The URL can be used to link to this page

2019, 01-15 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, January 15, 2019 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10210 E Sprague Avenue (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: 1. Colin Quinn -Hurst Amended 2019 Transportation Discussion/Information Improvement Program 2. Chelsie Taylor Gambling Tax Discussion/Information 3. Mike Stone Browns Park Scope of Work Discussion/Information 4. Cary Driskell Salary Commission Report Information 5. Cary Driskell, Erik Lamb Training: Public Records Act and Discussion/Information Open Public Meeting Act 6. Mayor Higgins Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 7. Mayor Higgins Council Comments Discussion/Information 8. Mark Calhoun City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Study Session Agenda, January 15, 2019 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 15, 2019 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ['new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2019 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment #1 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On June 5, 2018, Council adopted the 2019-2024 Six Year TIP by Resolution #18-003. On March 27, 2018, Council passed a motion authorizing staff to apply for the Washington State Department of Transportation's City Safety Program (CSP) and SRTC's 2018 call for projects, including the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG), STBG — Set Aside (STBG-SA), and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program CMAQ. On July 24, 2018, Council passed a motion authorizing staff to apply for the Transportation Improvement Board's call for projects for sidewalk improvements on Adams Road from 16th Avenue to 22nd Avenue and for pavement preservation on University Road from 16th Avenue to Dishman-Mica Road. BACKGROUND: The projects and costs listed in the adopted TIP are based upon available information at the time of adoption. This amendment includes updates for anticipated 2019 expenses for several previously adopted projects, including allocation of street preservation funds to specific projects. In addition, the City received grant award letters from the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) and the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) City Safety Program, necessitating the addition of new projects into the 2019 TIP. Based on this information, it is recommended that the 2019 TIP be amended to include these projects. Attached is a summary of the proposed changes. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only. This material will be presented again at the January 29, 2019 public hearing on the amended TIP, as well as a proposed resolution for Council to consider adopting the amended TIP. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Some of the project costs shown in the proposed amendment to the 2019 TIP are based on grant award letters received from TIB and WSDOT. There are sufficient funds available to meet the local match requirements for these projects. STAFF CONTACT: Colin Quinn -Hurst, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manger ATTACHMENTS: 2019 TIP Amendment #1 Presentation City of Spokane Valley Department of Community & Public Works Adopted 2019 Transportation Improvement Program (Adopted by Resolution 18-003 on 6/5/18) Proj. # Project From To Primary Source City Amount Total 2019 Project Costs 1 0142 Broadway Ave. 2 0143 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation 3 0223 Pines (SR27)/BNSF Grade Separation 4 2019 Street Preservation Projects 5 0249 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Project 6 0269 Evergreen Resurfacing 7 0278 Wilbur Rd Sidewalk 8 0267 Mission Ave Sidewalk 9 0265 Wellesley Sidewalk Project (PE) 10 0279 Knox Sidewalk 11 0276 Barker Rd 12 0268 Appleway Trail Argonne Barker @ Pines (SR27) Various Sullivan @ Mission Broadway Bowdish McDonald Hutchinson Euclid Evergreen Mullan Rd BNSF RR BNSF RR Various Wellesley Indiana Boone Union Evergreen Sargent Garland Sullivan TIB Fed/Other Other FED City County STP(U) CDBG TIB SRTS CDBG City CMAQ City of Spokane Valley Department of Community & Public Works DRAFT Amended 2019 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 19 -XX, (Date TBD) $ 12,000 $ 98,000 $ 949,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 22,000 $ 84,000 $ 51,000 $ 87,000 $ 87,000 $ 38,000 $ 135,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 1,517,000 $ 949,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 163,000 $ 624,000 $ 338,000 $ 438,000 $ 438,000 $ 312,000 $ 147,000 $ 87,000 $ 5,175,000 $ 8,625,000 Proj. # Unchanged Projects 1 0223 Pines (SR27)/BNSF Grade Separation (PE only) From Pines (SR27) To BNSF RR Primary Source City City Total 2019 Amount Project Costs $ 949,000 $ 949,000 Proj. # Closeout Projects 2 0142 Broadway Ave Intersections - Closeout 3 0123 Mission Ave Reconstruction - Closeout 4 0272 Euclid Ave Preservation - Closeout 5 0237 Appleway Trail - Closeout From Argonne Flora Sullivan Sullivan To Mullan Rd Barker Flora Corbin Primary Source TIB City City RCO/COM City Total 2019 Amount Project Costs $ 5,000 $ 25,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Proj. # 6 7 Updated Projects and 2018 Carryover Projects 0143 Barker Rd / BNSF Grade Separation (PE/RW only) 2019 Street Preservation Projects 0290 2019 Local Access Streets (Midilome) 0285 Indiana Ave Preservation (PE only) Valleyway Ave Preservation 8th Ave Preservation (PE only) Farr Rd Preservation Broadway Ave Preservation Mullan Rd Preservation (PE only) Woodruff Rd 0284 Argonne Rd Preservation University Rd Preservation 8 0252 Argonne Rd Preservation - 2018 Carryover 9 0249 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Project (PE/RW only) 10 0269 Evergreen Rd Resurfacing 11 0278 Wilbur Rd Sidewalk 12 0267 Mission Ave Sidewalk and Street Preservation` 13 0265 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk 14 0279 Knox Ave Sidewalk 15 0276 Barker Rd Reconstruction 16 0268 Appleway Trail (PE only) 17 259 North Sullivan ITS - 2018 Carryover From Barker @ Citywide 34th/Loretta/37th Evergreen Marguerite Sullivan Appleway Havana Broadway 9th Valleyway 16th Broadway Sullivan @ Mission Broadway University McDonald Hutchinson Euclid Evergreen 1-90 To BNSF RR Citywide Bates/Fox Sullivan Mullan Progress 8th Fancher Mission 10th Broadway Dishman Mica Mission Wellesley Indiana Boone Union Evergreen Sargent Garland Sullivan Trent Primary Source Fed/Other City City City City City City City City City City TIB/City STP CMAQ STP(U) CDBG TIB/City SRTS CDBG City CMAQ CM AQ City Total 2019 Amount Project Costs $ 670,500 $ 2,020,500 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 112,861 $ 112,861 $ 17,882 $ 17,882 $ 185,000 $ 185,000 $ 1,837,033 $ 1,837,033 $ 45,373 $ 45,373 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 312,500 $ 312,500 $ 1,250,000 $ 3,125,000 $ 269,306 $ 756,151 $ 40,500 $ 300,000 $ 232,350 $ 760,000 $ 55,865 $ 383,500 $ 1,736,519 $ 2,149,969 $ 340,000 $ 720,000 $ 51,409 $ 325,795 $ 1,900,000 $ 2,350,000 $ 17,550 $ 130,000 $ 95,678 $ 708,723 Proj. # 18 0277 19 0275 20 0205 21 22 0273 23 24 25 Added Projects Barker Rd Reconstruction Barker Rd Reconstruction (PE only) Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement (PE only) Adams Rd Sidewalk (PE only) Barker Rd Westbound Interchange (PE only) Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates Phase 3 Citywide Reflective Post Panels Garland Ave Construction From To Garland GSP Spokane River Euclid Sprague Sprague 16th 22nd Boone 1-90 Citywide Citywide Citywide Citywide Flora Barker Primary Source City City DEV TIB WSDOT WSDOT CSP WSDOT CSP DEV City Amount 800,000 132,000 128,000 101,410 1,500 700 1,500,000 Total 2019 Project Costs $ 1,050,000 $ 132,000 $ 128,000 $ 507,051 $ 900,000 $ 178,500 $ 78,000 $ 3,000,000 $14,292,936 $24,692,838 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. *Street preservation and stormwater improvements included with sidewalk project 2019 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) - Amendments January 15, 2019 s►e Transportation Improvement Program Purpose: Required by RCW 35.77.010 Must be referenced in Comp Plan Required for REET expenditures Required for grant eligibility Periodic Update Update schedules and amounts Carry over 2018 projects Add recently -funded projects Spokane .Valley 2019 - 2024 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 2 Unchanged Projects Pines (SR27)/BNSF Grade Separation (PE only) Closeout Projects Broadway Ave Intersections - Argonne to MuIlan Mission Ave Reconstruction - Flora to Barker Euclid Ave Preservation - Sullivan to Flora Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin Updated and Carryover Projects Barker Rd / BNSF Grade Separation (PE/RW only) 2019 Street Preservation Projects - See Next Slide Argonne Rd Preservation - Broadway to Mission - 2018 Carryover Sullivan /Wellesley Intersection Project (PE/RW only) Evergreen Rd Resurfacing - Mission to Indiana Wilbur Rd Sidewalk - Broadway to Boone Mission Ave Sidewalk and Street Preservation - University to Union Wellesley Ave Sidewalk - McDonald to Evergreen Knox Ave Sidewalk - Hutchinson to Sargent Barker Rd Reconstruction - Euclid to Garland Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan (PE only) North Sullivan ITS - 1-90 to Trent - 2018 Carryover 5. 2019 Street Preservation Projects 2019 Local Access Streets - Midilome (Street Wear Fee Projects) Indiana Ave Preservation -Evergreen to Sullivan (PE only) Valleyway Ave Preservation- Marguerite to Mullan 8th Ave Preservation - Sullivan to Progress (PE only) Farr Rd Preservation - Appleway to 8th Broadway Ave Preservation -Havana to Fancher Mullan Rd Preservation -Broadway to Mission (PE only) Woodruff Rd Preservation - 9th to 10th Argonne Rd Preservation - Valleyway to Broadway University Rd Preservation - 16t" to Dishman Mica - New TIB Award Added Projects Barker Rd Reconstruction -Garland to GSP Barker Rd Reconstruction -Spokane River to Euclid (PE only) Sprague & Barker Intersection Improvement (PE only) Adams Rd Sidewalk - 16th to 22nd (PE only) - New TIB Award Barker Rd Westbound Interchange - Boone to I-90 (PE only) Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates Ph. 3 - New CSP Award Citywide Reflective Post Panels - New CSP Award Garland Ave Construction - Flora to Barker Questions CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 15, 2019 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['information ® admin. report AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Gambling Tax GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.25 and RCW Chapter 9.46. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None Department Director Approval: ['new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session BACKGROUND: In 2003 the City of Spokane Valley adopted an ordinance which authorized certain gaming/gambling activities and imposed related taxes, the proceeds of which are used to partially offset law enforcement costs. The gambling tax rate for card games was decreased from 10% to 6% effective July 1, 2015 through the adoption of ordinance #15-012. Listed below is gambling tax rate information which includes the maximum allowed by State law, the current rates in Spokane Valley, and rates in the City of Spokane: Type of Gambling Activity Gambling Tax Rates Maximum Allowed by State of Washington City of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Punch Boards & Pull Tabs (1) (1) (1) (2) Bingo & Raffles Amusement Games Card Games 10.0% 5.0% 2.0% 20.0% 5.0% 5.0% 2.0% 6.0% 10.0% 5.0% 2.0% 2.0% (1) Rates are applicable to gross receipts, less amounts awarded as cash or merchandise prizes. (2) Rates are applicable to gross revenue. Since the City's incorporation in 2003, a number of businesses that offer gambling as a form of entertainment have opened and closed and related tax revenues have fluctuated from year to year with an overall downward trend. There are currently 29 businesses in Spokane Valley that offer gaming. Gambling tax revenues for the period 2009 through 2017 as well as the 2018 and 2019 Budget projections are included as a separate Attachment #1 in your agenda packet. The downward trend is conceivably due to a combination of competition from both regional and on- line gaming establishments as well as the decrease in the tax rate on card games in 2015. The decrease in the gambling tax rate on card games from 10% to 6% was estimated to reduce gambling tax revenues by approximately $89,000 in 2015 and $178,000 annually from 2016 forward. Staff recalculated tax revenues from card games to determine what revenues would have been if the rate had remained at 10%, and this analysis indicates that the reduction in the tax rate accounts for most, but not all, of the decrease in gambling tax revenues in 2015 as seen on Attachment #1. Page 1 of 3 The recalculated tax revenues on card games are as follows: Year 2015 2016 2017 Actual @ 6% Recalculated @ 10% 336,885 288,199 279,612 424,729 480,332 466,020 At the November 13, 2018 meeting, Council heard public comment from the legal representation of a business owner who operates a local gambling establishment. He stated that the gambling taxes on social card playing in the City of Spokane Valley are a significant expense to his client's business and that he believes his client is put at an unfair disadvantage to similar businesses that operate in the City of Spokane due to the difference in the tax rate between the two cities. He requested that Council consider reducing gambling tax rates on card games from 6% to 2% to match the rate in the City of Spokane. See the chart above comparing gambling tax rates in Spokane Valley and Spokane. At the November 20, 2018 meeting, a Councilmember requested that an administrative report on gambling taxes be placed on the advance agenda. In addition to the difference in gambling tax rates between Spokane Valley and Spokane, there are several other differences in the tax and fee structures between the two cities that affect the cost of doing business. A few of these differences are summarized in the below table: Utility Tax Electricity Natural Gas Telephone Cable TV Solid Waste Water Sewer Property Tax (1) 0% 6% 0% 6% 6% 6% 0% 6% 0% 20% 0% 20% 0% 20% 2018 Levy Rate $ 12.78 $ 13.88 Business License (2) $ 13.00 $117.00 Admissions Tax 0% 5% (1) Tax Code Area (TCA) used for Spokane Valley is 0146 and Spokane is 0010. Obtained from the Spokane County Assessor's website. (2) Spokane business licenses also have an additional fee per person based upon the number of personnel working at the business. Page 2 of 3 City of Type of Tax or Fee Spokane City of Valley Spokane Utility Tax Electricity Natural Gas Telephone Cable TV Solid Waste Water Sewer Property Tax (1) 0% 6% 0% 6% 6% 6% 0% 6% 0% 20% 0% 20% 0% 20% 2018 Levy Rate $ 12.78 $ 13.88 Business License (2) $ 13.00 $117.00 Admissions Tax 0% 5% (1) Tax Code Area (TCA) used for Spokane Valley is 0146 and Spokane is 0010. Obtained from the Spokane County Assessor's website. (2) Spokane business licenses also have an additional fee per person based upon the number of personnel working at the business. Page 2 of 3 OPTIONS: None at this time. This report is informational. