2017, 01-17 Study Session AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Tuesday, January 17,2017 6:00 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor
(Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting)
DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1.Morgan Koudelka District Court Contract Discussion/Information
2. Erik Lamb Service Animals Discussion/Information
3. Cary Driskell Sidewalk Snow Committee Update Discussion/Information
4. Cary Driskell Grant Reimbursement Authority Discussion/Information
5. Cary Driskell Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Discussion/Information
Code 2.15.050 City Manager
6. Cary Driskell Taxicabs, Commercial Ridesharing Discussion/Information
7. Cary Driskell Oath of Office Discussion/Information
8.Mayor Higgins Advance Agenda Discussion/Information
9. Information Only(will not be discussed or reported):Innovative Safety Grant
10.Mayor Higgins Council Check in Discussion/Information
11.Mark Calhoun City Manager Comments Discussion/Information
ADJOURN
Study Session Agenda,January 17,2017 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017 Department Director Approval: ❑
Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: District Court Update, Term Length, Notification Requirements,
Rollover.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 3.50.810
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Authorized Interlocal Agreements in 2003, 2006, and
Amendment in 2013.
BACKGROUND: The City has contracted for Court Services with the Spokane County District
Court since incorporation in 2003. The length of the contract and termination notice is governed
by state statute, RCW 3.50.810. Because the District Court Judges are elected positions and
serve four-year terms, and the number of judges and judicial salaries are set by the state, the
terms and notifications exceed our standard contract terms and are dictated by the state.
Council has indicated that it wants to be notified by staff prior to a contract auto-renewing.
Because of state requirements, if the City does not provide notice to terminate the contract by
February 1, 2017, the City will be required to complete the final two years of the current judges
terms as well as the next four-year terms.
The City has evaluated this service and recommends continuing to contract with Spokane
County for this service
OPTIONS: (1.) Continue to receive Court Services from Spokane County. (2.) Provide
notice to terminate agreement by February 1 and explore other options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to Continue with District Court Interlocal
Agreement.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approximately $700,000 per year out of the General Fund.
STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation, I nterlocal Agreements.
1
DISTRICT COURT SERVICES
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
SPOKANE COUNTY
UPDATE, TERM LENGTH, NOTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS
Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
Contract Summary
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 Pt 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
2009 Spokane Valley study conducted by State Department of Commerce with support by internal analyst.
Amended agreement in 2012 to incorporate a workload analysis, full allocation of cases, and pay as you go
features with quicker reconciliations.
Contract Summary
Provider: Spokane County
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.
Contract Length and Termination Requirements
Governed by State Law RCW 3.50.810
Contract can only terminate at the end of the judicial term, the second
Monday in January after an election year (Jan. 14, 2019).
Notification must occur one year prior to February 1 of the election
year (2018).
If notice is not provided by February 1 then the contract will roll-over
into the next four-year term.
Timeline
5
February 1 , February 1 , November January
2017 2018 2018 14, 2019
Rolls Over Into
Next Term
Notification to Feb 1 of Next
Election Year End of Judges
Terminate Due Election of Current Term
Judges
Historical Costs and Cases
District Court
Total Cases % Change Actual % 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%
Costs Compared to Other Jurisdictions
Population Court $ Per Capita Cost
Everett 104,900 $ 1,490,489 $ 14
Renton 97,130 $ 1,990,917 $ 20
Yakima 93,080 $ 1,288,302 $ 14
Federal Way 90,150 $ 1,568,752 $ 17
Bellingham 82,810 $ 1,596,182 $ 19
Kirkland 82,590 $ 1,746,662 $ 21
Kennewick 77,700 $ 1,386,000 $ 18
Auburn 74,630 $ 1,359,562 $ 18
Avg. Cost $ 17.80
Spokane Valley 92,050 $ 805,811 $ 9
Recent Improvements
Cost Methodology Refinement
Time Study Updated Every Three Years
Pre-File Diversion
Specialized Courts (DUI, Mental Health)
Utilization of appropriate treatment when available.
Future Improvements
Analysis of judicial staffing needs
Enhanced reporting
Specialized staff to reduce jail days, eliminate unnecessary trial dates
Encourage necessary support for mental illness and addiction.
Court Options for City
Contract for full service from County District Court
All staff, and services provided by County by contract.
Form Municipal Court
Requires election of full-time judges
City provides all courtrooms, staff, support
Contract with another City Municipal Court
Staff Recommendation
Continue Contracting with Spokane County District Court
Why
Lower Cost
Consistent Service
Greater Staffing Coverage
Greater Expertise and Historical Knowledge
Co-location and existing relationships with Prosecutor, Public Defender,
and Jail.
•
Return to: Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board
Board of County Commissioners
1116 W. Broadway
Spokane,Washington 99260
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COSTS INCIDENT TO ADJUDICATION OF
MISDEMEANOR ANJ) GROSS MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES
IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
(January 1,2005—December 31,2005) 6 0190
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and among the Spokane County District Court,
having offices for the transaction of business at 1100 West Mallon, Spokane, 1Vashington 99260,
hereinafter referred to as "COURT," Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington,
having offices for the transaction of business at 1 1 16 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260,
hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the
State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East
Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as"CITY,"jointly
hereinafter referred to as the "PARTIES." The COUNTY, COURT and CITY agree as follows.
SECTION NO. 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS
(a) The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County has the care of County property
and the management of County funds and business under RCW 36.32.120(6).
(b) Counties and cities may contract with each other to perform certain functions which each
may legally perform under chapter 39.34 RCW(Interlocal Cooperation Act).
(c) Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 39.34.180, the City of Spokane Valley is responsible
for the costs incident to investigation, prosecution,adjudication and incarceration of misdemeanor and gross
misdemeanor offenses that occur within its jurisdiction and that are committed by adults.
(d) Spokane County has established the COURT under the provisions of chapter 3.38 RCW for
the judicial administration of the laws of the State of Washington and the ordinances of Spokane County.
The COURT consists of one district encompassing all of Spokane County.
(e) The City of Spokane Valley desires to utilize the services of the COURT for the purpose of
adjudicating and sentencing cases which occur within the City of Spokane Valley and
Interlocal Agreement District Court Page 1 of 16
C06-12
•
•
are referred to the COURT where the charge is (i) an infraction and/or (ii) a misdemeanor or gross
misdemeanor offense committed by an adult, and/or (iii) a violation of the City of Spokane Valley's
ordinances which constitutes a misdemeanor, unless filed with a felony.
SECTION NO.2: DEFINITIONS
(a) Agreement: "Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement between the CITY, COURT
and COUNTY regarding Court Services.
(b) Ci "CITY" means the City of Spokane Valley.
(c) County: "COUNTY"means Spokane County.
(d) Maintenance and Operations: "Maintenance and Operations" and "M&O" shall mean (I)
those class codes (3000-5999 and 7000-9999) used by Spokane County in its budgetary process as
prescribed by the BARS manual adopted by the State of Washington under chapter 43.88 RCW so long as
such expenditures are directly attributable and proportionate to services rendered to CITY under the terms
of this Agreement.
(e) Services: "Services"means those services identi lied in Exhibit 1.
(f) Compensation: "Compensation" means that methodology set forth in Exhibit 2 used to
establish the amount of money which the CITY will pay the COUNTY for providing Services.
(g) Capital Improvement: "Capital Improvement" shall mean any expenditure in excess of
$1999.99 or such higher figure as set by the COUNTY as the capitalization threshold during the term of
the Agreement. The COUNTY shall give the CITY advance notice of any increase in the capitalization
threshold. The PARTIES agree to meet and discuss the impacts of any change in the' capitalization
threshold which 'will cause an increase of costs to the CITY'in excess of $50,000.00. Any such
expenditure will be coded as provided for in the BARS-manual adopted by the State of Washington
under RCW 43.88.
(h) Uncontrollable Circumstances: "Uncontrollable Circumstances" means the following
events: riots, wars, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism, external fires and floods, volcanic
eruptions, lightning or earthquakes at or near where the Services are performed and/or that directly affect
providing of such Services.
(i) Court: "Court" means the Spokane County District Court established under chapter 3.38
RCW.
(j) Report: "Report" means the District Court Filing/Revenue Report.
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 the COURT will provide Services on behalf of the CITY. It is the intent of the
Interlocal Agreement District Court Page 2 of 16
PARTIES that Services to be provided by the COURT will be consistent with the CITY'S Council/Manager
form of government provided for in chapter 35A.13 RCW subject to applicable Court Rules.
SECTION NO.4: DURATION/WITHDRAWAL
This Agreement shall commence on January I,2005,and run through December 31, 2005.
At the conclusion of the initial term, this Agreement shall automatically be renewed from year to year
thereafter effective January r to December 31' All renewals shall be subject to all terms and conditions
set forth herein except for Exhibit 2.
The PARTIES recognize it highly unlikely that Exhibit 2 setting forth the new billing rates for each year's
Services will be available at the start of any renewal time frame. Accordingly, until a new Exhibit 2 has
been prepared and agreed to between the PARTIES, the PARTIES agree that the COUNTY will bill the
CITY and the CITY will pay the COUNTY at the same billing rates paid in the previous year. Upon the
PARTIES agreement on a new Exhibit 2, the CITY and COUNTY will reconcile payments to date under the
previous years billing rates with the new billing rates.Any underpayment for any Services will be due in the
first payment due following reconciliation. Any overpayment for any Services will be credited to the first
monthly payment due following the reconciliation. The PARTIES agree that no interest shall be owing by
either Party to the other Party for any overpayment or underpayment determined as a result of the
reconciliation.
Any Party may withdraw at any time from this Agreement for any reason whatsoever upon a minimum of
180 days written notice as provided for in Section 7 to the other Party.
SECTION NO.5: COST OF SERVICES AN])PAYMENTS
The CITY shall pay the COUNTY the actual costs for Services provided under this Agreement. The
estimated cost: for 2005 Services under this Agreement shall be as set forth in Exhibit 2, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
The methodology uses the last. six (6) months of Report numbers for 2003 and first six (6) months of
Report numbers for 2004 and averages them for a twelve (12) month time frame. The resulting number
is used as a basis to estimate the 2005 cost of services. The COUNTY CEO shall advise the CiTY
Manager as soon as possible of any anticipated or unanticipated capital improvement costs that: arise
during the contract period. The City shall pay capital improvement costs either (1) under the Cost.
Allocation Plan as an indirect cost amortized over the useful life of the improvement utilizing straight-
line depreciation and incorporating the expected salvage value of the improvement at the end of its useful
life or (2) as a direct cost in the form of a contribution made to the Equipment Rental and Revolving
Fund. The CITY shall he responsible only for capital improvement costs incurred after March 31, 2003.
Any portion of a capital improvement that was paid for or acquired through separate agreement or with
grant proceeds, bond proceeds, user fees, donations, or any other acquisition method that reflects a
contribution on behalf of CITY shall not be included in the depreciation schedule applied to the CITY.
. Any capital improvement for which the COUNTY seeks reimbursement from the CITY must be
necessary to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement.
At the end of the calendar year, using the methodology set forth in Exhibit 2 the PARTIES shall apply the
actual expenditures and the actual usage percentage to determine the final cost. It is the PARTIES intent
that any adjustment take place as soon as possible and accordingly will use their respective best efforts to
Interlocal Agreement District Court Page 3 of 16
timely prepare, disseminate and review all expenditure documentation. The CITY will have sixty (60)
calendar days from its receipt of the expenditure documentation to provide the COUNTY with any written
objections(s) to such documentation. The written objection(s) must specifically identify the expenditure(s)
in question. The COUNTY agrees to consider all written objections received from the CITY within thirty
(30) calendar days of receipt of the objections(s). In the event that the PARTIES cannot mutually resolve
any written objection(s) submitted by the CiTY within the thirty (30) calendar days time frame, or such
other time frame as the PARTIES may mutually agree, the objections shall be resolved pursuant to the
Dispute Resolution provisions set forth in Section No. 17. Pending resolution of the objections(s), the
PARTIES agree that the CITY shall pay that portion of the bill that is undisputed.
To the extent that the CITY was over billed in any year and the Agreement is still in effect, the COUNTY
shall credit the CITY for such overpayment in the next monthly payment owning by the CITY. Provided,
however, in the event the Agreement is terminated at such time that the overpayment is determined, the
COUNTY shall reimburse the CiTY for any overpayment within thirty (30) calendar days. To the extent
that the CiTY was under billed in any year and the Agreement is still in effect,the CITY shall reimburse the
COUNTY for any under payment in the next monthly payment owing by the CITY. Provided, however, in
the event the Agreement is terminated at such time that the underpayment is determined, the CITY shall
reimburse the COUNTY for any underpayment within thirty(30)calendar days. Either Party may at its sole
option charge interest on any overpayment or underpayment based on lost interest earning had the amount
determined due been invested in the respective PARTIES investment pool at the end of the thirty (30) day
time frame provided for hereinabove to the date of payment.
Any resolution of a disputed amount through use of the arbitration process identified in Section 17 shall
include at the request of either Party, a determination of whether interest is appropriate, including the
amount.
The COUNTY will bill the CiTY for the cost of services as outlined, monthly, by the l5th of the month.
Monthly payments for Services will be calculated by dividing those annual costs set forth in Exhibit 2 by
twelve(12). Payments by the CITY will be due by the 5th day of the following month. The COUNTY,at its
sole option, may charge interest on any late payment calculated on any lost interest earning had the amount
due been invested since the date due to the date of payment in the COUNTY's investment pool.
SECTION NO. 6: RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROVi.DING
SERViCES
•
The COURT or its designee agree to attend staff meetings as requested by the CITY Manager.
