The URL can be used to link to this page

2017, 08-15 Study Session AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, August 15,2017 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. John Hohman; and CRAVE NW Report Discussion/Information Tom and Karen Stebbins 2.Micki Harnois Urban Farming and Animal Keeping Discussion/Information 3.Marty Palaniuk Shipping Containers Discussion/Information 4. John Pietro Public Defender Agreement Amendment Discussion/Information 5.Mayor Higgins Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 6. Mayor Higgins Council Check in Discussion/Information 7.Mark Calhoun City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Study Session Agenda,August 15,2017 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 15, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing [' information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Crave NW report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Not Applicable PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: December 13, 2016, staff provided an administrative report on a food event proposal that later became known as Crave NW. February 7, 2017, the Council reviewed the proposed Crave NW contract and gave consensus to bring the contract back for approval consideration. February 21, 2017, Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract to sponsor the Crave! NW event and authorize staff to use the City logo and/or an economic development logo in conjunction with the marketing services under the contract. BACKGROUND: In 2015, the City began a tourism study to develop strategies to increase overnight stays and tourism related spending. The study was conducted by Community Attributes Inc. (CAI) in two phases. In phase I, CAI developed a tourism enhancement strategy and a list of projects through a series of workshops, interviews and surveys with stakeholders and City Council. In Phase II, CAI began analyzing the potential feasibility and return on investment of six projects. One of the projects studied was the development of new events and festivals to complement ValleyFest and Cycle celebration. To gain insight about successful regional events, City staff and CAI contacted several event promoters, including Vision Marketing, a company that started and owns the Spokane Golf Show and Spokane Oktoberfest. Through conversations with Vision Marketing and local chef Adam Hegsted, the City was asked to be a title sponsor to host a premier food and drink celebration. However, in lieu of sponsorship, the City determined that marketing the City in conjunction with the food event would be a beneficial economic development tool as part of its 2017 marketing efforts. Accordingly, the City entered into a contract with Vision Marketing for marketing services associated the food event. The City paid $50,000 for the marketing services provided by Vision Marketing. Marketing deliverables included: — Paid and earned media included "Spokane Valley"in the event name — Spokane Valley's name and the Economic Development division logo appeared prominently on all print, digital, visual, social media, the official website, and marketing videos — The event was held at CenterPlace attended by over 2,000 people from 11 states and had an estimated 235 hotel stays The event (Crave) was held at CenterPlace Regional Event center June 15 -18, 2017. Crave was a unique culinary event that showcased the talents of visionary chefs, culinary professionals and craft-drink providers. Tonight, Vision Marketing (the event coordinator) will provide a recap of the event. City staff believe that Crave was a successful event and is in line with the economic development strategies in the comprehensive plan and tourism studies and the community's desire for more events in Spokane Valley that foster a sense of identity. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Ap. tuitiv, leo jhow' 1, r 41.,..._ FOOD & DRINK CELEBRATION "' SPOKANE VALLEY . , 1: -.' i t. _ June 15-18, 2017 1 www.CraveNW,com �•_ 4 iiiiiiii . _ :-,, 4 • , •-14)* 41 Ili • , - „.„ . . ... ,..=-• -•• ipor • x tikr ,. , %. - 5 '` .. ,,z..Air- !, k.•. a lr - t . V11111 • - 1 I b j'. .-11— F C RAVE / „...... ,,, , ,,,„ ,, ...„ iii„. .....L. ,,., , , ,,.. . , _--,„ . . , , , , . . ..1/4 . „„/ , ,._„........" Rif ' Iiit\ i - ----- 4, , \\iL ' OBJECTIVES d Provide Spokane Valley with a high-end, multiple-day i tFr , 'NI: fI-111 0 A culinary event. i CP ` ''`� _'m \ilkd Highlight the culinary scene in Spokane and reinforce to ",lob , 0. chefs throughout the country that this is a great region to EP° 4 ,; .� - conduct business. o d Using a culinary event as the draw, drive desitination , U g travel to Spokane Valley. ,, . y , 1 , d Feature local and regional food from fresh ranch-raised TS ;', `` meats, seafood to farm-to-table produce. t r _ f 2 .b L • / j >� f1 { !' LET'S REVIEW THE EVENT vfr- 4 / ,.., , Multiple day, multiple Main Dinner Events Grand Tasting . - ticketed event, one name - Seafood Bash Friday & Saturday a� - Street Food Carnivals z; :r - Fire & Smoke , wine and 4, Otaisie4iOutdoors - Tents spirit tastings. FOOD&DRINK CELEBRATION Food fair with alcohol. Entertainment �1 1/17 -) 0 .15 chefs & 15 wineries lkillfr '41. 111% ' Father's Day Brunch Celebrity Stage Demos Classes - 17:it ``' ,.1 Sunday Brunch Friday & Saturday From wine glass tasting 1114 Seated Buffet - Jeremiah Tower to a showing of Jeremiah Towers movie. ,e, - Brian Duffy - Mark Peel - Bruce Sherman 3 - Rick Moonen Fes=------'' ,. . ..„ , iiiii.,. ...., 1 _ , -ter' r , _ _ - , _ , _ owe i � �� - _ - • _ _ . _ „._ . , tm-r1+1.'J, i. ,1 11.5'4',„,, FOOD . CELEB. iir 4 .,-) ? I1 ~ f _ r r '4' � w' ':fir �" �t ; F' a= :.1,. wi64.1 t 7 a 1jV _ tet*. '+ /f a - li .i c � drr Ic 1 + .4 t f. .‘ itiayk N ORTHW F,!,',7 r.-116-' E r .17 j,--- --,..._ _ . 7:-.- CHEFS A - i .. _f . ' '11,-;,_ — __.... i, � � on stage demos inspired local chefs , ''', event credibility f •�':= r _ li a lil ft 'f °°;... IF '"' Ciltale! 4. ,. ''.4,:.., ;Jr..--. 'lijfel .,.,,. . 41! . . . . . __ .,.. , , ALT, ? . . ...... ,, . - 4 r. kw e ! ' k �. F W.GOm 1-St -� f "` I C . \ VLOCAL & Lt 4 � .. . 2,....,• • 0,,,, . '11 ar • R. ..„ � • it. - .... _ 4 a0 r w °�1w � � • • H E F �� 3+� 1 � r r Crave showcased tha t r region has rock sta s .It. ) - . - -� •,-, . - ! el 411,'`.., V **---- . ' -''' CI. 'T" Yti .-a TTT x c, rM —.. ...... „.441, y . , r �,— ii '�e . - )1 M �13 ,fey y 1,-- N L• L ........1j . e 4 ' iLI, Ilk' I _• �.. a `' i ,. -..li , r, �•'t§ "Pt_ 4i , r I[ ..R , if 1 Mt '''. • J 1. OiiiPP s a■ ` pr III . _ _ ,..., PAN" r _~ _ . . IL PP 4 ,r°."' ''' . .i - ,„.__„ :,...„,.,;,,.. ...'''T 1 T ,, ,„ ...... „..„,, , ....1: , - - • .p, „, ---- --'- '- :iii463-'"'. ' ----.1•0— li&r.i. ' 'C IAL e ffil F q • , ��y 4 - -_: ,,?.40„ , _ . _L.- - _ _..... ...-., , , 4 Spok /alley was they ce to Ottfor Crave Northwest 11 11 ' ''' ' ''' —PI FEEDBACK . , ,., , S . 4 , , . . it, * .1. , e THE GOOD NEWS - from attendees, chefs & ° . 7 t .:-:I': li ' vendors: vJ .gi . .p It r= 4 IMO Enjoyed variety of food at evening events , Imp Felt like the community was joining together to 6 i 111 In ;I lircreate a successful event. Revolutionary! • d_.' • . I"�' Liked the venue and the classy upscale feel I ' IMO Liked the idea of the event promoting 11 _. local/regional chefs & vendors Imp Enjoyed the chef demos, access to chefs, the FOOD! — , a ._ ,.. ,. . _ , 4. u- \44,.. Imp Purchasing all evening event tickets next year! 7 1 di +ie ,gyp ' - 4 ice+ `" mik , , ik Ai 0 it .., p,ihilli FEEDBACK i ii, / % 1, t�, '�' c S- THE NOT AS GOOD NEWS - from T ._ attendees, chefs & vendors. _ w - • 10111 The rainy weather was a detriment for attendance , 4111.4 a i F. More food vendors needed at Grand Tasting events t e. h' II Event grounds were uneven and not easily 4 - I° �. accessible NAI 10111 Expensive tickets so 4 4- . AN M �' •. - A 0More volunteers needed ti... , 'r. . , 0 Dessert needed at each evening event _ = 111111 Father's Day brunch needed to be more organized korai J III More buddy bars to set plate/glass down to eat and 4 41111% . 401S11 11110111 ,16, 7 • socialize 1 1 1 . ATTE N DANCE w 4 , / : .5. „„iiv. ,, , ... : . .. gim. .. .. .. . .. . ' __,4, . k .� ...., • ,.,• ilr, . , . .,• ..,..... .:,, . . . .,..„:,... ,..:..: ...:,... ,..___. : . . Event attendance was over 2,000 representing 11 states and Canada N ��„,. . MT, ID, WY, NC, GA, ND, NY, MI, CA, AZ f * y WA,s British Columbia li ' fr it, � r- ligiusio. rLODGING iLdirEP- I% 3 C;_ . , ,,% ` Hotel Stays Over 235 Room reservations for celebrity Chefs paid for by Crave C iip 35 room nights 111111111/4 i P. MIIIN-ii UIIIIIII9P11Pir IP ti e 11-1 it - I �db III iii, O likk . 4.1111- 4 IOW 1 " 10 PUBLIC RELATIONS Cr rave NW Prat am Spokane Valley northwest Cmve NW is a unique culinary event that wll[showcase the creative T R A V E L e5'L I F E talents ofvislonary chefs from around CRAVE's PR efforts resulted in significant placement in regional print, def"relareawiva ocagonaand .. interneLonal bearsfrom Fresh seafood410 1a 1'online and broadcast media outlets- Coverage targeted the event's and ranch-ra'sedmeats to farm-to- III, ( � _ table produce and inventive desserts. .. culinary highlights, local economic impact, and regional travel/tourism Culinary highlights For theJune event include a Grand Tasting Tent.Global Street Foods Carnivale.Seafood Bash. q' 4 related appeal. Fre&Smoke Fare and a Fathers Day J.a�at 4 axon food 4,. �e* Coeur drAlene?Post Fall s ferswna vaN «< L PRESS ail tastings,with 0 I1'RINT NEWS 0 — rstpoducrc heculieNWi creativeforca gW iIIhen ightnowo enelonand I.Crave 3 BROADCAST gushed group behind Crave NW is Spokane chef and NW will help us get to the nestlevel HIGHLIGHTS � tom.WI*r rdax f_:;matt erm i&a asters coffee estaurateurAdam N egsted.[hef- t Crave NW will be held or 15 to 18. HIGHLIGHTS --- sellers and owner of The Wandering Table,The 2017 at Center Place Regona[Even t .bountiful array Gilded Unicorn.Yards Bruncheon and Center,a 54,000-square-foot event BACK TO LOCAL NEWS nnovative social Eat Good Cafe in Spokane,Negsted was Facility at Mirabeau Meadows Park in Spokesman-Review KREM noes provide a recent Northwest region semifinalist Spokane Valley,Washington For tic knks Inlander KHQ AN EXPERIENCE FOODIES WILL CRAVE yto interact for the prestigious 2016 James Beard and a complete listing of Crave NW's Ixhibitors. Best Chef Award, participating chefs,vendors,exhibitors Northwest Travel Magazine iHeartRadio iun •-, - -'+CF7erssoct-uplpuF-ayrooddnfd Gnfekcoetra WncyCem• ds-on classes, "This has been a dream of mine for and sponsors,visit CraveNW.ram. r+'k,11 ti 1,in l+ er ours and chef- some time.andnowis the time to do it: for information about staying in the AAA Journey Magazine Negsted says'We have some great things Spokane area,go to vf5£tpkan cora. Spokane/CDA Living Magazine 0Prinx Art e NorthwestdA Sit* Coeureurd'Alenee Press 0 SOTCIALIVATMEDIA Spokane Journal of BusinessiiiiiniriiiiiiiiMaielaiiiiimiNaMilawinimil ACION I Lewiston Tribune Twitter/Facebook/Instagram ' y— z Chad White — had White talks Crave! Food and Drink celebration 1 2 ONLINE PLACEMENTVisitSpokane �+ n 0 HIGHLIGHTS Brian Duffy I I :4 @PlatelyNW(Eon Peterson) I It ,' - GatherAndSavor Sarah ..- #' SIP Northwest @GatherAndSavor -11F-A.,1„' t . *, r , Carleton Food News Feed @ p -i S okaneEats(Chandler Baird) '~fir -' • FSR Magazineu-vit., The Eat Guide @AdrianaJonavich (Spokesman te. t j i iffy_ 1 Visit Spokane Review) t", Spokane Eats Food Services of America 'S`' . _ - v Entertainment Spokane (Spokane) Spokane7.com No Li Brew House Inland360.com Eat Good Group CRAVE!FOOD&DRINK CELEBRATION STARTS TM RW. 12e KRL11.c oi ,r Crave Northwest shared VisitSpokane's video. Published by Doyle Wheeler 1?I-June 16 0 Here's sometning to do In the next 48 houry T*�hhgis week n Spokane by VisitSpakane. .' Ir. . : — SOCIAl. IVIEDIA „, ___ L _ -- -0" _ A. ' s _ CRAVE's social media marketing further promoted PR efforts and enhanced online engagement with chefs, vendors, partners, media outlets, and event attendees. tx Multiple collaborations with key influencers in the Spokane area on YISILSpukaue at 9 C eine]place Reyimnd!Event Center- Facebook, Twitter and Instagram June 16 Spo Vane Valley Qs Hey eueryonel This Week in Spokane coming at ya from Crave in Spokane Valley!So °°t1h' weekendlCheck!°�I Sponsor collaboration on social media 743 Feu ale r ea the d Cg vat" Spokane, Spokane Valley and North Idaho Chef and Restaurant promotions ID crAwenelrtkwe5; El= On-location real time social media coverage using Facebook Live, mal/ Wpm Re Wage, i16!UbMvy Om . Q Cnw w <•rw.p w 4an9J:k.Y. akeaw+: w+ Instagram Stories and Crave social media accounts. t.r..P1.•..t.i.An.M1.:n P.ik 'twk...'rJ�'N'"`r"`7'".•....mr•w• All Crave promotions included mentions of Spokane Valley as the event host el el 'e T' 1 ' ,444011i PAID Facebook advertising campaign: 0 iiii gi { 7 1 931,678 impressions (people saw it) - 158,466 reach (unique people shown Crave NW) - 53,964 actions (people clicking or engaging with ad) 12 • i i . lii- 111 I 1 1 1 Ir 1 I lir . ii, Ai 11 iipi This was a creative and , revolutionary event! At ‘ 1 r� w Can 't wait to see this event over theyears toputoir , ., 1,1 , , grow3 3 . our area on the map! iinik ::_..._ „ .Y ; 4%, • (Susan Brown, Amaltheia Organic Dairy) *� tb :1111.111go 4" it 11M151,11-1.111111 _— N. fir, k_xa .10 ilk %. a 41111 ti, , I..- _ ,.. , . ,.. , , . ! . ..6 , YThalei FOOD & DRINK CELEBRATION ■ ',Az SPOKANE VALLEY July 12 - 15, 2018 I www.CraveNV .corn - -- — - r alb - .+ 4.. I f A :— '4r 4 + d 14 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 15, 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: Urban Farming and Animal Keeping: Follow-up to the proposed amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (CTA-2017-0001) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Report on July 11, 2017. BACKGROUND: At the July 11, 2017 study session, the Spokane Valley City Council raised concerns and requested additional research about • removing mink, chinchilla and gnawing animals from the current regulations but still allow the keeping of rabbits and guinea pigs • whether pigs and miniature pigs should be allowed • the definition of and enforcing "adequately maintained structures" • whether verbiage should be included about fencing being appropriate to the animal; and • whether community gardens should be allowed citywide except commercial. Staff will present the research information, and recap the current urban farming and animal keeping regulations for the City. Staff will also share an email from Pat Munts, WSU Extension Agent regarding Animal Keeping Certification and from Nancy Hill, SCRAPS executive director regarding including enforcement provisions in the proposed regulations. There will also be a discussion about the current contract with SCRAPS for animal control. OPTIONS: Take no action; request staff to modify the draft code as discussed or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council Discretion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois, Planner Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum; e-mail from Pat Munts; e-mail from Nancy Hill of SCRAPS Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ❑ Spok< 509.921.1000 ❑ Fax: cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Spokane Valley City Council From: Micki Harnois,Planner; Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Date: August 7,2017 Re: Urban Farming and Animal Keeping and Raising This memorandum responds to the discussion of the Spokane Valley City Council in response to the draft animal keeping regulations that were presented at the July 11,2017 council meeting. 1. 