045 $ 1,878,476 Liquor Excise Tax and Profits $ 2,240,086 $ 969,990 Criminal Justice - Special Programs $ 1,516,852 $ 280,411 Sales Tax Mitigation $ - $ 575,269 Passport and Naturalization Srvs $ 281,767 $ - Charges for Goods and Services General Government $ 1,115,107 $ 4,557 Transportation $ 224,323 $ 3,890 Natural and Economic Env $ 555,741 $ 519,064 Culture and Recreation Fees $ 2,867,547 $ 225,981 Fines and Penalties $ 5,237,051 $ 1,400,999 Interest and Investments $ 4,804,037 $ 57,035 Rents, Leases, and Concessions $ 5,572,728 $ 420,948 Misc. Revenues $ 1,111,628 $ 8,652 Transportation Benefit District $ 2,600,000 $ - Lodging Tax $ 3,000,798 $ 549,267 Real Estate Excise Tax $ 4,163,147 $ 1,537,429 Total $ 203,316,243 $ 44,952,566 Spokane� Val ley Spokane/Spokane Valley Revenue Comparison Revenue Type Spokane Per Capita Spokane Valley / Diff. Per Capita Property Tax (Adjusted) $ 118 $ 119 1% Sales Tax $ 184 $ 187 1% Natural Gas Sales Tax $ 1 $ - NA Public Safety Sales Tax $ 25 $ 24 -2% Utilities Sales Tax $ 274 $ 26 -90% Gambling Excise Tax $ 3 $ 5 95% Leasehold Excise Tax $ 1 $ 0 -90% Admissions Tax $ 3 $ - NA Franchise Fees $ 13 $ 11 -10% Business Licenses/Permits $ 18 $ 18 0% State Shared Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $ 20 $ 20 -2% Liquor Excise Tax and Profits $ 11 $ 10 -1% Criminal Justice - Special Prgms $ 7 $ 3 -58% Sales Tax Mitigation $ - $ 6 NA Passport and Naturalization Srvs $ 1 $ - -100% Charges for Goods and Services General Government $ 5 $ 0 -99% Transportation $ 1 $ 0 -96% Natural and Economic Env $ 3 $ 6 113% Culture and Recreation Fees $ 13 $ 2 -82% Fines and Penalties $ 25 $ 15 -39% Interest and Investments $ 23 $ 1 -97% Rents, Leases, and Concessions $ 26 $ 5 -83% Misc. Revenues $ 5 $ 0 -98% Trasnportation Benefit District $ 12 $ - NA Lodging Tax $ 14 $ 6 -58% Real Estate Excise Tax $ 20 $ 16 -16% Total $ 826 $ 482 -42% Spokane Val ley Comparable Cities Revenue Comparison 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Utility Tax Per B&O Tax Per Property Tax Property Tax Criminal Justice CJ Sales Tax City Population Utility Tax$ Capita B&O Tax Capita (Adjusted) Per Capita Sales Tax Per Capita Everett 105,800 10,387,929 $ 98 $ 21,232,363 $ 201 $ 14,113,971 $ 133 1,583,364 $ 15 Renton 98,470 16,271,008 $ 165 $ - $ - $ 14,227,669 $ 144 2,300,056 $ 23 Yakima 93,220 15,904,081 $ 171 $ - $ - $ 8,877,400 $ 95 1,256,957 $ 13 Federal Way 90,760 12,023,379 $ 132 $ - $ - $ 10,233,416 $ 113 2,138,406 $ 24 Bellingham 83,580 16,476,709 $ 197 $ 12,158,002 $ 145 $ 9,519,922 $ 114 1,322,166 $ 16 Kirkland 83,460 14,847,852 $ 178 $ 2,486,120 $ 30 $ 8,715,927 $ 104 1,940,117 $ 23 Kennewick 78,290 11,829,746 $ 151 $ - $ - $ 5,293,782 $ 68 1,358,140 $ 17 Auburn 75,545 12,787,666 $ 169 $ - $ - $ 14,431,583 $ 191 1,658,228 $ 22 Average $ 158 $ 47 $ 120 $ 19 Spokane Valley 93,340 2,461,060 $ 26 $ - $ - $ 11,129,377 $ 119 2,267,593 $ 24 - Kirkland has an additional$9,162,870 in property tax revenue from special levies for streets and parks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Fines and Admissions Tax Gambling Tax TBD Per City Population Forfeitures F&F Per Capita Admissions Tax Per Capita Gambling Tax Per Capita TBD Capita Everett 105,800 1,941,356 $ 18 $ 448,418 $ 4 $ 291,592 $ 3 17,315,413 $ 164 Renton 98,470 2,715,710 $ 28 $ 393,986 $ 4 $ 1,629,594 $ 17 - $ - Yakima 93,220 1,602,055 $ 17 $ - $ - $ 868,538 $ 9 5,407,861 $ 58 Federal Way 90,760 2,482,196 $ 27 $ - $ - $ 176,061 $ 2 - $ - Bellingham 83,580 1,628,135 $ 19 $ 495,819 $ 6 $ 303,867 $ 4 4,700,864 $ 56 Kirkland 83,460 2,076,027 $ 25 $ 81,220 $ 1 $ 1,180,789 $ 14 - $ - Kennewick 78,290 1,262,495 $ 16 $ 385,267 $ 5 $ 746,328 $ 10 - $ - Auburn 75,545 1,274,082 $ 17 $ 321,016 $ 4 $ 282,144 $ 4 - $ - Average 20.98 $ 3 $ 8 $ 35 Spokane Valley 93,340 1,460,263 $ 16 $ - $ - $ 506,251 $ 5 - $ - Spokane Val ley Comparable Cities Revenue Comparison (Continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Liquor Profits Sales Tax ST Mitigation Fuel Tax Per Sales Tax City Population Liquor Profits Per Capita Mitigation Per Capita Fuel Tax Capita Sales Tax Per Capita Everett 105,800 1,121,216 10.60 $ 575,674 $ 5 $ 2,148,510 $ 20 24,534,428 $ 232 Renton 98,470 1,013,466 10.29 $ - $ - $ 1,973,107 $ 20 21,844,388 $ 222 Yakima 93,220 997,001 10.70 $ - $ - $ 1,603,839 $ 17 16,530,172 $ 177 Federal Way 90,760 951,165 10.48 $ - $ - $ 1,849,731 $ 20 12,173,288 $ 134 Bellingham 83,580 886,892 10.61 $ - $ - $ 1,699,507 $ 20 20,405,571 $ 244 Kirkland 83,460 879,777 10.54 $ 89,180 $ 1 $ 1,685,795 $ 20 17,963,747 $ 215 Kennewick 78,290 822,510 10.51 $ - $ - $ 1,576,122 $ 20 16,010,837 $ 205 Auburn 75,545 788,333 10.44 $ 1,962,161 $ 26 $ 1,510,613 $ 20 15,899,635 $ 210 Average 10.52 $ 4 $ 20 $ 205 Spokane Valley 93,340 969,988 10.39 $ 575,269 $ 6 $ 1,878,476 $ 20 17,440,083 $ 187 City of Spokane Valley Spring Workshop March 15,2016 Comprehensive Plan Update Staff will briefly discuss upcoming Comprehensive Plan Advanced Agenda items such as: • Water Rights/Districts • Goals and Policies • Tiny Homes • Tourism Study Update • Mirabeau Traffic Study • Planning Commission/City Council joint workshop H:\Budget\2017\2017 calendar.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 3/9/2016 2016 2015 2014 2017 BUDGET CALENDAR Budget Budget Budget timeline timeline timeline When What June 14 Council Workshop June 16 June 17 June 18 - 2017 Budget workshop with Council. August 9 Formal Council Meeting - Admin Report: 2017 Budget-Estimated revenues and expenditures August 11 September 2 August 13 August 23 Formal Council Meeting - Public Hearing#1 on 2017 revenues including **** August 25 September 9 August 27 - City Council Motion Consideration-set 2017 Budget hearing for September 27 August 25 September 9 August 27 August 30 Council Study Session - Economic Development Agency presentations(5 min max each) September 1 September 2 September 3 - Social Service Agency presentations(5 min max each) September 1 September 2 September 3 September 1 September 23 September 3 September 13 Formal Council Meeting - City Manager presentation of 2017 Preliminary Budget. **** September 8 October 6 September 17 September 20 Council Study Session - Admin Report-2016 Budget Amendment September 22 October 13 September 24 September 27 Formal Council Meeting - Public Hearing#2 on 2017 Budget. **** September 22 October 13 September 24 - Council motion to award Outside Agency grants September 22 September 23 September 24 September 22 October 13 September 24 October 11 Formal Council Meeting - Public Hearing on 2016 Budget Amendment **** October 13 October 28 October 8 October 13 October 28 October 8 - First reading of the 2016 Budget Amendment Ordinance. October 13 October 28 October 8 - First reading of the 2017 Budget Ordinance. October 13 October 28 October 8 October 25 Formal Council Meeting - Second reading of the 2016 Budget Amendment Ordinance. October 27 November 18 October 22 - Second reading of the 2017 Budget Ordinance. November 11 November 18 October 22 November 1 Council Study Session - Admin Report-2017 Fee Resolution December 1 November 4 November 12 November 8 Formal Council Meeting - Admin Report-LTAC recommendations to Council November 11 November 18 October 29 December 13 Formal Council Meeting - City Council Motion Consideration: Award Lodging Tax for 2017 December 8 December 16 December 10 - 2017 Fee Resolution adoption if changes are needed. December 29 November 18 November 26 **** City Clerk will post appropriate notice in newspaper. summary 03 09