The COURT or its designee agree to meet upon request by the CITY Manager or his/her designee to discuss
any Service provided under the terms of this Agreement.
The CITY agrees the COURT may use the COURT'S stationery in conjunction with providing Services
under the terms of this Agreement.
SECTION NO. 7: NOTICE
All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (1) the day such notices or
other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or(ii)the third day following the day on
which the same have been mailed by first class delivery, postage prepaid addressed to the COUNTY or the
Interlocal Agreement District Court Page 4 of 16
CITY at the address set forth below for such Party, or at such other address as either Party shall from time-
to-time designate by notice in writing to the other Party
COUNTY: Spokane County Chief Executive Officer
or his/her authorized representative
1116 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99260
COURT: Presiding Judge, Spokane County District Court
1100 West Mallon Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99260
CITY: City of Spokane Valley City Manager
or his/her authorized representative
Redwood Plaza
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite I06
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
SECTION NO. 8: REPORTING
Reports — The COURT shall provide the CITY with reports documenting actual usage under this
Agreement. The Parties agree that the terminology "reports documenting actual usage" means that type of
information provided by the COURT to the CITY in the 2004 agreement. for Services. An updated report
shall be submitted quarterly unless otherwise mutually agreed by the Parties. Such reports shall be in a
format as mutually agreed to between the Parties. The content and/or format for such reports may be
changed from time-to-time by written agreement between CITY and COURT staff.
Records Review—The CITY shall be allowed to conduct random reviews of the records generated by the
COURT in performance of this Agreement. The CITY will provide the COURT with reasonable advance
notice of the records reviews. The Parties agree that they will make best efforts to achieve a resolution of
any potential records confidentiality issues, including entering into confidentiality agreements or other
similar mechanisms that will allow disclosure of the necessary information to accurately conduct a records
review. If the CITY will be allowed to view only those records directly relating to Services provided within
CITY's corporate boundaries, then the COURT must keep a log of original documents used to charge the
CITY, and those documents must have identifying numbers or letters so the original source documents can
be easily retrieved.
SECTION NO.9: COUNTERPARTS
•
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and
delivered,shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same.
SECTION NO. 10: ASSIGNMENT
No Party may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of the other
PARTY.
Interlocal Agreement District Court Page 5 of 16
SECTION NO. .11: COUNTY EMPLOYEES
The COURT shall hire, assign, retain and discipline all employees performing Services under this
Agreement according to applicable collective bargaining agreements and applicable state and federal laws
and court rules including but not limited to CR 29.
The COURT agrees to meet and confer with the CITY with respect to staff that is assigned to provide
Services. Issues of discipline or performance will be specifically handled according to COURT policies.
SECTION NO. 12: LIABILITY
For the purpose of this Section,the terminology"COUNTY"shall also include the"COURT."
(a) The COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless the CiTY and its officers, agents,and employees,
from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature
whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the COUNTY, its officers,
agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. In the
event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the CITY; the
COUNTY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the CITY reserves the right to
participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in
said suit be rendered against the CITY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the CITY
and the COUNTY and their respective officers, agents,and employees,the COUNTY shall satisfy the same.
(b) The CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY and its officers,agents,and employees,
from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature
whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the CITY; its officers,agents
and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. in the event
that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the COUNTY, the CITY
shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the COUNTY reserves the right to
participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in
said suit be rendered against the COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the
COUNTY and the CITY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the CITY shall satisfy the
same.
(c) 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.
(I) The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's immunity
under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 5I RCW, respecting the other party only, and only to
the extent necessary to provide the indemnified Party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by
. the indemnitor's employees. The PARTIES acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated
and agreed upon by them.
interlocal Agreement District Court Page 6 of 16
(g) The COUNTY and the Cli'Y agree to either self insure or purchase policies of insurance covering
the matters contained in this Agreement with coverages of not less than S5,000,000 per occurrence with
S5,000,000 aggregate limits including professional liability and auto liability coverages.
SECTION NO. 13: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
The PARTIES intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The
COURT shall be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of the CITY, that the CITY is
interested only in the results to be achieved and that the right to control the particular manner, method and
means in which the services are performed is solely within the discretion of the COURT. Any and all
employees who provide Services to the CITY under this Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of
the COURT. The COURT shall be solely responsible for the conduct and actions of all employees under
this Agreement and any liability that may attach thereto. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant or
representative of the CiTY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the
COURT or COUNTY for any purpose.
SECTION NO. 14: MODIFICATION
This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES.
SECTION NO. 15: PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in conjunction with providing the Services shall
remain with the original owner, unless otherwise specifically and mutually agreed to by the PARTIES to
this Agreement. For the purpose of this section, the terminology "owner" means that Party which paid
the full purchase price for the property or equipment.
SECTION NO. 16: ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN/BINDING EFFECT
This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that
there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No
changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the PARTIES unless such change or
addition is in writing,executed by the PARTIES.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto,their successors and assigns.
SECTION NO. 17: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any dispute between the COUNTY and CITY including but not limited to cost of Services which cannot be
resolved between the COUNTY and CiTY shall be subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the
contrary herein,such dispute shall first be reduced to writing. if the COUNTY CEO and the CITY Manager
cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The provisions of chapter 7.04 RCW shall be
applicable to any arbitration proceeding.
The COUNTY and the CITY shall have the right to designate one person each to act as an arbitrator. The
two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall
be binding on the PARTIES and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04 RCW.
interlocal Agreement District Court Page 7 of 16
The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the PARTIES.
The PARTIES acknowledge that the provisions of this section are not applicable to the COURT. GR 29
precludes the COURT from delegating any of its administrative duties addressed in that rule to the
legislative or executive branches of government. The COURT.agrees, however, in the event of a dispute
with the CITY to meet and in good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. This paragraph would not preclude
the PARTIES from using this Section to resolve disputes over the calculation of costs of Services provided
under this Agreement.
SECTION NO. 18: 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. 19: SEVERABILITY
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.20: RECORDS
All public records prepared, owned, used or retained by the COURT in conjunction with providing Services
under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed COURT property and shall be made available to the
CITY upon request by the CITY Manager subject to the attorney client and attorney work product privileges
set forth in statute, court rule or case law. The COURT will notify the CITY of any public disclosure
request under chapter 42.17 RCW for copies or viewing of such records as well as the COURT'S response
thereto.
SECTION NO.21: RE.A.DiNGS
The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of
convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to define, limit
or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain.
SECTION NO. 22: TIME OF ESSENCE OF AGREEMENT
Time is of the essence of this Agreement and in case 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 Party may, at its election, hold the other Party liable for all costs and damages
caused by such delay.
Interlocal Agreement District Court • Page 8 of 16
SECTION NO. 23: UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES/IMPOSSI.I3ILITY
A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from
Uncontrollable Circumstances shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement.
A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from
any change in or new law, order, rule or regulation of any nature which renders providing of Services in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement legally impossible, and any other circumstances beyond the
control of the COUNTY/COURT which render legally impossible the performance by the
COUNTY/COURT of its obligations under this Agreement, shall be deemed not a default under this
Agreement.
SECTION NO. 24: FILING
This Agreement shall be filed by the COUNTY with such offices or agencies as required by chapter
39.34 RCW.
SECTION NO.25: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL
The PARTIES warrant that the officers executing below have been duly authorized to act for and on
behalf of the Party for purposes of confirming this Agreement.
SECTION NO.26: INITIATIVES
The PARTIES recognize that revenue reducing initiative(s) passed by the voters of Washington may
substantially reduce local operating revenue for the CITY, COUNTY or both PARTIES. The PARTIES
agree that it is necessary to have flexibility to reduce the contracted amount(s) in this Agreement in response
to budget constraints resulting from the passage of revenue-reducing initiative(s). If such an event occurs,
the PARTIES agree to negotiate in good faith to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution in a timely fashion.
SECTION NO.27: COMPLIANCE wan LAWS
The PARTIES shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that '
they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement.
•
SECTION NO. 28: DISCLAIMER
Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall not be construed in any manner that would limit
either Party's authority or powers under laws.
SECTION NO. 29: ASSURANCE
The CITY shall pay the COUNTY the true and full cost of all Services provided under this Agreement.
The intent of the Parties is that neither Party will subsidize the other and that the CITY will not subsidize
any other jurisdiction that is receiving similar services.
Interlocal Agreement District Court Page 9 of 16
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and
year opposite their respective signatures.
DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cotss`‘� �fi
e o -e-aG $�i'y� TO 4IELKE, Chair
m
e .h .G_ / ABSENT
•
•
ATTEST: ��� • '• • ' % MARK RICHARD, Vice-Chair
•Clerk of the Board f'r � s-Air.• Qin'
4/. 7. „
Daniela Erickson — �'�' 'r��. HARRIS, Commissioner
DATED: 7,7 (o& SPOKANE COUN-► P ." CT C URT
B� 1P l /
Its: ' LC . ,t',
l / I�
DATED: 3!i het, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
A' 'ES,
sd2, 1,1724--1
�' David Mercier,City Manager
,•. !h: -
ehr`istine Bainbridge, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: •
Office of e City Attorney
•
Interlocal Agreement District Court Page 10 of 16
EXHIBIT 1
Court Services shall include the adjudication and sentencing by the Spokane County District Court of
• matters which occur within the City of Spokane Valley and arc referred to the Spokane County District
Court where the charge is (i) an infraction and/or (ii) a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense
committed by an adult; and/or(iii) a violation of the City of Spokane Valley ordinances which constitutes a
misdemeanor, unless filed with a felony.
•
•
Interlocal Agreement District Court Page 11 of 16
Exhibit 2
Spokane County
Spokane Valley District Court
2005 Contract
Component A T Component B Component C
Budget Allocable to Percentage
Misdemeanor Services* City of Spokane Valley ** Contract Amount
Salary 2,818,555 19.92%_" 561,462
M&O 173,315 19.92%: 34,525
Indirect Costs••s 596,970 19.92% 118,918
3,588,840 714,904
Notes
* Component A represents District Court's budget,less civil,felony&Spokane City Interlocal.
Sec Attachment A
** Component A multiplied the Component B equates the contract amount. Sec Attachment A.
***.The Indirect(Overhead)rate of 21.18%is applied to salaries only. The indirect rate is based on
Spokane County's OM13 A-87 Indirect Cost Plan Escalated 2003 for 2005(2005 SRB)
prepared by PRM Group,an independent plan preparcr.
Interlocal Agreement District Court Page 12 of 16
SPOKANE COUNTY
SPOKANE VALLEY DISTRICT COURT
STATISTICS AND CALCULATIONS
2005 CONTRACT
Attachment A
District Court Case Statistics
Offcn+c Category Spokane Vnllcy• Spokane County" NVeip,,M(flours) SV Hours SC(lours SV
Infractions 11,799 59,709 121 26,076 131,957
ISV-Misdemeanor 400 927 75.64 30,256 70,118
DUI 178 2,793 71.32 12,695 199,197
Criminal Traffic 1,661 5,443 12.41 20,613 67,548
Criminal NIT(less misdDV) 769 2,776 17.36 13,350 48,191
Salaried 14,807 71,648 102,990 517,0111 19.92°/1
* See Attachment 13
**See Attachment C
Misdemeanor/Infraction Expenditure Calculation
Salary nod Benefits \1 cC U Total
Expenditures 4,493,138 271,462 4,764,600
Less:Civil••• tt.45% (514,319) (31,074) (545,392)
Less:Felony••• 1.48% (66,558) (4,021) . (70,580)
Less:City of Spokane•••• (1,093,706) (63.052) (1,156,758)
Misd/Infra Total 2,818.555 173,315 2,991,870
••• See Attachment D
•••• Estimated 2005 City of Spokane Interlocal Contract
Spokane Valley Cost Calculation
Misdemeanor/ Percentage
Infraction Budget Spokane Valley Actual Cost
,Misdtlnfrac Salary S.Benefits 2,818,555 19.92% 5.61,462
Misd+Infr c M fi n 173,315.27 19.92% 34.525
2,991,870 595.986
Indirect Costs (21,18%) 596,970 19.92% 118,918
Total 3,588,840 714,904
Interlocal Agreement District Court •
Page 13 of 16
>
110
P2
ee
G
Attachment B
DISTRICT COURT 2003 last 5mos/2004 first 6tees
.-- FILING/REVENUE REPORT
n Cuateiat, City of Spokane:alley juria0tCtion (fitly)
O
; JAN 5171 MARCH APRIL• MAY On JULY A071057 91wr OCT NOV WC 70TAL9
Pillage (section source, J1$Cas:l-le9 report)
2317RA07I0lI 2033 0 0 0 795 647 1.405 1,008 1,030 861 1,190 841 1,066
2034 847 734 1,199 992 358 1,035 874 789 1,187 1,095 11,790
Ctange 992 32% -22% -20% •25% 33% -3%
category cun4jup infraction Traffic, rnrraetIcu :ni 11-affic, and aafracttort;nkiPm
Ergi 2003 0 0 0 11 17 17 17 35 13 0 10 24
2004 15 18 21 12 15 10 4 13 12 10 178
Clens 0% •12% -41% 43% -1316 -3% 2596
CRIH YR 2903 0 0 0 117 102 194 152 135 112 166 138 169
Conners 133 113 179 182 033 04 23 32 41 35 1651
Change 38% 33% -67% -85% -76% -631k -79%
06n!3R • 2003 0 0 0 70 57 96 103 102 104 90 53 92
0010V) 2034 93 87 130 102 90 112 106 109 00 95 1.169
(X.onpe 31% .1% 17% 3% 611, -2a"% 7%
i5gs 14,807
tfisee*0V• 2003 0 0 0 34 42 13 38 39 26 32 17 27
2004 28 37 39 32 34 51 45 51 30 77 400
• COdngr -E% -19% 55% 90% 31% 15% 16% ,
5eleey e7* 2103 0 C 0 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
2004 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Change
rotaI DO"' 2003 0 0 0 30 44 33 18 39 27 32 17 27
2004 2e 37 30 32 34 51 45 51 31 37 0 0 402
—4 Change 0 -18% -23% 56ii 18% 31% 15% 1634
L^+ • 07 courts are a euluet or farq p1Fq included in) the criminal 80etiona above.