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is required at this time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2019 Budget includes a revenue estimate of $367,000 in gambling taxes including: • $ 72,000 Punch Boards and Pull Tabs • $ 1,000 Bingo and Raffles • $ 14,000 Amusement Games • $280,000 Card Games Given that a 10% tax on card games is estimated to generate $280,000 in 2019, each 1% change in the tax rate would cause General Fund revenues to change by $28,000. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment #1 — Gambling Tax Revenue History 2009 to 2017 Actuals and 2018 to 2019 Budgets Page 3 of 3 Attachment #1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Gambling Tax Revenue History 2009 to 2017 Actuals and 2018 and 2019 Budgets 1/4/2019 Actual Revenues Type of Gambling Activity 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Budget 2019 Budget Punch Boards & Pull Tabs 92,908 71,778 64,310 64,771 70,504 64,585 63,041 69,001 72,292 69,000 72,000 Bingo & Raffles 644 825 1,260 1,802 638 1,227 950 839 1,060 1,000 1,000 Amusement Games 8,917 10,063 10,882 10,125 10,799 11,063 11,909 13,671 14,841 13,000 14,000 Card Games 624,535 563,477 447,778 541,696 446,497 429,376 336,885 288,199 279,612 288,000 280,000 Total Inc. (Dec.) from previous yr. 727,004 646,143 524,230 618,394 528,438 506,251 412,785 371,710 367,805 371,000 367,000 $ (80,861) $ (121,913) $ 94,164 $ (89,956) $ (22,187) $ (93,466) $ (41,075) $ (3,905) -11.12% -18.87% 17.96% -14.55% -4.20% -18.46% -9.95% -1.05% Recurring General Fund Revenues $ 34,797,007 $ 35,045,155 $ 34,782,174 $ 35,860,024 $ 37,095,983 $ 38,333,870 $ 39,344,345 $ 42,695,160 $ 43,964,129 $ 43,007,600 $ 45,496,900 Gambling Taxes as a % of Recurring General Fund Revenues 2.09% 1.84% 1.51 % 1.72% 1.42% 1.32% 1.05% 0.87% 0.84% 0.86% 0.81 % H:\Misc RCAs\2018\2018 12 18 Gambling Tax Admin\Gambling Tax Revenue History 2009 to 2019.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 15, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Browns Park 2019 Scope of Work Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Browns Park Master Plan on July 1, 2014. BACKGROUND: Browns Park has a rich history and is loved by a wide range of community members. The development of the Browns Park Master Plan in 2014 produced an exciting opportunity for our City. Not only does the master plan call for the expansion and improvement of the park for the use by neighbors and residents, it also identified an opportunity to expand the sand volleyball complex. Since 2014, the City has added 16 new sand volleyball courts including a championship sand volleyball court, a basketball court and a splash pad at a cost to the City of $623,000 that was financed with $68,000 of lodging tax dollars and $555,000 of General Fund money. Staff continues to partner with the Evergreen Region Volleyball Association (ERVA) to provide volleyball programming and events at Browns Park. ERVA is working with the City of Spokane Valley to expand the sand volleyball courts at Browns Park and create a premier outdoor volleyball venue in Spokane Valley. This evening staff will be following up their October 10, 2018 presentation regarding the master plan improvements for Browns Park. Staff is seeking Council concurrence on the items to be included in the scope of work for the $1,160,000 2019 project. Staff has explored the potential of obtaining an ADA or other grant to pay for the trail portion of the project. Bennet Resnick of Cardinal Infrastructure, our Federal Lobbyist, has informed us that there does not appear to be any grants applicable to our project. OPTIONS: (1) accept scope of work as presented by staff; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to proceed with the 2019 Browns Park scope of work as outlined by staff. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: All improvements reflected in the attached PowerPoint presentation are included in the adopted Browns Park Master Plan. The 2019 Budget includes a $1,160,000 appropriation for improvements at Browns Park. STAFF CONTACT: Michael D. Stone, CPRP. Director of Parks and Recreation ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation Spokane .000Ualley BROWNS PARK 2019 SCOPE QF WORK January 15, 2019 1 BROWNS PARK MASTER PLAN Spokane . Va11ey BROWNS PARK 2019 IMPROVEMENTS 1. LOOP TRAIL AND LIGHTING 2. LARGE RESTROOM AND UTILITIES 3. LARGE PICNIC SHELTER 4. FENCE 5. RENOVATED STORAGE BUILDING 6. SKATE DOT OR SLACKLINE AREA 7. SMALL SHELTER 8. 2019 LEGISLATIVE SUBMITTAL Spokane ' Valley, BROWNS PARK - Evaluation of Probable Cost for 2019 Improvements 4 Construction Task Mobilization/Demolition Grading / Earthwork Fencing Description Contractors Cost of Mobilization, Clearing & Grubbing, Selective Demolition of Shelter & Restroom Rough Grading and Earthwork Replace Existing Fencing on South and West of Park Hardscape Construction Court Seating/New Walks Trail and Lighting Probable Cost $45,000.00 $23,625.00 $30,000.00 $50,750.00 Electrical Service Upgrade, 10' Wide Perimeter Asphalt Path and Security Lighting Small Shelter Small Shelter for South Amenity Complex $315,995.00 $30,000.00 Landscape/Irrigation Repair Utilities Restroom Shelter Skate Dot or Slackline Storage Building Upgrade A&E Bonding / Permitting Landscape & Irrigation Repair Due to Construction; Soil Preparation & Fine Grading Sewer & Water, Restroom and Shelter Service Lights CXT Denali — Contains Four Family Restrooms One Large Shelter Renovate Existing Pump House to Storage Building Landscape, Civil, Electrical $23,500.00 $31,000.00 $120,000.00 $80,000.00 $62,000.00 $20,000.000 $65,000.00 $17,688.97 Total: Sales Tax: Grand Total: $914,558.97 $86,816.30 $1,001,375.27 15% Contingency Grand Total with Contingency $150,206.29 $1,151,581.56 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 15, 2019 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Salary Commission Final Report. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.21.015; chapter 2.10 SVMC. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: September 25, 2018 approval of amendments to chapter 2.10 SVMC updating provisions relating to salary commissions; November 6, 2018 appointment of a five -member 2018 Independent Salary Commission. BACKGROUND: Council salaries have not been adjusted since January, 2007, the last time a Salary Commission was convened. Following a request from a citizen, on November 6, 2018, the Mayor appointed a five -member 2018 Independent Salary Commission, which was confirmed by the City Council. Pursuant to SVMC 2.10.020(A)(2), the "purpose of the independent salary commission shall be to review and establish the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers." The Salary Commission is comprised of Spokane Valley citizens who applied for a position on the Commission, and all members of the Commission served on a volunteer basis without compensation. Attached is the Final Report of the 2018 Independent Salary Commission. The salaries identified herein shall become effective 30 days after the second publication of a summary of the Final Report in the official newspaper of the City (anticipated to be January 25, 2019), unless a valid referendum petition is filed within the 30 day time period. The current monthly salary for the Mayor is $975, and for Councilmembers is $750. The new salaries would be $1,775 for the Mayor, and $1,415 for Councilmembers. The 2018 Independent Salary Commission did a thorough analysis, which is contained in their Final Report. If there are any questions as to how they arrived at their conclusions, reference to that Report may be helpful. The Salary Commission made a special note in its conclusion that they recommend Council convene a salary commission every three years to keep the salaries more current, and to consider gradual increases over time and thereby avoid larger one-time increases. OPTIONS: None. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: The Council is prohibited from taking action on this matter because the Salary Commission is independent pursuant to Washington state law. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The annual increase of all Council salaries is $57,480 ($9,600 additional to Mayor annually; $7,980 additional per Councilmember, total of $47,880 for remaining six). We also anticipate related payroll taxes will increase by approximately $5,000 annually. Because this increase was not contemplated through the 2019 Budget development process, staff will plan to bring forward a future 2019 Budget amendment. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: 2018 Independent Salary Commission Final Report. CITY OF St KANE VALLEY 20A 8 INDEPENDENT SALARY COM VII SSION Fiinall Report: January 8, 2019 Members: • Sill Gothmann, Chair • Tes Sturges, Vice Chair • Chuck Simpson a Kathie Williams • Steve Robertson • Michael Moore (alternate) Spokane Valley staff support: • Cary Driskell, City Attorney • Chris Bainbridge, City CIerk o John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager • Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Introduction The City of Spokane Valley was incorporated effective March 31, 2003. It has a current population of approximately 97,000 residents, making it the 10th largest city in the state of Washington. The Council recently adopted a budget of $78.3 million for 2019. Spokane Valley operates under a council-manager form of government. The legislative branch is made up of seven Councilmembers, with the Mayor chosen by his or her fellow Councilmembers for a two-year appointment. The City Council hires a professional City Manager as its Chief Executive Officer, who is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the City, carrying out the policy directives of the City Council. Setting salaries for Mayor and Couneilrnembers Pursuant to state law, upon incorporation of a city of 15,000 or more, the starting salary for council members is $400, and a councilmember holding the position of mayor shall be entitled to an additional 25%. When the City incorporated, the Mayor received $500 per month, and the Councilmembers received $400 per month. The Spokane Valley City Council appointed an independent salary commission in 2006, which filed a report adjusting the salaries for the Mayor to $975 per month, and to $750 per month for Councilmembers, which became effective January 17, 2007. Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers have not been adjusted since that tune. These salaries may only be modified one of two ways. First, the Council may adopt a salary ordinance establishing the new salary. However, pursuant to RCW 35A.13.040, "any increase or reduction in the compensation attaching to an office shall not become effective until the expiration of the term then being served by the incumbent: PROVIDED That compensation of councilrnembers may not be increased or diminished after their election nor may the compensation of the mayor be increased or diminished after the mayor has been chosen by the council." As such, for example, a sitting Councilmember would not see increased pay under this method until the beginning of a second term if that Councilnnember chose to run and was re-elected. The second way Council pay may be adjusted is through the recommendation of a salary commission. RCW 35,21.015 provides the authority and process by which a city may establish a salary commission. Under this method, an appointed salary commission undertakes a review of the council and mayor salaries, analyzes what councilmembers for similarly -situation jurisdictions are paid, and then makes a written report to the council regarding whether the pay levels should be adjusted and, if so, to what levels. A summary of the salary commission's report would be published in the official newspaper of the City for two weeks, with the second publication marking the date as the official date of action for the salary commission. If there is no referendum petition filed with the City within 30 days of that second publication, the salary adjustment automatically goes into effect without any action of the Council, an the 31st day. Because the salary adjustment is made by the salary commission, and not the council, this is not considered an act by the council to perform a mid-term adjustment, and is thus permitted under Washington state law, Page 2 Descriptions of 2018 Independent Salary Commission On September 25, 2018, the Spokane Valley City Council approved Ordinance 18-021 amending chapter 2.10 SVMC. The amendments updated the City Code so that references were not specific to a particular point in tirne, and so that future appointments of a salary commission will not require amending the Code. On November 6, 2018, the Mayor appointed a five -member 2018 Independent Salary Corntnission, which was confirmed by the City Council. Pursuant to SVMC 2.10.020(A)(2), the "purpose of the independent salary commission shall be to review and establish the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers." Pursuant to SVMC 2.I0.020(A)(7), the first meeting shall occur no later than 20 days after the appointments are made by the Council, and the Salary Commission shall review, and if it so determines, amend and file its schedule of salaries for the Mayor and Councilrnembers with the City Clerk within 90 days after being appointed. As such, the first meeting was required to be held no later than November 27, 2018, and the report of the Salary Commission regarding salary schedules required is to be submitted no later than close of business on February 6, 2019. The Salary Commission met on November 20, November 29, December 6, December 13, December 20, 2018 and January 8, 2019. The Salary Commission is submitting this final report establishing a salary schedule for the Spokane Valley Mayor and Councilmembers on January 8, 2019. Appendix III contains a summary of each meeting. The Process The Salary Commission analyzed salary information for mayors and councihnembers compiled by the Association of Washington Cities for a number of cities throughout the state. The Salary Commission narrowed their comparison to the thirty largest cities in the state. Additional analysis led the Salary Commission to again refine its focus to nine cities that are most similar to Spokane Valley based on population and council-manager form of government: Lacey, Olympia, Shoreline, Burien, Richland, Pasco, Kennewick, IK.irlcland, and Yakima. Some of these are located on the east side of the state, and some on the west side. See Appendix II for more information on comparables. The Salary Commission considered three general factors in its analysis: 1. The amount of time Council spent and level of responsibility in. performing their Council duties; 2. A market analysis of salary for mayors and councilmembers in comparable cities in Washington, set forth in Appendix II; and 3. Citizen survey results, set forth in Appendix I. A majority of survey respondents indicated support of a salary increase at some level. As noted above and at the direction of the Salary Commission, a citizen survey was placed on the City's website with questions regarding various potential salary levels. In addition, the City Page 3 sent notice of the survey to its general email list, as well as sending notice on the City's Twitter account. See Appendix I for a summary of the results of that citizen survey. Council Roles and Responsibilities The Salary Commission requested and received information from the Mayor and Councilmembers regarding how many hours each Councilanember spends, on average, each week attending to City business, This time included meeting with the public; preparing for weekly Council meetings; attending weekly Council