The URL can be used to link to this page

2020, 12-08 Formal MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:00 p.m. Remotely via ZOOM Meeting 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting NOTE: In response to Governor Inslee's March 24, 2020 Proclamation concerning the COVID-19 Emergency, which waives and suspends the requirement to hold in -person meetings and provides options for the public to attend remotely, physical public attendance at Spokane Valley Council meetings are suspended until the Governor's order has been rescinded or amended. Therefore, until further notice, a live feed of the meeting will be available on our website and on Comcast channel 14. Public comments will only be accepted for those items noted on the agenda as "public comment opportunity," will be accepted via the following links, and must be received by 4:00 pm the day of the meeting. • Sign up to Provide Oral Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling -In • Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting • NEW: Join the Zoom WEB Meeting CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION: GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 111: Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments and indicate if you want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or [2]. Citizens may only speak at one or the other, but not both. If there is no indication of which comment opportunity, you will be placed in the first. The link will guide you to directions to sign up for oral public comments. This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items, as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep the remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. NEW BUSINESS: 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Claim Vouchers on Dec. 8, 2020, Request for Council Action Form Total: $1,131,105.76 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending December 5, 2020: $539,242.33 2. Second Reading Ordinance 20-023 Adopting 2021 Budget — Chelsie Taylor [no public comment] 3. First Reading Ordinance 20-026 Adopting Transportation Impact Fees — Bill Helbig [public comment opportunity] 4.First Reading Ordinance 20-027 Adopting Municipal Tree Ordinance — Mike Stone, Cary Driskell [public comment opportunity] Council Agenda November 24, 2020 Page 1 of 2 5. First Reading Ordinance 20-029 Granting Comcast Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell [public comment opportunity] 6. Motion Consideration: Award Lodging Tax for 2021 — Chelsie Taylor [public comment opportunity] GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 121: Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments and indicate if you want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or [2]. Citizens may only speak at one or the other, but not both. If there is no indication of which comment opportunity, you will be placed in the first. The link will guide you to directions to sign up for oral public comments. This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items, as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep the remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 7. 2021 Fee Resolution — Chelsie Taylor 8. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): 9. Finance Department Monthly Report CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda November 24, 2020 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 8, 2020 Check all that apply: N consent _ old business AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: II Department Director Approval: new business 1 1 public hearing VOUCHER 11/19/2020 11/19/2020 1 1 /25/2020 1 1 /30/2020 12/01/2020 12/01/2020 12/02/2020 LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS 52271-52289 52290-52292 52294-52301 52302-52303 52304-52311 52312-52315 52316-52340 GRAND TOTAL: TOTAL AMOUNT $15 8,407.23 $172,075.25 $537,820.78 $1,874.43 $33,828.64 2,570.14 $224,529.29 $1,131,105.76 #001 - General Fund 001.01 1.000.51 1. 001.013.000.513. 001.013.015.515. 001.016.000. 001.018.013.513. 001.018.014.514. 001.018.016.518. 001.040.041. 001.040.042. 001.040.043. 001.076.000.576. 001.076.300.576. 001.076.301.571. 001.076.302.576. 001.076.304.575. 001.076.305.571. 001.090.000.511. 001.090.000.514. 001.090.000.517. 001.090.000.518. 001.090.000.519. 001.090.000.540. 001.090.000.550. 001.090.000.595. City Council City Manager Legal Public Safety Deputy City Manager Finance Human Resources Engineering Economic Development Building Parks & Rec—Administration Parks & Rec-Maintenance Parks & Rec-Recreation Parks & Rec- Aquatics Parks & Rec- Senior Center Parks & Rec-CenterPlace General Gov't- Council related General Gov't -Finance related General Gov't -Employee supply General Gov't- Centralized Serv. General Gov't -Other Services General Gov't -Transportation General Gov't -Natural & Eco. General Gov't -Pavement Preser. Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists 001.090.000.560. General 001.090.000.594 General Gov't -Social Services Gov't -Capital Outlay Other Funds: 101 — Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 120 — CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 204 — Debt Service 301 — REET 1 Capital Projects 302 — REET 2 Capital Projects 303 — Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg. Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist 11/19/2020 6:39:01AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 52271 11/19/2020 007637 COMMONSTREET CONSULTING LLC 52272 11/19/2020 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 52273 11/19/2020 002837 CENTRAL PRE -MIX CONCRETE CO 52274 11/19/2020 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 52275 11/19/2020 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 52276 11/19/2020 000387 MODEL IRRIGATION DIST. #18 52277 11/19/2020 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 52278 11/19/2020 002475 POST FALLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 52279 11/19/2020 002592 PURE FILTRATION PRODUCTS 52280 11/19/2020 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW 52281 11/19/2020 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER CSROW 20272 RE 46 JG6453 L001 3121905 3123896 365117 1496822 4/1/20 to 10/1/20 0W84915 0W93533 0W98977 0X29473 0X30881 0X34238 10665 63733 Sept 2020 110100280 314.000.223.595 314.000.223.595 001.076.300.576 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.302.576 303.000.295.595 Description/Account Amount 0223-RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES Total : CIP 0223: DESIGN REVIEW &APPROV/ Total: ECOLOGY BLOCKS FOR PARKING LO1 ECOLOGY BLOCKS FOR PARKING LO1 Total : RECYCLING COLLECTION AT CENTER Total: OCT 2020 MONTHLY CLEANING AT CEI Total : 1930.0 - 3400 S UNIVERSITY WATER CI Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT FC SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : ENTREPRENEUR ANNUAL MEMBERSF Total: SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total: OPERATING EXPENSES/MGMT FEE SE Total : 4.265.94 4,265.94 2.485.58 2,485.58 2,205.24 735.08 2,940.32 20.00 20.00 8.085.09 8,085.09 1.334.65 1,334.65 148.22 151.37 3.92 2.01 5.59 29.35 340.46 270.00 270.00 212.31 212.31 6,232.07 6,232.07 OCTOBER 2020 ENGINEERING 67,357.99 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 11/19/2020 6:39:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52281 11/19/2020 000001 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER (Continued) Total : 67,357.99 52282 11/19/2020 007594 STREETSCAN INC 10330 101.042.000.542 SOFTWARE LICENSE & SUPPORT 13.218.00 Total : 13,218.00 52283 11/19/2020 000030 AVISTA October 2020 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: CPW MASTER AVISTA OCTC 24.932.63 October 2020 001.076.302.576 UTILITIES: PARK MASTER AVISTA 7.342.52 Total : 32,275.15 52284 11/19/2020 003122 CALHOUN, MARK December 2020 001.013.000.513 MONTHLY AUTO ALLOWANCE FOR 12/ 400.00 Total : 400.00 52285 11/19/2020 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 October 2020 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: PARKS AND CPW OCTOBEF 335.00 Total : 335.00 52286 11/19/2020 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL November 2020 001.076.300.576 SPOKANE CO SEWER CHARGES: NO\i 1.577.47 Total : 1,577.47 52287 11/19/2020 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 November 2020 #1 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES FOR NOVEMBER #1 279.32 Total : 279.32 52288 11/19/2020 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3461008364 001.090.099.518 COVID: KITCHEN SUPPLIES 6.66 3461008370 001.090.000.519 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 245.21 3461008377 001.090.099.518 COVID: KITCHEN SUPPLIES 6.66 3461008379 001.090.099.518 COVID: KITCHEN SUPPLIES 20.65 Total : 279.18 52289 11/19/2020 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 50319986 001.040.043.558 COUNTY IT SUPPORT OCTOBER 2020 16.498.70 Total : 16,498.70 19 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 158,407.23 19 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 158,407.23 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 11/19/2020 6:39:01AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount I. the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just. due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 11/19/2020 2:59:51PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52290 11/19/2020 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 52291 11/19/2020 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY 52292 11/19/2020 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER OCTOBER 2020 001.016.000.589 OCTOBER 2020 001.016.000.589 42000797 51505578 001.016.000.554 001.016.000.523 STATE REMITTANCE 32.298.31 Total : 32,298.31 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION REM 478.53 Total : 478.53 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES DECEME NOVEMBER 2020 INMATE HOUSING Total : 22.337.20 116.961.21 139,298.41 3 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 172,075.25 3 Vouchers in this report I. the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered. or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just. due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley. and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 172,075.25 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 12/02/2020 12:33:46PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 52316 12/2/2020 006984 Al TREE SERVICE LLC 3104 101.042.000.542 TREE REMOVAL 4.083.75 Total : 4,083.75 52317 12/2/2020 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 68954 402.402.000.531 STREET SWEEPING 61,078.68 68962 101.042.000.542 HYDRO -EXCAVATION 456.17 Total : 61,534.85 52318 12/2/2020 002543 AIR ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT & TOOLS 246970 101.042.000.543 REPAIR SERVICE 318.72 Total : 318.72 52319 12/2/2020 002891 BASIN SOD INCORPORATED 49620 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: STORMWATER 76.23 49621 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: STORMWATER 38.12 49637 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: STORMWATER 17.64 Total : 131.99 52320 12/2/2020 002517 BROWN BEARING CO INC 9501533712 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 452.46 Total : 452.46 52321 12/2/2020 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS INV653441 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENT 216.57 Total : 216.57 52322 12/2/2020 002920 DIRECTV INC 051738547X201105 101.042.000.543 CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENANCE : 74.24 Total : 74.24 52323 12/2/2020 001232 FASTENAL CO WASPK354313 101.042.000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT 102.91 Total : 102.91 52324 12/2/2020 005474 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST PC001496762:02 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 59.62 PC001497222:01 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 9.09 PC001497464:01 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 79.71 Total : 148.42 52325 12/2/2020 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD 545061 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 420.44 Total : 420.44 52326 12/2/2020 007947 INTERSTATE BATTERIES OF E WASH 20163951 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 783.75 vchlist 12/02/2020 12:33:46 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 52326 12/2/2020 007947 007947 INTERSTATE BATTERIES OF E WASH (Continued) 52327 12/2/2020 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY 52328 12/2/2020 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS 52329 12/2/2020 003090 NORTH 40 OUTFITTERS 52330 12/2/2020 002941 NORTHSTAR CLEAN CONCEPTS 52331 12/2/2020 003653 PARTSMASTER 52332 12/2/2020 005049 PEDERSON. MICHAEL ROY 52333 12/2/2020 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. SPOIN4292362 SPOIN4292362-2 SPOIN4292388 SPOIN4300583 0538-014493 0538-014737 0538-015114 0538-015173 0538-015767 0538-015768 0538-015771 0538-015781 0538-016006 0538-016038 0538-016481 0538-017417 0538-017441 098451/3 39231 23604014 23606539 OCTOBER 2020 46650 46651 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.040.041.558 001.040.041.558 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount Total : SNOWPLOW PARTS SNOWPLOW PARTS VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES FOR SNOWBLOWERS SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT SHOP SUPPLIES Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES Total : SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS Total : SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT SHOP SUPPLIES DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL Total: Total : STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENAN STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENAN 783.75 566.61 767.75 136.87 263.05 1,734.28 58.78 181.00 12.77 32.16 26.90 134.49 231.70 32.02 36.72 23.01 37.56 146.50 63.16 1,016.77 762.19 762.19 348.48 348.48 234.50 70.14 304.64 1.575.00 1,575.00 139.114.35 1.942.77 Page: .2� vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 12/02/2020 12:33:46PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52333 12/2/2020 001089 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. (Continued) Total : 141,057.12 52334 12/2/2020 005968 PRECISE MRM LLC 200-1028011 402.402.000.531 DATA PLAN 250.00 200-1028208 402.402.000.531 EQUIPMENT 342.44 Total : 592.44 52335 12/2/2020 002520 RWC GROUP XA106000290:01 101.000.000.542 SNOWPLOW PARTS (SAME ORDER - 2 557.26 XA106000290:02 101.000.000.542 SNOWPLOW PARTS (SAME ORDER - 2 808.94 XA106000379:01 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 118.40 XA106000379:02 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 236.79 XA106001056:01 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 100.98 XA106001091:01 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 79.57 Total : 1,901.94 52336 12/2/2020 004099 SPOKANE VALLEY ACE HARDWARE 27624 001.090.099.518 COVID SUPPLIES 7.44 27644 001.090.099.518 COVID SUPPLIES 74.39 Total : 81.83 52337 12/2/2020 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 1660885 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION CPW OCTOBER 2 1.626.48 Total : 1,626.48 52338 12/2/2020 003318 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 24173305 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 439.59 24174036 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 30.80 24174037 101.042.000.543 SHOP SUPPLIES 409.17 Total : 879.56 52339 12/2/2020 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO IN001471027 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR 1.326.36 Total : 1,326.36 52340 12/2/2020 004741 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 34478 101.042.000.542 MEGA MARKERS. BASES 3,054.10 Total : 3,054.10 25 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 224,529.29 25 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 224,529.29 Page: ,3- 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 12/02/2020 12:33:46PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley. and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim, Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: cfr— vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 11/25/2020 11:41:22AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52294 11/25/2020 007612 KNOWBE4 INC INV108925 001.090.000.518 KNOWB4 SECURITY AWARENESS TRA 2.220.91 Total : 2,220.91 52295 11/25/2020 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 156651 001.090.099.518 DISPLAY ADVERTIING IN THE SPOKAN 410.00 Total : 410.00 52296 11/25/2020 006328 KREM-TV 10-2020 Summary Bill 001.040.042.558 ADVERTISING 14.750.00 Total : 14,750.00 52297 11/25/2020 000093 SPOKESMAN -REVIEW, THE 11/4/2020 001.040.042.558 SUBSCRIPTION: COMM DEV 51.74 Total : 51.74 52298 11/25/2020 007941 THE WATERSHED COMPANY 2020-1523 001.040.324.558 0324 SMP REVIEW 6.260.00 Total : 6,260.00 52299 11/25/2020 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 75860 001.090.099.518 POSTAGE SERVICES: CARES ACT GRE 2.617.44 Total : 2,617.44 52300 11/25/2020 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 30956 001.090.099.518 SPOKANE VALLEY CARES ROUND 1 55.851.00 30957 001.090.099.518 SPOKANE VALLEY CARES ROUND 2 55.851.00 Total : 111,702.00 52301 11/25/2020 003480 SNAP 20-150.02 #1 001.090.099.518 CARES ACT REIMBURSEMENT 395,254.65 20-150.02 #2 Final 001.090.099.518 CARES ACT REIMBURSEMENT 4.554.04 Total : 399,808.69 8 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 537,820.78 8 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 537.820.78 vchlist 11/25/2020 11:41:22AM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 1. the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered. or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just. due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist 11/30/2020 2:54:40PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 52302 11/30/2020 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 52303 11/30/2020 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 584596 584597 584598 584599 584600 585277 585278 585280 585281 585282 585283 585284 585285 585893 585894 585895 585896 585897 585898 585899 51385 51390 51400 51401 51405 51406 51407 51424 51425 51430 51431 Fund/Dept 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 Description/Account Amount LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : Total : 21.75 21.75 80.25 80.58 108.23 21.75 21.75 102.75 21.33 32.39 35.55 39.50 36.34 20.25 37.50 34.50 40.29 40.29 81.37 11.06 889.18 185.60 97.75 77.55 77.55 246.40 42.50 39.95 48.45 48.45 96.05 25.00 985.25 2 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 1,874.43 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 11/30/2020 2:54:40PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 2 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers : 1,874.43 Page: ,Y vchlist Voucher List 12/01/2020 10:24:55AM Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52304 12/1/2020 003210 WEST CONSULTANTS INC. 014325 402.000.000.531 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2.069.89 Total : 2,069.89 52305 12/1/2020 007671 HORROCKS ENGINEERS INC 58489 001.040.041.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,125.00 Total : 2,125.00 52306 12/1/2020 000786 K & N ELECTRIC MOTORS INC. 0132484 402.402.000.531 REPAIR SERVICE 4,338.16 Total : 4,338.16 52307 12/1/2020 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 46652 101.000.000.542 WINTER RESPONSE 2020 3.691.50 Total : 3,691.50 52308 12/1/2020 006509 POE, JOSEPH 870474 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 490.00 Total : 490.00 52309 12/1/2020 002616 ROADWISE INC 20-3551 101.000.000.542 LIQUD MAG 6,288.26 20-9088 101.000.000.542 LIQUD MAG 6,282.57 20-9089 101.000.000.542 LIQUD MAG 6.503.08 Total : 19,073.91 52310 12/1/2020 003133 SHAMROCK MANUFACTURING INC 9453 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: STREET DEPT. 2.021.46 Total : 2,021.46 52311 12/1/2020 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 134124954001 001.090.000.518 OFFICE SUPPLIES: IT 18.72 Total : 18.72 8 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 33,828.64 8 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 33,828.64 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 12/01/2020 10:24:55AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount I. the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished. the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 12/01/2020 3:58:51PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 52312 12/1/2020 000322 CENTURYLINK 11-19-2020 CITY HALL 001.090.000.518 CITY HALL PHONES 300.41 NOVEMBER 2020 001.076.000.576 2020 PHONE SVCS: ACCT 509 Z14-002. 595.78 Total : 896.19 52313 12/1/2020 001888 COMCAST 11/17/2020-12/16/202 001.076.305.575 INTERNET/PHONE: CENTERPLACE 398.74 NOV 18-DEC 17 2020 001.090.000.518 INTERNET: CITY HALL 106.18 Total : 504.92 52314 12/1/2020 007304 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS 160733 001.090.000.518 IT SUPPORT 166.18 Total : 166.18 52315 12/1/2020 004632 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS 170984103 001.090.000.518 TELECOM SERVICES 1.002.85 Total : 4 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 4 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,002.85 2,570.14 2,570.14 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 12/01/2020 3:58:51PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount I. the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 8, 2020 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending November 30, 2020 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 322,173.29 $ 10,265.00 $ 332,438.29 Benefits: $ 194,560.56 $ 12,243.48 $ 206,804.04 Total payroll $ 516,733.85 $ 22,508.48 $ 539,242.33 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 12-081item 2 2020 12 08 RCA 2nd read Ord 20-023 adopting 2021 Budg. docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 8, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading of Proposed Ordinance #20-023 Adopting the 2021 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: To date the Council has heard presentations on the 2021 Budget on seven previous occasions including three public hearings. At the meeting on November 24, 2020, Council advanced Ordinance #20-023 adopting the 2021 Budget to a second reading. BACKGROUND: This marks the eighth occasion where the Council will discuss the 2021 Budget including three public hearings. The 2021 Budget development calendar of Council meetings on this topic follows: • August 4 Council Budget Workshop • September 8 Admin report: Estimated 2021 revenues and expenditures • September 22 Public hearing #1 on 2021 revenues and expenditures • October 13 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2021 Budget • October 27 Public hearing #2 on 2021 Budget • November 24 Public hearing #3 on 2021 Budget • November 24 First reading on ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget • December 8 Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget 2021 Budget Overview: • The 2021 Budget currently includes appropriations of $97,968,784 including $32,554,699 in capital expenditures, comprised in -part of: o $8,876,315 in Fund #303 Street Capital Projects. o $1,120,305 in Fund #309 Park Capital Projects. o $4,676,350 in Fund #311 Pavement Preservation including $991,843 financed by the General Fund. o $759,600 in Fund #312 Capital Reserve Fund. o $13,796,320 in Fund #314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects. o $2,878,109 in Stormwater Management Fund #402 and Aquifer Protection Area Fund #403 projects. • To partially offset the $32,554,699 in capital costs we anticipate $21,079,702 in grant revenues which results in 64.75% of capital expenditures being covered with State and Federal money. • Budgets will be adopted across 24 separate funds. • The full time equivalent employee (FTE) count will remain 95.25 in 2021. There is one vacant position in Economic Development being repurposed to Engineering due to workload and one vacant Engineer position that was budgeted 50/50 between Engineering and Street Capital Projects being repurposed to a Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator in the City Manager department. 1 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 12-081item 2 2020 12 08 RCA 2nd read Ord 20-023 adopting 2021 Budg. docx Pertaining Specifically to the General Fund: • The 2021 recurring revenue estimate of $45,426,419 is $978,119 or 2.20% greater than the 2020 amended budget of $44,448,300. The 2021 amount is $2,855,381 or 5.91% less than the original adopted 2020 budget estimate. • The 2021 recurring expenditure proposal of $45,101,466 is $2,203,341 or 5.14% greater than the 2020 proposed amended appropriation of $42,898,125. The 2021 amount is $1,879,480 or 4.35% greater than the original adopted 2020 budget amount. • Budgeted recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $324,953 or 0.72% of recurring revenues. • Nonrecurring revenues total $25,000 for a nonrecurring grant to partially fund an update to the Shoreline Master Plan. • Nonrecurring expenditures total $2,176,300 and include: o $212,800 for Information Technology expenditures including ■ $10,000 to replace outdated copiers ■ $159,000 for server upgrades and to replace the card access systems at CenterPlace and the Maintenance Shop ■ $43,800 for software upgrades and Laserfiche workflow o $78,900 for various Public Safety items including: ■ $37,500 for the replacement of handguns (split 50% with the County) ■ $11,400 for a radar trailer ■ $20,000 to replace the access control gate at the Precinct ■ $10,000 to replace the fire panel at the Precinct o $25,000 for an update to the Shoreline Master Plan that is funded by a grant from the Department of Ecology o $1,859,600 transfer out to the Street O&M Fund #101 to cover the deficit in recurring expenditures exceeding recurring revenues in that fund • The total of 2021 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by $1,826,347. • The projected ending fund balance for the General Fund at the end of 2021 is currently $33,036,464 or 73.25% of recurring expenditures. Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator Position: • The prospect of creating a new Housing & Homeless Services division was discussed at the Budget Workshop on August 4, 2020. During that discussion, it was determined that Council did not wish to establish a new division at this time; however, Council asked staff to research the possibility of repurposing a current vacant position for this use in order to meet immediate City needs in this area. • Staff determined that a vacant Engineer position could be repurposed for this use. The Engineer position has been budgeted 50/50 in the Engineering division and Street Capital Projects. This position will be converted to a Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator in the City Manager Department beginning in the fourth-quarter of 2020 and a full year in the current 2021 proposed budget. This will result in an increase to the City Manager's budget with a corresponding reduction in the Engineering budget from what was seen on August 4tn This has not changed since the September 8th presentation to Council. 2 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 12-081item 2 2020 12 08 RCA 2nd read Ord 20-023 adopting 2021 Budg. docx Other Funds: 2021 Budget appropriations (expenditures) in the other funds total $50,691,018 as follows: Fund Number Fund Name 2021 Appropriation 101 Street Fund 103 Paths and Trails Fund 104 Hotel / Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund 106 Solid Waste Fund 107 PEG Fund 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 204 Debt Service Fund 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 312 Capital Reserve Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 402 Stormwater Management Fund 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund 502 Risk Management Fund 5,567,200 0 0 708,240 1,737,000 73,000 0 0 0 500,000 1,043,850 1,224,673 3,698,125 8,876,315 1,120, 305 0 4,726,350 2,050,524 13, 796, 320 2,626,007 2,378,109 140,000 425,000 50,691,018 Primary sources of revenues in these other funds include: • Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the Street Fund is anticipated to be $2,062,000. • Telephone Tax revenues remitted to the City that supports Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated to be $1,431,000. • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large part used to match grant financed street projects are anticipated to total $2,000,000. • Hotel / Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are anticipated to be $559,000 ($346,000 in the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund #105 and $213,000 in the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104). • Stormwater Management Fees that are estimated at $1,900,000. • Aquifer Protection Area Fees are estimated at $460,000. • Grant Revenues offsetting capital project costs are estimated at $21,079,702 o Fund #001 — General Fund - $25,000 o Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects - $6,843,308 o Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects - $480,530 o Fund #314 — RR Grade Separation Projects - $11,508,819 o Fund #402 — Stormwater Fund - $100,000 o Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund - $2,122,045 3 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for Web1202012020, 12-08Vtem 2 2020 12 08 RCA 2nd read Ord 20-023 adopting 2021 Budg. docx The City's 2021 Budget is adopted at a fund level as follows: Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Fund Total Fund Annual Appropriation Funds No. Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance General Fund Street Fund Paths & Trails Fund Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Solid Waste PEG Fund Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Ta CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund Service Level Stabilization Fund Winter Weather Reserve Fund LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund REET 1 Capital Projects Fund REET 2 Capital Projects Fund Street Capital Projects Park Capital Projects Fund Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund Pavement Preservation Fund Capital Reserve Fund Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 001 101 103 104 105 106 107 108 120 121 122 204 301 302 303 309 310 311 312 314 34, 862, 811 556,265 23,115 2,927,945 521,240 526,650 122,255 144,750 300,000 5,500,000 528,736 0 1,238, 567 4,055,658 67,402 95,362 856,285 4,209,098 7,753,610 765,548 45,451,419 5,567,200 8,900 690,840 352,000 1,737,000 79,000 193,000 0 0 1,900 1,043,850 1,025,000 1,025,000 8,876,315 1,205, 680 3,100 4,146,400 100,000 13, 361, 980 80,314,230 6,123,465 32,015 3,618,785 873,240 2,263,650 201,255 337,750 300,000 5,500,000 530,636 1,043,850 2,263,567 5,080,658 8,943,717 1,301,042 859,385 8,355,498 7,853,610 14,127, 528 47,277,766 5,567,200 0 0 708,240 1,737,000 73,000 0 0 0 500,000 1,043,850 1,224, 673 3,698,125 8,876,315 1,120, 305 0 4,726,350 2,050,524 13, 796, 320 33,036,464 556,265 32,015 3,618,785 165,000 526,650 128,255 337,750 300,000 5,500,000 30,636 0 1,038,894 1,382,533 67,402 180,737 859,385 3,629,148 5,803,086 331,208 65, 055, 297 84, 868, 584 149, 923, 881 92, 399, 668 57,524,213 Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Total Working Working Capital Funds No. Capital Revenues Sources Appropriations Capital Stormwater Management Fund Aquifer Protection Area Fund Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Risk Management Fund Total of all Funds 402 403 501 502 1,616,616 1,911,428 1,366,693 276,004 2,040,000 2,597,045 155,400 425,000 3,656,616 4,508,473 1,522,093 701,004 2,626,007 2,378,109 140,000 425,000 1,030,609 2,130, 364 1,382,093 276,004 5,170, 741 70,226,038 5,217,445 90, 086, 029 10, 388,186 160, 312, 067 5,569,116 97, 968, 784 4,819,070 62,343,283 OPTIONS: State law requires the City to adopt a budget prior to December 31. Council may adopt the budget as presented or alter it as they deem necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance #20-023 adopting the 2021 Budget. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Adoption of Ordinance #20-023 concludes the 2021 Budget development process and establishes the final budget including estimated revenues and appropriations. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Ordinance #20-023 • 2021 Budget 4 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 20-023 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2021 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2021; APPROPRIATING FUNDS; ESTABLISHING SALARY SCHEDULES FOR ESTABLISHED POSITIONS; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, State law requires the City Manager to prepare a preliminary budget for the City of Spokane Valley at least 60 days before the beginning of the City fiscal year beginning January 1, 2021 and ending December 31, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City Manager, in consultation with the Finance Director and department heads, has prepared and placed on file with the City Clerk a preliminary budget, together with an estimate of the amount of money necessary to meet the expenses of the City including payment of outstanding obligations; and WHEREAS, notice was posted and published for public hearings held on September 22, October 27, and November 24, 2020. The City Council met and invited public comment in the City Council Chambers during each public hearing; and WHEREAS, proper notice was given and the preliminary budget was filed with the City Clerk October 13, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the 2021 budget, including all allowances, and an appropriation for each fund; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley property tax levy in 2020 for collection in 2021, will be $12,724,200, which represents a 0% increase in the 2021 levy. This levy is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new construction, improvements to property, any increase in the value of State assessed property, any annexations that have occurred, and refunds made. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Adoption of 2021 Budget. The budget for the City of Spokane Valley for the year 2021 is adopted at the fund level. The final budget for 2021 is attached hereto, and by this reference is incorporated herein pursuant to RCW 35A.33.075. For summary purposes, the total estimated appropriations for each separate fund, plus the aggregate total for all such funds, is set forth as follows: Ordinance 20-023 Adopting 2021 Budget Page 1 of 3 DRAFT Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Fund Total Fund Annual Appropriation Funds No. Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance General Fund 001 Street Fund 101 Paths & Trails Fund 103 Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 104 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 105 Solid Waste 106 PEG Fund 107 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Ta 108 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 120 Service Level Stabilization Fund 121 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 122 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 204 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 301 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 302 Street Capital Projects 303 Park Capital Projects Fund 309 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 310 Pavement Preservation Fund 311 Capital Reserve Fund 312 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 314 34,862,811 556,265 23,115 2,927,945 521,240 526,650 122,255 144,750 300,000 5,500,000 528,736 0 1,238, 567 4,055,658 67,402 95,362 856,285 4,209,098 7,753,610 765,548 45,451,419 5,567,200 8,900 690,840 352,000 1,737,000 79,000 193,000 0 0 1,900 1,043,850 1,025,000 1,025, 000 8,876,315 1,205,680 3,100 4,146,400 100,000 13, 361, 980 80,314,230 6,123,465 32,015 3,618,785 873,240 2,263,650 201,255 337,750 300,000 5,500,000 530,636 1,043,850 2,263,567 5,080,658 8,943,717 1,301,042 859,385 8,355,498 7,853,610 14,127, 528 47,277,766 5,567,200 0 0 708,240 1,737,000 73,000 0 0 0 500,000 1,043,850 1,224,673 3,698,125 8,876,315 1,120, 305 0 4,726,350 2,050,524 13, 796, 320 33,036,464 556,265 32,015 3,618,785 165,000 526,650 128,255 337,750 300,000 5,500,000 30,636 0 1,038, 894 1,382,533 67,402 180,737 859,385 3,629,148 5,803,086 331,208 65, 055, 297 84, 868, 584 149, 923, 881 92, 399, 668 57, 524, 213 Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Total Working Working Capital Funds No. Capital Revenues Sources Appropriations Capital Stormwater Management Fund 402 1,616,616 2,040,000 3,656,616 2,626,007 1,030,609 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 403 1,911,428 2,597,045 4,508,473 2,378,109 2,130,364 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 501 1,366,693 155,400 1,522,093 140,000 1,382,093 Risk Management Fund 502 276,004 425,000 701,004 425,000 276,004 Total of all Funds 5,170, 741 70,226,038 5,217,445 90, 086, 029 10, 388,186 160, 312, 067 5,569,116 97, 968, 784 4,819,070 62,343,283 The total balance of all funds appropriated for 2021 is $97,968,784. Section 2. Transmittal of Budget. A complete copy of the budget as adopted, together with a copy of this Ordinance, shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal Corporations in the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. Ordinance 20-023 Adopting 2021 Budget Page 2 of 3 DRAFT PASSED by the City Council this day of December, 2020. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 20-023 Adopting 2021 Budget Page 3 of 3 City of Spokane Valley 2021 Annual Budget SPOKANE VALLEY CITY HAL ,pokane p Valle k Y 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 www.SpokaneValley.org Table of Contents City of Spokane Valley, WA Spokane County January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 Summary of Councilmembers III City Manager's Budget Message 1-13 Finance Director's Message - About the 2020 Budget and Budget Development Process ...15-29 Budget Summary 30-42 Revenues by Fund and Type 43-50 Expenditures by Fund and Department 51-54 General Fund Department Changes from 2019 to 2020 55-57 #001- General Fund- Expenditures by Department by Type City Council 58-59 City Manager 60 City Attorney 61 Public Safety 62-64 Deputy City Manager 65 Finance 66-67 Human Resources 68 Public Works (history) 69 City Hall Operations and Maintenance 70 Community & Public Works 71-75 Community & Economic Development (history) 76-77 Parks & Recreation 78-82 General Government 83-84 Special Revenue Funds #101 - Street Fund 85-86 #103 - Paths & Trails Fund 87 #104 - Hotel / Motel Tax —Tourism Facilities Fund 88 #105 - Hotel / Motel Tax Fund 88 #106 - Solid Waste Fund 89 #107 - PEG Fund 90 #108 — Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax 90 #120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 91 #121 - Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund 92 #122 - Winter Weather Reserve Fund 92 City of Spokane Valley 2021 Budget Debt Service Funds #204 - Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO) Fund 93 Capital Projects Funds #301 - REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 94 #302 - REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 95 #303 - Street Capital Projects Fund 96-97 #309 - Parks Capital Projects Fund 98 #310 - Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 99 #311 - Pavement Preservation Fund 100 #312 - Capital Reserve Fund 101 #313 - City Hall Construction Fund 102 #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 103 Enterprise Funds #402 - Stormwater Management Fund 104-105 #403 - Aquifer Protection Area Fund 106 Internal Service Funds #501 - Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 107-108 #502 - Risk Management Fund 108 Capital Expenditures for 2020 109 FTE Count by Year — 2010 through 2020 110 Work Force Comparison 111 Appendix A, Employee Position Classification and Salary Schedule 112 Glossary of Budget Terms 113-115 Ordinance 20-023 Adopting the 2021 Budget 116 ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ i ♦ ♦ � Rod Higgins ♦ Position #1 ♦ ♦ � Pam Haley ♦ Position #5 • • � Linda Thompson ♦ Position #7 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • From left Tim Hattenburg, Brandi Peetz, Arne Woodard, Rod Higgins, Pam Haley, Ben Wick, Linda Thompson City Council Members Ben Wick, Mayor Position #4 Brandi Peetz, Deputy Mayor Position #2 Arne Woodard Position #3 Tim Hattenburg Position #6 Staff Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney William Helbig, City Engineer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • i • • • ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ III ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ This page intentionally left blank • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ Spokane Val ley City Manager's Budget Message 2021 Annual Budget Dear Citizens, Mayor and City Council of Spokane Valley: It is with cautious optimism that I present the 2021 Budget for the City of Spokane Valley. Noteworthy is that the 2021 Budget development process occurred in the midst of a recession brought on by the COVID-19 global pandemic. As a consequence, we slowed down the budget development and adoption process in order to get a better sense of the resultant impact on revenue projections for both the 2020 and 2021 Budgets. As I write this message it is still unclear what the depth and breadth of revenue reductions will be across the variety of City funds for which we adopt budgets but we recognize that the most material impacts will be felt in the following revenue areas: • Sales taxes (recorded in General Fund #001) • Building and permitting fees (recorded in General Fund #001) • Motor vehicle fuel taxes (recorded in Street O&M Fund #101) • Lodging taxes (recorded in Hotel/Motel Tax Fund #'s 104 and 105) • Real estate excise taxes (recorded in REET Fund #'s 301 and 302 and support capital projects in a number of City funds) This Council adopted 2021 Budget includes what we consider to be fiscally responsible revenue adjustments based upon what we currently know. Because the City has a long history of making prudent financial decisions dating back to our 2003 incorporation, because it has engaged in consistently responsible budgeting and restrained spending, because we have restrained the growth of City programs and related spending, and because we have adhered to the key Fiscal Policies noted in following pages, we have accumulated fund reserves that we believe will allow the City to deliver status quo levels of service throughout all of 2021. Budget Development Goals We recognize that to ensure continued financial stability, it is imperative that we achieve two key goals within our General Fund: 1. Recurring annual revenues must be greater than or equal to recurring annual expenditures, and 2. The ending General Fund fund balance must be sufficient enough to meet cash flow needs which is no less than 50% of recurring expenditures and represents roughly six months of General Fund operations. Even in light of the global pandemic and resultant recession, I am pleased to report that each of these goals have again been achieved in the 2021 General Fund Budget. 1 Beyond recurring operating activity, and due to our exceptionally strong financial position, we have been afforded the opportunity to use the portion of the General Fund fund balance that exceeds 50% of recurring expenditures for capital construction projects that are important to the City Council and Community. Following this policy of transferring the fund balance in excess of 50%, since 2013, City Councils have made the decision to transfer $27.8 million of excess General Fund reserves to partially finance a variety of projects including each phase of the Appleway Trail, Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement, Appleway Avenue Landscaping, construction of a new City Hall, the future Barker/BNSF Grade Separation Project, and setting aside money for the Pines/BNSF Grade Separation Project, Barker Corridor Project and development of Balfour Park. Fiscal Policies Fiscal Health is at the Core of Providing a Good Public Service The Fiscal Policies adopted by the City Council are important for the long-range fiscal strength of Spokane Valley. These policies set a framework that the City will follow to responsibly manage resources and if necessary, under what circumstances we will utilize reserves to sustain operations during economic downturns. Financial Management The City will strive to: 1. Maintain basic service levels with minimal resources to achieve success. 2. Minimize personnel costs and overhead by continuing to contract for services when it makes financial sense to do so. 3. Continue the six -year Business Plan process. 4. Leverage City funds with grant opportunities. 5. Minimize City debt with a pay as you go philosophy. o The State of Washington sets the maximum level of allowable debt for cities based on assessed value of property. The City of Spokane Valley carries an exceptionally low debt burden and currently utilizes only 1.53% of its total debt capacity, and more importantly, only 7.66% of non -voted bond capacity. 6. Strive to prioritize spending in the annual budget process and minimize the mid -year addition of projects and appropriations. Financial Objectives The City's financial objectives are: 1. Adopt a General Fund Budget with recurring revenues equal to, or greater than recurring expenditures. 2. Maintain a minimum General Fund Ending Fund Balance of at least 50% of the recurring expenditure budget. This is adequate to meet cash flow needs and is the equivalent of six months of general fund operations. 3. If necessary, utilize a portion of the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund #121 ($5.5 million) to maintain ending fund balance minimum. 4. Commitment to the strategy that the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund #121 will not be reduced below $3.3 million (60% of $5.5 million) without City Council approval. If Council should deem this necessary, the City will then first replenish Fund #121 to at least $3.3 million before any annual General Fund transfers are made to Capital Reserve Fund #312. 5. Maintain the 2021 property tax assessment the same as 2020 with the exception of new construction. As in the previous 11-years, the City will forego the 1% annual increase to 2 property tax allowable by RCW 84.52.050. We anticipate this will result in a levy of $12,399,200 plus estimated new construction of $325,000 for a total levy of $12,724,200. The allowable potential increase will be banked for future use as provided by law. This represents the twelfth consecutive year that we have not increased our City property tax assessment. 6. Grow our economy so the existing tax base can support basic programs. Commitment — By committing to these policies and the checks and balances they afford, the City will ensure financial sustainability well into the future. 2021 Budget Highlights City Priorities The City's chief budget priorities are: • Public Safety • Pavement Preservation • Transportation and Infrastructure (including railroad grade separations and park related projects), and • Economic Development Ensuring that we've committed adequate resources to these activities accounts for much of the effort that Council and Staff collectively dedicate to the annual development of our Business Plan and Operating and Capital budgets. Moderate Growth in Recurring General Fund Expenditures Investing in essential core services identified by the Council and Community establishes the baseline expenditures we have included in this budget. Similar to the trend experienced in most jurisdictions, we find that the cost of providing these services often increases at a faster rate than the moderate growth we see in the underlying tax revenues that support these core services. With that said however, City staff and Council collectively strive to meet the challenge of continuing to provide historic levels of service and we will again meet this challenge in 2021 where we anticipate recurring General Fund revenues will increase over those of 2020 by 2.20%, while expenditures increase by 5.14%. The 5.14% increase is computed after a 2020 Budget amendment that includes a $615,000 reduction in Parks and Recreation expenditures which is in recognition of the fact that the COVID-19 event has resulted in the elimination of many programs. If the $615,000 reduction in 2020 expenditures were not included, the 2021 Budget actually increases by 3.65%. 3 Increases at the point of budget adoption over the past 8-years have been: 2021 compared to 2020 2020 compared to 2019 2019 compared to 2018 2018 compared to 2017 2017 compared to 2016 2016 compared to 2015 2015 compared to 2014 2014 compared to 2013 Recurring Revenues Expenditures 2.20% 6.12% 5.56% 3.73% 4.38% 3.08% 2.72% 4.39% 5.14% 3.00% 1.90% 1.81% 0.87% 2.79% 3.90% 4.28% Public Safety Costs Over the years Council has consistently committed to the maintenance and at times enhancement of public safety service levels and this is again reflected in the 2021 Budget where public safety costs including law enforcement, courts, prosecution, public defense and jail related services represent the City's primary operating expenditure and total $28,101,615 which is a 4.57% increase over the 2020 Budget. Noteworthy about the public safety budget are the following observations: • It represents 62.3% of the 2021 General Fund recurring expenditure budget ($28,101,615 / $45,101,466). • It is equivalent to 221% of anticipated 2021 property tax collections ($28,101,615 / $12,724,200). In other words, if property taxes were to double they alone would not be sufficient to cover Spokane Valley's public safety commitment. Staffing Levels The Staff count remains unchanged from 2020 to 2021 with 95.25 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) but does reflect the reallocation of Staff between departments, including: • A vacant 1.0 FTE Senior Transportation Planner position allocated to the Economic Development division has been repurposed to a 1.0 FTE Assistant Engineer position in the Engineering Division. • A vacant 1.0 FTE Engineer position allocated 50% to the Engineering Division and 50% to Street Capital Projects Fund #303 has been repurposed to a 1.0 FTE Housing and Homeless Services Coordinator position in the General Fund City Manager budget. This position will begin coordinating the City's approach to proactively addressing housing and homeless issues in our community. 4 The FTE count allocated among City funds is as follows: General Fund #001 Street O&M Fund #101 Street Capital Projects Fund #303 Stormwater Fund #402 2020 Budget as Adopted 75.78 7.47 8.10 3.90 2021 Staff Reallocation 0.50 0.00 (0.50) 0.00 2021 New Positions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2021 Budget 76.28 7.47 7.60 3.90 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 0.50 0.00 (0.50) 0.00 95.25 0.00 0.00 95.25 0.00 The personnel costs for the 76.28 FTEs charged to the General Fund represent just 21.9% of recurring expenditures. Taking into consideration that we contract for police services and are served by Fire and Water districts as well as a Library District, for a major city we operate substantially below the normal employee count and consequently at a significantly reduced payroll cost relative to many cities across the country. Spokane Valley staff levels average about one employee for every 1,023 citizens (= population of 97,490 per the WA State OFM / 95.25 FTEs) while comparably sized cities in the State of Washington have a much higher ratio of employees to citizens. Since incorporation, the City has taken a conservative approach to adding new staff and continues to have the lowest per capita employee count of any Washington city with a population of 50,000 or greater. By all comparisons, the City of Spokane Valley continues to be a lean, productive City government. Pavement Preservation Some may question paving roads that "don't look so bad" but the truth is the best time to repave is before a road deteriorates to the point that full reconstruction is necessary. Full reconstruction costs substantially more than pavement preservation treatments such as crack sealing or grinding and repaving and this is why the City has committed critical financial resources to the preservation of our transportation infrastructure. We're proud of our fine road system and will endeavor to continue to maintain it in the best manner possible with available financial resources. Beginning in 2012, the City initiated a program of expending general fund, special revenue fund and capital project fund revenues and reserves for the purpose of financing our street preservation efforts. In 2021, our community will again see an aggressive program of caring for roadways including the potential of surface treatment programs that would be new to Spokane Valley. For 2021, we project total revenues in Pavement Preservation Fund #311 of $4,146,400 that combined with $579,950 of fund reserves will be applied against $4,726,350 in projected expenditures. Sources of revenue in 2021 are anticipated to include $1,500,000 from the Street Wear fee that was adopted by Council in 2018, and $2,646,400 in transfers from other City funds consisting of: • $991,843 from the General Fund • $827,278 from REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301 • $827,279 from REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302 5 While Pavement Preservation is one of our critical service and budget priorities we find that sustaining adequate levels is a constant challenge and I address this in the portion of this budget message titled "Challenges". Transportation and Infrastructure The 2021 Budget includes $32,554,699 of capital expenditures that we anticipate will be in -part offset with $21,079,702 in grant revenues which results in 64.75% of capital projects being financed with State and Federal dollars. The projects we'll work on in 2021 partially include: • $8.88 million in Street Capital Projects Fund #303 • $1.12 million in Park Capital Projects Fund #309 • $4.68 million in Pavement Preservation Fund #311 • $759,600 for the final installment to WSDOT for the acquisition of nearly 14 acres future park property located north of Sullivan Park. • $13.80 million in Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund #314 • $2.88 million in Stormwater Fund #402 and Aquifer Protection Area Fund #403 • $212,800 for Information Technology equipment acquisitions in the General Fund • $130,000 from Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund #502 for the replacement of existing vehicles in the Engineering Division of the General Fund #001 and the Street Fund #101. Challenges Beyond the annual challenge of balancing the General Fund budget, the City of Spokane Valley has a number of on -going financial challenges. 1. Declining revenues in Street O&M Fund #101 that will impact our future ability to deliver historic service levels This Fund depends upon a combination of gas and telephone tax receipts. • Because the gas tax is a flat amount per gallon, and because each generation of newer vehicles get better gas mileage, we find our gas tax revenues hover somewhere between flat or slightly declining. Calendar year 2020 revenues were materially impacted by the COVID-19 event and amended downward by $331,700 (16.2%) from the initial 2020 Budget projection of $2,046,700 reflecting a material change in driving habits as much of the State population stayed home in order to physical distance from others. The 2021 Budget projection reflects a .7% increase over the 2020 Budget as initially adopted ($2,062,000 / $2,046,700) in anticipation of a return to normal (assuming a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available in early 2021 and widely distributed by yearend). • The 6% telephone utility tax generated $3,050,000 million in the first year of collections in 2009. Since that time however we have experienced a decline averaging 5.90% per year and at this point are projecting 2021 revenues of just $1,431,000 which is just 47% of the 2009 collections. We believe the decline is primarily due to the elimination of land lines by individual households. 6 • Because of the ongoing decline in telephone utility tax revenues, 2021 will be the fifth consecutive year of budgeted recurring expenditures exceeding recurring revenues. o We have been able to continue to deliver historic levels of service in the previous 4- years by doing the following: ■ 2017 - a $328,000 operating deficit was resolved by drawing down fund reserves. ■ 2018 - a $415,000 operating deficit was resolved by drawing down fund reserves. ■ 2019 - a $907,000 operating deficit was resolved through a transfer from Capital Reserve Fund #312. This is a noteworthy departure from the historic intended use of these monies which has been for one-time capital projects. ■ 2020 - a $1,714,096 operating deficit was resolved through a combination of transfers of $1,364,706 from Capital Reserve Fund #312 and $350,200 from the General Fund. 2021 - a $1,859,600 operating deficit was resolved through a transfer directly from the General Fund. • Determining "how" to fully finance Street O&M Fund #101 operations beyond 2021 will continue to be a Council conversation. 2. Balancing the cost of pavement preservation against other transportation and infrastructure needs • Pavement preservation has historically been financed from a combination of sources including: o General Fund dollars, o Street O&M Fund dollars, o Civic Facility Replacement Fund #123 (Fund #123) reserves that were dedicated towards this purpose until their depletion in 2016. o Real estate excise tax (REET) revenues, o Grant revenues, and o Beginning in 2018, the addition of a street wear fee that was negotiated by the City as part of an updated solid waste collection contract that recognized the damage that heavily laden garbage trucks do to our road system. o Following is a table that reflects pavement preservation related revenues over the 10- year period 2011 through 2021: Fund 001 101 106 123 301/302 310 Street Civic Fac. Civic Fac. General Street O&M Wear Fee Replace. REET 1&2 Capital Grants Total Actual 2011 584,681 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 1,084,681 2012 2,045,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,045,203 2013 855,857 282,000 0 616,284 300,000 0 35,945 2,090,086 2014 888,823 282,000 0 616,284 368,944 0 2,042,665 4,198,716 2015 920,000 206,618 0 616,284 502,098 0 835,224 3,080,224 2016 943,800 67,342 0 559,808 730,572 0 1,654,698 3,956,220 2017 953,200 67,342 0 0 1,320,958 0 89,208 2,430,708 2018 962,700 67,342 1,000,000 0 1,370,658 0 1,422,404 4,823,104 2019 972,300 0 1,608,028 0 1,545,277 0 2,398,330 6,523,935 Budget 2020 982,023 0 1,513,532 0 1,545,277 0 10,588 4,051,420 2021 991,843 0 1,500,000 0 1,654,557 0 0 4,146,400 11.100.430 972.644 5.621.560 2.408.660 9.338.341 500.000 8.489.062 38.430.697 7 • The City used Civic Facility Replacement Fund #123 reserves over the 4-year period 2013 through 2016 in order to give the City time to determine how best to finance the pavement preservation plan in 2017 and beyond. • In the years leading up to 2020 we existed in a fairly robust economy and beginning in 2017, following the depletion of Fund #123 reserves, we began applying a portion of our strong Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) collections towards pavement preservation. During this time frame we recognized that when the economy inevitably waned in the future, so too would REET revenues, and a consequence of over reliance on that source of money could in the future limit the City's ability to provide the necessary match needed for State and Federal grants that are applied to other street construction and reconstruction projects. Now, existing in the COVID-19 induced recession we find that our predictions may be coming to pass and recognize that the need to address alternative funding is more important than ever. • For a number of years Spokane Valley struggled to develop a pavement management plan that clearly delineated the pavement condition index (PCI) that should be maintained throughout our road system and define the amount of money we should dedicate annually to achieve that plan. • The results of one of our most recent studies was communicated to Council on April 2, 2019 and this answered the question of how pavement management resources should be allocated between the local access, collector and arterial portion of our street network. This study also estimated the annual cost to meet the needs of both Street O&M Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311 to be $10 million. • Because the City annually commits approximately $6 million to pavement management needs this leaves us with an estimated annual shortfall of $4 million. • Even though the City's investment in our street network has consistently fallen short of that figure however we find that the PCI is not in a free fall and is in fact holding fairly steady at a rating of 76 (out of 100) which is considered to be in the "Good" category. • We continue to evaluate our pavement management plan and are currently considering a variety of pavement treatments beyond our historic use of crack sealing and grind and overlays. • Council and Staff will continue to work collectively to determine how to finance a realistic pavement management plan. 3. Railroad Grade Separation Projects (overpasses and underpasses) Bridging the Valley is a proposal to separate vehicle traffic from train traffic in the 42 mile corridor between Spokane and Athol, ID. The separation of railroad and roadway grades in this corridor is intended to promote future economic growth, traffic movement, traffic safety, aquifer protection in the event of an oil spill, and train whistle noise abatement. The underlying study outlined the need for a grade separation at four locations in Spokane Valley. • Barker and Trent Road Overpass (fully funded at $24.7 million), • Pines and Trent Underpass (estimated cost of $29.0 million), • Sullivan Road Overpass improvements, and • Park Road Overpass Because grade separation projects are exceptionally expensive endeavors and largely beyond our ability to finance solely through existing sources of internal revenue, the City has pursued grant funding from both the Federal and State Governments over the past several years. 8 Barker/Trent Grade Separation Proiect We reached the point of being fully funded for this project in early 2018, the design is complete, and we have acquired all necessary right-of-way with the exception of one parcel upon which we've received notification of a Cert 3 acceptance. We anticipate that construction funds will be obligated by late 2020 with construction beginning in 2021. Revenue sources are comprised of the following: Barker Grade Separation Project Financing Sources City of Spokane Valley General Fund reserves Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) Total from Spokane Valley Federal Earmark 2017 WA Legislature appropriation National Highway Freight Program TIGER 9 FMSIB (20% of total) (assume $19.0 million) $ 1,421,000 2,209,000 $ 3,630,000 721,000 1,500,000 6,000,000 9,020,000 3.800.000 $ 24,671,000 Pines / Trent Grade Separation Proiect Progress to date includes: • We anticipate the project cost will be $29.0 million and thus far we have secured $9.7 million including $4.7 million set aside by the City. Additionally, there exists an inactive Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) grant in the amount of $3.36 million. It is currently unclear whether these funds will be made available to Spokane Valley in the future. Following is a detailed list of sources secured: 9 Pines Grade Separation Project (Estimated cost of $29 million) Financing Secured City of Spokane Valley 2016 General Fund Property acquisition $ 500,000 2017 General Fund dedication 1,200,000 2017 General Fund allocation of fund balance > 50% 721,000 2018 General Fund allocation of fund balance > 50% 764,000 2019 General Fund allocation of fund balance > 50% 1,500,000 Total from Spokane Valley 2018 - SRTC for ROW (FHWA) 2019 - CRISI 2 for Design 2020 - SRTC (FHWA) 4,685,000 1,890,000 1,246,500 1,905,000 $ 9,726,500 Inactive FMSIB Grant from 2000 that was awarded to WSDOT $ 3,360,000 • In late 2016 the City acquired property valued at approximately $500,000 that was applied to the acquisition of property that will in -part satisfy the right-of-way needs for this project. • On July 11, 2017 Council approved a Phase 1 contract with an engineering firm valued at $124,000 with a scope of services that called for evaluating two potential sites, each of which included a roundabout and signalized intersection alternative. • Staff presented subsequent reports to Council that provided design progress updates on October 17, 2017, December 13, 2018 and June 4, 2019. • A total of five public outreach meetings were held between October 2017 and May 2019 to seek input on the design alternatives. • Input was sought from a variety of stakeholders including BNSF, the Spokane Valley Police Department, Spokane Valley Fire Department, East Valley School District, the Fourth District Legislative Delegation and freight industry representatives. • On June 18, 2019 Council approved a design alternative that moves the intersection to the east of the current location with a roundabout as intersection control. • In early June 2019 the City was awarded a Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant through the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) in the amount of $1,246,500. The related contract for the CRISI grant was completed in March 2020 and the proceeds are being applied towards the engineering design phase. • In May 2020 Council approved the contract to complete the engineering design phase of the project which we anticipate will be completed in the latter part of 2021. • In early 2020 the City was awarded an additional $1,905,000 towards right-of-way acquisition through the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC). • In July 2020 the City began acquiring right-of-way through the acquisition of three parcels. • Future property acquisitions will be necessary during the right-of-way phase of the project but this cannot be determined until the final phase of the design is well underway. We anticipate right-of-way activities will continue into 2022. 10 • With the engineering design phase completed by the end of 2021 and right-of-way acquisition phase completed in 2022 we anticipate the project will be "shovel ready" by December 2022. • For the construction phase of the project the City has applied for a variety of both state and federal grants including the TIGER, FASTLANE , INFRA, CRISI and BUILD programs. • We will continue to apply for grant programs as they become available. We are hopeful that having a 100% design will make us more competitive as we will then have a "shovel ready" project. Economic Development To the best of our ability we focus on business retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses. Examples of economic development efforts include: Comprehensive Plan — In the latter part of 2016 the City updated its Comprehensive Plan and included an economic development element. Contained within this element is a summary of the local economy; an assessment of strengths and weaknesses; and policies, programs and projects to foster economic growth. The plan also included implementation strategies to improve retail, enhance tourism, and grow businesses in the City. Among other things, the plan also streamlined land uses by consolidating many zones and reducing many development requirements. Additionally the plan was also designed to provide flexibility in an effort to encourage market driven growth. Retail Recruitment — In 2017 the City expanded into the area of Retail Recruitment by contracting with a firm specializing in this type of service. The services we are seeking in this effort include a review of the retail recruitment strategy; conducting a market and retail gap analysis; development of a recruitment plan; identification of a strategic retail prospect list; and recruitment of retail on behalf of the City. We have again included money in the 2021 Budget to continue this effort. Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) — In the latter part of 2016 the City received a $114,200 grant from the Department of Commerce that with an additional investment of $55,000 from the City, resulted in a streamlined environmental permitting process in the northeast industrial area of our community. This study completed the environmental permitting requirements for the northeast industrial area which lead to the development of a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) adopted by Council March 12, 2019. The PAO saves industrial developers a minimum of 6 weeks permitting time while providing a predictable path to ensure that adequate infrastructure is in place to serve the expected developments and as a result of the PAO properties can now be marketed as truly "shovel ready". Northeast Industrial Area — In addition to the adoption of the Planned Action Ordinance the City has engaged in a number of capital projects in our Northeast Industrial Area that resulted in the expansion and improvement of our infrastructure and have the dual benefit of improving our road system and making the area more attractive for future economic development. These include: • In 2019 we rebuilt Barker Road from Euclid Avenue to the southern limits of the Barker Grade Separation project including the extension of sewer service by Spokane County. • In partnership with Centennial Properties, in 2020 we completed a project that began in 2019 that resulted in the construction of a new one -mile section of Garland Avenue that stretches from Flora to Barker. This new stretch of road made 150 additional acres of industrial property accessible to development. 11 • The City began a construction project in 2020 that will be completed in 2021 what will rebuild Barker Road from Euclid Avenue running south to the Spokane River. The Budget for 2021 Strong but Guarded Recognizing that fiscal health is at the core of providing good public services, one of the most important tests of fiscal management is the ability of a municipal enterprise to maintain basic services during an economic downturn. The creation and ongoing maintenance of financial reserves since incorporation has served the intended purpose of providing Spokane Valley the means to sustain critical public services during turbulent economic conditions including those experienced during the Great Recession that began in 2008 and the COVID-19 induced global recession we are currently experiencing. The 2021 Budget again reflects a prudent and guarded continuation of service delivery capabilities. In the budget message I wrote last year I included the following statement: "We are cognizant of the fact that we currently exist in the longest economic expansion in United States history and at this point, with each passing day we are closer to the next economic downturn. Given this, we will remain vigilant in our observance of local, state and national events and economic trends that may impact our own community and work towards capitalizing on our strengths, minimizing our weaknesses, and being ever watchful towards both threats and opportunities." As I write this message we exist in a global recession brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. While we are uncertain of the depth and breadth of the impact this event will have on City revenues and the programs they support, we will in the future, as we have in the past, "continue to remain vigilant in our observance of local, state and national events and economic trends that may impact our own community and work towards capitalizing on our strengths, minimizing our weaknesses, and being ever watchful towards both threats and opportunities." Balanced Budget Means exactly what it says — recurring General Fund operating expenses and the programs they support have been balanced with known or reasonably predictable recurring revenues with no increase in property tax or in sales tax rates for the City. The budget is designed to maintain the healthy, positive fund balance at year-end which provide for the City's cash flow needs without costly borrowing. In pursuit of fiscal responsibility, special attention is given to limiting the growth in new programs and financial commitments. This approach allows available resources to be put toward sustaining services consistent with the City Council's priorities for 2021 and beyond. 12 Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the Community, City Council and Staff for a long history of financially responsible spending and sensible fiscal planning. By saving and conserving the taxpayers' money and by adopting and adhering to prudent Tong -term fiscal policies, the City will in 2021 provide levels of service on par with those we've provided in past years even while in the grip of a global recession induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The City Council continues to set a path to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the City. The management staff and employees have worked together to develop the Business Plan and 2021 Budget recommendations to achieve the Council's ongoing goal of sustainability. I hope the Citizens of Spokane Valley are proud of the programs and strong financial condition of their City. We invite your examination and questions regarding the 2021 Budget. Respectfully, Mark Calhoun City Manager 13 4ui,�yl� This page left intentionally blank. 14 Spokane jValley FINANCE DEPARTMENT Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director SUBJECT: About the 2021 Budget and Budget Development Process The budget includes the financial planning and legal authority to obligate public funds. Additionally, the budget provides significant policy direction by the City Council to the staff and community. As a result, the City Council, staff and public are involved in establishing the budget for the City of Spokane Valley. The budget serves four functions: 1. It is a Policy Document The budget functions as a policy document in that the decisions made within the budget will reflect the general principles or plans that guide the actions taken for the future. As a policy document, the budget makes specific attempts to link desired goals and policy direction to the actual day-to- day activities of the City staff. 2. It is an Operational Guide The budget of the City reflects its operation. Activities of each City function and organization have been planned, debated, formalized, and described in the following sections. This process will help to maintain an understanding of the various operations of the City and how they relate to each other and to the attainment of the policy issues and goals of the City Council. 3. It is a Link with the General Public The budget provides a unique opportunity to allow and encourage public review of City operations. The budget describes the activities of the City, the reason or cause for those activities, future implications, and the direct relationship to the citizenry. 4. It is a Legally Required Financial Planning Tool The budget is a financial planning tool, which has been its most traditional use. In this light, preparing and adopting a budget is a State law requirement of all cities as stated in Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCVV). The budget must be adopted as a balanced budget and must be in place prior to the beginning of the City's fiscal year. The budget is the legal authority to expend public monies and controls those expenditures by limiting the amount of the appropriation at the fund level. The revenues of the City are estimated, along with available cash carry -forward, to indicate funds available. The budget takes into account unforeseen contingencies and provides for the need for periodic adjustments. 2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Historically the City has utilized a budgeting approach that assumed for most functions of government that the current year's budget was indicative of the base required for the following year. However, with the volatility that was seen in the economy with the Great Recession and again with the COVID-19 pandemic, the City moved to a Budget development process that consciously reviews service levels in each department and determines the appropriate level of funding that meets Council goals relative to available resources. 15 The 2021 Budget development process began at the February 11, 2020 Council workshop where among other topics, Council and staff discussed the budget in general terms. Due to the COVID- 19 pandemic, the City's budget development process was delayed in order to account for some of the uncertainty surrounding revenue projections. In mid -April 2020 the Finance Department notified City Departments that their 2021 revenue and expenditure estimates were due by mid - May. Through the summer, the City Manager's office and Finance Department worked to prepare budget worksheets that were communicated to the City Council at a Budget workshop held August 4, 2020. Following the workshop, the Finance Department continued work on the budget including refinements of revenue and expenditure estimates and through September, the Finance Department and City Manager reviewed updated budget projections. By the time the 2021 Budget is scheduled to be adopted on December 8, 2020, the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss it on eight separate occasions, including three public hearings to gather input from citizens: August 4 September 8 September 22 October 13 October 27 November 24 November 24 December 8 Council budget workshop Admin report: Estimated 2021 revenues and expenditures Public hearing #1 on 2021 revenues and expenditures City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2021 Budget Public hearing #2 on 2021 Budget First reading on ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget Public hearing #3 on the 2021 Budget Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget Once adopted, the final operating budget is published, distributed, and made available to the public. After the budget is adopted, the City enters a budget implementation and monitoring stage. Throughout the year, expenditures are monitored by the Finance Department and department directors to ensure that actual expenditures are in compliance with the approved budget. The Finance Department provides the City Manager and City Council with monthly reports to keep them abreast of the City's financial condition and individual department compliance with approved appropriation levels. Any budget amendments made during the year are adopted by City Council ordinance following a public hearing. The City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts within a fund; however, any revisions that alter the total expenditures of a fund, or that affect the number of authorized employee positions, salary ranges or other conditions of employment must be approved by the City Council. When the City Council determines that it is in the best interest of the City to increase or decrease the appropriation for a particular fund, it may do so by ordinance adopted by Council after holding one public hearing. 16 BUDGET PRINCIPLES • Department directors have primary responsibility for formulating budget proposals in line with City Council and City Manager priority direction, and for implementing them once they are approved. • The Finance Department is responsible for coordinating the overall preparation and administration of the City's budget. This function is fulfilled in compliance with applicable State of Washington statutes governing local government budgeting practices. • The Finance Department assists department staff in identifying budget problems, formulating solutions and alternatives, and implementing any necessary corrective actions. • Interfund charges will be based on recovery of costs associated with providing those services. • Budget amendments requiring City Council approval will occur through the ordinance process at the fund level prior to fiscal year end. • The City's budget presentation will be directed at displaying the City's services plan in a Council/constituent friendly format. • No long term debt will be incurred without identification of a revenue source to repay the debt. Long term debt will be incurred for capital purposes only. • The City will strive to maintain equipment replacement funds in an amount necessary to replace the equipment at the end of its useful life. Life cycle assumptions and required contributions will be reviewed annually as part of the budget process. New operations in difficult economic times may make it difficult to fund this principle in some years. • The City will pursue an ending general fund balance at a level of no less than 50% of recurring expenditures. This figure is based upon an evaluation of both cash flow and operating needs. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING Accounting Accounting records for the City are maintained in accordance with methods prescribed by the State Auditor under the authority of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Chapter 43.09.20, and in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles as set forth by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Basis of Presentation - Fund Accounting The accounts of the City of Spokane Valley are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. Each fund is accounted for with a separate set of double -entry accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. The City's resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds depending on their intended purpose. The following are the fund types used by the City of Spokane Valley: 17 Governmental Fund Types Governmental funds are used to account for activities typically associated with state and local government operations. All governmental fund types are accounted for on a spending or "financial flows" measurement focus, which means that typically only current assets and current liabilities are included on related balance sheets. The operating statements of governmental funds measure changes in financial position, rather than net income. They present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. There are four governmental fund types used by the City of Spokane Valley: 1. General Fund This fund is the primary fund of the City of Spokane Valley. It accounts for all financial resources except those required or elected to be accounted for in another fund. 2. Special Revenue Funds These funds account for revenues that are legally restricted or designated to finance particular activities of the City of Spokane Valley. Special Revenue funds include: • #101 — Street Fund • #103 — Paths & Trails Fund • #104 — Hotel / Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund • #105 — Hotel / Motel Tax Fund • #106 — Solid Waste Fund • #107 — PEG Fund • #108 — Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund • #120 — CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund • #121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund • #122 — Winter Weather Reserve Fund 3. Debt Service Funds These funds account for financial resources which are designated for the retirement of debt. Debt Service Funds are comprised of the #204 — LTGO Debt Service Fund. 4. Capital Project Funds These funds account for financial resources, which are designated for the acquisition or construction of general government capital projects. Capital Project Funds include: • #301 — REET 1 Capital Projects Fund • #302 — REET 2 Capital Projects Fund • #303 — Streets Capital Projects Fund • #309 — Parks Capital Projects Fund • #310 — Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund • #311 — Pavement Preservation Fund • #312 — Capital Reserve Fund • #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund Proprietary Fund Types A second type of fund classification is the Proprietary Funds that are used to account for activities similar to those found in the private sector where the intent of the governing body is to finance the full cost of providing services based on the commercial model which uses a flow of economic resources approach. Under this approach, the operating statements for the proprietary funds focus on a measurement of net income (revenues and expenses) and both current and non -current assets and liabilities are reported on related balance sheets. Their reported fund equity (total net assets) is segregated into restricted, unrestricted and invested 18 in capital assets classifications. As described below, there are two generic fund types in this category: 1. Enterprise Funds These funds account for operations that provide goods or services to the general public and are supported primarily by user charges. This type of fund includes: • #402 — Stormwater Management Fund • #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund 2. Internal Service Funds These funds account for operations that provide goods or services to other departments or funds of the City. This type of fund includes: • #501 — Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund • #502 — Risk Management Fund Basis of Accounting Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized, recorded in the accounting system and ultimately reported in the financial statements. • Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting is used for all governmental funds. Modified accrual recognizes revenues when they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. • Accrual Basis of Accounting is used for enterprise and internal service funds. Under this system revenues and expenses are recognized in the period incurred rather than when cash is either received or disbursed. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting Annual appropriation budgets are adopted for all funds with Governmental Funds utilizing a modified cash basis of accounting for budget purposes and Proprietary Funds utilizing a working capital approach. Budgets are adopted at the fund level that constitutes the legal authority for expenditures, and annual appropriations for all funds lapse at the end of the fiscal period. EXPLANATION OF MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES General Fund #001 • Property Tax Property taxes play an essential role in the finances of the municipal budget. State law limits the City to a $3.60 levy per $1,000 assessed valuation, deducting from there the levy of up to $1.50 by the Spokane County Fire Districts #1 and #8, along with deducting up to $0.50 for the Library District, which leaves the City with the authority to levy up to $1.60 for its own purposes. The levy amount must be established by ordinance by November 30th prior to the levy year. • Retail Sales and Use Tax The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.9%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the 8.9% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: 19 State of Washington City of Spokane Valley Spokane County Criminal Justice Spokane Public Facilities District Public Safety Juvenile Jail Mental Health Law Enforcement Communications Spokane Transit Authority 6.50% _ 0.85% 0.15% 0.10% 0.10% * 0.10% * 0.10% * 0.10% * 0.10% * 0.80% * 8.90% * Indicates voter approved sales taxes. 2.30% local tax • Criminal Justice Sales Tax Local Sales Tax for Criminal Justice funding is to be used solely for criminal justice purposes, such as the City's law enforcement contract. This tax is authorized at 1/10 of 1% of retail sales transacted in the County. Of the total amount collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and cities within the County. • Public Safety Sales Tax Beginning in 2005, an additional 0.1% voter approved increase in sales tax was devoted to public safety purposes. This 0.1% was approved by the voters again in August 2009. Of the total amount collected, the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. • Gambling Tax Gambling tax revenues must be spent primarily on law enforcement purposes pertaining to gambling. Funds remaining after necessary expenditures for such enforcement purposes may be used for any general government purpose. Gambling taxes are to be paid quarterly to the City, no later than the last day of January, April, July and October. An extension of the deadlines for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2020 was authorized by the City Council due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related economic shut -downs mandated at the State level. The City imposes a tax on the following forms of gambling at the following rates: Bingo (5% gross, less prizes); Raffles (5% gross, less prizes); Punchboards and Pull tabs (5% gross, less prizes); Amusement Games (2% gross, less prizes); Card playing (6% gross). • Leasehold Excise Tax Taxes on property owned by state or local governments and leased to private parties (City's share). 