71
M
4a
0
•y •
T
•
31
6
rt
tar
at
.1
FD
Attachment C
C7 DISTRICT COURT 2003 last 6no3/2004 first 6rus
FILING/REVENUE REPORT
F3- Containso ALL jurisdictions (Daiccorporatcd. Civil, Spokane Valley, cad Liberty Lake)
JAN 18B MARCH APRIL 10,Y JUNE JULY A'J'a3ST S8PP OCT 1109 DEC TOTALS
C
n
Filings (sectico source: JIS Caseload report)
INFRACTION 2003 8,208 6,282 6,564 5951 5,858 6,981 4,842 5,141 5.208 4;137 3,867 4,923
2004 4,205 4,346 6,176 5,198 4,314 6,022 4,875 5,3,53 6,573 5.159 59,709
Change -32% -3i% 4% 5,198 -18% 44% 1% 4% 28% 5%
caCb44ry carbines Irfraccian Traffic, .Trfractico Han Traffic, one infraction Parking
DVI ' 2003 222 209 204 155 167 204 151 210 383 7.43 185 351
2004 184 246 266 195 194 194 158 165 214 106 2,703
C1 once -17% 16% 30% 26% 16% -596 3% -21% -49% -nis
c.zn TR 2703 442 411 463 460 460 559 485 420 454 461 376 558
CoaiDam 483 458 572 497 472 223 99 126 143 151 5,443
Change 5% 14% 24% 7% 3% -60% 60% -70% -69% -67%
C2Ix 1T • 2003 270 277 345 288 342 372 328 315 326 297 212 341 •
(11:11)V) . 2004 242 277 337 337 353 3:?• 312 284 239 262 3,703
chat!ce -10% 0% -2% 17;5 3% -9 a% -7% -27% -12%
Flings 71,648
Wad=DV' 20183 83 70 08 73 94 66 60 100 73 82 45 78 -
2004 65 97 79 72 78 89 103 9769 16 927
Change .227E 24% -11% -1% -17% -7% 29% -3% -5% -7%
Ie2cr.,v D7* 2003 39 41 48 44 48 42 43 55 47 46 32 51
2004 38 33 47 53 43 47 40 63 82 58 532
Change .3% -20% 2% 20% -7% 12% -13% 15% 32% 40%
w Total DV' 2803 122 111 134 ill 140 138 126 155 12D 122 77 123
(to 2004 103 120 125 125 121 138 143 180 131 132 0 0 1,459
v, Change 805% 8% -7% 7% -14% -1% 13% 3% 9% 3%
C *D7 counts are a subset of !are ale*included in) the criminal cow-traffic section above.
M
a
SPOKANE COUNTY
SPOKANE VALLEY DISTRICT COURT
FELONY/CIVIL STAFFING %
2005 CONTRACT
Attrichment D
SPOKANE VALLEY FELONY STAFFING COST
Salary at %FT}
of Average Benefits at %FTE of Total Salary&
Position % FTE Position Average Position Benefits at %FTE
Commissioner 0.2 20,138.14 3,727.49 23,865.63
Bailiff 0.2 5,478.77 2,780.42 8,259.19
0A4 0.6 15,595.61 6,716.94 22,312.55
Court Clerk 0.3 8,539.37 3,581.71 12,121.08
66,558.45
SPOKANE VALLEY CTVTLJSMALL CLAIM STAFFING COST
Salary at %FTE
of Average Benefits at %FTE of Total Salary &
Position % FTE Position Average Position Benefits at %FTE
Judge 1.0 118,458.00 21,083.98 139,541.98
Commissioner 0.2 20,138.14 3,727.49 23,865.63
Bailiff I.2 33,246.52 16,308.63 49,555.15
Civil/SC Staff 7.0 206,234.92 95,120.84 301,355.76
514,318.52
CALCULATION OF SPOKANE VALLEY FELONY AND CIVIL STAFFING
Budgeted Salary
& Benefits
Felony % 4,493,138 66,558.45 1.48%
Civil % 4,493,138 514,318.52 11.45%
Interlocal Agreement District Court Page 16 of 16
Return to: Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board
Board of County Commissioners
1116 W. Broadway
Spokane,Washington 99260
AMENDMENT NO.1 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COSTS
INCIDENT TO ADJUDICATION OF MISDEMEANOR AND
GROSS MISDEMEANOR OI+14'INSES IN
THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
i3 - Dam
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, made and entered into
by and among the Spokane County District Court, having offices for the transaction of business at 1100
West Mallon, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COURT," Spokane County, a
political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the City of
Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of
business at 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred
to as"CITY,"jointly hereinafter referred to as the"PARTIES."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane
County, Washington, has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business;
and
WHEREAS,pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW(Interlocal Cooperation Act), counties and cities may
contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform;and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 39.34.180, the City of Spokane Valley is
responsible for the costs incident to investigation, prosecution, adjudication and incarceration of
misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses that occur within its jurisdiction and that are committed by
adults;and
WHEREAS, Spokane County has established a District Court under the provisions of chapter 3.38
RCW for the judicial administration of the laws of the State of Washington and the ordinances of Spokane
County. The District Court consists of one district encompassing all of Spokane County;and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced recitals, Spokane County under Spokane County
Resolution No. 2006-0190, the Spokane County District Court under signature dated March 27, 2006, and
City of Spokane Valley under signature dated March 1, 2006 (the "Parties") executed a document entitled
"Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Adjudication of Misdemeanor and Gross Misdemeanor Offenses
in the City of Spokane Valley(January 1,2005—December 31,2005)"(the"Agreement")pursuant to which
under certain terms and conditions the Spokane County District Court agreed to provide certain judicial
services identified within the Agreement in Exhibit"1"to the City of Spokane Valley;and
Page 1 of 8
6,01 -0()3
WHEREAS,the Agreement includes Section No. 14 (Modification)wherein the Parties agreed that
the Agreement could be modified by mutual written agreement of the Parties;and
WHEREAS, the Parties, as provided for in Section No. 14 (Modification), desire to modify the
Agreement.
NOW,THEREFORE,for and inconsideration of the mutual promises set forth herein after,and the
above recitals which are incorporated herein by reference, the Parties do hereby mutually agree that that
document executed by Spokane County under Spokane County Resolution No. 2006-0190, the Spokane
County District Court under signature dated March 27, 2006, and City of Spokane Valley under signature
dated March 1, 2006,entitled"Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Adjudication of Misdemeanor and
Gross Misdemeanor Offenses in the City of Spokane Valley (January 1, 2005 —December 31, 2005)" (the
"Agreement")be and is hereby modified as follows:
1. Effective with the 2010 adjust and settle, Exhibit 2 within the Agreement is modified as
follows:
The scope and purpose of this modification is to change the way the indirect costs
the COUNTY charges the CITY are calculated, which is a component cost in
determining the total actual cost for the provision of Services. Previously, the
PARTIES calculated the indirect cost rate based on "salaries only" as adopted in
the methodology set forth in the Exhibit 2 of the Agreement. But now, the
PARTIES agree that it is acceptable to calculate the indirect cost rate based on
"total expenditures".
2. Effective as of midnight January 1,2012, Section No.2(Definitions)within the Agreement is
modified in(g) and(f)only as follows:
(Underlined highlighted language added,lined out highlighted language deleted.)
(g) Capital Improvement: "Capital Improvement" shall mean any
expenditure in excess of$1,999.99 $4,999.99 or such higher figure as set by the
COUNTY as the capitalization threshold during the term of the Agreement. The
COUNTY shall give the CITY advance notice of any increase in the
capitalization threshold. The PARTIES agree to meet and discuss the impacts of
any change in the capitalization threshold which will cause an increase of costs to
the CITY in excess of $50,000.00. Any such expenditure will be coded as
provided for in the BARS-manual adopted by the State of Washington under
RCW 43.88.
(f) Compensation: "Compensation" means that methodology set
forth in Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D used to establish the amount of money
which the CITY will pay the COUNTY for providing Services.
3. Effective as of midnight January 1, 2012, Section No.4 (Duration/Withdrawal) within the
Agreement is modified as follows:
(Underlined highlighted language added,lined out highlighted language deleted).
SECTION NO.4: DURATION/WITHDRAWAL
Page 2 of 8
This Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2005, and run through December
31,2005.
At the conclusion of the initial term,this Agreement shall automatically be renewed
from year to year thereafter effective January 1 Sc to December 31StAll renewals
shall be subject to all terms and conditions within this Agreement set forth herein.
except for Exhibit 2.
The PARTIES recognize it highly unlikely that Exhibit 2 setting forth the now
time frame. Accordingly, until a new Exhibit 2 has been prepared and agreed to
between the PARTIES, the PARTIES agree that the COUNTY will bill the CITY
• 1. Y
year. Upon the PARTIES agreement on a now Exhibit 2,the CITY and COUNTY
the first monthly payment due following the reconciliation. The PARTIES agree
that no interest shall bo owing by either Party to the other Party for any
Any Party may withdraw at any time from this Agreement for any reason
whatsoever upon a minimum of 180 days written notice as provided for in Section 7
to the other Party.
4. Effective as of 11:59 p.m. December 31, 2011, Section No. 5 (Costs of Services and
Payments),to include all exhibits referenced in Section No. 5, is deleted from the Agreement in
its entirety.
5. Effective as of midnight January 1,2012, a new Section No. 5 is added to the Agreement to
provide as follows:
(Note: Exhibits 2A,2B,2C and 2D referenced in Section No. 5 are attached hereto
as Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D respectively and not included in the body of Section
No. 5.)
SECTION NO.5: COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENTS
5.1 Basis. Cost for Services shall be based on cost-per-case("CPC").
5.2 Methodology. CPC shall be calculated utilizing the Cost Calculation Model
("CCM") as shown in Exhibit "2A" which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference. Exhibit "2A" computes the cost-per-case for 2012. The
CCM includes three Components.
5.2.1 Component One. Component one of the CCM identified in Exhibit
"2A"is entitled"Workload Analysis". The Workload Analysis classifies all full-
time and part time judicial officers and court staff by selected "case type" and
computes the percentage of total full time employees ("FTE") for each major
"case type". The CCM will use the 2011 Workload Analysis. A copy of the
2011 Workload Analysis is shown in Exhibit"2B"which is attached hereto and
Page 3 of 8
incorporated herein by reference. The 2011 Workload Analysis shall remain the
same and shall be used by the Parties to calculate CPC for calendar years 2012,
2013, and 2014. The Workload Analysis component of the CCM will be
reviewed and updated by the Parties in September 2014 for use in conjunction
with the 2015 CCM. It will be reviewed and updated in September of every third
year thereafter for use in conjunction with the CCM for the following three years.
In the event the Mental Health Court is disbanded,the Workload Analysis will be
reviewed and updated to be effective as of January 1ST of the following year in
conjunction with the CCM. This review and update will restart the three year
Workload Analysis review and update cycle. Any anticipated change to the
number of case types will be communicated to the City with explanations for the
change and associated cost impacts. The same Workload Analysis FTE
percentage used to calculate the yearly estimate will also be used on that year's
settle and adjust. The Workload Analysis review will use the same methodology
as set forth in Exhibit"2B"as well as the following:
• Classify all full-time and part-time judicial officers and court
staff by the selected case types. Compute the percentage of total FTE for
each of the selected case types. All administrative staff FTE will be
applied proportionately across all case types.
• Single Assignment-Judicial Officers and court staff with formal
case-type-specific assignment are classified and counted by case type.
• Multiple Assignments - When Judicial Officers and court staff
work across several case types on a regular basis, the COURT will
estimate (using FTE) the proportion of each staff and judicial officer's
time devoted to the different case types. This category also includes
regular court staff working in areas such as administration or court
interpretation.
5.2.2 Component Two. Component two of the CCM identified in Exhibit"2A"
is "Total Expenditures". Total Expenditures includes expenditures by the
COURT (one year prior) and actual OMB A-87 indirect costs (two years prior).
For example, the Total Expenditures for calendar year 2012 will be the actual
COURT expenditures for calendar year 2011 plus the actual 2010 OMB A-87
indirect costs. Expenditures related to Services provided to entities which do not
direct file in the COURT will be subtracted from "Total Expenditures" identified
in Exhibit 2A. Mental Health Court expenditures for 2012 and 2013 will be
funded by the Mental Health Sales Tax and / or COUNTY general fund
identified in Exhibit 2A. Starting in 2014, the COURT will charge for costs
related to Mental Health Court cases not funded by the Mental Health Sales Tax
as calculated in Exhibit"2A".
5.2.3 Component Three. Component three of the CCM identified in Exhibit
"2A" is "Total Filings/Cases". Total Filings/Cases are identified in the District
Court Judicial Information System("JIS")which tracks all cases filed in Spokane
County District Court by case type. The methodology uses the 2011 Total
Filings/Cases as the basis for determining the 2012 estimated CPC as identified
in the report in Exhibit 2D.