meetings; preparing for and attending assigned committees within and outside the City organization that are related to City business; and attending in a representational capacity various events requiring a City presence. The time comrnitinent is different for each Councilmember, and can change significantly each year for every Councilmember depending on committee and workload assignments. Based upon responses from each Councilmemnber, the average weekly amount of time for all Councilmembers is approximately 35 hours, The average weekly time spent by the Mayor is 43 hours. There are typically two regular Council meetings and two study sessions per month. These meetings and study sessions generally last between two and three hours each. Throughout the year, the Council also has several special Council meetings on various issues. In addition to the meeting attendance, the Mayor and Councilmembers prepare for each meeting by reading the material and following up with staff members as necessary in advance with questions they may have. In their role as City policymakers, Councilmembers stay informed on issues such as provision of public safety services (police, courts, prosecution, jail, public defense, probation, etc.); public infrastructure projects and funding; land use planning and development; economic development; determining appropriate levels of taxation and spending; labor issues; regional cooperation with all other jurisdictions (emergency management, regional growth planning, consideration of a new jail facility, regional transportation, etc.); and regional, state, and federal legislative proposals. In addition to these regular commitments, Councilmembers represent the City's interests on various City and regional boards and commissions, such as the Spokane Transit Authority (STA), the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC), the Spokane Regional Health District, the Aging and Long Term Care of Eastern Washington, Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency, the Growth Management Steering Committee, Greater Spokane Inc. (GSI), the blousing and Community Development Advisory Committee, the Mayor's Association of Northeast Washington (Mayor only), Spokane County Continuum of Care for the Homeless, the Spokane Regional Tourisme Promotion Area, Visit Spokane, and the Wastewater Policy Advisory Board, Various Councilmembers are also members of standing internal committees, including the City Finance Committee, the City Governance Manual Committee, and the Lodging Tax Advisory Page 4 Committee, Additionally, Councihnembers have contributed as members of ad hoc committees, such as the Economic Development Committee and the Sidewalk Snow Committee. The Mayor and Councilmembers also represent the City at the state and national level, with past Councilmembers serving in officer leadership roles with the Association of Washington Cities and the National League of Cities. The responsibilities of the Mayor and Councilmembers include maintaining frequent contact with the community to ensure familiarity with existing and emerging issues of concern and interest for our citizens. The Mayor and Councilmembers are also active in a wide range of community organizations and events. Councilmembers regularly receive and respond to letters, e-mails, and telephone calls. Many past and current Councilmembers have visited area high schools to discuss issues of importance to Spokane Valley's youth. A current Councilmember regularly conducts meetings of a youth group organized as the Spokane Valley Youth Voice, organized in an effort to engage high school aged young adults to generate ideas of interest for their age group where the City may have an ability to cause change. The Mayor and Councilmembers develop and deliver presentations to community organizations, such as the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce and Kiwanis. They write articles and guest editorials, conduct press conferences and conduct on -air interviews. They attend ceremonies such as ribbon cuttings, ground breakings, grand openings, open houses, graduations, and special events at local schools. At some of these events they are simply in attendance, and at others they are writing and delivering speeches or acting as master of ceremonies. In addition to the above responsibilities, the Mayor presides at Council meetings. The Deputy Mayor assumes the responsibilities of the Mayor in the Mayor's absence. Rationale for the Proposal The current salary for the Mayor is $975 per month, and $750 per month for Councilmembers, and these have remained unchanged since January, 2007. The City reimburses them for actual expenses incurred while performing City -related duties, generally relating to travel. The Salary Commission members uniformly agreed that the salary amount was too low for the amount of time elected officials are obliged to devote to the City, and for the responsibility of representing the City and its residents. However, the Salary Commission believes a component of being a Councilmember should be grounded to some extent in a sense of volunteerism, and a desire to serve the community. Every Salary Commission member expressed appreciation for the work of each member of the City Council, including past and present. The Commission recognizes that a Councilmember is never "off-duty." He or she is approached by citizens not only at official events, but also in his or her everyday life, such as at work, at the grocery store and at church. The Salary Commission members feel this accessibility is important to the community. Page 5 While the Commission didn't feel it was appropriate to propose a full salary, they did feel the City should compensate its elected officials at a higher rate than they currently receive. The Salary Commission had a general discussion regarding total compensation, including salary and optional benefits. The purpose of the Salary Commission pursuant to SVMC 2.10.020(A)(2) is to establish the salary of the Mayor and Councihrrembers, which excludes consideration of any benefits received outside of the monthly salary. They weighed this information as they developed the proposal; however, they recognized that the scope of their work was limited to salary, which does not include benefits, Salary Schedule Proposal Based upon a unanimous vote, the Spokane Valley 2018 Salary Commission proposes the following salary schedule for the City of Spokane Valley Mayor and Councilmembers: (era,01 (0uo:[I'.0:11I 0.„/ IPiifi,_eXif),i d1 F'i ti:i reef i U Mayor $975 $1,775 Councilniember $750 $1,415 Pursuant to RCW 35.21.015, this salary schedule shall become effective and incorporated into the City budget without further action of the City Council or Salary Commission, subject to a referendum of the people. The Salary Commission also wanted to note that it believes the amount of time between the last time a Salary Commission was convened and this time was too great, and recommends to the Council that it consider re -converting a Salary Commission every three years. When review and adjustment occurs many years apart, any adjustment looks unnaturally larger than it would if regular adjustments had been made. Respectfully submitted, Bill Gothmann, Chair of the 2018 Spokane Valley Independent Salary Commission Page 6 APPENDIX I: Summary of Public Survey Results (1) Spokane Valley City Councilmembers work an average of 35 hours per week across their range of various duties. Given the responsibilities of the Councilmembers, how much do you feel is an appropriate monthly salary? Their current monthly salary is $750. (Amount) (Percentage responding) (Total responses) $ 750 - $1,000 43.02% 37 $1,000 - $1,250 25.58% 22 $1;250 - $1,500 12.79% 11 $1,500 - $1,750 18.60% 16 *t/7e City received one eminent that these pos!tions sllozdd be all voiunkny, including Mayor... (2) The Spokane Valley Mayor works an average of 43 hours per week across the range of various duties. Given the responsibilities of the Mayor, how much do you feel is an appropriate monthly salary? The Mayor's current monthly salary is $975. (Amount) (Percentage responding) (Total responses) $ 750 - $1,000 34.88% 30 $1,000 - $1,250 17.44% 15 $1,250 - $1,500 13.95% 12 $1,500 - $1,750 11.63% 10 $1,750 - $2,000 22.09% 19 (3) What is your residential zip code? Of 86 respondents, 78 identified a zip code in the City. TOTAL RESPONSES - 86 Page 7 APPENDIX H: Comparable cities (Council-manager forms of government) Survey of monthly salaries: Municipality Lacey Olympia Shoreline Burien Richland Pasco I(ennewick Kirkland Yakima Population" 48,700 52,490 55,060 56,080 56,243 71,680 81,607 86,080 93,900 Mayor salary** $1,725 $2,086 $1,250 $750 $1,393 $1,450 $1,400 $1,531 $1,375 Councilmember salary** $1,475 $1,739 $1,100 $600 $1,143 $1,115 $1,200 $1,202 r$1,075 * Official April 1, 2018 Population estimates: Office of Financial Management (OFM). ** Source: AWC 2018 salary data. Page 8 Spokane Valley APPENDIX ITT; Meeting Summaries OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5102 1 Fax; (509) 720-5075 ♦ www.spokanevalley,org cbainbridge©spokanevatley,org SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Room N117 November 20, 2018 Commission Members Present: Bill Gothnaatr Michael Moore Chuck Simpson Tes Sturges 1{ache Williams Commission Members Absent: Steve Robertson Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director John Whitehead, human Resources Manager Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Meeting Summary: City Attorney Driskell convened the meeting at 11:00 a.m. and the attendees briefly introduced themselves. There were no members of the public in attendance. Mr. Driskell thanked everyone for volunteering and gave background information as to the limitations of setting the salary for Councihnembers as established by Article 30 of the Washington State constitution, He said that according to state law, the City has two ways to set salaries for councilmembers: 1) Council can vote to set their own salaries but the salary would not go into effect until the terra following their own; or, 2) Council can establish an independent salary commission to analyze the workload of the Councilmembers and compare their workload and salaries with that of other similar cities. He said following the independent analysis, the commission will submit a final report and make a recommendation to Council. Any adopted changes would then become law and the new salary of Councilmembers within thirty days. Mr. Driskell explained that Spokane Valley is a Council/Manger form of government whereby Council decides policy issues and the City Manager and stuff carry out the policies set by Council. He said the Mayor is selected by the Councilmembers to fill the largely ceremonial role of Mayor for a two-year period. He said it is also the role of the Mayor to chair the Council meetings. Final Report from 2006 Mr. Driskell referred the group to the packet materials and asked if there were any questions; there were none, He said the 2006 Final Report provides a good framework to consider for their analysis, adding that they are not obligated to follow it and they can make modifications to it at their discretion. He said by law, the final report from the commission must be issued to Council within ninety days of Council appointing the commissioners. As a brief history, Mr. Driskell said that when Spokane Valley incorporated in 2003, the original salaries were set at $400 a month for Councilmembers and $500 a month for Mayor, In 2004, a change in salaries was adopted; however, a referendum was filed and the salary changes were rejected. in 2006, an independent review and analysis was conducted and salaries were changed at that time. He said no other changes have been made to the salaries since then, but the nature of the jobs for Councilinembers have become more complex and the City budget has increased. He said at a Council meeting a few months ago, a member of the public asked that the Salary Commission be reconvened to assist in attracting quality councilrnember interest. Mr, Gothmann asked Mr. Driskell to explain the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and the Public Records Act (PRA) and how they relate to the Salary Commission. Mr. Driskell said the commission is established by Council and is subject to the requirements of the OPMA. Some of those requirements include notification to the public of the meetings so they can attend and give public comment. He said it also means that more than three members of the commission can't discuss the business of the commission outside of public meetings. He said all records of the commission are subject to the PRA upon request. Mr. Driskell said that another provision in the City code is that once the commission is convened, members are not to discuss anything from the meetings with any Council members. He said that it is important that the public has confidence that what we do is transparent, that we use reasoned analysis and that nothing is done in secret. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Mr. Gothmann nominated himself to chair the commission. Mr. Driskell said the role of Chair and Vice Chair is very limited and he said he is not exactly sure of their function. Mr. Simpson nominated Ms. Sturges to Vice Chair. The nominations were seconded and unanimously passed. Mr. Driskell asked if the group prefers to have the meetings run by the Chair or by the Staff Liaison; Mr. Gothmann suggested that he and Ms. Sturges meet with Mr. Driskell to set the agendas. Mr. Driskell said staff will draft questions for the next meetings based on what the commission wants answered by Councilmembers, such as their tithe commitment, as well as a survey of the public and analysis of other cities. Ms. Sturges said she is more interested in the details of the analysis of other cities, such as how many hours Couneilmembers are putting into their roles, Mr. Whitehead said we may need to get a survey by those city's council members as well, Mr. Gothmann saki they might try to pare down the list of cities to those that are most comparable to our form of government. Mr. Driskell said comparisons need to be within Washington State because all states have different laws and requirements so to go out of the state would make it difficult to compare and analyze. Mr. Driskell added that Spokane Valley is different from other jurisdictions because we do not provide fire, library, water, or utility services. Mr. Simpson said he thinks we should exclude all Puget Sound cities and stay in eastern Washington and the Vancouver area. Mr. DrisIce' l said he doesn't know i [compensation is skewed by the cost of living, but lie recommends including those cities initially and they can be excluded later if that is the desire of the commission. Ms. Sturges said for the next meeting she would like the list updated with current information and pared down to cities more sirnilar to Spokane Valley; Mr, Whitehead said he will provide an updated list and asked the group to give him a list of factors that he can compare. Mr. Driskell suggested population, type of government, and budget. Mr. Gothmann added the number of hours spent by Council members if we can get it. Ms. Williams said she Is reluctant to gather information for comparison if it is not potentially good information, adding that the hours of other council members spent in their roles may not be good information to do the analysis. Mr. Driskell said Spokane is not usually a good comparison because of the difference in their form of government. Mr. Gothmann suggested that Mr. Whitehead gather the information and the commission will decide which jurisdictions to include in their analysis at the next meeting. Mr. Simpson asked about the benefits the Councilmembers get outside of wages. Mr. Driskell said the charge of commission is determining salary only, not including benefits. He said Councilmembers are offered health, dental and vision benefits, which he said is unusual for Councilmembers in the state, but that is what was adopted in 2003. Ms. Sturges asked if they can consider the benefits they receive when determining their salary. Mr. Driskell said he can't tell them they can't think about that as they move forward, but he again said the charge of the commission is to determine the salary of the Council. Mr, Gothmann said some Councilmembers may choose to not enroll in the insurance benefits. Finance Director Taylor said they can opt out, but that is not the norm. Ms. Sturges asked ifthey get retirement benefits and Mr. Whitehead said they are eligible for retirement benefits but they have to be vested before receiving any benefit; he said many choose not to enroll in retftement benefits. Future Meetings The next meetings will be approximately one hour and Mr. Driskell proposed the larger second floor conference room (N212) if possible. Upcoming meetings were scheduled as follows: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 4:00 pan. Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Driskell said the deadline for the commission to submit their report is February 4, 2019. He said next week they will identify those cities for which to compare and the criteria. He asked that the City Clerk include the website survey and data from Laserfiche in the packet materials for the next meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m. S� ��okane OFFICE Of THE CITY CLERIC Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk 10210 E Sprague Avenue 4 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5102 4 Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ www.spokanevalley,org chalnbridge c@spokanevalley.org SPOICANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Room N212 November 29, 2018 Meeting Summary Commission Members Present: Bill Gothmann, Chair Steve Robertson Chuck Simpson Tes Sturges, Vice -chair Kathe Williams Alternate Comtnissioner: Mike Moore Others Present: three citizens Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Cary Driskell, City Attorney John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Meeting Summary: City Attorney Driskell convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m., after which it was determined that staff would set the agendas, Mr, Gothmann would lead the meeting, and staff would contribute when appropriate. Mr. Gothmann said he learned when he was a councilmetnber, is that any time information comes to the committee, it is better if it comes from staff so as not to appear biased; and added that he has information that he prepared for today's meeting and will discuss later in the meeting. It was noted that commission niernbers had a copy of the minutes but likely had not had a chance to review those, Mr. Gothmann mentionecl Mr. Simpson's list of questions given at the Iasi meeting, and noticed they were not in the minutes, and City Clerk. Bainbridge explained that they are not included in the minutes, but we all have the handout of those draft survey questions for counciLtnernbers; and Mr. Driskell distributed copies to all of a revised version of those questions, and said we can discuss those under agenda item 44. Since not everyone was able to attend the first meeting, there were self -introductions. City Attorney Driskell briefly explained the duties of a mayor, councilmember, and a city manager in a council/manager form of government as noted in the state statutes, a copy of which he distributed; and he noted that our council/manager forth of governmenl is very different from a strong mayor form of government; and said that commissioners want to keep in mind aur form of goverrunent will likely be used by this commission in terms of comparing OW cities to other like cities. Mr. Gothmann stated that the mayor spends quite a bit more time on city business than the other councihnembers, as members of the public generally want to talk to the mayor when they have questions or concerns. Mr. Driskell turned attention to the draft survey questions, and regarding the question about time commitments, that there are various committee meetings that all councilmembers, including the mayor, are obligated to attend; and opened the floor for any changes to the list of questions. There was some discussion about the frequency of some of these committee meetings, and ultimately, it was decided that City Clerk Bainbridge would send commissioners a copy of the current committee assignments for Caunciltnernbers. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 1 1-29-2018 Page 1 of4 City Clerk Bainbridge noted that when commission members get the committee list, they will note that Councilmember Peetz is currently not on a committee; that she is fairly new, and was on one committee but it dissolved; so she will probably get assigned to a committee or two later. There was also discussion about the frequency of council meetings, i.e., once aweek generally; and that some councilmembers might immerse themselves more into their role than others; and that newer councilmembers might also take more time to familiarize themselves with the materials. There was mention that in looking over the list of committee assignments and time commitment, that this commission will look at the Mayor separately, and Mr. Gothmann added that the Mayor also receives a higher pay than the councilmembers. Mr. Driskell clarified that currently the Mayor's salary is 30% higher than the councilnienibers. There was also mention that different mayors would likely spend different amounts of time at their position, just as different councilmembers would, as it would depend on their own schedules and availability. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned that members of council do not spend countless hours here at City Hall, as they can come in for council meetings, committee meetings, meetings with staff, and they have the opportunity of grabbing their council meeting materials and taking them home to read and study. Mr. Gotlunann also noted that the job of mayor and councilmembers is considered part-time, as opposed to Spokane County Commissioners who work full time. Mr. Simpson said he views these positions not as a job, but as serving the city. There was also some question about the city hierarchy, and Mr. Driskell explained that it is council's job to approve policy, and it is the job of the City Manager to carry out those policies; and it was clarified by Mr. Driskell that the City Manager would not be involved in this commission's process. There was some discussion about the difference between the legislative actions of council, acid the administrative actions of staff; ancl that all staff are under the city manager, and it is the Council that has the responsibility of hiring or terminating the city manager. In response to a comment about the city manager and councilmembers time together, Mr. Driskell said the City Manager schedulesregular time to meet with each eouncilmember. There was ultimate agreement with the survey questions and City Clerk Bainbridge said she will make sure these get to each councilmembcr, and per this commission, we will ask that councilmembers return those to the City Clerk in about two weeks. Once the surveys are returned, City Clerk Bainbridge said she will tabulate the answers for this commission. Mr. Driskell also suggested that at the end of this meeting, to look at possible times and dates for future meetings, past the December 6 and 13 meetings already scheduled. Concerning the survey that was undertaken in 2006, there was brief discussion about those cities surveyed and of the salary ranges. Mr. Whitehead distributed copies of a spreadsheet with data on various cities including population, form of government (council manager or strong mayor), mayor compensation, council -member compensation, hours worked, benefits, and budget. Mr. Whitehead explained that much of this information is courtesy of the Association of Washington Cities (AWC); that annually they pool a range of cities and compile salary/compensation data; said the cities are grouped with populations 30,000 to 49,999; and from 49,999 up. Mr. Whitehead said he added Bellevue because it wasn't part of the survey, but it was included in the city study done in 2006. He further explained that in looking at the sheet, the information from the right of 'hours' is the information this group asked for, and the information to the left of 'hours' is what was compiled by AWC, without the city of Bellevue. Mr. Whitehead noted that blanks under hours, benefits, or budget indicate that he has not heard back from those cities yet, which he said wasn't surprising given the short time frame to gather the data, as well as the Thanksgiving holiday; and entries of "no data" indicate that the city responded, but they didn't know; ow; and he said that the benefits include the traditional benefits of health, vision, and dental, among other things. Mr. Whitehead said the first line on the spreadsheet is Spokane Valley with an estimated population of 95,000; we have a council manager form of government, our mayor makes $975 a month, councilmembers make $750, we provide full benefits, and our total city budget is about $81,000,000. In response to a question from City Clerk Bainbridge, Mr. Whitehead said the AWC information is from data collected In 2017; he noted the term 'VERA' under couneilnember compensation stands for 'voluntary employee benefits association,' which is similar to a medical savings account, but is contributed to on behalf of the councilmembers. Further, Mr. Whitehead said that as more data is submitted to him, he will be updating the list; and that this commission doesn't have to include all the cities when making a determination, and can certainly reduce those cities to just those this commission thinks are the most comparable. Mr. Whitehead said he removed the city of Seattle front Ihis list due to its size, and that Tacoma did not respond. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 11-29-2018 Page 2 01,1 Mr. Gothmann distributed copies of linear regression charts he drafted showing 2008 population and 2006 pay of various cities in a council-manager form of government, strong -mayor form of government, and one showing both. It was mentioned these handouts are for illustrative purposes only as a method of analyzing data. Mr. Driskell mentioned we are fairly unique as a city, as we have a lower budget as we are not a full service city; so the data would be skewed if we used budget rather than population, and again stated that this data is a factor, but not the only factor one might consider; and that after the data is cotnpiled that this commission wants to consider, it is going to boil down to looking at the different possibilities for pay, and said he feels commissioners will know it when they see it. Mr. Simpson mentioned that to him, it is very important to also take into consideration the benefits, and Ms. Williams said she would like to know what the value of the benefit package is for our councilmembers. There was discussion about collecting benefit values from other cities, and the commission members said they did not want to do that; but to just consider the benefits our councilmembers receive from the city. Mr. Simpson saki he would also like to concentrate on this unique community, and not include data from the west side of the state, with Mr. Robertson agreeing with the idea of keeping it simple. The topic of benefits was discussed further, with Mr. Whitehead explaining that the value of the benefits package depends on what each individual councilmember chooses; so the package would vary depending if a councilmember received benefits for themselves, for thein and their spouse, and for them and their spouse and children. Mr. Simpson asked then to see what the benefits would be for those throe categories. Ms.. Williams saki bringing that into the discussion, there would be an individual councihnember who has more time to devote to their duties as an elected official, versus another individual who might work full time and/or have a family; to simplify the information, we might want to only look at the cost for a single individual. Mr. Whitehead said he can supply all the figures this commission would like, but there are three different plans from which to choose, with five tiers on each plan. Ms. Sturges asked if staff could go back five years and give an average cost of benefits per councilmember; and Ms. Williams and Mr. Gothmann agreed with that suggestion. Mr. Whitehead added that for the current council, there were some who diel not take benefits, and therefore, the zeros would skew the data. Several commission members suggesting taking out the zeroes, and Ms. Sturges remarked that the benefit is still available, even though some may have chosen not to accept it; and she suggested showing an average of cost for those who did use it; and to go back five years. Mr. Whitehead explained that even though a councilmember might have chosen not to accept benefits, depending on the qualifying event, they could at any time of the year, come back on to benefits; and Ms. Williams suggested deleting those months with a zero, and do an average monthly. Mr. Gothmann disagreed and said he would prefer to use just the current councilinembers, just for this past year, and divide it by seven; and Mr. Shnpson agreed. Ms. Williams said the idea with going back five years and an average month, is to make sure this past year isn't an anomaly. There was also discussion about pay and benefits; that one single councilmember would be actually getting less in benefits than a councilmember with a family who elected to accept the benefits package. Ms, Sturges suggested getting figures for what the benefit value is this year, and what it has averaged over the last five years. Mr. Gothmann suggested including what the budget is for each year as well, and divide that number by seven; so the figure would be the average the city spent for each of the councilmembers for the last five years. Because of the amount of work, Mr. Driskell suggested having the figures for the last three years instead of five. Ms. Williams asked about the budgeting and if the council's benefit budget was calculated each year based on every councilmember getting full family benefits, Mr. Whitehead said he would need to check with the finance director for those figures. To recap, staff will gather actual expenses for the last three years for each councilmember, added together and divided by seven; and we will have the average budgeted amount for benefits for the last three years, and to have three separate ranges: single, married and married with family for the current cost going back three years. Mr. Driskell stated that the charge of this salary commission is to look at the salary for council; although he realizes commissioners will be looking at benefits as well. Mr. Whitehead added that concerning other cities, many have different plans, some larger or smaller staffs, and some are self-insured, so we won't know the value of those cities' benefits. Mr. Simpson mentioned that most people look strongly at available benefits. Sola#'y Commission Meeting Sunumry 11-29-2018 t'nge 3 of4 The floor was opened to public comments. Ms. Barbara Howard said she thinks councilrnembers should also get gas mileage as an enticement; that she knows they attend various meetings here and downtown; and that she looks at the vouchers paid each rnonth and knows that the health insurance dropped about $3,000 from what it was the previous year, as there are less children on the plan now as compared to then. There were no other publ is comments. Ms. Bainbridge said that councilmembers do put in for gas mileage reimbursement as it is related to their duties as an elected official. Mr. Driskell saki regarding the issue of a citizen survey, that we can't do that until we have the time commitment outlined by our council so that will need to be put on hold for now. Mr. Simpson mentioned the previous 2006 survey is interesting reading, and Mr, Driskell added that at the time, there was an active group trying to disincorporation the city, so some were very anti -city. City Clerk Bainbridge made sure each commissioner had a copy of the special meeting notice for next week that she handed out at the beginning of the meeting; and the group was reminded that the December 6 meeting will begin at 4 pm, as will the December 13 meeting; and that she will send out the previous meeting summary to commissioners; and will get the survey out to the current councilinembers as soon as possible, with a quick return date. Mr. Whitehead said for the next meeting, he hopes to have a range of benefit costs as well as a good amount of other data about benefits that might help the group; and will continue to update the spreadsheet. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:17 p.m. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 11-29-2018 Page 4 of 4 Spokane --� _Valley OFFICE Or THE CITY CLERK Christine Bainbridge, City Cleric 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5102 ♦ Fax: (509) 720.5075 4 www.spakanevalley.org cbainbridge tt spokanevalley.org SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Room N212 December 6, 2018 Meeting Summary Commission Members Present: Bill Gothmann, Chair Tes Sturges, Vice -chair Steve Robertson Chuck Simpson Kathe Williams Staff Present: StaffLiaison: Cary Driskell, City Attorney John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Alternate Commissioner: Mike Moore Otters Present; three citizens Meeting Summary: The meeting was convened at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Whitehead distributed and explained copies of an updated version of the compensation data he had provided at an earlier meeting as a few more cities responded, but said the data substantially remains the same; he noted this group previously discussed benefits; and explained that he compiled the data on this as shown; he mentioned that in looking at this in terms of the cost to the city, the word `cost' could be changed to 'benefits' of the individual councilmember, Mr, Whitehead explained that in response to our request about having a range of costs, Mr. Whitehead distributed copies of `Council Benefits Costs' which shows a range of city costs for years 2016, 2017, and 2018 for just the councilmember, for the councilmember and spouse, and for the full family (which is the councilmember, a spouse and two or more additional dependents), and also included on that handout, is the average actual monthly costs; he explained that the lower figure is the least costly benefit plan, and then the highest costly benefit plan for each noted year; and noted these figures are from the budget showing what was actually spent in covering councilmernbers, so the average spent for benefits per councilmember was $1,478 in 2016, $1,778 in 2017, and $1,490 in 2018, which figures included the last month for 2018, Mr. Whitehead noted the average is higher in 2017 as compared with 2018, because we had one more councilmember who covered their full family; and the plans the council was on in 2017 sunsetted, so they took a step down in coverage beginning January 2018, and because of that, the City also paid less, so all iri all, it's about $1500 per month per councilmember, which includes health, dental, and vision; and they can choose which plan they want and the City picks up the difference in cost. There was some discussion about the cost of benefits, and what the councilmember pays and what the city pays, and Mr. DI'iskell noted that is a council choice and is not determined by staff, and explained that these costs will vary from year to year, for the councilmember and for the city. Mr. Simpson said personally he likes to take the budget figure and divided it by the number ofcouncilmembers. Mr. Whitehead also noted on that handout, there is a `health reimbursement account' which was implemented to help pay for medical benefits, and that amount is determined by a resolution passed by Council. Mr. Whitehead further explained that number reflects the deductible for that particular plan, so the City decided to cover the deductible, which is an annual cost, and which can only be used for certain medical expenses as determined by the IRS. Salary Commission MeetingStmmnary t2-06-2018 Page 1 of3 Mr. Gothrnann said he feels that the benefits should be irrelevant to tltis commissions' decision, as the charge for this commission is salary and not benefits, also that the benefits are determined by a resolution passed by council, and that council could decide at any time, not to offer any health insurance benefits; hence he said this commission should focus on the salary, and use comparative salaries of other places. Mr. Gothrnann added that any salary figure that this commission decides on could be increased or decreased based on other #tactors, such as benefits, or analysis of their workload, or citizen comments. Mr. Driskell said he thinks this answer's the question of what is a round number for benefits for council; he brought attention to the sheet showing compensation of other jurisdictions, and said Mr. Whitehead continues to gather additional data. Mr. Driskell said we continue to collect data, and once we get the survey questions from council, that will give us important data, and from there we will be able to draft a survey to be placed among other places, on the city's website. Ms. Williams distributed a handout showing Moody's ratings; she suggested that the city of Shoreline is no longer very similar to our city; and that growth rate and financial health might be something else to consider in addition to benefits. Mr. Simpson said he simply took the salaries of the mayor of mayor cities, then divided that by ten, and took out the high and the low, and the larger cities as well as the smaller cities carne out to between $1300 and $1400 a month; and for councilmembers it was $1,000 to $1,200. Mr. Gottunann also distributed copies of his updated linear regressions showing only the council-manager cities, and he briefly went over some of those figures on the two graphs; he noted the `bonus' for being a mayor averaged to about 30%, and that is what our city has been paying. Concerning the list of committees our Couneilmernbers are associated with, Ms. Bainbridge explained that this is just informational to let this commission know the various committees; and she mentioned that different committees have different worldoads, that STA would represent a large commitment, where Visit Spokane would not, and committees like Wastewater Policy only meet annually. Mr, Driskell stated that this helps the commission have a little better understanding of some of the council's commitments, but there is a lot of variation. Ms. Williams asked about the idea of having an escalation clause or have a salary tied to some index and Mr. Driskell explained that we are not precluded by state statute, but it is not something we have done before; he said staff member's don't have an automatic escalator or COLA (cost of living adjustment), and part of that is reflective of council's desire. Mr. Simpson suggested that once the salary is established to put in a percentage the same as given to the city administrator, which suggestion prompted discussion about who determines the city manager's salary. Mr. Driskell stated that Council determines the city manager's salary so tying council's salary to the city manager's increase, would be tying their own raises into the city administrator's raises, which does not fall into the state statues procedure for changing council's salary. Mr. Driskell also noted that at any time, any citizen or councilmember could reconvene this commission. Mr. Whitehead added that if there was a decline in the economy and the council autotnatical ly received a raise, when most citizens would not due to economic decline, that could cause concern among citizens. Mr. Gothrnann remarked that he feels councilmembers aren't here for the pay, but they are here because they want to serve the citizens and do something for the city, while Mr. Driskell said he agreed, he also noted that if we don't offer a fair wage, we won't attract good candidates. Going back to the data from Mr. Whitehead, Ms. Williams asked how often those other cities change salaries and could we get that data; said i f we are comparing salaries to those set five years ago, some of those cities might be on the verge of changing. Mr. Whitehead said he would have to research that and Mr. Driskell suggested waiting until we have as much information on that blue sheet as possible, then determine which cities this commission wants to use for comparative purposes, and then get the most recent updated figures just from the cities to use in our comparisons. Mr. Whitehead also noted the historical average annual inflation rate is 2.5%. Concerning comparing other cities, Mr. Simpson suggested not comparing cities in the Puget Sound area since home values are twice the value of our homes, therefore, those cities and our cities are not equal. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-06-2018 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Driskel I said that at the last meeting, Mr. Simpson asked him to check state law about considerations on being on this commission, in that Mr. Gothmann works for the Current magazine which is owned by Counci{mem her Wick, Mr. Driskell said he researched the statutes, and having Mr. Gothmann in his capacity as working for the Current, is not precluded by state law; that his employment status was known by Council and the Mayor at the time of recommending him for this comtnission, and there is no legal reason why he can't be on this commission, Mr. Simpson thanked Mr. Drlskell and said he brought up the issue because he thought some citizens might bring up that concern. Public Comments were solicited. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said she saw an article when Diana Wilhite was mayor that she spent 30 hours a week or better on committees and other things; said they put in a lot of time promoting our city; she also asked if any councilmember makes an insurance claim, does that cause the insurance rates to increase. Mr, Whitehead explained that we are part of an insurance pool through AWC (Association of Washington Cities), and we are part of thousands in their trust; said claims or lack of claims can impact our rates as insurance rates are based on claim rates; with having seven people with typical medical expenses, there will probably not be any noticeable rate change as they access their benefits. Ms. Howard said she also likes the idea of putting money aside for them, and Mr. Whitehead explained that each plan has an out-of-pocket maximurn, and those funds are usually used to cover deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses; and he added that preventive care usually has no out-of-pocket expenses. Mr. Bruce Foreman, Spokane Valley; said he feels most people look for citizen servants as councihnenibers; said it is good to look at data but most isn't relevant; said it seems we have a market full of people who want to become councilmenlbers; and said he wants people on the council who don't have to work, perhaps retired folks; and concerning benefits, said it is a lot of money when you add in all the benefits, Mr. Driskell said that while it is true that retired people might have more time, we also want a broad view of what the community should look and feel like, and someone with a young family could give that view on needs like parks and walking paths, and again stated that having a broader view of what the community needs are is probably better addressed having younger people and retired people. Concerning the task of this commission, Mr. Robertson said that this commission should only be concerned with salaries and not benefits, and Mr. Driskell agreed, adding that this commission's task is to identify what an appropriate salary would be, taking into account different activities counci[members have to do, and when the commission was active in 2006, they also had that task but they at least had benefits in mind, but didn't base the salary on the benefits; and said the figures came in roughly comparable to similar jurisdictions at the time, and again stated that yes, the primary focus is salary. Mr. Robertson also asked if that state statute default amount when first forming a city is still the sante as it was in 2006, and after checking, Mr. Driskell said it has not changed; $400 for councilmetnbers and $500 for the mayor. Mr. Driskell noted that once we get the information back from the brief survey of councilmeniber's time, then we can work on salary ranges for the citizen survey, with one question for the council, and one for the mayor. It was determined that this commission will meet again December 13 at 4 p.m. and December 20 at 4 p.tn. Mr. Simpson said he will be out of town December 23 through January I I, and said he has no problems if this commission meets while he is gone, The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Salary Commission Meeting Summmy 12-06-2018 Page 3 of 3 S`po►kane' .Va11ey OFFICE Dr TIIE CITY CLERK Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk 10210 E Sprague Avenue 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5102 1 Fax: (509) 720-5075 + www,spokanevalley.org ebainbridge@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Rooln N212 December 13, 2018 Meeting Summary Commission Members Present: Bill Gotlunann, Chair Tes Sturges, Vice -chair Steve Roberson Chuck Simpson Kathe Williams Alternate Commissioner: Mike Moore Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Cary Driskell, City Attorney John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Others Present: four citizens Meeting Summary: The meeting was convened at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Gothmann said he understands that Ms. Williams may be late but we can start the meeting now as we have a quorum, and she had asked trot to delay the meeting for her. Mr. Driskell stated that Mr. Simpson had asked hhn a question about the authority of the charge of a salary commission to identify the salary for the council and the mayor; Mr. Driskell said he had advised him of that answer and was going to provide the answer to everyone here today. Mr. Simpson said he was asking the question that he didn't know who made that law, was it a state law and if so, who drafted the law about salary only, Mr. Driskell said that our City