20 • Franchise Fees Cable TV is the only franchise fee levied in the City at a rate of 5% of gross revenues. This is a fee levied on private utilities for the right to use city streets, alleys, and other public properties. • State -Shared Revenues State -shared revenues are received from liquor sales, marijuana revenues, and motor vehicle excise taxes. These taxes are collected by the State of Washington and shared with local governments based on population. State -shared revenues are distributed on either a monthly or quarterly basis, although not all quarterly revenues are distributed in the same month of the quarter. The 2020 population figure used in the 2021 Budget is 97,490 as reported by the Office of Financial Management for Washington State on April 1, 2020. This figure is important when determining distribution of State shared revenues on a per capita basis. • Fines and Forfeitures / Public Safety Fines and penalties are collected as a result of Municipal Court rulings, false alarm fees, and other miscellaneous rule infractions. All court fines and penalties are shared with the State, with the City, on average, retaining less than 50% of the amount collected. • Community Development Community Development revenues are largely composed of fees for building permits, plan reviews, and right-of-way permits. • Recreation Program Fees The Parks and Recreation Department charges fees for selected recreation programs. These fees offset direct costs related to providing the program. • CenterPlace Fees The Parks and Recreation Department charges fees for use of CenterPlace. Uses include regional meetings, weddings, receptions and banquets. Rental rooms include classrooms, the great room and dining rooms. • Investment Interest The City earns investment interest on sales tax money held by the State of Washington prior to the distribution of the taxes to the City, as well as on City initiated investments. Street Fund #101 • Motor Vehicle Fuel Excise Tax (gas tax) The State of Washington collects a $0.494 per gallon motor vehicle fuel tax at the pump. Of this amount, the State remits a portion of the tax back to cities on a per capita basis. For 2021 the Municipal Research and Services Center estimates the distribution back to cities will be $21.24 per person. Based upon a City of Spokane Valley population of 97,490 (per the Washington State Office of Financial Management on April 1, 2020) we anticipate the City will collect $2,070,700 in 2021. RCW 47.30.050 specifies that 0.42% of this tax must be expended for paths and trails activities and based upon the 2021 revenue estimate this computes to 21 $8,700. The balance of $2,062,000 will be credited to Fund #101 for street maintenance and operations. • Telephone Utility Tax The City of Spokane Valley levied a 6% telephone utility tax via Ordinance #08-014 with collections beginning in 2009. Telephone companies providing this service pay the tax to the City monthly. Telephone tax has been estimated at $1.4 million for 2021. Paths & Trails Fund #103 Cities are required to spend 0.42% of the motor vehicle fuel tax receipts on paths and trails (please see the explanation for Street Fund #101) which we anticipate will be $8,700 in 2021. Because the amount collected in any given year is relatively small, it is typical to accumulate State distributions for several years until adequate dollars are available for a project. Hotel / Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104 The City imposes a 1.3% tax under RCW 67.28.181 on all charges made for the furnishing of lodging at hotels, motels, and similar establishments (including bed and breakfasts and RV parks) for a continuous period of less than one month. The revenues generated by this tax may only be used for capital expenditures for acquiring, constructing, making improvements to or other related capital expenditures for large sporting venues, or venues for tourism -related facilities. The hospitality industry, including hotels, was one of the industries affected the most by the COVID- 19 pandemic due to reduced travel from the State's stay home order. This being the case, the City experienced significant reductions in hotel/motel tax collections in 2020 which are expected to continue into 2021. This tax is estimated to generate $213,000 in 2021. Hotel / Motel Tax Fund #105 The City imposes a 2% tax under RCW 67.28.180 on all charges made for the furnishing of lodging at hotels, motels, and similar establishments (including bed and breakfasts and RV parks) for a continuous period of less than one month. The tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5% state sales tax, so that the total tax that a patron pays in retail sales tax and hotel/motel tax combined is equal to the retail sales tax in the jurisdiction. The revenues generated by this tax may be used solely for paying for tourism promotion and for the acquisition and/or operation of tourism -related facilities. The reductions described under Fund #104 above also apply to these revenues. This tax is estimated to generate $346,000 in 2021. Solid Waste Fund #106 Under the City's contract for solid waste transfer, transport and disposal services with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc., Sunshine pays an annual contract administrative fee of $125,000 to the City. Also, under the City's contract for solid waste collection services with Waste Management of Washington, Inc., Waste Management pays an administrative fee of 12.5% of gross receipts. This fee shall be used by the City for costs related to solid waste services, including costs for contract administration, solid waste planning and management, and for a portion of the City's street preservation and maintenance programs. Of the amounts collected under the fee, no more than 1% of gross receipts may be used for contract administration. PEG Fund #107 Under the City's cable franchise, the franchise grantee remits to the City in a capital contribution in support of Public Education Government (PEG) capital requirements an amount equal to $0.35 per subscriber per month to be paid to the City on a quarterly basis for the life of the franchise. Capital contributions collected under this agreement are allocated to PEG capital uses 22 exclusively. PEG capital uses include, in part, the set-up of equipment in the City Council Chambers that allows Spokane Valley to broadcast Council meetings both live and through subsequent reviews via digital recordings available on the City's website. Affordable and Supportive Housinq Sales Tax Fund #108 In the year 2020, the Council authorized the City to collect the affordable and supportive sales tax, which is a rebate of the State sales tax to cities and counties. The amount received by the City is up to .0146% of the taxable retail sales within the City capped at the 2019 fiscal year taxable retail sales. The department of Revenue has estimated this capped distribution to be $193,000 for the City. The City will receive these revenues for 20 years, and the revenues may only be used to support affordable housing within the City or for rental assistance as outlined in RCW 82.14.540. LTGO Debt Service Fund #204 This fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of limited tax general obligation (LTGO) bonds also referred to as councilmanic or non -voted bonds. When LTGO bonds are issued the City irrevocably pledges the full faith, credit and resources necessary to make timely payments of principal and interest, within constitutional and statutory limitations pertaining to non -voted general obligations. In 2003 the City issued $9,430,000 in limited tax general obligation (LTGO) bonds the proceeds of which were used to finance both the construction of CenterPlace and road and street improvements surrounding the facility. In 2014 the City refunded the LTGO bonds in order to take advantage of lower interest rates which resulted in a reduction in subsequent annual bond repayment (much like refinancing a home mortgage). At the completion of the bond refunding there remained $7,035,000 of LTGO bonds. Of this total: • $5,650,000 remained on the original debt used towards the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 20-year period ending December 1, 2033. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by the Spokane Public Facilities District. At January 1, 2021, the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $4,100,000. • $1,385,000 remained on the original debt used towards the road and street improvements. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 10-year period ending December 1, 2023. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by equal distributions from the 1st and 2nd quarter percent real estate excise tax. At January 1, 2021 the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $450,000. In 2016 the City issued $7,275,000 in LTGO bonds, the proceeds of which were used to finance the construction of a new City Hall along with $6.3 million of City cash that has been set aside for this purpose. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 30-year period ending December 1, 2045. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by transfers in from the General Fund. At January 1, 2021, the outstanding balance on the bond issue will be $6, 570, 000. REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301 Under Washington State Law, RCW 82.46.010, the City is allowed to impose an excise tax on each sale of real property at the rate of one -quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenue generated is used for financing capital projects as specified in the capital facilities plan under the Growth Management Act. 23 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302 Under Washington State Law, RCW 82.46.010, the City is allowed to impose an additional excise tax on each sale of real property at the rate of one -quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenue generated is used for financing public works capital projects as specified in the capital facilities plan under the Growth Management Act. Stormwater Manaqement Fund #402 A stormwater fee is imposed upon every developed parcel within the City, which is an annual charge of $21 for each single family unit and $21 per 3,160 square feet of impervious surface for all other properties. These charges are uniform for the same class of customers and service facilities. These fees are estimated to generate $1,900,000 in 2021. Aquifer Protection Area (APA) Fund #403 These are voter approved fees, the proceeds of which are applied to aquifer protection related capital construction projects. Fees are collected by Spokane County and remitted to the City twice each year. These fees are estimated to generate $460,000 in 2021. Fees include: • An annual fee of $15 per household for the withdrawal of water from properties within the APA. • An annual fee of $15 per household for on -site sewage disposal by properties within the APA. • For commercial properties an annual fee ranging from $15 to $960 depending upon water meter size. Interfund Transfers Many funds receive a portion of their revenues from other funds in the form of an interfund transfer. These transfers typically represent payments for either services rendered by one fund for another or a concentration of revenues for a specific project or purpose. The following interfund transfers are planned for 2021: In. 001 101 104 204 303 309 311 314 501 502 Total Out Out: 001 105 106 301 302 312 Total In 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000 1,859,600 0 0 0 0 0 1,859,600 0 453,840 0 0 0 0 453,840 401,500 0 0 80,775 80,775 0 563,050 0 0 0 316,620 1,662,684 0 1,979,304 160,000 0 0 0 0 565,150 725,150 991,843 0 1,500,000 827,278 827,279 0 4,146,400 0 0 0 0 1,127, 387 725,774 1,853,161 36,600 0 0 0 0 0 36,600 425,000 0 0 0 0 0 425,000 12,072,105 Total in 3,874,543 483,840 1,500,000 1,224,673 3,698,125 1,290,924 12,072,105 Total out 0 #001 — General Fund is budgeted to transfer out $3,874,543 including: • $1,859,600 to Fund #101 — Street Fund as coverage of the estimated deficit in recurring activity for the 2021 Budget. 24 • $401,500 to Fund #204 — LTGO Debt Service Fund for bond payments on the 2016 LTGO Bonds for the City Hall construction. • $160,000 to Fund #309 — Park Capital Projects Fund for park related projects. • $991,843 to Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. • $36,600 to Fund #501 — Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund to fund a CenterPlace kitchen equipment replacement reserve for $36,600. • $425,000 to Fund #502 — Risk Management Fund for the 2021 property and liability insurance premium. #105 — Hotel / Motel Tax Fund is budgeted to transfer $30,000 to Fund #001 — General Fund for the purpose of financing advertising at CenterPlace and to transfer $453,840 to Fund #104 — Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund for a future tourism related venue. #106 — Solid Waste Fund is budgeted to transfer $1,500,000 to the Pavement Preservation Fund #311 for the purpose of funding pavement preservation projects on local access streets. #301 — REET 1 Capital Projects Fund is budgeted to transfer out $1,224,673 including: • $80,775 to Fund #204 — LTGO Debt Service Fund to pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2014 LTGO bonds. • $316,620 to Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards grant matches for street construction projects. • $827,278 to Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. #302 — REET 2 Capital Projects Fund is budgeted to transfer out $3,698,125 including: • $80,775 to Fund #204 — LTGO Debt Service Fund to pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2014 LTGO bonds. • $1,662,684 to Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards grant matches for street construction projects. • $827,279 to Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation Fund for pavement preservation projects. • $1,127,387 to Fund #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund for the Barker Rd. grade separation project. #312 — Capital Reserve Fund is budgeted to transfer out $1,290,924 including: • $565,150 to Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects Fund that will be applied towards segments of the Appleway Trail. • $725,774 to Fund #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund that will be applied to grade separation projects at Barker, Pines, and Sullivan Roads. SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE 2021 BUDGET Budqet Summary for All Funds • Based upon funding levels anticipated in the 2021 budget, City staff will strive to maintain adequate levels of service. • Appropriations for all City Funds will total $98 million including $32.6 million in capital expenditures, comprised in -part of: o $8.9 million in Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects. o $1.1 million in Fund #309 — Park Capital Projects. o $4.7 million in Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation projects. o $760 thousand in Fund #312 — Capital Reserve land acquisition. o $13.8 million in Fund #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects. o $500 thousand in Fund #402 — Stormwater Management projects. 25 o $2.4 million in Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area projects. • To partially offset the $32.6 million in capital costs, we anticipate $21.1 million in grant revenues which results in 64.75% of capital expenditures being covered with State and Federal money. • Budgets will be adopted across 24 separate funds. • The full time equivalent employee (FTE) count will remain 95.25 in 2021. There is one vacant position in Economic Development being repurposed to Engineering due to workload and one vacant Engineer position that was budgeted 50/50 between Engineering and Street Capital Projects being repurposed to a Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator in the City Manager department. • The 2021 Budget reflects the seventh consecutive year the City will set aside City monies in an amount equivalent to 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures for pavement preservation in Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation. This 6% equals $2,646,400. • Positions and salary ranges are based on the City's compensation and classification plan. • Payroll tax and benefit amounts are based on staff benefit plans. • Contract costs for public safety, park maintenance, aquatics and street maintenance are based on estimates by City staff. • The City is setting money aside in Fund #501 — Equipment Rental and Replacement for the eventual replacement of its vehicles as well as a reserve to replace equipment in the kitchen at CenterPlace. 2021 General Fund Revenues • Total recurring 2021 revenues are estimated at $45,426,419 as compared to $44,448,300 in 2020, which is an increase of $978,119 or 2.20%. However, this is a decrease of 5.91 % from the original adopted 2020 Budget amount of $48,281,800. Revenue estimates in 2020 were amended down due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. • The two largest sources of revenue continue to be Sales Tax and Property Tax which are collectively estimated to account for 83.35% of 2021 General Fund recurring revenues. • The 2021 general sales tax estimate (excluding criminal justice and public safety sales taxes) is reflective of the revised estimated 2020 receipts to date due to the COVID-19 pandemic and are currently estimated at $22.2 million which reflects an increase of $436,000 or 2.0% over the 2020 estimate. • The Property Tax levy does not include the potential annual increase allowed by Initiative #747 which was approved by the voters in November 2001 and the subsequent action by the State Legislature in November 2007. o The 2021 levy is estimated at $12,724,200. o The levy assumes we start with the 2020 levy of $12,399,226, forgo the potential annual increase allowed by State law, and finally add taxes related to new construction which we estimate to be $325,000. • Franchise fees and business registrations are primarily based on projected receipts in 2020. • State shared revenues are based upon a combination of historical collections including 2020 collections through July, and per capita distribution figures reported by the Municipal Research and Services Center. • Fines and forfeitures are estimated by Spokane Valley and based on historical collections. • Building permit and land use fees are estimated by Spokane Valley and based on historic collections. 26 2021 General Fund Expenditures • Total 2021 recurring expenditures are budgeted at $45,101,466 as compared to $42,898,125 in 2020. This is an increase of $2,203,341 or 5.14%. The 2021 amount is $1,879,480 or 4.35% greater than the original adopted 2020 budget amount which was amended down due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. • The City commitment of 6% of recurring General Fund expenditures to pavement preservation equals $2,646,400 and is computed by multiplying total recurring expenditures prior to adding the pavement preservation element ($2,646,400 / $45,101,466 = 6%). The $2,646,400 that is transferred to Pavement Preservation Fund #311 is comprised of the following: o $991,843 from General Fund #001 o $827,278 from REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301 o $827,279 from REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302 • 2021 Nonrecurring expenditures total $2,176,300 and include: o $212,800 for Information Technology expenditures including: ■ $10,000 to replace outdated copiers ■ $159,000 for server upgrades and to replace the card access systems at CenterPlace and the Maintenance Shop ■ $43,800 for software upgrades and Laserfiche workflow o $78,900 for various Public Safety items including: ■ $37,500 for the replacement of handguns (split 50% with the County) ■ $11,400 for a radar trailer ■ $20,000 to replace the access control gate at the Precinct ■ $10,000 to replace the fire panel at the Precinct o $25,000 for an update to the Shoreline Master Plan that is funded by a grant from the Department of Ecology o $1,859,600 transfer out to the Street O&M Fund #101 to cover the deficit in recurring expenditures exceeding recurring revenues in that fund General Fund Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures and Fund Balance • 2021 recurring revenues are anticipated to exceed recurring expenditures by $324,953. • Total 2021 expenditures are anticipated to exceed total revenues by $2,151,300. • The total unrestricted General Fund ending fund balance is anticipated to be $33,036,464 at the end of 2021 which is 73.25% of total recurring expenditures of $45,101,466. Our goal is to maintain an ending fund balance of at least 50.0%. Highlights of Other Funds Revenues • Motor vehicle fuel tax (MVFT) revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the City is estimated to be $2,070,700 according to per capita estimates provided by the Municipal Research and Services Center. Of this amount, $2,062,000 will be credited to the Street O&M Fund #101 and 0.42% or $8,700 to the Paths and Trails Fund #103. • Telephone taxes that are remitted to the City and support Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated at $1,431,000. • Real estate excise tax (REET) revenue is computed by the City and is primarily used to match grant funded street projects as well as pay a portion of the annual payment on the 2014 general obligation bonds. In 2020 we estimate these revenues to be $1,000,000 per each '/4% for a total of $2,000,000. • Hotel/Motel tax revenues are computed by the City and are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism. In 2021 we estimate the tax will generate $559,000, which includes $346,000 in Fund #105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund from the 2% tax and $213,000 in Fund #104 27 Hotel / Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund from the 1.3% tax that was effective as of July 1, 2015. • The City began receiving the affordable and supportive housing sales tax in 2020, and will receive these revenues as rebate of the State's sales taxes for 20 years. The amount received by the City is capped at 0.0146% of the taxable retail sales within the City for fiscal year 2019, and the revenues may only be used to support affordable housing or rental assistance within the City as outlined in RCW 82.14.540. These revenues are estimated at $193,000 in 2021 in the Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Fund #108. • The Stormwater Management Fee is based on an equivalent residential unit (ERU) that is equal to 3,160 square feet of impervious surface that is billed at a rate of $21 per single family residence and $21 per ERU for commercial properties (an ERU for a commercial property is computed as total square feet of impervious surface divided by 3,160). In 2021 we estimate this will fee will generate $1,900,000. • The Aquifer Protection Area Fund is expected to generate $460,000 in fees that are collected on the City's behalf by Spokane County and remitted in two installments during the year. • Grant revenues that will be applied to a variety of construction projects are estimated at $21,079,702 in 2021. By fund we anticipate grant revenues as follows: o Fund #001 — General Fund - $25,000 o Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects - $6,843,308 o Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects - $480,530 o Fund #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund - $11,508,819 o Fund #402 — Stormwater Fund - $100,000 o Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund - $2,122,045 Expenditures • Fund #101 — Street Fund appropriations include: o $5,567,200 for maintenance of City streets, including $751,652 in snow operations and $935,000 in intergovernmental payments for services. • Fund #106 — Solid Waste Fund appropriations include: o a $1,500,000 transfer out to the Pavement Preservation Fund #311 for street preservation activities • Fund #301 — REET 1 Capital Projects Fund includes a $1,224,673 appropriation to cover: o a $80,775 transfer to LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund #204 to pay one-half of the City's annual repayment of the 2014 LTGO Bonds. o a $316,620 transfer to Street Capital Projects Fund #303 to partially offset the cost of street construction / reconstruction projects. o a $827,278 transfer to Pavement Preservation Fund #311 for pavement preservation projects. • Fund #302 — REET 2 Capital Projects Fund includes a $3,698,125 appropriation to cover: o a $80,775 transfer to LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund #204 to pay one-half of the City's annual repayment of the 2014 LTGO Bonds. o a $1,662,684 transfer to Street Capital Projects Fund #303 to partially offset the cost of street construction / reconstruction projects. o a $827,279 transfer to Pavement Preservation Fund #311 for pavement preservation projects o a $1,127,387 transfer to Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund #314 for the Barker Road Grade Separation Project. 28 • Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects Fund includes an appropriation of $8,876,315 for a variety of street construction projects. • Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects includes a $1,120,305 appropriation to cover a variety of City park improvements that will be financed through a combination of a $160,000 transfer from the General Fund #001, a $656,150 transfer in from the Capital Reserve Fund #312, and $480,530 in grant proceeds. • Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation includes $4,676,350 of pavement preservation projects that will be financed through transfers from other City funds as outlined above under the heading of General Fund Recurring Expenditures. • Fund #312 — Capital Reserve includes $565,150 in transfers to Fund #309 — Parks Capital Projects that will be applied toward frontage improvements at Balfour Park. It also includes $725,774 in transfers to Fund #314 — Grade Separation Projects for Barker, Pines, and Sullivan Roads and $759,600 in park land acquisitions. • Fund #314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects includes appropriations in the amount of $13,796,320 towards the Barker Road Grade Separation project, the Pines Road Grade Separation project, and the Sullivan Road Interchange project. • Fund #402 — Stormwater Fund includes $700,000 for nonrecurring expenditures including: o $500,000 for various capital projects o $100,000 for the studies related to the City's Stormwater permit and the watershed o $100,000 for an update to the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan • Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund includes a $2,378,109 appropriation to various capital projects. 29 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Summary Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Fund Total Fund Annual Appropriation Funds No. Balance Revenues Sources Appropriations Balance General Fund 001 Street Fund 101 Paths & Trails Fund 103 Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 104 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 105 Solid Waste 106 PEG Fund 107 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax 108 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 120 Service Level Stabilization Fund 121 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 122 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 204 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 301 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 302 Street Capital Projects 303 Park Capital Projects Fund 309 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 310 Pavement Preservation Fund 311 Capital Reserve Fund 312 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 314 34,862,811 556,265 23,115 2,927,945 521,240 526,650 122,255 144,750 300,000 5,500,000 528,736 0 1,238,567 4,055,658 67,402 95,362 856,285 4,209,098 7,753,610 765,548 45,451,419 5,567,200 8,900 690,840 352,000 1,737,000 79,000 193,000 0 0 1,900 1,043,850 1,025,000 1,025,000 8,876,315 1,205,680 3,100 4,146,400 100,000 13,361,980 80,314,230 6,123,465 32,015 3,618,785 873,240 2,263,650 201,255 337,750 300,000 5,500,000 530,636 1,043,850 2,263,567 5,080,658 8,943,717 1,301,042 859,385 8,355,498 7,853,610 14,127,528 47,277,766 5,567,200 0 0 708,240 1,737,000 73,000 0 0 0 500,000 1,043,850 1,224,673 3,698,125 8,876,315 1,120,305 0 4,726,350 2,050,524 13,796,320 33,036,464 556,265 32,015 3,618,785 165,000 526,650 128,255 337,750 300,000 5,500,000 30,636 0 1,038,894 1,382,533 67,402 180,737 859,385 3,629,148 5,803,086 331,208 65,055,297 84,868,584 149,923,881 92,399,668 57,524,213 Estimated Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Total Working Working Capital Funds No. Capital Revenues Sources Appropriations Capital Stormwater Management Fund 402 1,616,616 2,040,000 3,656,616 2,626,007 1,030,609 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 403 1,911,428 2,597,045 4,508,473 2,378,109 2,130,364 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 501 1,366,693 155,400 1,522,093 140,000 1,382,093 Risk Management Fund 502 276,004 425,000 701,004 425,000 276,004 Total of all Funds 5,170,741 70,226,038 5,217,445 90,086,029 10,388,186 160,312,067 5,569,116 97,968,784 4,819,070 62,343,283 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget #001 - GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax - Public Safety Sales Tax - Criminal Justice Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax Franchise Fees/Business Registration State Shared Revenues Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety Community and Public Works Recreation Program Revenues Miscellaneous Department Revenue Miscellaneous & Investment Interest Transfers in - #105 (h/m tax-CP advertising) 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 2021 Budget 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 $ 12,432,400 0 12,432,400 12,724,200 291,800 2.35% 24,632,900 (2,848,900) 21,784,000 22,220,000 436,000 2.00% 1,162,600 (128,600) 1,034,000 1,054,800 20,800 2.01% 2,052,300 (226,300) 1,826,000 1,862,400 36,400 1.99% 384,000 (90,000) 294,000 384,000 90,000 30.61% 1,220,000 0 1,220,000 1,215,000 (5,000) (0.41 %) 1,688,200 0 1,688,200 1,760,000 71,800 4.25% 1,077,700 0 1,077,700 1,010,200 (67,500) (6.26%) 2,129,800 0 2,129,800 1,908,719 (221,081) (10.38%) 659,200 (539,700) 119,500 643,600 524,100 438.58% 21,000 0 21,000 21,000 0 0.00% 791,700 0 791,700 592,500 (199,200) (25.16%) 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 48,281,800 (3,833,500) 44,448,300 45,426,419 978,119 2.20% Expenditures City Council 622,187 0 622,187 631,566 9,379 1.51% City Manager 997,882 33,300 1,031,182 1,158,089 126,907 12.31% City Attorney 707,942 0 707,942 718,593 10,651 1.50% Public Safety 26,599,214 274,489 26,873,703 28,101,615 1,227,912 4.57% Deputy City Manager 277,187 0 277,187 284,844 7,657 2.76% Finance / IT 1,478,523 0 1,478,523 1,500,659 22,136 1.50% Human Resources 313,316 0 313,316 318,540 5,224 1.67% City Hall Operations and Maintenance 296,270 0 296,270 301,093 4,823 1.63% Community & Public Works - Engineering 1,971,731 (16,650) 1,955,081 2,098,642 143,561 7.34% Community & Public Works - Economic Dev 1,119,829 0 1,119,829 1,045,762 (74,067) (6.61%) Community & Public Works - Building & Planning 2,420,414 0 2,420,414 2,487,066 66,652 2.75% Parks & Rec - Administration 352,227 (15,000) 337,227 356,467 19,240 5.71% Parks & Rec - Maintenance 917,500 0 917,500 940,003 22,503 2.45% Parks & Rec - Recreation 325,921 (83,000) 242,921 328,534 85,613 35.24% Parks & Rec - Aquatics 501,853 (369,000) 132,853 510,053 377,200 283.92% Parks & Rec - Senior Center 43,447 0 43,447 35,403 (8,044) (18.51 %) Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 965,359 (148,000) 817,359 972,214 154,855 18.95% General Government 1,321,111 0 1,321,111 1,297,380 (23,731) (1.80%) Transfers out - #204 (2016 LTGO debt service) 401,450 0 401,450 401,500 50 0.01 % Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 160,000 0 160,000 160,000 0 0.00% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 982,023 0 982,023 991,843 9,820 1.00% Transfers out - #501 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 0 36,600 36,600 0 0.00% Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 410,000 0 410,000 425,000 15,000 3.66% Total Recurring Expenditures 43,221,986 (323,861) 42,898,125 45,101,466 2,203,341 5.14% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 5,059,814 (3,509,639) 1,550,175 324,953 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget #001 - GENERAL FUND - continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds Reimbursement of chamber wall repairs Miscellaneous Total Nonrecurring Revenues Expenditures General Government - IT capital replacements 190,000 0 190,000 212,800 22,800 12.00% City Manager (office fumiture for Housing Servemployee) 0 5,000 5,000 0 (5,000) (100.00%) Public Safety (full facility generator) 0 58,310 58,310 0 (58,310) (100.00%) Public Safety (carpet & workstation replacement) 15,000 0 15,000 0 (15,000) (100.00%) Public Safety (replace HVAC units at Precinct) 0 60,000 60,000 0 (60,000) (100.00%) Public Safety (replace handguns) 0 0 0 37,500 37,500 0.00% Public Safety (radar trailer) 0 0 0 11,400 11,400 0.00% Public Safety (Precinct access control gate) 0 0 0 20,000 20,000 0.00% Public Safety (Precinct fire panel replacement) 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 0.00% City Hall chamber east wall repairs 0 500,000 500,000 0 (500,000) (100.00%) Economic Dev (CERB Appleway Trail Study) 0 25,000 25,000 0 (25,000) (100.00%) Economic Dev (Commerce Housing Action Plan) 0 100,000 100,000 0 (100,000) (100.00%) Economic Dev (Ecology SMP Update) 0 3,000 3,000 25,000 22,000 733.33% Building (equipment for new Code Enf. Officer) 13,700 0 13,700 0 (13,700) (100.00%) Parks & Rec (carpet at CenterPlace) 9,500 0 9,500 0 (9,500) (100.00%) General Government (City Hall generator) 0 44,993 44,993 0 (44,993) (100.00%) COVID-19 related expenditures 0 4,352,400 4,352,400 0 (4,352,400) (100.00%) Transfers out - #101 (Street Fund operations) 0 350,200 350,200 1,859,600 1,509,400 431.01 % Transfers out - #122 (replenish reserve) 0 500,000 500,000 0 (500,000) (100.00%) Transfers out - #309 (Browns Park 2019 Impr) 0 121,298 121,298 0 (121,298) (100.00%) Transfers out - #309 (CenterPlace west lawn) 1,500,000 401,581 1,901,581 0 (1,901,581) (100.00%) Transfers out - #309 (CenterPlace roof repairs) 0 810,000 810,000 0 (810,000) (100.00%) Transfers out - #309 (Browns Park 2020 Impr) 0 75,000 75,000 0 (75,000) (100.00%) Transfers out - #501 (new Code Enf. Vehicle) 30,000 0 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 2021 Budget 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 $ I % 70,000 4,480,400 4,550,400 25,000 (4,525,400) (99.45%) 0 500,000 500,000 0 (500,000) (100.00%) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 70,000 4,980,400 5,050,400 25,000 (5,025,400) (99.50%) Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,758,200 7,406,782 9,164,982 2,176,300 (6,988,682) (76.25%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning unrestricted fund balance Ending unrestricted fund balance Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures General Fund Summary Total revenues Total expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning unrestricted fund balance Ending unrestricted fund balance (1,688,200) (2,426,382) (4,114,582) (2,151,300) 3,371,614 (5,936,021) (2,564,407) (1,826,347) 37,427,218 37,427,218 34,862,811 40,798,832 34,862,811 33,036,464 94.39% 81.27% 73.25% 48,351,800 1,146,900 49,498,700 45,451,419 44,980,186 7,082,921 52,063,107 47,277,766 3,371,614 (5,936,021) (2,564,407) (1,826,347) 37,427,218 37,427,218 34,862,811 40,798,832 34,862,811 33,036,464 32 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget (SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 - STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Utility Tax Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Multimodal Transportation Revenue Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee Investment Interest Miscellaneous 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 2021 Budget 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 $ I % 1,521,000 0 1,521,000 1,431,000 (90,000) (5.92%) 2,046,700 (331,700) 1,715,000 2,062,000 347,000 20.23% 131,500 (18,500) 113,000 130,600 17,600 15.58% 70,000 0 70,000 70,000 0 0.00% 17,000 0 17,000 4,000 (13,000) (76.47%) 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 0 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 3,796,200 (350,200) 3,446,000 3,707,600 261,600 7.59% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 1,059,613 0 1,059,613 1,127,920 68,307 6.45% Supplies 146,050 0 146,050 156,050 10,000 6.85% Services & Charges 2,426,467 0 2,426,467 2,525,828 99,361 4.09% Snow Operations 543,776 0 543,776 751,652 207,876 38.23% Intergovernmental Payments 922,000 0 922,000 935,000 13,000 1.41% Vehicle rentals - #501 (non -plow vehicle rental) 14,500 0 14,500 10,250 (4,250) (29.31 %) Vehicle rentals - #501 (plow replace.) 48,500 0 48,500 60,500 12,000 24.74% Total Recurring Expenditures 5,160,906 0 5,160,906 5,567,200 406,294 7.87% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures (1,364,706) (350,200) (1,714,906) (1,859,600) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Transfers in - #001 0 350,200 350,200 1,859,600 1,509,400 431.01 % Transfers in - #312 1,364,706 0 1,364,706 0 (1,364,706) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Revenues 1,364,706 350,200 1,714,906 1,859,600 144,694 8.44% Expenditures Spare traffic signal equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,364,706 350,200 1,714,906 1,859,600 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 556,265 556,265 556,265 Ending fund balance 556,265 556,265 556,265 Street Fund Summary Total revenues 5,160,906 0 5,160,906 5,567,200 Total expenditures 5,160,906 0 5,160,906 5,567,200 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning unrestricted fund balance 556,265 556,265 556,265 Ending unrestricted fund balance 556,265 556,265 556,265 33 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget (SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued #103 - PATHS & TRAILS FUND Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #309 Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 2021 Budget 8,600 0 8,600 8,700 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 100 1.16% 400 0 400 200 (200) (50.00%) 9,000 0 9,000 8,900 (100) (1.11%) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 9,000 14,115 23,115 9,000 14,115 23,115 0 8,900 23,115 32,015 0 0.00% #104 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX - TOURISM FACILITIES FUNC Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 420,000 (207,000) 213,000 213,000 0 0.00% Investment Interest 24,000 0 24,000 24,000 0 0.00% Transfers in - #105 0 0 0 453,840 453,840 0.00% Total revenues 444,000 (207,000) 237,000 690,840 453,840 191.49% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 444,000 237,000 690,840 Beginning fund balance 2,690,945 2,690,945 2,927,945 Ending fund balance 3,134,945 2,927,945 3,618,785 #105 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 650,000 (304,000) 346,000 346,000 0 0.00% Investment Interest 6,000 0 6,000 6,000 0 0.00% Total revenues 656,000 (304,000) 352,000 352,000 0 0.00% Expenditures Transfers out - #001 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% Transfers out - #104 0 0 0 453,840 453,840 0.00% Tourism Promotion 795,000 (476,000) 319,000 224,400 (94,600) (29.66%) Total expenditures 825,000 (476,000) 349,000 708,240 359,240 102.93% Revenues over (under) expenditures (169,000) 3,000 (356,240) Beginning fund balance 518,240 518,240 521,240 Ending fund balance 349,240 521,240 165,000 #106 - SOLID WASTE FUND Revenues Solid Waste Administrative Fee 225,000 0 225,000 225,000 0 0.00% Solid Waste Road Wear Fee 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 0.00% Investment Interest 12,000 0 12,000 12,000 0 0.00% Total revenues 1,737,000 0 1,737,000 1,737,000 0 0.00% Expenditures Education & Contract Administration 237,000 0 237,000 237,000 0 0.00% Transfers out - #311 1,500,000 13,532 1,513,532 1,500,000 (13,532) (0.89%) Total expenditures 1,737,000 13,532 1,750,532 1,737,000 (13,532) (0.77%) Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 0 (13,532) 540,182 540,182 540,182 0 526,650 526,650 526,650 34 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget (SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued 1 #107 - PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG Contribution Total revenues Expenditures PEG Reimbursement - CMTV Capital Outlay Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 79,000 2021 Budget 0 79,000 79,000 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 $ 1 0 0.00% 79,000 0 79,000 79,000 0 0.00% 39,500 0 39,500 39,500 0 0.00% 45,500 0 45,500 33,500 (12,000) (26.37%) 85,000 0 85,000 73,000 (12,000) (14.12%) (6,000) 128,255 122,255 (6,000) 6,000 128,255 122,255 122,255 128,255 #108 - AFFORDABLE & SUPPORTIVE HOUSING SALES TAX Revenues Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax 0 144,750 144,750 193,000 48,250 33.33% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues O 144,750 144,750 193,000 48,250 33.33% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 144,750 193,000 Beginning fund balance 0 0 144,750 Ending fund balance 0 144,750 337,750 #120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues O 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 300,000 #121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues O 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 Ending fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 #122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 5,400 0 5,400 1,900 (3,500) (64.81%) Transfers in - #001 0 500,000 500,000 0 (500,000) (100.00%) Subtotal revenues Expenditures Street maintenance expenditures Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 5,400 500,000 505,400 1,900 (503,500) (99.62%) 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% (494,600) 23,336 (471,264) 5,400 (498,100) 23,336 528,736 28,736 30,636 35 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget IDEBT SERVICE FUNDS 1 #204 - LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Total revenues 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 2021 Budget 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 $ 1 459,500 0 459,500 480,800 21,300 4.64% 401,450 0 401,450 401,500 50 0.01% 80,375 0 80,375 80,775 400 0.50% 80,375 0 80,375 80,775 400 0.50% 1,021,700 0 1,021,700 1,043,850 22,150 2.17% Expenditures Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace 459,500 0 459,500 480,800 21,300 4.64% Debt Service Payments - Roads 160,750 0 160,750 161,550 800 0.50% 2016 LTGO Bond Principal & Interest 401,450 0 401,450 401,500 50 0.01% Total expenditures 1,021,700 0 1,021,700 1,043,850 22,150 2.17% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 36 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget (CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 1 #301 - REET 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 1,000,000 2021 Budget 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 $ 0 1 0.00% 35,000 0 35,000 25,000 (10,000) (28.57%) 1,035,000 0 1,035,000 1,025,000 (10,000) (0.97%) Expenditures Transfers out - #204 80,375 0 80,375 80,775 400 0.50% Transfers out - #303 1,089,148 (216,543) 872,605 316,620 (555,985) (63.72%) Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 772,639 0 772,639 827,278 54,639 7.07% Transfers out - #314 (Barker Grade Separation) 49,041 819,967 869,008 0 (869,008) (100.00%) Total expenditures 1,991,203 603,424 2,594,627 1,224,673 (1,369,954) (52.80%) Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance #302 - REET 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2 - Taxes Investment Interest (956,203) 2,798,194 1,841,991 (1,559,627) (199,673) 2,798,194 1,238,567 1,238,567 1,038,894 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0.00% 35,000 0 35,000 25,000 (10,000) (28.57%) Total revenues 1,035,000 0 1,035,000 1,025,000 (10,000) (0.97%) Expenditures Transfers out - #204 80,375 0 80,375 80,775 400 0.50% Transfers out - #303 404,318 113,881 518,199 1,662,684 1,144,485 220.86% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 772,638 0 772,638 827,279 54,641 7.07% Transfers out - #314 0 0 0 1,127,387 1,127,387 0.00% Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 1,257,331 113,881 1,371,212 3,698,125 2,326,913 169.70% (222,331) 4,391,870 4,169,539 (336,212) (2,673,125) 4,391,870 4,055,658 4,055,658 1,382,533 37 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget (CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued #303 - STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds Developer Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Transfers in - #312 - Barker Corridor Transfers in - #312 - Garland Ave Total revenues 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 2021 Budget 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 $ I % 6,596,718 (656,213) 5,940,505 6,843,308 902,803 15.20% 110,499 1,200,560 1,311,059 53,703 (1,257,356) (95.90%) 1,089,148 (216,543) 872,605 316,620 (555,985) (63.72%) 404,318 113,881 518,199 1,662,684 1,144,485 220.86% 39,512 455,779 495,291 0 (495,291) (100.00%) 75,000 1,211,436 1,286,436 0 (1,286,436) (100.00%) 8,315,195 2,108,900 10,424,095 8,876,315 (1,547,780) (14.85%) Expenditures 205 Sprague/Barker Intersections Improvement 195,499 0 195,499 329,453 133,954 68.52% 249 Sullivan/WellesleyIntersection 100,000 50,000 150,000 1,020,522 870,522 580.35% 259 N. Sullivan Corridor ITS Project 810,232 111,117 921,349 0 (921,349) (100.00%) 267 Mission Ave Sidewalk 19,852 116,223 136,075 11,310 (124,765) (91.69%) 273 Barker/I-90 Interchange 90,000 478,655 568,655 0 (568,655) (100.00%) 275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 3,729,143 (1,750,748) 1,978,395 1,132,320 (846,075) (42.77%) 276 Barker Rd Widening - Euclid to Garland 0 380,269 380,269 0 (380,269) (100.00%) 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 300,000 54,060 354,060 7,210 (346,850) (97.96%) 291 Adams Sidewalk !Mill 444,645 0 444,645 0 (444,645) (100.00%) 293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 99,000 0 99,000 74,250 (24,750) (25.00%) 294 Citywide Reflective Signal Post Panels 47,775 0 47,775 17,875 (29,900) (62.59%) 295 Garland Ave Construction 150,000 2,342,371 2,492,371 0 (2,492,371) (100.00%) 299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont 32,000 0 32,000 2,392,450 2,360,450 7376.41% 300 Pines and Mission Intersection Improvement 516,000 0 516,000 498,000 (18,000) (3.49%) 301 Park and Mission Intersection Improvements 0 152,992 152,992 693,000 540,008 352.96% 302 Ella Sidewalk - Broadway to Alki 371,760 0 371,760 0 (371,760) (100.00%) 303 S. Conklin Sidewalk 124,125 0 124,125 0 (124,125) (100.00%) 310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Repl 0 337,625 337,625 317,625 (20,000) (5.92%) 313 Barker Rd/Union Pacific Crossing 0 121,500 121,500 1,312,500 1,191,000 980.25% 318 Wilbur Sidewalk - Boone to Mission 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0.00% 320 Sullivan Preservation - Sprague to 8th 0 0 0 19,800 19,800 0.00% 069 Park Rd Reconstruction #2 (Repay Grant Funds) 285,164 (285,164) 0 0 0 0.00% Contingency 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0.00% Total expenditures 8,315,195 2,108,900 10,424,095 8,876,315 (1,547,780) (14.85%) Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 67,402 67,402 67,402 Ending fund balance 67,402 67,402 67,402 Note: Work performed for pavement preservation projects out of the Street Capital Projects Fund is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that were bid with the pavement preservation work. 38 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget (CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued #309 - PARK CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #312 Total revenues 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 2,500 1,660,000 7,500 1,603,083 1,407,879 111,873 1,605,583 3,067,879 119,373 2021 Budget 480,530 160,000 565,150 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 $ I % (1,125,053) (2,907,879) 445,777 (70.07%) (94.78%) 373.43% 1,670,000 3,122,835 4,792,835 1,205,680 (3,587,155) (74.84%) Expenditures 268 Appleway Trail (Evergreen to Sullivan) 5,000 1,604,376 1,609,376 0 (1,609,376) (100.00%) 296 Browns Park improvements 2019 5,000 116,298 121,298 0 (121,298) (100.00%) 304 CenterPlace west lawn improvements - Ph. 2 1,500,000 401,581 1,901,581 0 (1,901,581) (100.00%) 305 CenterPlace roof repairs 0 810,000 810,000 0 (810,000) (100.00%) 314 Balfour Park frontage improvements 0 59,850 59,850 565,150 505,300 844.28% 315 Browns Park improvements 2020 0 62,995 62,995 499,805 436,810 693.40% 316 Balfour Park improvements - Ph 1 0 11,000 11,000 0 (11,000) (100.00%) Install stage fill speakers Great Room 0 0 0 6,346 6,346 0.00% Repair failed pixels Great Room 0 0 0 6,505 6,505 0.00% Reprogram Great Room A/V System 0 0 0 12,499 12,499 0.00% Repair/replace siding at Mirabeau restroom 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 0.00% Transfers out - #312 (park land acquisition) 0 200,000 200,000 0 (200,000) (100.00%) Total expenditures 1,510,000 3,266,100 4,776,100 1,120,305 (3,655,795) (76.54%) Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance #310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNC Revenues Investment Interest 160,000 78,627 238,627 16,735 78,627 85,375 95,362 95,362 180,737 17,000 0 17,000 3,100 (13,900) (81.76%) Total revenues 17,000 0 17,000 3,100 (13,900) (81.76%) Expenditures Transfers out - #312 0 16,700 16,700 0 (16,700) (100.00%) Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 0 16,700 16,700 0 (16,700) (100.00%) 17,000 855,985 872,985 300 3,100 855,985 856,285 856,285 859,385 Note: The fund balance in #310 includes $839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2022 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839,285.10. #311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION Revenues Transfers in - #001 982,023 0 982,023 991,843 9,820 1.00% Transfers in - #106 1,500,000 13,532 1,513,532 1,500,000 (13,532) (0.89%) Transfers in - #301 772,639 0 772,639 827,278 54,639 7.07% Transfers in - #302 772,638 0 772,638 827,279 54,641 7.07% Grant Proceeds 10,588 0 10,588 0 (10,588) (100.00%) Total revenues 4,037,888 13,532 4,051,420 4,146,400 94,980 2.34% Expenditures Pavement preservation 4,217,523 0 4,217,523 4,676,350 458,827 10.88% Pre -project GeoTech 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 0.00% Total expenditures 4,267,523 0 4,267,523 4,726,350 458,827 10.75% Revenues over (under) expenditures (229,635) (216,103) (579,950) Beginning fund balance 4,425,201 4,425,201 4,209,098 Ending fund balance 4,195,566 4,209,098 3,629,148 39 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued #312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in - #309 Transfers in - #310 Investment Interest Total revenues 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 2021 Budget 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 0 200,000 200,000 0 (200,000) (100.00%) 0 16,700 16,700 0 (16,700) (100.00%) 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 0 0.00% 100,000 216,700 316,700 100,000 (216,700) (68.42%) Expenditures Transfers out - #101 1,364,706 0 1,364,706 0 (1,364,706) (100.00%) Transfers out - #303 (Barker Road Corridor) 39,512 455,779 495,291 0 (495,291) (100.00%) Transfers out - #303 (Garland Ave.) 75,000 1,211,436 1,286,436 0 (1,286,436) (100.00%) Transfers out - #309 (Appleway Trail - Evergreen -Sullivan 7,500 41,023 48,523 0 (48,523) (100.00%) Transfers out - #309 (Balfour Park frontage improvements 0 59,850 59,850 565,150 505,300 844.28% Transfers out - #309 (Balfour Park improvements ph 1) 0 11,000 11,000 0 (11,000) (100.00%) Transfers out - #314 (Pines Rd Underpass) 64,192 3,308 67,500 64,192 (3,308) (4.90%) Transfers out - #314 (Barker Rd Overpass) 0 0 0 411,582 411,582 0.00% Transfers out - #314 (Sullivan Rd Interchange) 0 75,000 75,000 250,000 175,000 233.33% WSDOT Sullivan Park Property Acquisition 0 0 0 759,600 759,600 0.00% WSDOT Flora Park Property Acquisition 0 2,091,600 2,091,600 0 (2,091,600) (100.00%) Total expenditures 1,550,910 3,948,996 5,499,906 2,050,524 (3,449,382) (62.72%) Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,450,910) (5,183,206) (1,950,524) Beginning fund balance 12,936,816 12,936,816 7,753,610 Ending fund balance 11,485,906 7,753,610 5,803,086 #314 - RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 12,808,751 (9,282,373) 3,526,378 11,508,819 7,982,441 226.36% Transfers in - #301 49,041 819,967 869,008 0 (869,008) (100.00%) Transfers in - #302 0 0 0 1,127,387 1,127,387 0.00% Transfers in - #312 64,192 78,308 142,500 725,774 583,274 409.32% Total revenues 12,921,984 (8,384,098) 4,537,886 13,361,980 8,824,094 194.45% Expenditures 143 Barker BNSF Grade Separation 11,475,292 (8,069,316) 3,405,976 9,396,870 5,990,894 175.89% 223 Pines Rd Underpass 1,562,500 (262,500) 1,300,000 4,149,450 2,849,450 219.19% 311 Sullivan Rd Interchange 0 75,000 75,000 250,000 175,000 233.33% Total expenditures 13,037,792 (8,256,816) 4,780,976 13,796,320 9,015,344 188.57% Revenues over (under) expenditures (115,808) (243,090) (434,340) Beginning fund balance 1,008,638 1,008,638 765,548 Ending fund balance 892,830 765,548 331,208 40 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget (ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 - STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees Investment Interest 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 1,900,000 40,000 O 1,900,000 O 40,000 2021 Budget 1,900,000 40,000 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 $ I % O 0.00% O 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 1,940,000 0 1,940,000 1,940,000 0 0.00% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 519,582 0 519,582 538,864 19,282 3.71 % Supplies 14,750 0 14,750 14,750 0 0.00% Services & Charges 1,298,153 0 1,298,153 1,320,643 22,490 1.73% Intergovernmental Payments 37,500 0 37,500 45,000 7,500 20.00% Vehicle rentals - #501 14,000 0 14,000 6,750 (7,250) (51.79%) Total Recurring Expenditures 1,883,985 0 1,883,985 1,926,007 42,022 2.23% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 56,015 0 56,015 13,993 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 59,828 0 59,828 100,000 40,172 67.15% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 59,828 0 59,828 100,000 40,172 67.15% Expenditures Capital - various projects 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% Watershed studies 80,000 0 80,000 100,000 20,000 25.00% Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 0 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 680,000 0 680,000 700,000 20,000 2.94% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (620,172) 0 (620,172) (600,000) Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (564,157) Beginning working capital 2,180,773 Ending working capital 1,616,616 1,616,616 1,030,609 O (564,157) (586,007) 2,180,773 1,616,616 Stormwater Fund Summary Total revenues Total expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning unrestricted fund balance Ending unrestricted fund balance 2,180, 773 1,616,616 1,999,828 2,563,985 1,999,828 2,040,000 2,563,985 2,626,007 (564,157) 0 (564,157) (586, 007) 2,180, 773 1,616,616 1,616,616 1,030,609 #403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County Grant Proceeds Investment Interest Total revenues 460,000 0 460,000 460,000 0 0.00% 349,000 97,700 446,700 2,122,045 1,675,345 375.05% 20,000 0 20,000 15,000 (5,000) (25.00%) 829,000 97,700 926,700 2,597,045 1,670,345 180.25% Expenditures Capital -various projects 500,000 633,571 1,133,571 2,378,109 1,244,538 109.79% Total expenditures 500,000 633,571 1,133,571 2,378,109 1,244,538 109.79% Revenues over (under) expenditures 329,000 (206,871) 218,936 Beginning working capital 2,118,299 2,118,299 1,911,428 Ending working capital 2,447,299 1,911,428 2,130,364 41 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget (INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 - ER&R FUND Revenues Vehicle rentals - #001 Vehicle rentals - #101 Vehicle rentals - #101 (plow replace.) Vehicle rentals - #402 Transfer in - #001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) Transfer in - #001 (Code Enforcement Vehicle) Investment Interest Total revenues 2020 As As Adopted Amendment Amended 2021 Budget 12/08/2020 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 28,000 0 28,000 31,300 3,300 11.79% 14,500 0 14,500 10,250 (4,250) (29.31%) 48,500 0 48,500 60,500 12,000 24.74% 14,000 0 14,000 6,750 (7,250) (51.79%) 36,600 0 36,600 36,600 0 0.00% 30,000 0 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) 19,000 0 19,000 10,000 (9,000) (47.37%) 190,600 0 190,600 155,400 (35,200) (18.47%) Expenditures Small tools & minor equipment 20,000 0 20,000 10,000 (10,000) (50.00%) Vehicle purchase 30,000 0 30,000 130,000 100,000 333.33% Snow plow purchase 235,000 0 235,000 0 (235,000) (100.00%) Loader purchase 0 35,000 35,000 0 (35,000) (100.00%) Total expenditures 285,000 35,000 320,000 140,000 (180,000) (56.25%) Revenues over (under) expenditures (94,400) (129,400) 15,400 Beginning working capital 1,496,093 1,496,093 1,366,693 Ending working capital 1,401,693 1,366,693 1,382,093 #502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 410,000 0 410,000 425,000 15,000 3.66% Total revenues 410,000 0 410,000 425,000 15,000 3.66% Expenditures Auto & Property Insurance 410,000 0 410,000 425,000 15,000 3.66% Total expenditures 410,000 0 410,000 425,000 15,000 3.66% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 276,004 276,004 276,004 Ending fund balance 276,004 276,004 276,004 TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 90,026,301 (1,543,781) 88,482,520 90,086,029 Total of Expenditures for all Funds 89,998,731 9,090,209 99,088,940 97,968,784 Total grant revenues (included in total revenues) 19,827,385 (3,757,403) 16,139,982 21,079,702 Total Capital expenditures (included in total expenditures) 28,594,710 (2,084,942) 26,509,768 32,554,699 42 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Revenues by Fund General Fund Property Tax Sales Tax Sales Tax - Public Safety Sales Tax - Criminal Justice Gambling and Leasehold Excise Tax Franchise Fees/Business Registration State Shared Revenues Service Revenues Fines and Forfeitures Recreation Program Fees Miscellaneous, Investment Int., Transfers Total General Fund 12,724,200 22,220,000 1,054, 800 1,862,400 384,000 1,215, 000 1,760, 000 1,908, 719 1,010,200 643,600 668,500 $ 45,451,419 Other Funds 101 Street Fund $ 5,567,200 103 Paths & Trails Fund 8,900 104 Hotel/Motel Tax Tourism Facilities Fund 690,840 105 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 352,000 106 Solid Waste Fund 1,737,000 107 PEG Fund 79,000 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax 193,000 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 1,900 204 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 1,043,850 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 1,025,000 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 1,025,000 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 8,876,315 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 1,205,680 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 3,100 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 4,146,400 312 Capital Reserve Fund 100,000 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund 13,361,980 402 Stormwater Management Fund 2,040,000 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 2,597,045 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 155,400 502 Risk Management Fund 425,000 Total Other Funds 44,634,610 Total All Funds $ 90,086,029 43 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 General Fund Revenues $45,451,419 Recreation Program Fees 1% Fines & Forfeitures 2% Service Revenues 4% State Shared Revenues 4% Franchise Fees/Business Registrations 3% Gambling Tax 1% Public Safety Sales Tax 2% Criminal Justice Sales Tax 4% Miscellaneous 2% Property Tax 28% Sales Tax 49% Other Special Revenue Funds 3% Street Fund 6% Debt Service Fund [1% 11111111 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 City Wide Revenues $ 90,086,029 l General Fund 51% Capital Projects Funds 33% Stormwater Management Fund 2% APA Fund 3% Internal Service Funds 1% 45 Property Tax Property Tax Property Tax - Delinquent Sales Taxes Sales Tax Sales Tax - Public Safety Sales Tax - Criminal Justice CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - General Fund Detail Revenues by Type 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Amended Budget 2021 Proposed Budget 11,433,071 11,511,773 11,977,663 12,432,400 12,724,200 179,986 197,138 187,462 0 0 11,613,057 21,089,134 983,025 1,765,040 23,837,199 11,708,911 12,165,125 22,642,855 1,074,037 1,906,001 24,204,763 1,149,040 2,028,789 25,622,893 27,382,592 12,432,400 12,724,200 21,784,000 1,034,000 1,826,000 22,220,000 1,054,800 1,862,400 24,644,000 25,137,200 Gambling and Leasehold Excise Tax Amusement Games 14,841 13,456 14,401 10,000 13,000 Card Games 279,611 284,720 326,721 214,000 285,000 Bingo & Raffles 1,060 1,278 2,101 0 1,000 Punch Boards & Pull Tabs 72,292 64,303 76,573 52,000 67,000 Leasehold Excise Tax 11,073 5,469 8,029 7,000 7,000 Leasehold Excise Tax (State) 9,175 11,140 13,790 11,000 11,000 388,052 380,366 441,615 294,000 384,000 Licenses & Permits General Business Licenses 124,006 117,917 115,235 120,000 115,000 Franchise Fees 1,152,203 1,092,287 1,100,597 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,276,209 1,210,204 1,215,832 1,220,000 1,215,000 State Shared Revenues City Assistance State Revenue 0 27,311 112,334 0 0 Streamline Mitigation of Sales Tax 550,976 333,140 2,004 0 0 Payment in Lieu of Taxes - DNR 7,738 0 3,630 4,000 4,000 CJ - High Crime 190,802 268,009 263,038 0 0 MVET Criminal Justice - Population 26,834 27,780 29,063 30,000 32,000 CJ Contracted Services 165,647 171,356 179,012 165,000 165,000 CJ Special Programs 98,475 100,300 104,438 108,300 114,000 Marijuana Enforcement 34,147 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Excise Tax Distribution 41,164 259,242 187,547 110,200 109,000 DUI - Cities 14,187 14,004 13,038 14,000 14,000 Liquor Board Excise Tax 458,560 487,739 533,694 531,000 552,000 Liquor Board Profits 794,980 786,251 781,018 725,700 770,000 2,383,510 2,475,132 2,208,816 1,688,200 1,760,000 Service Revenues Accessory Dwelling 588 420 588 300 353 Building & Planning Fees 175,123 77,010 263,991 186,200 158,390 Building Permits 1,327,855 1,414,420 1,508,693 1,130,000 905,216 Code Enforcement 8,198 15,050 10,734 7,000 6,440 Demolition Permits 4,143 4,074 4,553 4,000 2,732 Entertainment License 11,649 0 7,087 0 4,252 Grading Permits 11,610 22,619 26,286 9,000 15,772 Home Profession Fee 5,124 3,192 2,520 3,600 1,512 Mechanical Permits 129,766 146,519 147,879 110,000 88,727 Misc. Permits & Fees 5,967 18,492 23,968 6,000 13,128 Planning Fees 475,409 751,859 909,688 490,000 547,702 Plumbing Permits 62,542 79,097 74,808 62,000 44,885 Right of Way Permits 123,067 204,963 197,026 120,000 118,216 Street Vacation Permits 1,365 0 4,095 1,300 1,300 Temporary Use Permit Fees 471 157 157 400 94 2,342,877 2,737,872 3,182,073 2,129,800 1,908,719 46 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - General Fund Detail Revenues by Type Fines and Forfeitures Public Safety False Alarm Services Public Safety Grants Fines & Forfeits - Traffic Other Criminal- Non Traffic Fines Recreation Program Charges Activity Fees (To use a recreational facility) Program Fees (To participate in a program) 2017 Actual 5,534 0 421,240 464,056 2018 Actual 27,134 0 414,647 536,505 2019 Actual 64,845 0 428,191 459,460 2020 Amended Budget 100,000 50,000 447,000 480,700 2021 Proposed Budget 75,000 50,000 421,000 464,200 890,830 978,286 952,496 1,077,700 1,010,200 467,504 459,368 526,026 112,331 460,600 271,566 205,289 205,914 7,169 183,000 739,070 664,657 731,940 119,500 643,600 Miscellaneous AWC Health & Wellness 0 949 0 1,000 1,000 Investment Interest 309,826 690,528 916,684 700,000 500,000 Sales Tax Interest 18,315 34,772 46,720 35,000 35,000 Interest on Gambling Tax 271 70 138 500 300 Interest on Liens & Judgments 0 0 187 0 1,000 Police Precinct Rent 37,446 38,244 39,178 39,000 39,000 Police Precinct Maintenance 12,891 14,694 14,717 15,000 15,000 Judgments and Settlements 44,489 0 1,686 0 0 Miscellaneous Revenue & Grant Proceeds 170,760 20,776 28,458 4,571,400 46,000 Copy Charges 595 766 1,520 0 0 SCRAPS pass -through 1,145 1,137 1,172 1,200 1,200 Reimbursement of Chamber wall repairs 0 0 0 500,000 0 595,738 801,936 1,050,460 5,863,100 638,500 Transfers Transfers in - #101 (street admin) 39,700 39,700 0 0 0 Transfers in - #105 (h/m tax-CP advertising) 15,778 26,037 30,000 30,000 30,000 Transfers in - #106 (solid waste repayment) 40,425 40,425 40,422 0 0 Transfers in - #310 498,500 0 0 0 0 Transfers in - #402 (storm admin) 13,400 13,400 0 0 0 Transfers in - #501 77,000 0 0 0 0 684,803 119,562 70,422 30,000 30,000 Total General Fund Revenue 44,751,345 46,699,819 49,401,371 49,498,700 45,451,419 47 101 - Street Fund Utilities tax Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Multimodal Transportation Revenue Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee Investment Interest Other Miscellaneous Revenues & Grants Nonrecurring Transfer in - #001 Nonrecurring Transfer in - #122 Nonrecurring Transfer in - #312 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - Other Funds Detail Revenues by Type 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Amended Budget 2021 Proposed Budget 1,982,391 1,854,641 1,563,981 1,521,000 1,431,000 2,032,175 2,063,390 2,018,186 1,715,000 2,062,000 98,994 133,525 132,637 113,000 130,600 136,112 94,571 84,704 70,000 70,000 7,842 17,504 4,022 17,000 4,000 135,826 97,958 23,911 10,000 10,000 O 0 0 350,200 1,859,600 O 0 620,000 0 0 O 0 907,544 1,364,706 0 4,393,340 4,261,589 5,354,985 5,160,906 5,567,200 103 - Paths & Trails Fund Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax 8,571 8,703 8,512 8,600 8,700 Investment interest 370 390 186 400 200 8,941 9,093 8,698 9,000 8,900 104 - Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund Hotel/Motel Tax 400,509 415,295 454,283 213,000 213,000 Transfers in - #105 250,000 250,000 275,000 0 453,840 Investment interest 6,854 24,183 43,589 24,000 24,000 657,363 689,478 772,872 237,000 690,840 105 - Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Hotel/Motel Tax 615,981 646,975 743,852 346,000 346,000 Investment Interest 3,548 7,058 8,459 6,000 6,000 619,529 654,033 752,311 352,000 352,000 106 - Solid Waste Solid Waste Administrative fee 172,550 182,900 252,396 225,000 225,000 Solid Waste Road Wear fee 0 1,108,028 1,513,532 1,500,000 1,500,000 Grant Proceeds 59,389 0 0 0 0 Investment Interest 1,335 12,486 24,752 12,000 12,000 233,274 1,303,414 1,790,680 1,737,000 1,737,000 107 - PEG Fund Comcast PEG contribution 76,471 81,322 79,498 79,000 79,000 Investment Interest 1,676 971 2,096 0 0 78,147 82,293 81,594 79,000 79,000 108 - Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Affordable & Supportive Sales Tax O 0 0 144,750 193,000 0 0 0 144,750 193,000 121 - Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund Investment Interest 16,575 0 0 0 0 16,575 0 0 0 0 122 - Winter Weather Reserve Fund FEMA Grant Proceeds 3,170 0 10,366 0 0 Investment Interest 3,712 5,354 9,899 5,400 1,900 Transfer in - #001 258,000 490,000 120,000 500,000 0 264,882 495,354 140,265 505,400 1,900 204 - Debt Service - LTGO 03 Fund Facilities District Revenue 379,750 414,050 432,150 459,500 480,800 Transfers in-#001 397,350 399,350 401,250 401,450 401,500 Transfers in - #301 79,426 82,000 82,475 80,375 80,775 Transfers in - #302 79,425 82,000 82,475 80,375 80,775 935,951 977,400 998,350 1,021,700 1,043,850 48 301 - REET 1 Capital Projects Fund REET 1 - 1st Quarter Percent Investment Interest 302 - REET 2 Capital Projects Fund REET 2 - 2nd Quarter Percent Investment Interest CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - Other Funds Detail Revenues by Type 2017 Actual 1,503,787 21,599 1,525,386 1,503,787 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 1,968,317 1,695,344 47,045 61,383 2,015,362 1,756,727 1,968,317 1,695,344 2020 Amended Budget 2021 Proposed Budget 1,000,000 1,000,000 35,000 25,000 1,035,000 1,025,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 25,594 61,879 80,784 35,000 25,000 1,529,381 2,030,196 1,776,128 1,035,000 1,025,000 303 - Street Capital Projects Fund Grant Proceeds 3,499,888 6,566,816 2,783,332 5,940,505 6,843,308 Developer Contributions 124,488 29,144 228,953 1,311,059 53,703 Investment Interest 0 0 586 0 0 Transfers in - #301 294,558 901,287 517,107 872,605 316,620 Transfers in-#302 81,613 1,031,071 (192,297) 518,199 1,662,684 Transfers in-#312 2,138,145 (547,287) 1,999,130 1,781,727 0 6,138,692 7,981,031 5,336,811 10,424,095 8,876,315 309 - Parks Capital Projects Fund Grant Proceeds 1,657,548 1,605,948 1,114,049 1,605,583 480,530 Investment Interest 215 183 83 0 0 Transfers in - #001 160,000 583,206 1,334,369 3,067,879 160,000 Transfers in - #103 0 50,000 0 0 0 Transfers in - #312 277,437 289,661 262,599 119,373 565,150 2,095,200 2,528,998 2,711,100 4,792,835 1,205,680 310 - Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund Investment Interest 9,029 14,049 16,700 17,000 3,100 9,029 14,049 16,700 17,000 3,100 311 - Pavement Preservation Fund Grants 89,209 1,422,404 3,665,905 10,588 0 Investment Interest 20,536 54,724 49,593 0 0 Transfers in - #001 953,200 962,700 972,300 982,023 991,843 Transfers in - #101 67,342 67,342 0 0 0 Transfers in - #106 0 1,000,000 1,608,028 1,513,532 1,500,000 Transfers in - #301 660,479 685,329 734,300 772,639 827,278 Transfers in - #302 660,479 685,329 734,300 772,638 827,279 2,451,245 4,877,828 7,764,426 4,051,420 4,146,400 312 - Capital Reserve Fund Investment Interest 52,170 126,565 225,908 100,000 100,000 Sale of Land 0 405,056 0 0 0 Transfers in - #001 3,003,929 3,795,429 7,109,300 0 0 Transfers in - #309 0 0 0 200,000 0 Transfers in - #310 0 0 18,452 16,700 0 Transfers in - #313 0 0 88,589 0 0 3,056,099 4,327,050 7,442,249 316,700 100,000 313 -City Hall Construction Fund Investment Interest 18,894 1,416 953 0 0 2016 LTGO Bond Issue Proceeds/Premium 0 0 0 0 0 18,894 1,416 953 0 0 49 314 - Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund Grant Proceeds Investment Interest Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Transfers in - #312 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget - Other Funds Detail Revenues by Type 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Amended Budget 2021 Proposed Budget 87,610 571,136 1,447,398 3,526,378 11,508,819 4,072 16,591 15,883 0 0 1,200,000 0 104,918 869,008 0 111,941 (8,147) 0 0 1,127,387 482,216 0 0 142,500 725,774 1,885,839 579,580 1,568,199 4,537,886 13,361,980 402 - Stormwater Management Fund Stormwater Management Fee 1,895,033 1,920,509 1,936,362 1,900,000 1,900,000 Grant Proceeds - Nonrecurring 370,207 128,695 58,746 59,828 100,000 Investment Interest 20,564 40,465 48,642 40,000 40,000 403 - Aquifer Protection Area Fund Spokane County Grant Proceeds Investment Interest 2,285,804 2,089,669 2,043,750 452,110 462,980 58,722 597,733 10,238 28,620 521,070 1,089,333 469,429 101,715 37,329 608,473 1,999,828 2,040,000 460,000 446,700 20,000 460,000 2,122,045 15,000 926,700 2,597,045 501 - Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Interfund Vehicle Lease 146,429 141,929 0 0 0 Vehicle rentals - #001 0 0 30,000 28,000 31,300 Vehicle rentals - #101 0 0 21,250 14,500 10,250 Vehicle rentals - #101 (plow replace.) 0 0 77,929 48,500 60,500 Vehicle rentals - #402 0 0 12,750 14,000 6,750 Transfers in - #001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 36,600 36,600 36,600 36,600 Transfers in - #001 (Code Enforcement Vehicle) 0 0 0 30,000 0 Investment Interest 9,651 19,874 26,715 19,000 10,000 192,680 198,403 205,244 190,600 155,400 502 - Risk Management Fund Transfers in - #001 350,000 370,000 390,000 410,000 425,000 Investment Interest 1,107 2,135 2,124 0 0 351,107 372,135 392,124 410,000 425,000 Total of "Other Fund" Revenues 29,268,428 36,577,704 41,522,639 38,983,820 44,634,610 General Fund Revenues 44,751,345 46,699,819 49,401,371 49,498,700 45,451,419 Total Revenues 74,019,773 83,277,523 90,924,010 88,482,520 90,086,029 50 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget Expenditures by Fund and Department General Fund Council $ 631,566 City Manager 1,158,089 City Attorney 718,593 Public Safety 28,180,515 Operations & Administrative Deputy City Manager 284,844 Finance 1,500,659 Human Resources 318,540 City Hall Operations and Maintenance 301,093 Community & Public Works Engineering 2,098,642 Economic Development 1,070,762 Building and Planning 2,487,066 Parks & Recreation Administration 356,467 Maintenance 940,003 Recreation 328,534 Aquatics 510,053 Senior Center 35,403 CenterPlace 972,214 General Government 5,384,723 Total General Fund $ 47,277,766 Other Funds 101 Street Fund 105 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 106 Solid Waste 107 PEG Fund 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 204 LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 311 Pavement Preservation 312 Capital Reserve Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 Stormwater Management Fund 403 Aquifer Protection Area 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement (ER&R) 502 Risk Management Fund 5,567,200 708,240 1,737,000 73,000 500,000 1,043,850 1,224,673 3,698,125 8,876,315 1,120,305 4,726,350 2,050,524 13,796,320 2,626,007 2,378,109 140,000 425,000 Total Other Funds $ 50,691,018 Total All Funds $ 97,968,784 51 Community & Public Works 12% City Hall Operations 1% Operations & Administrative 4% Council & Executive 5% CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 General Fund Expenditures $47,277,766 Public Safety 760% General Government 11% Parks & Recreation 7% 52 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 City Wide Expenditures $ 97,968,784 Capital Projects Funds 36% Tourism Promotion 1% Street Fund 6% Parks & Recreation 3% Community & Public Works 6% Council / Executive/ Ops & Admin 5% General Government 5% Risk Management 0% Public Safety 29% Debt Service 1% Stormwater & APA Funds 5% Other Activities 3% 53 Wages, Benefits & Payroll Taxes CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget General Fund Expenditures by Department and Type Supplies Services & Charges Intergovernmental Interfund City Council $ 301,266 $ 5,500 $ 324,800 $ 0 $ City Manager 1,087,699 6,800 63,590 0 City Attorney 627,353 4,185 87,055 0 Public Safety 19,000 89,500 277,715 27,752,900 Operations & Administrative Deputy City Manager 243,944 700 40,200 0 0 0 284,844 Finance 1,476,684 3,000 20,975 0 0 0 1,500,659 Human Resources 293,505 1,000 24,035 0 0 0 318,540 Capital Expenditures Total 0 $ 0 $ 631,566 0 0 1,158, 089 0 0 718,593 0 41,400 28,180,515 City Hall Operations and Maintenance 106,593 27,000 167,500 0 0 0 301,093 Community & Public Works Engineering 1,855,308 30,500 212,834 0 0 0 2,098,642 Economic Development 639,017 3,000 428,745 0 0 0 1,070,762 Building and Planning 2,134,016 35,050 318,000 0 0 0 2,487,066 Parks & Recreation Administration 292,667 5,000 58,800 0 0 0 356,467 Maintenance 0 3,500 936,503 0 0 0 940,003 Recreation 230,484 9,150 88,900 0 0 0 328,534 Aquatics 0 2,000 508,053 0 0 0 510,053 Senior Center 28,303 1,600 5,500 0 0 0 35,403 CenterPlace 542,938 85,537 343,739 0 0 0 972,214 General Government 0 81,400 813,050 372,930 3,874,543 242,800 5,384,723 Total $ 9,878,777 $ 394,422 $ 4,719,994 $ 28,125,830 $ 3,874,543 $ 284,200 $ 47,277,766 54 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2020 to 2021 City Council Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total City Manager Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total City Attorney Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Public Safety Non -Departmental (Fines & Forfeits) Wages/Payroll Taxes/Benefits Supplies Other Services and Charges Intergovernmental Services Total Deputy City Manager Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Finance/IT Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Human Resources Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total City Hall Operations & Maintenance Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Community & Public Works - Engineering Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Community & Public Works - Economic Dev Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total 2020 Adopted Budget 2020 Amended Budget 290,187 4,950 327,050 290,187 4,950 327,050 622,187 622,187 920,892 4,300 72,690 954,192 4,300 72,690 997,882 1,031,182 616,403 4,414 87,125 616,403 4,414 87,125 707,942 707,942 2021 Budget 301,266 5,500 324,800 631,566 1,087,699 6,800 63,590 1,158,089 627,353 4,185 87,055 718,593 516,550 516,550 485,900 13,266 13,266 19,000 30,500 30,500 52,000 587,515 337,515 277,715 25,451,383 25,975,872 27,267,000 26,599,214 26,873,703 28,101,615 234,012 950 42,225 234,012 950 42,225 277,187 277,187 1,443,953 6,450 28,120 1,443,953 6,450 28,120 1,478,523 1,478,523 281,331 1,280 30,705 281,331 1,280 30,705 313,316 313,316 94,270 28,000 174,000 94,270 28,000 174,000 296,270 296,270 1,726,845 32,850 212,036 1,710,195 32,850 212,036 1,971,731 1,955,081 724,084 3,000 392,745 724,084 3,000 392,745 1,119,829 243,944 700 40,200 284,844 1,476,684 3,000 20,975 1,500,659 293,505 1,000 24,035 318,540 106,593 27,000 167,500 301,093 1,855,308 30,500 212,834 2,098,642 639,017 3,000 403,745 1,119,829 1,045,762 Difference Between 2020 and 2021 Increase Decrease) Ok 11,079 550 (2,250) 3.82% 11.11% (0.69%) 9,379 1.51% 133,507 2,500 (9,100) 13.99% 58.14% (12.52%) 126,907 12.31% 10,950 (229) (70) 1.78% (5.19%) (0.08%) 10,651 1.50% (30,650) 5,734 21,500 (59,800) 1,291,128 (5.93%) 43.22% 70.49% (17.72%) 4.97% 1,227,912 4.57% 9,932 (250) (2,025) 7,657 4.24% (26.32%) (4.80%) 2.76% 32,731 (3,450) (7,145) 2.27% (53.49%) (25.41 %) 22,136 1.50% 12,174 (280) (6,670) 4.33% (21.88%) (21.72%) 5,224 1.67% 12,323 (1,000) (6,500) 13.07% (3.57%) (3.74%) 4,823 1.63% 145,113 (2,350) 798 8.49% (7.15%) 0.38% 143,561 7.34% (85,067) 0 11,000 (11.75%) 0.00% 2.80% (74,067) (6.61 %) Continued to next page 55 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2020 to 2021 (Continued from previous page) 2020 Adopted Budget 2020 Amended Budget 2021 Budget Community & Public Works - Building & Planning Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 2,044,559 2,044,559 2,134,016 Supplies 47,000 47,000 35,050 Services & Charges 328,855 328,855 318,000 Total Difference Between 2020 and 2021 Increase Decrease) Ok 89,457 (11,950) (10,855) 4.38% (25.43%) (3.30%) 2,420,414 2,420,414 2,487,066 66,652 2.75% Parks & Rec- Admin Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 283,127 283,127 292,667 9,540 3.37% Supplies 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.00% Services & Charges 64,100 49,100 58,800 9,700 19.76% Total 352,227 337,227 356,467 19,240 5.71% Parks & Rec- Maintenance Supplies 3,500 3,500 3,500 0 0.00% Services & Charges 914,000 914,000 936,503 22,503 2.46% Total 917,500 917,500 940,003 22,503 2.45% Parks & Rec- Recreation Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 231,081 181,081 230,484 49,403 27.28% Supplies 8,650 8,650 9,150 500 5.78% Services & Charges 86,190 53,190 88,900 35,710 67.14% Total 325,921 242,921 328,534 85,613 35.24% Parks & Rec- Aquatics Supplies 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 0.00% Services & Charges 499,853 130,853 508,053 377,200 288.26% Total 501,853 132,853 510,053 377,200 283.92% Parks & Rec- Senior Center Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 36,347 36,347 28,303 (8,044) (22.13%) Supplies 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0.00% Services & Charges 5,500 5,500 5,500 0 0.00% Total 43,447 43,447 35,403 (8,044) (18.51%) Parks & Rec- CenterPlace Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 538,083 468,083 542,938 74,855 15.99% Supplies 85,537 67,537 85,537 18,000 26.65% Services & Charges 341,739 281,739 343,739 62,000 22.01 % Total 965,359 817,359 972,214 154,855 18.95% General Government Supplies 99,000 99,000 81,400 (17,600) (17.78%) Services & Charges 802,100 802,100 813,050 10,950 1.37% Intergovernmental Services 362,511 362,511 372,930 10,419 2.87% Capital outlays 57,500 57,500 30,000 (27,500) (47.83%) Total 1,321,111 1,321,111 1,297,380 (23,731) (1.80%) Transfers out - #204 401,450 401,450 401,500 50 0.01 % Transfers out - #309 160,000 160,000 160,000 0 0.00% Transfers out - #311 Pavement Preservation 982,023 982,023 991,843 9,820 1.00% Transfers out - #501 36,600 36,600 36,600 0 0.00% Transfers out - #502 410,000 410,000 425,000 15,000 3.66% Total recurring expenditures 43,221,986 42,898,125 45,101,466 2,203,341 5.14% Continued to next page 56 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2021 Budget General Fund Department Changes from 2020 to 2021 (Continued from previous page) Summary by Category Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Transfers out - #204 Transfers out - #309 Transfers out - #311 Transfers out - #501 Transfers out - #502 Non -Departmental (fines & forfeits) Intergovernmental Svc (public safety) Intergovernmental Svc Capital outlay 2020 Adopted Budget 2020 Amended Budget 2021 Budget Difference Between 2020 and 2021 Increase Decrease) Ok 9,478,440 9,375,090 9,878,777 503,687 5.37% 368,981 350,981 356,922 5,941 1.69% 4,996,548 4,269,548 4,694,994 425,446 9.96% 401,450 401,450 401,500 50 0.01% 160,000 160,000 160,000 0 0.00% 982,023 982,023 991,843 9,820 1.00% 36,600 36,600 36,600 0 0.00% 410,000 410,000 425,000 15,000 3.66% 516,550 516,550 485,900 (30,650) (5.93%) 25,451,383 25,975,872 27,267,000 1,291,128 4.97% 362,511 362,511 372,930 10,419 2.87% 57,500 57,500 30,000 (27,500) (47.83%) 43,221,986 42,898,125 45,101,466 2,203,341 5.14% 57 Fund: 001 Dept: 011 General Fund Legislative Branch Spokane Valley 2021 Budget This department accounts for the cost of providing effective elected representation of the citizenry in the governing body. The Council makes policy decisions for the City and is accountable to Spokane Valley citizens by making decisions regarding how resources are allocated, the appropriate levels of service, and establishing goals and policies for the organization. Accomplishments for 2020 • Updated and adopted a 2021 State Legislative Agenda. • Updated and adopted a Federal Legislative Agenda. • Worked with State and Federal Legislators and Lobbyists on behalf of City interests including lobbying trips to Olympia. • Began the right-of-way acquisition process on the Pines/BNSF Grade Separation Project. • Completed the right-of-way acquisition on the Barker/BNSF Grade Separation Project with the exception of one parcel upon which we've received notification of a Cert 3 acceptance. • Obligated construction funds for the Barker/BNSF Grade Separation Project. • Completed the CenterPlace West Lawn and roof replacement projects at CenterPlace. • In response to the COVID-19 pandemic event and the subsequent federal approval of the CARES Act the City successfully established programs to allocate the nearly $4.4 million we received to partially meet the needs of those members of our community that have suffered the greatest economic loss. This money was used in a variety of ways including rent, mortgage and utility assistance; food security; small business and nonprofit grants; and assisting local school districts in the acquisition of personal protection equipment. • Authorized Staff to apply for a grant of up to $1 million to reimburse the potential acquisition of a 45-acre parcel of land that would in the future be used for park development. • Completed the Evergreen to Sullivan portion of the Appleway Trail project which now means Spokane Valley has a trail running for 5.5 contiguous miles from University to Corbin. • Completed improvements to Indiana Avenue fronting the Spokane Valley Mall with minimal impacts to the adjoining businesses. • Completed the construction of Garland Avenue between Flora and Barker. • Adopted a balanced 2021 Budget and for the twelfth consecutive year did so without taking the 1 % increase in property taxes that is allowed by State Law. • In the midst of a COVID-19 induced recession, adopted a 2021 Budget with status quo levels of service and a General • Fund budget that has recurring revenues exceeding recurring expenditures and an ending fund balance of at least 50% of recurring expenditures. Goals for 2021 1) Work with state and federal legislators towards advancing the concepts outlined in the Bridging the Valley study including obtaining financial assistance for the Pines, Sullivan, and Park Grade Separation Projects. 2) Actively pursue a plan to sustain the City's Pavement Preservation Program, to include sustained financing in Street Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311. 3) Pursue state and federal financial assistance to address transportation concerns along the entire Barker Corridor. 4) Sustain and expand where possible, economic development efforts including the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses. 5) Continue to foster relationships with federal, state, county and local legislators. 6) Pursue financing for Balfour Park and Appleway Trail amenities, and continue the acquisition of park land. 7) Pursue financing for connections between the Appleway Trail, Balfour Park, Dishman Hills and the Centennial Trail creating where possible, a continuous loop for users. 8) Maximize the law enforcement contract to address staffing levels by enhancing recruiting efforts, minimizing out -of -service days, increasing retention, and taking steps to make the officer positions and the Spokane Valley Police Department increasingly appealing as a career path for those seeking to pursue a law enforcement career in Spokane Valley. 9) Increase community interactions, share information, and obtain feedback on current and future projects and priorities. 10) Prioritize involvement in public safety, in particular discussions regarding the jail and the criminal justice system, in order to maintain an understanding of options to keep our costs under control. (continued on next page) 58 Fund: 001 Dept: 011 General Fund Legislative Branch Spokane Valley 2021 Budget (continued from prior page) Personnel - FTE Equivalents Mayor Council Total FTEs Budget Summary 2017 Actual 1.0 6.0 7.0 2018 Actual 1.0 6.0 7.0 2019 Actual 1.0 6.0 7.0 2020 Budget 1.0 6.0 7.0 2021 Budget 1.0 6.0 7.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 219,902 $ 198,884 $ 262,268 $ 290,187 $ 301,266 Supplies 1,974 6,923 5,489 4,950 5,500 Services & Charges 186,243 197,306 295,366 327,050 324,800 Total Legislative Branch $ 408,119 $ 403,113 $ 563,123 $ 622,187 $ 631,566 59 Fund: 001 Dept: 013 General Fund Executive Branch Spokane Valley 2021 Budget 013 - City Manager Division This department is accountable to the City Council for the operational results of the organization, effective support of elected officials in achieving their goals, fulfillment of the statutory requirements of the City Manager, implementation of City Council policies, and provision of a communication linkage between citizens, the City Council, City departments, and other government agencies. Accomplishments for 2020 • Worked to support City Council's 2020 Goals as referenced in the Legislative Branch Budget. • Worked with all City departments to update the 2021 Business Plan that is a precursor to the development of the 2021 Budget which is accomplished by linking community priorities, financial projections and City Council goals. • Prepared a 2021 General Fund Budget with status quo levels of service. • Worked with Council to prepared a 2021 State Legislative Agenda that was discussed by Council on three separate occasions. This was followed by a separate meeting with our 4th District Legislative Delegation where Councilmembers and Legislators discussed areas of common interest, including our legislative agenda. • Worked with Council and Staff to update our Federal Legislative Agenda. • Worked with State and Federal Legislators and Lobbyists on behalf of City interests including lobbying in Olympia. • Continued discussions focused on developing a sustainable plan to finance the City's Pavement Preservation Program including Street O&M Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311 including a discussion on options for preservation surface treatments. Goals for 2021 • Focus staff efforts on the City's budget priorities that are composed of public safety, pavement preservation, transportation and infrastructure and economic development. • Work to support City Council's 2021 Goals as referenced under the Legislative Branch Budget. • Present Council with a balanced 2022 Budget that includes General Fund recurring revenues exceeding recurring expenditures and an ending fund balance that is at least 50% of recurring expenditures. • Work with Federal and State Legislators and Lobbyists on behalf of the interests of our City. • Prepare the 2022 State and Federal Legislative Agendas for Council consideration. Personnel - FTE Equivalents City Manager City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Administrative Analyst Senior Administrative Analyst Administrative Assistant (CC) Executive Assistant (CM) Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator Total FTEs Budget Summary 2017 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 7.0 2020 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 7.5 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 7.5 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 580,529 $ 783,650 $ 830,903 $ 954,192 $ 1,087,699 Supplies 3,569 3,470 3,750 4,300 6,800 Services & Charges 26,059 48,380 53,604 72,690 63,590 Nonrecurring expenditures 0 7,341 0 5,000 0 Total City Manager Division $ 610,157 $ 842,841 $ 888,257 $ 1,036,182 $ 1,158,089 60 Fund: 001 Dept: 013 General Fund Executive Branch Spokane Valley 2021 Budget 015 - City Attorney Division Accomplishments for 2020 • Provided significant assistance to Council and other staff regarding homelessness issues, including issues related to funding affordable housing, available resources, land use issues related to affordable housing and homeless shelters, regional collaboration, and enforcement options. Assisted in development and implementation of new park regulations, and regulations addressing camping on public property. • Provide wide range of assistance to Council and staff regarding response to COVID-19 pandemic. • Significant involvement in a number of legislative land use and permitting issues, including conducting administrative appeals and litigation in Superior Court. • Provide advice and assistance to City Manager and staff regarding ongoing implementation issues with solid waste collection contracts related to changes in recycling markets. • Assisted with issues related to the 2020 lodging tax revenue distributions, including revisions. • Conducted various trainings for Council, Planning Commission, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, and staff. • Assisted with various litigation cases against the City. • Provided legal support to Code Enforcement for prosecuting and abating nuisance cases. • Provided support to senior staff regarding pursuit of City Hall Council Chambers curved wall construction defect issues. • Assisted staff in numerous property acquisition issues associated with the Barker Grade Separation Project. • Assisted staff and Council in drafting legislative agenda for state and federal lobbying efforts, primarily aimed at securing additional funding for the Pines Grade Separation Project. • Negotiated/finalized agreement with Valleyfest for adoption. • Acted as City liaison with regional entities on a broad range of criminal justice and mental health issues, including the Spokane Regional Law and Justice Council, and the Justice Task Force. • Responded to numerous public record issues, including review of records. Goals for 2021 • Have a fully -operational office that proactively assists in program development, advises all departments on legal issues in a timely manner and manages all potential and existing litigation. • Work with Community and Public Works and Finance in identifying and implementing economic development options. • Assist other departments in analyzing and mapping existing processes to determine compliance with laws and whether higher levels of customer service can be achieved. • Assist Council and staff in accomplishing items on the 2021 state Legislative Agenda. Personnel - FTE Equivalents City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Attorney Administrative Assistant - Legal Total FTEs Budget Summary 2017 Actual 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 3.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 3.5 2020 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 Interns 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 411,988 $ 472,873 $ 510,618 $ 616,403 $ 627,353 Supplies 1,030 1,340 1,220 4,414 4,185 Services & Charges 66,130 49,896 53,911 87,125 87,055 Nonrecurring expenditures 0 5,919 0 0 0 Total City Attorney Division $ 479,148 $ 530,028 $ 565,749 $ 707,942 $ 718,593 61 Fund: 001 Dept: 016 General Fund Public Safety Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Public Safety department budget provides funds for the protection of persons and property in the city. The City contracts with Spokane County for law enforcement, district court, prosecutor services, public defender services, probation services, jail and animal control services. See following page for detail information on each budgeted section. Recurring Expenditures: Judicial System - The Spokane County District Court is contracted to provide municipal court services. The contract provides for the services of judge and court commissioner with related support staff. Budgeted amount also includes jury management fees. Law Enforcement - The Spokane County Sheriffs Office is responsible for maintaining law and order and providing police services to the community under the direction of the Police Chief. The office provides for the preservation of life, protection of property, and reduction of crime. Jail System - Spokane County provides jail and probation services for persons sentenced by any City of Spokane Valley Municipal Court Judge for violating laws of the city or state. Animal Control - Spokane County will provide animal control services to include licensing, care and treatment of lost or stray animals, and response to potentially dangerous animal confrontations. Non -Departmental Fines and forfeitures to the State of Washington Grant expenditures $ 2,245,000 23,480,715 1,500,000 350,000 485,900 40,000 Total Recurring Expenditures 28,101,615 Nonrecurring Expenditures: Building repair and office furniture Machinery and equipment Total Nonrecurring Expenditures Total Recurring and Nonrecurring Expenditures 30,000 48,900 78,900 $ 28,180,515 62 Recurring: Judicial System: District Court Contract Public Defender Contract Prosecutor Contract Pretrial Services Contract Subtotal Judicial System Law Enforcement System: City of Spokane Valley 2021 Budget 016 - Public Safety 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 712,168 $ 836,995 $ 888,965 $ 919,269 $ 925,000 697,986 788,302 745,088 740,207 750,000 464,250 457,949 424,896 383,169 450,000 107,807 105,793 109,783 120,000 120,000 1,982,211 2,189,039 2,168,732 2,162,645 2,245,000 Sheriff Contract 17,792,178 20,177,258 20,272,826 22,218,101 23,072,000 Emergency Management Contract 97,094 92,296 89,425 100,000 100,000 Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 2,819 9,802 16,164 13,266 19,000 Operating Supplies 3,509 2,346 72 2,500 0 Clothing & Uniform 0 358 636 0 0 Repair& Maintenance. Supplies 1,202 2,730 11,208 3,000 12,000 Professional Services 0 3,373 3,773 3,500 4,000 Cell Phones 0 278 469 0 0 Registrations 0 0 70 0 0 Electricity/Gas 18,283 16,505 16,579 18,000 18,000 Water 1,621 1,806 1,762 2,000 2,000 Sewer 2,102 1,348 1,079 2,300 2,000 Waste Disposal 3,442 585 0 0 0 Janitorial Services 0 32,325 28,631 0 30,000 Law Enf. Bldg Maintenance Contract 74,108 26,235 16,706 61,000 20,000 Taxes and Assessments 715 715 715 715 715 Equipment Rental 0 0 767 0 1,000 Miscellaneous Services/Contingency 0 0 0 250,000 200,000 False Alarm Charges & Fees 3,135 404 809 0 0 Bank Fees 2,333 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Law Enforcement System 18,002,541 20,368,364 20,461,691 22,674,382 23,480,715 Jail System: Jail Contract 1,331,721 1,249,948 1,493,325 1,145,126 1,500,000 Subtotal Jail System 1,331,721 1,249,948 1,493,325 1,145,126 1,500,000 Other: Fines & Forfeitures State Remittance 464,056 495,683 441,880 516,550 485,900 Animal Control Contract 293,425 299,139 306,509 350,000 350,000 Non -Capital Equipment for JAG Grant 0 0 0 25,000 40,000 Settle & Adjust (1,087,807) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Other (330,326) 794,822 748,389 891,550 875,900 Subtotal Recurring 20,986,147 24,602,173 24,872,137 26,873,703 28,101,615 Nonrecurring: Police Athletic League Grant 0 0 4,069 0 0 Building Repair and Maintenance 0 0 0 15,000 30,000 Carpet and Workstation Replacement 0 0 59,272 0 0 Replace HVAC units 0 0 0 60,000 0 Replace handguns and speed trailer 0 0 0 0 48,900 LEC Labor Contract Settlement 323,445 0 0 0 0 Full Facility Generator 0 0 141,690 58,310 0 Capital outlay - CAD / RMS 131,018 22,372 0 0 0 Subtotal Nonrecurring 454,463 22,372 205,031 133,310 78,900 Total Public Safety $ 21,440,610 $ 24,624,545 $ 25,077,168 $ 27,007,013 $ 28,180,515 63 City of Spokane Valley 2021 Budgeted Contract Expenditures $25,000,000 - $20,000,000 - $15,000,000 - $10,000,000 - $5,000,000 - $- $925,000 750,000 450,000 23,072,000 100,000 20,000 1,500,000 350,000 District Court Public Defender Prosecutor Sheriff Contract Emergency Law Enf. Bldg Jail Contract Animal Control Contract Contract Contract Management Maintenance Contract Contract Contract 64 Fund: 001 Dept: 018 General Fund Operation & Administrative Services Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Operations & Administrative Services Department is composed of three divisions, the Deputy City Manager Division, the Finance Division, and the Human Resources Division. 