Page 4 of 8
5.2.4 Calculation of Cost-Per-Case(Case Type)
The cost-per-case for calendar year 2012 as shown in Exhibit"2A" is calculated
by multiplying the Workload Analysis percentage for each identified case type
times the 2011 "Total Expenditures" and dividing the resulting number by the
2011 Total Filings/Cases for that identified case type.
For example, with respect to the case type "Infraction"the 2012 cost per case is
$24.16. This figure is arrived at by multiplying the Workload Analysis for the
case type identified as "infractions" (21.51%) by the 2011 "Total Expenditures"
($5,337,826) and dividing the resulting number by the 2011 Filings for
Infractions (47,523). [21.51% x $5,337,826 = $1,147,979.39 - 47,502 =
$24.16].
The cost-per-case for calendar year 2013, will be calculated by multiplying the
Workload Analysis percentage for each identified case type times the 2012
"Total Expenditures" and dividing the resulting number by the 2012 total filings
for that identified case type.
The cost-per-case for subsequent calendar years will be calculated in the same
manner as set forth for 2012 and 2013 herein above. Provided,however, as stated
in paragraph 5.2.1, the Workload Analysis will be reviewed and updated, if
necessary, every third year the Agreement is in effect and applied to the CCM in
the fourth year.
5.3 Billing Procedure.
The COURT will bill the CITY for Services on a monthly basis on, or before,the
date identified in Exhibit "2C" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference. Each billing will use the cost-per-case as determined in paragraph
5.2.4 and the actual number of case types handled by the COURT for the CITY.
The CITY shall pay the COURT for each billing on or before the date identified
in Exhibit"2C". The time frames for the COURT to bill and the CITY to pay as
identified in Exhibit "2C" shall apply to all subsequent years or portions thereof
during which the Agreement is in effect.
If for any reason the COURT is unable to bill the CITY for any monthly
payment, the bill will be included in a subsequent monthly billing. In such
instance, no penalty, as provided for in paragraph 5.4 hereinafter, will apply to
the CITY's payment of this monthly billing.
5.4 Penalty.
At the sole option of the COUNTY, a penalty may be assessed on any late
payment in an amount equal to lost interest earnings had the payment been timely
paid and invested in the Spokane County Treasurer's Investment Pool.
5.5 Adjust and Settle.
On or before February 20th each year this Agreement is in effect, the COURT
shall advise the CITY in writing of the adjust and settle calculations. On or
Page 5 of 8
before March 5th of each year this Agreement is in effect, the CITY shall advise
the COURT in writing of any concerns with regard to the adjust and settle
calculations. Any disagreement between the CITY and COURT with regard to
the adjust and settle calculations shall be subject to the Section No. 17
(DISPUTE RESOLUTION). Pending resolution on any disagreement under
Section No. 17(DISPUTE RESOLUTION),the objecting party agrees to pay the
other party that portion of the adjust and settle that is undisputed. The adjust and
settle calculation will be applied to the March 20th billing as provided for in
Exhibit 2C.
The settle and adjust amount shall be determined by comparing the total amount
which the COURT billed the CITY for Services for the settle and adjust year to
what the billing would have been using the actual Total Expenditures and actual
Total Filings/Cases for the settle and adjust year.
For example, the settle and adjust for calendar year 2012 Services would
compare the 2012 COURT billing to a billing calculated by using the 2012
actual Expenditures, 2011 actual indirect costs, and the 2012 actual total
filings/cases. In the event the CITY overpaid, it will receive a credit(s) applied
to subsequent billing(s) as set forth in Exhibit "2C". In the event the CITY
underpaid, it will be billed such underpayment in conjunction with the
subsequent billing as set forth in Exhibit"2C".
5.6 Capital Costs.
The COUNTY CEO shall advise the CITY MANAGER as soon as possible of
any anticipated or unanticipated capital improvement costs that arise under the
contract period. The CITY shall pay capital improvement costs under the Cost
Allocation Plan as an indirect cost amortized over the useful life of the
improvement using straight-line depreciation. Any portion of a capital
improvement that was paid for or acquired through separate agreement or with
grant proceeds, voted bond proceeds, user fees, donations, or any other
acquisition method that reflects a contribution on behalf of the CITY shall not be
included in the depreciation schedule applied to the CITY. Any capital
improvement for which the COUNTY seeks reimbursement from the CITY must
be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Agreement.
5.7 Conflict between language in Section No. 5 and Exhibits identified in
Section No.5.
In the event of a conflict between the language within Section No. 5 and the
Exhibits identified in Section No. 5, the language or Exhibit which more
specifically details the CCM and CPC methodology shall dictate.
6. Effective as of midnight January 1,2012, Section No. 8 (Reporting)within the Agreement is
modified as follows:
(Underlined highlighted language added,lined out highlighted language deleted).
Page 6 of 8
SECTION NO.8: REPORTING
Reports — The COURT shall provide the CITY with reports documenting actual
usage and revenue under this Agreement. The Parties agree that the terminology
"reports documenting actual usage" means documents entitled (1) "Cases Filed-
Contracting Jurisdictions Report-SPV CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY",(2)"Cases
Filed-Contracting Jurisdictions Report-SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT
COURT', (3) "BILLING INVOICE", and (4) "DISTRICT COURT FILING /
REVENUE REPORT". - D - .. ' - .• • •• .. . •--
CITY filings by caso type and "Total All Jurisdictions" filings by case type. An
uUpdated reports shall be provided quarterly monthly unless otherwise mutually
agreed by the Parties. Such reports shall be in a format as mutually agreed to
between the Parties. The content and/or format for such reports may be changed
from time-to-time by written agreement between CITY and COURT staff.
Records Review— The CITY shall be allowed to conduct random reviews of the
records generated by the COURT in performance of this Agreement. The CITY
will provide the COURT with reasonable advance notice of the records reviews.
The Parties agree that they will make best efforts to achieve a resolution of any
potential records confidentiality issues, including entering into confidentiality
agreements or other similar mechanisms that will allow disclosure of the necessary
information to accurately conduct a records review. If the CITY will-be is allowed
to view only those records directly relating to Services provided within CITY's
corporate boundaries, then upon request of the CITY, the COURT will provide the
necessary source documents. - . -. . . --_ • .- . •-• . - ••
•
7. Effective as of midnight January 1, 2012, Section No. 17 (Dispute Resolution) within the
Agreement is modified as follows:
(Underlined highlighted language added,lined out highlighted language deleted).
SECTION NO. 17: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any dispute between the COUNTY and CITY including but not limited to cost of
Services which cannot be resolved between the COUNTY and CITY shall be
subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute
shall first be reduced to writing. If the COUNTY CEO and the CITY Manager
cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The provisions of
chapter 7.04A RCW shall be applicable to any arbitration proceeding.
The COUNTY and the CITY shall have the right to designate one person each to act
as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third
arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the PARTIES
and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04A RCW.
The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the PARTIES.
The PARTIES acknowledge that the provisions of this section are not applicable to
the COURT.GR 29 precludes the COURT from delegating any of its administrative
Page 7 of 8
duties addressed in that rule to the legislative or executive branches of government.
The COURT agrees, however, in the event of a dispute with the CITY to meet and
in good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. This paragraph would not preclude the
PARTIES from using this Section to resolve disputes over the calculation of costs of
Services provided under this Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER AGREED,by the Parties hereto,that but for the modifications to the Agreement
as provided for herein to include their effective time/date, all other terms and conditions within the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without any change or modification whatsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and year
opposite their respective signatures.
DATED: -qP0/3 BO•RD 0 •UNTY COMMISSIONERS
,,�.� . ' 1,0 Ire' • �� '‘ GTON
of co s's` ,1 `
IAD
r 1 �
O ECS.UO� 11 /L
•.
wo .9 4�,c• ��, 1°I LLY O'Q 46 , Chair
•
cQ, el
'll SEAL.•' .tom .
atAle,LL----
ATTEST: kk� _= AL FRENCH,Vice-Chair
Cle efthe Board ��`.•':`.�- .
i i-
, / ,
Daniela Erickson /3 — d 0285 TODD MIELKE, Comm' ioner
*****
DATED: SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
eionte)111 ‘ /1
RA R. HAYES,Presi,if n. udge
*****
DATED: //- /11 ' .96'46 CITY OF POKANE VALLEY 1
4
ATT a, ,j -✓
Mike Jackson ity Manager
ristine Bainbridge,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
(le
Office ity ttorney
Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT 2A
COST CALCULATION MODEL (CCM)
2012 ESTIMATED COST-PER-CASE
3/15/13
COMPONENT#1 COMPONENT#2 COMPONENT#3
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS _ TOTAL EXPENDITURES FILINGS/CASES
Total Expenses x%FTE Filings
Personnel Expenditures
Less
2012 MHC
$5,337,826 Funding
I SINGLE
ASSIGN FTE
MENT MULTIPLE ASSIGNMENT PERSONNEL /TOTAL EXPENDITURES ALL JURISDICTIONS
JUDICIAL FTE TOTAL COST BY TOTAL 2011 COST
CASE TYPE STAFF STAFF OFFICER TOTAL %L CASE TYPE FILINGS/CASES PER CASE
Shared Responsibilty i
INFRACTIONS 0 12.11 0.94 13.05 21,41% $1,147,979.39 47,523 $24.16
DUI 0 7.55 1.67 9.23 5.20% $811,353.41 1,605 $505.52
/
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC 0 7.55 1.04 8.59 14.15% $755,542.21 5,674 $133.16
/
MISDEMEANOR DV 0 3.79 0.70 4.49 / 7.39% $394,586.77 906 $435.53
CRIMINAL NON-TRAFFIC 0 4.83 0.84 5.68/ 9.35% $499,115.53 2,305 $216.54
MENTAL HEALTH COURT 4.5 1.48 0.50 6:48 10.67% $569,641.66 ($464.795; 386 $219.81
County Responsibility ""
CIVIL 0 4.28 0.73 5.01 8.26% $440,666.19 8,177 $53.89
`SMALL CLAIMS 0 3.31 0.50 3.81 6.28% $335,140.80 1,197 $279.98
AH/DV(Civil cases/not Criminal) 1 2.90 0.47 4.36 7.19% $383,799.73 871 $440.64
Totals 5.50 47.80 7.40 60.70 100.00% $5,337,825.68 1
Court Cost Analysis
District Court 2011 Expenses $4,502,563
Actual Indirect Costs for 2010 $872,039
SubTotal $5,374,602
Actual 2011 Cheney Cost ($36,776)
I $5,337,1126
EXHIBIT 2B
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS - SUMMARY
SUMMARY 2011 Info as of 1/1/12 6/25/2012
%OF EACH DAY
FTE Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV MHC
ADMINISTRATION 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 100%
CLERKS OFFICE 34% 15% 17% 6% 9% 8% 6% 5% 0% 100%
JUDICIAL ASSTS 5% 24% 16% 11% 14% 10% 7% 6% 7% 100%
JUDGES 13% 23% 14% 9% 11% 10% 7% 6% 7% 100%
63% 73% 58% 38% 45% 39% 31% 28% 25% 400%
AVG PERCENTAGE 15.77% 18.27% 14.60% 9.49% 11.26% 9.74% 7.67% 7.06% 6.13% 100.00%
MHC 0% 11% 0%I 39% 50% 0% 0% 0%I I I 100%
#OF EMPLOYEES
FTE Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV MHC
ADMINISTRATION 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 8.80
CLERK'S OFFICE 10.75 4.76 5.36 1.98 2.84 2.57 1.80 1.45 31.50
JUDICIAL ASSTS 0.38 1.82 1.22 0.83 1.02 0.73 0.53 0.47 0.50 7.50
STAFF I 12.11 7.55 7.55 3.79 4.83 4.28 3.31 2.90 1.48 47.80
JUDICIAL OFFICER 0.94 I 1.67 I 1.04 I 0.70 I 0.84 I 0.73 I 0.50 I 0.47 I 0.50 I I 7.40
MHC I 0.001 0.521 0.001 1.731 2.251 0.001 0.001 0.001 I I 4.50
AH/DV(Civil cases/not Criminal) I I I I I I I I 1.00 1.00
I TOTAL I 13.05 I 9.23 I 8.59 I 4.49 I 5.68 I 5.01 I 3.81 I 3.36 I 1.98 I I I 60.70 I
MCH Total 0.00 0.52 0.00 1.73 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.98 6.48
Total W/O MCH 13.05 8.71 8.59 2.75 3.43 5.01 3.81 3.36 0.00 54.22
Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV MCH
Admin 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97778 8.80 8.80
Clerk 10.75 4.76 5.36 1.98 2.84 2.57 1.80 1.45 31.50 31.50
Judical Assist 60.38 1.82 1.22 0.83 1.02 0.73 0.53 0.47 0.50 7.50 7.50
Judges 0.94 1.67 1.04 0.70 0.84 0.73 0.50 0.47 0.50 7.40 7.40
MHC 4.50 4.50 4.50
0.00
Ali/DV(Civil cases/not Criminal) 1 1 1.00
Totals 13.05 9.23 8.59 4.49 5.68 5.01 3.81 3.36 6.48 1.00 60.70 60.70
EXHIBIT 2B-1
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS - Administration
FTE Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV MCH TOT
Friberg, Sandy AT2 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0,83 7.50
Ingram, Ronda OM 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 7.50