19.78.040.B-2 Mink, chinchilla,gnawing animals Concern: Council discussed regulations concerning gnawing animals and generally agreed that chinchillas and minks should not be allowed, and that gnawing animals in general were questionable. However, the desire was to allow rabbits and guinea pigs. Additional information was requested. Based on various sources, gnawing animals are rodents that include the rat, mouse, squirrel, chipmunk, prairie dog, chinchilla, gerbil, hamster, rabbit, and beaver. All except the rabbit have two very large front teeth that are extremely sharp and hard. They grow constantly so that they do not wear down.Guinea pigs are not classified as a gnawing animal.Historically,these animals have caused many problems as they get into farms and eat through crops and forests. Even though rabbits are listed as a gnawing animal, they do not have the front sharp teeth as the others in this category. They like vegetable plants and can be a nuisance in gardens if allowed to roam free. It is recommended that rabbit cages should be surrounded with wire or metal as they will chew through wood or plastic. Other smaller gnawing animals that are domestic in nature include gerbils,hamsters and mice. Per the Animals.mom.me website, gerbils,hamsters and mice cannot be raised in the outdoors as they cannot withstand the cold temperatures. These could be removed from the gnawing animal regulations as they are kept as household pets. Staff Response: Based on the concerns of the Council and a review of the issues associated with the animals,the following revisions to the text are suggested: B. Small Domestic Animals(except chickens)include: 1. Fowl including, but not limited to, guinea hens, geese, ducks, turkeys, pigeons, and other fowl not listed or otherwise defined. 2. Mink, chinchilla, and other similar gnawing animals are prohibited. 3. Small livestock,which are defined as: a. Swine breeds that include miniature Vietnamese, Chinese or oriental pot-bellied pigs(sus scrofa vittatus); b. Other small pig breeds such as Kunekune, Choctaw, and Guinea hogs; Memo Urban Farming and Animal Keeping Page 1 of 5 c. All breeds of goats,excluding mature large meat breeds such as boers; and d. All breeds of sheep, excluding mature large meat breeds such as Suffolk or Hampshire sheep. e. All breeds of rabbits and guinea pigs 4. Horned rams shall not be permitted as a small livestock. 5. Under no circumstance shall a small livestock exceed 36 inches in shoulder height or 150 pounds in weight. 6. Young small animals, livestock, or fowl under three months in age are not included when counting small animal,livestock,or fowl 2. Swine and pot-bellied pigs: Concern: Council discussed whether pigs and miniature pigs should be allowed. Concerns identified included odors and mature size of miniature pig breeds. Generally the Council agreed that pigs were problematic if the miniature pigs grow to exceed the size allowed resulting in a violation of the regulations and the removal of the animal. Currently the keeping of pigs is prohibited in the city limit. Typical problems associated with pig keeping are noise and nuisance. Noise such as squealing occurs when a pig is adjusting to a new home,and grunting occurs when the pig is hungry or angry. Ways to cope with these issues include providing enclosures to reduce noise and reducing the number of pigs. Research indicates that odors associated with pigs is generally from waste, however pig odor can occur from the pig itself. Generally odor can be managed if pigs are kept in clean conditions. According to Potbellypigs.com, a pot-bellied pig's life span is 12-20 years. An average purebred, healthy,mature,three year old pot-bellied pig can weigh from 60 to 175 pounds and measure from 13 to 26 inches in height,with the length being proportional to the height. The various breeds of mini-pigs differ from pot-bellied pigs as they have a much thicker coat,little or no pot belly and/or swayed back.According to the American Mini Pig Association,mini-pigs range in height from 14 to 20 inches tall measured from the ground to the top of the front shoulder. Their weight averages 50-150 pounds. Staff Response: Based on the concerns of the Council and a review of the issues associated with pig keeping,two options are identified for consideration: 1) Prohibit pigs,both full size and miniature size; or 2) Allow pigs,both full size and miniature size under the category of large livestock and only on lots larger than 40,000 square feet. 3. Animal Enclosures—Non-Fencing: Concern: Council was concerned that the standards pertaining to animal enclosures that stipulated "all structures shall be adequately maintained" was difficult to enforce. Structures should be adequately maintained for two purposes: 1) Structurally sound and in good condition; and 2) Maintained for the safety of the animal. Memo Urban Farming and Animal Keeping Page 2 of 5 The City of Spokane Valley code enforcement officer recommended that this should be further defined with tangible language in order to enforce beyond the current nuisance regulations. See below.However,determining specific language for adequately maintained structure is problematic. SVMC 7.05.040.B.Buildings, Structures,Fences. 1. Buildings or portions thereof which are deemed dangerous pursuant to the Spokane Valley building code (currently adopted International Property Maintenance Code and the International Existing Building Code); provided, that such conditions or defects exist to the extent that the life,health,property or safety of the public or the structure's occupants is endangered. The phrase "adequately maintained" also relates to the well-being of the animal which would be enforced by SCRAPS pursuant to a contract.According to Nancy Hill, Director of SCRAPS,they currently respond to incidents of animal cruelty or neglect. These incidents include lack of shelter from the elements, confining animals in an unsafe manner, lack of water, malnutrition or an untreated wound,having more animals than the pen can hold, and inadequate waste removal. Staff Response: Based on the concerns of the Council and a review of the issues, the following options are suggested: Modify the Animal Enclosure regulations as follows: Stables,paddocks,runs,pens,coops, hutches,enclosures, structures,pastures and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. All structures shall be adequately maintained free of loose boards, exposed wires, broken chicken and barbed wire and other similar sharp materials. 4. Remove the requirement for adequately maintained structures as follows:_Stables,paddocks, runs,pens,coops,hutches,enclosures,structures,pastures and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. 5. Animal Enclosures-Fencing: Concern:Council was concerned that fencing should be appropriate to contain the animal and keep predators out. The language currently proposed offers a flexibility to the animal keeper to choose between a structure, fenced area and/or other methods that will control the animal. The language defers the responsibility to keep the animal on site to the owner.The code presumes that the owner will have the animal safety in mind to ensure that predators do not have access to the secured animals.Animal keeping certification would help the owner understand what is the safest option to contain the animal and keep them safe from predators.In an urban environment,the most common threat is attacks by animals such as cougars,hawks,owls,raccoons and bobcats. Staff Response: Based on the concerns of the Council and a review of the issues, it appears that the code adequately provides for safe keeping of the animal to ensure the animal is kept on site safely. No change is suggested. 6. Community Gardens: Concern: Council discussed whether community gardens should be allowed city-wide. Currently the community gardens are allowed in all zones except Commercial and Industrial zones. This is premised on the rationale that community gardens should be located where people have convenient access to the site.New residential uses are not allowed in non-residential zones. Memo Urban Farming and Animal Keeping Page 3 of 5 The draft language intends community gardens to be located in neighborhoods where the local residents have the ability to grow their own produce. The activity is generally small scale in size, and located in urban neighborhoods to provide accessibility to residents who have limited access to fresh produce,such as fruits and vegetables. The code text amendment did not contemplate expanding the zones that would allow community gardens. A modification to the permitted use matrix would be required to expand the zones that allow community gardens. A modification of this type would be considered substantial, and pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(G)(3) City Council must either conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Staff Response: Based on the concerns of the Council and a review of the issues, the following options are suggested: 1) Leave the permitted use matrix as is,which allows community gardens in all residential,mixed use, and public zones,but prohibits the use in the commercial and industrial zones. 2) Consider allowing community gardens in all zones,including Commercial and Industrial zones and take one of the following actions: a. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed modification; or b. Refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 7. Beekeeping Concern: The Council discussed bee swarming and generally agreed that the text should be changed to reflect"minimize" swarming. Staff Response: It was suggested by Pat Munts,WSU extension agent,that the word"prevent"be changed to"minimize" as swarming is a natural activity of bees which can't be prevented. 8. Contract Concern:The City of Spokane Valley currently has an Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County for Animal Control Services in regard to cats and dogs . If Council concurs, an amended Interlocal Agreement between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County could be brought forward for Council approval consideration,which agreement could add these additional services: 1) Respond to complaints related to animal noise and welfare. 2) Provide impound services. SCRAPS will not respond to citizen complaints related to underlying zoning code violations,which may include too many farm animals,prohibited animals or setback requirements. SCRAPS will not respond to large animals (horses or cattle/cows)running loose. These cases are referred to the City's Police Department. SCRAPS will respond to any situation(even without a contract)where there is an incident of animal abuse or cruelty. The interlocal agreement would need approval from Council as well as the Board of County Commissioners. These additional services should be available at the time new regulations become effective. Memo Urban Farming and Animal Keeping Page 4 of 5 City staff spoke with Nancy Hill regarding costs for the additional services to be provided. Ms. Hill noted that the City of Spokane costs were approximately $4,500 from December, 2014 to December 2015 for 32 calls. It is expected that the City of Spokane Valley costs would be greater based on the expectation that SCRAPS would receive more service calls. Spokane Valley residents appear to have a greater interest in animal keeping than the City of Spokane. 9. Animal Keeping Certification Concern: Pat Munts, Small Farms and Acreage Coordinator recommended that animal certification be considered to ensure the well-being of the animals and reduce nuisance issues associated with animal keeping. WSU Extension office offers animal keeping certification for the small domestic livestock. These include: • Urban Goat Keeping • Advanced Urban Goat Keeping (for milk production) • Urban Sheep Keeping • Water Fowl Keeping (ducks and geese) • Urban Chicken Keeping (no official certification-information only) • Basic Beekeeping (certification through the state) • Training related to the safe and proper care of the animal including: • Shelter,food and veterinarian care,breeding • Animal waste disposal,animal waste in composting • Potential sources of diseases,routes of transmission,and methods of preventing human illness disease; and • Noise and odor control Classes cost$20 per family and are 1-1/2 to 3 hours in length and are held at SCC. A certificate is awarded at the end of completion. Certificates do not expire.No refresher course is needed. WSU Extension will work with animal owners on the skills of raising their animal if needed. Staff Response: Based on the concerns of the Council and a review of the issues, the following options are suggested: 1) Leave the draft as is; or 2) Require animal keeping certification for the small domestic livestock. Memo Urban Farming and Animal Keeping Page 5 of 5 From: Munts, Pat [mailto:PMUNTS@spokanecounty.org] Sent: Monday,July 17, 2017 10:37 AM To: mayor/councilmembers<mayor councilmembers@spokanevallev.org>; Mark Calhoun <mcalhoun(a7spokanevallev.org> Cc:jeremy.cowanCwsu.edu; Kuber, Paul<pskuber@wsu.edu> Subject: Requiring certification to have small livestock Good morning everyone, Ed Pace has asked me to forward this request to all of you concerning the urban livestock ordinance that is under consideration in Spokane Valley. WSU Spokane County Extension strongly recommends that people getting goats, sheep and pigs (if that is left in the ordinance) be required to get certified by WSU Extension to have the animals. We currently do this for the City of Spokane. We would recommend the requirement be in place for lots under an acre in size. The reasoning is that a lot of the people who want these animals have little or no experience with them. Even folks who grew up on farms don't have the experience with dealing with the animals in the close quarters of an urban environment. The certification course WSU offers is a three-hour class that covers selecting animals and then managing their housing, feed and health needs, Such things as getting two goats instead of one. Goats are prey animals that need a buddy to feel safe and stay quiet which is a major concern in an urban setting. Currently the class costs$20 per family at the same address. We also offer advanced classes if people are interested. When we developed the Spokane ordinances,SCRAPS found that having the certification class helped them with educating the public they came in contact with on urban livestock issues. Thank you Patricia J. Munts Small Farms and Acreage Coordinator WSU Spokane County Extension 222 N Havana Spokane WA 99202 T: 509 477 2173 E: pmunts@spokanecounty.org 2 From: Hill, Nancy imailto:NHill@spokanecounty.org] Sent: Saturday,July 22, 2017 7:17 AM To: Micki Harnois<mharnois@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE: draft animal &keeping regulations Hi Micki, I had an opportunity to review the draft. The anima keeping portion of it seems reasonable. However, there does not appear to be any enforcement provisions—unless I am missing something? For example, will there be any type of penalty of these animals running at large off their property? Thoughts? Thanks, Nancy Hill Regional Director Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Service (SCRAPS) 6815 E Trent Spokane Valley, WA 99212 Direct Phone: 509.477.1967 Fax: 509.477.4745 nhill(@sookanecounty.orq www.spokanecounty.orq/scraps 11L`Rrk SCMPS l y4 { t vrntat Helping People. Saving Pets. Building Community Gallup Stregths: Couiniunicolion*Achiever:PositivitV*Arranger*Woo f CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 15,2017 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 Amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(CTA-2017-0002) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Admin Report 3-21-2017 with Council consensus to move this forward to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation for Council. BACKGROUND: Since 2009, the City has not allowed shipping containers or any similar structures, in residential zones. A citizen request to reuse a shipping container for personal storage in a residential zone led to a review of the City's regulations with the City Council at the March 21,2017 meeting.A review of regional shipping container regulations noted that both Spokane County and City of Spokane allow shipping containers to be used as accessory structures in residential zones. City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider the issue and develop appropriate regulations. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on May 25, 2017 and a public hearing on June 8, 2017 to consider the amendments. Following the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend that the proposed code text amendment not be approved. On June 22,2017,the Planning Commission approved the Findings of Fact and Recommendation to City Council. The draft regulations considered by the Planning Commission would remove the shipping container language from Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options;place new shipping container regulations in Chapter 19.65 Supplemental Use Regulations; and add a definition for shipping containers to Appendix—A Definitions. The shipping container regulations were developed to allow their use as an accessory structure to a primary residential use that includes storage and residential use. Standards were developed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the property owner and to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. Proposed standards for shipping containers include: • All requirements pertaining to accessory structures shall apply to shipping containers including lot coverage and setbacks. • Building permits shall be required for any residential or habitable use. • Containers shall be placed on a level concrete or asphalt surface and shall not be stacked. • May only be used in a CMU zone when a legal residential use exists. • May only be allowed as an appurtenance to the primary use. • Must be painted if visible from the abutting right-of-way or an adjoining lot. • May not be placed between the primary residence and the street. OPTIONS: Take no action; or consensus to proceed to first ordinance reading with or without further amendments,or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council Discretion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A CTA-2017-0002 RCA for Administrative Report STAFF CONTACT: Marty Palaniuk,Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations B.Proposed amendment to SVMC Appendix A C.Proposed amendment to SVMC 19.40.030 D.Proposed amendment to SVMC 19.65.130 E. PC Meeting Minutes 5/25/2017 F. PC Meeting Minutes 6/8/2017 G. Draft PC Meeting Minutes 6/22/2017 H. Staff Report CTA-2017-0002 I. PowerPoint Presentation CTA-2017-0002 RCA for Administrative Report FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2017-0002—Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E)the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the city council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Council does not adopt the amendment. 1. Background: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13,2016,with December 28,2016 as the effective date. CTA-2017-0002 is a City initiated code text amendment to SVMC 19.40.030 to remove the prohibition on the use of shipping containers in residential zones,to amend SVMC 19.65.140 to allow the use of shipping containers as an accessory structure in residential zones, and to amend SVMC Appendix A by adding a definition for shipping containers. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on June 8, 2017. During the public hearing deliberation the Planning Commission discussed the necessity and cost burden of placing the container on a concrete or asphalt surface, whether permits would be required if a property owner chooses to alter or modify the shipping container, and the lack of any official shipping container industry or governmental agency oversight regarding the safety of the containers for use by the general public. Several Commissioners expressed concern that it could be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public should a property owner use a container that has been contaminated during its use as a shipping container. The Commissioners voted 6-1 to recommend that the City Council not adopt the amendment. 2. Planning Commission Findings: The City may approve amendments to the SVMC if it finds that the amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare,and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: a. Land Use Goal LU-G1 —Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. b. Natural Resources Goal NR-G2—Protect the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie sole source aquifer from contamination and maintain high water quality groundwater. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council does not approve the proposed amendment for the following reasons: a. The materials that have been shipped in the containers are not monitored or documented. b. Prospective owners cannot verify the previous use or contents of the shipping containers. c. The shipping container industry does not practice any certification that would deem the containers free from hazardous content prior to use by the general public. d. Hazardous preservative and insecticide chemicals may have been applied to the container. e. Contaminated shipping containers may be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare if used for storage in residential areas. f. Contaminated shipping containers may be detrimental to the environment should leaching or other decomposition of the container occur while used for storage in residential areas. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2017-0002 Page 1 of 2 Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan and does not bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment. 3. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council DOES NOT adopt CTA-2017-0002, a proposed amendment to the SVMC. Approved this 22°`'day of June,2017 11` 4Li+rtA-1Heather Graham,Chairman ATTEST (4t Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2017-0002 Page 2 of 2 Spokane Valley Municipal Code Page 1/1 APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS Container, Shipping: A standardized,reusable unit that is or appears to be: (1)Originally, specifically or formerly designed for or used in the packing, shipping,movement or transportation of freight, articles,goods or commodities; and/or (2)Designed for or capable of being mounted or moved on a rail car; and/or (3)Designed for or capable of being mounted on a chassis or bogie for movement by truck trailer or loaded on a ship. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance No. 17-006,passed May 9,2017. DRAFT 19.40.030 Development standards—Accessory dwelling units. A. Site. 1.An ADU may be developed in conjunction with either an existing or new primary dwelling unit; 2.One ADU,attached or detached,is allowed per lot;and 3.One off-street parking space for the ADU is required in addition to the off-street parking required for the primary dwelling unit. B.Building. 1.The ADU shall be designed to meet the appearance of a single-family residence and shall be the same or visually match the primary dwelling unit in the type,size,and placement of the following: a.Exterior finish materials; b.Roof pitch; c.Trim;and d.Windows,in proportion(relationship of width to height)and orientation(horizontal or vertical); 2.The entrance to an attached ADU shall be located on the side or in the rear of the structure or in such a manner as to be unobtrusive in appearance when viewed from the front of the street.Only one entrance may be located on the facade of the primary dwelling unit in order to maintain the appearance of a single-family residence; 3.The ADU shall not exceed 50 percent of the habitable square footage of the primary dwelling unit,nor be less than 300 square feet; 4.The footprint of the ADU shall not exceed 10 percent of the lot area or 1,000 square feet,whichever is greater;and 5.The ADU unit shall not have more than two bedrooms. C.Additional Development Standards for ADUs. 1.ADUs shall be located behind the front building setback line and placed on a permanent foundation; 2.ADUs shall preserve all side yard and rear yard setbacks for a dwelling unit pursuant to Table 19.70-1; 3.ADUs shall not be allowed on lots containing a duplex,multifamily dwelling,or accessory apartment contained within the principal structure;and 4.Existing detached accessory structures may be converted into detached ADUs;provided,that all development standards and criteria are met,including side yard and rear yard setbacks. D.Other. 1.The owner,as established by the titleholder,shall occupy either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as their permanent residence for six months or more of the calendar year and at no time receive rent for the owner-occupied unit.The application for the ADU shall include a letter from the owner affirming that one legal titleholder lives in either unit,meeting the requirement of owner occupancy. 2.Prior to issuance of occupancy,a deed restriction shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor to indicate the presence of an ADU,the requirement of owner occupancy,and other standards for maintaining the unit as described in the SVMC. Chapter 19.40.030 Development Standards—Accessory Dwelling Units Page 1 DRAFT 3.Home businesses are prohibited in the ADU. 4.Approval of an ADU may be revoked if the ADU is no longer in compliance with the development standards and criteria outlined in the SVMC. 5.The owner may cancel an ADU's registration by filing a letter with Spokane County auditor.The ADU may also be cancelled as a result of an enforcement action. 6. Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential zoning district.(Ord. 16-018 §6(Att.B),2016). Chapter 19.40.030 Development Standards—Accessory Dwelling Units Page 2 DRAFT 19.65.130 Residential. A.Accessory Structures.The combined building footprint of all accessory permanent structures in residential zoning districts shall be: 1.Up to 1,000 square feet for parcels up to 10,000 square feet in size;or 2.Up to 10 percent of the lot size for parcels greater than 10,000 square feet in size. 3. Shipping containers may be used as accessory structures provided that: a.All requirements,permits and approvals of Title 19 SVMC pertaining to accessory structures shall apply, including but not limited to setbacks,lot coverage and paving; b.Permits and approvals of Title 24 SVMC pertaining to structures shall apply if the shipping container is used or altered for any residential or habitable use,but shall not apply to uninhabitable uses such as storage, workshops,or other similar type of use; c. Shipping containers shall be placed on a level concrete or asphalt surface; d. Shipping containers shall not be stacked; e.Shipping containers may be used as an accessory structure on a lot in a mixed use zone only if a legally established residential use exists;_ f. Shipping containers shall only be allowed as an appurtenance to the primary use; g. Shipping containers shall be painted to match or compliment the primary color of the residence if the container is visible from abutting rights-of-way or adjoining lots; h. Shipping containers shall not be located between the residence and front property line. B.Dwelling,Accessory Units.Accessory dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. C.Dwelling,Caretaker's Residence.A caretaker's residence is limited to custodial,maintenance,management,or security of a commercial property and is only allowed accessory to another permitted use on site. D.Dwelling,Cottages.Cottages shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options. E.Dwelling,Duplex.Duplex dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options. F.Dwelling,Industrial Accessory Dwelling Units.Industrial accessory dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options. G.Dwelling,Townhouse.Townhouse dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. H.Manufactured Homes on Individual Lots.Manufactured homes on individual lots shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options. I.Manufactured Home Park.Manufactured home parks shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. J.Recreational Vehicles. 1.Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwelling units in any residential zone, except as permitted pursuant to Chapter 19.40 SVMC; Chapter 19.65.130 Residential Accessory Structures Page 1 DRAFT 2.A recreational vehicle shall not be parked within a required front yard setback for more than 15 consecutive days and not more than 30 days cumulative in any 12 consecutive months;and 3.Guests may park and/or occupy a recreational vehicle while visiting the occupants of a dwelling unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month period.(Ord. 16-018 § 6(Att.B), 2016). Chapter 19.65.130 Residential Accessory Structures Page 2 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall May 25,2017 I. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Heather Graham Cary Driskell, City Attorney James Johnson Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley, arrived at 6:18 p.m. Micki Harnois,Planner Mike Phillips Marty Palaniuk,Planner Michelle Rasmussen Jenny Nickerson,Asst. Building Official Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Hearing no objections Commissioner Kelley was excused from the meeting; however, he arrived late and joined the meeting immediately. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the May 25, 2017 agenda as presented. The vole on the motion was six it;favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the May 11, 2017 minutes as presented. The vote to approve the motion was six in favor, zero against, the motion passes. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Rasmussen reported she attended the ribbon cutting of the new transit Iine, which is going to run out in the Valley. The other commissioners had nothing to report. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a) Public Hearing: CTA-2017-0001 — Proposed changes to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)19.65.020,19.78 Urban Farming and Animal Keeping,and other associated changes: Chair Graham opened the public hearing at 6:09 p.m. Planner Micki Harnois gave the Commission a presentation reviewing the proposed amendments to SVMC 19.65, 19.78, the additions to the permitted use matrix and Appendix A, Definitions. Ms. Harnois explained the current regulations. Then she explained the proposed changes to the regulations. • The large and medium animal keeping, along with the community garden section, will be struck from SVMC 19.65. • Animal shelters and kennels would remain in SVMC 19.65. • Return the allowable lot size for large animals from one acre, to 40,000 square feet to be in line with the R-1 zoning. • New language for animal keeping and urban gardening will be placed in a new section of the municipal code as SVMC 19.78 Urban Farming and Animal Keeping. • Three new definitions are proposed for Appendix A, Definitions: agricultural products, community garden and residential produce sales. • Animal categories are divided into large and small animals. • Large animal keeping would be allowed in all residential zones on lots equal to or greater than 40,000 square feet, or in mixed-use zones on lots which have a legally established residential use. 2017-03-23 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 • Residential Produce Sales will be added to the Permitted Use Matrix t to allow for the sales of produce grown in home gardens in Residential and Mixed Use zones. • Chicken ratios will be changed from one bird per 2,000 square foot to one bird per 1,000 square feet. • Beekeeping regulations will be changed to require moveable framed hives, and no beekeeping certification will be required. Chair Graham then opened the hearing for public testimony Bryan Cook, 15717 E 11th Ave.: Mr.Cook stated he had heard the City was going to copy the City of Spokane animal keeping regulations. He was concerned because Spokane regulated animal keeping to certain zones of their city, which he felt was discriminatory. He did not want to see Spokane Valley use the same type of zoning practice when allowing animals in the City. He was able to see this was not how animals were going to be regulated, and was fine with the rest of the regulations. Chair Graham seeing no one else who wished to test,closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. The Commission began deliberations with discussions of the beekeeper's certification. Staff noted the requirement was removed because it would not be enforceable except at the time of an enforcement case. Commissioners noted when they reviewed the beekeeping regulations in 2015 the beekeeper's association members said it helps to train new beekeepers. It was noted it was helpful in assisting code enforcement cases as well. Commissioner Walton stated when he suggested the moveable frame hives this was also to foster proper beekeeping habits. Commissioner Kelley stated he felt bees should be restricted to a 40,000 square foot lot. The Commission members noted they would like to have the beekeeper certification requirement returned to the regulations. Commissioner Johnson clarified that community gardens definition needed to be refined to say, "contains raised planting beds and/or gardens." There need to be an `and/added between beds and or so it is not so restrictive. The rest of the Commissioners agreed with this clarification. Commissioner Stathos clarified the intent was not to have the structure housing the animals be 75 feet from any primary residence and have any fenced area containing the animals which they may roam in also be 75 feet from any residential