013 - Deputy City Manager Division The Deputy City Manager (DCM) supervises the Community and Public Works Department, assists the City Manager in organizing and directing the other operations of the City, and assumes the duties of City Manager in his/her absence. Accomplishments for 2020 • Supported the 2020 Goals of the Legislative and Executive Branch. • Worked with the City Manager and Staff to develop the 2021 Business Plan. • Maintained City operations for permitting and capital projects throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. • Completed the infrastructure projects within the Northeast Industrial Area and continued the recruitment processes for ongoing industrial projects. • Completed the design for the Barker Grade Separation Project and obligated state and federal construction funds. Goals for 2021 • Initiate construction of the Barker Grade Separation Project. • Conduct Council discussions on localized and city wide traffic impact fees for new development. • Complete the design of the Pines Grade Separation Project. • Continue to seek funding for the Pines Grade Separation Project. • Oversee the design of the City Hall repairs. Personnel - FTE Equivalents Deputy City Manager Senior Administrative Analyst Public Information Officer Administrative Analyst Office Assistant I Office Assistant 11 Total FTEs Budget Summary 2017 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 2018 Actual 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2019 Actual 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2020 Budget 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2021 Budget 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Intern 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 637,606 $ 354,918 $ 222,070 $ 234,012 $ 243,944 Supplies 1,277 425 0 950 700 Services & Charges 52,555 83,335 37,162 42,225 40,200 Nonrecurring Software Purchase (Q-Alert) 0 13,195 0 0 0 Total Deputy City Manager Division $ 691,438 $ 451,873 $ 259,232 $ 277,187 $ 284,844 65 Fund: 001 Dept: 018 General Fund Operation & Administrative Services Spokane Valley 2021 Budget 014 - Finance Division The Finance Division provides financial management services for all City departments. Programs include accounting and financial reporting, payroll, accounts payable, purchasing, budgeting and financial planning, treasury, information technology and investments. The division is also responsible for generating and analyzing financial data related to the City's operations. The department prepares Finance Activity Reports for review by the City Manager and City Council as well as the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) that is subject to an annual audit by the Washington State Auditor's Office. Accomplishments for 2020 • Implemented audit recommendations. • Completed the 2019 CAFR by the extended deadline of July 1, 2020, and received a "clean audit opinion" despite being short staffed due to turnover and the COVID-19 pandemic. • Maintained consistent levels of service in payroll, accounts payable, budget development, periodic financial report preparation, and information technology services. • Worked with Finance staff to cross -train position responsibilities and knowledge base where possible; The Finance department will implement further cross training procedures among department personnel to provide adequate coverage if or when unforeseeable circumstances arise. • Replaced financial statement preparation software, and provided training to staff on the new software. • Continued with the ongoing process of refining the replacement program for IT resources. • Added a new IT Manager position to the department. • Completed an IT cybersecurity audit with the State Auditor's Office and began long term planning to strengthen the City's cybersecurity infrastructure. • Implemented software to provide testing and training to City staff on common cyber attacks, such as phishing emails. • Worked with City Council, the City Attorneys Office, and other departments to allocate the CARES Act funding received by the City in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Performed financial reporting and grant reimbursements for the funding through the Department of Commerce. Evaluated expenditures for eligibility with the program. • Implemented a new electronic accounts payable process in order to facilitate invoice review and approval while City staff were required to work from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Goals for 2021 • Maintain a consistent level of service in payroll, accounts payable, budget development, periodic and annual financial report preparation and information technology services. • Work with Finance staff to cross -train position responsibilities and knowledge base where possible. The Finance department will implement further cross training procedures among department personnel to provide adequate coverage if or when unforeseeable circumstances arise. • Provide adequate training opportunities to allow staff members to remain current with changes in pronouncements by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), changes in the Eden financial management system, and changes in the electronic technology that allows all City employees to be more efficient and effective. • Continue with the ongoing process of refining the replacement program for IT hardware resources including server hardware, network hardware, printers, and network -based appliances (firewalls, email backup, network switches, intrusion prevention hardware, etc.), desktop computers, and the phone system. This will continue to be the foundation for future budget developments and in large part dictate operational workload through the course of the next year. • Explore new software to replace the Eden Financial Management System which has reached end of life. • Implement Laserfische Workflow for City processes. (continued on next page) 66 Fund: 001 Dept: 018 General Fund Operation & Administrative Services Spokane Valley 2021 Budget (continued from prior page) Personnel - FTE Equivalents Finance Director Accounting Manager Accountant/Budget Analyst Accounting Technician IT Manager IT Specialist GIS/Database Administrator Help Desk Technician Total FTEs Budget Summary 2017 Actual 1.00 1.00 3.75 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 11.75 2018 Actual 1.00 1.00 3.75 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 11.75 2019 Actual 1.00 1.00 3.75 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 11.75 2020 Budget 1.00 1.00 3.75 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 11.75 2021 Budget 1.00 1.00 3.75 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 11.75 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 1,209,761 $ 1,269,966 $ 1,275,580 $ 1,443,953 $ 1,476,684 Supplies 3,507 3,350 2,798 6,450 3,000 Services & Charges 20,764 20,667 18,113 28,120 20,975 Total Finance Division $ 1,234,032 $ 1,293,983 $ 1,296,491 $ 1,478,523 $ 1,500,659 67 Fund: 001 Dept: 018 General Fund Operation & Administrative Services Spokane Valley 2021 Budget 016 - Human Resources Division Human Resources (HR) is administered through the City Manager. The HR operation provides services in compensation, benefits, training and organizational development, staffing, employee relations, and communications. The Human Resources Office also provides Risk Management services as well as Website and Mobile App design and maintenance Accomplishments for 2020 • Implemented the City's comprehensive Employee Emergency Response Plan. • Supported management and employees responding to COVID 19 . • Offered on-line training to employees working remotely. • Supported the City's update of the Continuity Of Operations Plan. • Attained the 2020 Wellcity Award reducing health care plan expense for the City and employees. • Revised the City's Anti -Harassment and Equal Employment Opportunity policies in preparation for future training. Goals for 2021 • Successfully bargain a successor Collective Bargaining Agreement with Local 270v. • Support departments in the Cities return from COVID-19 precautions. • Increase timely completion of annual employee reviews. • Examine employee benefit options to target employee needs and reduce employment expenses. • Provide Anti -Harassment and Equal Employment Opportunity training to employees and Supervisors. Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents Human Resource Manager Human Resource Technician Total FTEs 2017 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 235,127 Supplies 1,469 Services & Charges 15,947 Total Human Resources Division $ 252,543 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 $ 251,995 1,227 21,949 $ 275,171 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 $ 268,140 1,888 23,302 $ 293,330 2020 Budget 1.0 1.0 2.0 $ 281,331 1,280 30,705 $ 313,316 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 2.0 $ 293,505 1,000 24,035 $ 318,540 68 Fund: 001 Dept: 032 General Fund Public Works Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Public Works Department was consolidated into the new Community and Public Works Department during the City's reorganization effective April 1, 2017. Historical information will be included here for comparison purposes until the prior years' activity drops off of the below Budget Summary. Personnel - FTE Equivalents Public Works Director Administrative Assistant Capital Improvements Program Manager Engineer Engineering Technician I Engineering Technician 11 Maint/Const Inspector Planning Grants Engineer Senior Engineer Senior Engineer - Proj Mgmt Total FTEs Budget Summary 2017 Actual 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.375 0.0 2.0 10.875 2018 Actual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 Actual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2021 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 658,439 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Supplies 12,469 0 0 0 0 Services & Charges 88,179 0 0 0 0 Total Public Works $ 759,087 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 69 Fund: 001 Dept: 033 General Fund City Hall Operations and Maintenance Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Community and Public Works Division provides management and oversight of the City Hall Operations and Maintenance Department. This department is responsible for the overall operations and maintenance of the City Hall facility, the construction of which broke ground in June of 2016 and was completed in the Fall of 2017. The building is located on a 3.38 acre site at the southeast corner of Sprague Avenue and Dartmouth Road. The City Hall Operations and Maintenance Department is responsible for, among other things, the grounds maintenance, janitorial services, and maintenance of the HVAC and other building systems. This department is also responsible for the operations and maintenance of other City facilities, such as the Valley Precinct and the Street Maintenance Shop, as time allows. Accomplishments for 2020 • Explored opportunities for cost savings related to contract services: landscape maintenance, etc. • Tracking maintenance request system with the newly created tracking system to more easily prioritize requests. • Continue to coordinate maintenance activities with SVPD Precinct staff. • Continue to coordinate maintenance activities with Street Maintenance Shop staff. • Refined City Hall security system functions to reduce false alarms. • Created annual building systems maintenance schedule: elevator, alarm, suppression, etc. • Complete City Hall facade improvements following maintenance/repair activities. Goals for 2021 • Continue options for cost savings related to contract services: landscape maintenance, etc. • Monitor maintenance tracking system in order to prioritize work. • Continue to coordinate maintenance activities with SVPD Precinct staff. • Continue to coordinate maintenance activities with Street Maintenance Shop staff. • Coordinate emergency preparedness drills with affected staff and coordinating agencies. Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents Maintenance Worker - Facilities Total FTEs 2017 Actual 0.0 0.0 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 2020 Budget 1.0 1.0 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 0 $ 74,264 $ 86,534 $ 94,270 $ 106,593 Supplies 3,289 27,757 32,920 28,000 27,000 Services & Charges 55,159 163,323 156,699 174,000 167,500 Nonrecurring expenditures 36,509 0 174,807 500,000 0 Total Administrative Division $ 94,957 $ 265,344 $ 450,960 $ 796,270 $ 301,093 70 Fund: 001 Dept: 040 General Fund Community & Public Works Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Community and Public Works Department is a new department as a result of the City's reorganization effective April 1, 2017. This Department is a consolidation of the previous Public Works and Community and Economic Development Departments. It is comprised of three divisions: the Engineering Division, the Economic Development Division, and the Building and Planning Division. 041 - Engineering Division The Engineering Division combines Development Engineering from the previous Community & Economic Development Department with the engineering service provided by the previous Public Works Department. The Engineering Division includes the following functions: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plans, designs, and constructs new facilities and maintains, preserves, and reconstructs existing facilities owned by the City of Spokane Valley. Development Engineering (DE) ensures that land actions and commercial building permits comply with the adopted codes for private infrastructure development through plan review and construction inspection. Traffic Management and Operations provides traffic engineering for safe and efficient multi -faceted transportation systems throughout the City (included in the Street Fund #101). Utilities oversees the City's surface and Stormwater Utility, manages the City's contracts for solid waste collection and disposal, and coordinates other utility issues on behalf of the City as assigned (included in the Stormwater Management Fund #402). Street Maintenance provides responsive maintenance and repairs for 461 center line miles of City streets. The City of Spokane Valley operates ten City -owned snow plows which are responsible for the clearing of the priority 1 and 2 roads along with selected hillsides (included in the Street Fund #101). Accomplishments for 2020 • Implemented approved capital projects. • Administered and managed state and federal funds received for capital projects. • Assisted with the preparation of grant applications for capital projects. • Completed the design and right-of-way acquisition processes for the Barker Road Grade Separation Project. • Secured federal funds to fully fund the right-of-way phase of the Pines Road Grade Separation Project. • Continued to coordinate regional transportation issues with Spokane Regional Transportation Council, adjoining municipalities, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. • Began the preliminary engineering design of the Pines Road GSP project and acquired 3 parcels needed for the project. • Completed the construction of the Appleway Trail between Sullivan and Evergreen - providing a contiguous 5.1 mile trail. • Maintain development engineering plan review times of less than two weeks. Goals for 2021 • Implement approved capital projects. • Administer the construction phase of the Barker Road Grade Separation Project. • Advance the preliminary engineering and right-of-way phase of the Pines Road Grade Separation Project. • Continue pursuing opportunities to fund the completion of the Pines Road Grade Separation Project. • Administer and manage state and federal funds received for capital projects. • Assist in the preparation of grant applications for capital projects. • Continue to coordinate regional transportation issues with SRTC, WSDOT, and other agencies. • Begin the process of developing a city-wide, comprehensive Asset Management Program. • Begin a review of the City's adopted Street Standards, providing updates where necessary. (continued on next page) 71 Fund: 001 Dept: 040 General Fund Community & Public Works Spokane Valley 2021 Budget (continued from prior page) Personnel - FTE Equivalents Administrative Assistant Assistant Engineer City Engineer Engineer Engineering Manager Engineering Tech I Engineering Tech 11 Main/Construction Inspector Planning Grants Engineer Senior Dev Engineer Senior Engineer-Proj Mgmt. Water Resource Sr. Engineer Total FTEs Budget Summary 2017 Actual 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2018 Actual 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 2019 Actual 2.0 0.45 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.75 2.0 0.375 1.0 1.7 1.0 12.0 2020 Budget 2.0 0.20 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.75 2.0 0.375 1.0 1.7 1.0 13.525 2021 Budget 2.0 0.70 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.75 2.0 0.375 1.0 1.7 1.0 14.025 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 0 $ 1,234,170 $ 1,472,750 $ 1,710,195 $ 1,855,308 Supplies 0 22,772 30,616 32,850 30,500 Services & Charges 0 149,142 200,147 212,036 212,834 Total Engineering Division $ 0 $ 1,406,084 $ 1,703,513 $ 1,955,081 $ 2,098,642 * These positions are budgeted partially to the Engineering Division in the General Fund with the balance budgeted as a part of Capital Projects Funds, the Street Fund #101, and the Stormwater Fund #402. 72 Fund: 001 Dept: 040 General Fund Community & Public Works Spokane Valley 2021 Budget 042 - Economic Development Division The Economic Development Division oversees the Comprehensive Plan, the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), Community Development Block Grants and Public Relations. The Division works to build relationships with businesses, the community, and economic development partners to pursue economic development strategies ensuring long-term fiscal strength of the City. Accomplishments for 2020 • Worked with our retail recruiter to implement the retail improvement strategy and developed a sales tax estimation tool. • Processed the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments that included a city -initiated areawide rezone. • Collaborated with the private sector to facilitate the successful development of Mirabeau Point. • Evaluated and approved projects in the Northeast Industrial Area as Planned Actions expediting permit reviews. • Developed and processed a code text amendment to provide criteria to evaluate annexations. • Researched and identified new target industries for recruitment, retention and expansion. • Collaborated with economic development partners and related service providers. • Used CDBG funds to provide sewer hookup assistance in low and moderate income areas. • Worked with Visit Spokane to complete an updated tourism brochure and website content. • Developed a branded series of print materials informing citizens of city services. • Updated the city's newsletter to a magazine format producing fewer but more comprehensive issues. • Utilized new and existing social media platforms to increase citizen pride and the public's awareness of city services. • Completely overhauled the content management system for the Economic Development website. • Completed a paid digital marketing campaign to promote restaurants that provided takeout/delivery during pandemic. • Completed paid digital marketing campaigns to promote federal and city CARES Act grants. • Developed extensive web content to keep businesses, nonprofits and residents updated on pandemic. • Completed digital campaigns for manufacturing, aerospace, health sciences/tech industries and skilled labor recruitment. • Developed videos on the completion of the Appleway Trail and on the Pines Rd/BNSF Grade Separation Project. • Completed Appleway Trail Economic Development Study funded by CERB grant. • Sent emails or postcards to more than 10,000 businesses who purchased a new or renewed city business license. • Developed and promoted virtual business workshops with Spokane Valley Chamber, SNAP and StartUp Spokane. • Created new messages quarterly for the phone system about city services, programs and events. • Informed media/public about road construction projects with map, press release, newsletter article and mailers. • Partnered with Parks & Recreation to publicize programs, events and related construction projects. Goals for 2021 • Implement the retail recruitment strategy. • Collaborate with the private sector to facilitate the successful development of Mirabeau Point. • Continue industry recruitment, retention and expansion. • Develop marketing campaigns to promote business recruitment, retention and expansion. • Collaborate with economic development partners and related service providers. • Identify infrastructure improvements needed to foster economic development. • Use CDBG funds to support economic vitality in low and moderate income areas. • Seek grants to support economic development initiatives. • Coordinate the development and adopt the Housing Action Plan. • Facilitate the development of the Shoreline Master Program update. • Review and process city and privately initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. • Develop homelessness goals and policies to provide direction to City leaders. • Continue to analyze impacts of COVID-19 on city businesses and provide guidance to improve local economy. • Work with partners to enhance existing events, including state of the city, and bring new events to Spokane Valley. • Develop marketing campaigns to promote city events in 2021 to enhance tourism. • Enhance the Economic Development website content to attract skilled labor, with an emphasis on remote workers. • Enhance the use of video as a communications tool and strategy on city websites and in social media. • Developed strategies to enhance business connections to Appleway Trail, as identified in 2020 CERB study. • Utilize new and existing social media platforms to increase citizen pride and the public's awareness of city services. • Produced semi-annual newsletter informing citizens of current projects, services and events. • Continue to develop a PIO group of city, county and emergency services that meets periodically. • Increase media contacts and establish and retain media relationships for greater sharing of city services. • Partner with Parks and Recreation to publicize programs, events and related construction projects. • Create and upload new messages quarterly for the phone system about city services, programs and events. • Continue evaluating city website to determine potential improvements to design, navigation and content. • Gather updated high resolution photos of City Council, CenterPlace, area parks and scenic sites. (continued on next page) 73 Fund: 001 Dept: 040 General Fund Community & Public Works Spokane Valley 2021 Budget (continued from prior page) Personnel - FTE Equivalents Economic Development Manager Economic Development Specialist Planning Grants Engineer Public Information Officer Senior Transportation Planner Office Assistant I Total FTEs Interns Budget Summary 2017 Actual 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.4 6.0 6.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 0 $ 655,942 $ 582,027 $ 724,084 $ 639,017 Supplies 0 3,008 1,954 3,000 3,000 Services & Charges 0 294,699 333,157 392,745 403,745 Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 23,000 25,000 128,000 25,000 Total Engineering Division $ 0 $ 976,649 $ 942,138 $ 1,247,829 $ 1,070,762 74 Fund: 001 Dept: 040 General Fund Community & Public Works Spokane Valley 2021 Budget 043 - Building and Planning Division The Building and Planning Division is responsible for implementing and enforcing the State Building Code as required by state law. The purpose of the International Codes, as adopted by the State of Washington and City of Spokane Valley, is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants or users of the building and structures and the general public by requiring minimum performance standard for structural strength, exit systems, stability sanitation, light, ventilation, energy conservation, and fire safety to ensure the City's comply with various codes. The Planning program's current primary responsibilities include processing revisions to the City's Municipal Code, reviewing land use applications to ensure compliance with adopted development regulations, with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)(RCW 43.21C), and with the state subdivision law (RWC 58.17). Accomplishments for 2020 • Redefined processes in order to work on an online submittal process. • Enhanced electronic plan submittal/review capabilities. • Continued to expand online permitting to include additional project types. • Continued development of educational opportunities for public awareness of Code Enforcement Program. • Sought out additional opportunities to develop relationships with outside agencies. • Worked to repair/enhance SMARTGov reporting accuracy. • Participate in SMARTGov system focus group with other jurisdictions. • Utilized Office of City Attorney staff expertise related to legal aspects of code enforcement to improve case close-out. • Work with Economic Development team to improve website content/function. Goals for 2021 • Begin process for scanning commercial address files. • Continue to coordinate with the City Attorneys office on code enforcement cases. • Work to enhance relationships with our outside agencies. • Continue to work on website enhancements for better customer service. • Install customer terminal in Permit Center for self-help services. • Implement 2018 building codes as per SBCC adoption; process CTA related to SVMC Title 24 accordingly. • Continue to work to improve SMARTGov reporting accuracy. • Continue to improve processes for online submittals. Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents Administrative Assistant Assistant Building Official Building Inspector II Building Official Code Enforcement Officer Development Service Coordinator Engineering Tech Office Assistant I Office Assistant II Permit Facilitator Permit Specialist/Facilitator Planner Plans Examiner Senior Planner Senior Plans Examiner Total FTEs 2017 Actual 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 19.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 19.0 2020 Budget 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 21.0 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 21.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 0 $ 1,614,264 $ 1,860,223 $ 2,044,559 $ 2,134,016 Supplies 0 25,114 17,305 47,000 35,050 Services & Charges 0 228,090 299,929 328,855 318,000 Intergovernmental Payments 0 38,718 0 0 0 Nonrecurring expenditures 0 0 0 13,700 0 Total Building Division $ 0 $ 1,906,186 $ 2,177,457 $ 2,434,114 $ 2,487,066 75 Fund: 001 Dept: 058 General Fund Community & Economic Development Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Community and Economic Development Department was consolidated into the new Community and Public Works Department during the City's reorganization effective April 1, 2017. Historical information will be included here for comparison purposes until the prior years' activity drops off of the below Budget Summary. 050 - Administration Division Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents Community Development Director Administrative Assistant Total FTEs 2017 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 2018 Actual 0 0 0 2019 Actual 0 0 0 2020 Budget 0 0 0 2021 Budget 0 0 0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 77,974 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Supplies 2,463 0 0 0 0 Services & Charges 9,484 0 0 0 0 Nonrecurring expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Total Administrative Division $ 89,921 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Personnel - FTE Equivalents Engineer Senior Planner - CD E.D. Project Specialist Total FTEs 051 - Economic Development Division Budget Summary 2017 Actual 0.65 1.0 1.0 2.65 2018 Actual 0 0 0 0 2019 Actual 0 0 0 0 2020 Budget 0 0 0 0 2021 Budget 0 0 0 0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 291,881 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Supplies 965 0 0 0 0 Services & Charges 191,615 0 0 0 0 Nonrecurring expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Total Economic Development Division $ 484,461 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 76 Fund: 001 Dept: 058 General Fund Community & Economic Development Spokane Valley 2021 Budget Personnel - FTE Equivalents Development Services Manager Engineer Assistant Engineer Senior Planner Planner Maint/Construction Inspector Code Enforcement Officer ROW Inspector Office Assistant I Senior Engineer Engineering Technician Total FTEs Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Intergovernmental Payments Total Development Services Division Personnel - FTE Equivalents Building Official Building Inspector II Planner Development Service Coordinator Engineering Tech Office Assistant I Permit Facilitator Plans Examiner Senior Plans Examiner Code Enforcement Officer Assistant Planner Total FTEs Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits Supplies Services & Charges Total Building Division 055/056 - Development Services Division Budget Summary 2017 Actual 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 $ 843,860 10,374 227,112 39,546 2018 Actual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 Actual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 2020 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O $ 0 0 0 $ 1,120,892 $ 0 $ 057 - Building Division Budget Summary 2017 Actual 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 14.0 2018 Actual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 1,096,598 $ 10,413 75,917 2021 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O $ 0 0 0 O $ 2019 Actual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O $ 0 0 $ 1,182,928 $ O $ 2020 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O $ 0 0 O $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 2021 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O $ 0 O 0 O 0 O $ 0 77 Fund: 001 Dept: 076 General Fund Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Parks and Recreation Department is composed of six divisions including Administration, Maintenance, Recreation, Aquatics, Senior Center, and CenterPlace. The overall goal of the department is to provide quality recreation programs and acquisition, renovation, development, operation and maintenance of parks and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities. 000 - Parks Administration Division The Administration Division provides direction and leadership for the Parks and Recreation Department in implementing the goals and objectives of the City Council and facilitates the general upkeep of parks and public areas of the City. Accomplishments for 2020 • Completed Phase 2 of CenterPlace West Lawn Master Plan. • Completed Valley Mission Horse Arena Master Plan. • Completed construction of the Evergreen to Sullivan section of the Appleway Trail. • Completed RCO grant application for the acquisition of the Flora Road property. Goals for 2021 • Complete construction of play equipment, restroom and shelter at Browns Park. • Work with DNR on the partnership for the 100 acre natural area adjacent to Mirabeau Park. • Complete one land acquisition. • Prepare 2022 budget requests to begin developing a Phase of the Horse Arena Master Plan. • Replace siding on Mirabeau Meadows restroom. • Become a Tree City USA. Personnel - FTE Equivalents Parks & Recreation Director Administrative Assistant Total FTEs Budget Summary 2017 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 2.0 2020 Budget 1.0 1.0 2.0 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 2.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 242,763 $ 249,140 $ 266,534 $ 283,127 $ 292,667 Supplies 2,468 2,626 2,778 5,000 5,000 Services & Charges 42,953 36,520 56,899 49,100 58,800 Nonrecurring expenditures 364,346 0 0 0 0 Total Parks Administration Division $ 652,530 $ 288,286 $ 326,211 $ 337,227 $ 356,467 78 Fund: 001 Dept: 076 General Fund Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley 2021 Budget 300 - Maintenance Division The Parks Maintenance Division is responsible for the contracted maintenance and upkeep of our parks and public areas including the Centennial Trail. Budget Detail Supplies Services & Charges Total Maintenance Division Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 1,625 $ 414 $ 381 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 845,108 886,122 935,374 914,000 936,503 $ 846,733 $ 886,536 $ 935,755 $ 917,500 $ 940,003 301 - Recreation Division The Recreation Division coordinates and facilitates the delivery of recreation programs and service throughout the City and the City's Park system. Accomplishments for 2020 • Provided two outdoor drive-in movies. Continue to provide quality Recreation programs for Spokane Valley Community. • Completed RCO grant application for the acquisition of the Flora Road property. • Foster relationships with Community partners. *Several prior year goals were unable to be completed due to COV/D-19. Goals for 2021 • Expand and continue the summer camp for teens. • Provide walking program for community members. • Expand and continue the summer camp for teens. • Continue National Parks and Recreation community celebration at Terrace View Park. • Foster relationships with Community partners. • Enhance Summer Parks Programs Kick -Off events. • Continue with free outdoor movies for the community. Budget Summary 2017 Actual Personnel - FTE Equivalents Recreation Coordinator 1.0 2018 Actual 1.0 2019 Actual 1.0 2020 Budget 1.6 2021 Budget 1.6 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 95,062 $ 128,784 $ 152,492 $ 181,081 $ 230,484 Supplies 3,976 3,968 6,368 8,650 9,150 Services & Charges 54,312 65,745 68,726 53,190 88,900 Total Recreation Division $ 153,350 $ 198,497 $ 227,586 $ 242,921 $ 328,534 79 Fund: 001 Dept: 076 General Fund Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley 2021 Budget 302 - Aquatics Division The City of Spokane Valley owns three pools: Park Road Pool, Terrace View Pool, and Valley Mission Pool. Services include open swim, swim lessons, swim team and facility rentals. In addition, the City leases a portion of Valley Mission Park to Splashdown Inc. for a water park. The City currently is contracting with the YMCA for all aquatic activities within the City. The YMCA provides the lifeguards and maintains the pools during the season. Accomplishments for 2020 *Prior year goals were unable to be completed due to COV/D-19. The pools never opened for 2020. Goals for 2021 • Maintain full summer swimming program. • Maintain Paws in the Pool Program. • Continue to partner with Make A Splash to offer free swim sessions at all pools. • Continue to partner with Make A Splash to offer free water safety clinics at all pools. Budget Summary Budget Detail Supplies Services & Charges Total Aquatics Division 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual $ 42 $ 240 $ 37 474,626 471,427 515,370 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 2,000 $ 2,000 130,853 508,053 $ 474,668 $ 471,667 $ 515,407 $ 132,853 $ 510,053 80 Fund: 001 Dept: 076 General Fund Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley 2021 Budget 304 - Senior Center Division The City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department assumed operational control of the Valley Senior Center in 2003. Accomplishments for 2020 • Worked closely with the Parks & Recreation Director on programs being offered to seniors. • Developed transition plan for new Senior Center staff. • Installed new carpet in the Senior Association office. "Several prior year goals were unable to be completed due to COVID-19. Goals for 2021 • Continue to enhance the resource and referral information at the reception desk to be better equipped to handle calls. • Continue to work with the Board on providing opportunities for Board training. • Improve and enhance relationship between the Recreation Specialist and the Board. • Continue to work with Parks & Recreation Director and Recreation Coordinator on new programs for seniors. Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents Senior Center Specialist Total FTEs 2017 Actual 1.0 1.0 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 2020 Budget 0.4 0.4 2021 Budget 0.4 0.4 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 88,210 $ 90,998 $ 17,716 $ 36,347 $ 28,303 Supplies 592 212 0 1,600 1,600 Services & Charges 1,473 870 781 5,500 5,500 Total Senior Center Division $ 90,275 $ 92,080 $ 18,497 $ 43,447 $ 35,403 81 Fund: 001 Dept: 076 General Fund Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley 2021 Budget 305 - CenterPlace Division Construction of Mirabeau Point CenterPlace began in late 2003 and was completed mid -year 2005. The project represented the culmination of eight years of planning and fundraising by Mirabeau Point Inc. and the joint involvement of the City and Spokane County. The approximately 54,000 square foot facility houses the City of Spokane Valley Senior Center, a great room/banquet facility, numerous meeting rooms, multi -purpose rooms and a high tech lecture hall. The facility combines with Mirabeau Meadows Parks and Mirabeau Springs to form a regional focal point for Northeastern Washington and Northern Idaho. Accomplishments for 2020 • Continued to improve Farmers Market event at CenterPlace. • Replaced carpet in Park Admin offices and Rooms 108 and 111. • Completed Phase 2 of the West Lawn Master Plan. *Several prior year goals were unable to be completed due to COV/D-19. Goals for 2021 • Update/create a marketing plan to include new West Lawn improvements. • Continue to improve Farmers Market event at CenterPlace. • Add a minimum of two new events to CenterPlace and the West Lawn. • Create new marketing materials for West Lawn venue. • Add new stage fill speakers in the Great Room. • Repair failed pixels in the Great Room Video Wall. • Rebuild Great Room control and system programming. Budget Summary Personnel - FTE Equivalents Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator Administrative Assistant Office Assistant I Maintenance Worker Total FTEs 2017 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2018 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2019 Actual 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2020 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2021 Budget 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 Budget Detail Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits $ 491,576 $ 440,345 $ 466,281 $ 468,083 $ 542,938 Supplies 81,169 74,498 98,232 67,537 85,537 Services & Charges 297,318 303,321 321,020 281,739 343,739 Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,000 8,255 0 9,500 0 Total CenterPlace Division $ 871,063 $ 826,419 $ 885,533 $ 826,859 $ 972,214 82 Fund: 001 Dept: 090 General Fund General Government Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The General Government Department accounts for those activities that are not specific to the functions of any particular General Fund Department or operation. Expenditures recorded here are composed of City Hall bond payments; information technology equipment and services; capital costs that benefit more than one department; support of agencies external to the City that provide social service programs and economic development services; and transfers to other City funds for property/casualty insurance premiums (Fund #502), park capital projects (Fund #309) and the pavement preservation program (Fund #311). Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget Supplies Employee Recognition -Operating Supplies $ 1,674 $ 2,975 $ 3,156 $ 2,700 $ 3,500 Office & Operating Supplies 527 432 0 0 0 Small Tools & Minor Equipment 3,030 2,907 1,746 5,600 7,000 Computer Hardware - Non Capital 46,050 24,674 36,414 46,700 31,000 Computer Software - Non Capital 11,249 8,417 2,979 35,300 30,200 Office & Operating Supplies 8,900 4,242 4,309 9,700 9,700 71,430 43,646 48,604 100,000 81,400 Other Services & Charges Professional Services - Misc. Studies 81,667 173,310 72,359 218,000 218,000 Accounting & Auditing 83,684 86,302 92,353 95,000 97,000 Postage 0 367 2,974 2,500 2,500 Telephone Service 11,205 12,319 12,801 12,500 13,000 Cell Phones 1,649 2,297 1,561 3,000 2,000 Internet Service 7,696 8,639 8,793 9,000 9,600 Taxes and Assessments 912 781 0 1,000 1,000 Electricity 0 1,462 0 0 0 City Wide Records Management 0 0 0 10,000 0 Sewer 523 949 91 0 0 Facility Repairs & Maintenance 4,003 8,508 0 5,000 0 Professional Services 0 1,400 762 0 1,500 Equip Repair & Maint-Hardware Support 32,936 26,572 27,859 32,200 24,850 IT Support 18,716 30,312 37,474 27,500 18,000 Software Licenses & Maintenance 91,463 86,169 122,478 91,200 124,550 Merchant Charges (Bankcard Fees) 186 226 300 500 500 Network Infrastructure Access 4,732 4,714 5,184 5,000 6,000 Equipment Rental 4,264 4,264 4,267 4,300 4,300 Interfund Vehicle Lease 1,000 500 500 500 500 Printing & Binding 0 646 623 600 650 Miscellaneous Services 4,919 6,992 7,859 7,000 7,000 General Operating Leases: Computer 57,556 53,894 67,179 55,000 70,000 Economic Development -Site Selector 9,373 10,897 0 11,000 0 Outside Agencies- Social Svc & Econ. Dev. 91,924 82,381 0 182,000 182,000 Professional Services - Economic Dev. 0 0 765 0 1,000 Professional Services - Social Services 55,911 66,251 174,664 0 0 Alcohol Treatment: Liquor Excise Tax 9,077 9,594 10,477 9,600 10,500 Alcohol Treatment: Liquor Profits 15,900 15,725 15,620 16,000 16,000 $ 589,297 $ 695,472 $ 666,943 $ 798,400 $ 810,450 (continued to next page) 83 Fund: 001 Dept: 090 General Fund General Government Spokane Valley 2021 Budget (continued from previous page) Intergovernmental Services Election Costs Voter Registration Taxes and assessments Spokane County Air Pollution Authority Capital Outlays Computer Hardware - Capital Debt Service: Principal Interest and Other Debt Service Costs Interfund Payments for Service Transfer out - #204 (City Hall bond payment) Transfer out - #309 (park capital projects) Transfer out - #311 (pavement preservation) Transfer out - #501 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) Transfer out - #502 (risk management) Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 69,973 $ 91,980 $ 75,432 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 86,932 20 94,787 100,000 100,000 0 0 12,020 12,100 12,100 130,928 134,493 137,219 140,411 150,830 287,834 226,493 319,458 362,511 372,930 7,387 125,799 7,387 125,799 600 600 397,350 399,350 160,000 160,000 953,200 962,700 36,600 36,600 350,000 370,000 1,897,150 1,928,650 0 0 57,500 30,000 57,500 30,000 600 600 600 401,250 160,000 972,300 36,600 390,000 1,960,150 401,450 160,000 982,023 36,600 410,000 401,500 160,000 991,843 36,600 425,000 1,990,073 2,014,943 Miscellaneous SCRAPS pass through 1,145 1,137 1,172 1,300 1,200 Leasehold Excise Tax Pass -Through 778 544 530 800 800 1,923 1,681 1,702 2,100 2,000 Subtotal Recurring Expenditures $ 2,855,621 $ 3,022,341 $ 2,997,457 $ 3,311,184 $ 3,312,323 Nonrecurring/Nonrecurring Capital City Hall lease payment (2017 final year) 438,565 0 0 0 0 IT capital replacement 26,386 0 0 0 10,000 Heavy Duty Mach. & Equip.- City Hall Generator 0 0 158,007 44,993 0 COVID-19 related expenditures 0 0 0 4,352,400 0 Computer Hardware - Capital 111,450 23,877 106,517 190,000 159,000 Computer Software - Capital 0 0 0 0 43,800 Transfer out - #101 0 0 0 350,200 1,859,600 Transfer out - #122 (Replenish Winter Weather Resery 258,000 490,000 120,000 500,000 0 Transfer out - #309 (Park Capital) 0 423,206 1,174,369 2,907,879 0 Transfer out - #312 (capital reserve fund) 3,003,929 3,795,429 7,109,300 0 0 Transfer out - #314 (RR Grade Separation) 1,200,000 0 0 0 0 Transfer out - #501 (new code enf. vehicle) 0 0 0 30,000 0 5,038,330 4,732,512 8,668,193 8,375,472 2,072,400 Total Governmental Division $ 7,893,951 $ 7,754,852 $ 11,665,650 $ 11,686,656 $ 5,384,723 84 Fund: 101 Street Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Street Fund was established to account for the activities associated with the provision of efficient and safe movement of both motorized and non -motorized vehicles, as well as pedestrians within the limits of the City, and coordinate convenient interconnect to the regional transportation system. Maintenance work includes snow and ice control, street pavement repairs, traffic signals and signs, landscaping and vegetation control, and many other street maintenance and repair activities. Accomplishments for 2020 • Implemented new contracts with private contractors for street maintenance services. • Continue on -going roadway and bridge maintenance and repairs. • Finalized the 6-year Bridge Maintenance Program and begin its implementation. • Implemented identified signal timing plans for the Argonne Corridor. • Collaborated with WSDOT and Spokane County on traffic signal evaluation and monitoring. • Began the process of implementing Urban Growth Area Traffic Mitigation Fees for major arterial corridors. • Completed the update of the Pavement Management and Preservation program evaluation system. Goals for 2021 • Implement new contracts with private contractors for street maintenance services. • Continue on -going roadway and bridge maintenance and repairs. • Continue evaluations of traffic signal timings for the Pines, Sullivan, and Sprague corridors. • Continue implementing Urban Growth Area Traffic Mitigation Fees for major arterial corridors. • Implement the 6-year Bridge Maintenance Program, prioritizing bridges requiring significant upgrades. • Finalize a comprehensive Pavement Preservation Program, including funding source identification. • Work with other departments in developing a city-wide, comprehensive Asset Management Program, which will include transportation operations facilities. Personnel - FTE Equivalents Assistant Engineer Construction Inspector Engineering Tech II Maintenance/Construction Inspector Planning Grants Engineer Public Works Superintendent Senior Engineer - Traffic Traffic Engineer Total FTEs Budget Summary 2017 Actual 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.35 0.375 1.0 1.0 0.0 5.725 2018 Budget 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.35 0.375 1.0 1.0 0.0 5.725 2019 Budget 0.3 1.5 0.3 2.35 0.375 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.725 2020 Budget 0.00 1.50 0.25 2.35 0.375 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.475 2021 Budget 0.0 1.50 * 0.25 * 2.35 * 0.375 * 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.475 (continued to next page) * These positions are budgeted partially to the Street Fund with the balance budgeted as a part of the General Fund, Capital Projects Funds, and the Stormwater Fund #402. 85 Fund: 101 Street Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget (continued from previous page) Revenues Utility Tax Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Multimodal Transportation Revenue Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee Investment Interest Miscellaneous Insurance proceeds Budget Summary 2017 Actual $ 1,892,906 2,032,175 98,994 136,112 7,844 0 85,074 2018 Actual $ 1,758,370 2,063,390 133,525 94,571 17,503 22,265 11,711 2019 Actual $ 1,563,981 2,018,186 132,637 84,704 4,022 8,063 15,848 Total revenues 4,253,105 4,101,335 3,827,441 Nonrecurring Revenues Grant Proceeds 1,340 0 0 0 0 Utility Tax Recovery 138,896 160,254 0 0 0 Transfers in - #122 0 0 620,000 350,200 1,859,600 Transfers in - #312 0 0 907,544 1,364,706 0 Total Nonrecurring Revenues 140,236 160,254 1,527,544 1,714,906 1,859,600 2020 Budget $ 1,521,000 1,715,000 113,000 70,000 17,000 10,000 0 3,446,000 2021 Budget $ 1,431,000 2,062,000 130,600 70,000 4,000 10,000 0 3,707,600 Expenditures Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 811,264 774,688 943,237 1,059,613 1,127,920 Supplies 98,747 94,918 100,504 146,050 156,050 Services & Charges 2,125,091 2,014,797 2,599,034 2,426,467 2,525,828 Snow Operation 637,358 580,166 1,033,218 543,776 751,652 Intergovernmental Payments 748,291 824,175 725,008 922,000 935,000 Transfers out - #001 39,700 39,700 0 0 0 Transfers out -#311 (pavement preservation) 67,342 67,342 0 0 0 Interfund Vehicle Lease -#501 (non -plow) 23,250 21,250 21,250 14,500 10,250 Interfund Vehicle Lease - #501 (plow replace) 77,929 77,929 77,929 48,500 60,500 Nonrecurring Expenditures Small tools & minor equipment 0 0 25,339 0 0 Construction 0 21,216 0 0 0 Traffic control improvements 0 17,252 45,329 0 0 Capital Equipment 0 0 7,295 0 0 Traffic Control Devices- Repair & Maint 0 10,478 5,549 0 0 Battery Backups for Intersections 15,579 0 0 0 0 Total Nonrecurring expenditures 4,644,551 4,543,911 5,583,692 5,160,906 5,567,200 Revenues over (under) expenditures (251,210) (282,322) (228,707) 0 0 Beginning fund balance 1,318,504 1,067,294 784,972 556,265 556,265 Ending fund balance $ 1,067,294 $ 784,972 $ 556,265 $ 556,265 $ 556,265 86 Fund: 103 Paths & Trails Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The State of Washington collects a $0.494 per gallon motor vehicle fuel tax at the pump. Of this amount, the State remits a portion of the tax back to cities on a per capita basis. For 2020 the Municipal Research and Services Center estimates the distribution back to cities will be $21.24 per person. Based upon a City of Spokane Valley population of 97,490 (per the Washington State Office of Financial Management on April 1, 2020) we anticipate the City will collect $2,070,700 in 2020. RCW 47.030.050 specifies that 0.42% of this tax must be expended for the construction of paths and trails and based upon the 2020 revenue estimate this computes to $8,700. The balance or $2,062,000 will be credited to Fund #101 for Street maintenance and operations. The portion of the motor vehicle tax allocated to the Paths and Trails Fund is by State Law restricted for the construction and/or improvement of paths and trails within the City. Because the cost of such projects is typically much greater than the funds generated in a single year, we typically leave the fund balance untouched until an adequate fund balance is available. The City transferred $50,000 in 2014 and $9,300 in 2016 and $50,000 in 2018 to Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 to be applied towards the Appleway Trail projects. Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Capital Outlay Transfers out- #309 Total expenditures Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 8,571 $ 8,703 $ 8,512 $ 8,600 $ 8,700 369 390 186 400 200 8,940 9,092 8,698 9,000 8,900 O 0 0 0 0 O 50,000 0 0 0 O 50,000 0 0 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures 8,940 (40,908) 8,698 9,000 8,900 Beginning fund balance 37,384 46,325 5,417 14,115 23,115 Ending fund balance $ 46,325 $ 5,417 $ 14,115 $ 23,115 $ 32,015 87 Fund: 104 Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund accounts for the receipt and expenditure of a special excise tax of 1.3% on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging under RCW 82.08. These funds will be used solely for capital expenditures for acquiring, constructing, making improvements to or other related capital expenditures for large sporting venues, or venues for tourism -related facilities, which facilities generate overnight guests at lodging facilities subject to the taxes imposed. Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest Transfers in -#105 Total revenues Expenditures Capital Outlay Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 400,509 $ 415,295 $ 454,283 $ 213,000 $ 213,000 6,854 24,182 43,590 24,000 24,000 250,000 250,000 275,000 0 453,840 657,363 689,477 772,873 237,000 690,840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 657,363 689,477 772,873 237,000 690,840 571,232 1,228,595 1,918,072 2,690,945 2,927,945 $ 1,228,595 $ 1,918,072 $ 2,690,945 $ 2,927,945 $ 3,618,785 Fund: 105 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Hotel/Motel Fund accounts for the receipt and expenditure of a special excise tax of 2% on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging under RCW 82.08. These funds will be used solely for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of tourism promotion, acquisition or operation of tourism -related facilities, and marketing of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists. Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Tourism Promotion Transfers out- #001 Transfers out- #104 Total expenditures Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 615,980 $ 646,975 $ 743,852 $ 346,000 $ 346,000 3,549 7,058 8,459 6,000 6,000 619,529 654,033 752,311 352,000 352,000 351,674 321,934 207,000 319,000 224,400 15,778 26,037 30,000 30,000 30,000 250,000 250,000 275,000 0 453,840 617,452 597,971 512,000 349,000 708,240 Revenues over (under) expenditures 2,077 56,062 240,311 3,000 (356,240) Beginning fund balance 219,790 221,867 277,929 518,240 521,240 Ending fund balance $ 221,867 $ 277,929 $ 518,240 $ 521,240 $ 165,000 88 Fund: 106 Solid Waste Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget In 2003, the City of Spokane Valley entered into an interlocal agreement with the City of Spokane and Spokane County to join the existing Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System for a period of eight years. In 2011, that agreement was extended through November 16, 2014. Committed to ensuring Spokane Valley citizens are provided with solid waste services that are affordable, sustainable, and environmentally responsible, in June 2014 the City of Spokane Valley opted to contract for solid waste transfer, transport and disposal services with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. Services provided under the contract were effective November 17, 2014, and continue for a period of ten years with options for two three-year extensions. Terms of the contract require Sunshine to pay the City an annual administrative fee of $125,000 that will be used by the City to offset contract administrative costs and solid waste management within the city, including solid waste public educational efforts. The contract also provides that a road maintenance fee will be paid by Sunshine at the rate of $1 per ton for each ton in excess of 45,500 tons in a single contract year. Payments will be made to the City by March 31 of the year following the calendar year being measured. In June 2017, the City entered a contract with Waste Management for the collection of garbage, recyclables, and compostables for the period of April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2028 with the option of two additional two-year extensions. Terms of the contract require Waste Management to pay the City a one-time fee of $47,500 upon contract execution to reimburse the City for the costs of procuring the contract. Waste Management is also required to pay the City an monthly administrative fee of 12.5% of gross receipts, which is estimated to be approximately $1,500,000 in 2021. During the years of 2013 and 2014, the General Fund #001 funded various studies and fees related to the solid waste program and transferred $60,000 to the Solid Waste Fund #106 for the purpose of providing information materials and marketing necessary to inform residents and businesses of the change in solid waste transfer, transport and disposal. The total amount paid out of the General Fund for these expenditures was $202,121. Beginning in 2015 the Solid Waste Fund will reimburse the General Fund for these costs over a 5-year period, which equated to an annual payment of $40,425 in the years 2015 through 2018, and a final payment of $40,422 in 2019. Revenues Administrative fees Solid Waste Road Wear Fee Investment interest Total revenues Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 172,550 $ 182,900 $ 252,396 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 59,389 1,108,028 1,513,532 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,334 12,487 24,752 12,000 12,000 233,273 1,303,415 1,790,680 1,737,000 1,737,000 Expenditures Education & Contract Administration 81,288 22,313 33,407 237,000 237,000 Transfers out - #001 40,425 40,425 40,422 0 0 Transfers out - #311 0 1,000,000 1,608,028 1,513,532 1,500,000 Total expenditures 121,713 1,062,738 1,681,857 1,750,532 1,737,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures 111,560 240,677 108,823 (13,532) 0 Beginning fund balance 79,122 190,682 431,359 540,182 526,650 Ending fund balance $ 190,682 $ 431,359 $ 540,182 $ 526,650 $ 526,650 89 Fund: 107 PEG Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget Under the City's cable franchise, the franchise grantee remits to the City as a capital contribution in support of Public Education Government (PEG) capital requirements an amount equal to $0.35 per subscriber per month to be paid to the City on a quarterly basis for the life of the franchise. Capital contributions collected under this agreement are allocated to PEG capital uses exclusively. PEG capital uses include in part the set up of equipment in the City Council Chambers that allows Spokane Valley to broadcast Council meetings both live and through subsequent reviews via digital recordings available on the City's website. Revenues Comcast PEG contribution Investment interest Total revenues Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 76,471 $ 81,322 $ 79,498 $ 79,000 $ 79,000 1,676 971 2,097 0 0 78,147 82,293 81,595 79,000 79,000 Expenditures PEG Reimbursement - CMTV 0 38,955 37,256 39,500 39,500 New City Hall Council Chambers 208,714 0 0 0 0 Capital Outlay 54,937 13,344 915 45,500 33,500 Total expenditures 263,651 52,299 38,171 85,000 73,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance (185,504) 29,994 43,424 (6,000) 6,000 240,341 54,837 84,831 128,255 122,255 $ 54,837 $ 84,831 $ 128,255 $ 122,255 $ 128,255 Fund: 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax Spokane Valley 2021 Budget In the year 2020, the Council authorized the City to collect the affordable and supportive sales tax, which is a rebate of the State sales tax to cities and counties. The amount received by the City is up to 0.0146% of the taxable retail sales within the City capped at the 2019 fiscal year taxable retail sales. The Department of Revenue has estimated this capped distribution to be $193,000 for the City. The City will receive these revenues for 20 years, and the revenues may only be used to support affordable housing within the City or for rental assistance as outlined in RCW 82.14.540. Budget Summary 2017 Actual Revenues Affordable & Supportive Housing Sales Tax $ Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Professional Services Total expenditures 2018 Actual O $ 0 0 2019 Actual 0 $ 0 0 2020 Budget 2021 Budget O $ 144,750 $ 193,000 O 0 0 O 144,750 193,000 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 144,750 193,000 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 0 144,750 Ending fund balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 144,750 $ 337,750 90 Fund: 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund was established as a result of a covenant related to the issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds initially issued in 2003 and refunded in 2014. The bonds were issued for the purpose of constructing the CenterPlace facility. As a part of the bond issuance the City agreed to establish a $300,000 operating reserve account that could be used to make debt service payments on the bonds and/or pay for operating expenses of CenterPlace. If at any time the City were to draw on these reserves it would have to prepare and follow a plan for reinstatement of those funds drawn. This reserve is required to be in place for the life of the bonds which run through December 1, 2033. Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in Total revenues Expenditures Operations Total expenditures Budget Summary 2017 Actual $ 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget O $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 91 Fund: 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The City has committed to maintaining an ending fund balance in the General Fund of at least 50% of recurring expenditures which is equivalent to 6-months of operations. The Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund serves as an emergency source of temporary financing to the General Fund in the event a downturn in the local economy resulted in a reduction of revenues that would otherwise compromise either the General Fund's minimum 50% reserve balance or historical levels of service. If an event such as a downturn in the economy resulted in the General Fund reserves dropping below 50% of recurring expenditures, then the Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund could be drawn against to maintain the fund balance minimum. The Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund will not be reduced to less than 60% of the current $5.5 million balance, or $3.3 million, without Council approval. If Coucil should deem this necessary, the City will then first replenish Fund #121 to at least $3.3 million before any annual General Fund transfers are made to the Capital Reserve Fund #312.During 2018, this reserve balance was capped at $5.5 million and any additional interest earned was accumulated in the General Fund. This represents a Fiscal Policy of the City that is also stated in the City Manager's 2021 Budget Message located near the front of this budget document. Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in Total revenues Expenditures Operations Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual $ 16,575 $ 0 21,636 2019 Actual 0 $ 0 0 2020 Budget 0 $ 0 0 2021 Budget 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,575 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,483,425 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000 Fund: 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Winter Weather Reserve Fund was established through Ordinance No. 05-018 to provide an emergency reserve for use during unusually harsh winters and storms where the Street Fund #101 budget and fund balance are inadequate to accommodate the amount of related street maintenance, including but not limited to snow plowing, sanding, and deicing, that may be necessary. In the event the City draws against this fund in any given winter, we will strive to replenish the balance back to approximately $500,000 through subsequent years' transfers. Due to the uncertainty of when this fund might be drawn upon we actually budget the same $500,000 in both 2020 and 2021 even though we recognize there exists only $500,000 to address this issue if it should arise. Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in - #001 FEMA Grant Proceeds Total revenues Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 3,712 $ 5,353 $ 9,899 $ 5,400 $ 1,900 258,000 490,000 120,000 500,000 0 3,170 0 10,367 0 0 264,882 495,353 140,266 505,400 1,900 Expenditures Transfer out - #101 0 0 620,000 0 0 Street Maintenance Expenditures 500,000 0 0 500,000 500,000 Total expenditures 500,000 0 620,000 500,000 500,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures (235,118) 495,353 (479,734) 5,400 (498,100) Beginning fund balance 242,835 7,717 503,070 23,336 528,736 Ending fund balance $ 7,717 $ 503,070 $ 23,336 $ 28,736 $ 30,636 92 Fund: 204 Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO) Bond - Debt Service Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget This fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of limited tax general obligation (LTGO) bonds also referred to as councilmanic or non -voted bonds. When LTGO bonds are issued the City irrevocably pledges the full faith, credit and resources necessary to make timely payments of principal and interest, within constitutional and statutory limitations pertaining to non -voted general obligations. In 2003 the City issued $9,430,000 in LTGO bonds, the proceeds of which were used to finance both the construction of CenterPlace and road and street improvements surrounding the facility. In 2014 the City refunded the LTGO bonds in order to take advantage of lower interest rates which resulted in a reduction in subsequent annual bond payments (much like refinancing a home mortgage). At the completion of the bond refunding there remained $7,035,000 of LTGO bonds. Of this total: • $5,650,000 remained on the original debt used towards the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 20-year period ending December 1, 2033. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by the Spokane Public Facilities District. At January 1, 2021, the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $4,100,000. • $1,385,000 remained on the original debt used towards the road and street improvements. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 10-year period ending December 1, 2023. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by equal distributions from the 1st and 2nd quarter percent real estate excise tax (Funds #301 and #302). At January 1, 2021, the outstanding balance on this portion of the bond issue will be $450,000. In 2016 the City issued $7,275,000 in LTGO bonds, the proceeds of which will be used to finance the construction of a new City Hall building along with $6.3 million of City cash that has been set aside for this purpose. These bonds will be paid off in annual installments over the 30-year period ending December 1, 2045. Annual debt service payments on these bonds are provided by transfers in from the General Fund. At January 1, 2021, the outstanding balance on the bond issue will be $6,570,000. Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Total revenues Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 379,750 $ 414,050 $ 432,150 $ 459,500 $ 480,800 397,350 399,350 401,250 401,450 401,500 79,426 82,000 82,475 80,375 80,775 79,425 82,000 82,475 80,375 80,775 935,951 977,400 998,350 1,021,700 1,043,850 Expenditures Debt Service Payment - CenterPlace 379,750 414,050 432,150 459,500 480,800 Debt Service Payment - Roads 162,900 164,000 164,950 160,750 161,550 Debt Service Payments - City Hall/LTGO'16 397,350 399,350 401,250 401,450 401,500 Total expenditures 940,000 977,400 998,350 1,021,700 1,043,850 Revenues over (under) expenditures (4,049) 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 4,049 0 0 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 0 0 93 Fund: 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget This fund is used to account for the collection and expenditures of the first one -quarter of one -percent real estate excise tax (REET 1) that is authorized through RCW 82.46. This quarter percent must be expended for purposes identified in the capital facilities plan element of our comprehensive plan. RCW 82.46.010(6), defines "capital projects" as: those public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets; roads; highways; sidewalks; street and road lighting systems; traffic signals; bridges; domestic water systems; storm and sanitary sewer systems; parks; recreational facilities; law enforcement facilities; fire protection facilities; trails; libraries; administrative and judicial facilities. Revenues recorded in this fund are typically used as a matching funds for street related construction projects that are accounted for in Street Capital Projects Fund #303, Pavement Preservation Fund #311, and to pay for a portion of the annual bond payment on the City's 2014 LTGO bonds that are accounted for in the LTGO Debt Service Fund #204. Revenues REET 1 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #204 Transfers out - #303 Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) Transfers out - #314 (Barker Grade Separation) Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Summary 2017 Actual $ 1,503,787 21,598 1,525,385 79,426 294,558 660,479 111,941 2018 Actual $ 1,968,317 47,046 2,015,363 82,000 901,287 685,329 (8,147) 1,146,404 1,660,469 2019 Actual $ 1,695,344 61,382 1,756,726 2020 Budget $ 1,000,000 35,000 1,035,000 2021 Budget $ 1,000,000 25,000 1,025,000 82,475 80,375 80,775 517,107 872,605 316,620 734,300 772,639 827,278 104,918 869,008 0 1,438,800 2,594,627 1,224,673 378,981 354,894 317,926 (1,559,627) (199,673) 1,746,393 2,125,374 2,480,268 2,798,194 1,238,567 $ 2,125,374 $ 2,480,268 $ 2,798,194 $ 1,238,567 $ 1,038,894 94 Fund: 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget This fund is used to account for the collection and expenditures of the second one -quarter of one -percent real estate excise tax (REET 2) that is authorized through RCW 82.46. This quarter percent may only be levied by cities that are planning under the Growth Management Act and may only be expended for purposes identified in the capital facilities plan element of their comprehensive plan. RCW 82.46.035(5) defines "capital projects" as: public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks. Noteworthy here is that acquisition of land for parks is not a permitted use of REET 2 receipts, although it is a permitted use for street, water and sewer projects. Revenues recorded in this fund are typically used as a matching funds for street related construction projects that are accounted for in Street Capital Projects Fund #303, Pavement Preservation Fund #311, and to pay for a portion of the annual bond payment on the City's 2014 LTGO bonds that are accounted for in the LTGO Debt Service Fund #204. Revenues REET 2 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #204 Transfers out - #303 Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) Transfers out - #314 Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Summary 2017 Actual $ 1,503,787 25,594 1,529,381 2018 Actual $ 1,968,317 61,879 2,030,196 79,425 82,000 81,613 1,031,071 660,479 685,329 0 0 821,517 1,798,400 707,864 231,796 2,300,560 3,008,424 2019 Actual $ 1,695,344 80,784 1,776,128 82,475 (192,297) 734,300 0 624,478 2020 Budget $ 1,000,000 35,000 1,035,000 2021 Budget $ 1,000,000 25,000 1,025,000 80,375 80,775 518,199 1,662,684 772,638 827,279 0 1127387 1,371,212 3,698,125 1,151,650 (336,212) (2,673,125) 3,240,220 4,391,870 4,055,658 $ 3,008,424 $ 3,240,220 $ 4,391,870 $ 4,055,658 $ 1,382,533 95 Fund: 303 Street Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Street Capital Projects Fund accounts for monies used to finance street construction and reconstruction projects adopted in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Revenues to finance the projects comes from a combination of State and Federal Grants, which typically cover upwards of 80% of projects costs, with the City match portion coming from transfers from the REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301, REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302, and sometimes Stormwater Management Fund #402. Revenues Grant Proceeds Developer Contribution Miscellaneous Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Transfers in - #312 - Euclid Ave - Flora to Barker Transfers in - #312 - 8th & Carnahan Intersection Transfers in -#312 - Barker Corridor Transfers in -#312 - Garland Ave Total revenues Expenditures 000 Construction -Street Lighting 069 Park Rd Reconstruction (Repay grant) 123 Mission Ave -Flora to Barker 141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 166 Pines Rd (SR27) & Grace Ave. Intersect study 167 City wide safety improvements 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley 221 McDonald Rd Diet (16th to Mission) 222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates 238 Mirabeau Pkwy & Pines (SR-27) Traffic Signal 239 Bowdish Sidewalk - 8th to 12th Budget Summary 2017 Actual $ 3,561,989 62,244 0 294,701 81,613 455,465 1,464,381 218,299 0 6,138, 693 2018 Actual $ 6,562,793 33,032 136 901,287 1,031,071 (1,251,465) 241,466 428,774 33,938 7,981,032 2019 Actual $ 2,783,332 228,953 586 517,107 (192,297) 0 0 1,999,130 0 5,336,811 2020 Budget $ 5,940,505 1,311,059 0 872,605 518,199 0 0 495,291 1,286,436 2021 Budget $ 6,843,308 53,703 0 316,620 1,662,684 0 0 0 0 10,424,095 8,876,315 O 0 71,486 0 0 O 0 285,164 0 0 250,119 3,081,873 30,696 0 0 1,512,193 14,722 0 0 0 3,702 1,956,617 14,544 0 0 722,384 898 0 0 0 60,574 567,749 1,444 0 0 3,055 0 0 0 0 7,006 411,320 1,397 0 0 O 0 24,770 195,499 329,453 (17,811) 0 0 0 0 675 0 0 0 0 38,355 15,548 0 0 0 (21) 0 0 0 0 389,898 0 0 0 0 (continued to next page) 96 Fund: 303 Street Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget Expenditures, continued 247 8th & Carnahan Intersection Improvements 249 Sullivan/Wellesley Intersection 250 9th Ave. Sidewalk 251 Euclid Ave. - Flora to Barker 258 32nd Ave Sidewalk - SR27 to Evergreen 259 N. Sullivan Corridor ITS Projects (PE start 201 i 263 Citywide Signal Backplates 264 8th Ave Sidewalk 265 Wellesley Sidewalk Project 267 Mission Ave Sidewalk 273 Barker/I-90 Interchange 275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 276 Barker Rd Widening - Euclid to Garland 278 Wilbur Rd Sidewalk - Boone to Broadway 279 Knox Ave Sidewalk - Hutchinson to Sargent 281 Highland Estates Connector 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 287 University Pres - Dishman-Mica to 16th 291 Adams Sidewalk Infill 292 Mullan preservation : Broadway -Mission 293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 294 Citywide Reflective Signal Post Panels 295 Garland Avenue Extension 299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont 300 Pines & Mission Intersection Improvement 301 Park & Mission Intersection Improvement 302 Ella Sidewalk - Broadway to Alki 303 S. Conklin Sidewalk 310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Repl 313 Barker Rd/Union Pacific Crossing 318 Wilbur Sidewalk - Boone to Mission 320 Sullivan Preservation - Sprague to 8th Contingency Total expenditures 2017 Actual Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 218,299 15,112 181,053 2,601,774 32,157 96,567 143 11,606 20,727 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 Actual 428,774 90,162 0 293,956 428,840 58,713 96,218 355,465 26,314 34,453 0 29,144 33,938 16,631 11,687 27,661 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 Actual (155) 93,804 0 5,111 0 27,581 0 0 542,277 279,348 331,345 50,942 2,210,790 400,578 339,689 17,396 0 80,908 22,666 3,667 6,849 3,661 407,628 33,512 11,993 508 21,901 14,950 0 0 0 0 0 6,147,567 7,980,683 5,336,450 2020 Budget 0 150,000 0 0 0 921,349 0 0 0 136,075 568,655 1,978,395 380,269 0 0 0 354,060 0 444,645 0 99,000 47,775 2,492,371 32,000 516,000 152,992 371,760 124,125 337,625 121,500 0 0 1,000,000 2021 Budget 0 1,020,522 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,310 0 1,132,320 0 0 0 0 7,210 0 0 0 74,250 17,875 0 2,392,450 498,000 693,000 0 0 317,625 1,312,500 50,000 19,800 1,000,000 10,424,095 8,876,315 (8,874) 349 361 0 0 75,566 66,692 67,041 67,402 67,402 66,692 67,041 67,402 67,402 67,402 97 Fund: 309 Park Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Park Capital Projects Fund was created to account for park related capital improvements. The source of financing typically consists of an annual transfer from the General Fund #001; however, in some years the City will utilize money set aside for capital projects in other funds. This has occurred with transfers in from the Paths and Trails Fund #103 and the Capital Reserve Fund #312, which have been applied towards various sections of the Appleway Trail project and frontage improvements at Balfour Park. Revenues Grant Proceeds FEMA Grant Proceeds - Windstorm Transfers in - #001 (General Fund) Transfers in - #103 (Paths & Trails) Transfers in - #312 (Capital Reserve) Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures 227 Appleway Trail (Pines to Evergreen) 237 Appleway Trail (Sullivan to Corbin) 242 Browns Park Splashpad 261 Edgecliff Park Splashpad 268 Appleway Trail (Evergreen to Sullivan) 270 CenterPlace outdoor venue - Phase 1 271 Brown Park lighting and pathway 274 Park signs (Sullivan, Park Rd, Balfour) 280 Appleway Trail Amenities (Univ- Pines) 282 Browns Park volleyball courts 283 Electrical Upgrade Mirabeau Point Park 288 Heart of the Valley Sculpture 296 Browns Park improvements 304 CenterPlace west lawn improvements - Ph. 2 305 CenterPlace roof 306 Discovery Playground Surface Repair 307 Edgecliff Park Swing sets 314 Balfour Park frontage improvements 315 Browns Park improvements 2020 316 Balfour Park improvements - Ph 1 Install stage fill speakers Great Room Repair failed pixels Great Room Reprogram Great Room A/V System Repair/replace siding at Mirabeau restroom Transfers out - #312 (park land acquisition) Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Summary 2017 Actual $ 1,657,548 0 160,000 0 277,437 215 2,095,200 2018 Actual $ 1,605,948 0 583,206 50,000 289,661 183 2019 Actual $ 1,114,049 0 1,334,369 0 262,599 85 2,528,998 2,711,102 1,816,928 14,860 129,986 2,127,384 11,222 0 122,577 0 O 29,479 O 204,302 O 22,602 O 13,837 O 19,894 O 170,879 O 7,693 O 4,975 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 2,080,713 2,615,905 14,487 (86,907) 111,714 126,201 0 16,791 0 0 756,028 0 0 0 679,259 1,249 0 0 1,038,701 113,419 9,288 20,061 36,973 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,671,769 2020 Budget $ 1,605,583 0 3,067,879 0 119,373 0 2021 Budget $ 480,530 0 160,000 0 565,150 0 4,792,835 1,205,680 0 0 0 0 1,609,376 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121,298 1,901,581 810,000 0 0 59,850 62,995 11,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 565,150 499,805 0 6,346 6,505 12,499 30,000 0 4,776,100 1,120,305 39,333 16,735 85,375 39,294 78,627 95,362 $ 126,201 $ 39,294 $ 78,627 $ 95,362 $ 180,737 98 Fund: 310 Civic Facility Capital Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Civic Building Capital Projects Fund was initially set-up to accumulate resources to ultimately acquire or construct a City Hall building. The initial sources of revenue to set-up the fund reserves were transfers from the General Fund during 2005 through 2007, and as recently as December 31, 2009, this fund had a fund balance of $5,828,600. During 2010 and 2011 the City determined that street repairs and reconstruction represented a more immediate City need and opted to expend nearly $2,000,000 of the fund balance for these projects. The projects themselves were part of a septic tank elimination program (STEP) initiated by Spokane County that resulted in the installation of sewer lines down many City streets. At that time the City decided to completely reconstruct the effected streets rather than patch them. In 2012 the City used this fund to finance a variety street related capital projects as well as the $2.5 million acquisition of an 8.4 acre parcel of land on Sprague Avenue that is adjacent to Balfour Park. Partially offsetting the cost of the land acquisition was the subsequent sale of 2.82 acres of this parcel to the Spokane County Library District who had planned to construct a library building consisting of no less than 30,000 square feet. In order for the Library District to actually construct a new building on this site they first had to have a successful voted bond issue to provide the necessary financing. In the event the Library District is unable to pass a bond, they may sell the 2.82 acres parcel back to the City for the original purchase price of $839,285. An amendment was made to the interlocal agreement in October 2017 which extended the agreement through October 2022 with the option to extend through October 2024. Through this amendments, the City also agreed to contribute $1.3 million, of which the $839,285 would be part, in frontage and/or joint site improvements on the Library site. In 2015 the General Fund began to make two annual transfers to this fund that were each related to the eventual construction of a new City Hall facility. These transfers ended after 2016: • The first transfer in the amount of $72,500, when added to the City's $434,600 annual lease payment for space in its current space totals $507,100 which was the amount we anticipated our annual bond repayment would be if we were to issue approximately $8,000,000 of limited tax general obligation bonds with a 2% issue cost over 30-years at 4.50%. • The second transfer was our estimate of the annual operating costs of a City Hall facility including utilities, janitorial, grounds maintenance and snow removal, and operating and maintenance supplies. The purpose behind making these transfers beginning in 2015 was to "create" this appropriation capacity within the General Fund. These amounts were transferred out to the General Fund in 2016 and 2017 in order to cover lease payments for the prior City Hall location in years in which the City had both a lease payment and a bond payment for the new City Hall building. Revenues Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #001 Transfers out - #312 Total expenditures Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 9,029 $ 14,049 $ 16,700 $ 17,000 $ 3,100 9,029 14,049 16,700 17,000 3,100 498,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,452 16,700 0 498,500 0 18,452 16,700 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures (489,471) 14,049 (1,752) 300 3,100 Beginning fund balance 1,333,159 843,688 857,737 855,985 856,285 Ending fund balance $ 843,688 $ 857,737 $ 855,985 $ 856,285 $ 859,385 99 Fund: 311 Pavement Preservation Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget This fund was created during the 2011 Budget development process for the purpose of setting money aside for yet to be determined street capital improvement projects. Since inception, the pavement preservation program has been funded through a series of transfers from other City funds as well as grant proceeds. Below is a table summarizing the funding sources for Fund #311, including actuals for 2011 through 2019 and budgeted amounts for 2020 and 2021: Fund 001 101 106 123 301/302 310 Street Civic Fac. Civic Fac. General Street O&M Wear Fee Replace. REET 1&2 Capital Grants I I Total Actual 2011 584,681 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 1,084,681 2012 2,045,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,045,203 2013 855,857 282,000 0 616,284 300,000 0 35,945 2,090,086 2014 888,823 282,000 0 616,284 368,944 0 2,042,665 4,198,716 2015 920,000 206,618 0 616,284 502,098 0 835,224 3,080,224 2016 943,800 67,342 0 559,808 730,572 0 1,654,698 3,956,220 2017 953,200 67,342 0 0 1,320,958 0 89,208 2,430,708 2018 962,700 67,342 1,000,000 0 1,370,658 0 1,422,404 4,823,104 2019 972,300 0 1,608,028 0 1,545,277 0 2,398,330 6,523,935 Budget 2020 982,023 0 1,513,532 0 1,545,277 0 10,588 4,051,420 2021 991,843 0 1,500,000 0 1,654,557 0 0 4,146, 400 11,100, 430 972,644 5,621,560 2,408,660 9,338,341 500,000 8,489,062 38, 430, 697 Beginning in 2013, the City committed to finance pavement preservation at a level equivalent to 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures, which has continued from that year through the 2021 budget development. Because this is a Capital Project Fund whose sole purpose is to provide for Pavement Preservation projects, any money not expended in a given year will remain in the fund and will be available for re -appropriation in subsequent years. The fund balance of Fund #123 was exhausted with the 2016 transfer of $559,808 as a consequence of following this funding strategy. In order to maintain the City's practice of setting aside funds for pavement preservation in an amount equivalent to 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures, the City began to rely more heavily on REET funds. We have determined that the 2021 funding level representing approximately 6% of General Fund recurring expenditures is $2,646,400 and that this level of funding is sustainable through 2025 assuming a General Fund contribution of $991,843 and a collective contribution of $1,654,557 from the REET 1 Capital Projects Fund #301 and the REET 2 Capital Projects Fund #302. The City will take advantage of grant programs directed at pavement preservation as they become available. Revenues Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #101 Transfers in - #106 Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Investment Interest Grant Proceeds Intergovernmental Rev. - Model Irrigation Total revenues Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 953,200 $ 962,700 $ 972,300 $ 982,023 $ 991,843 67,342 67,342 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,608,028 1,513,532 1,500,000 660,479 685,329 734,300 772,639 827,278 660,479 685,329 734,300 772,638 827,279 20,535 54,724 49,593 0 0 89,209 1,422,404 2,398,330 10,588 0 0 0 1,267,575 0 0 2,451,244 4,877,828 7,764,426 4,051,420 4,146,400 Expenditures Pavement preservation 2,042,305 3,559,755 7,954,415 4,217,523 4,676,350 Pre -project GeoTech 0 43,261 22,125 50,000 50,000 Total expenditures 2,042,305 3,603,016 7,976,540 4,267,523 4,726,350 Revenues over (under) expenditures 408,939 1,274,812 (212,114) (216,103) (579,950) Beginning fund balance 2,953,564 3,362,503 4,637,315 4,425,201 4,209,098 Ending fund balance $ 3,362,503 $ 4,637,315 $ 4,425,201 $ 4,209,098 $ 3,629,148 100 Fund: 312 Capital Reserve Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget This fund was created in 2013 to be used to account for the accumulation of resources for yet to be determined capital projects. The initial source of funds was a 2013 General Fund transfer of $7,826,207 which was followed by additional transfers from the General Fund from 2014 through 2019 in the amount of $19,974,400. Projects approved by City Council from this fund include in part: • $1,713,284 for the City's share of the $15.5 million Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement • $2,396,813 for construction of various sections of the Appleway Trail. • $5,143,844 for construction of a new City Hall building. • $1,800,000 to remove and reconstruct Euclid Ave. from Flora to Barker after County installation of sewer. • $1,421,321 towards a Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation project. • $3,485,417 towards a Pines Road / BNSF Grade Separation project. • $3,034,400 towards Barker Road corridor improvements. • $2,935,600 for park land acquisitions. • $460,715 towards improvements at the Spokane County Library's proposed Balfour site. Commitments to future projects include: • $500,000 towards Sullivan Road / BNSF Interchange project. • $875,023 towards Balfour Park development. Future projects are yet to be determined. Revenues Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #309 Transfers in -#310 Transfers in -#313 Investment Interest Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 3,003,929 $ 3,795,429 $ 7,109,300 $ 0 $ 0 O 0 0 200,000 0 O 0 18,452 0 0 O 405,056 88,590 16,700 0 52,170 126,565 225,907 100,000 100,000 Total revenues 3,056,099 4,327,050 7,442,249 316,700 100,000 Expenditures City Hall Sculpture Siting 41,376 5,383 0 0 0 Professional Services 0 31,659 0 0 0 Transfers out - #101 0 0 907,544 1,364,706 0 Transfers out - #303 - Sullivan Rd W Bridge 455,465 0 0 0 0 Transfers out - #303 - Euclid Ave - Flora to Barker 1,464,381 (547,287) 5,111 0 0 Transfers out - #303 - 8th & Carnahan Intersection 218,300 0 (155) 0 0 Transfers out - #303 - Barker Road Corridor 0 0 1,718,874 495,291 0 Transfers out - #303 - Garland Ave 0 0 203,814 1,286,436 0 Transfers out - #303 - Crosswalk lighting on Indians 0 0 71,486 0 0 Transfers out - #309 -Appleway Trail -Pines-Evergr 277,437 0 0 0 0 Transfers out - #309 -Appleway Trail -Corbin 0 289,661 0 0 0 Transfers out - #309 -Appleway Trail -Evergreen-Sr 0 0 262,599 48,523 0 Transfers out - #309 - Balfour Park frontage improvc 0 0 0 59,850 565,150 Transfers out - #309 - Balfour Park frontage improvc 0 0 0 11,000 0 Transfers out - #314 - Pines Grade Separation 482,216 0 0 67,500 64,192 Transfers out - #314 - Barker Rd Overpass 0 0 0 0 411,582 Transfers out - #314 - Sullivan Rd Interchange 0 0 0 75,000 250,000 Precinct property acquisition 0 0 226,700 0 0 Park property acquisition 0 0 84,380 2,091,600 759,600 Total expenditures 2,939,175 (220,584) 3,480,353 5,499,906 2,050,524 Revenuesover(under)expenditures 116,924 4,547,634 3,961,896 (5,183,206) (1,950,524) Beginning fund balance 4,310,362 4,427,286 8,974,920 12,936,816 7,753,610 Ending fund balance $ 4,427,286 $ 8,974,920 $12,936,816 $ 7,753,610 $ 5,803,086 101 Fund: 313 City Hall Construction Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget This fund was created to account for the architectural and construction costs for a City Hall building. The building was completed in Fall of 2017. Funding for the construction came from a combination of an interfund transfer from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 in the amount of $5,162,764 and bond proceeds in the amount of $7.9 million. Land for the building site was acquired in 2015 through a purchase in the Civic Facilities Fund #310. Revenues 2016 LTGO Bond Proceeds Investment Interest Total revenues Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual $ 0 $ 18,894 2019 Actual 0 $ 1,416 18,894 1,416 2020 Budget 0 $ 953 953 2021 Budget 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 Expenditures Capital Outlay - City Hall 6,065,879 9,573 0 0 0 Services & Charges 0 5,283 0 0 0 Transfers out - #312 0 0 88,589 0 0 Total expenditures 6,065,879 14,856 88,589 0 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures (6,046,985) (13,440) (87,636) 0 0 Beginning fund balance 6,148,061 101,076 87,636 0 0 Ending fund balance $ 101,076 $ 87,636 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 102 Fund: 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget This fund was created to account for the design and construction costs of various railroad grade separation projects that are included in the Bridging the Valley concept. Due to the anticipated size, scope, and duration of these projects, managing them in a separate fund allows for the necessary monitoring without being obscured by the variety and quantity of the other projects in the Street Capital Projects Fund #303 as well as keeping these projects from skewing the average volume of activity in Fund #303. Revenues for this fund consist of grant proceeds and transfers in from other City funds, such as the General Fund #001, the REET 1 Capital Project Fund #301 and the Capital Reserve Fund #312. Expenditures in the years of 2020 and 2021 are related to design and right of way costs for the Pines Road Underpass project and the right of way and construction costs for the Barker Road Overpass project. Design work is also beginning for the Sullivan Road Interchange. Revenues Grant Proceeds Investment Interest Transfers in -#001 Transfers in - #301 Transfers in - #302 Transfers in -#312 Total revenues Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 87,611 $ 571,136 $ 1,447,398 $ 3,526,378 $ 11,508,819 4,072 16,591 15,883 0 0 1,200,000 0 0 0 0 111,941 (8,147) 104,918 869,008 0 0 0 0 0 1,127,387 482,216 0 0 142,500 725,774 1,885,840 579,580 1,568,199 4,537,886 13, 361, 980 Expenditures Barker BNSF Grade Separation 3,893 562,988 1,552,316 3,405,977 9,396,870 Pines Rd Underpass 12,975 48,923 43,717 1,300,000 4,149,450 Sullivan Rd Interchange 0 0 0 75,000 250,000 Total expenditures 16,868 611,911 1,596,033 4,780,977 13,796,320 Revenues over (under) expenditures 1,068,804 (32,331) (27,834) (243,091) (434,340) Beginning fund balance 0 1,068,804 1,036,473 1,008,639 765,548 Ending fund balance $ 1,068,804 $ 1,036,473 $ 1,008,639 $ 765,548 $ 331,208 103 Fund: 402 Stormwater Management Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The purpose of the