Gray, Becky Sec2 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 7.50
Miller,Wayne CAA 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 7.50
Searl, Sheri AT3 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 7.50
Shaw, Denny JOM 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 7.50
Witter, John DCC 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 7.50
-:3./3 { 0.42 0.42 0.42 u.42 u.42 0.42 2 0.42
.3A.5-3.75 (Getche/i, 0.42 0.42 (1.12 7. 0.42 0.42 0.17 0.42 0.42 3.75
Court Administrator 0.67 0.67 ._ . 0.07 .07 c 0.67 .000
TOTAL. 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 66.00
Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV MCH
%of each day 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 100%
#of Employees 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 8.80
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9-1-2011
EXHIBIT 2B-2
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS - Clerk's Office
FTE Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV TOT
Baseler, AT2 1.00 1.75 2.50 0.75 1.50 7.50
Bently, AT2 3.00 1.50 1.75 0.25 1.00 7.50
Engan, AT2 5.25 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.50 7.50
Gray, AT2 3.50 1.00 1.50 0.25 1.25 7.50
Harris, AT2 4.25 0.75 1.25 0.25 1.00 7.50
Lara, AT2 4.25 0.75 1.25 0.25 1.00 7.50
Schoonover, AT2 7.50 7.50
Wagar, AT2 7.50 7.50
Wentz, AT2 5.00 2.00 0.50 7.50
Clark, 0A4 2.00 1.82 1.82 1.37 0.49 7.50
Countryman, 0A4 6.00 1.50 7.50
Dorman, 0A4 1.90 2.16 2.16 0.10 1.08 0.10 7.50
Morig, 0A4 6.00 0.07 0.97 0.08 0.38 7.50
Morris, 0A4 1.50 6.00 7.50
Carroll, 0A3 3.38 1.00 1.90 0.12 1.00 0.10 7.50
Castillo, 0A3 4.50 1.20 1.00 0.40 0.20 0.20 7.50
Coyle, 0A3 5.75 0.67 0.64 0.22 0.22 7.50
ECR 0A3 4.00 3.50 7.50
Falmo, CMS 2.00 1.00 4.00 0.10 0.40 7.50
Perry, CMS 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 7.50
Holmes, AT3 7.50 7.50
Maffia, AT3 0.50 2.00 2.50 1.00 1.50 7.50
Anderson, CC 1.00 4.00 1.25 1.25 7.50
Bell, CC (.5 FTE grant) 0.10 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.40 3.75
Dravland, CC 1.00 0.25 5.00 0.25 1.00 7.50
Gallagher,CC 0.75 4.50 1.00 0.25 0.75, 0.25 7.50
Gerke, CC 7.50 7.50
Krotova, CC 0.50 0.75 1.00 4.25 1.00 7.50
Supita, CC 0.75 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 7.50
Albano, OS 3.75 0.76 2.43 0.18 0.38 7.50
Cameron, OS 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 7.50
Hansen, OS 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.50 2.75 0.50 0.50 7.50
Jurjevich, OS Vacancy
TOTAL 80.63 35.68 40.17 14.82 21.30 19.25 13.50 10.90 236.25
Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV
% of each day 34% 15% 17% 6% 9% 8% 6% 5% 100%
#of Employees 10.75 4.76 5.36 1.98 2.84 2.57 1.80 1.45 31.50
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9-1-2011
EXHIBIT 2B-3
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS - Judicial Assistants
FTE Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV MCH TOT
Nebergall,JA-RAB 0.50 1.00 3.50 1.00 1.50 7.50
Amistoso,JA-JOC 0.25 0.25 5.00 2.00 7.50
n:ro,vs,JA-SRD 1.25 7.50
Getchell,JA-DRH 0.25 0.75 1.00 0.75 1.00 3.75
Bartole, JA-VWP(cbc) 1.00 2.75 1.25 0.50 1.25 0.50 0.25 7.50
Hansen, JA-GJT 0.50 3.75 1.50 1.75 7.50
Plewman,JA-PCW _ 4.00 3.50 7.50
Gerrells, JA-DW 0.25 3.25 1.00 1.25 1.75 7.50
MHC 3.75 3.75
Adjust for admin -0.13 -2.13 -0.63 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.75
TOTAL 2.875 13.625 9.125 6.250 7.625 5.500 4.000 3.500 3.750 56.250
Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV MCH
%of each day 5% 24% 16% 11% 14% 10% 7% 6% 7% 100%
#of Employees 0.38 1.82 1.22 0.83 1.02 0.73 0.53 0.47 0.50 7.50
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9-1-2011
EXHIBIT 2B-4
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS - Mental Health Court
FTE Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Cims Ali/DV TOT
Bell, Stephanie (.5 FTE) 0.88 1 1.88 3.75
Bender, Sec 2 0.75 3.00 3.75 7.50
Folden, MH Eval 0.75 3.00 3.75 7.50
Hammond, MH Cs Mgr 0.75 3.00 3.75 7.50
Manfred, Manager 0.75 3.00 3.75 7.50
TOTAL 0.00 3.88 0.00 13.00 16.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.75
Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV
%of each day 0% 11% 0% 39% 50% 0% 0% 0% 100%
#of Employees 0.00 0.52 0.00 1.73 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9-1-2011
EXHIBIT 2B-5
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS - Judges
Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV MHC TOT
Brandt,Judge 0.50 1.00 3.50 1.00 1.50 7.50
Cooney,Judge 0.25 0.25 5.00 2.00 7.50
Derr, Judge 0.25 4.25 1.25 1.75 7.50
Hayes,Judge 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.75 3.75
Peterson, Judge(cbc) 5.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.50 7.50
Tripp,Judge 0.32 3.56 1.31 1.56 6.75
Walker,Judge 4.00 3.50 7.50
Wilson,Judge 0.25 3.25 1.00 1.25 1.75 7.50
TOTAL 7.07 12.56 7.81 5.25 6.31 5.50 3.75 3.50 3.75 55.50
Infractions DUI Misd-CT Misd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm Clms AH/DV MHC
of each day 13% 23% 14% 9% 11% 10% 7% 6% 7% 100%
#of Employees 0.94 1.67 1.04 0.70 0.84 0.73 0.50 0.47 0.50 7.40
Judge Hayes 50%of her position is as a MHC judge&50%is admin as presiding
Staffing and Workload Information is Effective 9-1-2011
Note: Judge Tripp spends up to 15 hrs a month in Cheney(2 days). 162.5 hrs/mo ÷ 15 hrs=10.8%. 7.5 hrs x 10%
equals.75. 7.50-.75=6.75 Workweek for Judge Tripp instead of 7.5. Must back out the Cheney work. We
subtracted.19 each(.19 x 4=.75)from Infractions,DUI, Misd CT,Misd. CN and Small Claims.
EXHIBIT 2C
Billing Schedule
2012 2013 I
Jan-Feb 20 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Jan-Feb 20 Feb Mar i
E
Cost per Case 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013. c
Estimate Based on Calculate 2012 CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM CCM e
estimated cost per Calculate 2013 I t
case based on estimated cost per
Usage Based on i e
2011 Court case based on 2012 r
Filings/Cases from Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Court Expenditures, Jan Febl a
Expenditures,2011
Total Filings/Cases 2012 Total I
County bills City on Filings/Cases and
or before and 2010 Actual 20-Feb 20-Mar 20-Apr 20-May 20-Jun 20-Jul 20-Aug 20-Sep 20-Oct 20-Nov 20-Dec 20-Jan2011 Actual OMB A-
20-Feb 20-Mar'
OMB A-87 Indirect
Cost 87 Indirect Cost
City pays County on
or before 5-Mar 5-Apr 5-May 5-Jun 5-Jul 5-Aug 5-Sep 5-Oct 5-Nov 5-Dec 5-Jan 5-Feb 1 5-Mar 5-Apr
2012 Settle&Adjust Multiply 2012
actual CPC by 2012 Total Filings/Cases.
Compare to what was billed in 2012.
Advise the City on/or before February
20 of the Settle&Adjust amount. The
City has until March 5 to dispute the
Settle&Adjust amount. An
overpayment will be credited to
subsequent billing(s)starting on March
20. An underpayment will be billed as
an additional amount on the March 20
billing. NOTE: The actual 2012 CPC is
the same as the estimated 2013 CPC.
EXHIBIT 2D
2011 Filings by Category & Jurisdiction
Spokane County District Court 3118113 11:20 AM
Cases Filed - Contracting Jurisdictions Report
Cases filed 2011
Jurisdiction Initials Jurisdiction
DPK CITY OF DEER PARK
FFD CITY OF FAIRFIELD
LLK CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
MIL CITY OF MILLWOOD
ROC CITY OF ROCKFORD
SPL CITY OF SPANGLE
SPO COUNTY OF SPOKANE
SPV CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
File Year >> 2011 2011 2011? 2011 2011i 2011 2011 2011
Jurisdiction >> DPK FFD 'LLK !MIL 'ROC SPL SPO SPV Total
Criminal Non-Traffic 115 41 1 1415 783 2355
Criminal Traffic 499 115 9 3507 1566 5696
DV Misdemeanors 34 21 466 425 946
DWI Citation 38 27 1389 169 1623
Infractions 886 5 615 29 44 7 32685 7243 41514
Parkin« Infractions 4 3 5670 333 6010
Totals 1576 5 822 39 44 7 45132 10519 58144
EXHIBIT 2D-1
2011 Mental Health Court Cases
Incoming/new assigned Mental Health Court cases,based on MCO coding in J15 system. data as of 01/11/13
DPK CITY OF DEER PARK
LLK CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE
ROC CITY OF ROCKFORD
SPC CITY OF SPOKANE_
SPO COUNTY OF SPOKANE
SPV CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
MHC In Year» 2011 2011 J 2011 SPC%of 2011 SPO%of 2011 SPV%o of
Court Bill MHC Jurisdiction>>
DPK LLK ,SPG 'ram tot :SPD ,'mhG tot ¢5PV mtii:tot Total
SPO_ No " Criminal Non-Traffic: 1 20 15 36
SPO No Criminal Fraflic 9 6 15
SPO No D-
V Misdemeanors 8 17 25
SPDNo DWI Citation 1 15 16
SPD No_ Infractions 1 1
SPD Yes _ Criminal Non-Traffic 8 6 14
SPD Yes Criminal Traffic 1 6 7
SPDYes DV Misdemeanors 8 7 15
SPDC Yes— DWI Citation 2 2
SPM Yes !Criminal Non-Tralf,.; 160 160
SPM Yes Criminal Traffic 19 19
SPM Yes DV Misdemeanors 68 68
SPM Yes DWI Citation 6 6
SPM Yes Infractions 2 2
Totals 2 1 255 66% 77 20% 386
Data from Jurisdictio Billing/BOXI query,cases where case review code of"MCO"was set during period
"Bill MHC" value is determined by a formula,if MCO imposed date month=case file date month then Bill MHC=Yes,it is assumed the
case shouldn't have already been billed to the jurisdiction at an earlier time,as a regular non MHC casetype.If the case file date was
earlier it assumes the case has already been billed as a regular non MHC casetype.(as to not double bill the jurisdiction.)
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Overview of service animal laws
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.);
Washington Law Against Discrimination (chapter 49.60 RCW)
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: City Council has been approached by an individual regarding the appropriate
use of service animals in public businesses. Council has requested additional information
regarding the laws governing service animals.
Individuals with disabilities are granted a broad range of protections against discrimination
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.) and the
Washington Law Against Disabilities ("WLAD") (chapter 49.60 RCW). The ADA is federal law
and is enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice. The WLAD is state law and is enforced by
the Washington Human Rights Commission. Among the protections granted by the ADA and
WLAD are certain requirements regarding the use of "service animals." Generally, publicly
owned facilities (e.g., City Hall) and places of public accommodation (businesses open to the
public) may not discriminate against persons of disabilities and the operators are required to
allow service animals into areas of those facilities open to the public. Note that this discussion
is focused primarily on the application of the ADA and WLAD to service animals in places of
public accommodation, but that the ADA and WLAD govern many other areas, including
housing, employment, and publicly owned facilities.
Definition of"disability"
Preliminarily, "disability" is defined under the ADA as "(i) [a] physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (ii) [a] record of
such impairment; or (iii) [b]eing regarded as having such an impairment as described in [the
ADA]." The WLAD contains a similar definition and provides that "disability" means "the
presence of a sensory, mental, or physical impairment that: (i) is medically recognizable or
diagnosable; or exists as a record or history; or is perceived to exist whether or not it exists in
fact."
Service Animal
The ADA and WLAD differ in the respective definitions of "service animal." "Service Animal" is
defined under the ADA as "dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for
people with disabilities." In addition to service dogs, the ADA also recognizes miniature horses
that have been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities as
service animals. Under the ADA, no other animal is recognized as a service animal. Note that
under the ADA, dogs or miniature horses in training are not considered "service animals."
The WLAD defines "dog guide" as "a dog that is trained for the purpose of guiding blind persons
or a dog that is trained for the purpose of assisting hearing impaired persons," and "service
animal" as "an animal that is trained for the purpose of assisting or accommodating a sensory,
mental, or physical disability of a person with a disability." Therefore, it would appear any type
of animal that has been trained to assist a person with their disability may be a service animal
Page 1 of 4
under WLAD. However, note that the WLAD limits accommodations for service animals in food
establishments to dogs and miniature horses.
Under both the ADA and WLAD, the animal must have some individualized training related to
the person's disability in order to be a service animal. The training must be more than
obedience or positive reinforcement given to family pets. Examples of tasks service animals
may be trained to perform include the ability to guide the blind, alert the deaf, pull a wheelchair,
or to calm a person with PTSD during an anxiety attack. There is no specific limit on the type of
task a service animal may provide, but if the animal's sole function is merely to provide comfort
or emotional support then it will generally not qualify as a service animal unless it has received
specific training related to such task. Further, the ADA provides that the crime deterrent effects
of an animal's presence do not constitute work or tasks for purposes of determining whether the
animal is a service animal.