structure. In order to clarify this in the language the Commission determined they would remove the word "yard" from the list, located in 19.78.030(D)(1). Ms. Hamois commented in the listing of items in 19.78.030(D)(1) is the word `runway',which by definition in the SVMC is an airport runway, should also be changed to a 'run' which is a confinement for animals. The Commissioners agreed with this change as well. The Commissioners had discussion regarding allowing animals, chickens, or bees in other zones where they were not being proposed. The concern was not restricting people who, through time, have had their property rezoned but still lived in the same home being allowed the same rights to have animals. The Commission agreed to allow animal uses, as appropriate, on any legally established primary residential use. The Commission raised concerns regarding the upkeep of structures needed to maintain and house animals. If the structures are not maintained, disrepair could harm the animals and allow them to roam free of enclosures. After discussion,the Commissioners agreed to add adequate maintenance and upkeep of structures housing animals in order to protect them and contain them. Commissioner Graham moved to recommend approval of CTA-2017-0001 to the City Council with the following amendments: • Appendix A, change the definition far Community Garden by adding `and/' between the?words `beds'and 'or'in order for it to read: "An area that contains raised planting beds and/or gardens for agricultural products, other than eggs, that are used by citizens for personal or non-profit use. " 2017-03-23 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 • 19.78.030 and 19.78.040, eliminate the work yard'and change the word 'runway'to 'run'in any and all relevant sections. • 19.78.030 and 19.78.040, all relevant sections add language which will require upkeep and maintenance to structures which house or secure animals. • 19.78.060, add a requirement for a Washington State Beekeeper's Certification. • Allow animal keeping on all legally established primary residential uses, regardless of the zone. Commissioner Kelley, stated for the record, he was opposed to allowing beekeeping in next to residential homes. They cannot be contained on a person's own property like other animals and have the ability to cause harm to some individuals, if they are allergic. Commissioner Walton called for the question. The vote on this motion was seven in favor, zero against,the motion passed. The vote on the original motion was seven in favor, zero against,the motion passed. The Commission took a five-minute break. b) Study Session: CTA-2017-0002 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.65 Supplemental Use Regulations. Planner Marty Palaniuk gave the Commission an overview of the proposed amendment to the municipal code to allow shipping containers as accessory structures in residential and mixed-use zones for non-commercial use. Shipping containers are currently not allowed in these zones. All permits and approvals pertaining to accessory structures would apply, including paving if the containers were being modified to be used as a garage. They would only be allowed as an accessory use to a primary residential use. The container must meet all setback requirements, cannot be placed between a building and the front property line, must be set on a hard surface, can't be stacked,must be painted a matching or complimentary color, and maybe used in a mixed use zone on a legally established residential use. The Commissioners clarified modifying a container would require a building permit, and at that time, then the container would be treated as a structure regulated by the building code. Ms.Barlow informed the Commissioners the public hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2017. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kelley wanted to clarify he felt his discussion point regarding bees was in line with the deliberation on the proposed amendment. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:39 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor,motion passed. 1201 Heather Graham,Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall June 8,2017 I. Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Heather Graham Cary Driskell, City Attorney James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Asst. Building Official Tim Kelley Micki Harnois,Planner Mike Phillips Marty Palaniuk,Planner Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission IL AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the June 8, 2017 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the May 25, 2017 minutes as presented. Commissioner Kelley noted he did not feel the Good of the Order reflected the point he was trying to convey. However, he would not request a change to the minutes. Subject of the May 25 Good of the Order: Commissioner Kelley had earlier expressed his concern over allowing bees on lots less than 40,000 square feet, and it becoming a potential health hazard to community members. Commissioner Walton had called for a Point of Clarification. He inquired if the debate had strayed too far from the topic of the motion on the beekeeping. The motion on beekeeping regulation change was requiring movable framed hives and Washington State beekeepers certification. Commissioner Kelley stated he felt others discussed the general topic of beekeeping and so he gave his opinion on it,but recognized the need to return the topic of motion. The vote to approve the motion to approve the minutes was seven in favor, zero against, the motion passes. W. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a) Commission Findings of Fact: CTA-2017-0001, Proposed changes to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.65.020, 19.78 Urban Farming and Animal Keeping, and other associated changes. Planner Micki Harnois presented the Commission's Findings of Fact. Ms. Harnois stated the findings represented the changes the Commission had requested after the public hearing held on May 25, 2016. The Commissioners reviewed the findings and Commissioner Phillips asked if the enclosures in the amendment applied to dogs. City Attorney Cary Driskell clarified the rules for cats and dogs are different from those in the proposed amendments. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendation to the City Council. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, the motion passed. • b) Public Hearing: CTA-2017-0002, A proposed amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code regarding storage containers in residential zones. PIanner Marty Palaniuk gave a presentation to the Commission and audience of the proposed changes to the SVMC regarding the allowance of storage containers in residential zones. Storage containers are currently not allowed in residential zones. The proposed amendment would: • allow them as an accessory structure, 2017-06-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 • restrict them to being placed on a level, solid surface of concrete or asphalt, • a building permit will be required if the container is to be altered in any way, • restrict them from being stacked • allowed as an accessory structure on legally established residential uses in mixed use zones, • allowed as an appurtenance to a primary residential use, • containers shall be painted to match or compliment the primary structure, • all requirements of Title 19 pertaining to accessory structures but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage and paving must be met, and • containers shall not be located between the residence and front property line. Commissioners clarified the reason for having a solid surface requirement is based on the weight of the container, and the desire to make sure the container is level in order to keep it from tipping over. Commissioner Stathos asked if there were many inquiries to have these storage containers. Mr. Palaniuk said the amendment was a direction from Council, so he was certain there had been an inquiry. Commissioner Walton asked about surrounding jurisdictions and the city of Spokane allows them, Spokane County and Liberty Lake do not. Commissioner Stathos clarified there are no regulating standards for the containers or any contents that are shipped in them. Mr. Driskell said there would be no way for the City to police which containers might have had hazardous chemicals since there are no regulations to enforce. Chair Graham opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.rn. Seeing no one who wished to testes then closed the hearing at 6:33 p.m. Commissioner Phillips stated he would not have a problem if the container were set on a bed of gravel instead of on concrete or asphalt. He said a solid surface was expensive, and gravel would not allow the container to sink. Commissioner Walton stated he was not convinced this change was necessary. He stated there did not seem to be a flux people wanting one in their back yard, they appeared to be expensive, a person can't be sure of the quality, or how if it will be welcome by the neighborhood. Commissioner Kelley said he agreed. If we are,unable to verify where they came from or what has been in them, he is against allowing them as residential structures. Commissioner Stathos stated she was concerned about the lack of standards for the containers. She was concerned the containers might have held chemicals, they might not have been cleaned properly, which could lead to hazardous material clean up after the container has been placed on a residential property. She said unless there is some kind of safety net for the consumer and the surrounding properties she was not in favor of the amendment. Commissioner Johnson said the points raised were valid and he was in agreement with them. Commissioner Phillips stated the points raised were valid however,he felt worrying about what the contents shipped in the container was getting too much. He would not have a concern putting one in his own yard,because they were sturdy and could handle snow. Commissioner Graham said the previous amendment required keeping animals enclosures to be kept clean, she would want one of these containers clean of chemicals if there were any in them. Commissioner Walton moved to close debate. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against,the motion passed. Commissioner Johnson moved to not recommend approval CTA-2017-0002 to the City Council. The vote on the motion was six in favor, one against, with Commissioner Phillips dissenting. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners discussed the point of clarification from the previous meeting. 2017-06-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor,motion passed. C -- 2 b I ? Heather Graham,Chair Date signed 1E)(1\41-6)D Deanna Horton, Secretary Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall June 22,2017 I. Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Heather Graham Cary Driskell,City Attorney James Johnson Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley Marty Palaniuk,Planner Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos, absent excused Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Hearing no objections,Commissioner Stathos was excused from the meeting II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the June 22,2017 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the June 8, 2017 minutes as presented. The vote to approve the motion to approve the minutes was six in favor, zero against, the motion passes. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Rasmussen reported she had attended the City sponsored event CraveNW! She stated she felt this has potential and was good for the community. V. ADMINIS I'RATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a) Commission Findings of Fact: CTA-2017-0002, A proposed amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code regarding storage containers in residential zones. Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the Commission's Findings of Fact. Mr. Palaniuk stated the findings represented the discussion the Commission had after the public hearing held on June 8, 2017. The Commissioners reviewed the findings and Commissioner Graham clarified this proposal only addressed shipping containers in a residential zone. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendation to the City Council. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, the motion passed. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the Good of the Order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:09 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, motion passed. Heather Graham, Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS 01* BUILDING&PLANNING Sjökane lle STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2017-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE:May 31,2017 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 8, 2017, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A text amendment proposing to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.65.130 Residential to allow the use of shipping containers as an accessory structure to a primary residential use in the residential and mixed use zones. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION:Move to recommend approval of CTA-2017-0002 to City Council STAFF PLANNER:Martin Palaniuk,Planner, Community and Public Works ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.65.130 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Published Notice of Public Hearing: May 19,2017 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: May 19,2017 SEPA - Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(19)(a) this action is exempt from SEPA review. Department of commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to May 26,2017 Adopt Amendment PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: Shipping containers are currently prohibited as an accessory structure in residential zones. They are permitted in the industrial,commercial and mixed use zones. Accessory structures such as sheds, shops,detached garages, accessory dwelling units, swimming pools,free- standing decks,pergolas,etc... are all permitted as accessory structures within the residential zones. The proposed amendment will add shipping containers to the type of structures that are allowed as an Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2017-0002 accessory structure within residential zones. The use of accessory structures in the residential zones will not be affected by the amendment; it will add a new type of permitted structure. SVMC 19.40.030(D)(6)—Development Standards—Accessory dwelling units(ADU) states"Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential zoning district." The location of this provision within the development standards for accessory dwelling units is not ideal for addressing the use of shipping containers. The location within the SVMC leads to ambiguity as to whether the provision applies to all shipping containers throughout all residential zones or only shipping containers accessory to an ADU. The proposed amendment will address shipping containers in SVMC 19.65.140—Supplemental Use Regulations,Residential. This section of the code provides supplemental regulations that apply to residential uses and includes regulations that address accessory structures. This section is a more intuitive place within the SVMC to address the use of shipping containers as an accessory structure to a residential use. The prohibition contained in SVMC 19.40.030 will be stricken with the new purpose of allowing the use of shipping containers as an accessory structure in all residential zones. Language will be added to SVMC 19.65.130 that will permit the use of shipping containers provided they meet the criteria set forth in the language. The criteria has been crafted to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents and to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. The proposed amendment will require shipping containers to meet the requirements applicable to all accessory structures,to include setbacks and lot coverage requirements. If the container will be used as a habitable space then a Residential Structure permit must be obtained from the City of Spokane Valley and the provisions of SVMC Title 24 shall apply. The containers must be placed on a level concrete or paved surface and shall not be stacked. The shipping container must be painted to match or compliment the primary residence and shall not be placed between the front of the house and the street. They are only allowed if a primary residence already exists on the property. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on this amendment on May 25,2017. A public hearing is scheduled for June 8,2017. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: Land Use Goal—LU-G1: Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley Land Use Goal—LU-G2: Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Land Use Goal—LU-G4: Ensure that land use plans,regulations,review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2017-0002 The use of shipping containers will provide residential home owners with an alternative method of securing property. The containers will provide a secure,enclosed storage space that will serve to protect personal property from damage from the elements and theft or vandalism. The containers may offer an alternative to a pole or stick-built storage building. When blended with the primary residential use the shipping containers can serve to reduce yard clutter and improve the appearance and character of the neighborhood. Other accessory structures are already allowed. The addition of a new type of accessory structure will have no impact on the adjoining property owners beyond the types of structures that are already allowed. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. The shipping containers will provide secure storage for personal property and may serve to inhibit acts of property theft and vandalism. The aesthetics of the neighborhood will be improved by property owners who use the storage to reduce the personal property items stored in the open. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): In the absence of public comments, staff makes no conclusions. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): In the absence of agency comments, staff makes no conclusions. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division makes no recommendation on the proposed amendment. Page 3 of 3 Spokane Valley City Council August 15, 2017 CTA-2017-0002 Shipping Container Amendment Administrative Report pDescriptionhiping ontainers ...." 91111.w- A large standardized shipping container, designed - ~�i ' � ~-- oo and built for intermodal freight transport (ship to rail to truck). li - c Most containers are general purpose containers � , Closed steel boxes =. , do, Mostly 20' or 40' standard length ami 8' standard width � ' m® � Kf � ? Common heights - 8'6" and 9'6" E .„-----,-4 MAER SK wi „AL �. s .. '-- MABRSK � a Common names: cargo, freight, ISO, � �n,�EF= =_ �� __ .' 9 . shipping sea, ocean, container van, , _ " or C sea " can Current SVMC Regulations 3 Shipping Containers Prohibited in Residential Zones 19.40.0 I opment tan • ar • s — • c - elling its. Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a • ermitted accessory structure in any residential zoning district. Draft . . _ 3. Shipping containers may be used as accessory structures provided that: a. All requirements, permits and approvals of Title 19 SVMC pertaining to accessory structures shall apply, including but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage and paving; b. Permits and approvals of Title 24 SVMC pertaining to structures shall apply if the shipping container is used for any residential or inhabitable use, but shall not apply to uninhabitable uses such as storage, workshops, or other similar type of use; c. Shipping containers shall be placed on a level concrete or asphalt surface; d. Shipping containers shall not be stacked; e. Shipping containers may be used as an accessory structure on a lot in a mixed use zone only if a legally established residential use exists; f. Shipping containers shall only be allowed as an appurtenance to the primary use; g. Shipping containers shall be painted to match or compliment the primary color of the residence if the container is visible from abutting rights-of-way or adjoining lots; h. Shipping containers shall not be located between a building and front property line. Permitted Zones Allowed by Draft Regulations Would be allowed as "accessory structures" in MU zones when Parrs appurtenant to a legally established residential use and Open Residential Mi d Use Com �� ial Ind�i trial Space R-1 R-2 R-3 PARR MLP CMU NC RC MU I P05 i ti I - rrIII— ►ate uiaiti tii� TL tr ✓ t1 Residential Shipping Containers would be Currently allowed as allowed in residential zones as storage in "accessory structures" nonresidential zones. Treated Accessory as a. All requirements, permits and approvals of Title 19 SVMC pertaining to accessory structures shall apply, including but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage and paving; Setbacks are: 5' from rear or side property line, and not located within the front yard or any public or private easement. Lot Coverage: 30% to 60% (Zone dependent) Paving: Required if used as a garage g q I. 46 ,*' x II _ '` ta_ 'rd . , , I — I. �1 �I I i W — mil , _. t a r _ X11 a 4. vy _ tide'•. .-f— Building Permits h._7 ❑ b. Permits and approvals of Title 24 SVMC Building pertaining to structures shall apply if the Permits only re wired for shipping container is used for any q habitable use but shall nota I to habitable • apply uses. uninhabitable uses such as storage, workshops, or other similar type of use; \\\\\ ///�,, _rt_�,- ``-- 10 =�1 SHIPPING 111 ' iiiii ll ICONTAINER t toil�� VORI{SHOP e__ 1, �, Placement R 8 ❑ Shipping containers shall be placed on a level concrete or asphalt surface; 1 , ..: . . .:.;,„.._. . r ___.--------: __ _---- : . �1 } M, r & Ill ll ittr.-,016 . . ...if. . , . r.. 1 Y y --'P� r I ,� F Placement C Shipping containers shall not be stacked ; or ist 11.11 1 --------'----- r ) --sow • '" - Sa I II j sg v � C 0If if 1 4,..._ G_______. ________,__________. __________ . , ,,, ,, ,i,,,,,,0,,... , , 4.r" or 1 Hi . i N. III 8 1m _ ., • . [[ '` ar ....- _ H, _______ fi ___ , iii , i Allowed onl as accessorystructure y ..... ,_.,,„„._ ......_ . _ e. May be used as an accessor_., y ' structure on a lot in a mixed use Sus s 1 , 0 zone only if a legally established ; ,.. kJ'F A residential use exists; f. Only allowed as an ,IA __ - ' appurtenance to the primary use; - ,, a{ Not Allowed on Vacant ` ' Lot — No Primary Use ail' , , -' Residential ..------,-_ -------_ it t 11 .L" 1t lit g. Shipping containers .,,j (40,140., shall be painted to match or complement the primary color of i. . 1 the residence if the '�s US 22[1] r ; . 1 _ container is visible { from abutting rights- d ,t N of-way or adjoining lots; Placement Criteria 12 1111 Shipping containers rWo.' . { s wy w shall not be located y k A 1 e„, , s , y,,between a building ^” and front property line. A. °� � ; elflik, i^ ; v itaitiii. jaillti Not Allowed Amendment Process — Planning Commission .. PC Discussion tt . • Requirement to place on paved surface -- 4 Public need 3 go N N • Building permits for structural changes to containers a • Industry standards to insure safe Ai a Ts containers w U a Amendment Process — Planning Commission PC F .. tt . • Previous container content and use cannot _ g be verified O N N ©N • No industry certification in N z • Containers may be contaminated z a au Contaminated containers maybe v v ,: Ai a hazardous to public and environment .- w U a ‘1( Vfl V( On 6-1 vote PC recommends City Council NOT adopt the amendment Amendment Process — City Council . . Council Options .. z t ..e= 7z ==., . . ..6 4 - • Consensus to move to first reading with or © = el m without further amendments; it' V : :• 1, • Take other action deemed appropriate ., p o o ppro p LU ezz - U 16 QUESTIONS 8„,,_ .„, , ,.. ,..., I,,.- I 6:,, ..., ---_,...„, -- - CBCB 200A31 P \ _ 11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 15, 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: 2010-2017 Public Defender Amendment GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act), counties and cities may contract with each other to perform certain functions that each may legally perform. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council authorized the City Manager to execute the following Agreement: C06-018, signed March 1, 2006, and Council adopted Public Defense Standards Resolution No. 15-006, signed July 14, 2015. BACKGROUND: Spokane County and Spokane Valley are proposing various modifications to the Public Defender Services Interlocal Agreement. The following modifications are listed by their corresponding amendment section numbers: o 1.1 Base costs used to determine contract indirect rate are currently defined as total department salary and benefits. Proposed rate base is total expenditures (salary and benefits plus maintenance and operations [M&O]) which is consistent with an earlier modification adopted by Council for other contracts. o 1.2 Investigator staff costs is a support unit within the Public Defender's Office; these costs are currently allocated to the City using a fixed one percent allocation. Proposed basis is a payroll costs allocation basis. o 1.3 General M&O and General Administrative costs are currently allocated using an FTE (full time equivalent) basis. Proposed allocation basis is a payroll costs allocation basis. OPTIONS: 1) Place on future agenda for motion consideration; or 2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to move forward for motion consideration BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $114,361 impact to 2017 budget to complete multiyear reconciliation (2010-2016). Ongoing estimated annual cost impact of—$26,940. STAFF CONTACT: John Pietro, Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: 1) Public Defender Services Interlocal Agreement 2) Public Defense Standards Resolution 3) Addendum to the Interlocal Agreement for Public Defender Services in the City of Spokane Valley 4) new costs exhibit 5) PowerPoint Return to: Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board Board Of County Commissioners 1116 W. Broadway Spokane, Washington 99260 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES IN TFT,CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY (January 1,2005—December 31,2005) 6 0195 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and among the Spokane County Public Defender, having offices for the transaction of business as 1033 West Gardner, Gardner Court Building, Spokane Washington 99260-0280, hereinafter referred to as "PUBLIC DEFENDER," Spokane County, having offices for the transaction of business at West I 1 16 Broadway Avenue,Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "BOARD," together sometimes referred to along with the PUBLIC DEFENDER 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 PUBLIC DEFENDER, COUNTY 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) The City of Spokane Valley pursuant to the provisions RCW 39.34.180 is responsible for the costs incident to (I) prosecution of misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses which are violations of state statutes that occur within its jurisdiction and that are committed by adults, (2) traffic offenses committed by juveniles pursuant to RCW I3.04.030(I)(e)(iii), and (3) misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offenses which are a violation of City of Spokane Valley ordinances and committed by adults. (d) The City of' Spokane Dalley desires to utilize the services of Spokane County Public Defender for the purpose of: (I) representing indigents where the initial charge is a State misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense committed by an adult and occurring within the City of Spokane.Valley, (2) representing juveniles for traffic offenses pursuant to RCW Interlocal Agreement, Public Defender Page of 12 C06-18 • 13.04.030(I)(e)(iii) occurring within the City of Spokane Valley; and (3) representing indigents where the initial charge is a CITY misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor occurring within the City of Spokane Valley and referred to the Spokane County Public Defender. SECTION NO.2: DEFINITIONS (a) Agreement: "Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement between the CITY and COUNTY regarding public defender legal services. (b) City: "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. (c) Services: "Services"means those services identified in Exhibit I. (I 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 he coded as provided for in the BARS-manual adopted by the State of Washington under RCW 43.88. (Ii) 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) Report: "Report" means the Public Defender's record management system common�1y referred to as PDman. {j) Public Defender: "Public Defender"means that person appointed as public defender under chapter 36.26 RCW and his/here assistant(s). 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 PUBLIC DEFENDER will provide Services on behalf of the CITY. It is the• Interlocal Agreement, Public Defender Page 2 of l2 • • intent of the PARTIES that Services to be provided by the PUBLIC DEFENDER will be consistent with the CITY'S Council/Manager form of government provided for in chapter 35A.13 RCW. SECTION NO.4: DURATION/WlTEDRAWAL This Agreement shall commence on January I,2005,and run through December 3 I,2005. At the conclusion of the initial term, this Agreement shall automatically be renewed from year to year thereafter effective January 1s` to December 315L 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 estimated costs 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 sante monthly payment rate used for the previous year. Upon the PA.RT11S agreement on a new Exhibit 2,the CITY and COUNTY will reconcile payments to date under the previous year's payment schedule with the new payment schedule. 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 clays written notice as provided for in Section 7 to the other Party. In the event of termination, at CITY's option, PUBLIC DEFENDER shall continue to provide Services to completion for those cases filed prior to the effective date of the termination. SECTION NO.5: COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENTS The C1TY 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. This 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 COUN'T'Y 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 (I) under the Cost Allocation Plan as an indirect cost amortized over the useful life of the improvement utilizing straight- Tine depreciation and incorporating the expected salvage value of the improvement at the end of its useful lite or (2) as a direct cost in the form of a contribution made to the Equipment Rental and Revolving Fund. The CITY shall be responsible only for capital improvement costs incurred after March 31, 2001 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, Interlocal Agreement, Public Defender Page 3 of 12 • At the end of the calendar year, using the methodology set forth in Exhibit 2, the PAR`I'EES 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 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 expenditures) 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 CI'T'Y 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 15th of the month. Monthly payments will be calculated by dividing those annual costs set forth herein above 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 clue been invested since the date due to the date of payment in the COUNTY's investment pool. SECTION NO. 6: RELATED RESPON,SiBILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROVIDING SERVICES The COUNTY and PUBLIC DEFENDER or their designee agree to attend staff meetings as requested by the CITY Manager. The COUNTY and PUBLIC DEFENDER or their designees 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 CI'T'Y agrees the PUBLIC DEFENDER may use the COUNTY'S stationery in conjunction with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement. Interlocal Agreement, Public Defender Page 4 of 12 SECTION NO. 7: NOTICE All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (I)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 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 1 1 16 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260 CiTY: City of Spokane Valley City Manager or his/her authorized representative Redwood Plaza 1707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 PUBLIC DEFENDER: Spokane County Public Defender 1033 W. Gardner, • Spokane, Washington 99260-0280 SECTION NO.8: REPORTING iteports—The PUBLIC DEFENDER 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 PUBLIC DEFENDER 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 COUNTY/PUBLIC DEFENDER staff. Records Review—The CITY shall be allowed to conduct random reviews of the records generated by the COUN'T'Y/PUti1,1C DEFENDER in performance of this Agreement. The CITY will provide the COUNTY/PUBLIC DEFENDER 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 COUNTY/PUBLIC DEFENDER mist 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. Interlocal Agreement,Public Defender Nage 5 of 12 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. SECTION NO. 11: COUNTY EMPLOYEES PUBLIC DEFENDER.