Stormwater Management Fund is to account for the funds related to the cleaning, maintenance, and improvement of the City's storm drainage system. The revenue for this fund originates from a stormwater fee collected by Spokane County on behalf of the City. The annual fee is $21 for each single family unit, and for other property types a fee of $21 per each 3,160 square feet of parcel impervious surfacing is collected. Accomplishments for 2020 • Continued the work on the Glenrose and Central Basins Floodplain Delineation Project (FEMA Mapping). • Continue collaboration efforts with local, State, and Federal stormwater regulatory bodies. • Continue the inventory and mapping of all City stormwater facilities. • Continue on -going stormwater maintenance and repairs utilizing in-house and contracted services. • Coordinated and financed stormwater system improvements with capital projects developed by the City. • Continued stormwater management and NPDES coordination efforts with other Eastern Washington agencies. • Begin developing stormwater requirements to meet new National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Goals for 2021 • Continue the evaluation efforts for the Glenrose and Central Floodplain mapping for FEMA. • Work with other departments in developing a city-wide, comprehensive Asset Management Program, which will include stormwater facilities. • Continue collaboration efforts with local, State, and Federal stormwater regulatory bodies. • Continue the inventory and mapping of all City stormwater facilities. • Continue on -going stormwater maintenance and repairs utilizing in-house and contracted services. • Implement stormwater system improvements, integrating with other capital projects for efficiency. • Begin efforts in developing a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for the City. Personnel - FTE Equivalents Engineer Engineering Technician I Engineering Technician 11 Stormwater Forman Assistant Engineer Maintenance/Construction Inspector Planning Grants Engineer Budget Summary 2017 Actual 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.15 0.25 4.40 2018 Actual 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.15 0.25 4.40 2019 Actual 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.15 0.25 3.90 2020 Budget 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.15 0.25 3.90 2021 Budget 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.25 0.25 3.90 Interns 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 (continued to next page) 104 Fund: 402 Stormwater Management Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget (continued from previous page) Budget Summary Recurring Activity 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget Revenues StormwaterManagementfees $ 1,895,033 $ 1,920,509 $ 1,936,362 $ 1,900,000 $ 1,900,000 Investment Interest 20,564 40,465 48,642 40,000 40,000 Miscellaneous & Grants Proceeds 25,000 0 58,746 0 0 1,940,597 1,960,974 2,043,750 1,940,000 1,940,000 Expenditures Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 465,102 403,470 436,115 519,582 538,864 Supplies 11,064 12,418 16,956 14,750 14,750 Services & Charges 1,010,643 1,149,170 1,135,846 1,298,153 1,320,643 Intergovernmental Services 32,661 35,430 37,984 37,500 45,000 Transfers out - #001 13,400 13,400 0 0 0 Interfund vehicle lease -#501 0 0 0 14,000 6,750 1,532,870 1,613,888 1,626,901 1,883,985 1,926,007 Recurring revenues over (under) Recurring Expenditures 407,727 347,086 416,849 56,015 13,993 Nonrecurring Activity Revenues Grant Proceeds 338,384 128,695 106,000 59,828 100,000 FEMA Grant Proceeds - Windstorm 6,823 0 0 0 0 345,207 128,695 106,000 59,828 100,000 Expenditures Capital - Various Projects 528,433 354,085 423,585 500,000 500,000 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 Watershed studies 0 64,541 48,576 80,000 100,000 528,433 418,626 472,161 680,000 700,000 Nonrecurring revenues over (under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (183,226) (289,931) (366,161) (620,172) (600,000) Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures 224,501 57,155 50,688 (564,157) (586,007) Beginning working capital 1,761,416 1,973,424 2,216,210 2,180,773 1,616,616 Ending working capital $ 1,985,917 $ 2,030,579 $ 2,266,898 $ 1,616,616 $ 1,030,609 105 Fund: 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget In 1985 voters of Spokane County approved a ballot proposition to create the Spokane Aquifer Protection Area (APA) as well as corresponding aquifer protection area fees with both sunsetting December 31, 2005. Boundaries of the APA included portions of unincorporated areas (including what is now Spokane Valley) and the cities of Liberty Lake, Millwood and Spokane. In 2004 the City of Spokane Valley approved a resolution authorizing the inclusion of its municipal boundaries within the APA. The APA program was subsequently reauthorized through 2025 with voter approval. All fees are collected by Spokane County and include: • An annual fee of $15 per household for the withdrawal of water from properties within the APA. • An annual fee of $15 per household for on -site sewage disposal within the APA. • For commercial properties an annual fee ranging from $15 to $960 depending upon water meter size. In 2004 the City of Spokane Valley (City) entered into an interlocal agreement with Spokane County (County) that authorized the County to collect and retain APA fees through 2010 for a variety of projects including: • up to $100,000 annually through 2010 to the Spokane Regional Health District to provide for data base management related to monitoring of septic tanks and their potential impact on water quality in the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. • a septic tank elimination program (STEP) designed to replace septic tanks with sanitary sewer systems. In the 2004 interlocal agreement the City and County also agreed that for the years 2011 through 2025 the APA fees remaining after the payment of reasonable administration and billing fees incurred by the County would be distributed annually between the County, City and City of Spokane on a proportional basis relative to the amount generated in unincorporated areas, the City and City of Spokane. The fees collected on the City's behalf by Spokane County are expended entirely on stormwater related projects that are designed to protect the aquifer. These fees plus grant monies received from a number of granting agencies finance a variety of capital projects. Revenues Spokane County Grant Proceeds Investment Interest Total Revenues Expenditures Capital - Various projects Total Expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital Budget Summary 2017 Actual $ 521,070 0 0 521,070 2018 Actual $ 462,981 597,733 28,620 1,089,334 2019 Actual $ 469,429 101,715 37,329 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 460,000 $ 460,000 446,700 2,122,045 20,000 15,000 608,473 926,700 2,597,045 58,722 662,402 329,829 1,133,571 58,722 662,402 329,829 1,133,571 462,348 426,932 278,644 (206,871) 950,725 1,413,073 1,840,005 2,118,299 $ 1,413,073 $ 1,840,005 $ 2,118,649 $ 1,911,428 2,378,109 2,378,109 218,936 1,911,428 $ 2,130,364 106 Fund: 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund (ER&R) is an Internal Service Fund that is designed to provide the funds necessary to purchase new vehicles and equipment at predetermined life cycles. This fund operates by charging each City department a monthly rental rate for the vehicles they use. The fee is based upon the estimated useful life of the vehicle and its replacement cost. The theory behind this program is that it allows City departments to budget vehicle replacement costs as a reoccurring expense over an extended period of time rather than as an intermittent capital expense that may be difficult to afford in any single year. In the event a City department requires an additional vehicle that actually adds to the fleet rather than simply replaces an existing vehicle, then that department must budget for the initial purchase price and transfer the necessary funds to the ER&R Fund to make the acquisition. In subsequent years the department will then begin paying a replacement fee spread out over the estimated useful life of the new vehicle. Beginning in 2017 a CenterPlace Kitchen Reserve was established through a transfer in from the General Fund in the amount of $36,600 per year for 5 years to build a total reserve of $183,000, which is the estimated replacement cost of the significant kitchen appliances and equipment at CenterPlace. Snow Plow Replacement Program The snow plow fleet currently consists of nine plow trucks. Six of the trucks are equipped with sanders and three of the trucks are equipped with 1,000-gallon tanks for placement of liquid deicer. Over the past five years the City has continued to improve the snow removal operations and has updated the snow plan accordingly. These improvements in snow operations have dictated that operating nine plows is a very efficient way to remove snow from the arterial and hillside roadways. Operating nine plows allows the performance of a full city arterial and designated hillsides plow in approximately 12 hours. In the future new plows will be purchased to replace the aging fleet as noted below and older plows will serve as backups and eventually be retired from the fleet beginning in 2022. The recommended snow plow fleet consists of eleven plows with two serving as backup plows. The two backup plows ensure that arterial roadways and hillside priority roadways can be cleared of snow per the snow plan. Having backup plows provides the City with additional plows that can be deployed in case of a mechanical breakdown or an accident during a winter storm event. Snow Plow Fleet Truck # Model Year YRAcquired Age at Retirement ReplacementYr Notes 206 1996 2009 26 2022 207 1997 2009 28 2025 204 1995 2009 33 2028 203 1995 2009 36 2031 Existing Fleet 205 1996 2009 38 2034 (9) Snow Plows 208 1997 2009 40 2037 209 1998 2011 42 2040 211 2000 2012 43 2043 210 2010 2011 36 2046 212 2016 2016 33 2049 Truck 206 becomes a backup 213 2020 2020 32 2052 Truck 207 becomes a backup 214 2022 2022 33 2055 Truck204 becomes a backup /206 is retired 215 2025 2025 33 2058 Truck203 becomes a backup /207 is retired 216 2028 2028 33 2061 Truck205 becomes a backup /204 is retired 217 2031 2031 33 2064 Truck208 becomes a backup /203 is retired 218 2034 2034 33 2067 Truck209 becomes a backup /205 is retired 219 2037 2037 33 2070 Truck211 becomes a backup /208 is retired 220 2040 2040 33 2073 Truck210 becomes a backup /209 is retired 221 2043 2043 33 2076 Truck212 becomes a backup /211 is retired (continued to next page) 107 Fund: 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget (continued from previous page) Revenues Vehicle rentals - #001 Vehicle rentals - #101 Vehicle rentals - #101 (plow replace.) Vehicle rentals - #402 Transfers in - #001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) Transfers in - #001 (Code Enforcement Vehicle) Investment Interest Total Revenues Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget 32,500 30,000 30,000 28,000 31,300 23,250 21,250 21,250 14,500 10,250 77,929 77,929 77,929 48,500 60,500 12,750 12,750 12,750 14,000 6,750 36,600 36,600 36,600 36,600 36,600 0 0 0 30,000 0 9,651 19,873 26,715 19,000 10,000 192,680 198,402 205,244 190,600 155,400 Expenditures Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 0 3,714 0 0 0 Vehicle maintenance equipment 46,039 0 122 20,000 10,000 Snow plow purchase 110,309 0 0 235,000 0 Loader purchase 0 0 0 35,000 0 Vehicle Purchase 0 0 0 30,000 130,000 Transfer out - #001 (networking equipment) 77,000 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditures 233,348 3,714 122 320,000 140,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital (40,668) 194,688 205,122 (129,400) 15,400 1,136,951 1,096,283 1,290,971 1,496,093 1,366,693 $ 1,096,283 $ 1,290,971 $ 1,496,093 $ 1,366,693 $ 1,382,093 Fund: 502 Risk Management Fund Spokane Valley 2021 Budget The City of Spokane Valley is exposed to risks of loss related to a number of sources including tort; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; natural disasters; and unemployment claims filed by former employees through the State of Washington. The Risk Management Fund was established to account for all such related revenues and expenses. Revenues for this fund are comprised almost entirely from an annual transfer of money from the General Fund and the single largest expense is typically the insurance premium the City pays to our insurance provider, the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA). Revenues Transfers in - #001 Investment Interest Total Revenues Budget Summary 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Budget 2021 Budget $ 350,000 $ 370,000 $ 390,000 $ 410,000 $ 425,000 1,107 2,135 2,124 0 0 351,107 372,135 392,124 410,000 425,000 Expenditures Auto & Property insurance 311,467 345,769 348,794 410,000 425,000 Unemployment Claims 29,066 6,849 31,104 0 0 Total Expenditures 340,533 352,618 379,898 410,000 425,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures 10,574 19,517 12,226 0 0 Beginning working capital 233,687 244,261 263,778 276,004 276,004 Ending working capital $ 244,261 $ 263,778 $ 276,004 $ 276,004 $ 276,004 108 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Capital Expenditures for 2021 SOURCE OF FUNDS #001 #106 #107 #301 #302 #311 #312 #314 #402 #403 #501 2021 REET 1 REET 2 Aquifer Equipment Expenditure Solid Capital Capital Pavement Capital Grade Stormwater Protection Rental & Developer Capital Outlay Description Budget General Waste PEG Projects Projects Preservation Reserve Separation Management Area Replacement Grants Contributions #001 General Fund - IT capital replacements 242,800 242,800 - Public Safety replacements 41,400 41,400 Subtotal 284,200 284,200 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 #107 PEG Fund 33,500 33,500 - PEG Capital outlay Subtotal 33,500 0I 0I 33,5001 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0 0 #303 Street Capital Projects Fund 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements 329,453 305,750 23,703 249 SullivanlWellesley Intersection 1,020,522 133,720 856,802 30,000 267 Mission Ave Sidewalk 11,310 8,460 2,850 275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 1,132,320 1,132,320 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 7,210 7,210 293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 74,250 74,250 294 Citywide Reflective Signal Post Panels 17,875 17,875 299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont 2,392,450 500,326 1,892,124 300 Pines & Mission Intersection Improvement 498,000 67,230 430,770 301 Park and Mission Intersection Improvements 693,000 277,200 415,800 310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Rep 317,625 317,625 313 Barker Road/Union Pacific Crossing 1,312,500 758,608 553,892 318 Wilbur Sidewalk: Boone to Mission 50,000 6,750 43,250 320 Sullivan Preservation: Sprague-8th 19,800 19,800 Contingency' 1,000,000 100,000 100,000 800,000 Subtotal 8,876,315 0 I 0 I 0 I 316,620 I 1,662,684 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 6,843,308 I 53,703 #309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 314 Balfour Park Frontage Improvements 565,150 565,150 315 Browns Park Improvements 2020 499,805 19,275 480,530 Install stage fill speakers Great Room 6,346 6,346 Repair failed pixels Great Room 6,505 6,505 Reprogram Great Room NV System 12,499 12,499 Repair/replace siding at Mirabeau restroom 30,000 30,000 Subtotal 1,120,305 74,625 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 565,150 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 480,530 I 0 #311 Pavement Preservation Fund 4,676,350 991,843 1,500,000 827,278 827,279 529,950 - Pavement preservation Subtotal 4,676,350 991,843 I 1,500,000 I 0 I 827,278 I 827,279 I 529,950 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 #312 Capital Reserve Fund 759,600 759,600 - Park land acquisition Subtotal 759,600 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 759,600 I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0 #314 Grade Separation Fund 143 Barker BNSF Grade Separation 9,396,870 1,127,387 411,582 7,857,901 223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF & Trent2 4,149,450 64,192 434,340 3,650,918 311 Sullivan Rd Interchange @ Trent 250,000 250,000 13,796,320 0I 0I 0I 01 1,127,3871 01 725,774I 434,340 I 01 01 01 11,508,819I 0 #402 Stormwater Management Fund 500,000 500,000 - Capital - various projects Subtotal 500,000 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 500,000 I 0I 0I 0I 0 #403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 2,378,109 256,064 2,122,045 -Capital- various projects Subtotal 2,378,109 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 256,064 I 0 I 2,122,045 I 0 #501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund 130,000 0 130,000 - Vehicle purchase Subtotal 130,000 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 0I 130,000 I 0I 0 Total Capital Expenditures and Related Financing 32,554,699 1,350,668 1,500,000 33,500 1,143,898 3,617,350 529,950 2,050,524 434,340 1 Contingency amount is to cover unforseen overruns, costs related to projects that were expected to complete in 2016 and the costs of projects that have not yet had funding sources identified. 2 Use of Fund Balance for CIP 0223-Pines Rd Underpass BNSF & Trent is a portion of the $1,200,000 transferred from the General Fund in 2017. - Dollar figures in Italicized Bold font are paid from a combination of existing fund balance and fund revenue that is not attributable to a single project. 500,000 256,064 130,000 20,954,702 53,703 109 #001 - General Fund City Manager / City Clerk City Attorney Public Safety Deputy City Manager Finance Human Resources Public Works City Hall Operations & Maintenance CPW- Engineering CPW- Economic Development CPW- Building and Planning CED - Administration CED - Economic Development CED - Development Services CED - Engineering CED - Planning CED - Building Parks & Rec - Admin Parks & Rec - Recreation Parks & Rec - Senior Center Parks & Rec - CenterPlace CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Full Time Equivalent Employees Adopted 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014 I 2015 I 2016 I 2017 I 2018 I 2019 I 2020 Amended 2020 Proposed 2021 (1) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 11 11 10.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7.5 7.5 7 7.375 7.375 7.375 6.375 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.65 4 0 0 0 0 11 11 10 6 6 8 7 0 0 0 8.5 8.5 8 8 0 0 0 12.75 12.75 11.5 12.5 14 14 15 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Difference from 2020 to 2021 + (-) (2) 7 6.5 6.5 7.5 7.5 1.000 1 3.5 3.5 4 4 4 0.000 0 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.000 3 1 1 1 1 0.000 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 0.000 2 2 2 2 2 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 1 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.000 12.5 13.275 13.525 13.025 14.025 0.500 (3) (4) 6.375 6 6 6 5 (1.000) (3) 18 20 21 21 21 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 2 2 2 2 2 0.000 1 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.000 1 1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.000 5 5 5 5 5 0.000 Total General Fund 74.75 74.75 72.25 73.625 73.625 73.775 74.125 74.125 74.025 75.775 76.275 76.275 0.500 #101 - Street Fund 5 4.5 5 5.375 5.725 5.725 5.725 5.725 7.725 7.475 7.475 7.475 0.000 #303 - Street Capital Project Fund 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 5 8.1 8.1 7.6 7.6 (0.500) #402 - Stormwater Fund 4 4.5 4.5 4.75 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 0.000 Total FTEs 87.25 87.25 85.25 87.25 87.25 87.4 87.75 89.25 93.75 95.25 95.25 95.25 0.000 (1) FTEs for 2017 reflect the reorganization that was effective in April 2017. The original 2017 Budget had FTEs of 88.4. (2) FTEs for 2018 reflect the budget amendment approved on May 29. 2018. (3) One vacant position in Economic Development was repurposed to Engineering due to workload. (4) Vacant Engineering position that was split 50/50 between the General Fund and Street Capital Projects Fund was repurposed to a Housing & Homeless Services Coordinator in the City Manager department. 110 2020 Work Force Comparison The 31 Washington Communities with a Population of 30,000 to 100,000 CITY POPULATION FULL-TIME PART-TIME Auburn 81,940 438 0 Bellingham* 91,610 885 16 Bothell 48,400 382 6 Bremerton 41,750 337 12 Burien 52,300 77 7 Des Moines 32,260 182 4 Edmonds* 42,470 228 7 Federal Way 98,340 327 7 Issaquah 38,690 245 12 Kennewick 84,960 390 2 Kirkland 90,660 627 12 Lacey 52,910 279 2 Lake Stevens 34,150 85 3 Lakewood 60,030 200 4 Longview 38,350 303 5 Lynnwood* 40,690 290 6 Marysville 69,180 287 4 Mount Vernon 36,050 230 30 Olympia 54,150 556 20 Pasco 77,100 349 0 Pullman 34,850 220 30 Puyallup 42,700 279 11 Redmond 69,900 633 20 Richland 58,550 488 25 Sammamish** 65,100 106 7 Shoreline 56,980 176 18 Spokane Valley 97,490 94 2 University Place 33,310 47 7 Walla Walla 34,400 281 12 Wenatchee 35,140 173 4 Yakima 95,490 673 22 AVERAGE 318 10 Source: AWC 2020 Salary and Benefits Survey, organization profile *2020 data not reported. Numbers from 2019. 111 Appendix A EMPLOYEE POSITION CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY SALARY SCHEDULE Effective January 1, 2021 Position Title Grade 2021 Range City Manager Unclassified Deputy City Manager 22 10,063.44 - 16,365.38 City Attorney 21 9,066.16 - 14,728.96 Finance Director 21 9,066.16 - 14,728.96 Parks and Recreation Director 20 8,159.44 - 13,257.04 City Engineer 19 7,343.36 - 11,931.46 Deputy City Attorney 19 7,343.36 - 11,931.46 Human Resources Manager 19 7,343.36 - 11,931.46 Planning Manager 18 6,609.87 - 10,737.79 Building Official 18 6,609.87 - 10,737.79 Engineering Manager 18 6,609.87 - 10,737.79 Economic Development Manager 18 6,609.87 - 10,737.79 Senior Engineer 17 5,948.55 - 9,663.61 Accounting Manager 17 5,948.55 - 9,663.61 Assistant Building Official 17 5,948.55 - 9,663.61 Public Works Superintendent 17 5,948.55 - 9,663.61 Senior Administrative Analyst 17 5,948.55 - 9,663.61 IT Manager 17 5,948.55 - 9,663.61 Attorney 16 5,353.16 - 8,696.69 City Clerk 16 5,353.16 - 8,696.69 Engineer 16 5,353.16 - 8,696.69 Senior Planner 16 5,353.16 - 8,696.69 Development Services Coordinator 16 5,353.16 - 8,696.69 GIS/Database Administrator 16 5,353.16 - 8,696.69 Accountant/Budget Analyst 16 5,353.16 - 8,696.69 Housing and Homeless Services Coordinator 16 5,353.16 - 8,696.69 Associate Planner 15 4,818.50 - 7,827.56 Assistant Engineer 15 4,818.50 - 7,827.56 IT Specialist 15 4,818.50 - 7,827.56 Engineering Technician II 15 4,818.50 - 7,827.56 Economic Development Project Specialist 15 4,818.50 - 7,827.56 Senior Plans Examiner 15 4,818.50 - 7,827.56 Public Information Officer 15 4,818.50 - 7,827.56 Administrative Analyst 15 4,818.50 - 7,827.56 Maintenance/Construction Foreman 15 4,818.50 - 7,827.56 Mechanic 14 4,336.92 - 7,045.35 Human Resource Analyst 14 4,336.92 - 7,045.35 CenterPlace Coordinator 14 4,336.92 - 7,045.35 Planner 14 4,336.92 - 7,045.35 Building Inspector II 14 4,336.92 - 7,045.35 Plans Examiner 14 4,336.92 - 7,045.35 Engineering Technician I 14 4,336.92 - 7,045.35 Senior Permit Specialist 14 4,336.92 - 7,045.35 Code Enforcement Officer 14 4,336.92 - 7,045.35 Maintenance/Construction Inspector 14 4,336.92 - 7,045.35 Recreation Coordinator 13 3,902.91 - 6,340.57 Deputy City Clerk 13 3,902.91 - 6,340.57 Customer Relations/Facilities Coordinator 13 3,902.91 - 6,340.57 Building Inspector I 13 3,902.91 - 6,340.57 Executive Assistant 13 3,902.91 - 6,340.57 Planning Technician 13 3,902.91 - 6,340.57 Human Resources Technician 13 3,902.91 - 6,340.57 Senior Center Specialist 12 3,513.90 - 5,706.37 Permit Facilitator 12 3,513.90 - 5,706.37 Help Desk Technician 12 3,513.90 - 5,706.37 Accounting Technician 12 3,513.90 - 5,706.37 Administrative Assistant 12 3,513.90 - 5,706.37 Recreation Specialist 12 3,513.90 - 5,706.37 Maintenance Worker 11-12 3,161.54 - 5,706.37 Permit Specialist 11 3,161.54 - 5,135.98 Office Assistant II 10-11 2,845.20 - 5,135.98 Custodian 10 2,845.20 - 4,621.30 Office Assistant I 9-10 2,561.00 - 4,621.30 Note : Slight rounding differences may exist between the figures reflected on this page and the actual payroll rates computed by the Eden Payroll System. 112 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Glossary of Budget Terms Accrual Basis — A basis of accounting in which revenues and expenditures are recorded at the time they occur as opposed to when cash is actually received or spent. Appropriation — A legal authorization granted by the City Council to make expenditures and to incur obligations for a specific purpose. Assessed Valuation — The valuation set upon real estate and certain personal property by the County Assessor as a basis for levying property taxes. Authorized Positions — Employee positions, which are authorized in the adopted budget, to be filled during the year. Bond — A long-term promise to repay a specified amount (the face amount of the bond) on a particular date (the maturity date). The most common types of bonds are general obligation revenue bonds. Bonds are primarily used to finance capital projects. Budget — A plan of financial activity for a specified period of time (fiscal year or biennium) indicating all planned revenues and expenses for the budget period. Budget Message — The opening section of the budget that provides the City Council and the public with a general summary of the most important aspects of the budget, changes from the current and previous years, and the views and recommendations of the Mayor. Capital Improvement — Expenditures related to acquisition, expansion or rehabilitation of an element of the government's physical plant; sometimes referred to as infrastructure. Capital Outlay — Fixed assets that have general value of $5,000 or more and have a useful economic lifetime of more than one year. Capital Project — Major construction, acquisition, or renovation activities which add value to government's physical assets or significantly increase their useful life, also called capital improvements. Capital Projects Fund — A fund created to account for all resources and expenditures used for the acquisition of fixed assets except those financed by enterprise funds. Contingency — A budgetary reserve set aside for emergencies or unforeseen expenditures not otherwise budgeted. Contractual Services — Services rendered to a government by private firms, individuals, or other governmental agencies. Debt Service — Payment of interest and principal on borrowed money according to a predetermined payment schedule. Department — The basic unit of service responsibility, encompassing a broad mandate of related service responsibilities. 113 Division — Can be a subunit of a department which encompasses a substantial portion of the duties assigned to a department (e.g. Building Division in the Planning and Community Development Department). Encumbrance — The commitment of appropriated funds to purchase an item or service. To encumber funds means to set aside or commit funds for a specified future expenditure. Expense — Charges incurred (whether paid immediately or unpaid) for operations, maintenance, interest or other charges. Face Value — The amount of principal that must be paid at maturity for a bond issue. Fiscal Year — A twelve-month period designated as the operating year for accounting and budgeting purposes in an organization. Full-time Equivalent Position (FTE) — A full-time or part-time position converted to the decimal equivalent of a full-time position based on 2,080 hours per year. For example, a part-time person working 20 hours per week would be equivalent of 0.5 of a full-time position. Fund — A fiscal entity with revenues and expenses that are segregated for the purpose of carrying out a specific purpose or activity. GAAP — Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Uniform minimum standards for financial accounting and recording, encompassing the conventions, rules, and procedures that define accepted accounting principles. GASB — The Governmental Accounting Standards Board, established in 1985, is the current standard -setting board for governmental GAAP. General Fund — The principal operating fund of the City used for general governmental operations. Taxes and fees that generally have no restriction on their use support it. General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds — This type of bond is backed by the full faith, credit and taxing power of the government issuing it. Indirect Cost — A cost necessary for the functioning of the organization as a whole, but which cannot be identified with a specific product, function or activity. Infrastructure — The physical assets of a government (e.g. streets, water, sewer, public buildings, and parks). Interfund Transfers — The movement of monies between funds of the same governmental entity. Levy — To impose taxes for the support of the governmental activities. Long-term Debt — Debt with a maturity of more than one year after the date of issuance. Mission Statement — A broad statement of the intended accomplishment or basic purpose of a program. Modified Accrual Accounting — A basis of accounting in which expenditures are accrued but revenues are accounted for when they become measurable and 114 available. Since this type of accounting basis is a conservative financial approach, it is recommended as the standard for most governmental funds. Operating Budget — The portion of the budget that pertains to daily operations that provide basic governmental services. Ordinance — A formal legislative enactment by the City Council. If it is not in conflict with any higher form of law, such as a statute or constitutional provision, it has the full force and effect of law within the boundaries of the municipality to which it applies. Program — The smallest organization that delivers a specific set of services. A program may be an entire department; or if a department encompasses significantly diverse responsibilities or large work forces, a single department may be divided into two or more programs. Reserve — An account used to either set aside budgeted revenues that are not required for expenditure in the current budget year or to earmark revenues for a specific future purpose. Resolution — A special or temporary order of a legislative body —an order of a legislative body requiring less legal formality than an ordinance or statute. Resources — Total amounts available for appropriation including estimated revenues, fund transfers, and beginning balances. Revenue — Sources of income financing the operations of government. Taxes — Compulsory charges levied by a government for the purpose of financing services performed for the common benefit. This term does not include specific charges made against particular persons or property for current or permanent benefits such as special assessments. Neither does the term include charges for services rendered only to those who pay, for example, sewer service charges. Unreserved Fund Balance — The portion of a fund's balance that is not restricted for a specific purpose and is available for general appropriation. User Charges — The payment of a fee for direct receipt of a public service by the party who benefits from the service. Vision Statement — A short statement that conveys the big picture of the organization. It is general in scope, not restricting. It answers the question "Why?" 115 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 8, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Ordinance No. 20-026 Transportation Impact Fees Code Text Amendment — CTA-2020-0005 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b); RCW 43.21 C; RCW 82.02.050-.110; WAC 197-11; WAC 365-196-850. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Reports on 2-18-20 and 11-24-20 BACKGROUND: The proposed ordinance provides a City -initiated code text amendment (CTA- 2020-0005) to provide a new chapter 22.100 to Title 22 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and provide minor modifications as necessary to various other Titles of the SVMC, including Title 17 and Title 22 SVMC, and the Spokane Valley Street Standards (SVSS), to adopt, assess, and collect transportation impact fees within the South Barker Corridor area. Title 22 SVMC regulates the design and development standards pursuant to RCW's 35A.11.020, 35A.14.140, 36.70A (Growth Management Act), and 58.17, WAC 365-195-800 through 365-195- 865, and the provisions of SMVC Titles 17 through 25. In September 2020, Fehr & Peers developed a transportation impact fee rate study derived from the South Barker Corridor Study (the rate study is designated as the "South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study" or "Rate Study" herein). The Rate Study evaluated the previously determined infrastructure improvements and their associated costs, and how those costs can be fairly and proportionately distributed to new development that contributes traffic that affects the transportation network in a manner that complies with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.110. The Rate Study calculates a "per trip" impact fee of $1,272 per PM peak -hour vehicle trip. The following list highlights prominent new development types and their associated impact fee. Costs shown are based on a "per trip" rate of $1,272. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10`" Edition quantifies various "generation rates" associated with a multitude of different land uses and applies an appropriate multiplier to the "per trip" rate of $1,272. 1. $ 1,260 per unit 2. $ 713 per unit 3. $ 891 per room 4. $ 1.74 per sq. ft. 5. $ 4.17 per sq. ft. 6. $ 1.46 per sq. ft. 7. $ 3.20 per sq. ft. Single Family Home/Duplex Multi -Family Hotel (3 or more levels) Elementary School Medical Clinic General Office Shopping Center The concept of adopting an impact fee to help the City mitigate transportation impacts created by new development is not new. In March 2019, the City adopted the "Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance," ("NIA-PAO") set forth in chapter 21.60 SVMC. While technically a SEPA process, the NIA-PAO provides a streamlined land use permit review process that includes traffic mitigation fees in a very similar manner to impact fees. As part of the NIA-PAO, qualifying projects pay a traffic mitigation fee of $2,831. This fee is in lieu of providing detailed lengthy individualized traffic analysis, so it provides certainty to developers and eliminates significant project review time. The Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a study session on the proposed CTA at the October 22, 2020 meeting. On November 5, 2020, the Commission conducted a public hearing and deliberations. Several public comments were received as part of the public hearing and those comments are included within the packet. At that meeting, the Commission voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Council that CTA-2020-0005 be approved as presented by staff. On November 12, 2020 the Commission adopted Findings and Recommendations. Of note, the proposed CTA-2020-0005 provides the mechanism for adopting, assessing, and collecting transportation impact fees. However, it does not contain the fee amount. Rather, the actual transportation impact fee will be adopted as part of the Master Fee Resolution as part of the City's Master Fee Schedule. This process will run concurrently with the process for consideration of Ordinance No. 20-26 and CTA-2020-0005. OPTIONS: Move to advance Ordinance 20-026 to a second reading, or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 20-026, adopting, imposing, assessing, and collecting transportation impact fees, to a second reading as proposed. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no additional cost to the City if the proposed amendment is adopted. Proposed impact fees are anticipated to generate up to $3.36 million of new revenue to be applied to transportation system improvements identified in the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, City Engineer; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Jerremy Clark, Sr. Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. PowerPoint Presentation 2. Draft Ordinance No. 20-026 3. Exhibit C: Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (including South Barker Corridor Study) 4. Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendations 5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes:10/8/2020, 10/22/2020, 11/5/2020, 11/12/2020 6. Staff Report CTA-2020-0005 (including all received comments) 7. Fehr & Peers Response to Liberty Lake Agency Comments Spokane l,.0Va11ey Ordinance 20-026 CTA-2020-0005 Transportation Impact Fees December 8, 2020 Bill Helbig, City Engineer Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jerremy Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer 2020 Process Spokane � Val ley Admin. Report • S.:ar er oa Corridor Study • Council consensus to pursue Transportation Impact Fees PC Info. Item Oct. 8 • S. Bar er oad Corridor Study • Transportation Impact Fees PC Study Session • Oct. 22 • ..:ar er . Transportation Impact Fees • Proposed Code Text Amendments • SEPA Underway PC Public Hearing • Nov. • u"'"'ic ""earing: • S. Barker Rd. Transportation Impact Fees • Proposed Code Text Amendments PC Findings of Fact e rvers findings on S. Barker Rd. Transportation Impact Fees • Proposed Code Text Amendments Transportation Impact Fees • Proposed Code Text Amendments • PC Findings • Transpor a ion Impacts Fees • CC CTA 2nd Reading, Adoption • 15 • Consider Adoption of Transportation Impact Fees What are Impact Fees? Spokane 4,* Val ley • Statutorily authorized mechanism to have development pay for its proportionate impact on services and infrastructure • May be limited in application to an identified geographical area rather than City -Wide Area is based on measurable traffic impacts present in specific Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) taken from Spokane Regional Transportation Council's Regional Traffic Model • Proposed Barker Rd. Transportation Impact Fee Area 3 Barker Corridor z Z ! E Euclid Ave Liberty Lake 0 o 7 ; ▪ N C E 16th Ave Ccach Dr r-• • 1 Rce 0 Impact Fees: Rate Study South Barker Corridor Study (February 2020) South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (September 2020) 7 Recommended Improvements — $18.8 Million Mission Avenue to Boone Avenue — $3.1 Million 5 Lane Urban Arterial Section Interstate 90 Interchange/Bridge — WSDOT Funded Interstate 90 to Appleway Avenue — $6.5 Million 5 Lane Urban Arterial Section Sprague Avenue Single Lane Roundabout — $2.2 Million Appleway to City Limits — $3.5 Million 3 Lane Urban Section 4th Avenue Single Lane Roundabout — $2.0 Million 8th Avenue Single Lane Roundabout — $1.5 Million �"J Impact Fees: Rate Study Spokane Valley • Corridor Impacts: Mission Avenue to South Limits • Significant Development Impact to Study Area • $18.8M Total Cost to Mitigate Developer Impacts • Identify Fair Share Costs Non -City Funds • Impact Fee Area 2% • $3.6M (19%) • Non -City Funds • $350K (2%) • Other Funding Sources • $14.8M (79%) IS Barker Corridor J- go z 0 0 E 16th Ave Ve Ave CC E Euclid Ave Liberty Lake CD • Q. 6 Impact Fees: Proposed Code Changes Spokane Valley 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 • Primary Impact: Title 22 SMVC -Design and Development Standards • New Chapter 22.100 SVMC to adopt and impose Transportation Impact Fees • Secondary Impacts: Updates to affected, related code sections 17.90 — Appeals 17.110.010 — Fees and Penalties — Master Fee Schedule 22.10.010 — Authority — Purpose Street Standards Chapter 3 Barker Road — Looking North at Sprague Avenue Impact Fees: New SMVC 22.100 Spokane 4,* Val ley • Chapter Highlights • .010 -Findings and Authority • .040 —Assessment of Transportation Impact Fees • .050 —Deferral • .060 —Exemptions • .070 —Credits • .080 —Independent Fee Calculations • .110 —Appeals • .120 —Refunds 7 Barker Road — Looking South at Broadway Avenue Impact Fees: Proposed Rates Spokane "Valley° ■ Proposed S. Barker Rate ■ $1,272 Per PM Peak Trip ■ Northeast Industrial Area $2,831 per PM Peak Trip Base Rate = $1,272 per PM Peak Trip Land Use Group Residential Institution Restaurant Industrial ITE Code ITE Land Use Category Impact Fee Per Unit 210 220 310 492 912 520 522 530 925 934 937 820 841 853 110 140 151 710 720 750 ITE Trip Generation manual, 10th Edition "sq ft" means square foot. "pump" means vehicle servicing position / gas pump. "room" means available hotel room. �II Single Family & Duplex $1,260 per dwelling unit Multi -Family $713 per dwelling unit Hotel (3 or More Levels) $891 per room Health Club $4.39 per sq ft Bank $17.17 per sq ft Elementary School $1.74 per sq ft Middle School $1.51 per sq ft High school $1.23 per sq ft Drinking Establishment $8.24 per sq ft Fast Food Restaurant (with Drive-Thru) $20.79 per sq ft Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru $6.07 per sq ft Shopping Center $3.20 per sq ft Automobile Sales — Used/New $4.77 per sq ft Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps $9,968 per pump Light Industry/High Technology $0.80 per sq ft Manufacturing $0.85 per sq ft Mini -Storage $0.22 per sq ft General Office $1.14 per sq ft Medical Office / Clinic $4.40 per sq ft Office Park $1.36 per sq ft Pursuant to chapter 22.100 SVMC, transportation impact fees for uses not listed in the rate table shall be based on (1) the most similar land use category identified in the table, or (2) the base rate and the most similar land use category identified in ITE Trip Generation Manual, as documented by a trip generation and distribution letter in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards. Discussion Spokane 4,. Val ley • Motion to advance the Ordinance 20-26 forward to a 2nd Reading • Take other action deemed appropriate S Barker Corridor E16th Ave Ave co z 0 z ECoach Dr r r�r l� . _J E Euclid Ave O Liberty Lake J 1 45' Draft CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 20-026 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADOPTING CHAPTER 22.100 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 17.90.010, 17.110.010, AND 22.10.010 AND AMENDING THE SPOKANE VALLEY STREET STANDARDS TO ADOPT, IMPLEMENT AND COLLECT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR; ADOPTING THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY AND THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY; OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted a Comprehensive Plan establishing the intent to utilize available funding sources to pay for capital improvements necessary as a result of new growth within the City, including use of impact fees for new developments to pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve such growth; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that those transportation facilities necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, or shortly thereafter, without decreasing current service levels below established minimum standards for the City; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to adopt, impose, and collect transportation impact fees pursuant to RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.110 and WAC 365-196-850; and WHEREAS, in February, 2020, the City completed a transportation impact study of the South Barker Corridor (the "South Barker Corridor Study") identifying traffic demands within the South Barker Corridor through 2040, necessary capital transportation improvements to meet the traffic demands, and the fair -share proportionate level of financial contribution that new development should pay for those improvements; and WHEREAS, in September, 2020, the City completed a transportation impact fee rate study for the South Barker Corridor (the "South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study") based upon the South Barker Corridor Study identifying the transportation impact fee rates for the South Barker Corridor; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) previously adopted Titles 17 and 22 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and the Spokane Valley Street Standards relating to development regulations, and has made subsequent amendments from time -to -time as appropriate; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2020, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b), providing a notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, the City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance ("DNS") for CTA-2020-0005. The DNS was not appealed; and Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 1 of 36 Draft WHEREAS, on October 16 and 23, 2020, notice of the Planning Commission (Commission) public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald. In addition to legally required notice, the City provided notice of the public hearing in media releases, multiple postings on all City social media outlets, email to email subscribers for numerous City email lists, and created a transportation -specific impact fee website; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, the Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2020, the Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation, followed by deliberations; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2020, the Commission approved the findings and recommended that City Council adopt the amendments; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments, Planning Commission findings, and Planning Commission recommendation; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020 City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the amendment set forth below is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, chapter 22.100 SVMC, sections 17.90.010, 17.110.010, and 22.10.010 SVMC, and the Spokane Valley Street Standards, as amended, bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt, impose, and collect transportation impact fees by adopting chapter 22.100 SVMC, amending sections 17.90.010, 17.110.010, and 22.10.010 SVMC, amending chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards, and adopting the South Barker Corridor Study and South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. Noticing of Public Hearing — The City provided notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendments as follows: 1. Publication in the Spokane Valley News Herald on October 16, 2020, and October 23, 2020. 2. Press release to 320 media -related email addresses, multiple postings on all City social media outlets, email to email subscribers for numerous City email lists, and creation of transportation -specific impact fee website. C. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies (SVMC 17.80.150(F)(1)) - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 2 of 36 Draft Planning Policies. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan set forth below. ED-G3 Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. LU-Gl Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. LU-P8 Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non - motorized transportation routes. T-Gl Ensure that the transportation system and investments in transportation infrastructure are designed to improve quality of life or support economic development priorities. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. T-G3 Strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero. T-P2 Consider neighborhood traffic and livability conditions and address potential adverse impacts of public and private projects during the planning, designing, permitting, and construction phases. T-P6 Work collaboratively with developers to ensure that areas experiencing new development are well served by motorized and non -motorized transportation options. T-P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared -use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. CF-G4 Pursue a diverse set of capital funding sources. CF-P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. CF-P15 Evaluate a variety of capital funding sources including, but not limited to, grants, local improvement districts, latecomer agreements, and impact fees to fund projects and programs. D. Substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment (SVMC 17.80.150(F)(2)) - Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 3 of 36 Draft The proposed amendments implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure a safe and efficient transportation system that supports and maintains the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley. The improvements identified in the South Barker Corridor Study and Rate Study will help maintain adequate levels of service for traffic along the Barker Road corridor over the next 20 years. The transportation impact fees will provide a regular and reliable funding source for a portion of these improvements, and will be provided by developments that are directly contributing to the need for such improvements. Further, the fees will be limited to the proportionate impact from new development, so as new development causes impacts, those impacts will be able to be addressed through necessary improvements. The proposed amendments introduce a consistent and reliable fee schedule for new development that establishes set rates across various types of new development, lending itself to more efficient planning and budgeting for new development projects. The proposed impact fee of $1,272 "per trip" is based on the Rate Study, which was conducted within standard engineering principles and provides a reasonable and appropriate fee amount. E. Conclusions - 1. The requirements for noticing of the public hearing pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(D). 2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(1). 3. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(2). F. Compliance with RCW 82.02.050-.110 and WAC 365-196-850 - 1. The proposed amendments and fees are based on a traffic rate study conducted in accordance with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050-.110. 2. The proposed fees and amendments are for public street and road system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, do not exceed the proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, and will be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development within the South Barker Corridor, as identified in the South Barker Corridor Traffic Study and South Barker Corridor Traffic Rate Study. 3. The Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service. The City has conducted a comprehensive study and plan of traffic growth and necessary system improvements to support such growth for the South Barker Corridor. Chapters 5 and 10 of the Comprehensive Plan identify use of impact fees as a funding source for necessary improvements. Section 3. Adoption. Title 22 SVMC is hereby amended by adding a new chapter, to be designated "Chapter 22.100 Transportation Impact Fees," as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 4. Amendment. SVMC 17.90.010 is hereby amended as follows: 17.90.010 General. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 4 of 36 Draft A. Appeals and Jurisdiction. All final decisions shall be appealed to the authority set forth in Table 17.90-1. Specific procedures followed by the planning commission, hearing examiner, and city council are set forth in Appendix B. Table 17.90-1— Decision/Appeal Authority Land Use and Development Decisions Appeal Authority Type I and II decisions Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Building permits Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type III decisions except zoning map amendments Superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type III zoning map amendments City council (SVMC 17.90.070); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type IV decisions Superior court Matters subject to review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.020 Growth Management Hearings Board Shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, and shoreline variances Shorelines Hearings Board (RCW 90.58.180) Compliance and enforcement decisions (Chapter 17.100 SVMC) Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Order of dwelling, building, structure, or premises unfit for human habitation or other use (Chapter 17.105 SVMC) Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.105.050) pursuant to the appeal procedures set forth in Chapter 17.105 SVMC; further appeal to superior court (SVMC 17.105.120) Impact fee appeals pursuant to chapter 22.100 SVMC shall be heard by the Hearing Examiner. Such appeals shall be subject to the procedures herein for Type I permit appeals, except as otherwise provided for by chapter 22.100 SVMC. Pursuant to chapter 22.100 SVMC, impact fee appeals shall be heard concurrently with appeals of the underlying permit as applicable. Impact fee appeals shall be subject to all requirements of chapter 22.100 SVMC, including any necessary pre -appeal requirements. Section 5. Amendment. SVMC 17.110.010 SVMC is hereby amended as follows: 17.110.010 Master fee schedule. All fees, including but not limited to fees for development permits, code interpretations, impact fees, all other applications allowed pursuant to SVMC Titles 17 through 24, and allowed appeals, shall be set forth in the City master fee schedule. A copy of this schedule shall be available from the city clerk. Section 6. Amendment. SVMC 22.10.010 is hereby amended as follows: 22.10.010 Purpose. The following design and development standards are established pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, 35A.14.140, Chapter 36.70A RCW (the Growth Management Act), Chapter 58.17 RCW, RCW 82.02.50 through 82.02.110, and WAC 365-195-800 through 365-195-865, as well as provisions of SVMC Titles 17 through 25. Section 7. Amendment. Chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 5 of 36 Draft Section 8. Study Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study and the South Barker Corridor Study in support of the amendments and transportation impact fees authorized by such amendments. The South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study is attached as Exhibit "C", the South Barker Corridor Study is attached as Appendix B to the Rate Study in Exhibit "C", and both Studies are incorporated by reference herein and chapter 22.100 SVMC as provided therein. Section 9. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Title 19 SVMC not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 10. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 11. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of December, 2020. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees Page 6 of 36 Draft EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 22.100 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Sections: 22.100.010 Findings and Authority. 22.100.020 Definitions. 22.100.030 Applicability. 22.100.040 Assessment of Transportation Impact Fees. 22.100.050 Deferral. 22.100.060 Exemptions. 22.100.070 Credits. 22.100.080 Independent Fee Calculations. 22.100.090 Adjustments. 22.100.100 Creation of Impact Fee Fund. 22.100.110 Appeals. 22.100.120 Refunds. 22.100.130 Interlocal Agreements. 22.100.140 Existing Authority Unimpaired. 22.100.150 Review. SVMC 22.100.010 Findings and Authority. A. The City Council hereby finds and determines that new growth and development, including but not limited to new residential, commercial, retail, office, cultural, educational, and industrial development, in the City will create additional demand and need for public transportation facilities, including but not limited to, public streets, roadways, multimodal, and related improvements within the City, and the City Council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. B. The City has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on transportation facilities, has prepared certain Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies, including the South Barker Corridor Study, dated February, 2020, and South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, dated September, 2020. All such studies are hereby adopted and incorporated into this title by reference. Based on the foregoing, the City has prepared a formula and method of calculating transportation impact fees to serve new development that provides a balance between transportation impact fees, public funds, and other sources of funds. The data and method of calculating contained in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies are consistent with the data collected as part of the development of the comprehensive plan, the traffic impact analyses completed for projects, and data and models developed by Spokane Regional Transportation Council and other jurisdictions. The Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies utilize a methodology for calculating transportation impact fees that fulfills all of the requirements of RCW 82.02.060(1). Copies of all studies shall be kept on file with the City Clerk and shall be available to the public for review. C. Pursuant to chapter 82.02 RCW, the City Council adopts this chapter to adopt and assess transportation impact fees. D. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the City Council in establishing the transportation impact fee program. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 7 of 36 Draft SVMC 22.100.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to Appendix A of the SVMC or RCW 82.02.090. A. "Applicant" means a person who applies for a development activity permit and who is the owner of the subject property according to the records of the Spokane County, or the owner's authorized agent. For purposes of transportation impact fee deferral requests pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050, applicant includes an entity that controls the applicant, is controlled by the applicant, or is under common control with the applicant. B. "Building permit" means the official document or certification that is issued by the City and that authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, tenant improvement, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure, as required and issued pursuant to Title 24 SVMC. C. "Development activity" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any changes in the use of land, that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. It does not include buildings or structures constructed by a regional transit authority or buildings or structures constructed as shelters that provide emergency housing for people experiencing homelessness, or emergency shelters for victims of domestic violence. D. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the City that authorizes the commencement of development activity. E. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or department or bureau of any governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a land development activity that creates the demand for additional public facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for a transportation impact fee credit. F. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, or the cost for reviewing independent fee calculations or other traffic studies prepared for safety, SEPA, or other purposes defined in the Spokane Valley Street Standards or in the SVMC. G. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account(s) established for each service area for the system improvements for which impact fees are collected. The accounts shall be established pursuant to this chapter, and shall comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070. H. "Independent fee calculation" means the impact fee calculation and or economic documentation prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of schedule set forth in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, or the calculations prepared by the City where none of the fee categories or fee amounts in the schedules in this chapter accurately describe or capture the impacts of the new development on public facilities. I. "Interest" means the interest rate earned by local jurisdictions in the State of Washington local government investment pool, if not otherwise defined. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 8 of 36 Draft J. "ITE manual" means the current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, as amended from time to time and most current version of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook as referenced therein. K. "Pass -by trip rates" means those pass -by rates set forth in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies, as amended from time to time. L. "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project, and are not system improvements. An improvement or facility included in the City's capital facilities plan is not considered a project improvement. M. "Public facilities" means publicly owned streets and roads, including related sidewalk, bike lanes, adjacent multiuse trails, and streetscape improvements required by the City's comprehensive plan and related development regulations, including adopted Street Standards, within the public rights -of -way. N. "Rate study" or "Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study" means the set of Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies adopted by City Council that define the methodologies, service standards, projects, costs, deficiencies, fair -shares, and rate tables. O. "Rate table" refers to schedule(s) containing the transportation impact fee rate per PM peak hour trip or unit of land use (e.g., single family dwelling unit, square footage of leasable retail space, etc.) as defined by the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, and as may be amended from time to time. The rate table shall be incorporated into the City's adopted Master Fee Schedule, and shall be maintained by the City Clerk and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours and/or electronically on the City's website. P. "Service area" means a geographic area defined by the City in which a defined set of public facilities provide service to development within the identified area. The City has identified the service areas, based on sound planning and engineering principles, but these service areas may change based on the nature of development and the public facilities needs identified to support development across the City. The service areas are defined in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies. Maps depicting the service areas are set forth in the Rate Studies and shall also be maintained by the City Clerk and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours and/or electronically on the City's website. Q. "System improvements" means public facilities included in the capital facilities plan and which are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project improvements. SVMC 22.100.030 Applicability. Except as may otherwise be provided herein, all development activity within the geographical services areas established in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies shall be assessed the transportation impact fee applicable to the type of development in the amounts set forth in the current rate table as adopted by the City Council. SVMC 22.100.040 Assessment of Transportation Impact Fees. A. Transportation impact fees shall be assessed at the issuance of a building permit for each unit in a development, using either the current rate set forth in the adopted transportation impact fee rate table or an independent fee calculation as approved by the City. The transportation impact fee rate table is incorporated into the City's Master Fee Schedule, and is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 9 of 36 Draft B. Transportation impact fees shall be paid at the issuance of a building permit, except as otherwise provided pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050. C. For commercial development involving multiple users, transportation impact fees shall be assessed and collected prior to issuance of building permits that authorize completion of tenant improvements for each use. D. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application pursuant to SVMC 22.100.070 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the City pursuant to 22.100.070 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit awarded. Transportation impact fees, as determined after the application of appropriate credits, shall be collected from the applicant prior to issuance of the building permit for each unit in the development unless deferred per SVMC 22.100.050. E. For mixed use buildings or development, transportation impact fees shall be imposed based on the total PM peak hour trip generation from each individual use, as defined in the rate table. Where internal trip capture is expected based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual or Handbook, manual calculations may be submitted for review and approval pursuant to SVMC 22.100.080. F. The City shall establish the transportation impact fee rate for a land use that is not listed in the rate table based on (1) the most similar land use category identified in the rate table, or (2) the base rate and the most similar land use category identified in ITE Trip Generation Manual, as documented by a trip generation and distribution letter in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards, all pursuant to SVMC 22.100.080. The applicant shall submit all information requested by the City for purposes of determining the impact fee rate pursuant to SVMC 22.100.080. G. The City shall place a hold on permits for development approval and no permits shall be issued unless and until the transportation impact fees required by this chapter, less any permitted exemptions, credits or deductions, have been paid or lien recorded. H. An applicant may request that the transportation impact fee be calculated in advance of building permit issuance, but any such advance calculation shall not be binding on the City and should only be used as guidance by the applicant, except as otherwise provided pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050. There is no vested right to pay a particular transportation impact fee in advance of building permit issuance. If the City Council revises the transportation impact fee formula or the transportation impact fees themselves prior to the time that a building permit is issued for a particular development, the formula or fee amount in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall apply to the development. SVMC 22.100.050 Deferral. A. An applicant for single-family detached and attached residential construction may request deferral of collection of transportation impact fees until certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of the original building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. The following requirements shall apply to any application for deferral of transportation impact fees: 1. The request for deferral must be made in writing prior to the building permit issuance, and consistent with the requirements of this section, to defer payment of the transportation impact fee until certificate of occupancy or equivalent certification. 2. To receive a deferral, an applicant must: Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 10 of 36 Draft a. Submit a deferred impact fee application and acknowledgement form for each single- family attached or detached residence for which the applicant wishes to defer payment of the transportation impact fees; b. Pay the applicable deferral application fee; c. Grant and record at the applicant's expense a deferred transportation impact fee lien in a form approved by the City against the property in favor of the City in the amount of the deferred impact fee that: i. Includes the legal description, tax account number, and address of the property; ii. Requires payment of the impact fees to the City prior to Certificate of Occupancy or equivalent certification, or 18 months from the date of the original building permit issuance, whichever occurs first; iii. Is signed by all owners of the property, with all signatures acknowledged as required for a deed, and is recorded in Spokane County; iv. Binds all successors in title after the recordation; and v. Is junior and subordinate to one mortgage for the purpose of construction upon the same real property granted by the person who applied for the deferral of transportation impact fees. B. The amount of transportation impact fees deferred shall be determined by the fees in effect at the time the applicant applies for a deferral. C. Prior to any required dates for payment, the applicant may pay the deferred amount in installments, with no penalty for early payment. The City may set a minimum installment amount. D. If closing of the first sale of the property for which transportation impact fees were deferred occurs within 18 months of the building permit issuance, payment of all deferred impact fees is required to take place prior to or upon closing, and the seller shall be strictly liable for payment of all deferred impact fees to the City at that time. The City bears no responsibility for determining whether the seller and the buyer have contractually agreed for the buyer to pay the deferred fees, and the City reserves the right to institute legal proceedings against the seller, if necessary, to collect any deferred impact fees that remain unpaid after closing. In addition, the City may withhold issuance of a certificate of occupancy, final inspection approval, or equivalent certification required for occupancy of the residence until all impact fees have been paid in full. E. If closing of the first sale of the property for which transportation impact fees were deferred does not occur within 18 months of the building permit issuance, then all deferred impact fees shall become immediately due and owing to the City, and the applicant shall be strictly liable for payment of all deferred impact fees to the City at that time. If the applicant fails, upon request by the City, to immediately pay all deferred impact fees pursuant to this chapter, then the City may foreclose on the lien in the manner provided for in chapter 61.12 RCW. In addition, the City may withhold issuance of a certificate of occupancy, final inspection approval, or equivalent certification required for occupancy of the residence until all impact fees have been paid in full. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 11 of 36 Draft F. Upon receipt of final payment of impact fees deferred under this section, the City shall execute a release of deferred impact fee lien for each single-family attached or detached residence for which the transportation impact fees have been received. The applicant, or property owner at the time of release, shall be responsible for recording the lien release at his or her expense. G. The extinguishment of a deferred impact fee lien by the foreclosure of a lien having priority does not affect the obligation to pay the transportation impact fees as a condition of certificate of occupancy or equivalent certification, or at the time of closing of the first sale. H. Each applicant for a single-family attached or detached residential construction permit, in accordance with his or her contractor registration number or other unique identification number, is entitled to annually receive deferrals under this section for the first 20 single-family residential construction building permits on an annual basis. SVMC 22.100.060 Exemptions. For the purposes of this chapter only, the following are exempt from the payment of transportation impact fees: A. Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of the same size and use or a residential structure with the same number of residential dwelling units, both at the same site or lot, where demolition of the prior commercial or residential structure occurred within the prior two years. Replacement of a commercial structure with a new commercial structure of the same size shall be interpreted to include any structure for which the gross square footage of the building will not be increased by more than 100 square feet and the primary use of the commercial space is the same. It shall be the feepayer's responsibility and burden to establish the existence of a qualifying prior use. B. Expansions of existing residential structures that do not add residential dwelling units. C. Alteration of an existing nonresidential structure that does not expand the usable space, add any residential units, or result in a change in use. D. Miscellaneous improvements that do not create additional demand and need for public facilities, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs. E. Demolition or moving of a structure. F. Re -use or change in use of an existing structure that does not create additional demand and need for public facilities. It shall be the feepayer's responsibility and burden to establish that no additional demand is created by the re -use or change in use. For a change in use of an existing structure that does create additional demand and need for public facilities, the City shall collect transportation impact fees for the new use based on the schedules in rate table, less the fees that would have been payable as a result of the prior use. SVMC 22.100.070 Credits. A. An applicant may request a credit for the total value of dedicated land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the applicant. Credits will only be given if the land, improvements, and/or facility constructed are for one or more of the transportation projects listed in the Rate Study as the basis for calculating the transportation impact fee. B. Credits shall be based on appraised value made by an appraiser approved of by the City. The appraiser must be a Washington State certified appraiser or must possess other equivalent certification and shall not Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 12 of 36 Draft have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. A description of the appraiser's certification shall be included with the appraisal, and the appraiser shall certify that he/she does not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of the cost of the appraisal and all associated or related costs. C. After receiving the appraisal, and where consistent with the requirements of this section, the City shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, the legal description of the site donated where applicable, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating the applicant's agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the City before the impact fee credit will be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 calendar days shall nullify the credit. The credit must be used within 72 months of the award of the credit. D. Any claim for credit must be made prior to issuance of a building permit, provided any claim for credit submitted later than 20 calendar days after the submission of an application for a building permit shall constitute a waiver and suspension of timelines established by state and/or local law for processing of permit applications. E. In no event shall the credit exceed the amount of the impact fees that would have been due for the proposed development activity. F. No credit shall be given for project improvements or right-of-way dedications for direct access improvements to and/or within the subject development above and beyond what is proposed in the capital facilities plan. SVMC 22.100.080 Independent Fee Calculations. A. If in the judgment of the City Manager, none of the land uses, fee categories or fee amounts set forth in the rate tables accurately describe or capture the impacts of a new development on transportation facilities, the City may prepare independent fee calculations and the City Manager may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations. The default method for calculating such independent fee calculations shall be based on the base rate and the most similar land use category identified in ITE Trip Generation Manual, as documented by a trip generation and distribution letter in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards; provided however, other methods may be used as determined to be necessary to accurately capture the impact from development. The alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed to the applicant. B. Alternatively, if an applicant believes that the applicant's proposed development activity does not fall under one of the fee categories set forth in the rate table, the applicant may, at the applicant's option, prepare and submit to the City an independent fee calculation for the development activity for which a development permit is being sought. The documentation submitted shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer and shall identify a development activity or land use code in the ITE manual that most closely resembles the applicant's proposed development activity and calculate the applicant's fees based on the number of trips assigned to that development activity by the ITE manual. The applicant may also choose to prepare an independent trip generation rate/impact fee study to document why no ITE land use category is appropriate as it relates to this chapter. In calculating such fees, the applicant may choose to incorporate applicable pass -by trip rates or mixed -use internalization factors that are supported by evidence and/or transportation engineering best practices. For any independent fee calculation prepared by the applicant, documentation in the form of a report or memo is required to be submitted to the City that explains the methodology, data sources, and calculations. Independent fee calculations shall use the same impact fee rate per PM peak hour trip generated as documented in the rate table. The independent rate study shall be Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 13 of 36 Draft limited to documenting the project's net PM peak hour trip generation rate and subsequent impact fee and therefore shall not include travel demand forecasts, trip distribution, project cost, or fare -share cost allocation results. C. Any applicant electing an independent fee calculation pursuant to subsection (B) of this section shall pay the City a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the independent fee calculation. No such fee shall apply to calculations performed under subsection (A) of this section. The applicant shall remit all remaining actual costs of the City's review of the independent fee calculation prior to and as a precondition of the City's issuance of the building permit. D. There is a rebuttable presumption that the calculations set forth in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies and the adopted fees in the rate tables are valid. The City Manager shall consider the documentation submitted by an applicant pursuant to subsection (B) of this section, but is not required to accept such documentation or analysis which the City Manager reasonably deems to be inapplicable, inaccurate, or not reliable. The City Manager may modify or deny the request, or, in the alternative, require the applicant to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. The City Manager is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case -by -case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or principles of fairness. The City's decision shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed to the applicant. SVMC 22.100.090 Adjustments. Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study has included and accounted for adjustments for future taxes to be paid by the new development which are earmarked or pro -ratable to the same new public facilities which will serve the new development. The Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study has included committed and probable external funding in calculating the impact fees. SVMC 22.100.100 Creation of Impact Fee Fund. A. There is created a special revenue fund in the treasury of the City termed the "Transportation Impact Fee Fund" into which all transportation impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be placed and used solely for the purposes identified herein and in conformance with applicable state law. Interest earned on the fees shall be retained in the fund and expended for the purposes for which the transportation impact fees were collected. B. On an annual basis, the City shall provide a report on the transportation impact fee fund showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by the transportation impact fees. C. Transportation impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within ten years of receipt, unless there exists an extraordinary and compelling reason for fees to be held longer than ten years. The City Council shall adopt findings identifying the extraordinary and compelling reasons in the event any impact fees are held for longer than ten years and the additional time period fees shall be held. SVMC 22.100.110 Appeals. A. Applicants or feepayers may appeal an impact fee pursuant to the provisions of this section. B. Any applicant or feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit or certificate of occupancy. Any appeal filed prior to the payment of impact fees shall constitute a waiver and suspension of timelines established by state and/or local law for the processing of permit applications. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 14 of 36 Draft C. Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be filed by the applicant or feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. D. The applicant or feepayer must file a request for review regarding impact fees with the City Manager and receive such determination, as provided herein, prior to filing an appeal of the impact fees. 1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the City and shall outline the legal and factual bases for why the impact fee at issue should not be required or should be modified. The applicant or feepayer requesting review shall bear the burden of demonstrating the fee is inappropriate or should be modified. 2. The request for review shall be filed no later than fourteen calendar days after the feepayer pays the impact fees at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar to later seek such review. 3. No administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review; and 4. The City Manager shall issue a determination in writing and may uphold the impact fee, modify the impact fee, or determine the impact fee is inappropriate and dismiss the impact fee. Any amount of an impact fee paid in protest that is determined to be inappropriate shall be refunded. E. Determinations of the City Manager with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the City Manager's decision concerning the independent fee calculation, or any other determination which the City Manager is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, may be appealed to the hearing examiner subject to chapter 17.90 SVMC. F. Appeals of impact fees shall be heard concurrently with any underlying appeal of the permit as applicable. SVMC 22.100.120 Refunds. A. If the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within ten years of receipt or such other time set by City Council as allowed by law, the current owner of the property for which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees, provided a refund is not required where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist for holding the fees longer than ten years, as identified in written findings by the City Council. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first in, first out basis. B. The City shall notify potential claimants by first class mail deposited with the United States postal service at the last known address of the claimants. A potential claimant or claimants must be the owner of record of the real property against which the impact fee was assessed. C. Property owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the City Manager within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within the one-year period shall be retained by the City and expended on the appropriate public facilities. E. Refunds of impact fees under this chapter shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the City. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 15 of 36 Draft F. A feepayer may request and shall receive a refund, including interest earned on the impact fees, when the feepayer and/or the feepayer's successors and assigns do not proceed with the development activity and there has been no impact to the City's transportation system. A request for a refund pursuant to this section must be accompanied by an acknowledgement that the feepayer's underlying development approval, including any associated permits, has expired and that any application to reinstate the development approval shall be subject to the payment of impact fees pursuant to this chapter. SVMC 22.100.130 Interlocal Agreements. Consistent with other terms of this chapter and state law, interlocal agreements by and between the City and other government agencies are permissible. SVMC 22.100.140 Existing Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the City from requiring the applicant for development approval to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW. SVMC 22.100.150 Review. The impact fee rate table set forth in this chapter shall be reviewed by the City Council from time to time, as it deems necessary and appropriate in conjunction with review of the City's transportation improvement plan and as necessary to address changes to travel demands, growth forecasts, or the project list. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 16 of 36 Draft EXHIBIT `B" CHAPTER 3 -TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CHAPTER ORGANIZATION 3.1 Introduction 20 3.2 Trip Generation & Distribution Letter Guidelines 21 3.2.1 Applicability 21 3.2.2 Minimum Elements 22 3.3 Limited Traffic Impact Analysis 23 3.3.1 Applicability 23 3.3.2 Scope 23 3.3.3 Methodology 24 3.3.4 Limited TIA Report Minimum Elements 25 3.3.4.1 Title Page 25 3.3.4.2 Project Description and Summary 25 3.3.4.3 Proposed Development and Trip Generation 25 3.3.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions 26 3.3.4.5 Background Projects 26 3.3.4.6 Other Analyses 27 3.3.4.7 Findings 27 3.3.4.8 Appendices 27 3.4 Traffic Impact Analysis 28 3.4.1 Applicability 28 3.4.2 Scope 28 3.4.3 Methodology 29 3.4.4 TIA Report Minimum Elements 30 3.4.4.1 Title Page 31 3.4.4.2 Introduction and Summary 31 3.4.4.3 Proposed Development 31 3.4.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions 31 Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 17 of 36 Draft 3.4.4.5 Background Projects 32 3.4.4.6 Analysis Scenarios 32 3.4.4.7 Other Analyses 33 3.4.4.8 Findings 33 3.4.4.9 Appendices 33 3.5 Meetings 34 Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 18 of 36 Draft THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 19 of 36 Draft 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the contents of the trip generation letter and traffic impact analysis (TIA) submittals. All projects except those exempt pursuant to SVMC 22.20.020 shall be subject to transportation concurrency review. This review is conducted to ensure that adequate transportation facilities are provided in conjunction with new growth. Transportation concurrency shall be measured using the concept of level of service (LOS). Acceptable LOS thresholds are defined in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. This flowchart may be used to determine what type of transportation concurrency document is required. The City shall not sign off on a project until transportation concurrency has been determined. Required for all projects outside of an impact fee area that generate more than 10 peak hour trips or projects inside of an impact fee area that do not match a land use in the TIF table. Limited TIA Trip Generation & Distribution Letter Required for all projects that generate more than 10 peak hour trips (see section 3.21 • • Required for qualified projects within a SEPA Infill Area that generate more than 20 peak hour trips at an arterial intersection (see section 3.3) May be required for projects within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area that generate more than 20 peak hour trips at an intersection of federally classified streets. TIA Required for all qualified projects that do not qualify for a Limited TIA and that generate more than 20 peak hour trips at an arterial intersection (see section 3.4) Required for all projects that generate more than 20 peak hour trips at an intersection of federally classified streets or add volume to an area with a current traffic problem and do not qualify for a Limited TIA The table below summarizes the mandatory scope elements for each type of analysis required by Spokane Valley: Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 20 of 36 Draft Table 1— Summary of Traffic Analysis Scope Elements Scope Elements Trip Limited TIA Generation Letter Engineering Seal X X Title Page X Project Description and Summary X X Proposed Development and Trip Generation X X Summary of Existing Conditions X Background projects and growth rate X Study Area Intersections of Collectors or higher within % mile X Intersections of Collectors or higher within 1 mile LOS Analyses Safety Analyses Other Analyses (Operations, Sight Distance, Turn Lane Warrants, etc.) Analysis Scenarios (Peak Hours defined in scope) Existing Conditions Build -out year without project Build -out year with project Build -out + 5 years without project Build -out + 5 years with project Regional modeling — regional impacting development Findings Appendices Public Meetings X X X X TIA X X X X X X X X X X 3.2 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION LETTER GUIDELINES All projects outside of an impact fee area which generate 10 or more new peak -hour vehicular trips shall submit a trip generation and distribution letter. Projects within an impact fee area with land uses that are not included in the impact fee rate schedule shall submit a trip generation and distribution letter. The letter shall be based on the current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and developed by an Engineer. If a project is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, the trip generation and distribution letter shall be submitted for review at the time of the SEPA application. The letter is required to be approved by the City prior to submittal of a traffic impact analysis report. 3.2.1 APPLICABILITY a. A trip generation and distribution letter is required for most projects. However, the following projects are typically under the peak -hour threshold and may not be required to prepare a trip generation and distribution letter: Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 21 of 36 Draft i. Residential short plats of 8 or fewer lots or dwelling units (the number of trips from a duplex shall be equivalent to two single family homes); ii. Drive -through coffee stands with no indoor seating; iii. Multi -family projects with nine 13 units or less (for calculation purposes, multi -family housing projects are defined as four or more attached units in the ITE Trip Generation Manual); iv. Changes of use from residential to commercial with no new buildings or building additions; v. Office projects of less than 2,500 additional square feet (ITE land uses 700-799); and, vi. Industrial projects of less than 9,000 additional square feet (ITE land uses 100-199). b. For projects expected to generate less than 10 peak -hour vehicular trips the project applicant is required to submit a letter with the following information for all proposed development phases for the property: i. Brief project description; ii. Number of expected employees; iii. Hours of business; and, iv. The expected number of vehicular trips (customers and employees) to the business during the AM and PM peak hours. 3.2.2 MINIMUM ELEMENTS The trip generation and distribution letter for projects generating 10 or more peak - hour trips shall include the following elements: a. Project application and/or permit number b.Project description, including proposed use; Vic. Site plan with vicinity map; mod. Building size noted in square feet; de. Zoning of the property; f. Determination of whether the project is in a SEPA Infill Area (see following section); eg.Determination of whether the project is in an impact fee area; Proposed and existing access points, site circulation, queuing lengths for driveways (and drive-throughs, if applicable) and parking locations; gi. Project phasing and expected build out year; j. An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak -hour, and PM peak -hour conditions. Supporting calculations and data sources shall Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 22 of 36 Draft be shown. Any adjustments for transit use, mixed use internalization, pass - by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be clearly stated; A comparison of the trip generation between the previous and the proposed site use for projects involving a change of use. If the comparison shows a net increase in trip generation, the project shall be subject to the TIA requirements of a new development; j-1. A preliminary distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network, shown in a graphical format; and, The engineering seal signed and dated by the engineer who prepared the letter. 