In determining whether an animal meets the requirements of a service animal under the ADA,
only limited inquiry is allowed. Under the ADA, inquiry is limited to two questions and only when
it is not readily apparent whether an animal is trained to do work for an individual with a
disability: (1) is the dog or miniature horse required because of a disability, and (2) what work or
task has the animal been trained to perform. It is impermissible under the ADA to inquire as to
the person's disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or
training documentation for the animal, or ask that the animal perform its task.
The WLAD does not specifically limit inquiry into the service animal like the ADA. However,
Washington courts generally look to interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws, including
the ADA, when applying the WLAD since the WLAD substantially parallels federal law. Thus, it
is likely that inquiry into a purported service animal would be similarly limited under WLAD.
Accommodations
Under the ADA, qualifying public entities and places of public accommodation are required to
accommodate persons with disabilities when providing service, programs, and activities. This
requires that a service animal be permitted in any area in which the public is generally allowed
to go.
This is a broad protection, as it applies to public facilities (e.g., City Hall, city sidewalks, parks),
businesses open to the public, and even zoning (e.g., service animals cannot be excluded from
residing at a residence by zoning restrictions). Businesses may not charge a fee for use of a
service animal. However, it is not absolute. For example, restaurants are not required to allow
service animals to sit on chairs or be fed at the table and facilities are not required to allow
service animals into swimming pools.
Excluding service animals from covered entities
Though both the ADA and WLAD require covered entities to accommodate individuals with
disabilities by allowing service animals, the protections are not absolute. A person may lawfully
be asked to remove his or her service animal from the premises if the animal is either (1) out of
control and no effective action to control it is taken or (2) the animal is not housebroken. Control
generally consists of leashing or tethering unless the nature of the service animal's tasks or the
person's disability prevents the use. In that case, the person may control the animal through
voice, signal, or other effective means. Additionally, if the presence of a service animal creates
a legitimate safety risk (e.g., compromising a sterile environment such as a burn treatment unit)
or fundamentally alters the nature of the service or program, the use of a service animal may be
restricted. An example would be in a zoo where the presence of the service animal would be
disruptive to certain caged animals which are the natural predators or prey of the service
animal, in which case the service animal would be restricted from those areas. Additionally, if
the service animal is a miniature horse it may be permissible to exclude the animal if the facility
cannot accommodate it. The accommodation factors are (1) whether the miniature horse is
Page 2 of 4
housebroken; (2) whether the miniature horse is under the owner's control; (3) whether the
facility can accommodate the miniature horse's type, size, and weight; and (4) whether the
miniature horse's presence will compromise legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe
operation of the facility.
Pursuant to the Washington Human Rights Commission, if the handler refuses to answer
inquiries into what task the service animal performs, the animal may be excluded from the
business.
Enforcement
The ADA and WLAD may be enforced through several different means, which can range from
technical assistance to ensure appropriate measures are taken to prevent discrimination from
occurring to private civil lawsuits by individuals who have been discriminated against, to formal
enforcement actions by the enforcing federal and state agencies.
Technical assistance. The U.S. Department of Justice provides education and technical
assistance to covered entities to encourage voluntary compliance with the ADA. Technical
assistance includes various publications, direct guidance and an information line that anyone
may call. The Washington Human Rights Commission has materials on its website regarding
accommodations for service animals.
Private actions. Individuals may bring claims under both the ADA and WLAD as a
means of enforcement.
Enforcement by responsible agency. The ADA is enforced by the U.S. Department of
Justice and the WLAD is enforced by the Washington Human Rights Commission. The
Department of Justice enforces the ADA through lawsuits and settlement agreements. The
Department also offers a mediation program for parties to attempt to mediate disputes prior to
lawsuits. Note that the Department of Justice may not bring a lawsuit unless negotiations to
settle the dispute have failed. Lawsuits under the ADA may result in compensatory damages,
injunctive measures to require compliance, and civil penalties (up to $150,000 per violation for
repeat violations).
The WLAD is enforced by the Washington Human Rights Commission. The
Commission may enter into settlement agreements, issue administrative orders, or seek judicial
enforcement.
Criminal acts. Generally, Washington law makes it a crime for a person to interfere with,
allow their dogs to interfere with, or harm a dog guide or service animal. These crimes range
from misdemeanors to felonies depending on the nature and severity of the interference or
injury to the dog guide or service animal.
Local regulatory and enforcement options. Local governments do provide a form of
enforcement by ensuring that zoning, design standards, and construction meet the requirements
of the ADA and WLAD. However, beyond such measures, local governments are not
authorized to otherwise enforce the specific requirements of the ADA or the WLAD. However,
the ADA provides that it does not "invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of any
other Federal laws, or State or local laws (including State common law) that provide greater or
equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities or individuals associated with them."
See CFR § 35.103; CFR § 36.103. Thus, under the ADA, it appears that the City could adopt
and enforce local anti-discrimination provisions provided that such provisions provided equal or
greater protection for individuals with disabilities against discrimination. However, the WLAD
only authorizes a "county or city classified as a first-class city...with over one hundred twenty
five thousand population" to enact resolutions or ordinances to provide administrative or judicial
remedies for any form of discrimination under the WLAD. RCW 49.60.330. Although code
cities are granted broad authority to exercise those powers granted to all classes of cities and
not otherwise denied to code cities, RCW 49.60.330 may provide some limit on the City's ability
Page 3 of 4
to enact purely local administrative or judicial remedies for discrimination that might otherwise
be allowed under the ADA. Thus, taking the ADA and WLAD together, the City could adopt
generally applicable requirements that would have an effect of preventing discrimination, but
may be limited in enacting specific administrative or judicial discrimination remedies.
Accordingly, examples of requirements that would be acceptable: requirement for
vaccinations; generally applicable registration and licensing; voluntary service animal
registration program. Examples that would not be acceptable: requiring additional inquiry;
requiring specific training for service animals; requiring medical prescriptions for service
animals; bans on certain breeds; mandatory service animal registration program.
Further information regarding the ADA may be found at: https://www.ada.ciov/index.html.
Further information regarding the WLAD may be found at: http://www.hum.wa.gov/.
OPTIONS: Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Costs for enforcement of new regulations are unknown at
this time and are not currently included in the City's budget.
STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Presentation
Page 4 of 4
Overview of Laws Governing
Service Animals
Erik Lamb, Spokane Valley Deputy City Attorney
Background
Citizen comments to City Council
Local businesses failing to enforce service animal laws or
allowing non-service animals, which can disrupt service
animals and service animals in training
City Council request for information on laws
governing service animals
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney
Lam-ws governing service animals
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
42 USC § 12101 et seq.
Enforced by U.S. Department of Justice
Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD)
Chapter 49.6o RCW
Enforced by Washington Human Rights Commission
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney
ion a ga i ns i m iMrib n
ADA and WLAD broadly protect individuals with disabilities against
discrimination in many different areas (e.g., employment, public
access, etc.)
Disability - person has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of
such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment
(ADA)
Generally, publicly owned facilities and "places of public
accommodation' may not discriminate against persons with disabilities
Must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all
areas where the public is normally all we
to go
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney
What is a "service animal " ?
ADA - "dogs that are individually trained to do work or
perform tasks for people with disabilities"
ADA also recognizes miniature horses that have been
individually trained to do work or perform tasks for
people with disabilities as service animals.
Generally 70-100 pounds and 24-34 inches tall
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 5
What is a "service animal " ?
WLAD - "animal that is trained for the purpose of
assisting or accommodating a sensory, mental, or
physical disability of a person with a disability." RCW
49.60.040(24) .
Does not appear to be limited to dogs or miniature
horses, except in food establishments
BUT still required to be trained
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney
Service animal training
Individualized training related to the person's disability
More than obedience or positive reinforcement given to
family pets
Guide blind
Alert deaf
Pull wheelchair
Calm person with PTSD during anxiety attack
Not merely providing comfort or emotional support
Not merely animal's presence as crime deterrent
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney
I nrv=i=ce animal
A A limits inquiring into whether animal is service
animal
1. Is the dog or miniature horse required because of a
disability?
2. What work or task has the animal been trained to
perform?
Cannot inquire into person's disability or ask animal to
perform task
No requirement for certification, licensing, vests,
documentation, patches, evidence or other proof and
entities may not ask for such proof
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 8
Excluding service animals
If handler refuses to answer the two allowed questions
Animal is out of control or is not housebroken
Control - leashing, tethering, or voice, signal, or other
effective means
Presence of service animal creates legitimate safety
risk
Presence of service animal fundamentally alters nature
of the service or program
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney
n for c e m e n
Technical Assistance
Agencies provide assistance to covered entities to ensure
appropriate measures are taken to prevent discrimination
Private Actions
Individuals who are discriminated against may bring lawsuits
against discriminating entity
Enforcement by responsible agency
Other Washington law
Criminal acts for interference with service animals
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney
Required to allow access within City facilities
ADA
Does not invalidate any local provision that provides
equal or greater protection for the rights of individuals
with disabilities
WLAD
Specifically authorizes county or first class city over
125,000 to enact provisions to provide administrative or
judicial remedies for any form of discrimination under
the WLAD
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney i
Examples of acceptable local regulations
Requirement that animals be vaccinated
Requirement that all dogs be licensed/registered
Voluntary service animal registration program
Examples of unacceptable local regulations
Requiring additional inquiries (e.g., required to
demonstrate training or prescription)
Bans on certain breeds of dogs
Mandatory service animal registration
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 12
Questions ?
City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney i3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 17. 2017 Department Director Approval: ❑
Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing
[' information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report — update on ad hoc committee on public sidewalk
snow removal options.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 7.05.040(C).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of nuisance provisions in 2003, amended
over the years, most recently in 2012. On February 23, 2016, staff delivered a presentation to
the City Council on potential options regarding the removal of accumulations of snow and ice
from public sidewalks. The Council requested that staff bring forth a proposed ordinance for
further discussion. On August 16, 2016, staff delivered a presentation to the Council on a
proposed ordinance. In the discussion that followed, Council identified several issues within the
proposed ordinance and asked that staff revise it and that it be brought back for further
examination. On September 13, 2016, Council discussed draft code language creating an
infraction system for enforcing violations of clearing public sidewalks of accumulated snow and
ice. Following that discussion, the Council formed an ad hoc committee to identify other
potential options to deal with removal of sidewalk snow and ice.
BACKGROUND: Following the formation of the ad hoc sidewalk snow committee, the Mayor
appointed Councilmembers Woodard and Pace as Council representatives, and requested that
City Attorney Cary Driskell be the primary staff contact. Staff then worked to identify potential
citizen representatives who may be able to contribute their time and experience in analyzing this
issue. After talking with various people, the final committee included the following:
Arne Woodard (Deputy Mayor);
Ed Pace (Councilmember);
Laura Padden (citizen);
Dave Thompson (Modern Electric Board President, Dave's Bar and Grill);
Jayne Singleton (Spokane Valley Heritage Museum);
Michelle Rasmussen (citizen);
Rick Doehle (Central Valley School District)
Shane Arlt (Spokane Valley Public Works Maintenance Supervisor);
Sean Messner (Spokane Valley Senior Traffic Engineer);
Elisha Heath (Executive Assistant); and
Cary Driskell (Spokane Valley City Attorney)
The committee first met November 17, 2016. A copy of the meeting notes is provided for the
Council's review. In summary, the committee discussed a number of issues related to sidewalk
snow and ice, including potential approaches the City could take to alleviate the problem with
public sidewalks not getting cleared. The committee requested that staff gather information to
bring back at the next meeting on how many complaints the City has received in the past
several years regarding snow on sidewalks.
Due to the holidays, the committee did not meet again until January 3, 2017. At that meeting,
the committee continued to discuss options for removing snow and ice from public sidewalks.
There was considerable discussion regarding why this is such a significant issue, and why more
people do not clear the snow and ice. Among the concerns identified was that a significant
contributor to the problem is that plows push snow and ice from the public rights-of-way onto the
sidewalks. This contributes additional volume to be removed, creates an uneven surface to try
to walk on, and is difficult to break up and remove, particularly if it freezes.
To conclude the meeting, the committee identified some items for the Council to consider, which
are as follows:
1. The committee recommended that the City assume responsibility for removing snow from
Tier 1 areas, which are identified on the attached map, and include all commercially-zoned
areas and Safe Routes to Schools. Just the arterial portion of Tier 1 includes 154 miles of
sidewalks, and the Safe Routes to Schools would be in addition to that, but has not been
calculated for purposes of this report.
There was discussion that the City does not have any revenue source to pay for the
increased costs associated with the City taking on this responsibility. As a result, there were
three suggestions for possible revenue to pay for this:
a. Fund it through formation of and assessment in a business improvement district (BID),
which would require the approval of at least 50% of the affected property owners, or
adoption of a resolution of the City. The City has not utilized a BID in its history. Funds
would be collected by assessing the member property owners, and funds could only be
used for the purpose stated in the formation of the BID.
b. Form a transportation benefit district. Once formed, funds could be generated
through a variety of options, which could include a sales tax increase, vehicle license tab
fee of up to $50 without voter approval, and tolls. The funds could only be used for
transportation purposes, which could include sidewalk snow and ice removal.
c. Imposition of utility tax with the funds dedicated to sidewalk snow and ice removal.