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. PUBLIC DEFENDER 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 PUBLIC DEFEN1DER/COUNT'Y policies. SECTION NO. 12: LIABILITY For the purpose of this Section, the terminology "COUNTY" shall also include the "PUBLIC DEFENDER." (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 sante 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. Interlocal Agreement, Public Defender Page 6 of 12 (e) Each Party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. (0 -The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's immunity under Washington's Industrial insurance Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the 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 indenmitor's employees. The PARTIES acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. (g) The COUNTY and the CITY agree to either self insure or purchase policies of insurance covering the matters contained in this Agreement with coverages of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence with $5,000,000 aggregate limits including professional liability and auto liability coverages. SECTION NO. 13: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES The PARTIES intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The COUNTY/PUBLIC DEFENDER 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 COUNTY/PUBLIC DEFENDER. Any and all employees who provide Services to the CITY under this Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of the COUNTY/PUBLIC: DEFENDER, The COUNTY 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 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/BI1i TDING EFFECT This Agreement contains terms anti 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 he 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 PARTIES which cannot be resolved between the PARTIES shall be subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to writing. If Interlocal Agreement, Public Defender Page 7 of 12 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 7.01 RCW. The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the PARTIES. 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 Stale 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 COUNTY in conjunction with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed CITY 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 COUNTY will notify the CITY of any public disclosure request under chapter 42.17 RCW for copies or viewing of such records as well as (he COUNTY'S response thereto. SECTION NO.21: HEADINGS 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 either 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, Public Defender Page 8 of 12 SECTION NO. 23: UNCONNTROLLAtiLE CIRCCIMSTANCESIIMPOSS1.13LLI'I'V 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 which render legally impossible the performance by the COUNTY 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 AN]) 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 WITH LAWS The Parties shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. SECTION NO. 23:'DISCLAIMER Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall not be construed in any manner that would limit either Party's authority or powers under law. SECTION NO.29: ASSURANCE The CITY shall pay the COUNTY the true anti 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, Public Defender Page 9 of 12 IN WITNESS WEtEREOF,the PARTIES have caused ['his Agreement to be executed on . date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED! ",3.-._ � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANI COUNTY,WASHINGTON F ° ao6,�.°' Ili I ■ 1IELKE,Chair ATTEST: S 4;.)-' ' �i, Clerk of the SoRrd P a ," " . a% lti • f RK RICHARD, Vice-Chair ti Ni, { r Daniela Erickson ' r ..- -`' �y f. 'd.I-IARRIS,Commissioner DATED: ...4. '"t—c7 (, { SPOK A r COU P PUBLIC DEFENDER i / By: {' IV, Its:, / dil:', J . _ h L 9 , h/ (Two/J4 DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AI ]...,.t1! g--)-(-4,40e-,-,2Z:40,4_, - David Mercier,City Manager''liristine Bainbridge,Cit} tied i AFI'ROVI�D AS TO FORM ONLY: • Office --z„..,,L,if the ity Attorney [Mei-local Agreement, Put)liQ Defender Pace 10 of 12 1 EXIITB1T 1 For the purpose of this Agreement, PUBLIC DEFENDER Services shall include representation of indigent persons as required by the Constitution or state statutes(chapter 36.26 RCW) in conjunction with violations of state statutes that are punishable as misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses that occur within CITY'S jurisdiction and that are committed by adults,and/or juveniles for traffic offenses pursuant to RCW 13.01.030 (I) (e) (iii) or County policy, as well as any appeals to Superior Court. Additionally, PUBLIC DEFENDER shall represent indigent persons as required by the Constitution or state statutes(chapter 36.26 RCW) in conjunction with violations of CiTY ordinances that are punishable as misdemeanor offenses except for any constitutional challenges to the CITY ordinance. It also includes representation of indigent persons as required by the Constitution or state statutes(chapter 36.26 RCW) in conjunction with violations of CITY'S Traffic Code,as well as any appeals to Superior Court. CITY agrees for CITY staff, at no cost to PUBLIC DEFENDER, to make best efforts to attend any District Court judicial proceedings where their presence is requested by the PUBLIC DEFENDER. All services to be provided by PUBLIC DEFENDER in courts under the terms of this Ageement shall be provided in courts located within the Spokane County Courthouse Complex. In the event CITY requests such court services to be provided at a location within CITY, the PARTIES agree to meet and ihutually negotiate any and all increased costs to PUBLIC DEFENDER in providing such count services at CITY location. Interlocal Agreement, Public Defender Page I I of 12 • EXHIBIT 2 Component A Component B ^ Component C 2005 Public Defender Percentage Adopted Budget Spokane Valley Contract *** Amount Salary- Misdemeanor 866,989.00 33.25% 288,275.39 M & 0 - Misdemeanor 20,790.00 33.25% 6,912.71 Salary- Investigator 282,554.00 1.00% 2,825.59 Capital .. Indirect **** - 22,502.10 1,170,333.001 320,515.74 Notes *These amounts represent the Public Defender misdemeanor Adopted 2005 budget (3050052). **investigator Salaries are a component of the Public Defender legal services budget(30500117). • ***The percentage of Public Defender cases attributable to the Spokane Valley is 33.25%. The percentage of Investigator salaries attributable to Spokane Valley is 1%. Component A multiplied by Component B equates the contract amount. ****The Indirect(Overhead)rate of 7.73% is applied only to salaries. The indirect rate is based on Spokane County's OMf3 A-87 Cost Plan Escalated 2003 for 2005, adjusted to only include depreciation of capital improvements acquired after the City's official date of incorporation, prepared by PRM Group, an independent plan preparer. Interlocal Agreement, Public Defender Page 12 of 12 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 15-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR THE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES PURSUANT TO RCW 10.101.030, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 10.101.030 requires that the City adopt standards for the delivery of public defense services to meet the needs of public defense service recipients for sufficient, accessible, high quality defense services; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Supreme Court and Washington State Bar Association have adopted minimum standards to establish guidance for local jurisdictions in meeting the statutory requirements; and WHEREAS, the City currently contracts with Spokane County for the provision of indigent defense through the Interlocal Agreement for Public Defender Services in the City of Spokane Valley, executed March 24, 2006; and WHEREAS, Spokane County has adopted indigent defense standards for individuals charged with misdemeanor crimes which are substantially similar to the standards contained herein; and WHEREAS, at such time that the City may choose to provide these services by City staff, the City could consider amending these standards accordingly. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, that pursuant to RCW 10.101.030, the City Council hereby adopts the Spokane Valley Indigent Defense Delivery Standards, attached hereto and incorporation herein, which may be amended from time-to-time by subsequent resolution as may be appropriate or necessary. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Adopted this 14th day of July, 2015. City of S okan Valley Dean Graf s, or 7 ATTES : _ Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: v Office q the City Attorney Resolution No. 15-006 Adopting Indigent Defense Standards SPOKANE VALLEY INDIGENT DEFENSE DELIVERY STANDARDS These Indigent Defense Delivery Standards are drafted based primarily upon the requirements of RCW 10.101.030, and the Standards for Indigent Defense, adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court on June 15, 2012. Lastly, the Washington Public Defender Association has adopted standards to provide guidance in those areas not specifically addressed by RCW 10.101.030 or the Washington Supreme Court's Standards for Indigent Defense. DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of these Spokane Valley Indigent Defense Delivery Standards (Indigent Defense Standards)the following terms, phrases,words, and their derivations shall mean as follows: "Case" means the filing of a document with the court naming a person as defendant or respondent, to which an attorney is appointed in order to provide representation. In courts of limited jurisdiction multiple citations from the same incident can be counted as one case. "Board"means the Board of Commissioners of Spokane County. "Public Defender's Office" means the office of the Spokane County Public Defender, which is a department of Spokane County, organized pursuant to chapter 36.26 RCW, and which provides indigent defense service to the City of Spokane Valley pursuant to an interlocal agreement. "Public Defense Attorneys" means attorneys employed in the Public Defender's Office or attorneys employed in the separate department of Spokane County called Counsel for Defense. "Public Defense Contractors" means attorneys who are not full-time permanent employees of the Public Defender's Office or Counsel for Defense and who have agreed to represent indigent defendants which the Public Defender's Office and Counsel for Defense cannot represent. STANDARD ONE: COMPENSATION Public Defense Contractors should be compensated commensurate with the complexity of the case assigned and time required for the case. There may be provision for extraordinary compensation for cases which require an unusual measure of time or expertise. The actual salary levels shall be set by Spokane County. STANDARD TWO: DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PUBLIC DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACTORS Public Defense Attorneys' and Public Defense Contractors' primary and most fundamental responsibility is to promote and protect the best interests of the client. Representation to all clients shall be provided in a professional, skilled manner consistent with minimum standards set forth by applicable Washington State Bar Association standards, the Rules of Professional Conduct, case law, applicable court rules defining the duties of counsel and the rights of defendants in criminal cases, and the American Bar Association. STANDARD THREE: LIMITS AND TYPES OF CASES Caseload limits and types of cases for Public Defense Attorneys and Public Defense Contractors should allow each attorney to give each client the time and effort necessary to ensure quality Indigent Defense Delivery Standards Page 1 of 6 representation. No Public Defense Attorney or Public Defense Contractor should accept workloads that, by reason of their excessive size, interfere with the rendering of quality representation. A Public Defense Contractor shall not allow his or her private law practice to interfere with the representation of indigent defendants. (A) Subject only to the considerations of this Standard Three, in a one-year period, no full time Public Defense Attorney should be expected to handle more than 300 misdemeanor cases per attorney per year or, in jurisdictions that have not adopted a numerical case weighting system as described in this Standard,400 cases per year. Neither the Public Defender's Office nor the Counsel for Defense Office has adopted a numerical case weighting system for misdemeanor cases. (B) A Public Defense Contractor attorney should not be assigned more than a pro-rata share of public defense cases in a one-year period, in proportion to that attorney's additional private practice cases. For example, a Public Defense Contractor attorney with a public defense contract of 150 misdemeanor cases per year shall not have more than a half-time private practice caseload. (C) Supplemental standards adopted by the Washington Public Defender Association also address the number of cases attorneys providing public defense services can effectively handle including, but not limited to,the following: (1)The severity and complexity of the case; (2)The prosecutor's resources and practices; (3)The location of the jail and courts relative to the attorney's office; (4) The availability of diversionary tracks such as drug court, therapeutic mental health court, and community relicensing programs; (5)The docketing practices of the local courts; (6)The definition of a"case;" and (7)The availability of support staff and limited practice personnel. The Public Defender's Office and Counsel for Defense utilize these supplemental standards in the operation of their respective offices. If the total number of cases handled by Public Defense Attorneys and Public Defense Contractor attorneys considered together for a given calendar year exceed 110 percent of the caseloads specified in this Section, or are less than 90 percent of the caseloads specified in this Section in a given calendar year, then the Board and the Spokane County Public Defender shall confer and consider adopting various strategies to address the increase or decrease in caseload. As previously stated, neither the Public Defender's Office nor the Counsel for Defense utilize a case weighting system for its misdemeanor cases, and thus,the City does not adopt numerical case weighting. However,the Public Defender's Office uses an hourly calendaring system for the arraignment docket. At the arraignment docket, defendants may receive an early resolution offer for diversion of the criminal charges, or a reduction to a non-criminal infraction. In the event of an early resolution, the Public Defender's Office utilizes an hourly calendar system whereby case counts depend on how many early resolutions each attorney can handle on an hourly basis. Indigent Defense Delivery Standards Page 2 of 6 STANDARD FOUR: EXPERT EXPENSES Public Defense Attorneys and Public Defense Contractors shall have reasonable resources for expert witnesses necessary for preparation and presentation of the defense of the case. Funds for expert witnesses shall be maintained separately from funds provided for expert services. Public Defense Contractors' requests for expert witness fees under Court Rule 3.1(f) may be made through an ex parte motion. The defense should be free to choose the expert of its choosing and in no case should be forced to select experts from a list pre-approved by either the court or the prosecution. STANDARD FIVE: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Funding for the Public Defender's Office and Counsel for Defense shall include funding for administrative costs associated with providing legal representation such as travel, telephones and adequate telephone service, law library