code section is in SVMC 2.10.020(2), purpose; and he read: "The purpose of the independent salary commission shall be to review and establish the salaries (lithe mayor and the council members." Mr. Driskell said that code section was passed by the City Council years ago. Mr. Gothmann said we received new city data last week, and council benefits average costs, and a chart showing percentage of growth; that this week we have the data on how long each councilmember spent in their role. Ms. Bainbridge explained the results of the survey questions submitted to councilmembers as shown; that each question is answered by seven individual councilmembers, and that each #1 is the same councilmember for each question; and the low end average and the high end average is derived from the range of figures. For example, if a councihnember's answer to the first question is 11-13, and another's answer is 5- 7, she said she averaged all the bottom figures; and then went back to average the high figures as well. She explained that this is for informational purposes to give an idea of the average range of time spent for each answer, and that as stated on the document, the councilmember responses do not correspond to their council position. Ms. Sturges said that she also added up all the answers to get the total average range of each councilmember: #1: 36-52; #2: 8-11; #3: 43-53; 44: 38-46; #5: 34-37; #6: 17; #7: 24-36, It was noted that Ms. Williams just arrived, Ms. Sturges said in her estimation, all but two councilmembers appear to be working the equivalent of a full-time job. Mr. Gothmann said he feels this commission now has all the data needed to make a decision. Mr. Whitehead mentioned that at the last meeting, there was some question about how old the data is on the blue spreadsheet, and saki he again revised the data to show when the last increases occurred, as shown on the last column. Mr, Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-13-2018 Page L of 4 Whitehead further explained that the asterisk shown in that last column means there was a jump in their compensation but there was some data not recorded; so there was data in 2014 and different data in 2017 so it changed someplace but he is not sure when that occurred, and the year shown is the year where he had the factual information. He also explained the `less than' 2008; and said he went back to 2008, and if there was no change, he didn't record a change; said it was interesting to look at that data as many of those were fairly low on the scale. Mr. Whitehead said the reports he gathered, which he didn't ask for but which some cities submitted, looked like salary commissions were setting three-year windows of time, likely in an effort not to have to convene the commission annually. Ms. Sturges asked if that is permissible per aur code. Mr. Driskell replied that he doesn't believe there is a prohibition in doing that, however, he said he thinks everyone is aware that Council is very fiscally aware and takes a very responsible approach to the city's funds; and one of the ways that has played out is staff salaries; that the city has not granted a COLA (cost of living allowance) in nine or ten years; and feels there is a strong argument that if you just build in increases in how much it cost to do business, there will be an ever-expanding budget; from a management and council standpoint, we have not granted COLAs to employees; and whether that means more generally that the council would or would not be in favor of a graduated approach to their pay, said he does not know but he raised the issue because of the ever increasing cost to the city. Mr. Simpson said he would not be in favor of that because if the economy declines, private industry won't be giving their staff raises; and said he thinks this commission should just focus on the present. Mr. Whitehead added that the city government and community are fiscally conservative; the down side to future raises is if the economy declines and the future raises are built in, that could prove troublesome for not only the constituents but for councilmembers as well. Mr. Gothmann agreed and said he would not agree in treating council more favorably than council would be treating employees, so it would be better not to build in future salary increases. Further, Mr. Driskell explained that he and Mr. Whitehead also participate on the negotiating committee for the labor agreement for the city, and it is fair to say that if a COLA -like structure was built into what the council gets, we would hear that on the next negotiation, as what's good for one is good for all; and said that would create a difficult position from which to negotiate. Mr. Whitehead said. the city has a performance system, and since about 2011 or 2012, we have moved away from automatic increases for staff, that we have a contract that goes into effect in January, which includes some adjustments to the pay structure. The question came up about the frequency of convening a salary commission, and Mr. Driskell said it the suggestion can come from the public or the council; and that this time it was as a result of continent from the public. Mr. Driskell mentioned that the alternate way to increase council salaries, is that council could adopt an ordinance but i f they did so, any change would not be effective until the next election for their position; so they would not, in theory, benefit from any such change. Ms. Sturges asked if this committee can recommend that council salaries be reviewed every three years, and Mr. Driskell replied yes; that this commission can recommend that the Council should consider reconvening the salary commission every three, four, or five years; and that part becomes a recommendation for council discretion. It was again discussed among the commission members that councilmembers are not doing this job for the money, but for the community. Ms. Williams said she conducted an informal poll and as she was walking around, approached some people and told them of the task of this commission, and asked them their feelings of what council should be paid, and several said at the very least it should be minimum wage; adding that she doesn't know that these people answering knew councilmembers were working out of the goodness of their heart. Mr. Robertson said that the 2004 commission recommended $1200 for the mayor and $1,000 for councilmembers and that the referendum was defeated; and he asked if Mr. Driskell feels the atmosphere is different now. Mr. Driskell said the city had just incorporated in 2003 after a fifth attempt to do so; there was also a strong disincorporation effort and they had a ready group ol'people to contact; so it went to referendum and was over -turned in 2004; he said in 2006 he was the staff liaison and thinks the report in 2006 was more complete then 2004, in explaining the basis for the recommended change; and there was a very minor attempt to overturn that on referendum, and the petition didn't get even close to having enough signatures within the required time period, to put the issue on a ballot. Mr. Robertson asked ifthis commission should be concerned about a possible referendum. Mr. Driskell replied that is always a possibility; and a higher figure salary recommendation grossly disproportional to all else, that will always get people's attention, adding that there were always be some people who disagree with any Salary Commission ivteeling Sununary 12-13-2018 Page 2 of 4 increase; but said there is a greater acceptance of what this city does now. In response to a question about advertising this, Mr. Driskell said this won't be advertised, and that procedurally, this commission will analyze the data we provided, and he thinks we can likely wrap this up in another meeting or two; that he will drag the report summarizing the information and show the comparisons, and explain how this commission arrived at its decision; that once the report is finalized, that he will present the information to Council in an open session which will also help to disseminate the information; and there will be a better understanding of this process and this issue now as opposed to 2004, as it will be similar to what was done in 2006. It was also noted that it takes a lot of signatures on a referendum petition to place an issue on a ballot. Ms, Bainbridge mentioned the report needs to be published twice, at least one week apart, and the file deadline is February 4; so we will work backwards and shoot for publication January 18 and 25. Mr. Driskell said the survey will be put an our website, and Mr. Simpson suggested including what their salary is now. Mr. Driskell agreed. Mr. Driskell said he will get the draft for this commission as soon as possible, and once approved, we can get the report published, and Ms. Bainbridge added that once the report is filed, there is a window of 30 days in which to file a referendum petition. Mr. Driskell said if time permits, he will send the report out to commission members prior to a meeting, so any edits can be made and discussed at the meeting. Mr. Gothmann said he thinks the only data we don't have are public comments; and hopefully commission members will be ready to come to an agreement; and it was agreed to have that discussion next week. The survey questions to be placed on the website were discussed, and Mr. Simpson suggested adding something to the effect that these figures are only salary and not benefits, said most people don't know they get benefits, and said he is still a strong advocate that benefits are part of the salary. Mr. Gothmann said the only numbers important are what salary are we recommending for Council, and what for Mayor. Ms. Williams said she feels people also need to know how many hours couneilmembers generally work. It was agreed to include in the survey, the average number of weekly hours worked, about 35 hours a week, or an estimated range of 29.8 to 37.6. Mr. Simpson continued stating his view of benefits being a real bonus, or give them a salary with no benefits, or a smaller salary with benefits. There was continued discussion about what to include on the survey, what not to include, and discussion about the state minimum wage. Mr. Driskell said the purpose ofthe survey is to get public input on salary ranges; and that he hopes to get 100 responses, although the holidays might adversely impact the number of responses. It was agreed to include in the survey, the average 35 hole's worked per week, include salary ranges from which to choose, to reflect the current numbers with 750 to 1,000 as the bottom range, then follow with consistent ranges, and to have a third item to include the survey taker's zip code in order to identify if the responder is actually a city resident. Mr. Driskell said he and Ms. Bainbridge will work to get a survey out on the website tomorrow. Mr, Gothmann said for next week he would like this commission to have specific dollar suggestions for council and percentages for the mayor, to see if by the end of that meeting, we could have something agreed upon if possible, by the end of the meeting. Mr. Driskell said alter a week of having the survey out, if this commission feels we have enough data we'll go with what we have, or run it again if we need more responses; and that he suggests not having a deadline at this point for the survey. Mr. Driskell said we will do a press release, send out e-mail distribution to a list of about 1,000, and will send out a tweet; and unfortunately, there isn't time to place an ad in the newspapers. it was determined the next meeting will be Thursday, December 20 at 4 p.m, and based on what is accomplished at that meeting, we may or may not meet January 10, at 4 p.m., or perhaps to come in January 10 to vote on the report, then get it published. If the report is finalized January 10, Mr. Driskell said he would likely bring it to Council January 22, and then publish January 25 and February 1. Public comments were solicited. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said doesn't minimum wage go up January 1, to $12.00; and she asked if these figures are before or after taxes. Ms, Bainbridge said they are before taxes. Mr, Dan Allison, Spokane Valley: wonders about putting this out on Facebook and twitter. Ms. Bainbridge mentioned we don't use Facebook, and twitter is merely an additional way to publicize, but we will put it on our website and push the notice out about the survey, via our e-mail distribution. Mr. Dan Allison asked what Councilrnember only spends 11 to 15 hours a week on their duties? Ms. Bainbridge said these figures were handed in anonymously, and Mr. Driskell noted that these figures change as councilrnernbers change and it is not uncommon to have one person who spends a great deal of time, and another who spends less, and he suggested not focusing on that, but to look at these as generally good numbers. Mr. Allison said Snlnry Commission Meering Sununnry 12-13-2018 Page 3 o14 what councilmernbers snake now, is way too low. Mr. John Harding, Spokane Valley: said there are some real outliers in the cities to use as comparisons, and said he wouldn't include any of the cities in the lower populations; and in the upper group, there are some cities giving their mayor three to four times more than what our cotnrci Innembers make; that he doesn't think we can look at this as an average, Mr. Driskell said this body has not decided how to use the data, they are simply different data points that could be used for some members of the commission; and we are trying to give more data for better rather than just a few comparisons, in order to give a better feel based on type of government, size and budget and what might be relevant to any salary. Mr. Harding said the job councilrnembers do on our behalf if remarkable, and that no one brought up salary issues for about 12 years is astounding, and said that it was Mr. Allison who did so this time. He also noted he wouldn't spend any time on politics, that whatever this commission comes up with, will be it, and that politics shouldn't be a concern, as that changes as the economy does; that he feels the concept should be kept narrow and not go for any long term planning. The meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-134018 Page 4 of 4 pNo►k ne Valley OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk 10210 E Sprague Avenue / Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5102 1 Fax: (509) 720-5075 1 www.spokanevalley,org cbainbridge@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Room N212 December 20, 2018 Meeting Summary Commission Members Present: Bill Gothmann, Chair Tes Sturges, Vice -chair Steve Robertson Chuck Simpson Kathe Williams Others Present: two citizens Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Cary Driskcl 1, City Attorney John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Meeting Summary: The meeting was convened at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Gothmann noted in case we have meetings further into January, that he would be out of town January 16 through 24. Mr. Driskell said the projected date for the report is January 10, 2019, depending on how much gets accomplished tonight; and he clarified that in order to get the report into the appropriate council agenda packet on time, a better date might be January 9, 2019. To briefly recap the previous meeting, Mr. Gothmann asked Ms. Sturges about the averages she calculated last week from the amount of time spent per councilmember, and she noted the