2. If the City were to continue to require that the adjoining property owner be responsible for
sidewalk snow and ice removal, the following options were discussed:
a. Try to get compliance without an enforcement mechanism through education and
communication.
b. Try to get compliance through education and communication, but adopt an
enforcement mechanism similar to what was proposed by staff in the fall, 2016. That
included the ability to issue an infraction with a total penalty of around $110, with 48
hours to come into compliance. Failure to clear the sidewalk within 48 hours after
receiving an infraction could result in issuance of another infraction, resulting in a
financial incentive to keep the sidewalk cleared. Citizens with disabilities and/or who are
65 years of age or older would not be subject to such penalties provided they make good
faith efforts to utilize community resources for snow and ice removal.
3. Recommended that the City identify legitimate options for those who are physically
unable to remove the ice and snow to get assistance. This could include a frequently
updated list of contractors who perform this service for a fee, and of volunteer groups who
will do so for free. There was discussion that the "211" service identified in current City
information does not have providers who assist in the Valley area.
4. Regardless of what approach the City takes, we need to have a robust
educational/informative program to let businesses and citizens know what the requirements
are, and what resources are available for assistance. An important part of this should
include identifying as many businesses as possible that hire companies to remove snow
from parking lots, advise them of the requirements to keep sidewalks clear of snow, and
advise that they may want to include in price quotes to their customers the cost of sidewalk
snow removal as well as parking lot snow removal. Staff believes this has the potential to
be an effective tool to reduce the problem in commercial areas.
5. Other items of discussion included the following:
a. Consider plowing to the edge of the roadway, then contracting to have the berms
loaded up and hauled to an open area where it could melt over time;
b. Adopt Code provisions that require new developments to have separated sidewalks,
providing a snow pocket for plow drivers. Currently, new developments can opt out of
this requirement if they treat stormwater on private property, such as on a lot dedicated
to that purpose. Also, staff has flexibility in this requirement for small in-fill
developments. When the City is doing reconstruction of existing roads within a
constrained area, it could have an adopted policy whereby the City would be required to
determine whether there is room within the existing right-of-way to narrow lanes enough
to move the curb line in to create room for a separated sidewalk. These types of
projects cost more money on the front end to construct, but result in areas to store snow
from the roads. These types of improvements would be part of a long-term solution that
is accomplished over time.
c. Focus on tailoring the speed of plows depending on what is adjacent to the road. For
example, slowing down enough to push snow to the curb line, but not onto the sidewalk
where there are buildings or fences immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. If there is
adequate space behind the sidewalk, perhaps additional speed will push more snow
beyond the sidewalk. The City has to be careful to not create berms in the road that
obstruct traffic sight lines that could cause accidents.
d. Consider adoption of development standards which prohibit construction of fences
within three feet of a sidewalk. This would allow an area for snow storage from
sidewalks. Currently, there are many areas where six foot fences were allowed right up
to the sidewalk. This makes sidewalk snow removal very difficult.
e. Four of the City plows have plow blades that are referred to as having a "batwing"
design, with the blade getting higher on the side the snow is being thrown to. This
design results in throwing the snow farther than it needs to. These plow vehicles were
purchased a number of years ago from Washington DOT, where they were used on
highways where that type of blade is appropriate and necessary. The estimated cost for
replacing each of these batwing blades is roughly estimated between $5,000 and
$7,000.
At this point, the sidewalk snow committee does not plan to meet again, but may do so if
requested by the Council.
OPTIONS: Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, City Attorney; Jacob Dillon, Legal Intern.
ATTACHMENTS: (1) Meeting notes from committee dated November 17, 2016.
(2) Map showing proposed Tier 1 area.
NOTES FROM AD HOC SIDEWALK SNOW COMMITTEE MEETING
November 17, 2016
Attendees:
Councilmember Ed Pace
Councilmember Arne Woodard
Dave Thompson
Jayne Singleton
Rick Doehle
Michelle Rasmussen
Laura Padden
Shane Arlt
Sean Messner
Cary Driskell
1. Staff provided some background on why the ad hoc sidewalk snow and ice committee was
formed, including some safety considerations when snow and ice are not removed.
2.A request was made to find complaints/reports to the City regarding accidents related to failures
to keep sidewalks clear of snow or ice. That request is being researched by staff.
3. There was a general consensus that the City cannot continue to take the same approach to snow
and ice on sidewalks, although staff is working to identify how many complaints we have
received, as noted above.
4. Various suggestions were made and discussed on ways to reduce the volume of the snow and
ice on sidewalks, and then what to do with it once it is there, including:
a. There was general agreement that there needs to be a hybrid approach for responsibility
between property owners and the City.
b. There was discussion that the City is very conscious about implementing something that
either adds staff or increases costs from the general fund.
c. Instructing plow drivers to be more deliberate in how fast they drive. For example,
where there is no space behind a sidewalk, slow down significantly so that snow is
collected in bike lanes where they exist. Where there is space behind a sidewalk for
snow storage, go faster so that the snow is mostly thrown beyond the sidewalk.
d. There was discussion of whether it was appropriate to use the center turn lane as a pocket
for snow storage in severe events, which has been done in the past. Cary pointed out
there can be liability issues associated with this if it obstructs traffic and the ability to
see oncoming traffic while making turns.
e.A suggestion was made for the City to stockpile a quantity of sand or de-icer for property
owners to be able to get and use.
f. There needs to be as robust of a volunteer program as we can do. The City may assist in
coordinating this, but should not be the lead.
g. There was discussion about the City keeping a list of third-party contractors who do
sidewalk snow removal, basically like we keep for contractors the City does business
with. This would be a resource to share with property owners who don't know where
to call to hire someone to take care of their sidewalk.
h. There was broad agreement that there needs to be a comprehensive and on-going
educational aspect of this so citizens know what they are required to do.
i. Councilmember Woodard discussed that even with all of the good ideas discussed, there
must be some finality to this, such that if somebody is able to clear their sidewalk, but
is choosing not to,there is a mechanism for fining them as a way to achieve compliance.
5. The committee agreed on the need to meet again in several weeks, which would give staff time
to research how many prior reports/complaints we had received and logged into the CARES
system.
1 i ..
Mill,.mid WO
..
1 _ .
- LLLerh
• tiin ii I
. �A C
•
7
— —[._.__1— ,
Ii
.-...._. .,_
...\\;Iit .,
_ a �
Legend
Safe Routes to Schools
N
Tier I Priority N
Tier it Pnority
ce
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report — Proposed resolution establishing scope of
authority for City Manager to administer the City's grant program.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 35A.11 RCW; chapter 25.A.15 RCW; chapter 2.15
SVMC; chapter 3.35 SVMC; and 2 CFR 200.415(a).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND: The origin for this Resolution was a recent change in federal law which
requires that municipalities may only submit requests for reimbursements on federal grants that
are signed by a person who is authorized to legally bind the non-federal entity. This law
became effective December 1, 2016. Staff has been able to work with our partners on these
grants to continue payments in the short term, but recommend adoption of a resolution clarifying
the authority to ensure we don't risk delaying future payments.
In the process of drafting the Resolution to address this issue, staff discussed other situations
relating to grants that the Council may want to consider adopting in the interest of saving time.
The first would be to authorize the City Manager to apply for any grant under $25,000 without
additional authorization by Council. There are not large numbers of these, and many are of a
relatively minor dollar amount. Such grants generally relate to Justice Assistance Grants (JAG)
for our Police Department, for such things as body armor, ammunition, technology, and
emphasis patrols for things like DUI or seatbelts. Any grant $25,000 and above would require
prior approval by Council. Some grants may still require a resolution by Council specific to that
grant request, which would also be brought to Council.
The threshold amount of $25,000 is merely a suggestion from staff. If the Council has a
different preference, it should be suggested.
Consistent with the council-manager form of government, the City Manager is the administrative
head of the organization. While it is implied that the City Manager has the duty and function to
oversee any grants applied for, including all administrative oversight and reporting, we can
make clear that this is the case, especially in light of the new federal law which seems to bring
this into question. Regardless of the size of the grant, the City Manager would be authorized to
execute any agreements to contractually obligate the City, or file any necessary reports.
The second issue would be to specifically authorize the City Manager to make minor changes to
the grant level, with the authority of the granting agency, consistent with the level of authority
previously granted by the Council on other contracts pursuant to SVMC 3.35.010(A), up to
$200,000 or 15%, whichever is less.
OPTIONS: Place proposed resolution regarding delegation of grant authority on a future agenda
for motion consideration with or without further changes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place the proposed resolution on a
future agenda for motion consideration.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft resolution establishing scope of authority for City Manager to administer
the City's grant program.
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION 17-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON,
SETTING FORTH THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY OF THE CITY MANAGER REGARDING
APPLYING FOR AND ADMINISTERING GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE CITY,AND OTHER
MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, in the council-manager form of government,the City Manager has the responsibility
for the general administrative functions of a city, which he/she may then further delegate to subordinate
staff; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, the City Council has the authority to "organize and
regulate its internal affairs within the provisions of this title and its charter, if any; and to define the
functions,powers, and duties of its officers and employees...";and
WHEREAS, pursuant to SVMC 2.15.020, the City Manager's powers and duties are listed,
including SVMC 2.15.020(A), which states that the City Manager shall "[s]erve as chief executive and
administrative officer of the City, supervising, administering,and coordinating the activities and functions
of the various City offices and departments as established by the City's ordinances and the policies of the
city council"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to clarify the City Manager's authority regarding grants
received by the City, including authority to legally bind the City regarding grant reimbursement requests,
and to apply for certain grants without prior authority of the City Council; and
WHEREAS,federal granting agencies,both directly and through the state of Washington and other
pass-through entities, authorize funding to the City for various projects; and
WHEREAS, the Code of Federal Regulations, 2 CFR 200.415(a) has been revised to ensure that
final fiscal reports or vouchers requesting payment under federal agreements shall include a certification
signed by an official who is authorized to legally bind the non-federal agency.
NOW, THEREFORE,be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County,Washington as follows:
SECTION 1. Scope of City Manager Authority To Apply For State And Federal Grants.
A.The City Manager is authorized to apply for and accept any grant on behalf of the City for City purposes
that is less than$25,000.
B. The City Manager shall obtain prior approval from the City Council to apply for any grant of$25,000
or more. For any grant for which the City Council has given prior approval to apply for,the City Manager
shall have authority to execute any agreement with the granting agency to contractually obligate the City
to receive the funds.
Resolution 17-*** Delegating Certain Grant Authority to City Manager
DRAFT
C.The City Manager is authorized to execute any amendment to a grant agreement with the granting agency
which does not exceed 15%of the original grant amount,or$200,000,whichever is less,pursuant to SVMC
3.35.010(A).
SECTION 2. Scope of City Manager Authority to Administer State and Federal Grants.
The City Manager or designee is authorized to administer all aspects of the City's state and federal grant
program, including legally binding the City with regard to reimbursement requests, delegating authority
pursuant to 2 CFR 200.415(a), and signing certifications for annual and fmal fiscal reports or vouchers
requesting payment for grant funded projects.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effective upon adoption.
Adopted this_day of January,2017.
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk L. R.Higgins,Mayor
Approved as to form:
Office of the City Attorney
Resolution 17-*** Delegating Certain Grant Authority to City Manager
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report — amending SVMC 2.15.050 relating to City
Manager.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 2.15.050.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of chapter 2.15 SVMC on January 23, 2003;
approval of current City Manager Employment Agreement November 8, 2016.
BACKGROUND: SVMC 2.15.050, adopted prior to Spokane Valley formally becoming a City,
states that the means for removal of the City Manager are pursuant to RCW 35A.13.130-.140.
Those provisions represent a statutory default in the event a municipality is otherwise unable to
arrive at an agreeable way of completing the task. It is not intended to be the exclusive means
for removing a city manager.
The City Council recently approved an employment agreement with City Manager Mark Calhoun
which provided for additional options for removal of the City Manager. It is appropriate to
update the SVMC to generally reflect that the City Council may approve additional options
pursuant to an employment agreement that is adopted by a majority of the Council in an open
meeting.
This change may help avoid confusion in the future as to whether the SVMC spells out the
exclusive means for removing the City Manager. Other housekeeping changes are proposed as
part of an on-going effort to use consistent language throughout the SVMC, but are not
substantive.
OPTIONS: (1) Consensus to proceed with first reading at a future Council meeting; or (2) take
other action as appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place on a future agenda for first
reading.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed ordinance amending SVMC 2.15.050.
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 17-0**
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON,WASHINGTON,AMENDING SECTION 2.15.050 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPOINTMENT/REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, AND
OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted chapter 2.15.050 Spokane Valley
Municipal Code before formal incorporation of the City on January 28,2003, and which became effective
upon incorporation March 31,2003; and
WHEREAS, SVMC 2.15.050 relates to appointment of the City Manager,and how he/she may be
removed from that position; and
WHEREAS, the provisions contained in RCW 35A.13.130-.140 are the two statutory options
available for removing a city manager,but are not the exclusive means for doing so; and
WHEREAS,the City recently approved an employment agreement which provides for alternative
means for requesting the resignation of the City Manager than those set forth in RCW 35A.13.130-.140,
and the Council desires to incorporate those means into the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to avoid
potential future confusion; and
WHEREAS,the "legislative body of each code city shall have the power to organize and regulate
its internal affairs...and to define the functions, powers, and duties of its officers and employees." The
proposed amendment to SVMC 2.15.050 is within the statutory authority of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Amendment. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 2.15.050 is hereby
amended as follows:
2.15.050 Removal from office.
The eCity(*Manager shall be appointed for an indefinite term and may be removed by a majority
vote of the Ceity eCouncil pursuant to in accordance with the provisions of
RCW 35A.13.130 and 35A.13.140, or pursuant to an employment agreement approved by a
majority of the City Council in an open meeting.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance is held to
be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall
not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after date
of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley this day of January, 2017.