including electronic legal research, case management systems, computers and software, office space and supplies, training, meeting the reporting requirements imposed by the Washington State Supreme Court standards, and other costs necessarily incurred in the day-to-day management of the offices. Public Defense Attorneys and Public Defense Contractor attorneys shall have access to an office that accommodates confidential meetings with clients, as well as a postal address. STANDARD SIX: INVESTIGATORS Public Defense Attorneys and Public Defense Contractor attorneys shall use investigation services as appropriate. STANDARD SEVEN: SUPPORT SERVICES Public Defense Attorneys and Public Defense Contractors shall be adequately staffed with administrative assistance and paralegals, as well as have access to mental health professionals and interpreters. Public Defense Attorneys and Public Defense Contractors should seek to employ a minimum of one administrative assistant for every four attorneys. STANDARD EIGHT: REPORTS OF ATTORNEY ACTIVITY AND VOUCHERS Attorneys employed by Public Defense Attorneys and Public Defense Contractors shall maintain a case- reporting and management information system which tracks the number and type of cases, attorney hours, and disposition of cases. This information shall be available to the Washington State Administrator of the Courts. Provided, attorneys employed by Public Defense Attorneys and Public Defense Contractors shall not be required to provide any information that compromises client confidentiality. STANDARD NINE: TRAINING As a condition of being licensed to practice law in the State of Washington, attorneys are required to attend at least 15 hours of legal training each year. For Public Defense Attorneys, at least seven training hours each year shall be in criminal defense. Public Defense Contractor attorneys should maintain updated manuals for specific areas of practice within their offices, and shall document an orientation for newly hired attorneys. Indigent Defense Delivery Standards Page 3 of 6 Public Defense Contractor attorneys should document at least five hours of required training annually in the specific area of criminal defense being provided under the contract. STANDARD TEN: SUPERVISION The Public Defender's Office and Counsel for Defense should provide one full-time supervising attorney for every 10 staff attorneys, and one half-time supervisor for every five attorneys. STANDARD ELEVEN: MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF ATTORNEYS There should be a systematic procedure for monitoring and evaluating the performance of Public Defense Attorneys and Public Defense Contractor attorneys. Such evaluations should be performed by supervisors on a regular basis, be according to published criteria, include review of time and caseload records, in-court observations, review and inspection of transcripts where possible,review of case files, and should consider any comments of judges, prosecutors, other defense attorneys, and clients. Attorneys shall be evaluated on their skill and effectiveness as trial lawyers as well as their organizational abilities. STANDARD TWELVE: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS OR ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT Public Defense Contractors shall not subcontract with another attorney or firm to provide representation, and shall remain directly involved in the representation of assigned clients. Public Defender Contractors shall provide the names and qualifications of the attorneys who will be directly representing the clients to the Public Defender's Office, and ensure that such attorneys meet the minimum requirements set forth in these standards. Any agreement between the Public Defender's Office and Public Defender Contractors shall address the continued representation of assigned clients at the expiration of the Agreement. STANDARD THIRTEEN: LIMITATION ON PRIVATE PRACTICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACTOR ATTORNEYS Public Defender Contractor attorneys shall be limited in the amount of privately-retained work which they may accept, in proportion to the percentage of a full-time Public Defense Attorney caseload for which they contract, pursuant to Standard Three above. STANDARD FOURTEEN: QUALIFICATION OF ATTORNEYS (A) In order to ensure that indigent defendants receive the effective assistance of counsel to which they are constitutionally entitled, attorneys providing defense services shall meet at least the following minimum professional qualifications: (1) Satisfy the minimum requirements for practicing law in Washington as determined by the Washington Supreme Court; (2) Be familiar with the statutes, court rules, constitutional provisions, and case law relevant to their practice areas; Indigent Defense Delivery Standards Page 4 of 6 (3) Be familiar with the collateral consequences of a conviction, including possible immigration consequences and the possibility of civil commitment proceedings based on a criminal conviction; (4) Be familiar with mental health issues and be able to identify the need to obtain expert services; and (5) Complete seven hours of continuing legal education within each calendar year in courses relating to their public defense practice. (B) Contempt of Court Cases. Each attorney representing a respondent charged with contempt of court shall meet at least the following requirements: (1)Minimum requirements set forth in subsection(A) above; and (2) Each staff attorney shall be accompanied at his or her first three contempt of court hearings by a supervisor or more experienced attorney, or participate in at least one consultation per case with an attorney qualified in this area of practice. (C) Specialty Courts. Each attorney representing a client in a specialty court (e.g., mental health court, drug diversion court,homelessness court)shall meet at least the following requirements: (1) Minimum requirements set forth in subsection(A) above; (2) The requirements set forth above for representation in the type of practice involved in the specialty court(e.g.,felony, misdemeanor,juvenile); and (3) Be familiar with mental health and substance abuse issues and treatment alternatives. (D) RALJ (Rules for Appeal of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction) Misdemeanor Appeals to Superior Court. Each attorney who is counsel alone for a case on appeal to the Superior Court from Court of Limited Jurisdiction shall meet at least the following requirements: (1)Meet the minimum requirements as outlined in subsection(A) above; and (2) Have had significant training or experience in criminal appeals, criminal motions practice, extensive trial level briefing, clerking for an appellate judge, or assisting a more- experienced attorney in preparing and arguing an RALJ appeal. STANDARD FIFTEEN: DISPOSITION OF CLIENT COMPLAINTS The Public Defender's Office and Counsel for Defense shall promptly respond to clients who make complaints and should keep a written record of the complaints and the response. Complaints should be first directed to the attorney handling the case, then to a supervisor. If the complaint cannot be resolved by the office to which it is issued, the complainant shall be informed of other avenues including the courts or the bar association. Agreements with Public Defender Contractors who accept conflict cases shall include a procedure to respond to client complaints which meets this standard. STANDARD SIXTEEN: CAUSE FOR TERMINATION OR REMOVAL OF ATTORNEY Contracts with Public Defender Contractors should only be terminated prior to their expiration for cause, which could include failure of an attorney to render adequate representation to the client, willful disregard of the rights and best interests of the client, or willful disregard of the standards set forth herein. Representation in an individual case establishes an inviolable attorney-client relationship. Removing an attorney from a case should ordinarily not occur over the objection of the client. Indigent Defense Delivery Standards Page 5 of 6 STANDARD SEVENTEEN: NON-DISCRIMINATION The Public Defender's Office, Counsel for Defense, and Public Defense Contractors shall not discriminate in violation of applicable state or federal regulations in their hiring practices to provide public defense representation, in the attorneys selected to represent clients, or in their representation of clients. STANDARD EIGHTEEN: GUIDELINES FOR AWARDING DEFENSE CONTRACTS Contracts for public defense services may only be entered into with firms which meet accepted professional standards, and include awarding only to attorneys who have at least one year's experience in the jurisdiction covered by the contract, or to firms where at least one attorney performing the services under the contract has at least one year's experience in the jurisdiction covered by the contract. Indigent Defense Delivery Standards Page 6 of 6 ADDENDUM TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY THIS ADDENDUM,is made and entered into by and among the City of Spokane Valley(hereafter referred to as "City"), Spokane County (hereafter referred to as "County"), and Spokane County Public Defender(hereafter referred to as"Public Defender"),hereafter jointly referred to as the"Parties." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW(Interlocal Cooperation Act),the Parties have entered into numerous interlocal agreements whereby County has agreed to provide services to City and its residents; and WHEREAS,this Addendum applies to the "Interlocal Agreement for Public Defender Services in the City of Spokane Valley(the "Agreement")executed by the County under Resolution No. 06-0195,the City under signature dated March 1,2006,and the Public Defender under signature dated March 24,2006;and WHEREAS, from time-to-time, the Parties review interlocal agreements such as this one for the purpose of analyzing the cost methodology to determine if it properly reflects the services being provided,and whether the costs of those services are being accurately charged. These amendments reflect such an analysis; and WHEREAS, there are various components of the full cost of providing services by County, including the indirect cost allocation, which takes into account the cost of services provided by what is commonly referred to as County's central services,which include,but are not limited to,such components as facilities maintenance, administrative services, and insurance. In past years, the indirect cost rate has been calculated based on salaries attributable to the provision of each service. The Parties now agree that, effective with the 2010 settle and adjust and for subsequent years,it is acceptable to base the indirect cost rate on total expenditures in calculating the full cost of providing the services; and WHEREAS, there are various position groups accounted for within the Public Defender services cost methodology, including, but not limited to, attorneys, paralegals, receptionists, and investigators. Investigators perform a role for public defense attorneys similar to the role performed by law enforcement officers on behalf of prosecuting attorneys, and includes such duties as interviewing witnesses, and compiling and analyzing evidence pertaining to a criminal case. In past years, the Public Defender investigator costs were allocated each year to the City by multiplying the total salary and benefits of all investigators by a fixed one percent,as specified in the former Exhibit 2,and in recognition of the previously limited role in which investigators supported City criminal cases; and WHEREAS, the County previously adopted Standards for Indigent Defense pursuant to Spokane County Resolution No. 13-0773, executed August 27, 2013; and the City adopted similar Standards for Indigent Defense pursuant to Resolution No. 15-006,executed July 14,2015; and WHEREAS,the aforementioned Standards for Indigent Defense for City and County each address the appropriate use of investigators; and WHEREAS, for the time period 2010-2016, the Parties suspended the end-of-year cost reconciliation process and maintained payments at 2011 estimated rates,as is typical,while various changes were negotiated, including modifications to the indirect rate, changes to the allocation basis used for General Administrative salary and General M&O costs, and changes to the City's share of investigator salary costs. The effect of these changes resulted in a net City underpayment during this time period. The Page 1 of 3 City agrees to pay the County $245,361.08 to settle these past contract years within thirty (30) days of signing this addendum; and WHEREAS, effective beginning with the 2017 estimate and for subsequent years, the Parties desire to modify Exhibit 2 to more accurately reflect the increased time which investigators spend investigating City criminal misdemeanor cases. The Parties now agree that,effective with the 2017 estimate and for subsequent years,the total misdemeanor investigator costs shall be allocated using a payroll costs basis; and WHEREAS, in past years,the Parties allocated General Administrative Salary costs and General M&O costs to the misdemeanor unit using an attorney FTE(Full Time Equivalent)basis. The Parties now agree that effective with the 2017 estimate,the allocation basis used to allocate these component costs shall be a payroll costs basis. NOW THEREFORE,for and in consideration of the above referenced recitals which are adopted herein by reference, mutual promises set forth herein, and as provided for in the underlying document entitled "Interlocal Agreement for Public Defender Services in the City of Spokane Valley (January 1, 2005-December 31,2005)"(the "Agreement") executed by the County under Resolution No. 06-0195,the Parties agree as follows: SECTION ONE: 1.1 Effective with the 2010 Settle and Adjust and for Subsequent Years. INDIRECT RATE SCOPE OF CHANGE. The scope and purpose of this subsection of the Addendum to the Agreement is to change the way the indirect costs the County charges the City are calculated. Indirect costs are a component cost in determining the total actual cost for the provision of Services. Previously, the Parties calculated the indirect rate based on "salaries only" as adopted in the methodology set forth in former Exhibit 2 to the Agreement,but now agree that it is acceptable to calculate the indirect rate based on"total expenditures." 1.2 Effective with the 2017 Estimate and for Subsequent Years. INVESTIGATOR COST METHODOLOGY SCOPE OF CHANGE. This subsection is intended to change the way the investigator costs the County charges the City are calculated. Previously,the Parties calculated the City's share of investigator costs by multiplying the total salary and benefits costs of the investigator unit by one percent. Pursuant to the new Exhibit 2, investigator costs shall be allocated using a payroll costs allocation basis where the misdemeanor percentage share of investigator costs shall be determined by dividing the total Public Defender Department misdemeanor payroll costs, inclusive of attorneys and dedicated misdemeanor support staff, by the sum of those Public Defender payroll costs receiving investigative support. Currently those payroll units are felonies, misdemeanors, and Fund 161. The City's share of misdemeanor investigator costs is then determined by multiplying the City's percentage of misdemeanor attorney cases out of total misdemeanor cases, by the new misdemeanor investigator cost. 1.3 Effective with the 2017 Estimate and for Subsequent Years. GENERAL M&O AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE COST METHODOLOGY SCOPE OF CHANGE. This subsection is intended to change the way General M&O and General Administrative costs are allocated to the Misdemeanor unit. Previously, the Parties allocated General M&O and General Administrative Costs to misdemeanors using an FTE basis. Pursuant to the new Exhibit 2, the misdemeanor share of General M&O and General Administrative costs shall utilize a payroll costs basis and be determined by dividing the misdemeanor payroll costs by Page 2 of 3 the sum of all Public Defender payroll costs that utilize these services. The City's share of General M&O and General Administrative costs is then determined by multiplying the City's percentage of misdemeanor attorney cases out of total misdemeanor cases by the new misdemeanor General M&O and General Administrative costs. SECTION TWO: DURATION. This Addendum shall be in full force and effect for the remaining term of the Agreement,or any extension of that Agreement. SECTION THREE: REMAINDER OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO REMAIN THE SAME. The remaining provisions of the Agreement will remain unchanged by this Addendum. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have caused this Addendum to be executed on the date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON AL FRENCH, Chair ATTEST: JOSH KERNS,Vice-Chair Clerk of the Board Commissioner DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST: Mark Calhoun,City Manager Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: Office of the City Attorney DATED: SPOKANE COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER Tom Krzyminski, Spokane County Public Defender Page 3 of 3 Spokane County Public Defender EXHIBIT 2 City of Spokane Valley 2017 Estimate Percentage Spokane Valley Budget Valley Estimate Misdemeanor Direct Costs 1,930,241 33.84% 653,161 Indirect 132,470 33.84% 44,825 2,062,711 697,986 City of Spokane Valley Cases-PDMan Cases per Incident Location Estimate 33.84% Actual Indirect Rate(applied to total expenditures) Estimate 6.86% Actual Reallocate Investigator Reallocate Payroll to Reallocate General Reduce by Reduce by Felony, General Reallocate Admin 4170- Add Back EAccount from Dedicated Costs to be Subtotal Misdemeanor Subtotal Admin General Conflict Dedicated Adopted Budget M&O Allocated Payroll and Fund 161 Payroll Payroll Total Payroll Admin NFO Attorneys M&O Total Expenditures 5159100 GeneralAdmin-Payroll 766,538 - (766,538) - - - 5159100 General Admin-M/O 131,007 - (131,007) - - - 5159100 General Admin-M/0 4170 Conflict 321,330 - (321,330) - - - 5159101 Investigators 507,137 - (507,137) - - - 5159200 Felony 4,030,154 (119,494) - 3,910,660 326,120 4,236,780 373,919 4,610,699 49% 85,498 266,704 119,494 5,082,395 50.14% 5159300 Misdemeanor 1,608,872 (8,994) - 1,599,878 133,418 1,733,296 152,973 1,886,269 20% 34,978 8,994 1,930,241 19.04% 5159300 Misd-Mental Health 3050020 123,831 (355) - 123,476 123,476 10,897 134,373 1% 2,492 355 137,220 1.35% 5159400 Juvenile Offender 276,316 - - 276,316 276,316 24,386 300,703 3% 5,576 44,986 351,265 3.47% 5159500 Juvenile Dependency-3050047 122,037 - 122,037 122,037 10,770 132,807 1% 2,463 9,640 144,910 1.43% 5159500 Juvenile Dependency-305C131 120,000 (1,719) 118,281 118,281 10,439 128,720 1% 1,719 130,439 1.29% 5159700 Civil Commitment 631,601 (5,013) - 626,588 626,588 55,300 681,888 7% 5,013 686,901 6.78% 5159200 Fund 161-Indigent Defense Adult Felony 598,355 (27,576) - 570,779 47,599 618,378 54,575 672,953 7% 27,576 700,529 6.91% 5159500 Fund 162-Juv Dependency/Termination 898,344 (68,059) - 830,285 830,285 73,277 903,562 10% 68,059 971,621 9.59% 10,135,522 (231,210)1 (1,726,012) 8,178,300 507,137 8,685,437 766,538 9,451,975 100% 131,007 321,330 231,210 10,135,522 100.00% - Capital - Capital 3,489 Copier Lease 3,489 Copier Lease Reconciliation to 2017 Budget Expend Tabs: s/b 0 0.00 10,139,011 10,139,011 Note DRAFT Each EAccount is reduced by its dedicated M&O to calculate salary and benefits only,which is used as the basis to allocate investigator costs budgeted in 5159101,as well as the General Admin-M&O remaining after excluding M&O specific to conflict attorneys(4170). Conflict attorneys are separately allocated as the payroll basis would under allocate to felonies which is the predominant user of this line item. Note DRAFT Conflict Attorney M&O is used by Felony and Juvenile only and allocated to each EAccountthe percent of costs that each unit incurs during the prior year,as determined by the responsible person in the Public Defender's Office. i 2017 PUBLIC DEFENDER AMENDMENT John Pietro, Administrative Analyst Backg round Between 2013-2015 the City and the County staffs reviewed the cost methodologies in use in a number of public safety contracts Methodologies went back a number of years and this was an opportunity to more accurately account for costs and capture how services were provided Several amendments were brought forward to Council that addressed modifications to District Court, Prosecutor, SCRAPS, Emergency Management, Pretrial Services, and Hearing Examiner The Public Defender contract is the last outstanding contract to be brought forward to Council for consideration out of that initial review Retroactive Application: end of year reconciliations have been suspended but we've still paid all monthly estimates Summary of the Changes (Section 1 . 1 ) Indirect Rate Base changes from Total Departmental Salary and Benefits to Total Expenditures (now inclusive of S&B and M&O) Identical change was adopted by Council in earlier amendments for other contracts (Section 1 .2) Investigator cost allocation to City changes from fixed 1 % of their salary to a percentage more reflective of their actual work supporting misdemeanor attorneys as required by the State Standards for Indigent Defense (Section 1 .3) General M&O and General Administrative cost allocation basis changes from FTE basis to a payroll basis 1 . 1 Indirect Rate County often seeks to reimburse the General Fund for the indirect costs associated with grant awards Existing indirect rate uses a base of salaries and benefits In the past this meant that they could only be reimbursed through their grants for overhead costs associated with the salary portion Equipment grants were applied 100% to the equipment with no portion going to overhead Equipment incurs overhead including accounting and administrative costs 1 . l Indirect Rate Continued Council adopted the same indirect amendment in 2014 which was applied to our Animal Control, District Court, Emergency Management, Pretrial, and Hearing Examiner agreements (Prosecutor adopted in 2015) Allows County to fully recover indirect costs from grants Allows the County to have a consistent indirect rate methodology for all users A revised cost plan would apply to our agreements but the change is not because of our agreements 1 . 2 Investigator Allocation Basis Investigators form a support unit within the Public Defender's Office that conduct interviews, gather evidence, locate witnesses, testify as needed Currently the City pays for 1 % of this unit's total salary and benefits costs Historically this amount has been $4,500 each year The existing 1 % allocation basis was in recognition of the previously limited roll investigators played in supporting misdemeanor cases Their role has since expanded due to the State Indigent Defense Standards and the proposed methodology captures this increased work in support of misdemeanor cases 1 . 2 Investigator Basis Continued 2017 Investigator Salary & Benefits $ 507,137 Public Defender Unit Total Payroll Allocation % Investigator Alloc. Felony $ 3,910,660 64% $ 326, 120 Misdemeanor $ 1,599,878 26% $ 133,418 Felony Fund 161 $ 570,779 9% $ 47,599 Total $ 6,081,317 1 / $ 507, 137 Misdemeanor Inv $ $ 133,418 City Misd Case % 33.84% 2017 City Investigator $ $ 45,146 1 . 3 General Admin and M&O Certain Administrative Staff and M&O costs are dedicated to a particular unit (e.g. Felonies or Misdemeanors) while most of these costs are General (serves all units) and require an agreed method for allocating General Administrative Salary and General M&O are currently allocated using an attorney FTE basis Misdemeanor share of these costs are currently calculated in the following manner: (misdemeanor attorney FTE / total attorney FTE) x total General M&O or General Administrative $'s = misdemeanor share Calculating partial FTE is difficult for the County to prepare and for the City to verify Calculation is simplified using the proposed payroll basis 1 . 3 General Admin and M&O Continued 2017 General M&O $ 131,007 Public Defender Unit Total Payroll* Allocation % Gen M&O Alloc. Felony $ 4,610,699 65% $ 85,498 Misdemeanor $ 1,886,269 27% $ 34,978 Mental Health $ 134,373 2% $ 2,492 Juvenile Offender $ 300,703 4% $ 5,576 Juvenile Dependency $ 132,807 A $ 2,463 Total $ 7,064,852 100% $ 131,007 Misdemeanor Gen. M&O $ 34,978 City Misd Case % 33.84% 2017 City Gen. M&O $ 11,836 *Includes prior stage adjustments to capture investigator and General Admin payroll allocation Annual Cost Impact 2017 Comparison 1.1 Indirect Rate 1.2 Investigator 1.3 General Admin 1.3 General M&O Total Proposed $ 41,845 $ 45,146 $ 51,763 $ 11,836 Existing $ 44,085 $ 5,071 $ 58,794 $ 15,700 Cost Impact $ (2,240) $ 40,075 $ (7,030) $ (3,864) $ 26,940 Multiyear Cost Reconciliation Act % Owe to County/ Year COSV Paid Actual Change (Credit to City) 2010 $ 485,456 $ 561,229 $ 75,773 2011 $ 649,831 $ 689,621 22.9% $ 39,790 2012 $ 649,831 $ 674,304 -2.2% $ 24,473 2013 $ 649,831 $ 630,620 -6.5% $ (19,211) 2014 $ 649,831 $ 624,848 -0.9% $ (24,983) 2015 $ 649,831 $ 713,998 14.3% $ 64,167 2016 $ 649,831 $ 735,184 3.0% $ 85,353 Average Annual Actual °o Change 4.5% 2017 $ 697,986 TBD Total Actual Owed to County $ 245,361.08 Total of estimated liability amounts booked 2011 -2016 is $1 31 ,000.08 Additional expense to be booked in 2017 is $114,361 Next Steps Proceed to motion consideration with Council consensus If amendments are approved by both parties, changes are made retroactive to their effective dates City proceeds with outstanding reconciliations and updates to current estimated costs DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of August 10,2017; 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 August 22,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,Aug 151 Proclamation:Legislative Delegation Recognition 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 17-010, Snow Removal—Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Consultant Contract,Barker Grade Sep.Ph 1 — Gloria Mantz (20 minutes) 4.Admin Report: 2018 Budget: Estimated Revenues/Expenditures—Chelsie Taylor (30 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Police Dept.Monthly Report—Mark Werner (15 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Donation to City—Mike Stone (10 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 8. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 100 minutes] August 29,2017, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,Aug 221 ACTION ITEM: 1.Motion Consideration: JAG Grant Application—Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Spokane Regional Trans.Mgmt. Ctr.Update—John Hohman; WSDOT SRTMC Mgr Ken Heale (20 mins) 3.Marketing Report—Mike Basinger,Lesli Brassfield (15 minutes) 4.Health District/Parental Rights—Cary Driskell,Erik Lamb (25 minutes) 5. 2018 Legislative Agenda—Mark Calhoun (30 minutes) 6.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 105 minutes] September 5, 2017, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. Idue Tue,Aug 291 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] Special Meeting:Friday,Sept 8,2017: Council of Governments 10:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m., Spokane County Fair&Expo Center, Conference Facility, 404 N Havana St September 12,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Sept 51 Proclamation: Constitution Week 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2018 Budget Revenues(includes property tax)—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes;resolution to set budget hearing for 10-10) (5 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Red Cross Household Emergency Kits-Mark Calhoun;Megan Snow,Red Cross(20 min) 4.Admin Report: CenterPlace Great Room Bid—Mike Stone (15 minutes) 5 Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] September 19, 2017,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. Idue Tue, Sept 121 1. Proposed ordinance adopting 2018 property taxes—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2. Outside Agencies Presentations: Economic Development& Social Services (-120 mins) 3.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 135 minutes] September 26,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. Idue Tue, Sept 191 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Mayoral Appointment: Citizen to Spokane Housing Authority—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: CenterPlace Great Room Bid—Mike Stone (10 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 8/10/2017 8:40:51 AM Page 1 of 3 4.Admin Report: Police Dept Monthly Report—Mark Werner (15 minutes) 5. City Manager's Presentation of 2018 Preliminary Budget—Mark Calhoun (45 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 7. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 85 minutes] October 3, 2017,Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. (due Tue, Sept 26] 1. Proposed 2017 Budget Amendment—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] October 10,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. Idue Tue,Oct 31 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2018 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3.First Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance —Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 minutes] October 17, 2017, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. (due Tue,Oct 10] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) October 24,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. (due Tue,Oct 17]] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2017 Budget Amendment—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 4.First Reading Ordinance Amending 2017 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 5.First Reading Ordinance Adopting 2018 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 6.Motion Consideration: Allocation of Funds to Outside Agencies—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Police Dept Monthly Report—Mark Werner (15 minutes) 8.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 9. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 110 minutes] October 31,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. Idue Tue,Oct 241 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: 2018 Fee Resolution— Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] November 7, 2017, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [Note: meeting might be cancelled due to election night] November 14,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. Idue Tue,Nov 71 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Final Hearing on 2018 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance Amending 2017 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 4. Second Reading Ordinance Adopting 2018 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 5.Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to Council—Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 6.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 85 minutes] November 21, 2017, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. (due Tue,Nov 14] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) November 28, 2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. Meeting cancelled due to Thanksgiving Holiday December 5,2017, Study Session,6:00 p.m. Idue Tue,Nov 211 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 8/10/2017 8:40:51 AM Page 2 of 3 December 12,2017,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. fdue Tue, Dec 51 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Fee Resolution,2018—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Award of LTAC Funds—Chelsie Taylor (25 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] December 19, 2017, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue,Dec 12] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) December 26,2017,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. Meeting cancelled due to Christmas Holiday January 2,2018, Study Session,6:00 p.m. fdue Tue,Dec 261 Administration of Oath of Office to Newly Elected Officials 1. Selection of Mayor and Deputy Mayor—Chris Bainbridge (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor (5 minutes) *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: 8th&McDonald(Oct) CDBG(Hearing Sept/Oct) Disc Golf Park Emergency Management RFQ Farmers Market Fee Resolution(credit card fees,etc.) Grants received,history Janitorial Contract Nuisance Properties(drug houses,etc.) Official Newspaper Protestor Conditions Property Crimes Grant Cont. Reserve Balances 10 Largest Wa Cities School Interns Second Amend. Sanctuary City Sign Ordinance Small Cell Regulations Solid Waste Contract Approval Sullivan Road Bridge Update Transportation&Infrastructure Undergrounding Utility Facilities in ROW Water Banking Yard Sales Regulation Review Draft Advance Agenda 8/10/2017 8:40:51 AM Page 3 of 3