average weekly time spent was 29.8 on the low end, and 37.6 on the high end, which corresponds with the range of hours reported by each cotnrcilmember. The results from the on-line survey was discussed which was included on the draft `Final Report' submitted by Mr, Driskell. In looking at the survey results, Mr. Gothmann noted that citizens suggest a salary between $1,000 and $1,250. Ms. Sturges said for the councilmembers, there is 43% in favor of the $750 to $1,000; 18% on the bottom range, and about 38% in the middle; and based on that, said she thinks the salary would fall between $1,000 and $1,500. She noted the results were similar for the salary of the mayor; with 35% in the low range, 31% in the next two ranges combined, and 33% in the top two ranges. Mr. Simpson said those figures are about in line with what he was considering. Mr. Whitehead said he had no further updates on his data. In reviewing the blue spreadsheet, Mr. Driskell asked if commissioners had thought about which cities to use as c mparson cities. Regarding his linear regression charts with the two graphs, one for Council -Manager only and eliminating Spokane Valley, and the other for council-manager only eliminating Vancouver, Belleview and Spokane Valley, Mr. Gothmann said he would prefer to look at a trend line, and said he found that the cii es un both sides of the state follow the same trend line in looking at size of the city and council salary; and said if you include Spokane Valley, he comes up with a figure of about $1,279, which he said includes Bothell, Lacey, Olympia, Shoreline, Burien, Richland, Pasco, Kennewick, Kirkland and Yakima; that they all follow the trend line. Mr. Driskell, in seeking clarification, said that it appears in answer to which cities to use for comparisons, that Mr. Gothmann is identifying all of the cities included on that bottom graph, and Mr. Gothmann concurred that includes all the cities listed from Des Moines to Yakima, and said he therefore is ready to offer a figure, but Mr. Driskell suggested waiting until all the commissioners agree on which cities to use, and Mr. Driskell asked if anyone had any other suggestions. Ms. Bainbridge asked if the 2006 report showed how many cities were used for comparisons, because this list includes 15 cities. Mr. Driskell said there were four cities used last time but the ability to collect data last time was a bit more difficult as compared to this time, as this time we have the benefit of Mr. Whitehead's assistance. Concerning the mayor's salary, Mr. Gollunann said according to the RCW, initially the salary would be 25% greater than the councilmembers, and the figure our present council Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-20-2018 Page 1 of 2 has is 30%; said he looked at the difference for the mayor's salary for all the cities on the list, and those average 22%, and said he likes a figure of 25%. Going back to the list of cities to use for comparisons, after further brief discussion, it was ultimately unanimously decided to just use the nine cities on the bottom graph, which include Lacey through Yakima. Mr. Driskell said he will include those nine cities into his draft report, with a note that after looking at several cities, this commission feels those cities are more directly comparable, and show that in Appendix III. Mr. Gothmann asked the commissioners if everyone agrees that the salaries of the present councilmembers are too low, and they all said agreed wholeheartedly. Mr. Gothmann invited public comments. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley, mentioned she has an article at home, possibly from 2009, that indicates then Councilmember Diana Wilhite was putting in 30 hours a week. Mr. Driskell said there are several factors that influence that number, one is the number of committees internal and external, the point of someone's worki ng career as if someone is working they can't necessarily spend as much time as those who are not; and he cautioned that what it was in 2012 will be different from now which will again be different in 2022. Ms. Howard asked if there is any difference in benefits from what council gets and what staff gets. Mr. Driskell said that is outside the consideration of what this commission thinks the salary should be; and Mr. Whitehead said the plans and the benefits are the same, however, staff pays a flat rate for their insurance, and he noted that staff retirement is required by Washington State. There were no other public comments. Mr. Robertson said he feels the positions of mayor and councilmember are very important and carry with it great responsibility; that there is a sense of volunteerism, but their current pay is extraordinarily low. Mr. Driskell noted he thinks there is a sense of volunteerism in what the public expects and from those who serve, but that is a factor as to why they wouldn't get the full value of their work because they are contributing to the community; he said that is not to say that there is an expectation they will volunteer to do it, but rather it is a complex analysis of the amount of work, level of responsibility, size of the budget, the public safety issues being addressed, and the big picture is it is very important for the health of our community, is that they want to do this because they have a sense of community and volunteerism, and several others agreed there is a sense of volunteerism, but they should also be compensated for their work, including comments about the minimum hourly wage which will be $12.00 beginning this January, and Mr. Simpson noted again that benefits also play a part in the salary. After further discussion about minimum wage, the average amount of hours worked of about 25 to 30, responsibilities of the positions and the importance of the work, that there has been no increase in salaries for about 12 years, benefits, average wages of mayors and councilmembers of other cities, and some salary ranges to consider, it was decided unanimously that the salary of a councilmember should be $1415, and the salary of the mayor should be $1775.00, which is about 25% higher than that of a councilmember. It was noted the $1415 was based on $11.00 an hour for 30 hours a week. Mr. Driskell reminded everyone that when he writes the report, those nine comparable cities will be included, that he will include a general statement of how this commission arrived at the $1415 figure; and that this commission recommends the council consider reconvening a salary commission every three years. Mr. Driskell said once the final draft of the report is complete, it will be e-mailed to commission members; and he cautioned commissioners not to `reply all' to such e-mail as we don't want any perception of an illegal meeting. Mr. Driskell suggested perhaps the next meeting would only last five to ten minutes, and if there are no changes, the report will be signed by the Mr. Gothmann as chair of the commission, at which time this commission's work will be complete. Mr. Driskell said once that is accomplished, he will make a presentation to council, that commission members are free to attend if they choose, and that there will be no public comment on this report nor any discussion about it from council, as it would merely be presented to council as information; and that the goal is to give the report to Council January 15, and to publish the report January 18 and 25; and that the January 25 publication date triggers the thirty -day appeal period for the public should anyone wish to file a referendum petition; he noted that he would have to research the number of signatures required on a referendum petition; but if there is no referendum, at the 31' day after the January 25 publication, the salary would become final and part of the budget without any further action required, and would be reflected as such later by a budget amendment. It was determined that this commission's next and last meeting will be Tuesday, January 8, at 4:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-20-2018 Page 2 oft Siokane Valley OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk 10210 L. Sprague Avenue • Spokane. Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5102 • 4'a: (509) 720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org cbainbridge@spokanevalley.org SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Room N212 January 8, 2019 Meeting Summary Commission Members Present: Staff Present: Bill Gothrnann, Chair Staff Liaison: Cary Driskell, City Attorney Tes Sturges, Vice -chair Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Steve Robertson Kathe Wiliiams Absent: Chuck Simpson Others Present: none Meeting Summary: The meeting was convened at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Driskell asked if there were any proposed changes to the finalized draft report. There were none. Mr. Driskel I gave a brief summary of the report, the process this committee used to determine the new salaries, and the final process of giving this report to Council during their January 15, 2019 meeting; that the salary schedu le will be published January 18 and 25, and if no referendum petition is filed by thirty days after January 25, the new salaries will be as stated, with no further action to be taken by Council. it was moved by Ms. S7rtr cs„y econded and unanimously agreed to approve the 20I S Independent Sulury Conimissrion Report, with the exceptr�w that the Clerk will add the meeting summaiy_f om the Jcmuar'y 3, 2019 meeting. The meeting adjourned at 4:11 p.m. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 01-08-2019 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 15, 2019 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ['new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Records Act and Open Public Meetings Act training. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapters 42.56 RCW (PRA) and 42.30 RCW (OPMA). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Training by staff at least once per year. BACKGROUND: Staff will provide training on the City's obligations under Washington's Public Records Act under chapter 42.56 RCW, and Washington's Open Public Meetings Act under chapter 42.30 RCW. OPTIONS: N/A. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint presentation. Public Records Act and Open Public Meeting Act Training Cary Driskell City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley January 15, 2019 City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney r u • ic Records Act Historical background Adopted in 1972 by Initiative 276. Codified under chapter 42.56 RCW. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 2 Strongly worded mandate - statute "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments they have created." RCW 42.56.030 City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney "Public Record" definition Relevant portion of definitions states as follows: "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney "Public Record" definition Most important parts are: (1) "writing"; (2) "information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function"; and which is (3) "prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency". City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney "Writing" - electronic E-mails, Tweets; Text messages; Transitory postings on Facebook and other social media; Meta -data; and Police/security video. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 6 Public Record (writing) versus Information PRA only requires disclosure of public records Information is not a record and therefore not subject to required disclosure Information is material or data that is not part of an identifiable record E.g., City population, who is the mayor, how many employees However, City policy and customer service standards provide for employees to provide information as requested City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Deffition — "relating to government" and "used by government" Important distinction within definition -location not mentioned Location not critical factor, nature of record is what is critical (relates to conduct of government or performance of governmental or proprietary function and prepared, owned, used, or retained by City). Personal computer or phone of Council Text messaged from personal phone of Council In possession of third party contractor Available from another entity City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 8 Deffition — "relating to government" and "used by government" cont. Consider whether record was created within "scope of employment" or "scope of official capacity" Job requires it, the employer directs it, or it furthers the employer's interests Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863 (2015) (County business on personal phone is public record); West v. City of Puyallup, 2 Wn. App. 2d 586 (2018) (City Council campaign Facebook page not public record) City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 9 "used by overnment" — cont. � No Constitutional privacy rights for public records on private devices, private emails, or private texts Must conduct reasonable search where records are likely to be located. If we know or learn of facts that suggest a search of an additional location or source might reasonably be expected to uncover responsive records, we must make that extra search. PRA requires employees/agents/officials to conduct a search of their own files/devices, submit any public records, and submit a reasonably detailed affidavit attesting to the nature and extent of the search City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Agency Rules Local governmental entities are mandated to adopt and enforce reasonable rules governing how the agency shall respond to requests. RCW 42.56.100. Spokane Valley has done that through adoption of SVMC 2.75. Requestors may request copies or to view records. Have requestors work with City Clerk's office to set up viewing appointments. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Form of the record request No specific form necessary Can be oral, but agency should memorialize in writing for protection and clarity Request must provide "reasonable description" to be able to locate the record Sufficient clarity to give agency fair notice a PRA request has been received as opposed to other request City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Pwmptresponse requ;; � Must respond within 5 business days by: (1) providing the record; (2) providing an internet address/link to website for specific records; - All City ordinances, resolutions, and contracts are online, as well as many other major documents such as the Comprehensive Plan (3) acknowledging that the [agency] has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the [agency] will require to respond to the request; (4) acknowledging that the [agency] has received the request, requesting clarification, and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the [agency] will require to respond to the request if clarification is not provided; or (5) denying the record request. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Exemptions Originally only 10 exemptions Now upwards of 500 City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 14 pt rom disclosure — a orney c ient privileged information RCW 42.56.070(1) contains what is commonly referred to as the "other laws" exemption to disclosure. It specifically states in pertinent part that "each agency ... shall make available ... all public records unless [exempt under the PRA] or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records." RCW 5.60.060(2) (a) states that "[a] n attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment." City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Information not protected -examples Council and employee names; Council and employee salary; Council and employee benefits; Employee vacation/sick time used; Council and employee work e-mail address; and employee length of service. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 16 Penalties and Attorney's Fees RCW 42.56.550(4) provides that it "shall be within the discretion of the court to award such person an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy said public record." • how much of a fine to assess is based on two steps: (1) count the number of days the party was denied access to the records; and (2) determine the appropriate per day penalty, up to sioo per day depending on the nature of the denial. The prevailing party is entitled to "reasonable attorney fees" and costs of suit. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Penalty per document or per request? Until 2016, the rule was that the daily penalty applied to the request, not per document. Yousoufian v. Sims,152 Wn.2d 451 (2004). State Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the trial court's discretion to assess a daily penalty for each page of each document wrongfully withheld, depending on the circumstances (i.e. how egregious the violation was). Wades Eastside Gun Shop v. Department of Labor & Industries, City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Determining how much penalty Factors used by Courts to determine amount of penalty Yousoufian v. Sims (V), 168 Wn.2d. 444 (2010) 7 mitigating factors Examples: good faith, honest, timely, and strict compliance with all the procedural requirements and exceptions; proper training; reasonableness of reason for noncompliance; tracking systems Size of agency is a valid consideration 8 aggravating factors Examples: lack of strict compliance; lack of proper training; negligent/ reckless/bad faith/intentional noncompliance with the PRA; potential for public harm; deterrent effect City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Agency "best practices" 1. Entity management attitude; 2. Training; 3. Prioritizing requests; 4. Tracking requests; 5. Effective monitoring; 6. Central point of contact in the agency; 7. Visible signage; 8. Transparency and communication; 9. User-friendly website; io. Good records management and information technology; 11. Appropriate copying charges; 12. Using the installment method for large requests; 13. Communicate agency appeal process for record denials; and 14. Documenting the request process. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney porting/Iog requirements Logs of public record requests and responses RCW 40.14.026 ID of requestor, date request was received, text of original request, description of the records produced, description of records redacted or withheld and reasons, and date request was closed Annual reports to JLARC sioo,000 threshold 17 different metrics • http://leg.wa.gov/jlarc/Pages/publicRecAdmin.aspx Limited -time grants for improving records management City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Questions on the PRA? City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 22 The Open Public Meetings Act City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 23 The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) Washington State law enacted in 1971. Codified under chapter 42.3o RCW. Applies to all city and town councils, and many subordinate city and town boards and committees. Applies to planning commissions, lodging tax advisory committees. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Purpose of OPMA Governments "exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business." RCW 42.30.010. "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.' Idp "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the riht to decide what isgood for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. Id. p p "The people insist on remainin informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.' Id. Goal is transparency and public trust. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney OPMA requirements OPMA requires that: All meetings of the governing body shall be open to the public. All actions taken by such bodies shall be done at meetings that are open to the public. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney What is a "meeting"? There must be a "meeting" in order to trigger the requirements of the OPMA. "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken; "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions; Physical presence is not required (e.g., email, phone call, texting). Majority (quorum) implicates "meeting" rules. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney What is a "meeting"? cont. Courts have found that "serial meetings" are considered "meetings" under the OPMA. What is a serial meeting? Example: One Councilmember speaks with two other Councilmembers about particular City business. Unbeknownst to the original Councilmember, a fourth Councilmember also speaks to the two other Councilmembers about the same City business. So now all four Councilmembers, which constitutes a quorum, have discussed the City business and have done so outside of an open public meeting. Best practice: Conduct all discussions in public meetings. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney What is a "meeting"? (cont.) Email and other electronic communications may constitute a meeting which violates the OPMA if it goes back and forth. Solely receiving information is not a violation. Responding to email could be a violation depending on the circumstances. It is not necessary that a governing body take "final action" (a vote) for a meeting to be subject to the OPMA. Discussion regarding City matters is "action." Requires a public meeting if a quorum of members are present for the discussion. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney not a "meeting' What is not a meeting: If City matters are not discussed, then the gathering is not a "meeting" subject to OPMA (even if a quorum is present). Examples: Social gatherings if City business is not discussed; Gatherings before or after official action (such as the time prior to Council meetings) so long as City business is not discussed; Meetings of other government agencies (BoCC, chamber of commerce), so long as the Council/Commission members do not discuss City business amongst themselves. Perception still important. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Procedural Requirements for Meetings Outlined in detail in the Governance Manual. Some general requirements: Notice (depends on the time of meeting); Open to public unless an executive or closed session; Votes cannot be by secret ballot; Member of public cannot be forced to give their name or other information as condition of attendance (can condition a person's ability to speak at the meeting on providing information) . City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney OPMA exceptions and exemptions No City business = OPMA not implicated. If no official business of City is transacted, OPMA does not apply. Public perception is a separate consideration from what is legal. Active preparation for litigation. Executive sessions: 11+ specific circumstances, defined by statute Closed session (OPMA simply does not apply) RCW 42.30.140 (quasi-judicial matters and collective bargaining issues) City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney rE�c2�utive sessions Four common examples: Interviewing candidates/qualifications for appointed positions (City Manager); Discussing applicant qualifications for open Council position; Considering the job performance of an employee; Considering the acquisition of real property where the discussion, if public, could increase the price; Discussions with legal counsel about litigation -related matters. No final decisions allowed in executive sessions City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney OPMA penalties Effect of penalty The penalty for a violation of the act is direct: any action taken in violation of the OPMA is null and void; "Any person" may bring the action in superior court. Individual liability. $500 penalty for first violation if they attend with knowledge that the meeting is in violation of the Act, and si,000 for subsequent violations. City or City Council liability. Liable for all costs, including reasonable attorney fees. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Questions on OPMA? City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 35 Appearance of Fairness Doctrine City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Appearance of Fairness doctrine Applies only to quasi-judicial matters and not to legislative ones. RCW 42.36.010. Doctrine requires government decision -makers in quasi-judicial matters to conduct hearings and make decisions in a way that is fair to others in appearance and fact. Test for fairness: would a fair minded person in attendance believe that: (1) everyone was heard who should have been heard, and (2) the decision -makers were impartial and free from outside influences? City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Examples of quasi-judicial actions. Quasi-judicial (handled by City Hearing Examiner): Subdivision approvals; • Preliminary plat approvals; • Conditional use permits; • Variances; Rezones of specific parcels; and Discretionary zoning permits if hearing required. Not quasi-judicial: Adoption, amendment, or revision of comprehensive plans; Adoption of area -wide zoning ordinances; and Adoption of area -wide zoning amendments. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Appearance of Fairness applied Disqualifies decision -makers from the quasi-judicial decision-making process who: have prejudged the issues; have a bias in favor of one side in the proceeding; have a conflict of interest; or cannot otherwise be impartial. Prohibits "ex parte" communications between a decision -maker and a proponent or opponent of the matter being decided during the pendency of a quasi-judicial proceeding. RCW 42.36.060. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Questions on Appearance of Fairness? City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 40 To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of January 10, 2019; 11:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative Council & Staff City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings Jan 22, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 151 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes, Resolution 19-001 re benefits, etc.) (5 minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection, So County Interlocal — Gloria Mantz 3. Admin Report: Marketing Summary, 2018 — Lesli Brassfield , Mike Basinger 4. Admin Report: Code Enforcement Update — Legal, Code Enforcement, et al 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 6. Info Only: Department Reports (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (25 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 mins] Jan 29, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2019 Amended Tip — Colin Quinn -Hurst 2. Resolution 19-002 Approving Amended 2019 TIP — Colin Quinn -Hurst NON -ACTION ITEMS 3. Centennial Business Park, Planned Action Ordinance — Chaz Bates 4. Potential INFRA Grant Opportunity — Adam Jackson 5. NE Industrial Infrastructure — John Hohman, Adam Jackson, Chelsie Taylor 6. Admin Report: Police Dept. Quarterly Report — Chief Werner 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Feb 5, 2019, Study Session 6:00 pm ACTION ITEMS: 1. First Reading, Planned Action Ordinance — Chaz Bates 2. Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) — Mayor Higgins 3. Motion Consideration: Potential INFRA Grant Opportunity — Adam Jackson Public Comment Opportunity NON -ACTION ITEMS: 4. University Road Preservation, 16th to Dishman Mica — Robert Lochmiller, Gloria Mantz 5. Mission Avenue Preservation and Sidewalk, University to Union — Erica Amsden, G. Mantz 6. Evergreen Crossing, Mission to Indiana — Erica Amsden, Gloria Mantz 7. Broadway Avenue Preservation, Havana to Fancher — Erica Amsden, Gloria Mantz 8. Knox Sidewalk, Hutchinson to Sargent — Glenn Ritter, Gloria Mantz 9. Wilbur Avenue Sidewalk, Boone to Broadway — Glenn Ritter, Gloria Mantz 10. Argonne Road Preservation, Valleyway to Broadway — Glenn Ritter, Gloria Mantz 11. Midilome Area Preservation — Adam Jackson, Gloria Mantz 12. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue Jan 22] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 85 mins] [due Tue Jan 29] (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 120 mins] Feb 12, 2019, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. meeting cancelled Council Attends Olympia City Action Days: Feb 13-14 February 19, 2019, Special Meeting: Winter Workshop 8:30 a.m. - — 2:30 pm [due Tue Feb 121 Feb 19, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. meeting cancelled Draft Advance Agenda 1/10/2019 11:23:02 AM Page 1 of 2 Feb 26, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading, Planned Action Ordinance — Chaz Bates 3. Admin Report: Police Dept. Quarterly Report — Chief Werner 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 5. Info Only: Department Reports March 5, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Accomplishments Report for 2018 — Mark Calhoun et al 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins March 12, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda March 19, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins March 26, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 2. Info Only: Department Reports April 2, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins April 9, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins April 16, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins April 23, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Admin report: Police Department Quarterly Report — Chief Werner 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 3. Info Only: Department Reports *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING Camping in RVs Donation Recognition Electrical Inspections Health District Re SV Stats Land Use Notice Requirements Legislative Remote Testimony (Chambers) Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Naming City Facilities Protocol Neighborhood Restoration Program Park Lighting Park Regulations Ordinance Amendments Draft Advance Agenda 1/10/2019 11:23:02 AM [due Tue Feb 191 (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 30 mins] [due Tue Feb 26] (-90 min) (5 minutes) [due Tue March 51 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue March 121 (5 minutes) [due Tue March 191 (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 mins] [due Tue March 261 (5 minutes) [due Tue April 21 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue April 91 (5 minutes) [due Tue April 161 (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 mins] ISSUES/MEETINGS: Police Dept. Quarterly Rapt (April, July, Oct, Jan) Sign Ordinance Solid Waste Issues St. Illumination (ownership, cost, location) St. O&M Pavement Preservation Studded Snow Tires Utility Facilities in ROW Page 2 of 2