L.R.Higgins,Mayor
Ordinance 17- Amending SVMC 2.15.050 Page 1 of 2
DRAFT
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 17- Amending SVMC 2.15.050 Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing
[' information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report— Commercial ridesharing programs (Uber & Lyft).
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 51.12 RCW.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: November 10, 2015 information-only item.
BACKGROUND: A citizen has requested several times for the Council to consider adopting
new municipal code provisions to regulate commercial ridesharing programs like Lyft and Uber,
similar to the regulations that taxi cab operators must comply with from the state of Washington.
This issue came up in 2015 as well. At that time, staff put together a memorandum for Council
on what Uber and Lyft are, as well as other commercial ride share programs, including some of
the legal issues surrounding their use throughout the United States.
As set forth in the attached memo originally provided to Council in November, 2015, the City
does not currently regulate the taxi cab industry or ridesharing programs. The state of
Washington regulates taxi cabs, but not ridesharing programs. The City of Spokane regulates
both taxi cabs and ride sharing programs, including generating a minor amount of revenue from
that regulation.
In the event the Council is interested in regulating these programs, the City will need to research
the issue further, including any staffing needs, as this function is not currently in the 2017
budget.
OPTIONS: Council discretion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council discretion
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Undetermined at this time.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Informational memo on commercial ridesharing programs dated November 2,
2015.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
SCIT1POKaneO CARY P.DRISKELL—CITY ATTORNEY
ERIK J.LAMB -DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.720.5105 • Fax: 509.688.0299 • cityattorney@spokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Matthew Dowgin, Legal Intern
CC: Mike Jackson, City Manager
Date: November 2, 2015
Re: Commercial rideshare programs
Question Presented:
How do commercial ridesharing companies, such as Uber and Lyft, operate?
Brief Answers:
Uber and its competitor Lyft are commercial rideshare companies that use smartphone
applications (apps) to arrange transactions to transport passengers. Because Uber and Lyft are
not regulated or licensed in some cities in the same manner that traditional taxi services are, they
have received considerable scrutiny.
Background:
The Uber app software requires a smartphone; from the free app, passengers create accounts that
store their payment and personal information. Drivers can then track their route and estimated
time of arrival. Uber also provides customers with a photo of the driver and a description of
their vehicle. When the ride ends, the app automatically charges the passenger's credit card, so
cash is never exchanged. In general, the services are cheaper than regular taxi cabs.
A key to Uber's success is the "independent contractor" approach, whereby the individual
drivers provide the vehicle, vehicle maintenance, and liability insurance. However, this
approach has been challenged in courts across the country with mixed results. For instance, a
June 2015 decision by the California Labor Commissioner's Office said that an Uber driver
should be classified as an employee, not an independent contractor, noting that the company
provided drivers with phones and had a policy of deactivating its app if drivers were inactive for
180 days. However, that ruling does not apply beyond the individual driver-plaintiff and is
currently being appealed by Uber. Similarly, Uber has prevailed in at least five other states in
keeping its definition of drivers as independent contractors. Interestingly, in a recent federal
1
court decision in San Francisco, the court held that Uber drivers are entitled to class action status
in litigation over whether they are independent contractors or employees.
Legislation:
The legality of Uber has been challenged by governments and taxi companies who allege that its
use of drivers who are not licensed to drive taxicabs is unsafe and illegal. Accordingly, local and
state legislatures have created laws establishing the legality of Uber's operations while ensuring
certain safety protocols.
For instance, the Spokane City Council, in September 2014, unanimously passed new rules and
regulations for Spokane ride-sharing services Uber and Lyft. Among other rules, the interim
operating agreement requires Uber and Lyft to track the number of rides its drivers provide and
pay 0.10 cents per-ride fees quarterly, up to an annual cap of$10,000 each. The companies also
are required to maintain accurate records of its drivers and establish a driver-training program to
ensure safety. Furthermore, drivers must transmit electronic receipts to passengers' email
addresses or mobile devices, and they cannot solicit potential riders or accept street-hails.
According to the Spokane Journal of Business, the city of Spokane's total compensation from
both companies was $2,023 for fourth quarter 2014. Spokane declined to disclose Uber and
Lyft's share of the total sum. Ride-share drivers provided 6,743 rides per month based on 30
days per month, or 224 rides per day in Spokane over the three months in 2014.
Multiple reports indicate Uber drivers do not always understand the requirement to purchase
commercial insurance with significantly greater liability coverage than their personal policies
(carrying paying passengers would invalidate their personal policies and violate laws in most
cities). To combat this growing concern, Senate Bill 5550, effective July 24, 2015, now requires
Uber, Lyft and other ride-share drivers in Washington to carry at least $1 million in liability
insurance, but only when the app is on. Therefore, before being used to provide passengers with
rides, every Uber and Lyft vehicle shall be covered by a primary auto insurance policy that
specifically covers commercial transportation services.
Conclusion:
Use of ridesharing has resulted in considerable debate, extensive lobbying, and accusations by
Uber and Lyft that local regulations often fail to keep up with consumer need and innovation.
Uber says that it helps local economies by providing a fare system that has options for low-
income neighborhoods and economic opportunities for drivers who can make their own
schedules. Local taxi companies feel the software companies have an unfair advantage,
bypassing numerous rules and regulations that are designed to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare.
2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing
[' information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report— amendment to SVMC 2.40.010, Oath of Office.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 2.40 SVMC.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption prior to incorporation on December 10, 2002
(with an effective date of March 31, 2003), amended October 11, 2011 relating to the title of the
City Clerk and the Finance Director.
BACKGROUND: Council requested that staff provide information regarding the content of the
oath of office for certain staff members and incoming Councilmembers.
SVMC 2.40.010 requires that four staff members provide an oath as a prerequisite of assuming
their duties for the City. Those position are City Manager, City Clerk, Finance Director, and
Chief of Police.
The Municipal Code does not require a specific oath of office for incoming Councilmembers, nor
does state law. The Council may consider codifying specific language in the Municipal Code for
the Council oath.
One aspect of the initial discussion from the Council was a desire to have the oath for applicable
staff and Councilmembers specifically include reference to the Constitutions for the state of
Washington and the United States.
Staff drafted language it believes addresses the issues identified by Councilmembers without
inclusion of language that could be problematic in terms of appropriate scope of authority for
staff or Council.
The existing language for applicable staff members is found in SVMC 2.40.010, and states as
follows:
OATH OF OFFICE
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and
impartially to the best of my ability perform the duties of the office of
in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and all other duly enacted laws, rules and
policies of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington.
By:
[Attestation]
As mentioned above, neither state law nor the City's Municipal code regulates the content of an
oath of office for Councilmembers. The oath generally used for Councilmembers is as follows:
I , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America and the Constitution and laws of the State
of Washington, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the
office of Spokane Valley City Councilmember according to law, to the best of my ability.
Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this day of , 2017.
Signed: (official administering oath)
(title of official)
An option Council could consider is to combine the language so that there is one oath. If so, the
following could be considered under an amended SVMC 2.40.010, which would be applicable to
Councilmembers and staff:
I do solemnly swear(or affirm) that I will faithfully and
impartially to the best of my ability perform the duties of the office of
pursuant to the Constitutions of the United States and of the state of Washington, the applicable
laws of the United States and of the state of Washington, and all other duly enacted laws, rules,
and policies of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington.
By:
[Attestation]
OPTIONS: Place the oath of office option of choice on a future agenda for first reading with or
without further changes, or make no changes to the oath currently used for staff and Council,
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council discretion.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
as of January 12,2017; 8:30 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress;items are tentative
To: Council& Staff
From: City Clerk,by direction of City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
January 24,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,Jan 17]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 17-002 Amending SVMC 2.15.050—Cary Driskell (10 minutes)
3. Proposed Resolution 17-002,Grant Reimbursement Authority—Cary Driskell (10 minutes)
4.Admin Report: Fire Department 2016 Year in Review—Chief Collins (20 minutes)
5.Admin Report: Bidding History—Eric Guth (30 minutes)
6.Admin Report: Siting of Sculptures—John Hohman (20 minutes)
7.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
8. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 100 minutes]
January 31,2017, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,Jan 24]
1.Advance Agenda
February 7,2017,Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue,Jan 31]
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Second Reading Ordinance 17-002 Amending SVMC 2.15.050—Cary Driskell (10 minutes)
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
2. City Hall Update—Steve Worley (5 minutes)
3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
February 14,2017, Special Meeting,Winter Workshop, 8:30 a.m.—2:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Tentative Agenda Items Include:
February 14, 2017 Formal Meeting, 6 pm: Cancelled
February 21,2017, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,Feb 14]
1.Accomplishments Report for 2016—Mark Calhoun (—60 minutes)
2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 65 minutes]
February 28,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,Feb 21]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
3. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes]
March 7,2017,Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue,Feb 28]
1. City Hall Update—Steve Worley (5 minutes)
2.Advance Agenda
March 14,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,March 7]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
March 21,2017, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,March 141
1.Advance Agenda
Draft Advance Agenda 1/12/2017 3:01:40 PM Page 1 of 2
March 28,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,March 211
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
3. Info Only: Department Reports
April 4,2017, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue,March 281
1. City Hall Update—Steve Worley (5 minutes)
2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
April 11,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,April 41
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
April 18,2017,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue, April 111
1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
April 25,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,April 181
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
3. Info Only: Department Reports
May 2,2017, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue, April 251
1. City Hall Update—Steve Worley (5 minutes)
2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
May 9 2017,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue,May 21
1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
May 16,2017, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,May 91
1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
May 23,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,May 161
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
3. Info Only: Department Reports
May 30,2017, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,May 231
1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
*time for public or Council comments not included
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
8th&McDonald follow-up Term Limits
CDBG(Fall,2017) TIP(Public Hearing,May)
Fee Resolution TPP
Food Event,City Sponsorship Undergrounding
General Fund,Fund Balance Utility Facilities in ROW
SCRAPS Update Utility Tax
Second Amendment Sanctuary City
Washington State: E/W
Draft Advance Agenda 1/12/2017 3:01:40 PM Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
® information [' admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Grant Award for WSDOT's 2016 Innovative Safety Program
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Informational Memorandum June 28, 2016;
Administrative Report on July 5, 2016; Motion Consideration on July 12, 2016.
BACKGROUND: The WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) issued a call for
projects for the 2016 Innovative Safety Program. The purpose of the program is to reduce fatal
and serious injury collisions on public roads using innovative safety improvements. At that time,
staff reviewed the grant criteria and recommended that the City submit an application to add
reflective backplates to traffic signals at 14 of the city's busier intersections. This project qualifies
because by adding the reflective borders, crashes at urban signalized intersections are reduced
an average of 15 percent for all accidents.
The City Council at their regular meeting of July 12, 2016 passed a motion authorizing the City
Manager to apply for Innovative Safety grant funds to install reflectorized traffic signal backplates
at 14 City intersections.
City staff submitted the application on July 31, 2016.
On December 21, 2016, WSDOT Local Programs notified Public Works that the City was awarded
the entire grant fund amount requested of$123,830.
OPTIONS: Information Only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information Only
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Innovative Safety grant funds require no City match if phases
start before August 31, 2017. Public Works fully intends to start all phases of the project by the
deadline so no matching funds are anticipated for this project.
STAFF CONTACT: Sean Messner, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer
Eric Guth, P.E., Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: Citywide - Reflective Back Plates, Vicinity Map
Intersection
CITY WIDE — REFLECTIVE BACK PLATES Intersection ENV NJ5
1 Appleway Farr
INNOVATIVE SAFETY 2 Sprague Farr
3 Mission Park
4 Mission McDonald
5 Sprague Argonne
0 6 Sprague Mullan
w 7 Sprague Vista
o w 8 Appleway Vista
• E0
REN 9 Broadway Bowdish
10 Mission Argonne
_ w WELLESLEY a g
r� z o J i 11 Mission Mullen
RENT - 12 Sprague Park
�— KIERNAN Q SE 13 Appleway Park
SPOKANE RIVER o o
o m 14 Kiernan Sullivan
EUCLID EUCLID EUCLID ��
1111
K/,„,,,..\,- -:,::::,-_,----0 Y ileglig MONTGOMERY z< _____)\-- ii,,
Illi priQ
S DIANA
SPOKE , 11111! �� aa-
MISSION
MISSION
COMMUNITY wammo Mi
��
CO EOEg i o
� a�rip,
o
IBROADWA Q SBR DV AV' BROADWAY 90
QI INTERSTATE �70 '.w VALLE Pp�wpY
zFAIR GROUNDSm1
PR,cuE
3RD � APPLEV/AY �H � LIBERTY
90 — ��'P� LAKE
TA
z o w S
Q 8 d 8TH z
r z
0 Q T
AD Oo <12TH aL �— vp
Z� 5 16TH 7 15TH ''' u'
16T •
L—H L_//r/-1 ' ' FSF > i
24TH Q • 24T L,
LE
I
m
32ND
111 32ND S�� ��
1Iln�, z
Al Valley
NOTES
44T _ , vi
III�lll ) THORPE 0 REFLECTIVE BACK INNOVATIVE SAFETY
IIPLATES CITY WIDE-REFLECTIVE
BACKPLATES SIGNAL UPGRADE
! VICINITY MAP
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
DRAWN BY: DATE:
i RJW 7/31/2016
NOT TO SCALE CHECKED BY: DATE:
SDM 7/31/2016