3.3 LIMITED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Pursuant to SVMC 21.20.040, portions of Spokane Valley had additional environmental review performed as part of the Comprehensive Plan EIS. Because of the additional environmental review within the SEPA Infill Areas, the majority of development projects within these areas do not require a full TIA report if the Applicant adopts the subarea environmental analysis and mitigation requirements identified in the SEPA documents. However, to assess potential traffic safety or site access issues, a limited TIA is required as set forth below. 3.3.1 APPLICABILITY A limited TIA may beis required for the following situations: a. Projects adding 20 or more peak -hour trips through an arterial intersection of federally classified streets as identified in the current Arterial Street Plan, and which are located within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area; b. Projects within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area that contribute volumes toimpact local access intersections, alleys, or driveways located within an area with a current traffic problem as identified by the City or previous traffic study, such as a high -accident location, poor roadway alignment, or area with a capacity deficiency; or c. At the discretion of the City in lieu of a full TIA. A full TIA (see Section 3.4) is required for land uses that exceed the total trip bank established in SVMC 21.20.040. Applicants are encouraged to consult with City staff if they are unsure if they apply for both SEPA relief and a limited TIA. 3.3.2 SCOPE The scope of the limited TIA shall be developed by an engineer. A draft scope shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to submission of the limited TIA. The scope of the limited TIA shall conform to the following: a. The study area may include any intersections or streets within a 1/2 mile radius of the site. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 23 of 36 Draft b. A safety analysis may be required, as identified by City staff in the scope review phase. If the analysis is required, the City shall assist by providing crash data if available. Safety analysis at a minimum requires three years of crash history showing the date and time, type, number of vehicles involved in the crash, including weather and road conditions. Crash analysis shall include bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Crash information shall be assessed by the developer's engineer to identify possible impacts the proposed new trips would add to the problem. Examples may include queuing that exceeds storage pocket lengths or that extends to upstream intersections, recurring left turn crashes, limited sight distance, or proposed project access intersections that may be poorly placed. c. If a safety and operational analysis reveals deficiencies, then mitigation measures shall be developed with recommendations to fix the deficiencies. d. Unless otherwise identified by the City, the analysis shall be performed for the build -out year of the proposed development. 3.3.3 METHODOLOGY The analysis shall be done using the following methodology: a. Background growth rate — The background growth rate may be based on historical growth data or the growth rate as calculated from Figures 30 and 32 of the Comprehensive Plan (the 2016 and 2040 average daily traffic volumes). A minimal annual growth rate of 1% is required unless otherwise approved by the City; b. The LOS shall be determined in accordance with the methods reported in the current version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM); c. Use of the two -stage gap acceptance methodology for unsignalized intersections is subject to City approval; d. "Synchro" is the primary traffic software used by the City to model intersection and turn pocket queuing analysis. Depending on the analysis, the City may request other traffic analysis using other modeling software. In addition to Synchro, the engineer may use the most current version of Highway Capacity Software (HCS). Other analysis tools may be utilized with City approval if HCM methodology cannot accurately model an intersection; e. Trip generation data shall be based on the latest version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Trip generation data from studies of similar facilities may be substituted with prior City approval; and, f. Turning movement counts and crash diagrams may need to be developed to document a safety or operations problem. If traffic counts are required, they shall be taken on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday representing a typical travel day. Counts shall not be taken during a week which contains a holiday or during a week of a significant weather event. Projects near Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 24 of 36 Draft schools may be required to collect turning movement counts during a typical school day. 3.3.4 LIMITED TIA REPORT MINIMUM ELEMENTS The limited TIA report shall include at least the following: 3.3.4.1 Title Page The limited TIA shall include a title page with the following elements: a. Name of project; b. City project number/permit number; c. Applicant's name and address; d. Engineer's name, address and phone number; e. Date of study preparation; and, f. The engineering seal, signed and dated by the professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington who prepared the report. 3.3.4.2 Project Description and Summary The limited TIA shall include a brief description of project, location, study intersections, findings, and mitigation. 3.3.4.3 Proposed Development and Trip Generation The limited TIA shall include the following information for the proposed development: a. Project description, including proposed use; b. Site plan with vicinity map; c. Building size noted in square feet; d. Zoning of the property; e. Determination of whether the project is within a SEPA Infill Area (see following section); f. Proposed and existing access points, site circulation, queuing lengths for driveways (and drive-throughs, if applicable) and parking locations; g. Project phasing and expected opening year; h. An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak - hour, and PM peak -hour conditions. Supporting calculations and data sources shall be shown. Any adjustments for transit use, mixed use internalization, pass -by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be clearly stated; i. A comparison of the trip generation between the previous and the proposed site use for projects involving a change of use. If the Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 25 of 36 Draft comparison shows a net increase in trip generation, the project shall be subject to the limited TIA requirements of a new development; A preliminary distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network, shown in a graphical format; and, k. Project phasing and timing. 3.3.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions The limited TIA shall provide a brief summary of existing conditions for the study area that includes at least the following: a. Brief summary of the transportation network adjacent to the site including a qualitative description of the facilities, speed limits, presence of bike lanes/trails, bus stops, and on -street parking; b. Figure or table of the peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections; c. Collision history — three years minimum; d. Length of existing turn pockets at study intersections; and, e. Other information as identified during the scoping process. 3.3.4.5 Background Projects If background project traffic is necessary to assess build -out conditions, it shall include the following: a. Traffic from newly constructed projects; b. Projects for which traffic impacts have been tentatively reserved; c. Projects for which a Concurrency Certificate has been awarded; d. Non -project, general background traffic increases; and, e. Vested traffic for vacant buildings that are undergoing redevelopment. The limited TIA shall provide the following information for background projects, as identified by the City: a. Project descriptions; b. Vicinity map; c. Trips generated by projects and assigned to study intersections, d. Figure or table of the build -out peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections; e. Planned transportation improvements (private development and City); and, f. Where required, safety and operations analysis results. J. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 26 of 36 Draft 3.3.4.6 Other Analyses Other analyses may be required as requested by the City, including but not limited to: a. Queue lengths at driveways and drive -through windows; b. Noise; c. Air quality (typically required when physical improvements are proposed and requires electronic submittal of Synchro files); d. Intersection control warrant analysis (signal, roundabouts, four-way stop, yield); e. Auxiliary lane warrant analysis; f. Parking study (including vehicles and/or bicycles); g. Site access; and, h. Pedestrian access study. 3.3.4.7 Findings The following shall be addressed in the findings section: a. Traffic and safety impacts; b. Proposed project modifications; and, c. Off -site mitigation or mitigation beyond that included with Impact Fees. 3.3.4.8 Appendices The following information shall be included in appendices: a. Definitions; b. Trip generation sources; c. Passer-by and origin -destination studies (if applicable); d. Volume and turning movement count sheets; e. Analysis software (Synchro, HCS, SimTraffic, etc.) report printouts (electronic submittal may be required); f. Warrant analysis calculations; and, g. References. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 27 of 36 Draft 3.4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS For developments that are not within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area, this section outlines the requirements for a TIA. The intent of the TIA is to allow the City to properly plan and improve the transportation system to meet the mobility needs of future growth and to comply with SEPA requirements. 3.4.1 APPLICABILITY A TIA is required for the following situations: a. Projects adding 20 or more peak -hour trips to an intersection of arterial federally classified streets as identified in the current Arterial Street Plan, within a one -mile radius of the project site as shown by the trip generation and distribution letter; or, b. Projects contributing volumes to impacting local access intersections, alleys, or driveways located within an area with a current traffic problem as identified by the City or previous traffic study, such as a high -accident location, poor roadway alignment or capacity deficiency. 3.4.2 SCOPE The scope of the TIA shall be developed by an engineer. Prior to submittal of the TIA, the City and other impacted jurisdictions/agencies shall approve the scope of the TIA. The scope of the TIA shall conform to the following: a. The study area shall include any intersections of arterial federally classified streets within a one -mile radius of the site that would experience an increase of at least 20 vehicle trips during a peak hour. Some intersections may be excluded if analyzed within the past year and are shown to operate at LOS C or better. All site access points shall be analyzed. Additional federally classified arterial intersections outside of the one mile radius and intersections of local streets may also be required at the discretion of the City; b. If any of the study intersections are on a Major Arterial Corridor, a corridor LOS analysis shall be conducted for all relevant corridors. For example€, if a project increases traffic by 20 vehicles at the intersection of Pines Road/Mission Avenue, then a corridor LOS analysis shall be required for Pines Road. If a corridor has been analyzed within the last two years and is shown to operate at LOS C or better, the City may exempt the corridor LOS analysis, although traffic counts on the corridor may still be required in order to maintain an up-to-date database of counts along the Major Arterial Corridors. Below is a list of the Major Arterial Corridors from the Comprehensive Plan: • Argonne/Mullan Road between Trent Avenue and Appleway Blvd • Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue • Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 28 of 36 Draft • Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue • Sprague Avenue/Appleway Blvd between Fancher Road and Park Road c. A PM peak hour LOS analysis shall be conducted for all study area intersections (and corridors if applicable). An LOS analysis of the AM peak hour, Saturday afternoon, or other time period may be required at the discretion of the City; d. As identified by City staff in the scope review phase, a safety analysis may be required, which may include intersection queuing, turn lane warrants and LOS, sight distance, and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts to identify potential safety issues; and, e. Additional analysis may be required by other reviewing agencies. The Intersection and corridor (if applicable) LOS shall meet or exceed the thresholds pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan — Chapter 4: Capital Facilities, Table 4.3 Spokane Valley Level of Service Standards. In the event that the LOS standard is not met, the project applicant shall work with the City to identify appropriate mitigation measures, which could include modification of the intersection designs, constructing/funding improvements to City -owned intersections, or changing the scale of the development. A safety analysis may be required, as identified by City staff in the scope review phase. If the analysis is required, the City shall assist by providing crash data if available. Safety analysis at a minimum requires three years of crash history showing the date and time, type, number of vehicles involved in the crash, weather and road conditions. Crash analysis shall include bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Crash information shall be assessed by the developer's engineer to identify possible impacts proposed new trips would add to the problem. Examples may include queuing that exceeds storage pocket lengths or that extends to upstream intersections, recurring left turn crashes, limited sight distance, or proposed project access intersections that may be poorly placed. Safety issues shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of City staff. 3.4.3 METHODOLOGY The analysis shall be done using the following methodology: a. Background growth rate — The background growth rate may be based on historical growth data or the growth rate as calculated from Figures 30 and 33 of the Comprehensive Plan (the 2016 and 2040 average daily traffic volumes). A minimal annual growth rate of 1% is required unless otherwise approved by the City; b. The LOS shall be determined in accordance with the methods reported in the current version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) or as further defined by City staff; Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 29 of 36 Draft c. Corridor LOS shall be determined by calculating the volume -weighted average intersection LOS of all signalized arterial/arterial intersections along the defined length of the Major Arterial Corridor.' With all intersection LOS calculated along the corridor, the control delays of all intersections shall be averaged to calculate total corridor LOS. The same control delay thresholds defined for individual intersections shall be used to assign corridor LOS (e.g., corridor average control delay of 38 seconds would correspond to LOS D). Based on City input, WSDOT ramp terminal intersections may or may not be included as part of the corridor LOS calculation, and may be evaluated separately as individual intersections. d. Use of the two -stage gap acceptance methodology for unsignalized intersections requires prior City approval; e. "Synchro" is the primary traffic software used by the City to model intersection and turn pocket queuing analysis. Depending on the analysis, the City may request other traffic analysis using other modeling software. In addition to Synchro, the Engineer may use the most current version of HCS. Other analysis tools may be utilized with prior City approval if HCM methodology cannot accurately model an intersection; f. Trip generation data shall be based on the current version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Trip generation data from studies of similar facilities may be substituted as approved by the City; and, Turning movement counts shall be recorded less than one year prior to submitting a traffic study. Counts less than two years old may be used if no significant development projects or changes to the transportation network have occurred. Counts shall be taken on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday representing a typical travel day. Counts shall not be taken during a week which contains a holiday or during a week of a significant weather event. Projects near schools may be required to collect turning movement counts during a typical school day. Given the potentially large-scale of corridor LOS evaluation, counts older than one year may be used for intersections along a corridor that are more than one mile away, so long as they are factored using the growth rate identified above. However, the City may request, at its discretion, that the project collect new traffic counts at any intersection along a relevant Major Arterial Corridor in an effort to maintain a relatively current database for TIA review. g. 3.4.4 TIA REPORT MINIMUM ELEMENTS The TIA report shall include at least the following: 1 To clarify, unsignalized project driveway intersections with within the Major Arterial Corridor are not part of the corridor LOS calculation since they are not arterial streets. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 30 of 36 Draft 3.4.4.1 Title Page The TIA shall include a title page with the following elements: a. Name of project; b. City project number/permit number; c. Applicant's name and address; d. Engineer's name, address and phone number; e. Date of study preparation; and, f. The engineering seal, signed and dated by the engineer who prepared the report. 3.4.4.2 Introduction and Summary a. Purpose of report and study objectives; b. Executive summary; c. Proposed development description; d. Location and study area; e. Findings; and, f. Recommendations and mitigation. 3.4.4.3 Proposed Development The TIA shall include the following information for the proposed development (this is the same information that is required for the trip letter): a. Project description; b. Location and vicinity map; c. Site plan with building size (square feet); d. Proposed zoning; e. Land use; f. Access points, site circulation, queuing lengths, and parking locations; An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak - hour, and PM peak -hour conditions. Any adjustments for transit use, pass -by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be clearly stated; h. A distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network, shown in a graphical format; and, i. Project phasing and timing. 3.4.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions The TIA shall provide a summary of existing conditions for the study area that includes the following: Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 31 of 36 g. Draft a. Transportation network description, including functional classification, bike/pedestrian facilities and transit routes; b. Existing zoning; c. Existing traffic volumes including percent heavy vehicles; d. Collision history —three years minimum; e. Posted speed limits (and if known the 85 percentile speed determined from a speed study); f. Length of existing turn pockets at signalized intersections; g. Location of the following: i. On -street parking, ii. Bus stops, and, iii. Private and public schools in the area, h. LOS and safety analysis results. 3.4.4.5 Background Projects Background project traffic shall include the following: a. Traffic from newly constructed projects; b. Projects for which traffic impacts have been tentatively reserved; c. Projects for which a Concurrency Certificate has been awarded; d. Non -project, general background traffic increases; and, e. Vested traffic for vacant buildings that are undergoing redevelopment. The TIA shall provide the following information for background projects, as identified by the City: f. Project descriptions; a. Vicinity map; b. Trip generation; c. Trip distribution; d. Planned transportation improvements (private development and City); and, e. LOS and safety analysis results. 3.4.4.6 Analysis Scenarios The TIA shall include the following analysis scenarios: a. Existing conditions; b. Build -out year without project; Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 32 of 36 Draft c. Build -out year with project; d. Build -out + five year analysis if project is expected to proceed in phases, take more than six years to complete, or if the study intersection is included on the City's Six -Year TIP; and, e. Major developments with regional impacts may be required to use the current version of the SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model and the associated horizon years for analyses, as determined by City staff. 3.4.4.7 Other Analyses Other analyses may be required as requested by the City, including but not limited to: a. Queue lengths at driveways and drive -through windows; b. Noise; c. Air quality (typically required when physical improvements are proposed and requires electronic submittal of Synchro files); d. Intersection control warrant analysis (signal, roundabout, four-way stop, yield); e. Auxiliary lane warrant analysis; f. Parking study (including vehicles and/or bicycles); g. Site access; and, h. Pedestrian access study. 3.4.4.8 Findings The following shall be addressed in the findings section: a. Traffic impacts; b. Compliance with level of service standards; c. Proposed project modifications; and, d. Offsite mitigation. 3.4.4.9 Appendices The following information shall be included in appendices: a. Definitions; b. Trip generation sources; c. Passer-by and origin -destination studies; d. Volume and turning movement count sheets; e. Synchro report printouts (electronic submittal may be required); f. Warrant analysis calculations; and, Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 33 of 36 Draft a. References. 3.5 MEETINGS A public meeting(s) may be required for any residential project generating over 100 PM peak -hour trips, commercial projects generating over 100 PM peak -hour trips impacting a residential area, or for other projects at the discretion of the City. The intent of the public meeting is to let the public know about the proposed project and to allow for public input to determine the scope of the TIA. Notice of date, time, place and purpose of the public meeting(s) shall be provided by the following means: a. One publication in the City's official newspaper at least 15 days prior to the meeting; b. A mailing to adjacent residents, property owners, neighborhood groups, jurisdictions, and/or organizations within a 400-foot radius of the project boundaries, not less than 15 days prior to the public meeting. Other persons or entities outside of the 400-foot radius may be required to be notified if the City determines they may be affected by the proposed project or have requested such notice in writing; and, c. A sign shall be erected, on the subject property fronting and adjacent to the most heavily traveled public street, at least 15 days prior to the meetings with formatting consistent with SVMC 17.80.120B. The sign shall be at least four feet in width and four feet in height and shall have letters three inches in size. The sign shall be easily read by the traveling public from the right-of-way. This sign shall announce the date, time and place of the traffic meetings and provide a brief description of the project. a. Proper notification and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. Notification shall be considered satisfied upon receipt of an affidavit provided by the Applicant to the City stating the above requirements have been completed. Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 34 of 36 Draft THIS PAGE IS INTENTIALLY LEFT BLANK Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 35 of 36 Draft EXHIBIT "C" Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation Impact Fees — Exhibit C Page 36 of 36 South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington September, 2020 SE20-0748 FEHRif PEERS Table of Contents Introduction 1 Study Area 1 Methodology 3 Project List 4 Travel Growth 5 Cost Allocation 7 Existing Transportation Deficiencies 8 Committed External Funding 8 Fair -Share Cost 8 Impact Fee Schedule 10 Trip Generation 10 Pass -By Trip Adjustment 10 Schedule of Rates 10 Appendices Appendix A — Expanded Impact Fee Schedule Appendix B — South Barker Corridor Study List of Figures Figure 1: Transportation Analysis Zones Included South Barker Corridor Study Fair -Share Analysis 2 Figure 2. Impact Fee Methodology 3 Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation 7 List of Tables Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) 4 Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) 6 Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area 8 Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations 9 Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule 11 Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule 12 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction This report documents the methods, assumptions, and findings of a transportation impact fee (TIF) rate study for the South Barker Corridor in Spokane Valley. The need for a TIF is identified in the South Barker Corridor Study (Feb 2020), which documented the growth along the corridor, projected how that growth will degrade traffic operations along Barker Road, and identified several transportation capacity projects to support growth and ensure adequate level of service through the year 2040. That study identified the needed future improvements along the corridor, completed project cost estimates, and included a fair share cost analysis to separate project costs between growth in southeast Spokane Valley and growth from other parts of the region. This TIF rate study builds on the South Barker Corridor Study and identifies a Growth Management Act (GMA) compliant impact fee rate schedule per development unit. Using this rate schedule, developers in southeast Spokane Valley can quickly identify their fair share contribution toward new transportation projects, facilitating development and reducing the cost and complexity of traffic studies associated with project permitting and transportation concurrency requirements. Except as otherwise identified herein, the South Barker Corridor Study provides the basis for all TIF rates calculated in this rate study. As part of adoption of any TIF rates, both the South Barker Corridor Study and this TIF rate study will be adopted as supporting documents. Study Area The South Barker Corridor extends along Barker Road from Mission Avenue to the south city limits of Spokane Valley. The South Barker Corridor Study defined the impact fee area for the South Barker Corridor as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the portions of Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and unincorporated Spokane County near the South Barker Corridor where development would have the greatest impact on traffic in the corridor. The area was defined in that study using a select zone analysis from the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model to quantify the impact of the transportation analysis zones (TAZs) near the corridor. Combined, this area is expected to contribute between 45% and 52% of future traffic on South Barker Road (depending on the segment of Barker Road). It should be noted that the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) was excluded from the analysis as the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) is already utilizing a Planned Action Ordinance to assess SEPA mitigation fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90. The South Barker Corridor TIF rate provided in this study would apply to any new development in the Spokane Valley TAZs identified in the South Barker Corridor Study, which is the area shaded in pink on Figure 1. This includes the following TAZs: 325, 326, 327, 328, 334, 369, 388, 389, 391, and 392. This area will be referred to in this report as the South Barker Corridor TIF area. Based on the analysis provided in the South Barker Corridor Study, future development in the South Barker TIF area of Spokane Valley is expected to contribute between 18% and 26% of future traffic on the South Barker Corridor - depending on the segment of the corridor. Based on the select zone analysis, areas in Spokane Valley outside of this area generate less traffic on South Barker Road and do not need to pay an impact fee. r aq I �1. o- n90 Dr Illllr.- = 11111■: ,Millwood e;F' 1111:11111111� + n P Illl■Ir ' III�IIII'o' -'-EE1 Iv�� r.r MEANS area Est/ 1i..''%` 7/fP``�i WI /�' �9 �� 7111. 1� IIIJ =1� ialWli�u - urrr is rt rm. €1Y_Oak,Dr -Spokane Valey Sprague E 44th Ave 0 0 m 2 South Barker Corridor Travel Shed Transportation Analysis Zones by Jurisdiction ( 1 S• pokane Valley TAZs in L• iberty Lake TAZs in S• pokane County TAZs E 16th Ave co 326 334 E Coach Dr36 E Euclid Ave 1 3271 128 447 ,eec` 442 91 ' 0) I 92 393 - I �a Indiaha Ave Liberty Lake 4481 443 kat J iniv Fi 1]11M7. In `vista �-Sprague—Av.� j. E 3rd Ave col (co 444 �co ml ti a N Sprague Av 0 Figure 1 Transportation analysis zones included in the South Barker Corridor Study fair -share cost analysis. Methodology The impact fee for the South Barker Corridor was developed to establish the fair share of transportation improvement costs that may be charged to new development in the area. Revised Code of Washington Section 82.02.050 authorizes cities planning under the GMA to impose impact fees for system improvements that are reasonably required to support and mitigate the impacts of new development. Fees may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of improvements and cannot be used to fund existing deficiencies. The following key points summarize the process for developing the impact fee structure (refer to Figure 2): • The South Barker Corridor Study identified a list of future projects and estimated costs along Barker Road that will be needed to support future growth through the year 2040. • The South Barker Corridor Study also accounted for any existing deficiency (intersections/roadway segments that do not meet current level of service standards) or committed outside funding sources by deducting the costs of those deficiencies/external funds from the total project cost. • The South Barker Corridor Study next assigned the fair share of each project to southeast Spokane Valley and nearby areas outside the City. • The forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in southeast Spokane Valley was estimated by converting the forecast land use growth in the SRTC regional travel demand model using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. • A cost per PM peak hour trip was calculated by dividing the fair share cost of each project by the growth in vehicle trips in southeast Spokane Valley. • Lastly, a land use -based fee schedule was developed using the cost per PM peak vehicle trip calculated above. Trip rates for multiple land use categories were estimated using vehicle trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual will provide consistency between a project trip generation letter or traffic impact study and the impact fee rate. Figure 2. Impact Fee Methodology Projects and costs identified (from the South Barker Corridor Study) 1 Eligible project costs identified (from South Barker Corridor Study) Fair share of each project to southeast Spokane Valley identified (South Barker Corridor Study) Forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in southeast Spokane Valley Growth cost allocation (cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip) Impact Fee Schedule The following sections describe in detail these elements that that are integral to the final impact fee schedule. South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 Project List The South Barker Corridor Study, completed in July 2019 and updated in February 2020, included an analysis of traffic demand through the year 2040 to identify potential traffic improvement projects on the segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south City limits of Spokane Valley. That study identified a total of eight projects that will be needed by 2040 along the corridor to accommodate future growth and maintain level of service standards. Those projects, and costs in 2020 dollars, are shown in Table 1. Three of the projects include improvements to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange that will primarily be the responsibility of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). At this time, there are no anticipated costs to the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) for these projects. Therefore, the five projects identified in the South Barker Corridor Study for which COSV would be responsible for funding total approximately $18.8 million in 2020 dollars (note: these costs have been updated from the cost estimates in the South Barker Corridor Study to account for construction cost inflation and/or more detailed estimates by COSV). Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) Project Description Program COSV Cost Agency Estimate (2020 Responsible dollars) Constructed in 2020 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single - lane roundabout and two eastbound approach lanes; realign east leg of Broadway Reconstruct intersection with single - lane roundabout and two southbound approach lanes; convert Barker/Boone to right-in/right-out Horizon 2040 Plan (#12) Horizon 2040 Plan (#12) WSDOT N/A WSDOT N/A Near -Term (2021-2024) Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single - lane roundabout 2021-2026 TIP (#28) COSV $2,139,000 Mid- Term (2025-2030) I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to 1-90 Replace Barker Rd. Bridge, widen to 4- lanes from Boone Ave. to Broadway; reconstruct both intersections to 2-lane Horizon 2040 roundabout; reconstruct Barker/I-90 Plan (#12) WB ramp intersection to six -leg roundabout with Boone Avenue Widen and improve to 5-lane urban section; roundabout @ Broadway 2021-2026 TIP (#44) WSDOT Not anticipated at this time COSV $6,501,000 Project Description Program Agency Responsible COSV Cost Estimate (2020 dollars) Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90 Widen and improve to 5-lane urban section 2021-2026 TIP (#61) COSY $3,146,000 Long -Term (2031-2040) Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct and widen north of Sprague to 3-lane urban section, and south of Sprague to 2-lane urban section Reconstruct 4th Ave. and 8th Ave. intersections with single -lane roundabouts 2019-2024 TIP (#20) 2019-2024 TIP (#21) COSY $3,500,000 COSY $3,500,000 Source: South Barker Corridor Study (February 2020). Costs were updates to 2020 dollars based on the projects except Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90. Cost for that project was updated rates. Note: Horizon 2040: SRTC Long Range Transportation Plan; TIP: City of Spokane Valley Transportation Travel Growth TOTAL $18,786,000 COSV 2021-2026 TIP for all using construction inflation Improvement Plan. Determining the growth in travel demand caused by new development is a key requirement for a TIF program. In nearly every TIF program across Washington and the country, the total eligible costs of building new transportation capacity is divided by the total growth in trips to determine a cost per trip. All developments pay the same cost per trip, but larger developments that generate more trips pay a higher total fee than smaller developments. In this way, the cost to provide the new transportation infrastructure is fairly apportioned to new development. Moreover, in setting the boundary for the TIF, a select zone analysis was performed to validate that all the areas within the TIF area contributed a meaningful amount (at least one percent) of total traffic to Barker Road. The amount of traffic varies somewhat based on which segment of Barker Road is evaluated and which TAZ the project resides in, but in all cases each of the ten identified TAZs within the TIF area contribute at least 5% of the total COSV traffic along the corridor. For the South Barker Corridor TIF, the future growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips was estimated using the change in land use in the study area from the 2015 and 2040 SRTC regional travel demand model as well as trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The SRTC travel demand model includes 11 land use categories: two residential and nine non-residential categories. For each land use in the SRTC model, an associated ITE trip rate was identified. Total PM peak hour vehicle trips within the study area were calculated by multiplying the PM peak hour trip rate identified by ITE by the forecast growth (from 2015 to 2040) in dwelling units, employees, or hotel rooms, depending on the land use. Table 2 summarizes the calculation. It should be noted that COSV directs developers to apply the trip South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 calculation methodology based on the process detailed in Section 4.4 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition when estimating trip generation for developments. In some situations the best -fit curve would be used instead of average trips rates. That methodology is applicable at the development scale where developments of various sizes can impact trip rates. However, in this situation given growth forecast in the model will occur among developments of various sizes over a 25 year period, using average trip rates is more appropriate and was applied to forecast growth in trips in the Barker TIF area. Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) SRTC Land Use (L 2015-2040 Unit of LU Growth Measure ITE Code ITE Description ITE Average Trip Rate 1 (PM peak hr.) Growth in Trips (LU growth x trip rate) Single Family Residential Multi -Family Residential Hotel/Motel 200 Rooms 310 Hotel 917 Dwelling Units 210 Single -Family Detached Housing 1,070 Dwelling Units Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, Industrial, 0 Employees Manufacturing, Wholesale 220 Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) N/A N/A Retail Trade (Non - Central Business 280 Employees 820 Shopping Center District) Services and Offices 654 Employees 710 General Office Building Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 62 Employees 710 General Office Building Services (FIRES) Medical 503 Employees 630 Clinic Retail Trade (CBD) 0 Employees N/A N/A Education Employees 35 Employees 520 Elementary School University Employees 0 Employees N/A N/A 0.99 908 0.56 599 0.60 120 N/A 0 1.62 454 0.40 262 0.40 25 0.85 428 N/A 0 1.78 62 0.40 0 Total Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips 2,8572 1. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10`" Edition; average trip rate of adjacent street traffic 4-6 PM was used for all land uses given growth will occur among developments of various sizes. 2. Estimated growth in trips differ from the findings in the South Barker Corridor Study because estimates in this study are based on the ITE trip generation rates as opposed to trip growth outputs of the SRTC regional travel demand model. Using this methodology, it is forecast that the South Barker Corridor TIF area would generate about 2,857 new PM peak hour vehicle trips by 2040. This total PM peak hour vehicle trip growth will be used in the calculation of TIF rate. Note: the trip growth by 2040 differs from the trip growth estimated in the South Barker Corridor Study as the estimate in this report is based on ITE trip rates derived from forecast land use growth, while for the South Barker Corridor Study trip generation was pulled directly from the SRTC regional travel demand model. ITE Trip rates were used to develop the TIF rate in accordance with development requirements defined in the Spokane Valley Street Standards. Cost Allocation Three steps were used to allocate costs per PM peak hour trip, see Figure 3. First, the TIF methodology must separate the share of project costs that address existing deficiencies from the share of project costs that add transportation capacity and serve new growth. Second, dedicated funding from non -City sources must be removed from the project cost as funds generated by the TIF can only be used for projects identified to have an impact from the development being assessed a fee. Third, resulting growth - related improvement costs are then further separated to identify the share of growth related to land development in Barker Road TIF area. Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation STEPS Project List $18.8 M i Future Growth $18.8 M Existing Deficiency $0 City Funds $18.4 M Inside TIF Area $3.6 M Eligible Impact Fee $3.6 M i Non -City Funds $350 K Outside TIF Area $14.8 M i Other Funds Needed $14.8 M South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 Existing Transportation Deficiencies An existing conditions analysis was conducted as part of the South Barker Corridor Study, which identified existing level of service deficiencies at the Barker Road and 1-90 intersections. A deficiency at an intersection is defined as a level of service rating of E or lower at a signalized intersection or level of service F at an unsignalized intersection as established in the Comprehensive Plan. Since the three projects at the Barker Road and 1-90 interchange are expected to be funded by WSDOT, the cost of these projects was not included in the total project cost for the South Barker Corridor. No other locations along the corridor were identified as having an existing deficiency. Therefore, no costs were deducted from the total project cost on account of an existing deficiency. Committed External Funding Of the five projects whose cost are included in the South Barker Corridor TIF, only one currently has dedicated funding from a non -City source, the Sprague Avenue/Barker Road intersection improvement project. This project has $349,000 dedicated from a Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality grant. Therefore, this cost was deducted from the total cost of this project. Table 4 (on the following page) illustrates the eligible project costs that were applied to the South Barker Corridor TIF, totaling $18,437,000. Fair -Share Cost With deficiencies and external funding accounted for, all the remaining project costs are related to supporting new growth in trips that will be funded by COSV. However, not all the growth comes from development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area — there is a portion of growth that comes from other parts of Spokane Valley and surrounding jurisdictions. To ensure that the costs assessed to development as part of the TIF are fair and proportional to the impact, a fair share percentage was used. The South Barker Corridor Study identified the percentage of traffic growth in three different segments of the South Barker Corridor that are expected to be attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area. This was done using a select zone analysis in the 2040 SRTC travel demand model. The percentage ranges from 18% in the south end of the corridor to 26% in the north end of the corridor as shown in Table 3. Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area Segment of Barker Road Southeast Spokane Valley Study Area (TIF Area) North of 1-90 1-90 to Appleway Avenue South of Appleway Avenue Source: South Barker Corridor Study 26% 19% 18% The fair share percentages were multiplied by the eligible cost of each project in the corridor to get the cost of growth -related transportation improvements on the South Barker Corridor that is expected to be attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area. This equates to $3,635,350. Lastly, this cost was divided by the forecast new PM peak hour trips generated by new development in this area (2,857) to arrive at a cost per new PM peak hour vehicle trip of $1,272. Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations Project Project Cost (to COSV) Cost to Address Existing Deficiencies Non -City Dedicated Funds Cost Eligible Project TIF Area Fair Attributable Cost Share Percent to Study Area 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long - Term Improvements Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements N/A N/A $2,139, 000 Not anticipated at this time $6,501,000 $3,146,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 $349,000 N/A N/A $1,790,000 $0 $0 None anticipated at this time $0 $0 $6,501,000 $3,146,000 $3,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500,000 26% N/A 26% N/A 18% $322,200 None 26% anticipated at this time 19% $1,235,190 26% $817,960 18% $630,000 18% $630,00 TOTAL $18,786,000 $18,437,000 Varies $3,635,350 PM Peak Trips Cost Per PM Peak Trip 2,857 $1,272 When taking all the above calculations into consideration, the South Barker Corridor TIF would contribute up to 20 percent of the total $18.4 million eligible cost of the improvement projects on the South Barker Corridor. City matching funds, new grants, and other sources would provide the remaining 80 percent of the total project costs. South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip to reflect differences in trip -making characteristics for the general land use types forecast in the SRTC regional travel demand model within southeast Spokane Valley. The fee schedule is a table where fees are represented as dollars per unit for each land use category which makes it easier for developers to calculate their impact fee rates. Table 5 shows the various components of the fee schedule. Trip Generation Trip generation rates for each land use type in the PM peak hour were derived from average trip rates for selected land uses of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition to ensure consistent and repeatable calculations across all land uses. Pass -By Trip Adjustment The ITE trip generation rates represent total vehicles entering and leaving a development. For certain land uses (e.g., retail, convenience stores, etc.), a substantial amount of the motorized travel is already passing by the property and merely turns into and out of the driveway. These pass -by trips do not add trips to the surrounding street system and therefore are subtracted out prior to calculating the impact fee. The resulting trips are considered "new" trips and are therefore subject to the impact fee calculation. The pass - by trip percentages are taken from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017). Schedule of Rates The proposed impact fee rates are shown in Table 5. An expanded table of land uses is provided in Table 6 in Appendix A. In the fee schedule, fees are shown as dollars per unit of development for various land use categories. The impact fee program is flexible in that if a use does not fit into one of the ITE land use categories listed, an impact fee can be calculated based on the development's projected PM peak hour person trip generation and multiplied by the cost per PM peak hour trip of $1,272 as shown in Table 5. Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or Table 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip. Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule City of Spokane Valley South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule ITE Code ITE Land Use Category PM Peak Vehicle Trip Rate' Passby 2 Adjusted Trips per Unit of Measure 3 Impact Fee Per Unit4 @ $1,272 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family & Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $1,260 per dwelling unit 220 Multi -Family 0.56 0% 0.56 $713 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel (3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $891 per room 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $1.74 per sq ft 630 Medical Clinic 0.00328 0% 0.00328 $4.17 per sq ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $1.46 per sq ft 820 Shopping Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $3.20 per sq ft 11TE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic (weekday 4- 6PM); This worksheet represents only the generalized land uses in the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-inclusive; see Table 6 for a wider variety of uses; Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip. 2 New trips will exclude "pass -by" trips: see "ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition" (2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips 4 sq ft = square feet, room = available hotel/motel room 11 Appendix A - Expanded Impact Fee Schedule Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule 1101 Land Use Group City ITE Cod of Spokane Valley South Barker Corridor , ITE Land Use Category Transportation PM Peak Vehicle Tri P Rate Impact Passby % 2 Fee Rate Schedule Adjusted Trips per Unit of Measure' Impact Fee Per Unit ° @ $1,272 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family & Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $1,260 per dwelling unit Residential 220 Multi -Family 0.56 0% 0.56 $713 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel (3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $891 per room Services 492 Health Club 0.00345 0% 0.00345 $4.39 per sq ft 912 Bank 0.02045 34% 0.01350 $17.17 persq ft 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $1.74 persq ft Institution 522 Middle School 0.00119 0% 0.00119 $1.51 persq ft 530 High School 0.00097 0% 0.00097 $1.23 per sq ft 925 Drinking Establishment 0.01136 43% 0.00648 $8.24 persq ft Restaurant 934 Fast Food Restaurant (with drive-thru) 0.03267 50% 0.01634 $20.79 per sq ft 937 Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru 0.04338 89% 0.00477 $6.07 per sq ft 820 Shopping Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $3.20 persq ft Retail 841 Automobile Sales - Used/New 0.00375 0% 0.00375 $4.77 per sq ft 853 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 23.04 66% 7.83 $9,968 per pump 110 Light lndustry/High Technology 0.00063 0% 0.00063 $0.80 per sq tt Industrial 140 Manufacturing 0.00067 0% 0.00067 $0.85 per sgft 151 Mini -Storage 0.00017 0% 0.00017 $0.22 persq ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $1.46 persq ft Office 720 Medical Office / Clinic 0.00346 0% 0.00346 $4.40 persq ft 750 Office Park 0.00107 0% 0.00107 $1.36 per sq ft ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic (weekday 4-6PM); This worksheet represents only the most common uses in southeast Spokane Valley and is NOT all-inclusive; Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip. 2 New trips will exclude "pass -by' trips: see "ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition" (2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips 4 sq ft = square feet, pump = vehicle servicing position/gas pump, room = available hotel room FEHRk PEERS Appendix B - South Barker Corridor Study [Add S Barker Corridor Study] FEHRPEERS SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY FEHR ''PEERS Spokane FINAL REPORT I UPDATED FEBRUARY 2020 ..►Valley Contents Introduction 3 Methods & Assumptions 5 Existing Conditions 9 1-90 Interchange Interim Improvements Summary & Findings 13 2040 Analysis & Findings 15 2040 Recommendations 23 Implementation 26 Conclusions 32 List of Figures Figure 1. Study Area Intersections 4 Figure 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections 8 Figure 3. Existing conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations 10 Figure 4. Existing conditions level of service and delay 11 Figure 5. Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange 12 Figure 6. Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange 12 Figure 7. Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT 13 Figure 8. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection — revised Interim Concept 14 Figure 9. Year 2028 SimTraffic LOS results under the "hook ramp" concept at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp 15 Figure 10. 2040 conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations 16 Figure 11. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection concept (same as Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 18 Figure 12. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 18 Figure 13. 2040 conditions level of service and delay. 19 Figure 14. Volume -to -capacity ratio in 2040 for Barker Road/I-90 interchange roundabouts. 19 Figure 15. Volume -to -capacity ratio, LOS and/or delay in 2040 with mitigations. 20 Figure 16. Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. 21 Figure 17. Diverging roundabout concept. 22 Figure 18. 2040 volume -to -capacity ratio and 95% queue with a single -lane diverging roundabout. 22 Figure 19. Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three -lane configuration south of Appleway. 25 Figure 20. South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be implemented through year 2040. 26 Figure 21. Transportation analysis zones by jurisdiction included in the fair -share cost analysis. 28 Figure 22. Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by jurisdiction. 29 Figure 23. Fair -share cost by jurisdiction and project 30 Figure 24. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) in Spokane Valley 31 Figure 25. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) by jurisdiction. 32 SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings and recommended improvements of the South Barker Corridor Study. The purpose of the South Barker Corridor Study is to analyze traffic demands through year 2040 and identify potential traffic improvement projects on the segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits in Spokane Valley, Washington. The study includes planning -level cost estimates of improvements and an estimate of the proportion of traffic along segments of the corridor from adjacent jurisdictions (Liberty Lake and Spokane County) to assist in developing potential mitigation fee payments for the new development that is occurring in this part of the Spokane region. In addition, this study analyzed traffic operations at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange under the WSDOT interim concept (year 2020) and long-term concept (by year 2040) to verify that the proposed interchange improvements will operate adequately and serve the planned growth in Spokane Valley and the surrounding area. Based on the analysis, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long- term improvements for the 1-90 interchange. Study Area The study area includes the Barker Road corridor between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits on the east side of Spokane Valley. The following 10 intersections along Barker Road were included in the study and mapped in Figure 1. 1. Barker Road/Mission Avenue 2. Barker Road/Boone Avenue 3. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue 4. Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp 5. Barker Road/Broadway (east) 6. Barker Road/Broadway (west) 7. Barker Road/Appleway Avenue 8. Barker Road/Sprague Avenue 9. Barker Road/4th Avenue 10. Barker Road/8th Avenue City of Spokane Valley Wage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 1. Study Area Intersections Mission AO Maxwell Ay Sinto Ay Sharp Av Beane Av 3 Broadway •41� cgivelof pv Gree n ies Alkl Av qo [I Broadway Av 5prdgue AN Srd Av 4th Ay Sth AV 9th Ay aat Av et 2nd Av City of Spokane Valley 4 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report METHODS & ASSUMPTIONS The following methods and assumptions were applied to forecast traffic and analyze traffic operations as part of this Study. Land Use Assumptions Traffic volumes at each of the study intersections were estimated using the current version of the SRTC 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand models, which was last updated in December 2017. Fehr & Peers received a copy of the SRTC travel demand model on January 9, 2018. Land use assumptions were reviewed by the project technical advisory committee (TAC) on May 17, 2018 which is comprised of staff representing Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, Spokane County, WSDOT and SRTC. The TAC approved the land use assumptions on June 1, 2018 with three comments, including providing a comparison to what is assumed in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, incorporating impacts of new grade schools, and future land use forecasts in Liberty Lake - all of which are addressed below. Detailed land use data assumed in the model is provided in the following appendices: • • Appendix A — Includes a summary of the forecast 2015-2040 change in dwelling units and employees by transportation analysis zone (TAZ) near the Study Area. Appendix B — Includes a summary of the difference in assumed land use for the TAZs around Barker Road and 1-90 between the 2015 travel demand model used for the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update (prepared in 2016) and the current 2015 SRTC travel demand model used for this study. New Grade Schools In addition to the regional travel demand model, traffic forecasts also accounted for several new grade schools planned in the vicinity by 2021. These schools are not specifically accounted for in the model and include: • • • A new elementary school at Long Road and Mission Avenue in Spokane Valley (opens 2018) A new middle school at Harvest Parkway and Mission Avenue in Liberty Lake (opens 2019) A new high school near Sprague Avenue and Henry Road in Spokane County (opens 2021) It was determined through analysis of existing and future school location and enrollment zone boundaries as well as traffic studies completed for each school that the impact to traffic volume on Barker Road in the study area from the new elementary and middle school would result in a net neutral change. It was also determined that the primary impact from the new high school will be a shift in some traffic currently making a southbound right at the Barker Road/Appleway intersection to instead make a southbound through at that intersection and a southbound left at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. The inverse movements at the two intersections' were also adjusted. In the southbound direction, 80 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 17 vehicles in the PM peak hour were assumed to shift from making a southbound right at Barker Road/Appleway to making a southbound left at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue. In the northbound direction 37 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 19 vehicles in the PM peak hour were assumed to shift from making an eastbound left at Barker Road/Appleway to making a westbound right at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue and northbound through at Barker Road/Appleway. 1 For example, at Barker Road and Appleway Avenue southbound right turns were reduced and southbound through movements were increased by the same margin. Similarly, eastbound left turns were also reduced with northbound through movements increased by the same margin. City of Spokane Valley 5 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Liberty Lake Land Use Forecasts During the analysis stage, the City of Liberty Lake was in the process of updating their land use forecasts for 2040 as part of their Land Quantity Analysis. Land uses are expected to be different from the forecasts assumed in the current SRTC travel demand model, particularly in the Riverside District. Given this information was not yet available at the time of analysis, the 2015 and 2040 land use assumed for Liberty Lake in the current SRTC travel demand model was used. Assumptions regarding the future roadway network in Liberty Lake are explained below. Roadway Network Assumptions The SRTC travel demand model was also updated to account for several recent changes to the assumed 2040 roadway network as well as minor changes to the 2015 model to ensure recent projects were reflected. These changes are based on feedback provided by the project's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which included the City of Spokane Valley, WSDOT, Spokane County, and Liberty Lake. The changes to the network include the following. 2015 Model Changes: • • • • • Chapman Road was connected from 32nd Avenue to Barker Road just south of 12th Avenue to reflect existing conditions The centroid connector at transportation analysis zone (TAZ) 369 was moved to load to 4th Ave and 8th Ave instead of Barker Road, which better reflects where the driveways in the area load onto the roadway network The centroid connector at TAZ 392 was moved to load to 4th Ave instead of Barker Road The centroid connector at TAZ 327 was moved to load onto Indiana Avenue (instead of the intersection of Barker Road/ Indiana Avenue) A second centroid connector at TAZ 327 connecting to Mission Avenue was deleted to match the 2040 model 2040 Model Changes: • • • • • • • • Same changes made to the 2015 model Indiana Avenue was connected through from Barker Road to Harvard Road Instead of a new 1-90 interchange at Henry Road (as is currently in the 2040 model), Henry Road was connected from Appleway Avenue to Mission Avenue via an overpass of 1-90, but with no 1-90 interchange; the current partial interchange at Appleway Avenue was retained The preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project was assumed for the intersection of Barker Road/Trent Avenue The south leg of the Flora Road/Trent Avenue intersection across the BNSF railroad track is assumed to close (consistent with the preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project) A new link was added between Flora Road and Barker Road north of Euclid Avenue and south of Trent Avenue (to reflect the Garland Avenue connection assumed in the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) The centroid connector from TAZ 600 is assumed to be more heavily weighted toward Barker Road (reflecting the development potential in the Northeast Industrial Area assumed as part of the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) Barker Road was assumed to be 5 lanes from Mission Avenue to 1-90 (to reflect planned mitigations in the SEIS to the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) City of Spokane Valley 6'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report It should be noted that the following planned improvements are already assumed in the current SRTC travel demand model: • • • The Barker Road/I-90 interchange would be reconfigured to a standard diamond interchange with two-lane roundabouts plus slip ramps for right -turn movements at both ramps (as reflected in I-90/Barker Rd Interchange Justification Report) Barker Road between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue would be widened to five lanes as identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) A new northbound lane would be added on Harvard Road across 1-90 Traffic Forecast Methodology Near -Term Traffic Forecasts An annual growth rate of 3.0% along Barker Road was used for near -term traffic forecasts through year 2020 (based on historic growth) and an annual growth rate of both 2.0% and 3.0% were used for traffic growth on Barker Road between year 2020 and 2028 to capture an upper and lower range of potential growth. 2040 Traffic Forecasts Instead of using the traffic forecasts directly from the 2040 travel demand model, 2040 volumes were estimated using an industry standard approach known as the difference method. The difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 models are added to observed counts at each of the study area intersections to arrive at a 2040 forecast traffic. This method reduces model error by relying as much as possible on observed data rather than model output data. Note: the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 model will be multiplied by 0.88 to account for growth in traffic that occurred between 2015 and 2018 (22 years/ 25 years = 0.88). Existing traffic data was collected during the AM and PM peak hour on Thursday, May 24th 2018 at all study intersections (see Figure 1) except Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Road/8th Avenue. Existing traffic volumes at Barker Road/Boone Avenue are based on counts collected on Tuesday, February 14th, 2007 and existing volumes at Barker Road/8th Avenue are based on counts collected on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. Estimating AM Peak Volumes The regional travel demand model forecasts PM peak hour turn movements, but only forecasts 3-hour AM peak turn movements at each intersection. Therefore, the inverse of PM peak hour traffic growth multiplied by 80% was used to estimate AM peak hour traffic growth. This is consistent with research published in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 3652 and in observed peak hour traffic count data collected in Spokane Valley. For example, 80% of growth in PM peak volumes for southbound right turn movements at each intersection were applied to eastbound left movements to get the AM peak traffic forecast. 2 Martin, W., N. McGuckin. Travel Estimating Techniques for Urban Planning. NCHRP Report 365. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998. City of Spokane Valley 7 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Level of Service Standards Spokane Valley LOS Standards The City of Spokane Valley uses level of service (LOS) to describe and evaluate traffic operations along major arterial corridors and intersections within the City. Levels range from LOS A to LOS F, which encompass a range of congestion types from uninterrupted traffic (LOS A) to highly -congested conditions (LOS F). The description and intersection delay thresholds of each LOS category are described in Figure 2. These are based on the Highway Capacity Manual, which is the methodology used by Spokane Valley. The LOS for signalized intersections and roundabouts is measured by the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection from all approaches, while the LOS for unsignalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle on the approach with the highest average delay. Figure 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections Level of Service Description Signalized Intersection Delay (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Delay (seconds) A Free -flowing conditions. 0-10 0-10 B Stable operating conditions. 10-20 10-15 C Stable operating conditions, but individual motorists are affected by the interaction with other motorists. 20-35 15-25 D High density of motorists, but stable flow. 35-55 25-35 E Near -capacity operations, with speeds reduced to a low but uniform speed. 55-80 35-50 F Over -capacity conditions with long delays. > 80 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2016, Transportation Research Board The LOS standards used by Spokane Valley are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: • LOS D for major arterial corridors: o Argonne/Mullan between the town of Millwood and Appleway Boulevard o Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue o Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard between Fancher Road and Sullivan Road • LOS D for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors • LOS E for unsignalized intersections (LOS F acceptable if peak hour traffic signal warrant is unmet) WSDOT LOS Standards WSDOT also uses LOS thresholds for State Highways. The LOS standard for State Highways in Urban Areas is LOS D. Within the Study Area this would apply to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange. This LOS standard applies to roadway segments and signalized and stop controlled intersections. City of Spokane Valley 8'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Per WSDOT's recommended guidance, the primary measure of effectiveness (MOE) for roundabout analysis is not LOS, but the overall intersection and approach volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. WSDOT recommends that v/c ratios not exceed 0.85-0.9 for any approach or the entire intersection, which typically corresponds to LOS D. Traffic Analysis Methodology In order to analyze traffic operations, including LOS, v/c ratios and/or impacts of queuing, the following traffic engineering software was used in accordance with WSDOT Traffic Analysis policies and protocol3: • Synchro - Synchro software (version 9.2) was be used to evaluate AM and PM peak hour LOS at most signalized and stop controlled intersections. LOS was measured using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology within Synchro. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT Synchro Protocol. The observed intersection peak hour factor averaged for all approaches was used for the existing conditions analysis and near -term traffic analysis. A PHF of 1.0 was used for the 2040 analysis. A saturation flow rate of 1,775 vehicles per lane per hour was assumed in order to be consistent with City of Spokane Valley practice along the Barker Road corridor. • Sidra - Sidra software (version 7.0) was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour v/c ratios for intersections with a roundabout configuration. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT's Sidra Policy Settings (WSDOT, April 2018). • SimTraffic — SimTraffic software was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour traffic operational performance for closely spaced intersections in order to capture the impacts to traffic delay of queuing. This includes the intersections with Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue and Barker Road/I-90 under the single -lane roundabout configuration proposed by WSDOT as an interim solution. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT SimTraffic Protocol with the same PHF and saturation flow rate used in the Synchro analysis. SimTraffic was not used to analyze operations with two-lane roundabouts. Sidra software was used in those instances. EXISTING CONDITIONS Within the 1.6 mile segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south Spokane Valley City limits there are four signalized intersections. These are located where Barker Road crosses Mission Avenue, Cataldo Avenue/I-90 westbound ramp, 1-90 eastbound ramp and Appleway Avenue. There is a four-way stop at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue. All other intersection are controlled by side -street stop signs. The segment of Barker Road north of Boone Avenue is a three lane street with bike lanes, curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. South of Boone Avenue Barker Road is a two-lane street without curb, gutter, storm drain or sidewalks. South of Appleway there is an asphalt paved multiuse trail on the west side of the street that extends to Chapman Road in unincorporated Spokane County. Existing peak hour traffic volumes and lane configurations at the ten study intersections are shown in Figure 3. 3 www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Traffic/Analysis/ City of Spokane Valley 9 I P a g e E. Mis<9r4 Ave iacrea irk &CRES t0 aqua ^a+101.orr4•s EAYI Ave G•eena Cres r, showing Center Sprague Ave 9 of tr Y 1 0 E Mission Ave E Ale,un•11 w:e 1 a v1end,'s > Flume ae ©`Du,_, [role Waif 8 H.' r'ey-Uiwdsan T 8 0 Er Hub $pat$ Cente- F reedtrrr Atlspert Polaris, , Ionda Ya-naha Indian. xrnar,ar 93. E Al,. ,re pVe = e �vypu Ft c:rrlrr �.•? O 4S G.rvt Ave OFnnn,.. E3il Rim• ii6e,i�e Sprague Ave �Aae vow A. E Wain Are A 1. Barker/Mission 2. Barker/Boone 3. BarkerMB I-90 Ramps -—v" "� rn 4n m �pn )1,L 16 (27) 93 (123) a� 192 (100) A 7 (7) e 1 130 (481) J) 24 (6) 45 (13) ' 4 (0) 22 (4) a�� 241 �,gNN wai.9ooroar>a L 15 (44) 4- 36 (94) 35 (57) 28 (154) 43 (136) 49 (71) iI r V t _ . N V N- v 41 (73) 27 (21) -4 15 (22) 475 (268) a 260 (582) —+ 90 (69) -4 4. Barker/EB 1-90 Ramps 5. Barker/B oadway (N) 6 Barker/B oadway (S) Li' v 188 (740) 37 (80) 590 (484) $ 17 (4) w w 3 (15) ® I' 317(733) BaMer I o ro 213 (433) 7(12)� 169 (532) 7. Barker Appleway 8. Barke Sprague 9. Barke /4th Ave �N� 4L� �62 (84) 542 (654) r 49 (136) ® 14 (26) N A A 4- 154 (380) ® J44 40 (100) 76 (73) I 378 (225) 34 (32) 0 18 (16) 711,3, m 177 (508) 0 42(19) Barler 0 13(11) 1 (3) 1 (3) ann.e 0 (0) 101 (111)- 344 (490) 25 (34) 1 TI' iom� A "ri) r, air v 10. Ba ker/8th 7 (47) 4- 101 (353) 8 (46) 0 32 (23) is 21) LEGEND 0 Study Intersection It_ Lane Configuration Peak Hour ® StopSign AM tPM) Traffic Volume g Signalized 3 (13) 6(7)—£0. 3 (13) 0 �� , Figure 3. Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations South Barker Corridor Study SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Intersection Level of Service The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at the 10 study area intersections are summarized in Figure 4. The intersections between Boone Avenue and Broadway were analyzed using SimTraffic to account for the impact of queuing given the close spacing of intersections as well as the split signal phasing currently used at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp. All other intersections were analyzed using Synchro. Figure 4. Existing conditions level of service and delay. Intersection Control AM Peak PM Peak Side Street Stop Approach Software (all HCM 2010) Delay LOS Delay LOS Barker/Mission Signal 12 B 13 B Synchro Barker/Boone Side -Street Stop >100 F 64 F EB SimTraffic Barker/I-90 Westbound Ramp/Cataldo Signal 57 E 29 C SimTraffic Barker/I-90 Eastbound Ramp Signal 57 E 103 F SimTraffic Barker/Broadway (N) Side -Street Stop >100 F >100 F WB SimTraffic Barker/Broadway (S) Side -Street Stop 60 F 43 E EB SimTraffic Barker/Appleway Signal 21 C 30 C Synchro Barker/Sprague All -Way Stop 26 D 49 E Synchro Barker/4th Side -Street Stop 16 C 17 C EB Synchro Barker/8th Side -Street Stop 23 C 23 C EB Synchro Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Results show that under existing conditions, the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue intersection operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. Thus, both intersections of Barker Road/I-90 do not currently meet WSDOT LOS standards. Additionally, the queue along Barker Road from the two 1-90 intersections impacts the LOS at both Barker Road/Boone Avenue and the two Barker Road/Broadway intersections, causing all three intersections to operate at LOS F during either the AM or PM peak hours or both. Additionally the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour. This intersection has been identified by COSV as a location in need of improvement to address existing congestion and multimodal operations. Results of the existing conditions traffic analysis show this intersection is just two additional seconds of delay from operating at LOS F. A small increase in traffic is likely cause this intersection to operate at LOS F without improvements. The existing average and maximum queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange during the AM peak hour are shown in Figure 5 and in the PM peak hour are shown in Figure 6. In the AM peak hour a long queue forms in the southbound direction at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection. In the PM peak hour a long queue forms in the eastbound direction at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection. It should be noted the distance between the gore point in the eastbound direction of 1-90 City of Spokane Valley 11 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 and the Barker Road intersection is about 1,700 feet and the average queue on this segment during the PM peak hour is 1,200 feet and the maximum queue is 1,500 feet. Figure 5. Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange Intersection Direction Average Queue (feet) Maximum Queue (feet) Barker/ 1-90 westbound/Cataldo EB NB SB WB 60 300 730 100 120 510 1,200 170 Barker/1-90 eastbound EB 150 260 NB 160 170 SB 170 260 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Figure 6. Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange Intersection Direction Average Queue (feet) Maximum Queue (feet) Barker/ 1-90 westbound/Cataldo EB 70 120 NB 190 340 SB 420 630 WB 100 160 Barker/1-90 eastbound EB 1,200 1,500 NB 160 180 SB 440 630 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Corridor Level of Service The existing corridor level of service within the study area is LOS D derived from average daily traffic (ADT) on each roadway segment and weighted by the segment's length. Based on the posted speed and number of lanes, the LOS D threshold for the corridor is 13,800 ADT (as defined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual), and the length -average ADT-to-LOS D volume threshold ratio is 0.83. As long as the ratio is less than or equal to 1.00, the corridor is defined as operating at LOS D or better even though some intersections may experience greater congestion than LOS D. City of Spokane Valley 12'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 I-90 INTERCHANGE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY & FINDINGS The Barker Road/I-90 interchange is currently operating at LOS E or worse at one or both interchange intersections in both the AM and PM peak hour, thus failing WSDOT LOS standards. WSDOT has proposed an interim solution that includes single -lane roundabouts at each ramp intersection until the long-term concept proposed in the 2014 IJR can be implemented. Traffic analysis was performed for the intersections between Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Road/Broadway, including both ramps of the Barker Road/I-90 interchange in years 2020, 2023, and 2028. The analysis was performed to determine how well and for how long a single -lane roundabouts as depicted in Figure 7 would operate acceptably at the two intersections. Figure 7. Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT yeerlJ��r` +�+rt• _it% • tit" r �'.^bd,l iA 4 aroadway Source: WSDOT A subsequent revision to this interim concept, shown in Figure 8, shifted the northern single -lane roundabout to the existing Cataldo Avenue/Barker Road/I-90 Westbound intersection, maintaining the existing "hook ramp" configuration. According to the best available information at this time regarding long-term plans for the interchange and replacement of the Barker Road Bridge, the advantage of this configuration, as compared to the tight diamond configuration (shown in Figure 7 and originally proposed as the interim solution) is that the proposed location of the Barker Road/westbound ramp intersection is City of Spokane Valley 13'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 farther from 1-90 than what is proposed with a tight diamond configuration. This would allow WSDOT to convert a single -lane roundabout at this location to a two-lane roundabout in the future when the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 is replaced without necessitating lowering the elevation of the 1-90 travel lanes in order to achieve the required clearance under the bridge. Figure 8. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection — revised Interim Concept Source: WSDOT A summary of the key findings of this traffic analysis are presented below: • A single lane roundabout will operate acceptably at Barker/I-90 Interchange in 2020 with: o A 2nd southbound approach lane at the westbound ramp — This can be implemented through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. o A 2nd eastbound approach lane at the eastbound ramp • The eastbound ramp intersection will drop below LOS D sometime between 2023 and 2028 o Main constraint: sometime between 2023 and 2028 the northbound traffic demand across the bridge will exceed the physical capacity of the bridge (1,000-1,100 vph) • Regardless of the configuration (either what is shown in Figure 7 or Figure 8) westbound ramp will operate at an acceptable LOS by 2028 because the eastbound roundabout will effectively "meter" northbound traffic so that there will be gaps for the heavy southbound traffic to enter Figure 9 summarizes the LOS results based on SimTraffic. It should also be noted that Sidra analysis was also performed for both intersections in years 2020, 2023 and 2028 with results showing that the v/c ratio would exceed the 0.85-0.9 threshold for both intersections sometime between 2023 and 2028, with the eastbound ramp failing sooner. However, unlike the Sidra results, SimTraffic showed that the eastbound ramp intersection would effectively "meter" traffic entering the westbound ramp intersection resulting in acceptable LOS at that intersection through 2028. City of Spokane Valley 14 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Figure 9. Year 2028 SimTraffic LOS results under the "hook ramp" concept at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp Intersection Control AM Peak Delay I LOS PM Peak Delay I LOS Barker/Boone Side -Street Stop 66 E 30 D Barker/Cataldo/I-90 westbound ramp Roundabout 40 D 17 B Barker/1-90 eastbound ramp Roundabout 84 F 88 F Barker/Broadway Side -Street Stop 107 F 218 F Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 The results of this analysis demonstrate that the interim solution (modified with a second approach lane at one leg of each intersection and revised to maintain the existing location "hook ramp" configuration at Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue/I-90 westbound ramp intersection) for the Barker Road/I-90 interchange would last about 5-10 years before falling below WSDOT LOS standards. Given this, it is recommended that the City of Spokane Valley work with WSDOT to secure funding within 5-10 years to replace the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 with a four -lane bridge. 2040 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS Traffic analysis of the Barker Corridor intersections was performed with the assumption that several already planned transportation projects would be implemented. This includes: • • • Barker Road from Mission Avenue to Appleway would be widened to five lanes (through a combination of several projects). The Barker Road/I-90 interchange would be reconfigured into two-lane roundabouts at each ramp intersection similar to the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative, with some modifications (as described below), including adding Boone Avenue into the westbound ramp roundabout and preserving the existing hook ramp configuration for the westbound ramp. The east leg of Broadway would be realigned with the west leg of Broadway at Barker Road. These changes would effectively consolidate the Barker Road/Boone Avenue intersection with the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue intersection and consolidate the two Broadway intersections into one. Consolidation of these intersection means under 2040 conditions there would be eight study intersections instead of ten. Traffic volumes and lane configurations assumed in 2040 at each of the study intersections are shown in Figure 10. City of Spokane Valley 15 1 P a g e E Mission Ave leoree irk ACRES [oA Ec WQ G'e&nacres /\ Shopping Center roe OE Mission Ave z C :::::: F a Wendy s 4 E Boma Ave Lone wolli Harley-Davidson O 2 CA E /•Ik AVE El Hub Sports Center Freedn• AHspart Polaris , Honda Yamaha Indian.. E BrwEdw ,y Aw pre SC J �, yyrvm Ar[ E Won Ave Sprague Ave O � m fi.Tit Avt E 9ih Ave 6 East F9aaIide Ave Sprague Ave 1. Barker/Mission 2. Barker/ B 1-90 On/Off-Ramp 3. Barker/EB 1-90 On/Off Ramp �� 41L320 40 (80) 100(175) r— (225) _ �°°e N N u�i o o°� sfos°J 1K s(S��JOJ o "`" wa`'c� 5V 1o`,vo`°` 5ns 6° m 5� `o �'e°'°6 0/p� ) a0 900) 45 (55)� $1.. a° m Eai-sornca�. 1,1 Ee iao o-aam. 75 (215) 80 (170) $ 130 (160) �� 285 (595) o (o) 295 (810) • cn 4. Barker/Broadway 5. Barker/Appleway 6. Barke /Sprague m PLL �J 4iL 0 40 (55) 4— 0 (0) 5(10) V A 145 (170) o— 325 (615) oto �r 80 (260) 115 (115) 625 (690) r— 65(� ) r n A a 25 (40) a- 200 (525) 145 (175) Barker 0 205 (110) 4- 70 (65) 20(50) 60 (75) 0(0)�+ 15 (5) 0 ) m t 7. Barker/4th 8. Barker/8th o �n N 10 (5) t 605 (395) A. 5 (5) m o0 0 40 (40) 0 (25) 2 30 (45) em 25 (25) 5 (5) —f 5 (5) ® 5 (15) 20 (25) —f 5 (15) ® str v Figure 10. 2040 Conditions Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations South Barker Corridor Study SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Configuration A conceptual layout in 2040 of the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection is shown in Figure 11 and a conceptual layout of the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection is shown in Figure 12. The configuration of the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection would be largely the same as the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative, including a roundabout with two circulating lanes and two eastbound approach lanes on the 1-90 off -ramp. However, the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection was modified from the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative in order to preserve the "hook ramp" configuration at the same location as today, with Cataldo Avenue on the east leg. Reasons for this change were to satisfy City of Spokane Valley and WSDOT's desire to shift the interim solution to a location that better accommodates long-term reconstruction of the interchange, as well as City of Spokane Valley's desire to find a solution with the least impact to private property. Converting the 1-90 westbound ramp to a diamond interchange would have either required Cataldo Avenue to be rerouted through private property to Boone Avenue or the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection to be moved closer to 1-90. The original IJR preferred alternative would also have necessitated lowering 1-90 in order to achieve adequate clearance under the Barker Road Bridge. Preserving the hook ramp negates both of these potential issues. While the bridge will still need to be replaced to achieve adequate clearance, the proposed configuration would allow sufficient approach length to achieve adequate clearance without the need of lowering 1-90. In addition, the east and west leg of Boone Avenue was added to the westbound ramp roundabout in order to preserve full movement on Boone Avenue and reduce the potential impacts of loss of access or additional ROW needed to provide access near the existing Boone Avenue intersection. These modifications result in a roundabout with six legs. Without this configuration Boone Avenue would be too close to the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp roundabout to safely operate with full movements. It should be noted that the concepts shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 are schematic in nature and the exact diameter of a future roundabout would need to be determined through a more detailed engineering study. The assumed length of the roundabout diameter does not affect the Sidra outputs. City of Spokane Valley 17 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 11. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection concept (same as Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 too `710, 100 0 Figure 12. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 1N Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 181 Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Intersection Level of Service Findings The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) findings at the eight study area intersections are summarized in Figure 13. The 1-90 intersections were analyzed using Sidra. The more relevant measure of effectiveness for these intersections per WSDOT policy is v/c ratio, which is shown in Figure 14. All other intersections were analyzed using Synchro. Figure 13. 2040 conditions level of service and delay. Intersection Control AM Peak PM Peak Software (all HCM 2010) Delay LOS Delay LOS Barker/Mission Signal 20 B 25 C Synchro Barker/I-90 WB Ramp/Cataldo/Boone Roundabout 17 B 13 B Sidra Barker/I-90 EB Ramp Roundabout 9 A 12 B Sidra Barker/Broadway Side -Street Stop 71 (EB) F >300 (EB) F Synchro Barker/Appleway Signal 30 C 46 D Synchro Barker/Sprague All -Way Stop 132 (NB) F >300 (SB) F Synchro Barker/4th Side -Street Stop 22 C 33 D Synchro Barker/8th Side -Street Stop 17 C 33 D Synchro Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Figure 14. Volume -to -capacity ratio in 2040 for Barker Road/I-90 interchange roundabouts. Intersection Control AM Peak v/c 95% Queue PM Peak v/c 95% Queue Software (all HCM 2010) Barker/I-90 WB Ramp/Cataldo/Boone Roundabout 0.69 240 ft. (SB) 0.54 110 ft. (NB) Sidra Barker/I-90 EB Ramp Roundabout 0.47 90 ft. (NB) 0.70 150 ft. (NB) Sidra Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Results presented in Figure 14 show that under existing 2040 conditions, the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection and the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue/Boone Avenue intersection as laid out in Figure 11and Figure 12, respectively, would operate acceptably. The v/c ratio would be meet the WSDOT threshold of 0.85-0.90 for both intersection in both the AM and PM peak hour. Results presented in Figure 13 show that the Barker Road/Sprague intersection (which had poor LOS under existing conditions) would operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hour without improvements. City of Spokane Valley 19'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Additionally, the Barker Road/Broadway intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hour and would meet the peak hour signal warrant in the PM peak hour, thus failing the City of Spokane LOS threshold in 2040. Analysis shows that the Barker Road/4th Avenue and Barker Road/8th Avenue intersection will with acceptable LOS through 2040 under the existing configurations with side street stop control. These intersections would also operate acceptably with a signal or roundabout although the forecasts do not indicate that either intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant in 2040. Mitigation Measures • Barker Road/Sprague Avenue - Traffic operations at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection were analyzed in Sidra assuming a single -lane roundabout concept and in Synchro assuming a traffic signal with left turn lanes and protected left -turn signal timing for all approaches. Results, shown in Figure 15, demonstrate that a single -lane roundabout or a traffic signal with protected left -turn lanes would result in acceptable traffic operations at this intersection in 2040. Figure 16 summarizes the pros and cons of implementing a traffic signal as compared to a roundabout at this intersection. The primary differences in a traffic signal versus a roundabout relate to traffic safety, cost, right-of-way impact, impervious surface and landscaping opportunities. While this study recommends a roundabout at this intersection primarily due to the safety benefits, the City will undertake a separate and more detailed design study as part of implementation to determine the ultimate future intersection configuration. Figure 15. Volume -to -capacity ratio, LOS and/or delay in 2040 with mitigations. Intersection Control v/c AM Peak LOS Delay PM Peak v/c LOS Delay Software Barker/Sprague Roundabout 0.52 A 0.59 A Sidra Barker/Sprague Signal 34 D 36 Synchro Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 20 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Figure 16. Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. Factors Roundabout versus Traffic Signal Traffic Safety The primary benefit of a roundabout over a traffic signal is related to traffic safety. Research provided by WSDOT shows that on average single -lane roundabouts result in 75% fewer injury crashes and 90% fewer fatalities than signalized intersections. Roundabouts mitigate the risk of moderate -to - high -speed broadside crashes commonly caused by a driver running the red light at a traffic signal. Capital Cost On average the capital cost of constructing a roundabout is higher than the capital cost of constructing a signalized intersection, but this can vary from location to location. Operations & Maintenance Cost Long-term operations and maintenance costs associated with a roundabout are typically lower than those associated with a traffic signal (about $5,000 to $10,000 per year based on COSV research), often enough to offset the higher capital cost of a roundabout over the life of the project. Right -Of -Way Impact On average, the right-of-way (ROW) impact of a roundabout can be greater than a traffic signal, but varies depending on the location and number of turn lanes. At the Barker/Sprague location the area of ROW impact would be similar with a roundabout or a signal and neither would impact existing structures. Impervious Surface A roundabout could result in more impervious surface than a traffic signal depending on whether the center island is landscaped or hardscaped. Art & Landscape Opportunities Roundabouts typically have more opportunity for landscaping or art (primarily because of the center island) than traffic signals. Noise & Air Pollution Roundabouts typically result in less air pollution and noise than a traffic signal due to less idling and fewer hard accelerations. • Barker Road/Broadway — Additionally, a two-lane roundabout at the Barker Road/Broadway intersection would result in acceptable operations in year 2040. A traffic signal is not advised at this location due to the proximity of this intersection to the planned roundabout at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp and the potential for queue spillback onto the 1-90 roundabout. An acceptable alternative to a roundabout would be to convert this intersection to right-in/right- out/left-in only configuration. However, this type of intersection configuration would result in some degree of inconvenience for drivers trying to make a left -turn from either leg of Broadway to Barker Road as they would have go out of direction to make that movement. If there is substantial commercial development along the Broadway corridor in the future, the lack of left - out movement could be a major impact to the viability of retail businesses. However, if the Broadway corridor has similar land uses as today (or other lower trip generating uses like offices or apartments), the lack of outbound left -turns would be less of an impact. City of Spokane Valley 21IPage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Diverging Roundabout Concept Given the high volume of northbound left turns from Barker Road onto 1-90 westbound (700 in the AM peak), WSDOT suggested that a "diverging roundabout" concept be tested to see if the interchange could operate effectively with single -lane roundabouts. A diverging roundabout is a diverging diamond interchange with roundabouts instead of signalized "crossover" intersections —see an example in Figure 17. The advantage of this concept is it eliminates all turning vehicle conflicts. The only point of conflict is where through traffic must cross over to the other side of the road. A diverging diamond interchange works best in situations where there are high volumes of vehicles turning off or onto the highway and not a lot of through movement on the road crossing the highway. Figure 17. Diverging roundabout concept. Image source: https://www.youtube.corn/watch?y=ms5Ty2JPME Sidra software was used to test the diverging roundabout concept in 2040 with one circulating lane at both the eastbound and westbound 1-90 ramp intersections with Barker Road. Results are shown in Figure 15 and illustrate this configuration would meet WSDOT standards during three of the four conditions tested. This configuration would result in unacceptable operations at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp in the PM peak hour due to the high volume of northbound and southbound through movements. The primary other disadvantage of this configuration is it would require a diamond interchange, which means the hook ramp would have to be removed and Cataldo Avenue would have to be rerouted to Boone Avenue. It should be noted, however, that a diverging roundabout interchange would likely meet WSDOT LOS standards if the roundabouts were dual -lane and there was a four -lane bridge over 1-90 (although this configuration was not specifically analyzed). Figure 18. 2040 volume -to -capacity ratio and 95% queue with a single -lane diverging roundabout. Intersection Control AM Peak v/c 95% Q PM Peak v/c 95% Q Software Barker/I-90 WB Roundabout 0.49 80 feet 0.93 590 feet Sidra Barker/I-90 EB Roundabout 0.65 120 feet 0.52 110 feet Sidra Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 22'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report 2040 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended transportation improvements for the Barker Road corridor are organized by two distinct segments of the corridor, the section between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue and the section between Appleway Avenue and the south City limits. Mission Avenue to Appleway Avenue The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan identifies a five -lane urban section for Barker Road between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue. The segment between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue is also identified in the Spokane Valley six -year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as a five -lane arterial. Furthermore the segment between Mission Avenue and 1-90 is identified in the in the Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance (PAO), which is in the process of being adopted as a supplement to the Spokane Comprehensive Plan EIS. WSDOT has allocated funding in 2019 and 2020 for implementing an interim improvement to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange until a longer -term solution can be implemented as identified in the SRTC Horizon 2040 Plan and I-90/Barker Road IJR. Based on these previously planned projects and findings of the traffic operations analysis presented in the previous section of this report, the following projects are recommended for Barker Road north of Appleway Avenue. • Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Improvements — It is recommended that WSDOT convert the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to single -lane roundabouts as an interim measure to improve traffic operations and safety until funding for a longer -term solution can be secured. Roundabouts would be implemented at the same locations as the ramp terminal intersections are located today. As part of this project, a second southbound approach lane should be added on Barker Road at the westbound ramp. This can be implemented through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. Additionally, a second eastbound approach lane should be added to the eastbound 1-90 off -ramp. WSDOT will also realign the east leg of Broadway to match the location of the existing west leg. Traffic analysis shows that this solution will operate effectively for about 5-10 years. Thus, it is recommended that WSDOT and City of Spokane Valley work to secure funding for a longer -term solution within the next 5 to 10 years. • Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Long -Term Improvements — It is recommended that WSDOT convert the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to two-lane roundabouts as a longer -term solution to improve traffic operations through 2040. Consistent with recommendations from the 2014 IJR, this would include two eastbound approach lanes at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection and an expansion of the roundabout to include two circulating lanes. However, unlike the 2014 IJR, it is recommended that westbound hook ramp be preserved and the roundabout at the westbound ramp be implemented as a six -leg intersection with Cataldo and Boone Avenue (this would also require that the interim roundabout be widened to include two circulating lanes). This project would include replacement of the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 with a four -lane bridge including a multiuse trail or sidewalk on both sides to wide enough to allow for safe circulation of bicyclists and pedestrians. • Barker Road — Mission Avenue to Boone Avenue Widening — It is recommended that Spokane Valley widen this segment of Barker Road to a five -lane urban section. This project has been identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Industrial Area PAO. It is recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as (or shortly after) the long term improvements are made to the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange. City of Spokane Valley 23 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report • Barker Road —1-90 to Appleway Avenue Widening - It is recommended that Spokane Valley widen this segment of Barker Road to a five -lane urban section. This project is identified in the 2019- 2024 TIP. It is recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as the long term improvements are made to the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange. Given that traffic analysis also shows the Barker Road/Broadway intersection will need improvement by 2040, it is also recommended that either a two-lane roundabout at Barker Road/Broadway be implemented as part of this project or the intersection be converted to prevent left -out movements. A roundabout at Broadway was included in the TIP. Appleway Avenue to South City Limits As identified in the traffic operations analysis, the South Barker corridor will operate acceptably in 2040 with either single -lane roundabouts or traffic signals at the major intersections (Sprague Ave, 4th Ave, 8th Ave).4 The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and TIP identify a three -lane urban roadway section between Appleway and the southern city limit. This roadway would consist of one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left -turn lane, a sidewalk, and the existing multi -use trail. Traffic signal control at the major intersections is entirely consistent with the three -lane cross section, since left -turn lanes approaching the intersections would be required. This configuration is very common in Spokane Valley. However, single -lane roundabouts do not require a turn -lane at the major intersections and this configuration could be pursued with a narrower cross-section with just two travel lanes in each direction. While it is true that traffic signals (with widening at the major intersections) could also be accommodated with a two-lane segment, this configuration is less common in the Valley (existing two- lane roads with traffic signals often do not have turn lanes at major intersections, which reduces the capacity of the street). Based on this finding, Spokane Valley may wish to consider a two-lane cross section for all or a portion of the South Barker Road corridor. Figure 19 illustrates a few pros and cons of the three -lane versus two- lane configuration. For purposes of this study, the cost estimates assume the full three -lane buildout to capture the higher potential cost, which would lead to a cost savings if the two-lane design is ultimately selected. 4 Note that in the near -term (next 5-6 years), only the intersection at Barker Rd/Sprague Ave will likely warrant a traffic signal or roundabout to address poor traffic LOS. However, as development increases in the future it is not unlikely that the intersections at 4' Ave and 8' Ave will eventually need to be upgraded from their current side - street stop control. As of now, it does not appear that these intersections will require upgrades prior to 2040, but that could change if a larger use (e.g., apartment, church) is permitted along one of these streets. City of Spokane Valley 24 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report Figure 19. Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three -lane configuration south of Appleway. v8 2/7/20 Option Pros Cons Two-lane configuration • 33 percent less paved area; results in lower up -front costs and lower long- term maintenance costs • Less impervious surface reduces stormwater conveyance and treatment costs • More space within the right-of-way for wider sidewalks or landscaped area • No mid -block left -turn lane; may require a median to prohibit left - turns at larger developments or a short widened section to accommodate a turn lane • Retrofitting a turn lane could be costly if a parcel is rezoned at a later date for a more intensive use Three -lane configuration • Once this configuration is in place, there is no need to retrofit the road to accommodate left -turns at larger developments • Better accommodates more trip - intensive land uses like multifamily residential • Higher cost to build and maintain • More impervious surface and water runoff • Less opportunity for landscaping Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Given these pros and cons, along with the potential for rezoning of the land north of Sprague Avenue to more dense residential, the following projects are recommended: • Barker Road/Sprague Avenue Intersection Improvements— Implement a single -lane roundabout at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection to improve traffic operations and safety. This project should be prioritized for this segment and can be implemented prior to making corridor -wide improvements. A roundabout is recommended over a traffic signal at this intersection because roundabouts tend to have lower numbers of serious traffic collisions and they cost less to maintain in the long -run compared to traffic signals. In addition, with all the other roundabouts being built by WSDOT farther north on the corridor, roundabouts will be a common and consistent traffic control device on Barker Road. • Barker Road —Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue Widening — Implement a three -lane cross section between Appleway and Sprague Avenue; consider extending the existing northbound right -turn lane at Appleway approximately 200 feet south to Laberry Drive and converting this to a northbound through -right lane when Barker Road is widened north of Appleway. • Barker Road —Sprague Avenue to South City Limits Improvements — Implement a two-lane cross section south of Sprague Avenue. In the design, set the multi -use trail and sidewalk in a position that could ultimately accommodate a three -lane cross section. Build two lanes of a potential three -lane configuration where one side of the street will have a final curb and gutter and the other side of the street will have a shoulder and swale for drainage. In this way, the street can more -easily be widened if it is ever necessary to accommodate a mid -block turn lane, but most of the corridor will benefit from the narrower cross-section. Given the current single-family zoning and the generally smaller parcels south of Sprague, it seems that this area is less likely to see pressure for rezoning and the two-lane cross section will operate well in the future. • 4th Avenue and 8th Avenue Intersection Improvements - Phase the construction of Barker Road to include single -lane roundabouts at 4th Avenue and 8th Avenue along with the two-lane configuration. City of Spokane Valley 25 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 IMPLEMENTATION The recommended transportation improvements can be summarized into a total of eight projects along the South Barker Road Corridor. A list of these projects, along with a brief description, timeframe for implementation, and estimated cost in 2018 dollars for the portion Spokane Valley would be responsible for are shown in Figure 20. Reference to the program and project number from previous plans, documents or the City's TIP is also identified. Figure 20. South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be implemented through year 2040. COSV Program Agency Cost Estimate' Project Description (project #) Responsible (2018 $$) IMMEDIATE (2019-2020) 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single -lane roundabout and two eastbound approach lanes; realign east leg of Broadway Horizon 2040 Plan (#12) WSDOT N/A 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single -lane roundabout and two southbound approach lanes; convert Barker/Boone to right- in/right-out Horizon 2040 Plan (#12) WSDOT N/A NEAR TERM (2021-2024) Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct intersection with single -lane roundabout 2019-2024 TIP (#15) COSV $1,517,000 MID TERM (2025-2030) I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements Replace Barker Road Bridge and widen to 4-lanes from Boone Avenue to Broadway; reconstruct both intersections to 2-lane roundabout; reconstruct Barker/I-90 westbound ramp intersection to six -leg roundabout with Boone Avenue Horizon 2040 Plan (#12) WSDOT Not anticipated at this time Barker Road Improvement Project— Appleway to 1-90 Widen and improve to 5-lane urban section; roundabout @ Broadway 2019-2024 TIP (#22) COSV $6,477,000 Barker Road Improvement Project— Mission to 1-90 Widen and improve to 5-lane urban section NE Industrial Area PAO (Phase 2) COSV $2,950,000 LONG TERM (2031-2040) Barker Road Improvement Project— Appleway to South City Limits Reconstruct and widen north of Sprague to 3-lane urban section, and south of Sprague to 2-lane urban section. 2019-2024 TIP (#20) COSV $2,854,000 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements Reconstruct 4m Avenue and 8m Avenue intersections with single -lane roundabouts 2019 2024 TIP (#21) COSV $3,000,000 1. Costs do not include WSDOT's portion City of Spokane Valley 26IPage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Source: Fehr & Peers; City of Spokane Valley. Cost estimates are primarily derived from the City of Spokane Valley 2019-2024 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Exceptions include the cost of the Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90, which is derived from the estimate provided in the Northeast Industrial Area PAO and adjusted for 2018 dollars and the 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements, which assume a cost of $1.5 million per intersection comparable to the cost estimate for the Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements. Projects are divided into four distinct timeframes: immediate (by 2020), near -term (3-6 years), mid-term (by 2030) and long-term (2040). The timing of implementation is based on a combination of traffic analysis findings of when the project is needed to meet LOS criteria, time for project development and anticipated availability of funding. Fair Share Analysis and Potential Funding In order to offset the costs of the future infrastructure projects that will be needed to achieve acceptable multimodal operations in the Barker Road Corridor, one option would be for Spokane Valley to collect traffic impact mitigation fees based on a fair -share analysis. Fees could be collected from developments in Spokane Valley around the Barker Road corridor, as well as from neighboring jurisdictions, including Liberty Lake and Spokane County where development is expected to generate traffic that will utilize the corridor, generate/exacerbate traffic impacts, and benefit from the future roadway widening projects. The fair -share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic each jurisdiction is expected to contribute in 2040 to locations in the Barker Road corridor where future transportation improvement projects were identified. The same regional travel demand model used to forecast 2040 traffic was used to estimate the percent of traffic through various segments of Barker Road generated by a portion of each jurisdiction. This was done by using a tool in the model called a "select zone analysis." The select zone analysis was set to identify the traffic generated by the area in each jurisdiction where development is expected to have the greatest traffic impact on the South Barker Road corridor and thus where a development fee could be reasonably assessed. This includes the portion of Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River and east of Flora Road, the area of unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley City limits and the City of Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road as shown in Figure 21. Please note that the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) was excluded from this analysis as the City is already utilizing a Planned Action Ordinance to assess fair -share fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90. City of Spokane Valley 27 1 P a g e Y_076kOr gm- 1111m= I� � '.'' 1111111'•0 E=m teC Pve �_u = Ii: .`,�+wn .iR Rid �■� inillo�7� M��i II J�-!w� aoC i Z Sprague \_s_E2.44th Ave 0 South Barker Road Travel Shed Transportation Analysis Zones by Jurisdiction Spokane Valley TAZs O Liberty Lake TAZs O Spokane County TAZs N I EW elles ey Ave Z c— _F 132L ) Ka se Mirakieau `o E India S Barker Corridor E Coach Dr36 kr ii 389 E=16th Ave :?-;a01 111 III � o m N Z E Euclid Ave Indiana Ave Sprague Av Figure 21 Transportation analysis zones by juristiction included in the fair -share cost analysis. SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report To complete this analysis, the corridor was divided into three segments: north of 1-90, between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue, and south of Appleway Avenue. The results of the fair share analysis are shown Figure 22. As an example, Figure 22 shows that by 2040 about 18% of traffic on Barker Road north of 1-90 will be generated by Liberty Lake and 4% will be generated by unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of Spokane Valley. South of Appleway Avenue, only about 2% of traffic on Barker Road will be generated by Liberty Lake and 35% will be generated by development in unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley city limits. It should be noted that the percentages represent the percent of trip ends, since all trips have two ends. The select link analysis provides the origins and destinations by TAZ of all the PM peak hour trips traveling in each direction of Barker Road. Since each trip has both an origin and destination, half of the trip was assigned to the origin and half of the trip was assigned to the destination. For example, in the case of a trip that begins in Spokane Valley and ends in Liberty Lake half of that trip would be assigned to Spokane Valley and half to Liberty Lake, since both locations generated one end of the trip. Trips in the "other" category include traffic that has at least one trip end outside the TAZs included in the travel shed (see Figure 21). These include trips passing through the area or trips that have one end in the travel shed and one end outside of the travel shed (e.g., a trip between southeast Spokane Valley and downtown Spokane). Spokane Valley will need to use non -mitigation fee funding (grants, general funds) to cover the cost of the "other" trips since they cannot be levied on developers in the study area. Figure 22. Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by jurisdiction. Segment of Barker Road Southeast Spokane Liberty Spokane Valley Lake County Other Total North of 1-90 26% 18% 4% 52% 100% 1-90 to Appleway Avenue 19% 16% 17% 48% 100% South of Appleway Avenue 18% 2% 35% 45% 100% Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 To estimate the fair share transportation impact mitigation fee for new development in each of the jurisdictions, the cost of each project is multiplied by the percent of traffic from that jurisdiction that is forecast to use the infrastructure. Given the relatively low volume of traffic generated by unincorporated Spokane County north of 1-90 and the relatively low volume of traffic generated by Liberty Lake south of Appleway Avenue it is recommended to exclude those jurisdictions from contributing to the cost of projects in those respective segments. It is recommended that new development in Liberty Lake be assessed a fair -share fee of 18% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between Mission Avenue and Boone Avenue and 16% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue. Similarly, it is recommended that new development in Spokane County within the south Barker Corridor travel shed (see Figure 21) be assessed a fair -share fee of 17% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue and a fair share fee of 35% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between Appleway Avenue and the south city limits. In addition to determining which jurisdictions use the new infrastructure, a fair share transportation impact mitigation fee must consider "existing deficiencies." Impact fee case law clearly states that new developments cannot be charged to fix existing deficiencies to the transportation system. Based on the LOS analysis above, there are existing deficiencies at the 1-90 ramp intersections. Since WSDOT is funding City of Spokane Valley 29 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report the bulk of the interim improvements at the Barker Road interchange, there is no need to take a credit at that location. When the percentages in Figure 22 are applied to the cost of the projects listed in Figure 20, the fair share cost that can be applied to new development in each jurisdiction is listed in Figure 23. The total fair share cost is estimated at about $1.57 million to Liberty Lake and $3.57 million to Spokane County. It should be noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road. The agreement totals $116,411, which was subtracted from the fair -share cost (specifically the Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits). Figure 23. Fair -share cost by jurisdiction and project. Segment of Barker Road Total Project Cost Spokane Valley Liberty Lake Spokane County 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements N/A N/A N/A N/A 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements N/A N/A N/A N/A Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements $1,517,000 $273,000 $0 $531,000 I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements Not anticipated at this time N/A N/A N/A Barker Road Improvement Project—Appleway to 1-90 $6,477,000 $1,230,000 $1,036,000 $1,101,000 Barker Road Improvement Project— Mission to 1-90 $2,950,000 $767,000 $531,000 $0 Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits $2,854,000 $514,000 $0 $999,000 minus $116,411 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements $3,000,000 $540,000 $0 $1,050,000 Total $16,798,000 $3,324,000 $1,567,000 $3,565,000* Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 *Total was reduced by $116,411 to account for the existing mitigation fee agreement between Spokane Valley and Spokane County for several vested developments in Spokane County. Typically, costs to mitigate transportation infrastructure impacts are allocated based on PM peak hour traffic generation. Using PM peak hour trips is typical, since it is the PM peak hour that typically has the most -congested traffic and trips are a way to distribute costs in a way that is proportionate to the total impact generated. In other words, larger developments that generate more trips pay proportionately more than smaller developments that generate fewer trips. To develop a per -trip fee, it necessary to estimate PM peak hour traffic that will be generated by new development in the area that will use the South Barker Road Corridor. This includes portions of Spokane Valley and unincorporated Spokane County with the Barker Road Corridor travel shed and Liberty Lake east of Harvard Road (see Figure 21). Based on the 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand model, it was found that about 5,033 new PM peak hour trips will be generated by new development in this area between 2015 and 2040. This includes 2,212 new PM peak hour trips generated by Spokane Valley, 1,888 new PM peak hour trips generated by Liberty Lake and 933 new PM peak hour trips generated by unincorporated Spokane County. To estimate a cost per PM peak hour trip, one would divide the total City of Spokane Valley 30 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report eligible costs of Barker Road projects (project costs minus existing deficiencies) by the new PM peak hour trips forecast to be generated in the study area. As an example, Figure 24 illustrates the cost of each capital improvement project recommended on the South Barker Road Corridor through 2040, along with the portion of the cost attributed to Spokane Valley traffic and the corresponding cost per new PM peak hour trip generated by development east of Flora Road and south of the Spokane River. The total cost of all projects (excluding WSDOT's portion) is about $16.8 million. Using the fair -share estimate, about $3.3 million would be attributed to traffic generated by Southeast Spokane Valley. When the fair share cost is divided by the number of new PM peak hour trips expected from development in Southeast Spokane Valley between 2015 and 2040, the total cost per PM peak hour trip would be $1,503. Figure 24. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) in Spokane Valley Project 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements COSV Cost Estimate1 (2018 $$) N/A Percent Attributed to COSV N/A Portion Attributed to COSV N/A New PM Peak Hour Trips from Nearby COSV Development 2,212 Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip N/A 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements N/A N/A N/A 2,212 N/A Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements $1,517,000 18% $273,000 2,212 $123 I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long- Term Improvements Not anticipated at this time N/A N/A 2,212 N/A Barker Road Improvement Project— Appleway to 1-90 $6,477,000 19% $1,230,000 2,212 $556 Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90 $2,950,000 26% $767,000 2,212 $347 Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits $2,854,000 18% $514,000 2,212 $232 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements $3,000,000 18% $540,000 2,212 $244 Total $16,798,000 - $3,324,000 2,212 $1,503 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Applying this same methodology to the other jurisdictions results in a total cost per new PM peak hour trip of $830 for Liberty Lake and $3,821 for the area of unincorporated Spokane County within the South Barker Road travel shed as shown in Figure 25. These fees represent potential fair -share costs that could be levied on new development to help finance projects on the South Barker Corridor. City of Spokane Valley 31 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report Figure 25. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) by jurisdiction. Segment of Barker Road Southeast Spokane Liberty Spokane Valley Lake County North of 1-90 $347 $281 $0 1-90 to Appleway Avenue $556 $549 $1,180 South of Appleway Avenue $600 $0 $ 2, 640 Total $1,503 $830 $3,821 v8 2/7/20 Vested Trips According to data provided by Liberty Lake and Spokane County, a significant number of dwelling units forecast to be added between 2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In the three TAZs in Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road, about 1,490 of the 1,929 total new dwelling units forecast to be added between 2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In addition, a number of properties in Liberty Lake have already been vested for commercial development (about 397,853 sq. ft. across the City). While there is no mechanism to charge a mitigation fee to existing or vested trips, the number of vested trips does not detract from the fact that Barker Road is not expected to meet the City of Spokane Valley LOS standard by 2040, nor does it detract that development and growth in Liberty Lake and Spokane County contributes substantially to the traffic and congestion on Barker Road. One could recalculate a new impact fee that specifically accounts for the vested trips. However, the resulting impact fee for the unvested trips would be higher than what was calculated in this Study. This is because the total costs for the capacity expansion would be the same, but there would be fewer growth trips to spread the cost of necessary transportation improvements across. Based on a rough calculation, it's estimated the cost per PM peak hour trip for unvested growth in Liberty Lake to be approximately $1,200 to $1,300 or about 50% higher than the PM peak hour fee of $830 when vested trips are included. Therefore, Spokane Valley is suggesting that any unvested trips be assessed the fee calculated in this study as its proportionate fair -share fee. This keeps these trips from being additionally cost -burdened because of the inability to capture the costs of the vested trips. It should be noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road. The agreement totals $116,411, which was subtracted from the fair -share cost for Spokane County. CONCLUSIONS This report provides a summary of recommended capital improvement projects and estimated costs on the South Barker Corridor between Mission Avenue and the south City limits to be implemented by 2040. Projects are recommended to meet City and WSDOT LOS standards as well as to improve multimodal mobility in preparation for future development. This report also provides analysis of a fair -share cost estimation associated with traffic generated by adjacent jurisdictions and potential development traffic impact mitigation fees as one tool to finance projects. Lastly, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long-term alternative for the 1-90 interchange. Analysis of existing conditions shows that both intersections of the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange are not currently operating at acceptable standards and the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is close to City of Spokane Valley 32 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report failing COSV standards in the PM peak hour. Additionally, by 2040 the Barker Road/Broadway intersection will fail City of Spokane Valley LOS standards. Traffic on Barker Road is expected to grow at a rate of about 1.4% per year through 2040, which will necessitate widening the corridor to five lanes between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue. In order to address traffic operations, traffic safety and multimodal mobility on the corridor a total of eight capital improvement projects are recommended to be implemented between now and 2040. These are listed below, organized into four different time frames for implementation based on when the project is needed as well as other factors (including funding availability): • Immediate (2019-2020) o 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements (single -lane roundabout) o 1-90 Westbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements (single -lane roundabout) • Near -Term (2021-2024) o Barker Road/Sprague Avenue Intersection Improvements • Mid -Term (2025-2030) o I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements o Barker Road Improvement Project — 1-90 to Appleway Avenue (5-lane urban section) o Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission Avenue to 1-90 (5-lane urban section) • Long -Term (2031-2040) o Barker Road Improvement Project—Appleway Avenue to south City Limits o 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements In summary, the recommended improvements by 2040 would result in the following future condition. Barker Road would have bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street and curb and gutter along the length of the corridor. The road would be widened to five lanes from Mission Avenue to Appleway Avenue, three lanes from Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue and two -lanes from Sprague Avenue to the south City limits. South of Sprague, the area between the sidewalks on either side of the street would be wide enough to accommodate a third center turn lane in the future if warranted by development. Two- lane roundabouts would be implemented at both intersection of the 1-90 interchange. The Boone Avenue intersection would be consolidated into a new six -leg roundabout with the 1-90 westbound ramp and Cataldo Avenue. The bridge over 1-90 would be widened to four lanes with wide sidewalks on both sides to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. The east -leg of Broadway would be realigned to meet the west -leg and the Broadway intersection would be converted to a roundabout or reconfigured to prevent left -out movements. New single -lane roundabouts or traffic signals would be implemented at the Sprague Avenue, 4th Avenue and 8th Avenue intersections. The combined costs of the projects, excluding the portion that would be funded by WSDOT, is estimated to be about $16.8 million in 2018 dollars. A fair -share analysis of the corridor was also conducted to highlight how development in Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and Spokane County could help to finance these projects. By multiplying the eligible project cost with the fair -share percentage and charging that fee, it would ensure that new development in each jurisdiction is contributing funding to the project reflective of their use of/benefit from the improvement. The fair -share analysis demonstrated that traffic from Southeast Spokane Valley developments will generate fairly equal demand on the length of the corridor. Traffic from Liberty Lake is generally expected to use the section of Barker Road north of Appleway Avenue and traffic from unincorporated Spokane County will generally use the section of the City of Spokane Valley 33 'Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report corridor south of 1-90. Therefore, it is recommended that a fee program be implemented to collect fees for projects on three distinct segments of the corridor based on the fair -share percentage: • Mission Avenue to 1-90 • 1-90 to Appleway Avenue • Appleway Avenue to south City limits It should be noted that while developer impact fees can provide an important source of funding, after negotiating with developers, elected officials, and neighboring jurisdictions, the impact fees are typically set so that they only cover a portion of project costs (typically less than 50%). Thus, Spokane Valley will need to use other financing strategies to pay for the remaining costs of the projects identified above. Other financing strategies Spokane Valley might consider include implementing a local improvement district or transportation benefit district, and applying for grants. Historically, Spokane Valley has had strong success in seeking and winning external funding, which has kept the costs of expanding transportation infrastructure relatively low for both developers and existing taxpayers compared to other cities in the region and state. City of Spokane Valley 34 1 P a g e FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2020-0005 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with December 28, 2016 as the effective date. 2. Pursuant to RCW 82.02.050-.110, the City may adopt, assess, and collect transportation impact fees on new development. 3. CTA-2020-0005 is a City -initiated text amendment to the SVMC to create a new chapter 22.100 SVMC to adopt and assess transportation impact fees for the South Barker Road Corridor, minor associated modifications to Titles 17 and 22 SVMC and the Street Standards, and other related items. 4. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on November 5, 2020. The Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(D) Notice of Public Hearing a. The City provided notice of the public hearing on CTA-2020-0005 as follows: i. Publication in the Spokane Valley Herald on 10/16 and 10/23. ii. Press release to 320 media -related email addresses, multiple postings on all City social media outlets, email to email subscribers for numerous City email lists, and creation of transportation -specific impact fee website. b. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 5, 2020 and received public testimony on the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission has considered all testimony received on the proposed amendments. c. Conclusion The requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(D) are met. 2. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: ED-G3 Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2020-0005 Page 1 of 3 ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. LU-Gl Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. LU-P8 Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non -motorized transportation routes. T-Gl Ensure that the transportation system and investments in transportation infrastructure are designed to improve quality of life or support economic development priorities. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. T-G3 Strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero. T-P2 Consider neighborhood traffic and livability conditions and address potential adverse impacts of public and private projects during the planning, designing, permitting, and construction phases. T-P6 Work collaboratively with developers to ensure that areas experiencing new development are well served by motorized and non -motorized transportation options. T-P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared -use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. CF-G4 Pursue a diverse set of capital funding sources. CF-P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. CF-P15 Evaluate a variety of capital funding sources including, but not limited to, grants, local improvement districts, latecomer agreements, and impact fees to fund projects and programs. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendments implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure a safe and efficient transportation system that supports and maintains the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley. The improvements identified in the South Barker Corridor Study and Rate Study will help maintain adequate levels of service for traffic along the Barker Road corridor over the next 20 years. The Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2020-0005 Page 2 of 3 transportation impact fees will provide a regular and reliable funding source for a portion of these improvements, and will be provided by developments that are directly contributing to the need for such improvements. Further, the fees will be limited to the proportionate impact from new development, so as new development causes impacts, those impacts will be able to be addressed through necessary improvements. The proposed amendments introduce a consistent and reliable fee schedule for new development that establishes set rates across various types of new development, lending itself to more efficient planning and budgeting for new development projects. The proposed impact fee of $1,272 "per trip" is based on the Rate Study, which was conducted within standard engineering principles and provides a reasonable and appropriate fee amount. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 3. Compliance with RCW 82.02.050-.110 a. The proposed amendments and fees are based on a traffic rate study conducted in accordance with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050-.110. b. The proposed fees and amendments are for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, do not exceed the proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, and will be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development within the South Barker Corridor, as identified in the South Barker Corridor Traffic Study and South Barker Corridor Traffic Rate Study. 4. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA-2020- 0005. Attachments: Exhibit A, B, & C — Proposed Amendment CTA-2020-0005 Approved thisl2th day of November, 2020 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2020-0005 Page 3 of 3 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall October 8, 2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Walt Haneke, absent James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Bob McKinley Sherri Robinson John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Bill Helbig, City Engineer Jerrerny Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer Connor Lange, Planner Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant. There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Haneke from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the October 8, 2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the September 24, 2020 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson reported that he continues to attend the Human Rights Task Force meetings. VH. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson reminded the Commission that there will be a special Planning Commission meeting held on November 5, 2020 to discuss impact fees for the South Barker corridor. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 1 10-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 a. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2019-0005, A proposed amendment to Title 20, Subdivisions Planner Connor Lange requested approval of the findings of fact from the meeting on September 24, 2020 regarding the proposed amendment to Title 20. This document will formalize the Planning Commission's actions and the recommendation will be submitted to the City Council for approval, Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the findings of fact and forward to City Council. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the 1110t1011 passed. b. Study Session: STV-2020-0002, A privately initiated street vacation for a portion of East Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road Planner Connor Lange gave a staff presentation. He explained that the City received an application on August 7, 2020 from Diamond Rock Financial, LLC/TCF Properties requesting a street vacation of 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and 195 feet of Bessie Road. The area is located east of Vista Road, west of Sargent Road, south of Trent Avenue and north of Mansfield Avenue. The four parcels along Montgomery Avenue where the vacation is being requested are owned by the same person and the City will require that the owner aggregate those properties to avoid any access issues. Bessie Road is 25 feet of right-of-way and Montgomery is 30 feet in the smallest section and 60 feet in the largest section of right-of-way. Chairman Johnson asked for clarification about how the four lots will be accessed if the street is vacated. Mr. Lange answered that the property will still be accessed from the unvacated portion of Montgomery Avenue. Commissioner Robinson asked the zoning of the properties. Mr. Lange answered that the property off Bessie Road is zoned R-3 and the four properties on Montgomery are zoned multi -family residential (MFR). Commissioner Robinson asked if the surrounding properties have been notified about the requested change. Mr. Lange answered that a notice of public hearing has been sent out to all owners of properties within 400 feet of the proposal. Mr. Lange explained that there are three main items that staff reviews when processing a street vacation request: street connectivity, traffic volumes, & future development/access. During the review process, staff determined that there is sufficient street connectivity. Due to the location of the railroad to the north of the property, Bessie Road cannot be connected to Trent Rd. However, there is good access from Mansfield Avenue & Sargent Road providing circulation onto Montgomery Avenue. The applicant's reason's for request is as follows: 1) The proposed vacation is currently undeveloped (dedicated in 1955) and provides no public access at this time, having no potential for connection to the north with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line directly to the north. 2) Both Bessie Road and a portion of Montgomery Road are not full right-of-way widths and therefore would be substandard for todays use. 3) The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties for infill development. 2 10-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Beaulac asked if the railroad has been notified about this request. Mr. Lange answered that notification has been sent but the City has not received any comments from them. Commissioner Beaulac commented that he would really like to know their thoughts on the proposal. Mr. Lange responded that he would try to reach out to them for comments. Chairman Johnson asked about the comment from Whipple Engineering regarding the proposed subdivision of the lot on Bessie Road into three separate lots. Mr. Lange responded that there is a formal request for short plat on that property that has been deemed incomplete due to this proposed street vacation. With no other questions, Mr. Lange said that a public hearing will be held on October 22, 2020 and he will provide answers to those questions posed by the Commission. c. Administrative Report; Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Deputy City Manager John Hohman introduced the agenda item. He explained that the City of Spokane Valley does not currently have impact fees in place. The City would like to implement impact fees for new developments occurring along the Barker Road corridor. When a new project comes in for development, there will be a set dollar amount per trip that a developer pays which will be used by the municipality to improve the infrastructure that is impacted by the development. Senior Traffic Engineer Jerremy Clark stated there are two process used to determine project mitigation, traffic concurrency and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Traffic concurrency ensures that the transportation system has sufficient capacity to accommodate any proposed development. In order to have a consistent process, the City has street standards that must be met for each proposed development. All projects must have a trip generation and distribution letter (TGDL) which provides an estimate of how many trips will be corning onto the transportation network and where they will be occurring. The number of trips generated determines if a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required for a proposed development. These tools are used to determine what kind of mitigation will be required from a developer. SEPA has its own set of requirements and processes but they are separate from concurrency. Mr. Clark explained that the City has done some in-depth studies of areas with substantial growth potential and limited roadway capacity. These areas include the Northeast Industrial area, Mirabeau subarea, North Pines subarea, and the South Barker corridor. Mr. Hohman explained the cost of preserving current infrastructure in the existing configuration. There are roads throughout the City that are deficient and can't support the amount of activity and development happening. The City struggles with funding their street maintenance programs. Historically, the estimated cost to maintain City streets is approximately ten million dollars and the average actual expenditures is six million dollars leaving a deficit of four million dollars each year. The ten million estimate is for preservation only and does not include lane widening, intersection operations, or other needed improvements. The City needs to find additional funding to accommodate growth and maintain current service levels. 3 10-08-2020 Planning Conuoission Minutes Page 4 of 5 Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb explained that the City is looking to identify the fair share impacts of new developments on an even basis so that citizens are not paying for the impacts. He stated that currently mitigation is only required if the level of service drops below acceptable levels based on the addition of a new development. Impacts occur from all developments but only the last developer who tips levels of service over the acceptable levels contributes to mitigation. The mitigation received from that developer will only be required based on that development's proportionate share. SEPA allows the City to address "probable significant adverse environmental impacts" on projects. Traffic is considered to be an environmental impact under SEPA but mitigation cannot be duplicated if it imposed by other regulations. Mr. Lamb stated that there are current process limitations because traffic concurrency is limited to designated corridors and areas. There are substantial exemptions in place through both SEPA and traffic concurrency such as short plats, multi -family dwellings up to sixty units and commercial buildings up to 30,000 square feet. However, impacts still occur from exempt areas, especially in regards to traffic impact. These limitations put the City in a situation where new development is not paying for their impacts to City infrastructure. Due to this shortfall in revenue, the City is looking into the possibility of implementing traffic impact fees. Mr. Lamb explained that impact fees are statutorily authorized mechanisms to have development pay for their proportionate impact on services and infrastructure and may be limited to an identified geographical area. It's a fair assessment of fees which gives certainty to developers regarding the amounts that will have to be paid. The fees are easy to collect because they are due at the time of building permit. The fees are established by an adopted rate schedule for each development activity and must be based on a specific formula or calculation. Chairman Johnson asked if the collected fees can be used city-wide for transportation related projects. City Engineer Bill Helbig answered that statutorily it is required that the fees received must be used within the area that they were collected. Mx. Helbig stated that the City has conducted a substantial study of the South Barker corridor. The study shows that this area has potential for significant future development and the level of service is degrading. The study recommends the need for mitigation and identifies fair share costs. It identifies seven recommended improvement projects throughout the corridor for a total of approximately 18.8 million dollars. Mr. Helbig explained that a public hearing on this agenda item will be held at a special meeting of the Planning Commission on November 5, 2020 and a Findings Of Fact will be held on November 12, 2020. It will then be forwarded to the City Council on November 24, 2020. Commissioner Beaulac asked for a report showing what other municipalities are charging for impact fees because he wants to make sure that the City is adopting fees that are competitive. Mr. Helbig stated that he will submit that report at the next meeting. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Mr. Hohman stated that Mayor Wick will select someone to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission at the October 20, 2020 City Council meeting. The 4 10-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 City has received three applicants for the position. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed James Johnson, Chair Deanna Horton, Secretary Date signed. 5 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall October 22, 2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Deanna Morton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Bcaulac Karl Granrath Walt I laneke James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Bob McKinley Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Hill 11clbig, City Engineer Jerremy Clark. Senior Traffic Engineer Connor Lange, Planner Deanna 1-Lorton, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Ka.schmitter moved to approve the October 22. 2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Contrnissioner Koschmitter moved to approve the October 8. 2020 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vole on the motion was six in favor, one abstention, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner 1 laneke apologized for missing the last meeting. Commissioner Granrath stated that he is excited to be on the Planning Commission. Chairman Johnson reported that he continues to attend the human Rights Task Force meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson welcomed Commissioner Granrath to the Planning Commission. She also reminded the Commission that all meeting videos are on the Spokane Valley website for review. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 1 10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8 a. Public Hearing: STV-2020-0002, A privately initiated street vacation for a portion of East Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road The public hearing was opened at 6:06 p.m. Planner Connor Lange gave a presentation regarding an application received by the City on August 7, 2020 from Diamond Rock Financial, LLCITCF Properties requesting a street vacation of 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and 195 feet of Bessie Road. The area is located east of Vista Road, west of Sargent Road, south of Trent Avenue and north of Mansfield Avenue. The four parcels along Montgomery Avenue are owned by the Montgomery Apartments, LLC, the two properties along Bessie Road are owned by I]iarnond Rock and Kenneth Ward and the adjacent property on East Montgomery Avenue is owned by Argonne/Montgomery Storage, LLC. All four of these property owners signed the submitted application in support of the street vacation. Mr. Lang stated that he reached out to the Burliin4gton Northern Railroad and they expressed that they do not have any issues with the vacation. Mr. Lange said that the applicant's reason for this request is as follows: 1) The proposed vacation is currently undeveloped (dedicated in 1955) and provides no public access at this time. 2) Both Bessie Road and a portion of Montgomery Avenue are not full right-of-way widths and therefore would be substandard for today's use. Bessie Road is 25 feet of right-of-way and Montgomery is 30 feet in the smallest section and 60 feet in the largest section of right-of-way. 3) The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting. properties for infill development. Mr. Lange stated that the public hearing notice was posted as required. was published in the Valley Herald twice, written notice was sent to the property owners adjacent to the properties along Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue and signs were posted at each end of the proposed vacation area. Mr. Lange explained that the right-of-way to be vacated is unimproved, is not currently being utilized for public access, and is overgrown with weeds. Infi11 development on these adjacent parcels will enhance the City's tax base and remove undeveloped right-of- way from the City's maintenance division. Also, there are no means of future connection that would enhance public access because much of the right-of-way is substandard to the current City street standards and the existing street network provides a sufficient level of service for the adjacent properties. Mr. Lange stated that staff condition number eight (submitted in the packet) states: The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of -such vacation and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be .subject to all regulations of the district. However, staff is recommending a change to that condition that would dedicate all of the vacated street along Bessie Road to Diamond Road Financial, LLC because the entire right-of- way was dedicated during the creation of the Vista Gardens subdivision. The proposed staff condition reads as follows: The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to he vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation except in the case of Bessie Road in which the entire 25 feet shall he included with parcel-l5074.0 23 (owned by Diamond Rock Financial, lin.fran, which it was 2 10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 or originally platted as part oldie I'i.+ta Gardens Number -1 Plat. All urea included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations ofthe district. Commissioner Haneke asked why this same logic would not apply to the right-of-way along Montgomery Avenue that is being given to the railroad, Mr. Lange answered that the right-of-way in that area was not dedicated at the same as Vista Gardens. Only fifteen feet of Montgomery Avenue was dedicated during the subdivision plat. Chairman Johnson asked if the property owner Kenneth Ward was notified that the street vacation is being given solely to the other piece of property. Mr. Lang answered that he had not been notified. Chair Johnson asked if Kenneth Ward was specifically told that he would be getting any of the property. Mr. Lang answered that he was not because the allocation is based on how the original plat map was dedicated and based on the plat map the property would not be entitled to any additional area. However. Kenneth Ward did sign the original application in support of the request. Chair Johnson opened the public testimony. Administrative Assistant Deanna I lorton read 27 written comments that were received on October 21, 2020 into the record. The comments were all in opposition to the street vacation request. 1) Alice Marie Bristow, 8720 E Montgomery Avenue, objected due to increased traffic, decrease in property value, increase in taxes, less safety for older people, wear and tear on streets and utilities, more noise in the neighborhood, possible increased crime, and poorer air quality. 2) Matthew Keller, 8603 E Mansfield Avenue. objected because Diamond Rock Financial, LLC. will build a three-story' apartment complex which is in conflict with the Cities housing policy #6, it wi11 strip him of his privacy in his backyard where he installed a $ ] 0,000 vinyl fence, the property would be a better site for storage units, the proposed development will attract a cluster of crime and drugs, and the proposed street vacation is needed to meet fire code. 3) Tracy McCulloch, 8521 E Mansfield Avenue. objected because the future development of the properties owned by Diamond Rock Financial, LLC and Montgomery Apartments will violate the housing policy #6 of the Cities Comprehensive Plan and will cause impact to the neighborhood including increased traffic, increased noise and loss of privacy to the adjacent properties. 4) Sara and Christopher Wilson, 8720 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to increased traffic, making Sargent and Mansfield a more dangerous intersection due to the increased traffic, more people will affect the nice quiet neighborhood, possible increase in crime, and decreased property value. 5) Johnathan E Hannel, 8721 E Mansfield Avenue, objected to an addition of apartment complexes due to increased traffic, children being unable to play outside because of traffic threat, increase in crime, and decrease in property value. He requested that the City not sell or allow the use of Montgomery Avenue by Diamond Rock Financial, L.L.C. 6) Sarah and Toin McKeever, 8820 E Montgomery Avenue, objected due to additional traffic on an unmarked road, increased crime rate and decreased property value. 7) Izeah and Jessica Mattingly, 8504 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because it will negatively affect their way of life in the neighborhood and it will increase traffic which is already a problem in the neighborhood. She stated bringing section eight 3 10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8 housing to the neighborhood is not a good idea and she is worried about an increase to the crime and drug rate and a decrease in property values. 8) Austin and Kaytlyn Auckcrman, 8602E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to decreased property values and an increase in traffic, They also expressed concern about a "problem house" (owned by one of the applicants) where a resident visited their home demanding drugs and threatening to kill them. When this incident was investigated by the police, they found drugs being sold out of the home. He stated that allowing this build to pass \vould promote and increase this type of behavior, especially if it is low income housing. 9) Donna (Thompson) Messinger. 8520 f Mansfield Avenue, objected due to a decrease in property value, traffic congestion will increase. dangerous for children to go to the 2 bus stops in the neighborhood, the roads in the neighborhood cannot handle the traffic for a 3-story apartment complex, and the trains going past Mansfield causes traffic delays at Vista and Trent. and the complex will make these delays worse. 10) Ross Sells and. Sarah Spencer, 8621 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to increase in vehicle traffic, increase in crime and decrease in property values. 11) Dale A McCallum II, 8607 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to increased traffic flow and crime, decreased property values, proximity to railroad, petroleum line. loss of privacy, and risk to children's bus stops. 12) Elizabeth Vazquez, 8621 E Knox Avenue, objected due to increased traffic flow, increased crime rates, increased noise and decrease of privacy fbr neighborhood. 13) Eniogene Sweigle, 2214 N Sargent Road, objected due to increased traffic flows on already overloaded streets and decreased property values. 14)llector Andrade, 8709 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to the decrease in safety for neighborhood children, potential for more/bigger accidents. increased crime, vandalism, and homelessness in the neighborhood. 15) Mark Krum, 8702 E Mansfield Avenue, objected due to property value, taxes, traffic congestion, crime/undesirables, environmental impacts, railroad/property conflict, fire/emergency service, neighborhood unity, and noise pollution. 16) Patrick Ohmann, 8716 E Mansfield, objected due to increase in traffic and that the neighborhood will no longer he quiet. 17) Kimberly McKinley, 8715 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because the proposal is an infringement on single home dwellers and owners of property in the neighborhood. She stated that they do not need any additional traffic because people already speed on Montgomery and kids and pets are being put in danger. She also expressed concern about Diamond Rock creating a neighborhood problem around Pasadena Elementary. 18) Brian P McCabe, 8708 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because property values will drop after being as high as they have ever been, drug use/traffic are usually close behind an influx of low-income habitation. fear of crime rates increasing in a safe and close-knit community. 19) Danny "Tryon. 2310 N Margeuritc, objected because the traffic on the streets has increased multiple times since 1972. The neighborhood is family friendly with lots of kids and pets, but the construction of the Maverik gas station and convenience store has tripled the traffic and people do not adhere to the speed limit, He stated the neighborhood does not need the impact of opening up more streets and more building because it is already congested enough. 20) Paul Cockburn and Alexandra Hill, 2302 N Marguerite Road, objected because they just bought their home to get away from apartients. They stated that apartments will 4 10-22-2020 Planning C'onnnussion Minutes Page 5 of8 cause crime, drugs, high traffic, and theft. He stated that apartments need to be built elsewhere and not in their neighborhood. 21) Bill and Kathy Bartlett, 2218 N Marguerite Road, objected because they are concerned about children and elderly safety, heavy traffic associated with a large number of occupants in a small area, children walking to bus stops, danger to pedestrians, more theft/break-ins, property taxes will increase to support additional utilities and infrastructure repairs, and decrease in property values. 22) Danny A and Susan Packard, 8815 E Knox Avenue, objected due to an increase in traffic and speeding on Knox Avenue. 23) Yamada, 8510 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because of continuing crime, concern over major gas line by the railroad track, decrease in property values, increase in traffic, and apartment complexes attract drug and foot traffic. 24) Lonnie Scott, 8704 E Montgomery Avenue, objected because the area is not able to handle the current traffic, additional traffic will put children at risk, development so close to the train tracks will only draw those who cannot afford a better location which will increase crime and drugs, and lower property values. 25) Mike and Lorraine Schweda, 8608 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because there will be increased occupants, foot and car traffic, and the safety of railroad access. They also stated there are no street lights on Mansfield Avenue which has caused an increase in vandalism, car break-ins, gas robbing, and vehicle/car/yard thieves. They stated that they are also concerned about fire and police protection access, decrease in property values and more drug activity. They do not feel that this proposal will be an asset or improvement to what already exists. 26) Kris and Jessica Taylor, 8805 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because the vacation would infringe on the surrounding homes by decreasing privacy. property values, and safety, and increasing traffic volumes. The proposed development would violate housing policy #6 and they stated frustration that Diamond Rock would propose a plan for their gain and knowingly violate this policy. 27) Barbara Sturn, 8415 E Mansfield Avenue, objected because low income housing brings trouble and they just got rid of three drug houses, congested streets that are already crowded and don't have stop signs. decrease in property values, and the residents will lose their view of Mount Spokane. She asked if anything is sacred anymore or if everything is about money. Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers representing the applicant, stated that he understood the comments from the residents regarding high density but the zoning for the properties had already been approved and determined. Therefore. the developers could move forward with the multifamily project regardless of the whether or not the street vacation was approved. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the request. Chairman Johnson asked if the transition requirements would apply between railroad and multifamily. Building. Official Nickerson responded that the railroad does not have a zoning classification associated with it. Therefore, there are no requirements for buffering or transition. During this time, an attendee, Sheri Lang continued to interrupt the meeting by unmuting and interjecting herself into the discussion. While trying to gain control over the interruption, Commissioner McKinley asked Secretary Horton why she just did not allow Ms. Lang to continue to speak. Ms. Horton explained that in order to speak, the public needed to notify staff ahead of time so that staff would be able to maintain control over the meeting. Commissioner McKinley stated that he felt that the Commission should 5 10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8 allow the member of the public to speak on this matter even though she did not request to speak through the proper channels. There was discussion between the Commissioners regarding whether or not to allow the public to speak. They decided to allow Ms. Lang only to speak. Sheri Lang, Spokane Valley, stated that she lives on the corner of Sargent Road and Montgomery Avenue and she felt that this request for street vacation would substantially affect her. She stated that if a large apartment building is built, the only exit for those residents would be past her home onto Sargent Road. She said there should be an easement granted through the Diamond Rock property so that the apartment traffic could funnel onto Bessie Road. She also expressed concern about Ken Ward not being notified about him not maintaining his portion of Bessie Road. Ms. Horton noted that through the chat function Mr. Whipple had requested to speak again to rebut some of the testimony. 'There was consensus from the Commission to move forward without allowing any additional public comment. The public hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Haneke suggested that rather than vacating Bessie Street, changing it to a one-way street. Ms. Nickerson responded that it would be very difficult to make that designation without a specific proposal for development on the undeveloped properties. Deputy City Attorney. Erik Lamb stated that a determination on that sort of change would have be made by traffic engineering during the proposal. Commissioner Robinson commented that this request was for the street vacation only and the decisions regarding zoning have already been determined. Development on these properties is going to continue regardless of the street vacation determination. Commissioner Beaulac moved to recommend approval of STV- 2020-002. the proposed street vacation for Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road to the City Council subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Beaulac asked if the traffic light at Montgomery Avenue and Argonne Road could be adjusted for additional traffic if the apartments are built. Senior Traffic Engineer Jerrerny Clark answered that the corridor along Argonne Road has automated traffic signal performance measures already set up and they could be reviewed in real time so that adjustments could be made as volumes change. Commissioner Haneke commented that he would like Kenneth Ward to be notified that he will not be receiving any of the vacation right-of-way. Commissioner Beaulac stated that his motion is recommending approval of the street vacation subject to the original written staff conditions without any changes to the allocation of Bessie Road (the right- of-way will be split between both property owners). The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion grassed. A brief break was called at 7:42 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:53 p.m. b. Study Session: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor City Engineer Bill Helbig introduced the agenda item. Ile explained that the City is proposing a code -text amendment to implement transportation impact fees along the South Barker Road corridor. He explained that the City currently uses two process to determine project mitigation, traffic concurrency and the State Environmental Policy Act 6 10-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 (SEPA). Both processes are based on proportionate share of the proposed project and they require each project to do a unique. project specific evaluation each time. These evaluations are done by following the City's Street Standards. He stated that currently mitigation is only required if the level of service drops below acceptable levels based on the addition of a new development. Impacts occur from all developments but only the last developer who tips levels of service over the acceptable levels contributes to mitigation. The mitigation received from that developer will only be required based on that development's proportionate share. Mr. Helbig stated that there are current process limitations because traffic concurrency is limited to designated corridors and areas. There are substantial exemptions in place through both SEPA and traffic concurrency such as short plats, multifamily dwellings up to 60 units and commercial. buildings up to 30,000 square feet. However, impacts still occur from exempt areas, especially in regards to traffic impact. Mr. Helbig explained that impact fees are statutorily authorized mechanisms to have development pay for their proportionate impact on services and infrastructure and may be limited to an identified geographical area. He stated that the City has conducted a substantial transportation study of the South Barker corridor. The study identifies seven recommended improvement projects throughout the corridor for a total of approximately $18.8 million dollars. If the impact fees are implemented, they will cover about 19% of the improvement amount. Chairman Johnson asked if the City had looked into interlocal agreements with other jurisdictions. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb answered that the City has not engaged in any formalized discussions yet. However, there has been ongoing discussions with Liberty Lake and Spokane County regarding the need for cooperation addressing traffic impact. The City is aware that these agreements will be needed in the future but feels that the impact fee adoption is the first step. Mr. Helbig stated that if these fees are adopted, there will need to be code changes made to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). A new chapter will need to be added to Title 22 adopting and imposing Transportation Impact Fees (Chapter 22.100). Some additional updates will need to be made to 17.90 regarding appeals, 17.110.010 regarding fees and penalties, and 22.10.010 regarding authority. Also, Chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards will also need to be updated. Mr. Lamb explained that these changes are primarily set forth by state law because there are very specific requirements that have to be met in the code language. The language specifically states that these fees arc only for the Barker Corridor based on the traffic studies completed. He explained the highlights regarding the new SVMC Chapter 22.100 including the assessment procedure, the deferral process, exemptions, credits, appeals and refunds. Mr. Helbig presented the proposed rates. The proposed rate for South Barker is $1,272 per PM peak trip. The adopted SEPA mitigation fee for the Northeast Industrial Arca is $2,831 per PM peak trip so this new impact fee is substantially lower than other adopted fees. He also showed a comparison of the proposed rates to other municipalities adopted fees. 7 I0-22-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8 Mr. Lamb stated that there will be a public hearing on this agenda item at a special meeting of the Planning Commission on November 5, 2020 and a Findings of Fact will presented at November 12, 2020. The findings will then be forwarded to the City Council on November 24, 2020. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: None was offered. XL ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter tnoved to adjourn the meeting al 8:55 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed James Johnson, Chair Deanna Horton, Secretary 4/4./zcziD I)atc signed 8 Special Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall November 5, 2020 I. Chairman Johnson called the special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl Granrath, arrived at 7:11 Walt Haneke James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Bob McKinley Sherri Robinson John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Bill Helbig, City Engineer Jerremy Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer Adam Jackson, Engineer Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Granrath from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the November 5, 2020 Special Meeting agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the October 22, 2020 minutes as presented. Chairman Johnson moved to make a change to page three, paragraph three to include the language "Kenneth Ward was not notified by staff that he would be getting any of the vacated property." The vote on the amendment was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. There was no additional discussion. The vote on the amended motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson reported that he continues to work with the Human Rights Task Force. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson thanked the Planning Commission and administrative staff for the implementation of new Zoom meeting protocols. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb reminded the Planning Commission not to use personal media devices while attending Zoom meeting because the meetings are open to the public and subject to open record requests. 1 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: CTA-2020-0005: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor The public hearing was opened at 6:11 p.m. City Engineer Bill Helbig introduced the public hearing item. He explained that the City is proposing a code -text amendment to implement transportation impact fees along the South Barker Road corridor. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb explained that the City staff really attempted to get notification out to the public regarding this proposed amendment. He stated that the City followed the legal requirements of publishing the notice in the newspaper for two consecutive weeks. Staff also did additional notifications by sending out press releases, emailing to resident distribution lists, posting on the main page of the Spokane Valley website, and sending out through all social media platforms. The press releases led to articles in the Spokesman Review and the Journal of Business and some new broadcasts on some of the radio stations. Mr. Helbig explained that impact fees are statutorily authorized mechanisms to have new development pay for their proportionate impact on services and infrastructure and may be limited to an identified geographical area. These fees can only apply to new development and cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies. He stated that the City has conducted a substantial transportation study of the South Barker corridor. The study identifies seven recommended improvement projects throughout the corridor for a total of approximately $18.8 million dollars. If the impact fees are implemented, they will cover about 19% of the improvement amount. Mr. Helbig stated that if these fees are adopted, there will need to be code changes made to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). A new chapter will need to be added to Title 22 adopting and imposing Transportation Impact Fees (Chapter 22.100). Some additional updates will need to be made to 17.90 regarding appeals, 17.110.010 regarding fees and penalties, and 22.10.010 regarding authority. Also, Chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards will also need to be updated. Mr. Lamb explained that these changes are primarily set forth by state law because there are very specific requirements that have to be met in the code language. The language specifically states that these fees are only for the Barker Corridor based on the traffic studies completed. He noted that the fee amounts will not be included in the code because they are based on information gained from traffic impact studies. The rates will be adopted as part of the City's fee schedule which will allow flexibility for updated rate studies in the future. The impact fees will be assessed at the time of issuance of building permit. He explained the highlights in the new SVMC Chapter 22.100 including the assessment procedure, the deferral process, exemptions, credits, independent fee calculations, appeals and refunds. Mr. Helbig presented the proposed rates. The proposed rate for South Barker is $1,272 per PM peak trip. The adopted SEPA mitigation fee for the Northeast Industrial Area is 2 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 $2,831 per PM peak trip so this new impact fee is substantially lower than other adopted fees. He gave a comparison of the proposed rates to other municipalities adopted fees. Mr. Lamb stated that the Findings of Fact will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting on November 12, 2020. The findings will then be forwarded to the City Council on November 24, 2020. Commissioner Beaulac asked about the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) funded improvement projects in the corridor. Mr. Helbig answered that the new roundabouts off of the interstate are just interim improvements. WSDOT hopes to be able to upgrade those roundabouts to two lanes and increase the capacity of the bridge over Barker Road. Deputy City Manager John Hohman added that if those improvements aren't completed, it could cause a bottleneck on the City projects. However, the City and WSDOT are working together to get the projects completed as quickly as possible. Commissioner Beaulac asked if schools or public facilities could be exempt from paying impact fees because the fee amount would be burdensome. Transportation Engineer Chris Breiland with Fehr and Peers (the technical consultants for the traffic impact fee rate study) answered that according to state law, impact fees must be assessed equally among all uses that generate trips. Therefore, schools and public facilities cannot be exempt. However, the fees assessed for schools could be lower because they aren't impacting traffic during PM peak times. Commissioner Robinson asked about the comments received from the City of Liberty Lake. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb responded that the City does not have jurisdiction to collect fees outside of the City limits but the City hopes to work with other jurisdictions. Comments were received from the City of Liberty Lake that they are in favor of impact fees but they are concerned about what the fee amount is and imposing that fee in their jurisdiction. He explained that the City is not looking to do that through this adoption of fees, they will only apply within the Spokane Valley City limits. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley, asked why these impact fees are not being implemented throughout the entire City. She expressed concern about a lower amount being assessed on storage sheds. Scott Grimmett, Spokane Valley, stated that he is a property owner and developer on Sprague Avenue and he is opposed to impact fees because they are unfair. He explained that infrastructure developments benefit everyone that use them so the fees should be the same for everyone. He stated that this impact fee will inflate home prices and reduce affordability through the City. He asked the Planning Commission not to approve the request. Chairman Johnson asked if the City is planning to implement fees anywhere else in the City limits. Mr. Helbig answered that staff does plan to look at some other areas of the City for rate study analysis. However, the Barker corridor has the biggest impact and has the most development occurring so it is the primary concern for staff right now. 3 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 The public hearing was closed at 7:18. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to recommend approval to the City Council of CTA- 2020-0005 as presented. Commissioner McKinley expressed concern that this fee could make homes in this area less affordable and it could be a detriment to the development of the area. Mr. Hohman responded that there is a cost savings for development by doing impact fees because they will no longer have to do individual traffic impact studies for each new development. Senior Engineer, Jerremy Clark added that small projects require a Trip Generation Letter and that is approximately $1,000 - $2,500 depending on the size of the project. For larger developments that might trigger mitigation (which is anything in excess of 30 trips) the City requires a full traffic impact analysis. They can range from $15,000 - $70,000 and can take up to three or four months to be completed. Commissioner Robinson commented that currently multifamily housing up to 60 units is exempt and this will force them to mitigate their impact on the traffic system. Commissioner Beaulac expressed concern over the implementation of the fees but said that he would be willing to approve these impact fees on a trial basis to make sure that the system is actually doing what is needed for the City, especially before approving any additional impact fees. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated that she thinks this will streamline things for developers wanting to build in the City. She thinks this will be a much easier process for them and it is a needed revenue source for infrastructure improvements. Commissioner Granrath said that he thinks this adoption will lead to some intergovernmental agreements with other jurisdictions to address some of the impacts coming from developments outside of the City limits. Commissioner Haneke said that he thinks the costs of impact fees versus impact fee study requirements will be very similar and shouldn't cause a big change in affordability. Chairman Johnson stated that he supports this request and feels that it will help the developers and keep the taxpayers from having to pay for all needed improvements. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Chairman Johnson stated that long-time Spokane Valley resident, Sally Jackson passed away on November 2, 2020. He said that she will be greatly missed in the community. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to adjourn the meeting at 7: 37 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chair Date signed 4 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 Deanna Horton, Secretary 5 Special Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall November 12, 2020 I. Chairman Johnson called the special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl Granrath Walt Haneke James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Bob McKinley Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Bill Helbig, City Engineer Jerremy Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer Adam Jackson, Engineer Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Granrath from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the November 12, 2020 Special Meeting agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the November 5 minutes as corrected. There was no additional discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: No Reports VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings Of Fact: STV-2020-0002: A privately initiated street vacation for a portion of East Montgomery Avenue & Bessie Road. 1 11-12-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 Planner Connor Lange presented the Findings Of Fact with the information that he added details about the comments received. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approved the Findings Of Fact for STV-2020-0002. There was no discussion. All in favor & motion passed. b. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2020-0005 — Impact Fees For The South Barker Corridor Commissioner Kaschmitter made a motion to approved and recommend to council. There was no discussion. All in favor. Motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Her term is up. Next meeting will be her last meeting. Dani Kaschmitter's. Commissioner Johnson is resigning the Planning Commission at the end of 2020. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to adjourn the meeting at 6: 21 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 2 Spokane Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2020-0005 STAFF REPORT DATE: October 29, 2020 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: November 5, 2020, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak, and pursuant to Governor Inslee's Stay Home, Stay Healthy Proclamation (No. 20-25) and Proclamation 20-28 (and associated extensions), this hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools. A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A City -initiated code text amendment to Title 22 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to create a new Chapter 22.100 SVMC to adopt and assess transportation impact fees that include the South Baker Road Corridor, minor associated modifications to Titles 17 and 22 SVMC and the Street Standards, and other related items. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to Titles 17 and 22 SVMC and the Street Standards are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, P.E. City Engineer REVIEWED BY: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official ATTACHMENTS: Exhibits A, B, & C: Proposed Amendments Exhibit D: Public Comments Exhibit E: Agency Comments NOTE: The South Barker Corridor Study and South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study were relied on as part of the basis for this Report. They are separately provided and are not included as an attachment. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the Drocedural steps for the Dronosal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment October 10, 2020 SEPA — DNS Issued October 16, 2020 Publish Notice of Public Hearing: October 16, 2020 & October 23, 2020 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0005 BACKGROUND: Title 22 SVMC regulates the design and development standards pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, 35A.14.140, 36.70A (Growth Management Act), and 58.17, WAC 365-195-800 through 365-195-865, and the provisions of Titles 17 through 25 SVMC. The proposed code text amendments will add a new chapter 22.100 SVMC and applicable revisions to other affected sections of the SVMC and SVSS in order to impose and provide for collection of transportation impact fees pursuant to RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.110. Transportation impact fees are fees specifically allowed to address impacts from new development, and they may be imposed on all new development. The proposed amendments will allow the City to collect fees from new development that will be impacting the City's transportation system. The fees are limited to the proportionate share of the impact caused by new development and must be based on traffic studies. Further, the fees cannot be collected to address any existing deficiency. Transportation impact fees provide certainty for both developers and the City, as well as a more efficient and timely mechanism for mitigating impacts from development than other types of mitigation methods such as concurrency or through SEPA environmental review. Generally, impact fees are collected when a building permit application is submitted. This is different than fees collected through SEPA or concurrency, which are collected as part of the platting process. Also, impact fees help streamline the permitting process by providing a known fee that allows developers to plan with certainty. The Barker Road Corridor is an area experiencing a significant amount of new development. This has and will lead to continued degradation of levels of service for traffic movement on Barker Road and on connecting streets throughout the corridor. To address traffic impacts along the northern portion of Barker Road, in the City adopted the "Northeast Industrial Area" planned action, set forth in chapter 21.60 SVMC. It provides for a current voluntary mitigation fee of $2,831 per peak PM hour trip. In 2019, the City contracted with Fehr & Peers, a transportation engineering and planning firm, to complete a comprehensive traffic study for the South Barker Corridor. This study quantified the detrimental effects that new development imposes on the existing transportation network. Through this study, the City has identified various street -infrastructure improvements needed to offset the detrimental impacts caused by new development and the anticipated fair -share costs per trip for new development. The total cost of the necessary improvements to offset detrimental impacts of new development was estimated at $18.8 million for seven different projects along the designated Barker Road corridor. Fehr & Peers developed a transportation impact fee rate study from the South Barker Corridor Study (the rate study is designated as the "South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study" or "Rate Study" herein). The Rate Study evaluated the previously determined infrastructure improvements and their associated costs, and how those costs can be fairly and proportionately distributed to new development that contributes traffic that affects the transportation network in a manner that complies with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 - .110. The following is a list of the seven different projects captured in the Rate Study: 1. Mission Avenue to Boone Avenue — Widen to a 5-lane urban section — $3.1 million 2. New Interstate 90 Interchange/Bridge — WSDOT funded (excluded from cost calculations) 3. Interstate 90 to Appleway Ave — Widen to 5-lane urban section — $6.5 million 4. Appleway to South City Limits — Widen to 3-lane urban section — $3.5 million 5. Sprague Ave. Intersection — Construct Roundabout — $2.2 million 6. 4th Ave. Intersection — Construct Roundabout — $2.0 million 7. 8th Ave. Intersection — Construct Roundabout — $1.5 million The South Barker Corridor Study used the Spokane Regional Transportation Council's (SRTC) regional travel demand model to generate afternoon "PM peak -hour" vehicle trips located within the study area and forecast those PM peak -hour vehicle trips to the year 2040. Forecasted growth is based on projected land Page 2 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0005 use growth utilized in SRTC's regional travel demand model. Through the use of the travel demand model, the study was able to estimate what proportion of trips generated in the study area would utilize the South Barker Corridor and the identified projects. The Rate Study established that of the estimated $18.8 million in costs for the seven identified projects, $3.6 million could be proportionately funded by impact fees from new development within the City. Finally, SRTC's regional travel demand model calculates the estimated future number of PM peak -hour vehicle trips within the study area. With this future quantity identified, the Rate Study calculates the change in PM peak -hour vehicle trips generated within the study area. Based on a proportionate fair -share total cost of $3.6 million and the known quantity of new PM peak hour vehicle trips, the Rate Study calculates a "per trip" impact fee of $1,272 per PM peak -hour vehicle trip. The following list highlights prominent new development types and their associated impact fee. Costs shown are based on a "per trip" rate of $1,272. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10`h Edition quantifies various "generation rates" associated with a multitude of different land uses and applies an appropriate multiplier to the "per trip" rate of $1,272. This allows new developments to identify the proposed type of improvement with the appropriate impact fee that matches the proposed development type. Some common use examples are: 1. $1,260 per unit Single Family Home/Duplex 2. $713 per unit Multi -Family 3. $891 per room Hotel (3 or more levels) 4. $1.74 per sq. ft. Elementary School 5. $4.17 per sq. ft. Medical Clinic 6. $1.46 per sq. ft. General Office 7. $3.20 per sq. ft. Shopping Center The Rate Study identifies other uses and their corresponding rates. See Rate Study for full list of impact fee rates. The City is proposing a new chapter 22.100 SVMC to authorize imposition and collection of transportation impact fees. Chapter 22.100 SVMC details the authority, imposition, and collection procedures and costs for the proposed impact fees. Chapters 17.90, 17.110, and 22.10 SVMC will also be revised to implement the transportation impact fees, including reflecting the Hearing Examiner as the proper authority to hear an impact fee appeal, adding impact fees to the master fee schedule, and identifying the statutory authority for the imposition and collection of impact fees. Lastly, revisions to chapter 3 of the Street Standards are necessary to clarify trip generation and distribution letter guidelines, traffic impact analysis requirements consistent with the imposition and collection of transportation impact fees, as well as other housekeeping items. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that: i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies listed below: Page 3 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0005 ED-G3 Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. LU-Gl Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. LU-P8 Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non -motorized transportation routes. T-Gl Ensure that the transportation system and investments in transportation infrastructure are designed to improve quality of life or support economic development priorities. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. T-G3 Strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero. T-P2 Consider neighborhood traffic and livability conditions and address potential adverse impacts of public and private projects during the planning, designing, permitting, and construction phases. T-P6 Work collaboratively with developers to ensure that areas experiencing new development are well served by motorized and non -motorized transportation options. T-P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared -use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. CF-G4 Pursue a diverse set of capital funding sources. CF-P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. CF-P15 Evaluate a variety of capital funding sources including, but not limited to, grants, local improvement districts, latecomer agreements, and impact fees to fund projects and programs. Strategies for implementing the Comprehensive Plan are identified within Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The strategies identify the City's approach to implementation. The strategies specifically identify the creation of a 20-year transportation project list to inform the 6-year transportation improvement program, Page 4 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0005 and further direct the city to evaluate, and where feasible, implement transportation impact fees where detailed traffic studies have been completed. The adoption of impact fees will allow the City to collect fair share costs of identified transportation improvement projects from new development to maintain Level of Service standards, support identified growth patterns, and ensure that transportation planning maintains a quality, safe, and efficient transportation system. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendments implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure a safe and efficient transportation system that supports and maintains the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley. The improvements identified in the South Barker Corridor Study and Rate Study will help maintain adequate levels of service for traffic along the Barker Road corridor over the next 20 years. The transportation impact fees will provide a regular and reliable funding source for a portion of these improvements, and will be provided by developments that are directly contributing to the need for such improvements. Further, the fees will be limited to the proportionate impact from new development, so as new development causes impacts, those impacts will be able to be addressed through necessary improvements. The City regularly pursues grant funding for its capital projects; however, the funding need for improvements far outweighs the City's available grant funds and the City's available local revenue for transportation capital improvements. The proposed amendments allow for a more fair and proportionate cost -sharing that allow the City to more efficiently implement improvements to this growing arterial corridor. Further, the proposed amendments introduce a consistent and reliable fee schedule for new development that establishes set rates across various types of new development, lending itself to more efficient planning and budgeting for new development projects. The proposed impact fee of $1,272 "per trip" is based on the Rate Study, which was conducted within standard engineering principles and provides a reasonable and appropriate fee amount. The regulations support continued development that ensures that public health, safety, welfare and the environment are protected. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80.150(F). 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: Two public comments have been received to date. Both requested information and clarification of where and how the fees would be imposed, but did not otherwise provide comments on the proposed fees in the South Barker Corridor. b. Conclusion(s): Public noticing was conducted for CTA-2020-0005 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. Page 5 of 6 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0005 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: As of the date of this report, Spokane Transit Authority is the only agency to provide comments and they requested a credit for transit improvements. Staff are currently evaluating those comments received. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns noted. Staff are currently evaluating those comments. B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed code text amendments in Title 17 and 22 SVMC and SVSS are consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 6 of 6 SpokaneTransit October 28, 2020 Lori Barlow, AICP Senior Planner Community and Public Works Department City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: CTA-2020-0005-TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Dear Ms. Barlow, Spokane Transit is in receipt of the SEPA notice and associated documents for City -initiated code text amendment to Title 22 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to create a new chapter 22.100 SVMC to adopt and assess transportation impact fees that include the South Barker Road Corridor and other related items. Spokane Transit supports the City's efforts to have development participate in the funding of the necessary roadway improvements along the Barker corridor. For greater clarity, Spokane Transit asks that additional language be added to SVMC 22.100.070 to specifically identify transit improvements as an eligible credit. This could be done in consultation with the City and Spokane Transit, to ensure improvements are being made in current or future bus stop locations. The City of Spokane has language in Section Credits B.5 that may prove useful. Spokane Transit has identified stop improvements that correspond with the following projects on the project list: • Barker Road Improvement Project - Appleway to I-90 • Barker Road Improvement Project - Mission to I-90 Minimum stop improvements would include ADA compliant landing pads, post and signage and accessible paths to and from the bus stops. Identifying future stop locations and planning for necessary improvements now will help avoid costly retrofits. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any additional questions. Regards, Carl Otterstrom, A1CP Director of Planning and Development 328-RIDE spokanetransit.com TTY 456-4327 1230 W Boone Avenue 509.325.6000 Spokane,Washington 99201-2686 509.325.6036 F To Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org From: cdepner@spokanecounty.org Date: 11-6-2020 Subject: CTA-2020-0005 Project Name: Stage: SEPA Description: Site Address: South Barker Corridor Impact Fees Comment - Code Comment Supplemental Comment SSO1A This proposal has no impact on sewer facilities. There are no recommendations. PLANNING, ENGINEERING & BUILDING SERVICES Lori Barlow, Sr. Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: CTA-2020-005 Transportation Impact Fees Ms. Barlow: The City of Liberty Lake offers these comments in response to the Threshold Determination issued for the above referenced Case No. CTA-2020-005, Implementing Impact Fees that includes the South Barker Corridor Study. We ask that these comments also be entered into the record of the Public Hearing before the Spokane Valley Planning Commission regarding this matter, scheduled for November 5, 2020. Regarding the SEPA Threshold Determination on the above referenced case, the City of Liberty Lake does not take issue with the Determination of Significance. However, while the City of Liberty Lake applauds Spokane Valley's efforts to implement transportation impact fees as a proactive strategy for addressing growth -induced deficiencies in the transportation system, we feel that it is critical for the City to go on record regarding the significant flaws in the methodology used in the South Barker Corridor Study, which is being adopted as part of this action. Specifically, the methodology used to develop the South Barker Corridor Study "Fair Share Analysis" overestimates the proportionate share of new trips assigned to the City of Liberty Lake. Figure 21 in the study shows all the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) west of Harvard Road as falling within the Barker Road travel shed. These TAZs encompass an area up to Harvard Road, meaning at least half of the trips generated by these TAZs should fall within the Harvard travelshed rather than the Barker travelshed and the share of trips apportioned to City of Liberty Lake should be reduced. This would reduce the overall percentage share of project costs to be assigned to City of Liberty Lake. The effect on the proposed impact fees is the underestimating of the impact from new trips generated in Spokane Valley. Secondly, the "Fair Share Analysis" analysis excludes new trips generated from the Valley's Northeast Industrial Area simply because they are subject to other impact fees, despite the fact that the Northeast Industrial Park is part of the Barker Road travel shed, with Barker Road 22710 E. COUNTRY VISTA DR., LIBERTY LAKE WA 99019 TELEPHONE (509) 755-6700 FAX: (509) 755-6713 WWW.LIBERTYLAKEWA.GOV considered a significant freight route between the industrial park and 1-90. New trips generated from the Northeast Industrial area, which most certainly contribute to the demand for the South Barker Road Improvements north of 1-90, would significantly increase Spokane Valley's proportionate share in the "Fair Share Analysis", if they were included. Those new trips would also reduce the impact fees assigned to new trips generated within Spokane Valley's proposed Barker Road Transportation Impact Fee Area, if included. Finally, the methodology in the South Barker Corridor Study assigns the full cost of the added capacity to new trips (excepting those new trips generated from the Northeast Industrial area), rather than the proportionate share of the added capacity being utilized by those new trips. The method results in new development paying for capacity produced by the project that it will not use. RCW 82.02.050 section 4(b) states that impact fees "Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development". While at this time, the proposed action only imposes impact fees on development within the proposed Barker Corridor Impact Fee Area within the City of Spokane Valley, it also adopts the South Barker Corridor Study and the "Fair Share Analysis" included therein, which presumably, the City of Spokane Valley will attempt to use as means to "quantify" potential impacts from developments occurring within Liberty Lake that fall within the purported South Barker Corridor Travel Shed, as identified in Figure 1 of the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. If it is indeed the intent of the City of Spokane Valley to use the proposed action as a means to monetize potential impacts from development occurring within the City of Liberty Lake, the City of Liberty Lake does and will strenuously object, as the proposed action clearly does not provide a basis for such application, given the methodological flaws identified in the South Barker Corridor Study, which the City of Liberty Lake has raised on numerous occasions. Respectfully Submitted, Lisa D. Key, Director of Planning & Engineering Cc: Mark Calhoun, City Administrator John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Erik Lamb, City Attorney From: Bob Hammond To: Jerremv Clark Cc: Lori Barlow Subject: Re: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 11:31:59 AM Attachments: image001.pnq Ok, will do On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:28 AM Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> wrote: Glad to help. Please be sure to email your request to speak at the hearing by 4 PM Thursday if you would like to speak. Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE I Senior Traffic Engineer Spokane Valley, WA 1509.720.5019 I jclark(a�sookanevalley.orq This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Bob Hammond <propgrinder@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 11:20 AM To: Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Lori Barlow <lbarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Re: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Thanks for the explanation, Jeremy. That helps a lot as has all your previous explanations. Regards, William On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:14 AM Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> wrote: Good morning, Thank you for following up. There is not an existing agreement between the City and the County for impact fees, primarily because the City has not had impact fees in the past. Many of the subdivisions to the south have been in development for quite a while, some were approved prior to the City's incorporation and there is nothing from this process that can be recouped from pre -approved development in the County or the City. The expense of improvements for existing trips or pre -approved development falls on the responsibility of the City, which is why it is important to identify mitigation necessary for new development by way of impact fees. If impact fees are adopted and established in the City of Spokane Valley, it lays the groundwork for establishing agreements with other jurisdictions for the collection of those fees but step 2 cannot proceed without step 1. As I mentioned before, the County has been very cooperative by including the City of Spokane Valley on reviews of new developments, the most recent of which is currently completing a traffic impact analysis to define impact with the City limits. Thank you again, I appreciate your feedback. Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE I Senior Traffic Engineer Spokane Valley, WA 1509.720.5019 I jclark(a�spokanevalley.org This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Bob Hammond <propgrinder@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 12:41 PM To: Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Lori Barlow <lbarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Re: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Thanks Jeremy. Is there any existing agreement with Spokane County for impact fees relating to the Saltese Meadows, Twin Bridges, Morningside Heights, and other subdivisions whose residents use the S. Barker Transportation Corridor? Regards, William Hammond On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:26 AM Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> wrote: Good morning, These are proposed fees to be assessed to new development only. Thank you for following up. I appreciate your feedback. Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer Spokane Valley, WA 1509.720.5019 I jclark(d�spokanevallev.orq This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Bob Hammond <propgrinder@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 5:27 AM To: Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Lori Barlow <lbarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Re: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Jeremy, Thanks for your reply. Are these proposed fees to be assessed to NEW construction only within the outlined areas or will they be assessed to existing homes, businesses, schools, etcetera? Regards, William Hammond On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 8:53 AM Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org> wrote: Good Morning Mr. Hammond, Thank you for your inquiry and input regarding the proposed impact fees related to the South Barker Corridor. I have shared this comment and questions with Lori Barlow, the Senior Planner here at the City. As you referenced, the areas on the maps to the south and east of the City Limits have a lot of potential for development and traffic growth. Unfortunately, the City cannot impose impact fees outside of our jurisdiction. However, Spokane County has been very cooperative by including the City of Spokane Valley on reviews of developments that will impact our City streets. Additionally, for projects that are subject to review based on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the City of Spokane Valley is able to provide comment and requests for mitigation. The bottom line is that the City will do what it can to collect mitigation for impacts to the South Barker Corridor and the proposed impact fees are a good first step for growth within the City. If impact fees are adopted and established in the City of Spokane Valley, it lays the groundwork for establishing agreements with other jurisdictions for the collection of those fees. Public comment is currently being taken, and will continue up to the public hearing, which is scheduled for November 5, 2020. I have attached the notice of public hearing for your review. All comments are directed to Lori Barlow (copied on this message) so she can package them up for the Planning Commission public hearing. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments, I do appreciate your feedback. Thank you again, Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509.720.5019 I jclarkCa�sookanevalley.orq C ❑® This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Bob Hammond <propgrinder@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 6:00 PM To: Planning <planning@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Will any proposed impact fees be collected from homes and businesses in Spokane County and Liberty Lake areas, as shown on the maps in the documentation? A very significant number of people residing in subdivisions south and west of the southern -most City boundaries (therefore in Spokane County) use the South Barker Corridor. I strongly feel that they should pay impact fees as well. When will public comment be taken on the proposed fees? Regards, William Hammond 805 S. Harmony Rd Spokane Valley CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. From: Pamela Maddox To: Adam Jackson Subject: Re: Impact fees Date: Friday, November 6, 2020 9:20:38 AM Attachments: imaae001.1i q Thank you so much for the clarification I really appreciate the info. Have a Great Day! Pam Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 8:44 AM, Adam Jackson <ajackson©spokanevalley.org> wrote: Good Morning Ms. Maddox, Thanks for your inquiry. Assuming that you're not building a new home, convenient store, office building, etc., then existing residents are not charged the impact fees. The proposed South Barker Road Corridor Impact Fees would only apply to NEW development that occurs within the pink -shaded limits identified in the "fee area," which is shown on the City's webpage https://www.spokanevalley.org/impactfees. Fees are only charged when NEW traffic is generated and adds traffic to the street transportation system. Existing properties, their associated land use, and their existing traffic does not pay impact fees. I hope this helps clarify things. Please take a look at our website for more information. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. -Adam From: Pamela Maddox <crazymom9611©yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:55 PM To: City Hall <cityhall©spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE: Impact fees Yes Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 1:54 PM, City Hall <cityhall©spokanevalley.org> wrote: Hi Pam - What Impact Fees are you referring to? Are you referring to the Barker corridor Impact Fees? Marci Marci Patterson l Executive Assistant 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5108 Fax: (509) 720-5075 1 mpattersong.spokanevalley.oru This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Pamela Maddox <crazymom9611 @yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:11 PM To: City Hall <cityhall@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Impact fees Are these proposed fees that us as residents of the City of Spokane Valley will be charged, and if so how will we be charged? Pam crazymom9611 @yahoo.com Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. From: Jerremv Clark To: marilyntrefrv(©hotmail.com Cc: Lori Barlow Subject: Barker impact fees Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 3:25:12 PM Attadrments: imaoe001.onq Imaoe002.onq Good afternoon, Thank you for your inquiry and input regarding the proposed impact fees related to the South Barker Corridor. I have shared these questions with Lori Barlow, the Senior Planner here at the City. I have included a map identifying the area impacted by the fees (the pink area in the figure below), which has been added to the website. The reason is it only the Southeast Valley as described is based on the limits of the traffic study. This specific study was initiated to address traffic growth and mitigation along the South Barker corridor. Pursuant to the feedback received as a result of this impact fee process, the City may pursue a similar City-wide study to address growth and mitigation throughout the City. The South Barker corridor is a bite -sized first step. To address your concern about development north of Mission, there was a separate council action back in early 2019 to establish the Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance, which completed necessary traffic and environmental evaluation for future development. Proposed developments in this area are subject to a fee of $2,831 for each trip generated during the PM peak hour. Regarding the new schools, and all prior -approved development, they will not be included with the impact fee. The proposed impact fee can only be applied to new development during the permitting stage. If a new school or similar development were proposed in this area, the responsible agency would pay the proposed fees. Public comment is currently being taken, and will continue up to the public hearing, which is scheduled for November 5, 2020. I have attached the notice of public hearing for your review. All comments are directed to Lori Barlow (copied on this message) so she can package them up for the Planning Commission public hearing. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments, I do appreciate your feedback. Thank you again, Jerremy Clark, PE, PTOE I Senior Traffic Engineer 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509.720.5019 I jclark(aspokanevalley.orq This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. Original Message From: Marilyn Trefry <marilyntrefrvPhotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:32 PM To: Planning <planningPspokanevalley.org> Subject: Barker impact fees Is there some place one can see the exact area(s) that would be Impacted by these fees? Also, why only Southeast, when a lot more development has & is taking place North of Mission? Will the new schools be included? Who would pay those fees? Marilyn Trefry Sent from my iPhone IWC E Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Whipple Consulting Engineers 21 S. Pines Rd. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Attn: Benjamin Wick, City Mayor City Council To whom it may concern, As a consultant who works throughout the Spokane Region within the development industry and regularly provides traffic analyses (2500+ to date), I support staff recommendations to move toward an Impact Fee based approach to funding transportation infrastructure in Spokane Valley. The time saved on projects located within the City of Spokane Valley with the ability to accept traffic impact fees would be a positive approach to development. The current process is a project that embroils for months. For many projects without Impact Fees, there are significant unaccounted-for losses to development projects when considering the carry of money due to lost time to go through the traffic study process. In the past year, the City of Spokane modified and expanded their Transportation Impact Fee system, which eliminated 6 to 20 weeks of negotiation and planning between ourselves and the City of Spokane. This has been a positive change bringing benefits to the City of Spokane, citizens within city limits, and private developers. I want the City of Spokane Valley to clearly understand that Whipple Consulting Engineers fully supports the implementation of this ordinance. Thank you for taking the time to review this appeal and for examining a move to Impact Fees. Whipple Consulting Engineers Todd R. Whipple, P.E. President 21 South Pines Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 • WhippleCE.com • Info@WhippleCE.com Civil. Structural. Traffic. Survey. Landscape Architecture and Entitlements FEHRk PEERS Memorandum Date: November 4, 2020 To: Jerremy Clark, PE, City of Spokane Valley From: Patrick Picard, AICP and Chris Breiland, PE, Fehr & Peers --e/`6) Subject: Response to City of Liberty Lake Comments on CTA-2020-005 Transportation Impact Fees SE20-0748 Response to Comments This memo provides a response to comments the City of Liberty Lake provided in regard to Case No. CTA-2020-005, Implementing Impact Fees that includes the South Barker Corridor Study. The City of Liberty Lake did not take issue with the Determination of Non -Significance regarding the SEPA Threshold Determination on the above referenced case. Rather, all comments submitted by the City of Liberty Lake were related to the technical analysis used in the South Barker Corridor Study, which is located in Appendix A of the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (September 2020). The City of Liberty Lake made three specific comments in disagreement with specific aspects of the methodology used to in the fair share impact fee technical analysis described in the South Barker Corridor Study. A response is provided to each of these comments in Table 1, the first two of which are similar to previous responses provided to Liberty Lake on earlier comments. We remain confident that our study meets the nexus and rough proportionality requirements for all impact fees and RCW 82.02.050-110. 1001 4th Avenue I Suite 4120 I Seattle, WA 98154 I (206) 576-4220 I Fax (206) 576-4225 www.fehrandpeers.com City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Table 1. Response to Liberty Lake Comments Liberty Lake Comment Response Specifically, the methodology used to develop the South Barker Corridor Study "Fair Share Analysis" overestimates the proportionate share of new trips assigned to the City of Liberty Lake. Figure 21 in the study shows all the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) west of Harvard Road as falling within the Barker Road travel shed. These TAZs encompass an area up to Harvard Road, meaning at least half of the trips generated by these TAZs should fall within the Harvard travelshed rather than the Barker travelshed and the share of trips apportioned to City of Liberty Lake should be reduced. This would reduce the overall percentage share of project costs to be assigned to City of Liberty Lake. The effect on the proposed impact fees is the underestimating of the impact from new trips generated in Spokane Valley. The City of Liberty Lake's interpretation of this aspect of the fair share analysis is a misinterpretation of what was performed. The fair share analysis, as described on page 27 and page 28 of the South Barker Corridor Study, is an estimate of the portion of all traffic on specific segments of Barker Road that is forecast to begin or end in various TAZs near the corridor, including three in Liberty Lake (TAZ 442, 447, 448). Only the traffic generated from these TAZs that the 2040 SRTC regional travel model shows would use various segments of Barker Road in the PM peak hour were included in the analysis. Other trips generated by these TAZs that do not use the segments of Barker Road included in the study were not included in the fair -share analysis. By using this methodology, trips that begin or end in Liberty Lake and use Harvard Road and not Barker Road are not counted. These trips are not included in the percent of trips from Liberty Lake on Barker Road, because only trips that use Barker Road are included. City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Page 3 of 4 11 Liberty Lake Comment Response Secondly, the "Fair Share Analysis" analysis excludes new trips generated from the Valley's Northeast Industrial Area simply because they are subject to other impact fees, despite the fact that the Northeast Industrial Park is part of the Barker Road travel shed, with Barker Road considered a significant freight route between the industrial park and I- 90. New trips generated from the Northeast Industrial area, which most certainly contribute to the demand for the South Barker Road Improvements north of 1-90, would significantly increase Spokane Valley's proportionate share in the "Fair Share Analysis", if they were included. Those new trips would also reduce the impact fees assigned to new trips generated within Spokane Valley's proposed Barker Road Transportation Impact Fee Area, if included. Similar to the previous comments, the claim that new trips generated from Spokane Valley's Northeast Industrial Area were excluded from this analysis is not true and is a misinterpretation of the analysis. All trips that are forecast to use South Barker Road in 2040 were included in the fair -share analysis, including trips from the Northeast Industrial Area. In Figure 22 of the Report, these trips would fall in the "Other" category. In calculating the percent of trips on Barker Road from Liberty Lake, the denominator includes all trips, including those from the Northeast Industrial Area. The misinterpretation on Liberty Lake's behalf may be from the fact that a fair share fee was only estimated in this Study for the TAZs mapped in Figure 21, that are grouped into three geographic areas within Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley, and Spokane County. There is no doubt that the Northeast Industrial Area is part of the South Barker Corridor travel shed and trips from new development in the Northeast Industrial Area will use South Barker Road. All of these trips were included in the analysis, but a fee was not estimated for these trips in this report. As stated in the report, this is because the City of Spokane Valley is using a separate Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) to assess SEPA-based fair -share fees in the Northeast Industrial Area for projects on Barker Road (between Mission and 1-90). There are "Other" trips that use Barker Road from other areas of the region as well. These "Other" trips were accounted for in the fair -share analysis, but an impact fee was not estimated. Their portion is the remainder of the project costs not assessed to the identified areas within Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley and Spokane. Figure 23 of the South Barker Corridor Study shows that of the estimated $16.8 million1 in total project costs, only about half, or $8.5 million, is attributable to the identified areas within Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley, and Spokane County using the fair share analysis. This is because roughly half the trip ends fall outside of the three travel sheds analyzed. The remaining cost, about $8.3 million from the "Other" trips, will be the responsibility of Spokane Valley to generate funds (which cannot be assessed to the growth within the study area). Some of the external trips (the fair share) will be assessed to the Northeast Industrial Area through the PAO. 1 The cost for these projects has been projected to increase to $18.8 M in the Impact Fee Rate Study. It is typical that all impact fee calculations are based on present-day construction cost estimates and the impact fees are indexed over time for construction cost inflation. City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Liberty Lake Comment Response Finally, the methodology in the South Barker Corridor Study assigns the full cost of the added capacity to new trips (excepting those new trips generated from the Northeast Industrial area), rather than the proportionate share of the added capacity being utilized by those new trips. The method results in new development paying for capacity produced by the project that it will not use. RCW 82.02.050 section 4(b) states that impact fees "Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development". The methodology used in the South Barker Corridor Study follows industry standard practices and does not deduct excess capacity beyond 2040. This methodology is used by the majority of jurisdictions in estimating impact fees and is legally acceptable as it accounts for future growth based on the regionally accepted travel demand model's horizon year (2040). This methodology fairly identifies that a project is needed to meet the City's LOS threshold, and without that project, traffic congestion would be unacceptable and there would be an unmitigated traffic impact. It is a basic fact that to mitigate some of the traffic congestion impacts a project with capacity beyond what is strictly needed to accommodate the future forecast growth is identified. This happens because traffic capacity is provided in discreet amounts that cannot always be exactly tailored to the forecast demand. As an example, Spokane Valley cannot build half of a roundabout or two-thirds of a traffic lane. The entire facility is needed to meet future LOS standards. Communities may choose to calculate the amount of "excess capacity" and subtract that from the portion the new growth should pay for. However, for jurisdictions that take this approach, as Liberty Lake suggests, it is also typical to charge new growth for their share of use of the existing "excess capacity." While technically feasible, this is a more laborious process and often the cost of consuming the existing excess capacity cancels out the value of the future excess capacity. In other words, the decrease in the fee by subtracting future "excess capacity" would be counterbalanced by the increase in fee from accounting for existing "excess capacity." Given this level of analysis is unlikely to result any significant net change, it is recommended to maintain the current methodology which is accepted as standard practice. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 8, 2020 Department Director Approval: Fl Check all that apply :n consent n old business Fl new business n public hearing n information n admin. report n pending legislation in executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First reading — Ordinance 20-027 - Municipal tree care. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Report regarding Tree City USA program March 17, 2020; Arbor Day Proclamation April 18, 2020; November 17, 2020 administrative report on proposed Code provisions. BACKGROUND: Council previously indicated an interest in participating in the Tree City USA program. The Tree City USA program is a nationwide program designed by the Arbor Day Foundation to promote responsible public tree care and management. The program has four requirements. First, a city must create a tree board, or appoint someone to take responsibility for tree care. Second, a city must establish a tree care ordinance which outlines public tree care, planting, and maintenance standards, and identifies permitted and prohibited tree activities. Third, a city must have a community forestry program with an annual budget of at least $2 per capita. Finally, the city must make an Arbor Day Proclamation. After completing these requirements, a city must submit a Tree City USA application. Currently, more than 3,400 communities have become Tree City USA members. In the proposed Code, the City Manager or designee would be responsible for public tree care and management, instead of a tree board. Also, staff will create a tree planting guide modeled from the planting guide located in chapter 22.70 SVMC, Appendix 22-A. Additionally, the proposed Code would prohibit public tree removal without the City's written consent, and would prohibit various damaging acts towards public trees. Finally, any violation would be a class 2 infraction and the City would have authority to enforce violations. Adoption of this Ordinance would make the City eligible to apply for Tree City USA status in the next application cycle. Staff made a few revisions to proposed sections 6.01.050(A) and 6.01.080 to make clear that maintenance of municipal trees is always dependent upon available resources (in the event of a sharp economic downturn), and adopting this does not create a duty on the part of the City to guarantee that all publicly -owned trees are safe. OPTIONS: (1) Consensus to proceed to a second reading at a future Council meeting; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we advance Ordinance 20-027 regarding the City's municipal tree program to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are no additional anticipated financial impacts. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director; Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Carly Johnson, Legal Intern. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 20-027 regarding municipal tree care. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 20-027 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING CHAPTER 6.01 RELATING TO MUNICIPAL TREE CARE OF PUBLIC TREES; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, cities are authorized to improve, maintain, protect, regulate, use and beautify public ways and public property. As such, the City Manager is authorized to plant, prune, maintain and remove public trees as may be necessary to ensure public safety or to preserve or enhance the symmetry and beauty of such public grounds; and WHEREAS, implementing the regulations included in the sections below is anticipated to assist in preserving and enhancing the City's public properties for the use and benefit of the City's citizens; and WHEREAS, adopting these regulations will help qualify the City to participate in the Tree City USA program; and WHEREAS, adoption of these provisions would protect and enhance the life, health, and safety of the City's residents and businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Adoption of a new chapter 6.01 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Chapter 6.01 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code is adopted in as follows: 6.01.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating the planning, maintenance, and removal of trees on City -owned property within the City of Spokane Valley. 6.01.020. Definitions. "City Manager" means the City Manager, or designee, or contracting entity chosen by the City. "Maintain" or "maintenance" means the entire care of trees, including but not limited to, the preparation of ground, fertilizing, mulching, planting, spraying, trimming, pruning, topping and root control. "Public tree" means any tree growing in or upon a City planting strip, right-of-way, park, or other City -owned property, including street trees. "Recommended Planting List" means the recommended planting species list adopted in SVMC 22.70, Appendix 22- A. "Street tree" means any tree located upon property within the improved right-of-way in the City. 6.01.030. Authority. Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, cities are authorized to improve, maintain, protect, regulate, use and beautify public ways and public property. As such, the City Manager is authorized to designate the planting, pruning, maintenance and removal of public trees as may be necessary to ensure public safety or to preserve or enhance the symmetry and beauty of such public grounds. Trees that would otherwise be regulated under chapter 7.05 SVMC (public nuisance trees) or chapter 22.70 SVMC (landscaping and street tree standards) shall be regulated by those chapters. Ordinance 20-027 Adopting Chapter 6.01 SVMC — Municipal Tree Regulations Page 1 of 3 DRAFT 6.01.040. Planting standards. A. Street trees shall be planted pursuant to SVMC 22.70.060. B. The City Manager shall authorize the creation of planting standards to govern the planting and maintenance of all public trees that are not street trees. The planting standards shall include provisions including, but not limited to, spacing requirements, planting distances from curbs and sidewalks, and planting near utility lines. The City shall confer with electrical utility providers within the City regarding these standards. The planting standards shall include the Recommended Planting List; and, at the discretion of the City Manager, may include other species. C. The City Manager may authorize the approval of planting of public trees outside of the Recommended Planting List. 6.01.050. Public tree removal. A. For public trees found by and/or reported to the City to be dead, dying, diseased, or in an otherwise obviously dangerous condition likely to cause damage, the City Manager shall take reasonable steps to remove said trees as allocation of resources permit, and may further authorize the replacement of all such trees. This provision does not create a requirement for the City to actively investigate or inspect public trees for defects, hazards, or dangerous conditions. B. When any public tree is removed, the City Manager shall cause to have the stump of said tree completely removed, which may include grinding the stump to a depth of at least one foot below the surrounding average finished grade. Adequate topsoil shall be used to fill the hole created by the removal of said stump, including accounting for settling of the topsoil. C. Trees on private property meeting the definition of a public nuisance pursuant to SVMC 7.05.040(A) shall be addressed pursuant to chapter 7.05 SVMC. 6.01.060. Abuse of public trees prohibited. A. No person shall damage, remove, or cause the damage or removal of a public tree without written permission from the City Manager. B. No person shall attach or place any rope or wire (other than one used to support the tree itself), sign, poster, handbill, or other thing to any public tree. Exceptions with regard to public trees within parks, if any exceptions exist, may be found in chapter 6.05 SVMC. C. No person shall cause or permit any wire charged with electricity, with the exception of decorative lights for a period not exceeding 45 days per year, to come into contact with any public tree. D. No person shall allow any gaseous liquid, or solid substance which is harmful to such trees to come into contact with the roots or leaves of public trees. 6.01.070. Interference with the City. No person shall prevent, delay, or interfere with the city or any of its agents, while engaging in the planting, maintenance, or removal of any public trees. 6.01.080. Nonliability of City. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the City, its officers, or employees, nor does it create any duty to inspect trees for defects, hazards, or dangerous conditions, and does not relieve the owner or occupant of any private property from the duty to keep trees and other vegetation upon private property or property under his control in a safe condition pursuant to chapter 7.05 SVMC. 6.01.090. Violation. Any person found to have violated any provision of this chapter shall have committed a class 2 infraction. For violations of this chapter, the City shall have all authority under the law to enforce violations, including but not limited to use of injunctive remedies through superior court. However, conduct that constitutes a violation of chapter 7.05 SVMC shall be penalized pursuant to chapter 7.05 SVMC. Ordinance 20-027 Adopting Chapter 6.01 SVMC — Municipal Tree Regulations Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. PASSED by the City Council this day of December, 2020. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 20-027 Adopting Chapter 6.01 SVMC — Municipal Tree Regulations Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 8, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business Z new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First reading — Ordinance 20-029 granting cable franchise to Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.1.020; chapter 3.65 SVMC — Cable Code. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of prior Comcast cable franchise, Ordinance 09- 034 in 2009; adoption of Ordinance 20-012 amending the SVMC relating to provision of cable television on October 13, 2020. BACKGROUND: The City has granted a franchise to Comcast to provide cable television in the City since incorporation in 2003. The prior franchise was granted in 2009, becoming effective in July 2010, and expired in July 2020. The City and Comcast have continued on in a status quo situation since that time while the City worked on amending its Code provisions relating to cable television franchises. Since substantially amending chapter 3.65 relating to provision of cable television by franchise, the City granted a franchise to TDS as a competitor to Comcast with the understanding that Comcast would be immediately following TDS in issuance of a new franchise. The terms of this franchise are substantively identical to the franchise granted to TDS in November, 2020, and relies heavily on the recently adopted revisions to chapter 3.65 SVMC rather than restating the whole code in the franchise. The material terms are that it is a 10 year franchise, with Comcast having the option of opting out to renegotiate if there are major changes from a federal or state regulatory standpoint. Comcast would continue to pay the City five percent cable franchise fees, which may be used for any municipal purpose at the City's discretion. The City would also continue to collect .35 cents per prescriber per month, which the City can use for certain public, educational, governmental (PEG) television purposes. OPTIONS: (1) Move Ordinance 20-029 to a second reading; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to advance Ordinance 20-029 to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated as a result of the grant of franchise. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 20-029 granting a cable television franchise to Comcast. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 20-029 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE CABLE FRANCHISE TO COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE CERTAIN FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service;" and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body, nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective;" and WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the grant of franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions and chapter 3.65 SVMC, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Grant of Franchise. The City hereby grants to the Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, (hereinafter "Grantee"), a non-exclusive franchise authorizing the Grantee to construct, maintain, and operate a cable system in the rights -of -way such facilities and other related property or equipment as may be necessary or appurtenant for the deployment of cable television services in the City pursuant to this Franchise and according to the Cable Act. The term of this franchise and all its rights, privileges, obligations, and restrictions shall be 10 years from the effective date. However, upon the fifth year anniversary date of the Franchise term, the Grantee has the option to provide written notice to the City opting out of the remaining five years given a change in federal or State law which negatively impacts the City's ability to regulate this Franchise. To exercise the option, the Grantee shall give the City such written notice at least six months prior to the fifth year anniversary date of the Franchise term. Section 2. Franchise Renewal. Any renewal of this Franchise shall be governed by and comply with the provisions of the Cable Act (47 U.S.C. § 546) as amended. Section 3. City ordinances and regulations, subsequent amendments. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. In the event Ordinance 20-029 Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC Cable Service Franchise Page 1 of 4 DRAFT the City amends chapter 3.65 SVMC during the term of this franchise such that it conflicts with this franchise, the terms of the franchise shall control unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City and Grantee. Section 4. Adoption by reference of chapter 3.65 Spokane Valley Municipal Code. This franchise specifically adopts by reference as if fully set forth herein the entire chapter 3.65 SVMC relating to regulation of cable television providers, which is in effect on the date Grantee accepts this Franchise. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Section 6. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified, in writing: City: Grantee: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC Attn: Franchising Department 1717 East Buckeye Avenue Spokane, Washington 99207 Section 7. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 8. Non -Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance, nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 9. Entire Agreement. This franchise, including adoption by reference of the terms contained in chapter 3.65 SVMC relating to regulation of cable television providers, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 10. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, Grantee shall accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof and provision of the performance bond pursuant to SVMC 3.65.280. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60-day period, absolutely cease unless the time period is extended by subsequent ordinance passed for that purpose. Ordinance 20-029 Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC Cable Service Franchise Page 2 of 4 DRAFT Section 11. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at least five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law, and following acceptance by Grantee pursuant to Section 10. PASSED by the City Council this day of December, 2020. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 20-029 Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC Cable Service Franchise Page 3 of 4 DRAFT Accepted by Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC: By: By: The Grantee, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing Franchise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has signed this day of , 2020. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 2020. Notary Public in and for the State of residing in My commission expires Ordinance 20-029 Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC Cable Service Franchise Page 4 of 4 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 12-081item 6 2020 12 08 RCA LTAC Awards motion.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 8, 2020 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Funds. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State Law RCW 67.28, and Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.20 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Thus far in 2020 for the 2021 awards, the Council has had discussions pertaining to lodging tax on three previous occasions: • July 14, 2020 where we discussed: o Lodging tax in general — what it is and how it may be expended. o The LTAC — what it is and its role in the process. o The Council's role in the process. o Council goals and priorities for the LTAC. • July 28, 2020 where Council discussed and reached consensus on the goals and priorities that should be included in the lodging tax grant application and also communicated to the LTAC. • November 24, 2020 where Council heard an administrative report on the 2021 recommended lodging tax grant allocations from the LTAC. BACKGROUND: In 2003 the City implemented a 2% hotel/motel tax, the proceeds of which are used to promote conventions and tourist travel to our City. The organizations to which the tax proceeds are distributed are ultimately determined by the City Council which receives a recommendation from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC). The LTAC is comprised of five members who are appointed by the City Council. The LTAC membership must include: • At least two representatives of businesses that are required to collect the tax; • At least two people who are involved in activities that are authorized to be funded by the tax; and • One elected City official who serves as chairperson of the LTAC. The LTAC makes its recommendations based upon a combination of written application materials and a presentation that is made to them by each applicant. On October 15, 2020, the LTAC met to consider application materials and presentations from applicants seeking a portion of the $678,240 appropriated in the City's 2021 Budget. Prior to applicant presentations, the LTAC passed a motion recommending to Council that no transfer to Fund #104 be done in 2020. Instead, the Committee recommended that after all the grant awards are paid out for 2020 and 2021 any remaining balance available be transferred to Fund #104 in 2021 so that the ending fund balance is approximately $165,000 at the end of 2021 in Fund #105 and recommended that this motion be provided for the Council's approval. The total of all requests in the applications received for 2021 awards totaled $303,000, which meant that $303,000 was the maximum amount that could be awarded for the year as no applicant may receive more than they requested. Presentations were made by the Historic Flight Foundation, the HUB Sports Center, JAKT for Brews, Beats & Eats, JAKT for Crave NW, 1 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 12-081item 6 2020 12 08 RCA LTAC Awards motion.docx JAKT for the farmer's market, Northwest Winterfest, Spokane County Fair and Expo Center, Spokane Sports Commission, Valleyfest, and Valleyfest Cycle Celebration. Following applicant presentations, the LTAC discussed both the merits of making particular awards to various applicants and how they felt revenues should be allocated. Ultimately, the LTAC recommended the following awards be advanced to the City Council for consideration: Amount LTAC Applicant Requested Recommend 1) Historic Flight Foundation 15,000 15,000 2) HUB Sports Center 45,000 45,000 3) JAKT - Brews, Beats & Eats 20,000 2,600 4) JAKT - Crave! 25,000 15,200 5) JAKT - Farmers Market 20,000 7,200 6) Northwest Winterfest 50,000 49,000 7) Spokane Co Fair and Expo Center 50,000 49,000 8) Spokane Sports Commission 55,000 27,000 9) Valleyfest 18,000 12,600 10) Valleyfest Cycle Celebration 5,000 1,800 303,000 224,400 Potential Transfer to Fund #104 453,840 Total Available in 2021 Budget 678,240 At times some organizations apply for funding through both the Outside Agency and the Lodging Tax award processes. JAKT and Valleyfest both applied for Lodging Tax Funding for 2021, as well as for 2021 Outside Agency funding, and were awarded $10,765 and $20,179, respectively, in Outside Agency funding at the October 20, 2020 Council meeting. OPTIONS: Washington law provides two very clear options for City Council. First, the City Council may approve all or some of the listed recipients and amounts recommended by the LTAC. Under this option, the City Council may essentially line -item veto one or more of the recommended award amounts to individual recipients. Any amount not awarded would be kept in the Lodging Tax fund for consideration next year. Under this option, no further action is required by the LTAC or City Council after the award is made. The second option is for City Council to reject the entire recommendation and to return it to the LTAC for reconsideration and for a new recommendation. Under this option, the LTAC would have to reconsider the requests, develop a new recommendation, and resubmit to the City Council for consideration. This option does delay award of the lodging tax funds considerably for the requestors, which may put strain on their budgeting process. Under a relatively recent informal attorney general's opinion, a third possible option has also been identified. Under RCW 67.28.1817, a municipality may propose "a change in the use of revenue received under [RCW 67.28]," but must submit the proposal to the LTAC for review and comment. Then, the LTAC must be given at least 45 days to review and provide comments prior to final action by the municipality. This would allow the City Council to conduct its own 2 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 12-081item 6 2020 12 08 RCA LTAC Awards motion.docx review of the materials submitted, including the minutes and recommended amounts by the LTAC, to come up with its own proposed distribution of the revenue for any of the applicants, which may be the same or different from the LTAC recommendation. If it is different, the City must give the LTAC 45 days to review and provide comments on the proposed revised distribution before taking final action. Under this option, the process would also be delayed considerably as well, due to the additional 45 days for the LTAC review and opportunity to comment. Further, though this is an option, it is one that is untested in the courts and may face additional scrutiny for appearing to take away the recommendation from the LTAC. The City used this option in 2017 for the 2018 awards to ensure transparency and the public confidence due to questions from the public that arose during the LTAC review and recommendation process. To date, there have been no such issues identified with the LTAC review and recommendation process this year for the 2021 awards. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to make the following allocation of Lodging Tax funds for calendar year 2021: Historic Flight Foundation — up to $15,000 HUB Sports Center — up to $45,000 JAKT — Brews, Beats & Eats — up to $2, 600 JAKT — Crave NW— up to $15,200 JAKT — Farmers Market— up to $7,200 Northwest Winterfest — up to $49, 000 Spokane County Fair & Expo — up to $49, 000 Spokane Sports Commission — up to $27,000 Valleyfest — up to $12,600 Valleyfest Cycle Celebration — up to $1,800 And an amount of the remainder of actual lodging tax collections to be moved into the 1.3% Lodging Tax Fund account dedicated for a large sports venue or venues for tourism facilities that generate overnight guests so that the ending fund balance in the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund #105 is approximately $165,000 at the end of 2021. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2021 Proposed Budget includes total revenues of $352,000 including $346,000 of lodging taxes. Total expenditures are budgeted at $708,240 including $30,000 to offset advertising at CenterPlace and up to $678,240 to be allocated through this award process. The $678,240 includes the $224,400 available for recommended awards by the LTAC as well as $453,840 the LTAC recommended for the Council to transfer into the 1.3% Lodging Tax Fund account dedicated for a large sports venue or venues for tourism facilities if revenue estimates don't further decline due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. Total expenditures are expected to exceed total revenues by $356,240 and this will be offset through the use of a portion of the fund balance. The fund balance at the conclusion of 2021 is expected to be $165,000 which should be adequate to cover cash flow needs. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes of October 15, 2020, Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting. • Chart reflecting a history of hotel/motel tax receipts from January 2011 through October 2020. • Fund #105 — Hotel/Motel Tax — history of revenues and expenditures — 2016 through 2019 Actuals and 2020 and 2021 Budgets. • Lodging Tax Application and Award History for the years 2003 through 2020. • Separately distributed binder titled "Lodging Tax 2021" that was also utilized by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee at their October 15, 2020 meeting. 3 MINUTES LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING October 15, 2020 8:00 a.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 10210 East Sprague Avenue Meeting Held via Zoom Attendance: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Members: Chair: Mayor Ben Wick Lee Cameron, Mirabeau Park Hotel Colleen Heinselman, Hampton Inn Suites Wayne Brokaw, Spokane County Fair Board Gregory Repetti, The HUB Staff Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Sarah Farr, Accounting Technician Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Chair Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and welcomed everyone, after which there were self -introductions. Deputy City Attorney Lamb went through his Open Public Government PowerPoint training for Committee members and he explained various portions of the Public Records Act, and the Open Public Meetings Act. Mayor Wick made some opening comments about tax trends and what the COVID pandemic is doing to the tourism/lodging industry. He also mentioned the TPA's (aka Hotel/Motel Association) request to the state legislature to change the room tax rates from its current $2.00 a night to $5.00 a night and that there was a request from the Sports Commission to have the change at $4.00 a night rather than the $5.00; he said nothing has been finalized. He also mentioned the Council's goals for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) and said the goals have not changed from the previous year. Finance Director Taylor went through the information contained in the Memorandum included with the packet materials, about projected revenues and transfer of funds to Fund 104; followed by Deputy City Attorney Lamb explaining the use of funds and any proposed changes as per RCW 78.28.1817; he noted that for this LTAC meeting, committee members should think about how to award for 2021, keeping in mind impact on 2020 and where the ending cash fund might be as well as uncertainty for cash collections for 2020 and 2021. Mr. Lamb stated that comments Committee members might want to pass to Council regarding funding include award recommendations for 2021, as well as any other motions or comments, and that Council will take final action on 2020 through a 2020 budget amendment in December. Mr. Lamb also noted that regarding the applications, some were for marketing and some for actual operations, and due to Covid restrictions, some were not able to proceed as planned; he also reminded committee members the LTAC funds are awarded on a reimbursement basis; so if some applicants used the funds for marketing, those can be reimbursed, but we will not pay for events that did not occur. Finance Director Taylor said she has been in contact with all awardees to let them know that the exact amount the City will be paying is uncertain. Director Taylor also went over the contents of the meeting binder, and mentioned which events took place and which didn't, and that even though some events didn't take place, some could still have partial spending, such as Crave NW which didn't occur but did have marketing expenses; she also mentioned that the NW Winterfest event for this year is still uncertain; she noted the $30,000 set aside for CenterPlace, which is allowed by state statute as it constitutes historic use of the tax. Director Taylor mentioned the $710,000 anticipated amounts for 2021, minus the $30,000 to CenterPlace which leaves $680,000 for award allocations. LTAC Minutes October 15, 2020 Page 1 of 3 Presentations were made in the following order: 1. Historic Flight Foundation — Mr. John Sessions Chair of the Board John Sessions noted they seek $15,000 for marketing their Vintage Aircraft Weekend, which will be a community and family event to celebrate vintage aircraft and history. 2. The HUB — Mr. Phil Champlin Mr. Champlin explained that the HUB seeks $45,000 for recruiting events to the facility. 3. JAKT Brews, Beats & Eats — Mr. Tom Stebbins and Executive Director Ms. Katie Lee Mr. Stebbins seeks $20,000 for the Brews, Beats & Arts community event, which is an event for all ages celebrating local beer, food and music; and the funds will be used to assist in conducting the event as well as with infrastructure costs. 4. JAKT Crave — Mr. Tom Stebbins Mr. Stebbins seeks $25,000 for the Crave event, which will include cost for a social media team that includes photography and video assets and PR outreach. 5. JAKT Farmers Market — Mr. Tom Stebbins Mr. Stebbins seeks $20,000 to continue the Farmers Market at CenterPlace; that the requested amount is for the market manager position, a position to maintain organized vendors to bring vendors and the public to the community and the event and to boost attendance. 6. Northwest Winterfest — Mr. Sam Song and Ms. Charity Doyl The applicants seek $50,000 to assist with this event to include operation and marketing. 7. Spokane County Fair and Expo center — Ms. Erin Gurtel and Ms. Rachelle Buchanan The applicants seek $50,000 to market and advertise the Fair and interim events to an audience in and beyond the Spokane area. 9. Valleyfest — Ms. Peggy Doering Ms. Doering seeks $18,000 for marketing Valleyfest in and beyond the Spokane region. 10. Valleyfest Cycle Celebration — Ms. Peggy Doering Ms. Doering seeks $5,000 for marketing the City of Spokane Valley as a destination to cyclists and their families. 8. Spokane Sports Commission - Ms. Ashley Blake The Sports Commission seeks $55,000 to support tourism events in 2021. There was some discussion about the Sports Commission's request and that they also requested $50,000 from the City of Spokane Lodging Tax. Ms. Blake explained that the City of Spokane has had a bit of a delay in their process and she is hopeful to secure a little more from them. Chair Mayor Wick called for a five-minute recess at 11:04 a.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 11:09 a.m. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee members develop funding recommendations Ms. Taylor distributed a blank spreadsheet to each committee member; went over the actuals for 2016 through 2019 and 2020 as well as the 2021 budget figures; and mentioned the $163,000 minimum for cash flow purposes. There as brief discussion about the minimum cash flow amount and Director Taylor LTAC Minutes October 15, 2020 Page 2 of 3 explained she is hesitant to reduce that figure. There was also discussion about the budget and presumed revenues, and the amount of the cash reserve. There was a great deal of discussion about the overall budget for the lodging tax fund and fund 104 with discussion focused on whether to make any transfer of funds into fund 104. Chair Mayor Wick recommended that there be no transfers in 2020 to fund 104. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said a motion wasn't necessary, as the chair identified the recommendation, or a motion could be made based on the desire of the committee. There was ultimately consensus from the committee that LTAC would cancel any transfers from fund 105 to fund 104 in the year 2020. Lodging Tax advisory Committee members discussion and award recommendations. Director Taylor then asked each committee member to complete the allocation sheet and that she and Ms. Farr would be by in a few minutes to collect the sheets with each Committee member's recommended allocation, after which Ms. Taylor would enter the figures on the spreadsheet. Mr. Lamb reminded everyone that the meeting is still in session. Ms. Taylor entered the figures on the master spreadsheet, which figures where then slightly modified by several of the committee members. The final recommended amounts after calculating the averages, are as follows: Historic Flight Foundation $15,000; HUB Sports Center $45,000; JAKT Brews, Beats & Eats $2,600; JAKT Crave $15,200; JAKT Farmers Market $7,200; NW Winterfest $49,000; Spokane County Fair and Expo Center $49,000; Spokane Sports Commission $27,000; Valleyfest $12,600; and Valleyfest Cycle Celebration $1,800 for a total of $224,400. It was moved by Lee Cameron, seconded, and unanimously agreed to accept the average amounts in the total amount of $224,400. Ms. Taylor said she would email a final distribution sheet to each committee member. Discussion resumed about the transfer of funds and the ending fund balance, which finally culminated in a motion by Mr. Repetti as follows: It was moved by Mr. Repetti and seconded that all remaining funds be transferred to fund 104 after complete adjudication of all awards and allowing a reserve fund balance of $165, 000 at the end of year 2021. Discussion included mention by Director Taylor that getting to exactly $165,000 would be difficult, and perhaps adding the word `approximately' would be better. It was moved by Mr. Cameron and seconded to amend the motion by changing the reserve fund balance of $165, 000, to `approximately' $165, 000. Vote by acclamation on the amended motion was unanimous in favor. Committee members then voted by acclamation on the fully amended motion with all members voting unanimously in favor. Director Taylor said an administrative report is scheduled to come before Council November 24, with final action scheduled for the December 8 Council meeting. It was moved by Mr. Repetti, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 12:46 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Christine Bainbridge, Spokane Valley City Clerk LTAC Minutes October 15, 2020 Page 3 of 3 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax\2020\105 hotel motel tax 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - October Actual for the years 2011 through 2020 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 January 22,212 February 22,792 March 24,611 April 38,230 May 33,791 June 41,403 July 49,312 August 57,452 September 58,908 October 39,028 21,442 21,549 25,655 52,130 37,478 43,971 52,819 57,229 64,299 43,699 24,185 25,975 27,739 40,979 40,560 47,850 56,157 63,816 70,794 43,836 25,425 26,014 29,384 48,246 41,123 52,618 61,514 70,384 76,100 45,604 27,092 27,111 32,998 50,455 44,283 56,975 61,809 72,697 74,051 49,880 31,887 27,773 34,330 52,551 50,230 55,060 65,007 73,700 70,305 55,660 27,210 26,795 31,601 52,242 50,112 60,637 69,337 76,972 80,173 56,631 28,752 28,878 31,906 57,664 51,777 62,048 71,865 79,368 79,661 61,826 31,865 32,821 40,076 59,117 53,596 73,721 84,628 91,637 97,531 77,932 36,203 31,035 37,395 24,959 16,906 28,910 41,836 49,772 59,116 50,844 12/2/2020 2019 to 2020 Difference 4,338 13.61% (1,786) (5.44%) (2,681) (6.69%) (34,158) (57.78%) (36,690) (68.46%) (44,811) (60.78%) (42,792) (50.56%) (41,865) (45.69%) (38,415) (39.39%) (27,088) (34.76%) Total Collections 387,740 420,271 441,892 476,411 497,351 516,503 531,710 553,745 642,924 376,976 (265,948) (41.37%) November 37,339 39,301 42,542 39,600 42,376 46,393 47,090 52,868 59,252 0 December 32,523 30,432 34,238 33,256 41,510 33,478 37,180 40,363 41,675 0 Total Collections 457,603 490,004 518,672 549,267 581,237 596,374 615,980 646,976 743,851 376,976 Budget Estimate 480,000 430,000 490,000 530,000 550,000 580,000 580,000 580,000 600,000 650,000 Actual over (under) budg (22,397) 60,004 28,672 19,267 31,237 16,374 35,980 66,976 143,851 (273,024) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% 103.64% 105.68% 102.82% 106.20% 111.55% 123.98% n/a % change in annual total collected 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% 5.82% 2.60% 3.29% 5.03% 14.97% n/a % of budget collected through October 80.78% 97.74% 90.18% 89.89% 90.43% 89.05% 91.67% 95.47% 107.15% 58.00% % of actual total collected through October 84.73% 85.77% 85.20% 86.74% 85.57% 86.61% 86.32% 85.59% 86.43% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of October 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 October 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 October September August ■ July • June • May ■ April • March • February • January Page 22 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\105 Rev and exp CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2020 Budget Amendment and 2021 Budget Fund #105 - Hotel / Motel Tax Fund - Actuals for 2016 through 2019 - 2020 and 2021 Budgets Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest Subtotal revenues Actual 2016 1 2017 2018 I 2019* 596,373 615,980 646,975 743,852 1,275 3,549 7,058 8,459 2020 As Adopted Annualized 8/13/2020 2021 Budget 650,000 346,000 346,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 597,648 619,529 654,033 752,311 656,000 352,000 352,000 Expenditures Transfers out - #001 CenterPlace 30,000 15,778 26,037 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Transfers out - #104 0 250,000 250,000 275,000 0 0 453,840 Transfers out - #309 Parks Capital 58,388 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tourism Promotion 498,172 351,674 321,934 207,000 795,000 319,000 224,400 Subtotal expenditures 586,560 617,452 597,971 512,000 825,000 349,000 708,240 Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 11,088 2,077 56,062 240,311 (169,000) 3,000 (356,240) 208,702 219,790 221,867 277,929 518,240 518,240 521,240 219,790 221,867 277,929 518,240 349,240 521,240 165,000 2020 Awards by Agency HUB Sports Center JAKT - Crave NW JAKT - Farmers Market JAKT - Oktoberfest Northwest Winterfest Spokane County Fair & Expo - marketing Spokane Sports Commission Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration Valleyfest - marketing Visit Spokane 55,020 18,600 8,000 8,400 48,000 66,000 45,000 1,380 18,600 50,000 319,000 for LTAC P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Application / Award History For the years 2003 through 2020 AGENCIES 2003 2004 2005 2006 Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Armed Forces & Aerospace Museum 3,327 0 2,531 0 0 0 0 0 Burke Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CenterPlace - marketing 0 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 CenterPlace - marketing to regional meeting planners 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chamber of Commerce 0 0 0 0 15,440 0 15,440 5,000 City of Spokane Valley - Directed Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Tourism Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Volleyball courts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fair & Expo Marketing 58,376 17,500 35,000 25,000 21,000 18,000 0 0 Fairgrounds 0 0 21,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 Family Guide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friends of Centennial Trail 23,480 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 9,000 0 HUB Sports Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland Dance Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,535 0 Inland NW Sr. Wellness Conference 12,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Crave NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Farmers Market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Oktoberfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latah Creek Wine Cellars 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liberty Lake Rotary Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northwest Winterfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plantes Ferry Park 0 0 71,842 20,000 0 0 23,876 0 Six Bridges Arts Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splash -Down Family Waterpark 230,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spo Con 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Arts Commission 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center - Winter Glow Spe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Parks, Recreation, & Golf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW 5,830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Polo Club 30,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Regional Sports Commission 120,000 52,200 150,000 100,000 100,000 75,000 100,000 84,000 Spokane River Forum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Symphony 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 40,000 1,000 0 0 22,100 10,000 49,104 5,000 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Winery Association 3,285 0 8,250 2,000 0 0 0 0 Sports USA Sports Complex 103,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SV Junior Soccer Association 96,642 24,800 71,842 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 U.S. Figure Skating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest 19,724 2,800 49,700 0 27,200 15,000 25,900 15,000 Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest (additional for Spring 07 (for float) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visit Spokane Visitor Convention Bureau) 200,000 83,700 250,000 150,000 200,000 136,000 200,000 165,000 (Spokane WebMaker 39,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA 50,000 18,000 12,000 6,000 12,000 6,000 17,000 7,000 YMCA Skateboard Park 0 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer out to Fund #104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1,090,264 218,000 694,165 360,000 397,740 260,000 446,855 325,000 Page 1 of 5 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Application / Award History For the years 2003 through 2020 AGENCIES 2007 2008 2009 2010 07 Apply 07 Award Sprg 07 Appl)Sprg 07 Awar Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Armed Forces & Aerospace Museum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burke Marketing 0 0 147,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CenterPlace - marketing 0 40,000 0 0 90,000 90,000 0 90,000 0 37,500 CenterPlace - marketing to regional meeting planners 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chamber of Commerce 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 155,000 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Directed Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Tourism Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Volleyball courts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fair & Expo Marketing 20,000 20,000 0 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 18,250 0 0 Fairgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Guide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friends of Centennial Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HUB Sports Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland Dance Association 0 0 2,535 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland NW Sr. Wellness Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Crave NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Farmers Market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Oktoberfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latah Creek Wine Cellars 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liberty Lake Rotary Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northwest Winterfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plantes Ferry Park 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Six Bridges Arts Association 15,000 12,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splash -Down Family Waterpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spo Con 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Arts Commission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center - Winter Glow Spe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Parks, Recreation, & Golf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Polo Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Regional Sports Commission 100,000 100,000 0 0 175,000 145,000 190,000 115,000 150,000 120,000 Spokane River Forum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Symphony 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 27,450 10,000 0 0 0 0 30,260 3,250 11,600 5,000 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Winery Association 0 0 7,500 7,500 8,300 8,300 9,000 0 0 0 Sports USA Sports Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SV Junior Soccer Association 0 0 17,000 30,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 U.S. Figure Skating 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 Valleyfest 30,000 25,000 5,000 5,000 40,000 30,000 50,000 27,500 50,000 30,000 Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest (additional for Spring 07 (for float) 0 0 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visit Spokane Visitor Convention Bureau) 175,000 175,000 78,000 78,000 325,000 306,000 336,000 236,000 275,000 195,000 (Spokane WebMaker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA Skateboard Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer out to Fund #104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 447,450 432,500 313,535 170,800 823,300 624,300 645,260 505,000 486,600 387,500 Page 2 of 5 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Application / Award History For the years 2003 through 2020 AGENCIES 2011 2012 2013 2014 Application I Award Rnd 1 App I Rnd 1 Awrd I Rnd 2 App I Rnd 2 Awrd Application I Award Application I Award Armed Forces & Aerospace Museum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burke Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CenterPlace - marketing 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 CenterPlace - marketing to regional meeting planners 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chamber of Commerce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Directed Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,000 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Tourism Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Volleyball courts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,500 7,300 Fair & Expo Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fairgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Guide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friends of Centennial Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,600 0 HUB Sports Center 40,000 40,000 50,000 42,600 0 0 50,000 21,100 40,000 36,000 Inland Dance Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland NW Sr. Wellness Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Crave NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Farmers Market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Oktoberfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latah Creek Wine Cellars 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liberty Lake Rotary Club 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 0 Northwest Winterfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plantes Ferry Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Six Bridges Arts Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splash -Down Family Waterpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spo Con 0 0 70,131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Arts Commission 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center 0 0 0 0 30,000 25,900 30,000 27,800 50,000 39,800 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center - Winter Glow Spe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Parks, Recreation, & Golf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Polo Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Regional Sports Commission 165,000 165,000 200,000 185,000 0 0 200,000 150,200 200,000 183,800 Spokane River Forum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Symphony 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 5,000 5,000 5,000 3,900 5,000 1,100 12,000 6,400 20,000 13,100 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Winery Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sports USA Sports Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SV Junior Soccer Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U.S. Figure Skating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest 50,000 36,000 50,000 0 50,000 30,000 50,000 35,200 50,000 20,000 Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest (additional for Spring 07 (for float) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visit Spokane Visitor Convention Bureau) 250,000 250,000 0 0 275,000 251,720 350,000 184,800 280,000 247,000 (Spokane WebMaker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA Skateboard Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer out to Fund #104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 510,000 496,000 375,131 261,500 440,000 308,720 692,000 510,500 659,100 577,000 Page 3 of 5 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Application / Award History For the years 2003 through 2020 AGENCIES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Application I Award Armed Forces & Aerospace Museum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burke Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CenterPlace - marketing 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 30,000 0 30,000 CenterPlace - marketing to regional meeting planners 30,000 17,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chamber of Commerce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Directed Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Tourism Study 0 0 86,750 80,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Spokane Valley - Volleyball courts 120,000 68,000 160,000 60,650 233,508 0 238,000 0 0 0 Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fair & Expo Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fairgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Family Guide 0 0 0 0 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 Friends of Centennial Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HUB Sports Center 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 54,000 48,400 55,100 52,000 Inland Dance Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland NW Sr. Wellness Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JAKT - Crave NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 30,000 60,000 21,500 JAKT - Farmers Market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 7,000 JAKT - Oktoberfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 10,000 20,000 5,000 Latah Creek Wine Cellars 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liberty Lake Rotary Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northwest Winterfest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plantes Ferry Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Six Bridges Arts Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Splash -Down Family Waterpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spo Con 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Arts Commission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center 44,000 44,000 100,000 45,000 60,000 47,000 60,000 50,000 60,000 55,000 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center - Winter Glow Spe 0 0 0 0 20,000 2,170 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Parks, Recreation, & Golf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 35,000 Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Polo Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Regional Sports Commission 200,000 120,000 200,000 121,600 200,000 115,600 200,000 80,000 200,000 0 Spokane River Forum 1,000 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Symphony 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 28,209 18,400 35,800 17,200 27,500 9,500 25,000 13,000 28,500 5,500 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Winery Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sports USA Sports Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SV Junior Soccer Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U.S. Figure Skating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valleyfest 64,000 31,600 60,000 28,900 150,000 31,600 150,000 18,600 150,000 12,000 Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration 0 0 10,000 3,000 25,000 5,000 25,000 2,000 25,000 1,000 Valleyfest (additional for Spring 07 (for float) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visit Spokane Visitor Convention Bureau) 328,430 230,000 253,777 163,650 282,830 103,130 282,830 70,000 200,000 48,000 (Spokane WebMaker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YMCA Skateboard Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer out to Fund #104 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 250,000 0 275,000 Total 855,639 600,000 946,327 590,000 1,073,838 634,000 1,104,830 602,000 888,600 547,000 Page 4 of 5 P:\Finance\2021 Budget\Budget Worksheets\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Application / Award History For the years 2003 through 2020 AGENCIES 2020 Application I Award Armed Forces & Aerospace Museum Burke Marketing CenterPlace - marketing CenterPlace - marketing to regional meeting planners Chamber of Commerce City of Spokane Valley - Directed Marketing City of Spokane Valley - Tourism Study City of Spokane Valley - Volleyball courts Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion Fair & Expo Marketing Fairgrounds Family Guide Friends of Centennial Trail HUB Sports Center Inland Dance Association Inland NW Sr. Wellness Conference JAKT - Crave NW JAKT - Farmers Market JAKT - Oktoberfest Latah Creek Wine Cellars Liberty Lake Rotary Club Northwest Winterfest Plantes Ferry Park Six Bridges Arts Association Splash -Down Family Waterpark Spo Con Spokane Arts Commission Spokane County Fair & Expo Center Spokane County Fair & Expo Center - Winter Glow Spe Spokane County Parks, Recreation, & Golf Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW Spokane Polo Club Spokane Regional Sports Commission Spokane River Forum Spokane Symphony Spokane Valley Heritage Museum Spokane Valley Soccer Club Spokane Winery Association Sports USA Sports Complex SV Junior Soccer Association U.S. Figure Skating Valleyfest Valleyfest - Cycle Celebration Valleyfest (additional for Spring 07 (for float) Visit Spokane (Spokane Visitor Convention Burc\au) WebMaker YMCA YMCA Skateboard Park Transfer out to Fund #104 Total 3/31/2020 Total Application Award O 0 5,858 0 O 0 147,500 0 O 30,000 90,000 607,500 O 0 30,000 17,000 O 0 285,880 105,000 O 0 0 55,000 O 0 86,750 80,000 O 0 751,508 128,650 O 0 7,500 7,300 O 0 194,376 128,750 O 0 21,000 15,000 O 0 35,000 0 O 0 41,080 2,000 55,100 55,020 464,200 415,120 O 0 5,070 0 O 0 12,500 0 38,000 18,600 148,000 70,100 18,000 8,000 33,000 15,000 20,000 8,400 60,000 23,400 O 0 20,000 0 O 0 10,000 0 50,000 48,000 50,000 48,000 O 0 125,718 20,000 O 0 15,000 12,500 O 0 230,000 0 O 0 70,131 0 O 0 65,000 0 75,000 66,000 509,000 400,500 O 0 20,000 2,170 O 0 75,000 35,000 O 0 5,830 0 O 0 30,100 0 50,000 45,000 2,900,000 1,957,400 O 0 1,000 1,000 O 0 40,000 0 O 0 372,523 127,350 O 0 25,000 0 O 0 36,335 17,800 O 0 103,000 0 O 0 189,484 59,100 O 0 0 30,000 150,000 18,600 1,271,524 412,800 25,000 1,380 110,000 12,380 O 0 6,000 0 50,000 50,000 4,591,867 3,123,000 O 0 39,000 0 O 0 91,000 37,000 O 0 0 18,000 O 450,000 0 1,225,000 531,100 799,000 13,421,734 9,208,820 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 8, 2020 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule for 2021. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Master Fee Schedule setting 2020 fees was established via Resolution #19-019 and was adopted by the City Council on December 10, 2019. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Although the revenue impact of City fees is included in the 2021 Budget, no previous Council action has been taken nor have discussions taken place regarding changes to the attached proposed Resolution #20-016. Revenues generated by the fee resolution in 2021 account for: • $2,596,719 or 5.72% of total General Fund recurring revenues of $45,426,419. • $1,900,000 or 97.94% of total Stormwater Management Fund recurring revenues of $1,940,000. BACKGROUND: Part of the annual operating budget development process involves City Departments reviewing the Master Fee Schedule that is currently in place, and determining whether changes in the fees charged and/or language used in the governing resolution should be altered. Recommended changes to the fee schedule are as follows: • Under Schedule A — Planning — The Community and Public Works Department is proposing the following changes to the fee schedule in order to bring current fees in line with surrounding jurisdictions, clarify and simplify various fees, and add new application and permit fees. • Amendments o Comprehensive Plan Amendment - increase to $2,500 from $1,500 o Zoning or other code text amendment - increase to $2,500 $1,500 • Appeal o Appeal of Administrative Decision - reduce to $750 from $1,050 o Appeal of Hearing Examiners Findings - increase to $1,000 from $315 • Environmental Review — SEPA o Single Dwelling - increase to $280 from $100 • Shoreline —Substantial Development Permit is proposed to be split into two fees. o Substantial Development Permit - under $50,000 - $1,000 o Substantial Development Permit - over $50,000 - $1,600 o Shoreline Exemption - increase to $600 from $420 • Critical Areas o Floodplain Permit not associated with a subdivision - increase to $500 from $315 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 12-081item 7 2020 12 08 RCA for Fee Resolution.docx o Floodplain Permit associated with a subdivision - increase to $500 + $52 per lot from $315 o Small Cell Permits, Home Occupation, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), Conditional Use and Temporary Use Permits are being relocated to the OTHER section at the bottom of page 4 allowing the second "Other" section is proposed to be eliminated in the Master Fee Schedule from page 3. • Land Use Actions o Preliminary Plat - increase to $2,500 + $40 per lot from $2,324 o Time Extensions file and review letter - increase to $500 from $80 • Short Plats o Preliminary plat 2 to 4 lots - increase to $2,000 from $1,224 o Final plat 2 to 4 lots - increase to $1,200 from $924 o Preliminary plat 5 to 9 lots - increase to $2,000 + $25 per lot from $1,424 o Final plat 5 to 9 lots - increase to $1,300 + $25 per lot from $1,224 o Time Extensions file and review letter - increase to $500 from $80 • Plat Alterations o Subdivision plat - increase to $1,200 from $682 o Short plat - increase to $750 from $278 • Binding Site Plan o Binding site plan alteration - increase to $2,000 from $278 o Change of Conditions - increase to $2000 from $650 o Preliminary binding site plan - increase to $2000 from $1,674 o Creating lots within final binding site plan via Record of Survey - increase to $1,500 from $500 o Final Binding Site Plan - increase to $2,000 from $924 • Aggregation/Segregation o Lot line adjustment - increase to $250 from $105 o Lot line elimination - increase to $200 from $105 o Zero lot line - increase to $200 + $10 per lot from $105 • Signs are proposed to be relocated to the Building section of the Master Fee Schedule on page 10. • Other o Administrative Exception - increase to $500 from $315 o Administrative Interpretations - increase to $350 from $100 o Home Occupation Permit - increase to $100 from $84 o Accessory Dwelling Unit - increase to $300 from $84 o Conditional Use Permit - increase to $1,600 from $840 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 12-081item 7 2020 12 08 RCA for Fee Resolution.docx o Temporary Use Permit - increase to $500 from $157 • Zoning o Zoning map amendments (rezone) - increase to $3,500 from $1,650 o Planned residential development plan - increase to $2,000 + $26 per lot from $1,575 • Under Schedule B — Building - The Community and Public Works Department is proposing the following changes to the fee schedule in order to bring current fees in line with surrounding jurisdictions, clarify and simplify various fees, and add new application and permit fees. • Plan Review and Permit Fees — existing administrative fee of $35.00 to be retained for refunds is proposed to be changed to the city hourly rate fee for employees at $61.00 per hour. • Fees — General o Work beyond the scope of work — add new fee of $150 o Plan Review Fee Calculation — eliminate cap of $35,000 on Initial Plan Review Fees. • Other Building Permits o Over the Counter Service - eliminate fee o New Residential Home Site Plan Review - increase to $300 from $50 o Residential Accessory Structure Site Plan Review - increase to $80 from $50 o Commercial Site Plan Review - increase to $550 from $275 • Demolition Permit o Add a plural reference to Commercial Building(s) — grammatical correction o Addition of "Building Permit' to the Foundation Only listing for clarity o Swimming Pools, over 2 feet in depth — increase to $61 from $52 • Temporary Certificate of Occupancy o Commercial or Multifamily Building - add new fee of $200 o Residential Building - add new fee of $150 • Factory Assembled Structure (FAS) Placement Permit — (New Fee) fee of $50.00 has been charged but was not listed in the Master Fee Schedule. This fee is proposed to be adjusted to $50.00 per section. • Sign Permit o Wall Sign Permit - increase to $75/sign from $48/sign o Freestanding or Monument Sign Permit - increase to $100/sign from $68/sign o Sign Plan Review Fee - increase to $85 + Engineering from $50 • Right of Way Permit o Pavement cut obstruction, non -winter - increase to $200 from $168 o Commercial Approach Permit - increase to $75 from $52 o Residential Approach Permit - increase to $70 from $52 o Erosion/Sediment Control Site Inspection - add new fee of $100 • Grading Permit O 100 Cubic Yards (CY) — increase to $25.00 O 101 — 1,000 CY — increase to $25.00 for 1st 100 CY + $7.00 for each additional 100 CY O 1,001-10,000 CY — increase to $125.00 for 1st 1,000 CY + $10.00 for each additional 1,000 CY P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 12-081item 7 2020 12 08 RCA for Fee Resolution.docx O 10,001 — 100,000 CY — increase to $225.00 for 1st 10,000 CY + $35.00 for each additional 10,000 CY O 100,001 — 200,000 CY — increase to $525.00 for 1st 100,000 CY + $25.00 for each additional 10,000 CY O 200,000 CY or more — increase to $800.00 for 1st 200,000 CY + $25.00 for each additional 10,000 CY • Grading Plan Permit Review Fee O 51-100 Cubic Yards (CY) - increase to $20.00 O 101 — 1,000 CY - increase to $25.00 O 1,001-10,000 CY — increase to $35.00 O 10,001 — 100,000 CY — increase to $35.00 for 1st 10,000 CY + $25.00 each additional 10,000 CY O 100,001 — 200,000 CY - increase to $175.00 for 1st 100,000 CY + $25.00 each additional 10,000 CY O 200,000 CY or more - increase to $625.00 for 1st 200,000 CY + $25.00 each additional 10,000 CY • Name change from Land Clearing Only (without earth being moved) to the actual permit title of "Clearing and Grubbing" • Other Engineering o Design Deviation - add new fee of $150 o Oversized Load Permit Fee - increase to $75 from $26 • Structure Transport Permit- Increase to $150 from $110 • Under Schedule C — Parks and Recreation — The Parks and Recreation Department is proposing some changes to the fee schedule in order to clarify and simplify various fees related to Aquatics, CenterPlace and Parks. The proposed fees are necessary due to the addition of new facilities, maintaining cost recovery, and area competiveness: • Aquatics o (Add) Refundable Pool Rental Damage Deposit - $150 o Eliminate all Reservation categories, Food fees, and related wording o (Add) Pool Rental (fewer than 100 people) - $300 for 2 hr. rental o (Add) Pool Rental (101 — 200 people) - $400 for 2 hr. rental • CenterPlace o Eliminate Patio Event Package • Great Room o Eliminate kitchen deposit o Eliminate Stage o Eliminate Stage Removal • Senior Center Wing o Eliminate Private Dining Room o Eliminate Private dining room deposit o Eliminate Wellness Center • West Lawn and CenterPlace P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 12-081item 7 2020 12 08 RCA for Fee Resolution.docx o (Add) West Lawn Plaza Rental - $2,000 per day ■ (Add) North Meadow additional $500 per day • Miscellaneous o Eliminate Television/VCR o Eliminate Touch Pad Voting System o After the words LCD Projector add /Television o Increase coffee service to $40 per service from $25 o Eliminate Children's Birthday Package • Picnic Shelter Reservation o Under Discovery Playground, eliminate the #1 o Eliminate Discovery Playground #2 in its entirety • Refundable Facility/Pool Damage Deposit o Remove the word "pool" in the above section heading. • Under Schedule E — Other Fees • Business Registration - increase to $25 from $13 • Nonprofit Registration - increase to $10 from $3 • Under Schedule G — Transportation Impact Fees - add South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule. OPTIONS: Proceed with the proposed fee resolution and amendments to the Master Fee Schedule as presented this evening, with or without further modifications. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff recommends the proposed Resolution #20-016, amending the Master Fee Schedule, be placed on the December 15, 2020, Council agenda for approval consideration. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The proposed changes are not expected to have a significant impact on 2021 revenues. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Memo from the Parks and Recreation Department that provides a detailed description and rationale for proposed fee changes. • Memo from the Community and Public Works Department that provides a detailed description and rationale for the proposed fee changes. • Master Fee Comparison from the Community and Public Works Department. • A strike-through/underlined copy of the proposed Resolution #20-016 showing recommended changes. P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for WebI202012020, 12-081item 7 2020 12 08 RCA for Fee Resolution.docx s1ji's44l.I jualiey Memorandum 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org To: City Council Members; Mark Calhoun, City Manager From: Michael D. Stone, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: October 30, 2020 Re: 2021 Fee Resolution Proposals The Parks and Recreation Department would like to propose some changes to the current fee resolution for 2020. These new fee proposals are being submitted in an effort to clarify and simplify various fees related to Aquatics, CenterPlace or Parks as well as improving our customer service. The proposed fees are necessary due to the addition of new facilities, maintaining cost recovery and area competiveness. Proposed Changes under the following fee resolution categories: • Aquatics o (Add) Refundable Pool Rental Damage Deposit - $150 o Eliminate all Reservation categories, Food fees, and related wording o (Add) Pool Rental (fewer than 100 people) - $300 for 2 hr. rental o (Add) Pool Rental (101 — 200 people) - $400 for 2 hr. rental • CenterPlace o Eliminate Patio Event Package • Great Room o Eliminate kitchen deposit o Eliminate Stage o Eliminate Stage Removal • Senior Center Wing o Eliminate Private Dining Room o Eliminate Private dining room deposit o Eliminate Wellness Center • West Lawn and CenterPlace 1 o (Add) West Lawn Plaza Rental - $2,000 per day ■ (Add) North Meadow additional $500 per day • Miscellaneous o Eliminate Television/VCR o Eliminate Touch Pad Voting System o Add the word "Television" after the word "Projector" and eliminate VCR o Add the word "Television" after the word "Projector" and eliminate VCR o Increase coffee service to $40 per service o Eliminate Children's Birthday Package • Picnic Shelter Reservation o Under Discovery Playground, eliminate the #1 o Eliminate Discovery Playground #2 in its entirety • Refundable Facility/Pool Damage Deposit o Remove the word "pool" in the above section heading. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please let me know. Thank you. 2 Sfiaane .0.00Valley Phone: 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 (509) 720-5240 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 • permitcenter@spokanevalley.org Memorandum Date: 12/3/2020 To: City Council Members; Mark Calhoun, City Manager From: Greg Baldwin, Development Services Coordinator CC: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Re: 2021 Fee Resolution Proposals The Community and Public Works Department would like to propose the following changes to the current master fee schedule resolution for 2021. We have attached a detailed regional jurisdictional comparison of current fees with seven local jurisdictions, cities of comparable population and Spokane County. The last comprehensive fee comparison review for Community Development was performed in 2007 with some minor updates performed including a Development Engineering update in 2016 with a similar comparison. Staff performed some minor fee relocations within the master fee schedule to eliminate "other" references in various sections and to relocate fees to appropriate grouped fee areas. Fee updates were made by comparing the average/base value of similar permit fees with other jurisdictions and staying below the average/base value for COSV permit fees. In all cases we attempted to compare fee changes to reflect the appropriate regional values to fees being charged by adjacent jurisdictions. Fees were kept below the average/base value and discussed between staff and management to review time spent on the fees listed in the Master Fee Schedule. When limited fee comparisons were reviewed management requested that we maintain levels below the average/base values. All new application or permit fee proposals have been listed below to identify the new fees. The current fees that exist on the 2020 fee schedule are listed in order on the fee chart comparison and the existing fee schedule. The other fee changes to values were carried from the comparison chart on the third box from the existing permit fee for 2020. Here is the explanation list for all new fees proposed for the 2021 Master Fee Schedule. Proposed New/Adjusted Fee Listings for the Community and Public Works Department; 1) Amendments — Paue 3 Master Fee Schedule a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, existing fee of $1500 is proposed to be adjusted to $2500, which is $200 below the average base permit cost when compared to adjacent jurisdictions. (See Community Development Fee Schedule Comparison - attached). b. Zoning or other code text amendment - existing fee of $1500 is proposed to be adjusted to $2500, which is below the average base permit cost when compared to adjacent jurisdictions by $749.00. (See Community Development Fee Schedule Comparison - attached). 2) Appeal a. Appeal of Administrative Decision — The existing fee was reduced to $750 when compared to the average base permit cost of $714. The proposal is $36.00 above this average compared to adjacent jurisdictions. b. Appeal of Hearing Examiners Findings was proposed to be adjusted from the existing fee of $315.00 to $1000 which is below the average base permit cost when compared to adjacent jurisdictions by $115.00. 2021 Master Fee Schedule Resolution Proposals Page 1 of 6 3) Environmental Review - State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) a. Single Dwelling (when required) - existing fee $100.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $280.00 which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 4) Shoreline - Substantial Development Permit is proposed to be split into two fees. a. Substantial Development Permit - under $50,000, existing fee of $840.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $1000.00, which is $607.00 below the average base permit cost when compared to adjacent jurisdictions. b. Substantial Development Permit - over $50,000, existing fee of $840.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $1600.00, which is proposed at $7.00 below the average base permit cost when compared to adjacent jurisdictions. c. Shoreline Exemption - was proposed to be adjusted from $420.00 to $600.00, which is $109.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 5) Critical Areas - a. Floodplain Permit not associated with a subdivision, existing fee $315.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $500.00 which is $235.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Floodplain Permit not associated with a subdivision, existing fee $315.00 + $52.00 per lot is proposed to be adjusted to $500.00 + $52.00 per lot which is $5.00 above the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 6) Small Cell Permits, Home Occupation, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), Conditional Use and Temporary Use Permits are being relocated to the OTHER section at the bottom of page 4 allowing the second "Other" section is proposed to be eliminated in the Master Fee Schedule from page 3. 7) Land Use Actions - Subdivisions a. Preliminary Plat - existing fee of $2324.00 + $40.00 per lot is proposed to be adjusted to $2500.00 + $40.00 per lot, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Time Extensions - file review and letter, existing fee of $80.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $500.00, which $75.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 8) Short Plats a. Preliminary plat 2 to 4 lots - existing fee of $1224.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $2000.00, which is $182 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Final plat 2 to 4 lots - existing fee of $924.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $1200.00, which is $85 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. c. Preliminary plat 5 to 9 lots - existing fee of $1424.00 + $25.00 per lot is proposed to be adjusted to $2000.00 + $25.00, which is $142.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions and is $3.00 per lot above the average base permit cost. d. Final plat 5 to 9 lots - existing fee of $1224.00 + $10.00 per lot is proposed to be adjusted to $1300.00 + $25.00, which is $119.00 + $1.00 per lot below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. e. Time Extensions - file review and letter, existing fee of $80.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $500.00, which $74.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 9) Plat Alterations a. Subdivision plat - existing fee of $682.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $1200.00, which is $160.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Short plat - existing fee of $278.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $750.00, which is $670.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 10) Binding Site Plan a. Binding site plan alteration - existing fee of $278.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $2000.00, which is $203.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Change of Conditions - existing fee of $650.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $2000.00, which is $715.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. c. Preliminary binding site plan - existing fee of $1674.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $2000.00, which is $353.0.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 2021 Master Fee Schedule Resolution Proposals Page 2 of 6 d. Creating lots within final binding site plan via Record of Survey - existing fee of $500.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $1500.00, which is $876.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. e. Final Binding Site Plan - existing fee of $924.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $2000.00, which is $1251.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 11) Aggregation/Segregation a. Lot line adjustment - existing fee of $105.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $250.00, which is $115.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Lot line elimination - existing fee of $105.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $200.00, which is $22.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. c. Zero lot line - existing fee of $105.00 + $10.00 per lot is proposed to be adjusted to $200.00 + 10.00 per lot, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 12) Signs are proposed to be relocated to the Building section of the Master Fee Schedule on page 10. 13) OTHER a. Administrative Exception - existing fee of $315.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $500.00, which is $390.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Administrative Interpretations - existing fee of $100.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $350.00, which is $198.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. c. Home Occupation Permit - existing fee of $84.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $100.00, which is $40.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions d. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - existing fee of $84.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $300.00, which is $72.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. e. Conditional Use Permit - existing fee of $840.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $1600.00, which is $296.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. f. Temporary Use Permit - existing fee of $157.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $500.00, which is $38.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions 14) Zoning a. Zoning map amendments (rezone) - existing fee of $1650.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $3500.00, which is $600.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Planned residential development plan - existing fee of $1575.00 + $26.00 per lot is proposed to be adjusted to $2000.00 + $26.00 per lot, which is $56.00 above the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 15) Building - Schedule B - Page 6 - Fee Refund Policy a. Plan Review and Permit Fees - existing administrative fee of $35.00 to be retained for refunds is proposed to be changed to the city hourly rate fee for employees at $61.00 per hour. This change will address the staff cost for processing refunds at the adopted hourly level. 16) Fees - General a. Work beyond the scope of work (New Fee) - this fee is proposed at $150.00, which is $13.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Plan Review Fee Calculation - Elimination of "Initial Plan Review Fees are capped at $35,000 not including pass through expensed for outside review as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. The City of Spokane Valley has seen increasing project valuations and the fact that a growing number of projects' valuations take them far above that cap, we believe that it results in plan review fees which are very much inconsistent with the regional adjacent jurisdictions. Therefore, we propose to eliminate the $35,000 cap. 17) Other Building Permits: a. Over the Counter Service - eliminate a fee code that is not currently being utilized. b. Site Plan Review 2021 Master Fee Schedule Resolution Proposals Page 3 of 6 i. New Residential Home Site Plan Review - existing fee $50.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $300.00 which is $516.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. ii. Residential Accessory Structure Site Plan Review - existing fee included in the Site Plan Review fee code at $80.00. This new fee listing is a split description proposed to address review for accessory structures, which is $636.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. iii. Commercial Site Plan Review - existing fee $275.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $550.00 which is $800.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 18) Demolition Permit - a. Add a plural reference to Commercial Building(s) - grammatical correction b. Addition of `Building Permit' to the Foundation Only listing for clarity c. Swimming Pools, over 2 feet in depth - existing fee of $52.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $61.00 to align with the hourly rate for city employees. 19) Temporary Certificate of Occupancy i. Commercial or Multifamily Building - The permit center is experiencing an increase in requests for early occupancy of buildings prior to required final document submittals or the permittee cannot complete the improvements because of weather related issues. We propose a certificate fee of $200.00 for these requests. This certificate fee is $50.00 below the average charge for adjacent jurisdictions. ii. Residential Building - The permit center is experiencing an increase in requests for early occupancy of buildings prior to final document submittals or the permittee cannot complete the improvements because of weather related issues. We propose a certificate fee of $150.00, which is $15.00 below the average charge of adjacent jurisdictions. 20) Factory Assembled Structure (FAS) Placement Permit - (New Fee) fee of $50.00 has been charged but was not listed in the Master Fee Schedule. This fee is proposed to be adjusted to $50.00 per section which is $67.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 21) Sign Permit: a. Wall Sign Permit - existing fee $48.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $75.00/sign which is $25.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Freestanding or Monument Sign Permit - existing fee $68.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $100.00/sign which is $42.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. c. Sign Plan Review Fee - existing fee $50.00 + Engineering is proposed to be adjusted to $85.00 which is $15.00 below the current fee for planning/building and engineering review. 22) Right -of -Way (ROW) Permit: a. Pavement cut obstruction, non -winter - existing fee $168.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $200.00 which is $173.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Commercial Approach Permit - existing fee $52.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $75.00 which is $11.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. c. Residential Approach Permit - existing fee $52.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $70.00 which is $13.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. d. Erosion/Sediment Control - Site Inspection (New Fee) - Development Engineering is implementing a site inspection requirement to confirm erosion control measures are being implemented as required by grading permits approved by the City of Spokane Valley. 23) Grading Permit: a. 100 Cubic Yards (CY) - existing fee of $21.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $25.00, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. 101 - 1,000 CY - existing fee of $21.00 for 1st 100 CY + $7.00 each additional 100 CY is proposed to be adjusted to $25.00 for 1st 100 CY + $7.00 for each additional 100 CY, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 2021 Master Fee Schedule Resolution Proposals Page 4 of 6 c. 1,001-10,000 CY - existing fee of $88.00 for 1st 100 CY + $6.00 each additional 1,000 CY is proposed to be adjusted to $125.00 for 1st 1,000 CY + $10.00 for each additional 1,000 CY, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. d. 10,001 - 100,000 CY - existing fee of $154.00 for 1st 100 CY + $15.00 each additional 1,000 CY is proposed to be adjusted to $225.00 for 1st 10,000 CY + $35.00 for each additional 10,000 CY, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. e. 100,001 - 200,000 CY - existing fee of $386.00 for 1st 100,000 CY + $15.00 each additional 10,000 CY is proposed to be adjusted to $525.00 for 1st 100,000 CY + $25.00 for each additional 10,000 CY, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. f. 200,000 CY or more - existing fee of $528.00 for 1st 200,000 CY + $15.00 each additional 10,000 CY is proposed to be adjusted to $800.00 for 1st 200,000 CY + $25.00 for each additional 10,000 CY, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 24) Grading Plan Permit Review Fee: a. 51-100 Cubic Yards (CY) - existing fee of $12.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $20.00, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. 101 - 1,000 CY - existing fee of $21.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $25.00, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. c. 1,001-10,000 CY - existing fee of $27.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $35.00, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. d. 10,001 - 100,000 CY - existing fee of $27.00 for 1st 10,000 CY + $7.00 each additional 10,000 CY is proposed to be adjusted to $35.00 for 1st 10,000 CY + $25.00 each additional 10,000 CY, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. e. 100,001 - 200,000 CY - existing fee of $104.00 for 1st 100,000 CY + $6.00 each additional 10,000 CY is proposed to be adjusted to $175.00 for 1st 100,000 CY + $25.00 each additional 10,000 CY, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. f. 200,000 CY or more - existing fee of $166.00 for 1st 200,000 CY + $25.00 each additional 10,000 CY is proposed to be adjusted to $625.00 for 1st 200,000 CY + $25.00 each additional 10,000 CY, which is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 25) The name change from Land Clearing Only (without earth being moved) to the actual permit title of "Clearing and Grubbing" is proposed to clarify the description in the Master Fee Schedule. 26) Other Engineering a. Design Deviation - (New Fee) - Any deviations from the City of Spokane Valley Street Standards requires review and approval by the Development Engineer and City Engineer prior to deviation approval. The existing application does not have a fee associated with this design deviation request. Development Engineering have proposed a fee of $150.00 for this design deviation request. The proposed fee of $150.00 is the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Oversized Load Permit Fee (moved from Schedule E) - existing fee of $26.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $75.00, which is $25.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 27) Structure Transport Permit - The permit fee for a structure to be transported over city of Spokane Valley right-of- way is currently handled by a right-of-way permit. City staff must coordinate multiple issues with transportation agencies and this permit fee is proposed to be listed separately and needs to have a distinct review and fee in accordance with this permit type. The existing fee $110.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $150.00 per section which is $33.33 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. 28) Schedule E - Other Fees a. Business Registration - existing fee of $13.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $25.00, which is $26.00 below the average base permit cost charged by adjacent jurisdictions. b. Nonprofit Registration - existing fee of $3.00 is proposed to be adjusted to $10.00, this permit category is not listed by any adjacent jurisdictions. 29) South Barker Road Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule: Table 5 - from the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule - (New Fees) - Applicable impact fee schedule was added to the proposed 2020 Master Fee Schedule update from the study scheduled to be heard for possible adoption by the City Council. 2021 Master Fee Schedule Resolution Proposals Page 5 of 6 Schedule G — Transportation Impact Fees SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Base Rate = $1,272 per PM Peak Trip Land Use Group ITE Code ITE Land Use Category Impact Fee Per Unit Residential 210 220 Single Family & Duplex Multi -Family $1,260 $713 per dwelling unit per dwelling unit 310 Hotel (3 or More Levels) $891 per room Services 492 Health Club $4.39 per sq ft 912 Bank $17.17 per sq ft 520 Elementary School $1.74 per sq ft Institution 522 Middle School $1.51 per sq ft 530 High school $1.23 per sq ft 925 Drinking Establishment $8.24 per sq ft Restaurant 934 Fast Food Restaurant (with Drive-Thru) $20.79 per sq ft 937 Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru $6.07 per sq ft 820 Shopping Center $3.20 per sq ft Retail 841 Automobile Sales — Used/New $4.77 per sq ft 853 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps $9,968 per pump 110 Light Industry/High Technology $0.80 per sq ft Industrial 140 Manufacturing $0.85 per sq ft 151 Mini -Storage $0.22 per sq ft 710 General Office $1.14 per sq ft Office 720 Medical Office / Clinic $4.40 per sq ft 750 Office Park $1.36 per sq ft ITE Trip Generation manual, loth Edition sq ft = Square Foot pump = Vehicle servicing position / gas pump room = Available hotel room If you have any questions, or need additional information, please let me know. Thank You for the consideration. 2021 Master Fee Schedule Resolution Proposals Page 6 of 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON SCHEDULE A - PLANNING AMENDMENTS Current Fee COSV Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick Comp Plan Amendment $ 1,500.00 $ 2,700.00 $2,500.00 $5000 +$1075/10A $3,168.65 $5300 ** $1849** + $213/Acre $1,500.00 $800.00 $1,080.00 Zoning/Text Amendment $ 1,500.00 $ 3,249.00 $2,500.00 $5000 +$1075/10A Text $2553.89 * / Map:$7728* Text $2800 ** / Map $6800" $1,500.00 $800 Text / $1000 Map $1,080.00 APPEALS Current Fee COSV Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City Of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick Ad min Decision $ 1,050.00 $ 714.00 $750.00 $250.00 $1,522.59 $950 + HE Fees $1231 ** $440.00 $500.00 $108.00 Hearing Ex Decision $ 315.00 $ 1,115.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 CUP/VAR $3909.37 $950 + HE Fees $1231 ** $440.00 $350.00 $541.00 Transcript/Record Deposit if HE Decision $ 157.00 N/A NO CHANGE Actual Cost invoiced / cost Admin Decision - CE Final Decision $ 500.00 $ 542.00 NO CHANGE Reconsideration $150 invoiced / cost $440.00 $500.00 $1,080.00 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Current Fee COSV Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City Of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick SEPA Single Dwelling All other developments (SEPA Checklist)) EIS Addenda of EIS SHORELINE 100.00 $ $ 350.00 $ 2,200.00 350.00 280.00 $280.00 $ 273.00 $ 1,008.00 N/A NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE Cost Recovery Cost Recovery Cost Recovery w/Deposit Cost Recovery w/Deposit $300.00 $300.00 $75/Hr + $2450 deposit $250.00 $250.00 $500.00 $270.00 $270.00 SDP uner $50K $ 840.00 $ 1,607.00 $1,000.00 $1020-$5400 $4,197.43 $1000-$6700+ 10% $200.00 $1,621.00 SDP over $50K $ 840.00 $ 1,607.00 $1,600.00 $1020-$5400 $4,197.43 $1000-$6700+ 10% $200.00 $1,621.00 Shoreline Exemption $ 420.00 $ 709.00 $600.00 $555.00 $864.18 n/a Pre -Submittal Review No Fee $ 327.00 $555.00 $100 Application no fee CRITICAL AREAS FP n/w subdivision FP w/subdivision $ 315.00 $315 + $52/lot $ 735.00 495.00 $500.00 $500 + $52/Lot $900 + $55/acre $495.00 $495.00 LAND USE ACTIONS SUBDIVISIONS Current Fee COSY Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City Of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick Prelim plat $2324 + $40/lot $2500 + $27/lot $2500 + $40/Lot $6172.69 + $22.28/lot $4000 1st acre + $30/add acre 750 +25/lot $500.00 $1080 + 33/lot Final Plat $1424 + $10/lot $1470 + $24/lot NO CHANGE 2025 + 25/lot $2962.89 + $22.28/lot $2500 + $25/lot $500.00 $400.00 $433.00 Time Extension $ 80.00 $ 575.00 $500.00 $555.00 $1,098.83 $150.00 $500.00 SHORT PLATS Preliminary 2-4 lots Final Plat 2-4 lots Prelim plat 5-9 lots Final Plat 5-9 lots 1,224.00 $ 924.00 $1424 + $25/lot $1224 + $10/lot 2,182.00 $1285 + $26 $2142 + $22/lot $1319 + $26/lot Time Extension $ 80.00 $ 574.00 $2,000.00 $1,200.00 $2000 + $25/Lot $1300 + $25/Lot $1820 + 30/lot $1820 + 30/lot $500.00 $550.00 $6172.69 + $22.28/lot $2962.89 + $22.28/lot $6172.69 + $22.28/lot $2962.89 + $22.28/lot $3000 1st acre + $30/add acre $900.00 $1800 + $25/lot $3000 1st acre + $30/add acre $1800 + $25/lot $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,098.83 $150.00 $500.00 $300.00 $200.00 $500.00 $400.00 $541.00 $433.00 $541.00 $433.00 PLAT ALTERATION Subdivision Plat Short Plat Plat Vacation $ 682.00 $ 278.00 $ 1,474.00 $ 1,360.00 $ 1,420.00 $ 1,171.00 $1,200.00 $750.00 NO CHANGE $1620 + $20/lot $1456 + $24/lot $490.00 $2,386.77 $2,715.98 $2,386.77 75% Land Use Fee 25% Land Use Fee $625.00 $700.00 $1,000.00 $811.00 $811.00 $811.00 LAND USE ACTIONS Current Fee COSY Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City Of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick BINDING SITE PLAN (BSP Alteration $ 278.00 $ 2,203.00 $2,000.00 $2376 + 24/A $2,386.77 75% of LD App $3241 ** + $319/A $81 1.00 Change of conditions $ 650.00 $ 2,715.00 $2,000.00 $2,715.98 75% of LD App Preliminary BSP $ 1,674.00 $ 2,353.00 $2,000.00 $3539.02 + $22.28/lot $3500 1st acre + $30/add acre $3,188.00 $1,000.00 $541.00 Lot Creation $ 500.00 $ 2,376.00 $1,500.00 $2376 + 24/A Final BSP $ 924.00 $ 3,251.00 $2,000.00 $2970 + 30/A $2222.16 + $22.28/lot $2500 + $25/lot $5,312.00 AGGREGATION / SEGREGATION Lot Line Adjustment 105.00 $315 $250.00 $350.00 $376.00 $500.00 $200.00 $250.00 $216.00 Lot Line Elimination 105.00 $222 $200.00 $250.00 $200.00 $216.00 Zero Lot Line $105 + $10/lot $200 $200 + $10/Lot $200.00 OTHER PLANNING Current Fee COSY Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City Of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick Ad min Exception 315.00 890.00 $500.00 $781.88 $1,000.00 Variance $ 1,575.00 $ 1,522.00 NO CHANGE $1,895.00 $3,909.37 $250 / $2500 $1284 ** $1,000.00 $100.00 $1242 ** Ad min Interpertations 100.00 548.00 $350.00 $580.00 $1,152.24 $100 / 350 / 1000 $108.00 Home Occupation 84.00 140.00 $100.00 $246.90 $35.00 ADU 84.00 372.00 $300.00 $655.00 $246.90 $1134 ** $216.00 CUP 840.00 $ 1,896.00 $1,600.00 $1,895.00 $3,903.37 $2,500.00 $847 ** $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,080.00 TUP 157.00 538.00 $500.00 $675.00 $905.33 $35.00 Small Cells $500 + $5- $100/per lot N/A NO CHANGE Street Vacation Application $ 1,365.00 466.00 NO CHANGE $400.00 $400.00 $750.00 $1,000.00 $200.00 $50.00 Pre -Application Meeting 250.00 N/A NO CHANGE no fee ZONING Current Fee COSY Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City Of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick Rezone $ 1,650.00 $ 4,100.00 $3,500.00 $10123.21 * $6800 ** $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,080.00 Planned Residential Development (PRD) 1575 + 26/lot $ 1,944.00 $2000 + $26/Lot $3,295.00 $2,345.63 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,080.00 Zoning Verification Letter 210.00 200.00 NO CHANGE $200.00 SCHEDULE B - BUILDING/ENGINEERING BUILDING PERMITS Current Fee COSY Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City Of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick Building Permits Fee Varies Varies *** NO CHANGE Building Plan Review 25-65% Bldg Fee Varies *** NO CHANGE Building Plan Review Cap $35,000 N/A NO CAP ***Varies based on project valuation OTHER BUILDING PERMITS New Residential Site Plan Review 1 $ 50.00 $ 816.00 $300.00 $800 + $550/ 10 acres inc w/bldg permit 25% Building Review Fee 25% Building Review Fee $400-$700 $541-$702 Accessory Site Plan Review 50.00 $ 816.00 $80.00 N/A inc w/bldg permit N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Site plan Review (Commercial) $ 275.00 $ 1,350.00 $550.00 $800+$550/ 10 acres 65% Building Review Fee 65% Building Review Fee $400-$700 $541-$702 TCO - Commercial no fee $ 250.00 $200.00 10% original fee $250.00 TCO - Residential no fee $ 165.00 $150.00 10% original fee $165.00 FAS - Manufactured Home Setting Permit (per section) $ 50.00 $ 217.00 $150.00 $482.90 $150.00 $150.00 $100 in MHP / $200 w/o MHP SIGNS Signs mounted on Buildings Sign & pole mounting Sign Review Fee $48/Sig n $68/Sig n $50 + Eng. 100.00 142.00 N/A $75/Sign $100/Sign $85.00 $56.56 $56.56 $75.00 $115.00 $200.00 $400.00 $82 + Permit Fee $82 + Permit Fee $54 + Proj Value $54 + Proj Value RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) PERMIT Current Fee COSY Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City Of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick Non -cut obstruction w/o clean up 73.00 79.00 NO CHANGE $25.00 $60.00 $100.00 $50.00 $160.00 2.5% Cost ($50 min.) Non -cut obstruction w/ clean up 110.00 117.00 NO CHANGE $125.00 $150.00 $50.00 $210.00 2.5% Cost ($50 min.) Pavement cut obstruction, non - winter 168.00 373.00 $200.00 $100.00 $200.00 $200.00 $150.00 $1,540.00 2.5% Cost ($50 min.) Pavement cut obstruction, winter 210.00 75.00 NO CHANGE $75.00 Erosion/Sediment Control - Site Inspection N/A 100.00 $100.00 Working without a permit Investigative 100% fee 440.00 100% Permit Fee $500.00 $500.00 2 X Permit Fee $320.00 2 X Permit Fee Approach - Commercial 52.00 86.00 $75.00 $30.00 $125.00 $50.00 $150.00 Approach - Residential 52.00 83.00 $70.00 $20.00 $125.00 $50.00 $150.00 $50.00 ENGINEERING PERMITS Current Fee COSY Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City Of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick GRADING PERMIT 100 CY or less $ 21.00 $ 25.00 $25.00 $25.00 101-1,000 CY 21 + $7 per 1,000 CY $ 25.00 $25 for 1st 100 CY + $7/ 100 CY $25 for 1st 100 CY+$10/100CY 1,001-10,000 CY $88 + $6 per 10,000 CY $ 125.00 $125 for 1st 1000 CY + $10/1,00CY $125 for 1st 1000 CY+$10/1000CY 10,001-100,000 CY $154 + $15 per 10,000 CY $ 225.00 $225 for 1st 10K CY + $35/ 10K CY $225 for 1st 10K CY + $35/ 10000CY 100,001 to 200,000 CY $386 + $15 per 100k CY over $ 525.00 $525 for 1st 100K CY + $25/10K CY $525 for 1st 100K CY + $25/10000CY 200,001 or more CY $528 + $15/ 200K CY over $ 625.00 $625 for 1st 200K+ $25/10K CY $625 for 1st 200K CY + $20/10000CY GRADING PLAN REVIEW 50 CY or less no fee $ 344.00 NO CHANGE $0.00 $35 - 10% Orig. Fee $270.00 51-100 CY $ 12.00 $ 20.00 $20.00 $20.00 101-1,000 CY $ 21.00 $ 25.00 $25.00 $25.00 1,001-100,000 CY $ 27.00 $ 35.00 $35.00 $35.00 10,001-100,000 CY $27 + $7 per 10,000 CY $ 35.00 $35 for 1st 10K CY + $15/10K CY $35 for 1st 10K CY + $15/10000CY 100,001 to 200,000 CY $104 + $6 per 100k CY over $ 175.00 $175 for 1st 100K CY+ $25/10K CY $175 for 1st 100K CY+ $25/10000CY 200,000 or more CY $ 166.00 $ 625.00 $625 for 1st 200K CY + $25/10K CY $625 for 1st 200K CY + $25/10000CY OTHER ENGINEERING Oversized Load 26.00 50.00 $75.00 $50.00 Structure Transport Permit 110.00 188.33 $150/section $100.00 $300.00 $165.00 Design Deviation none 125.00 $150.00 $25.00 $100.00 $250.00 SCHEDULE E - OTHER FEES BUSINESS REGISTRATION Current Fee COSV Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City Of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick Business Registration $ 13.00 $ 51.00 $25.00 $120.00 $26.00 $25.00 $25.00 $85.00 $55.00 Nonprofit Business Registration $ 3.00 $ 10.00 $10.00 Out -of -City Business Registration None NO CHANGE FEES NOT INCLUDED IN MASTER FEE SCHEDULE UNLISTED FEES Current Fee COSV Average BASE Permit Cost Recommended Fee City Of Spokane Spokane County Liberty Lake Post Falls, ID Hayden, ID Moses Lake Kennewick Building Administrative Fee $ 35.00 $ 44.00 $61.00 As Determined / or Excessive Staff Fee @ $50/Hr Refund Fee $20 or Excessive Staff Fee @ $70/Hr Technical Fee at 1 of Building Permit Working beyond the scope of work N/A $ 163.00 $150.00 $250.00 $75/hr Development Agreement N/A $ 666.67 N/A $100.00 $400.00 $1,500.00 Annual Permit Increase N/A NO CHANGE Max increase 4% not less 0% Technology Fee/Processing Fee N/A $ 38.00 NO CHANGE $40/Permit $35.00 $0.01 Fences over 6' N/A $ 25.00 NO CHANGE $25/100 feet Reinspection Fee N/A $ 77.00 NO CHANGE $75.00 $100.00 $55/hr **Includes SEPA/HE/Notice Fee - See note for amounts Includes VARIOUS Per Acre Fee - See note for rate CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 20-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, REPEALING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION 19-019, AND APPROVING THE 2021 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, it is the general policy of the City to establish fees that are reflective of the cost of services provided by the City; and WHEREAS, the City uses a resolution to establish the schedule of fees for City programs, permits and services, and periodically the fee resolution and fee schedule must be amended to incorporate new or modified services; and WHEREAS, Council desires to amend the resolution and accompanying fee schedule. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. The amendments needed at this time are incorporated into the attached schedules and include new fees and changes to existing fees. Section 2. Repeal. Resolution 19-019 is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect January 1, 2021. Approved this 15th day of December, 2020. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Ben Wick, Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 1 of 20 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Fee Schedule Page No. Schedule A: Planning 3 Schedule B: Building/Engineering Schedule C: Parks and Recreation 4-114 Schedule D: Administrative 47314 Schedule E: Other Fees 4415 Schedule F: Police Fees 4415 Schedule G: Transportation Impact Fees 16 5 Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 2 of 20 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Schedule A — Planning AMENDMENTS Comprehensive Plan Amendment —Zoning or other code text amendment APPEALS — Appeal of Administrative Decision — Appeal of Hearing Examiner Findings — Transcript/record deposit on Appeals of Hearing Examiner Decisions FEE AMOUNT $1,5003,000.002,500.00 $ 5044404 AA2,500.00 $1,050750.00 $3151,000.00 $157.00 Appeal of Administrative Decision - Code Enforcement Final Decision pursuant to chapter 17.100 SVMC $500.00 unless otherwise waived pursuant to SVMC 17.110 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) — Single Dwelling (when required) — All other developments — Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Review, minimum deposit — Addenda of existing EIS Review SHORELINE — Substantial Development Permit - under $50K — Substantial Development Permit - over $50K — Shoreline Exemption $4-00280.00 $350.00 $2,200.00 $350.00 S1,000.00-$84A 5044) S1,6 900.00 $120600.00 CRITICAL AREAS —Floodplain Permit not associated with a subdivision $3 15500.00 —Floodplain Permit associated with a subdivision $315500.00 + $52.00 per lot Small Cell Permit Applic tion S5 . f r up to five itc S1 . -r addition 1 itc. OTHER PERMITS 14 me Occupati n Permit and Accorr ry Dwelling Units (ADU) Conditional Use Permit Temp rary Use Permit LAND USE ACTIONS $81.00 $840.00 $ 00 Commented [LO1]: MOVED TO THE "OTHER" PERMITS AT THE END FOR BETTER FLOW AND REMOVAL OF DUPLICATION OF SUB TITLES 1SUBDIVISIONS —Preliminary plat $2,3212,500.00 + $40.00 per lot —Final Plat $1,424.00 + $10.00 per lot — Time extensions — file review and letter $S4500.00 SHORT PLATS —Preliminary 2 to 4 lots $1,2212,000.00 —Final plat 2 to 4 lots $9211,200.00 Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 3 of 20 /{Formatted: Underline Formatted: Underline —Preliminary plat 5 to 9 lots —Final plat 5 to 9 lots — Time extensions — file review and letter $1,1 212,000.00 + $25.00 per lot $1,2211,300.00 + $4- 25.00 per lot $40500.00 PLAT ALTERATION /{Formatted: Underline — Subdivision plat $6821,200.00 — Short plat $278750.00 PLAT VACATION $1,474.00 /Formatted: Underline BINDING SITE PLAN /{ Formatted: Underline —Binding site plan alteration $2782,000.00 — Change of Conditions $6-502,000.00 —Preliminary binding site plan $1,6712,000.00 — Creating lots within final binding site plan via Record of Survey $5001,500.00 —Final Binding Site Plan $9212,000.00 AGGREGATION/SEGREGATION — Lot line adjustment — Lot line elimination —Zero lot line $105250.00 $105200.00 $105200.00 + $10.00 per lot Review f permanent sign $50.00 -- $25.00 if public w rks review needed Review f temp rary sign $50.00 OTHER PLANNING — Administrative Exception — Variance — Administrative Interpretations Home Occupation Permit Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Conditional Use Permit Temporary Use Permit — Small Cell Permit Application $11-5-7500.00 [ Formatted: Strikethrough $500.00 for up to five sites + $100.00 per additional site $$8101,S1,600.00 -( Formatted: Strikethrough New Residential Site Plan Roviow $50-00 Site Plan Review Per Divisi n Review $275.00 Hourly Rate for City Employees $61.00 Document -Recording sService by sStaff Hourly Street Vacation Application $1,365.00 —Pre-application Meetings $250.00* —*Fee shall be deducted from land use application, building permit or commercial permit application (fees when application is filed within one year of pre -application meeting. ZONING — Zoning map amendments (rezone)* —Planned residential development plan —Planned residential development modification $1,6503,500.00 $1,5752,000.00 + $26.00 per lot $525.00 Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 4 of 20 $315500.00 $1,575.00 $400350.00 $44100.00 Formatted: Underline Commented [L02]: DELETE AND MOVE TO SIGNS IN BUILDING — PLANNING DOES NOT REVIEW $81300 00 Formatted: Strikethrough 1 Commented [JN3]: Relocated from the 'critical area' heading. Commented [L04]: Moved to BUILDING as Planning does not review Site plans r Commented [JN5]: This adjustment allows for the deduction when a project triggers a pre-app review but not a building permit. Note that there isn't an 'application' fee related to most development permits but there are 'permit' and 'plan review' fees. —Zoning letter $210.00 *If rezone is combined with other action(s), cost of other action(s) is additional Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 5 of 20 Schedule B — Building Fee Payment Plan review fees are collected at the time of application. Such fees may be adjusted during plan review. Overages or under payments shall be appropriately adjusted at the time of permit issuance. Plan review fees are separate from and additional to building permit fees. Permit fees and any other unpaid fees shall be collected prior to issuance of the permit. Fees for outside professional services required during the permit process shall be paid by the applicant. Examples of outside professional services include review by contract reviewers, special inspection or construction services, consultant services for special topics, surveying or other services required to determine compliance with applicable codes. Fee Refund Policy. Refunds authorized under this policy apply only to Schedule B. PLAN REVIEW FEES • Plan review fees are non-refundable once any plan review work has been started. • Paid plan review fees may be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing. • At a minimum, a $.561.00 administrative fee shall be retained. • If the paid plan review fee is less than $g361.00, no refund is authorized. • If the paid plan review fee is more than $.4561.00, the amount for refund shall be calculated at the rate of 100% of the paid plan review fee minus $g361.00. PERMIT FEES • Permit fees are non-refundable once work authorized by the permit has begun. • Paid permit fees may be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing. • At a minimum, a $.561.00 administrative fee will be retained when fees are refunded. • If the paid permit fee is less than $4561.00, no refund is authorized. • If the paid permit fee is more than $4561.00, the refund shall be calculated at the rate of 95% of the paid permit fee minus $.561.00. For any application taken or permit issued in error, a full refund of fees paid shall be made. No portion of the paid fees shall be retained. FEES GENERAL Hourly Rate for City Employees Overtime rate for City Employees (1.5 times regular rate) Investigation fee: Work commenced without required permits Working beyond the scope of work Replacement of lost permit documents $61.00 $92.00 Equal to permit fee S150.00 Hourly rate; 1 hour minimum Revisions to plans requested by the applicant or permit holder shall be charged the hourly rate with a minimum of one hour. Revised plans submitted in response to reviewer correction letters are not subject to the hourly assessment. Washington State Building Code Council Surcharge (WSBCC) — see the Washington State Building Code Council website for fees. Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 6 of 20 BUILDING PERMIT: Building permit fees for each project are set by the following fees. The figures below shall be used to determine the building permit fees and plans check fees based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safety Journal by the International Code Council, whichever value is greater. Valuations not listed in the Building Safety Journal: Building Type Residential garages/storage buildings (wood frame) Residential garages (masonry) Miscellaneous residential pole buildings Residential carports, decks, porches Valuation Per Square Foot $19.00 $22.00 $19.00 $15.00 Building Permit Fee Calculation Total Valuation Building Permit Fee $1.00 to $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $69.25 for first $2,000.00 + $14.00 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including $25,000.00 $391.25 for first $25,000 + $10.10 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including $50,000.00 $643.75 for first $50,000.00 + $7.00 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including $100,000.00 $993.75 for first $100,000 + $5.60 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including $500,000.00 $3,233.75 for first $500,000.00 + $4.75 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for first $1,000,000.00 + $3.15 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Plan Review Fee Calculation % of Building Permit Fee Plans review fee (general) 65% Plans review fee — Group R-3 occupancies (single family less than 7,999 sq. ft.) 40% Plans review fee — Group R-3 occupancies (single family 8,000 sq. ft. or more) 65% Plans review fee — Group U occupancies (sheds, barns, et.) 25% Initial Plan Review Fees are capped at $35,000 n t including pass thr ugh expenses f r utside review as noted in the "Fes Payment" sccti n f this schedule. Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 7 of 20 OTHER BUILDING PERMITS: Over the C untor Service SITE PLAN REVIEW New Residential Home Site Plan Review Residential Accessory Structure Site Plan Review Commercial Site Plan Review EMOLITION PERMIT $bin $ .043300.00 $8�0.00 $ 5550.001 — Single Family Residence — Commercial (Buildings — Garage or accessory building associated with residence or commercial building Foundation Only Building perm*: Swimming Pools, over 2 feet in depth Re -roof (no plan review charge unless submitted for review) Change of Use or Occupancy Classification Permit TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANC Commercial or Multifamily Building Residential Building Factory Assembled Structure (FAS) Placement Permit Towers, elevated tanks, antennas $46.00 flat fee $131.00 flat fee $21.00 flat fee 25% of building permit fee $3241461.00 + plumbing fees Based on Project Valuation Hourly $200.00 $150.00(Commented [LO10]: New Fee $50.00 per section( Commented [LOU]: Not a new fee —just new to schedule Hourly Commented [JN6]: This isn't applicable; OTC service is available to all provided that there is sufficient information contained in an application and the project type is simple enough to allow for at -the -counter staff review. Formatted: Underline Formatted: Strikethrough Commented [L07]: Moved from Planning & added the Accessory Structure Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Underline Commented [JN8]: $131 per building, identifying the plural is misleading. Commented [JN9]: This revision highlights the fact that a foundation only building permit is separate and distinct from the building permit for the overall building. Note that each permit requires a specific review. Formatted: Underline SIGN PERMIT: Sign Permits are subject to the assessment of the WSBCC fee as noted in Schedule B "General" section and the following review fees. Sign Plan Review Fee Wall Sign Permit Freestanding or Monument Sign Permit Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.06" 1 8,50+ Eng85.00 /{ Formatted: Strikethrough $4$75.00 per sign (flat fee) -( Formatted: Strikethrough S68100.00 per sign (flat fee) Formatted: Strikethrough RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) PERMIT: A traffic plan and traffic plan review is required if more than 50% of the width of any street is closed or if a single arterial lane is closed. A minimum plan review fee of $61.00 (hourly rate for City employees) applies to all right-of-way permits that require a traffic plan. If additional staff time is required, it shall be charged at the hourly rate. TYPES OF ROW /Formatted: Font: Not Bold Non -cut obstruction without clean up Non -cut obstruction with clean up Pavement cut obstruction, non -winter Pavement cut obstruction, winter Working without a permit Commercial Approach Permit Residential Approach Permit Multiple Use Permit — overhead Multiple Use Permit — underground $73.00 $110.00 $168200.00 /{ Formatted: Strikethrough $210.00 100% Permit Fee $75.00 V-270.00 $110.00 per .25 mile $650.00 per .25 mile Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 8 of 20 Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough Erosion/Sediment Control - Site Inspection ENGINEERING PERMITS GRADING PERMIT: 100 cubic yards (cu yd) or less 101 to 1,000 cubic yards 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards 200,000 or more cubic yards GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEE: 50 cubic yards or less 51 to 100 cubic yards 101 to 1,000 1,001 to 10,000 10,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 200,000 200,001 or more $100.00 $ 425.00 $2425.00 for first 100 cu yd. + $7.00 each additional 100 cu yd $84125.00 for first 1,000 cu yd + $610.00 each additional 1,000 cu yd $444225.00 for first 10,000 cu yd+ $4435.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd $386525.00 for first 100,000 cu yd + $4425.00 each additional 100,000 cu yd $52,8800.00 for first 200,000 cu yd + $4425.00 for each additional 20010,000 cu yd No Fee $4-220.00 $ 425.00 $ 735.00 $2;35.00 for first 100,000 cu yd + $725.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd $101175.00 for first 100,000 cu yd + $625.00 for each additional 100,000 cu yd $166625.00 for first 200, 000 cu yd + $25 for each additional 10,000 cu yd Grubbing & Clearing Only (without earth being moved) $68.00 Paving Permit (greater than 5,000 sq. ft. - new paving only) $263.00 OTHER ENGINEERING Design Deviation Oversized/Overweight Load Permit Fee Structure Transport Permit STORMWATER UTILITY CHARGE ON DEVELOPED PARCELS: Each single-family unit All other properties each Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Commented [L012]: New Fee Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Underline $150.001 V-675.00 $110150.00 per section. Formatted: Strikethrough lr Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" $21.00 annual-4 ( Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" $21.00 per 3,160 sq. ft impervious surface Commented [L014]: MOVED FROM SCHEDULE E Commented [1_013]: NEW FEE Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" Page 9 of 20 Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 10 of 20 MECHANICAL PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits shall be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees shall be collected when the permit is ssued. If submitted as part f a building permit applicati n, the unit c sts arc added, but n t the "basic" foe for issuing tho peFFF4t, Mechanical Permit Fees A. BASIC FEES 1. Basic fee for issuing each Stand -Alone permit 2. Basic fee for each Ssupplemental permit B. UNIT FEES (in addition to the basic fee) 1. Installation or relocation of Furnaces and suspended heaters a. up to and including 100,000 btu b. over 100,000 btu 2. Duct work system 3. Heat pump and air conditioner a. 0 to 3 tons b. over 3 tons to 15 tons c. over 15 tons to 30 tons d. over 30 tons to 50 tons e. over 50 tons 4. Gas water heater 5. Gas piping system 6. Gas log, fireplace, and gas insert installation 7. Appliance vents installation; relocation; replacement 8. Boilers, compressors, and absorption systems a. 0 to 3 hp - 100,000 btu or less b. over 3 to 15 hp -100,001 to 500,000 btu c. over 15 - 30 hp - 500,001 to 1,000,000 btu d. over 30 ph -1,000,001 to 1,750,000 btu e. over 50 hp - over 1,750,000 btu 9. Air Handlers a. each unit up to 10,000 cfm, including ducts b. each unit over 10,000 cfm 10. Evaporative Coolers (other than portable) 11. Ventilation and Exhausts a. each fan connected to a single duct b. each ventilation system c. each hood served by mechanical exhaust 12. Incinerators a. residential installation or relocation b. commercial installation or relocation 13. Unlisted appliances a. under 400,000 btu b. 400,000 btu or over 14. Hood a. Type I b. Type II 15. LP Storage Tank 16. Wood or Pellet Stove insert 17. Wood stove system - free standing $37.00 $8.00 $13.00 $16.00 $11.00 $13.00 $21.00 $26.00 $37.00. $63.00 $11.00 $1.00 per outlet $11.00 $10.00 each $13.00 $21.00 $26.00 $37.00 $63.00 $13.00 $16.00 $11.00 $11.00 $13.00 $13.00 $21.00 $23.00 $52.00 $105.00 $52.00 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $26.00 Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 11 of 20 Commented [JN15]: The City of Spokane Valley has not issued plumbing/mechanical permits as part of building permits due to the fact that the work is performed by different contractors and there is the need to document contractor credentials as part of any permit. Therefore, this statement is misleading to the reader. PLUMBING PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits shall be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees shall be collected when the permit is ssued. If submitted Commented [JN16]: Same comment as above as part f a building permit applicati n, the unit c sts shall be added, but n t the "basic" foe f r the t. A. BASIC FEES 1. Basic fee for issuing each Stand -Alone permit $37.00 2. Basic fee for each -supplemental Supplemental permit $8.00 B. UNIT FEES (in addition to the basic fee) 1. Each plumbing fixture on a trap $6.00 each (includes garbage disposals, dishwashers, backflow device, drainage, hot tubs, built-in water softener, water closets, lavatories, sinks, drains, etc.) 2. Water Heater $6.00 each 3. Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor $16.00 (includes its trap and vent, except kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps.) 4. Repair or alteration of water piping, drainage or vent piping $6.00 each fixture 5. Atmospheric type vacuum breaker $6.00 each 6. Backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers $6.00 each 7. Medical gas $6.00 per outlet 8. Interceptors $6.00 each RICHT OF WAY PERMIT: A traffic plan and traffic plan review is required if more than 50% of the width of any street is closed or if a single arterial lane is closed. A minimum plan review fee of $61.00 (hourly rate for City employees) applies t all right f way permits that require a traffic plan. If additional staff time is required, it shall bo charged at the hourly rate. Categor 1. N n cut bstructi n with ut clean up 2. N n cut bstructi n with clean up 3. Pavement cut bstructi n, n n winter 1. Pavement cut obstructi n, winter 5. Appr ach Permit 6. Multiple Uso Permit vorhoad 7. Multiple Uso Permit undorgr and $73.00 $110.00 $168.00 $210.00 $52.00 $110.00 per .25 milo $650.00 per .25 milo Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 12 of 20 SICN PERMIT: Sign permits shall be subject t a ,es.,ment of p1 nning divisi n review fees as f and in Schedule A. Sign Permits shall ale be subject to the a;,essment of the WSBCC fee as n ted in Schedule B "General" section. Plan Signs m unted n buildings Permit $18.00 per sign (flat foe) Freestanding r Permit Sign and p le m unting $68.00 per sign (flat fee) Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 13 of 20 Commented [LO17]: Moved up higher in schedule B & edited Schedule C — Parks and Recreation ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Basic fees to be considered when applying rates Administrative Fee Refuse Fee $32.00 $52.00 AQUATICS Pool admission (age 5 and under) free Pool admission (age older than 5) $1.00 Pool punch pass (25 swims) $20.00 Weekend family discount - 1 child under 13 free with paying adult At the discretion of the City Manager, the Parks and Recreation Department may on occasion offer free admission open swim days. Swimming Lessons $40.00 Swim Team Fee $60.00 Reeervati n (less than 50 people) $105.00 per h ur** F d fee (le:� than 50 people, if applicable) $25.00 u e� ationPool Rental (50 fewer than 100 people) $' 3' .300.00 for 2hr rental*—* F d fee (50 100 pe ple, if applicable) $52.00 Pool Rental Reservation (101-2004-58 people) $400.00 for 2hr rental Refundable Pool Damage Deposit Food fee (101 150 people, if applicable) **Minimum 2 hours $150.00$157.00 per h ur** $79.00 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT $10.00 CENTERPLACE Conference Center Wing Auditorium $79.00 per hour Auditorium $475.00 per day Auditorium $236.00 per half day Auditorium w/Presentation System $52.00 per hour*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $315.00 per day*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $158.00 per half day*** Auditorium Deposit $52.00 Executive Conference Room $52.00 per hour Executive Conference Room 'A day $156 per 4 hours Executive Conference Room full day rental $416 per day Executive Conference Room Deposit $52.00 Meeting Room (day and evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting Room $263.00 per day Large Meeting Room $75.00 per hour Large Meeting Room $225.00 per half day Large Meeting Room $450.00 per 9 hr. day Meeting Room $131.00 per half day Meeting Room Deposit $52.00 Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 14 of 20 Pati Event Package Portable Sound System Platinum Package ***Requires rental of presentation system, see next page Great Room Kitchen dep sit Multi-use/Banquet Hall Multi-use/Banquet Hall Multi-use/Banquet Hall Small Dining Area Refundable Deposit Refundable Deposit - Weddings Stage Stage Rem val Table Settings (linens and tableware) Pipe & Drape rental Chair Cover rental Senior Center Wing Lounge with Dance Floor Lounge with Dance Floor Refundable Lounge deposit Refundable Lounge deposit - Weddings Meeting room (evening use) Meeting room (evening use) Meeting room (weekend use) Meeting room (weekend use) Meeting room deposit Private Dining R m Private dining room deposit Wellness Center West Lawn and CenterPlace Rental fee West Lawn Weddings- 2 hours (CenterPlace Reception) West Lawn Plaza Rental - North Meadow Miscellaneous Cleanup fee for groups bringing their own food in on Sundays • Groups under 30 in small meeting room • Groups under 150 in large meeting room or lounge • Groups over 150 in Great Room Host/Hostess (after hours) Presentation System *** (includes projector, podium, DVD/VCR sound system, camera system) Room Setup Satellite Video Conferencing Sound System Additional Microphones Technical Support Televisi n/VCR Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 $500.00 per event $150.00 per event $500.00 per event $452.00 $105.00 per hour $840.00 per 9 hr session $1,575.00 all day (6 a.m.-1 a.m.) $52.00 per hour $210.00 $500.00 $21.00 per secti n per day $150.00 $3.00 per place setting $100/day $3/chair per day $105.00 per hour $850.00 per 6 hours $210.00 $500.00 $42.00 per hour $131.00 per 4 hr session $262.00 per day $131.00 per half day $52.00 $52.00 per h ur $52.00 $105.00 per h ur $3,500.00 per day $1,000 $2,000 per day additional $500 per day, $52 $210 $500 $16.00 per hour $262.00 per day $26.00 per hour $262.00 per hour $42.00 per day $25.00 each $42.00 per hour $79.00 per day Page 15 of 20 Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman T uch Pad Voting System $121.00 base stati n per day $16.00 per keypad per day per hour LCD Projector/ Television $25.00 per hour LCD Projector/ Television $100.00 per day Coffee Service $4024.00 service Linens Only $5.00 per table Wine glass only rental $.50 per glass Children's Birthday Package $175.00 per packago Conference Phone $100.00 per event Easel Paper Pad $20.00 per pad Laptop Usage $50.00 per event Business Incentive Rental Policy — The Parks & Recreation Director has the authority to reduce the room rental rate by one hr. when the rental meets the following criteria- minimum of 25 participants; utilize a classroom at CenterPlace eight or more times per calendar year; and use in-house caterer for a meal each reservation. PICNIC SHELTER RESERVATION (For groups fewer than 200 people) Browns (up to five hours) Edgecliff (up to five hours) Discovery Playground-4 (up to two hours) Disc very Playgr and 112 (up t tw h urs) Greenacres — large (up to five hours) Mirabeau Meadows — shelter and stage (up to five hours) Mirabeau Springs — shelter and dock (up to two hours) Sullivan (up to five hours) Terrace View (up to five hours) Valley Mission (up to five hours) $84.00 $84.00 $35.00 $35.00 $84.00 $84.00 $250.00 $84.00 $84.00 $84.00 EVENT RESERVATION — include shelter (For groups of 200 or more people) Events include but are not limited to activities such as car shows, tournaments, or high -risk activities. The Parks and Recreation Director shall make the final determination. General fee (up to five hours): $157.00 Non-profit applications with proof of qualifying as a 501(c)(3) entity (up to five hours): $84.00 EVENT PHOTOS Mirabeau Springs shelter and dock $150.00 per hour BALL FIELD RENTAL/USE $26.00 1' hour + $15.00 each additional hour REFUNDABLE FACILITYIPOOL DAMAGE DEPOSIT Fewer than 200 people Weddings, Special Events and events with 200 or more people $75.00 $300.00 SPECIAL EVENTS (See Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15) Application Fee $40.00 RECREATION Recreation program fees are established at amounts to recover costs, as specified in the Parks and Recreation revenue policy. Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 16 of 20 UNDEVELOPED BALFOUR PARK RENTAL/USE $500 per day Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 17 of 20 Schedule D — Administration COPY FEE Paper copies up to 11"x17" (b/w or color) $0.15 per page* Paper copies larger than 11"x17" (b/w or color) $0.87 per square foot* Scanned copies of paper records $0.10 per page * Electronics records uploaded to email, cloud -based storage, CD/DVD, or flash drive $0.05 per every 4 electronic files or attachments* Records transmitted in electronic format $0.10 per GB* Digital Storage Media Device (CD/DVD, flash drive) Actual Cost* Envelope Actual Cost* Postage Actual Cost* Records sent to outside vendor for reproduction Actual Cost* Customized Service Charge - When the request would require the use of IT expertise to prepare data compilations or when such customized access services are not used by the agency for other business purposes, the agency may charge the actual cost. The agency must notify the requestor that it will be doing a customized service and can require a 10 percent deposit.* *It is the intent of the City of Spokane Valley to recover the cost of providing public records when the total cost, including but not limited to the per -page, device, envelope, or postage costs, amounts to $1.00 or more. Copy charges above may be combined to the extent more than one type of charge applies to copies responsive to a particular request. When combining fees associated with the request, the City will determine the total cost and charge accordingly. Copy charges are assessed for each installment of records provided to the requestor. A deposit of 10% may be required on public record requests. NSF CHECK RETURN FEE $26.00 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION PROCESSING FEE Applies to all City fees paid by credit card/debit card except for those fees under Schedule F — Police Fees (amount of the alarm fee is intended to cover the total cost of administering the false alarm program, including, but not limited to, payment processing fees). Credit card transaction processing fees are non-refundable. 2.5% of transaction amount Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 18 of 20 Schedule E — Other Fees BUSINESS REGISTRATION Business Registration Nonprofit Registration $4425.00 annual $410.00 annual Out -of -City Business Registration with annual revenues equal to or less than $2,000 (SVMC 5.05.020(D)) $0.00 Adult Entertainment Establishment License, Live Adult Entertainment Establishment License, Adult Arcade Adult Arcade Device License Manager License Entertainer License Late Adult Entertainment License Fee (charged in addition to the license fee) 7 to 30 calendar days past due 31 to 60 calendar days past due 61 and more calendar days past due $1,575.00 $1,575.00 $157.00 $157.00 $157.00 25% of license fee 50% of license fee 75% of license fee Appeal of Administrative Determination — Adult Entertainment License Adult Entertainment License denial, suspension or revocation pursuant to SVMC 5.10 $1,050.00 Tow Operator Registration Fee $105.00 annual OVERSIZED LOAD PERMIT FEE $26.00 STORMWATER UTILITY CHARCE ON DEVELOPED PARCELS: Each single-family unit $21.00 annual All ther pr pertios each $21.00 per 3,160 sq. ft impervi us surface Commented [L018]: MOVED TO OTHER UNDER SCHEDULE B 1 Schedule F — Police Fees FALSE ALARM RECOVERY FEE Amount of the fee is intended to cover the total cost of administering the false alarm program, including, but not limited to, payment processing fees. $65 per incident Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 19 of 20 Schedule G — Transportation Impact Fees SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE // Formatted Table Formatted Formatted Formatted J3ase Rate = $1,272 per PM Peak Trip /, Formatted Land Use Group ,ITE Code ITE Land Use Category Impact Fee Per Unih Formatted Residential, 210, Single Family & Duplex, S1,260, per dwell: -Formatted 220 Multi-Faiuily, r • _' Formatted Services, 310, Hotel (3 or More Levels) $891 per room Formatted 492, Health Club, $4.39, ... per sq ft Formatted 912, Bank $17.17, per sq ft Formatted Institution, 520, Elementary School $1.74 per sq ft \, Formatted Table 522 Middle School $1.51 I per sq ft 530 925 934 937 820 841 853 110 140 151 710 720 750 High school Drinking Establishment $1.23 $8.24 $20.79 $6.07 $3.20 $4.77 $9,968 $0.80 $0.85 $0.22 $1.14 $4.40 $1.36 Formatted ft per sq sq ft Formatted Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant (with Drive-Thru) Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru Shopping Center Automobile Sales —Used/New Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps Light Industry/High Technology Manufacturing Mini -Storage General Office Medical Office / Clinic Office Park per sq ft I'I Formatted ... per per sq ft I� Formatted (... 111 Retail per sq ft Formatted IIII; per sq ft illl 1 Formatted per pump Ililll� II Formatted (... Industrial per sq ft 111110' Formatted (... 111111 II per sq ft Ippl�l� Formatted ( per sq ft liil�p',�II Formatted Office per sq ft 1il1l1ljll�l� Formatted per sq ft �ihiVlll�l�l Formatted per sq ft iiiiii��lll Formatted r ITE Trip Generation manual, 10th Edition sq ft = Square Foot pump =Vehicle servicing position / gas pump • room = Available hotel room Resolution 20-016 Fee Schedule for 2021 Page 20 of 20 11 111,1lllllllillll1111,1 lll' Ig11111pllllll1111 11 IIIIIIIIIII III III11. 11111111,111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ° IIII IIIIII 1111011111111111IIIIIII 111llllllll 11Iryill IIIIII11 1 Ill1110llllll II1,111 11,1111111 IIIIIII1111 11111 IIIlllllllll�J ��IIIIIII� 111111, 11111llll11111 IlllllllJf II 111111111 61/111111 11111 Ill111(I 1 (I11,111 III 11II I� I1111 IIII 11111 I�IIII1111011I+I ,III Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Formatted Fnrmatted To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of December 3, 2020; 4:55 p.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 Dec 15, 2020 Special Meeting with 4th District Legislators 5:00 p.m. — 5:45 pin Dec 15, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Dec 8] ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 20-026 Transportation Impact Fees — Bill Helbig (10 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 20-027 Municipal Tree Ordinance — Mike Stone, Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 20-029 Comcast Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Resolution 20-016 for 2021 Fees — Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Street & Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Contract — John Hohman (10 minutes) 6. Motion Consideration: Street Sweeping Contract — John Hohman (10 minutes) 7. Motion Consideration: Horse Arena Master Plan — Mike Stone (15 minutes) 8. Motion Consideration: Browns Park Playground & Shelter Bid — Bill Helbig, Mike Stone (10 minutes) NON -ACTION ITEMS: 9. Montgomery and Bessie Street Vacation, STV-2020-0002 — Connor Lange 10. SRTC Tribal Membership — Cary Driskell 11. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick December 22, 2020, Regular Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: SRTC Tribal Membership — Cary Driskell 3. Mayoral Appointments- Planning Commissioners — Mayor Wick 4. Marketing & Communications 2020 Report — Lesli Brassfield 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 115 mins] [due Tue Dec 15] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 mins] Dec 29, 2020, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Cancelled due to Christmas Holiday Jan 5, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Dec 29] ACTION ITEMS: 1. Public Hearing: Planned Residential Development Moratorium — L. Barlow, E. Lamb 2. Mayoral Appointments: Councilmembers to Committees — Mayor Wick 3. Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee — Mayor Wick 4. First Reading Ordinance 21--- Montgomery and Bessie Street Vacation — Connor Lange NON -ACTION ITEMS: 5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports (normally would have been Dec 29) [*estimated meeting: Jan 12, 2021, Regular Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. Proclamation: Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Planned Residential Dev Findings of Fact — L. Barlow, E. Lamb 2. Admin Report: Potential Grant Opportunity, Local Bridge Program — Adam Jackson 3. Admin Report: Potential Grant Opportunity, National Hwy System Asset Mgmt — A. Jackson (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) 55 mins] [due Tue Jan 5] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 12/3/2020 4:54:46 PM Page 1 of 2 [*estimated meeting: 35 mins] Jan 19, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 121 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 21--- Montgomery and Bessie Street Vacation — Connor Lange (10 minutes) NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Admin Report: Report on Bid Award, Barker Grade Separation Project — Bill Helbig (15 minutes) Jan 26, 2021, Regular Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 19] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunity, Local Bridge Program — Adam Jackson (10 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opp, National Hwy System Asset Mgmt — A. Jackson (10 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Appleway Trail Amenities Arts Council Sculpture Presentations Artwork & Metal Boxes Core Beliefs Resolution Flashing Beacons/School Signage HB 1590 Health District Stats Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Park Lighting PFD Presentation SPEC Report/Update St. Illumination (owners, cost, location) St. O&M Pavement Preservation Vehicle Wgt Infrastructure Impact Water Districts & Green Space Way Finding Signs Winter Workshop Draft Advance Agenda 12/3/2020 4:54:46 PM Page 2 of 2 Sp kane Valley Memorandum FINANCE DEPARTMENT Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org To: Mark Calhoun, City Manager From: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Date: November 19, 2020 Re: Finance Department Activity Report — October 2020 Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of October 2020 and included herein is an updated 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the end of October. 2019 Year-end Process The 2019 books were closed in May and the annual financial report was completed and filed on June 17th. The State Auditor's Office issued an unmodified opinion on the audit of the financial statements for the fiscal year 2019 and the Federal single audit on September 24, 2020. The accountability audit and related exit conference were completed on October 21, 2020. 2020 Budget Amendment As we have progressed through 2020 the need for a number of budget amendments has arisen. Council review will take place at the following meetings: • October 27 • November 10 • November 24 • December 8 Admin Report Public Hearing First reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2020 Budget Second reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2020 Budget 2021 Budget Development The 2021 Budget development process began in the Finance Department in early March, and on April 7th we sent detailed budget requests to all departments to complete by mid -May. By the time the budget is scheduled to be adopted on December 8th, the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss the budget on eight occasions including three public hearings. • August 4 Council budget workshop • September 8 Admin report on 2021 revenues and expenditures • September 22 Public hearing #1 on the 2021 revenues and expenditures • October 13 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2021 Budget • October 27 Public hearing #2 on 2021 Budget • November 24 First reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget • November 24 Public hearing #3 on the 2021 Budget • December 8 Second reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202012020 10 31.docx Page 1 2021 Property Tax Levy A significant part of the budget development process includes the annual levy of property taxes which in 2021 are expected to account for approximately 28.01% of recurring General Fund revenues. Council discussions specifically related to this topic will take place at the following meetings: • September 22 • September 29 • October 27 Public hearing on 2021 revenues including property taxes Admin Report on proposed ordinance levying 2021 property taxes First reading of ordinance levying 2021 property taxes and confirming tax levy • November 10 Second reading of ordinance levying 2021 property taxes and confirming tax levy Outside Agency Funding in the 2021 Budget The City has historically provided funding for local organizations involved in either social services or economic development activities and the preliminary 2021 Budget currently has $244,000 collectively available for this, with $62,000 being set aside for contracted economic development. The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows: • July 10 Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers • August 7 Agency requests are due at City Hall • September 15 Economic development and social service agency presentations to Council • October 20 Council makes final determination of awards Lodging Tax The schedule leading • August 28 • October 2 • October 9 • November 24 • December 8 to awarding funds is as follows: Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers Grant applications due at City Hall Grant applicant presentations to lodging tax advisory committee Admin report to Council on results of lodging tax advisory committee meeting City Council motion consideration: Award lodging tax for 2021 Budget to Actual Comparison Report A report reflecting 2020 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2020 Budget was adopted is located on pages 6 through 18. Because we attempt to provide this information in a timely manner, this report is prepared from records that are not formally closed by the Finance Department at month end or reconciled to bank records. Although it is realistic to expect the figures will change over subsequent weeks, I believe the report is materially accurate. We've included the following information in the report: • Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and by type in all other funds. • A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, Street O&M Fund and Stormwater Fund. • The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund balance figures are those that are reflected in our 2019 Annual Financial Report. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202012020 10 31.docx Page 2 • Columns of information include: o The 2020 Budget as adopted o October 2020 activity o Cumulative 2020 activity through October 2020 o Budget remaining in terms of dollars o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 6): Recurring revenues collections are currently at 70.74% of the amount budgeted with 83.33% of the year elapsed. • Property taxes are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on April 30 and October 31 and are then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with lesser amounts typically remitted in June and December. Property taxes received thus far in 2020 are $7,210,110 or 57.99% of the amount budgeted. • Sales tax collections represent only nine months of collections thus far because taxes collected in October are not remitted to the City by the State until the latter part of November. Collections are currently at $18,310,061 or 74.33% of the amount budgeted. The City is currently comparable to 2019 year-to-date collections, and we are watching revenue collections closely. • Gambling taxes are at $130,624 or 34.02% of the amount budgeted. Gambling taxes are paid quarterly with first quarter payments due by April 30 and second quarter payments due by July 31st. However, due to COVID-19, Council approved the delay of first quarter payments of gambling taxes until September 30 and second quarter until November 30. • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter. So far in 2020 we have received $649,604 or 53.25% of the amount budgeted. • State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a calendar quarter. Through October we've received remittances totaling $1,740,520 or 103.10% of the amount budgeted. • Fines and forfeitures revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine and false alarm fees. Through October we've received remittances through the month of September with receipts of $566,579 or 52.57% of the amount budgeted. • Community and Public Works service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as right of way permits. Revenues are currently at $2,748,364 or 129.04% of the amount budgeted. • Recreation program revenues are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in -season), and CenterPlace. Currently, revenues total $143,161 or 21.72% of the amount budgeted. We're seeing a significant decrease in 2020 revenues due to not being able to operate the City's normal recreation and aquatics activities with the COVID-19 pandemic. Recurring expenditures are currently at $33,246,684 or 76.92% of the amount budgeted with 83.33% of the year elapsed. Investments (page 19) Investments at October 31 total $73,159,610 and are composed of $67,982,120 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,177,490 in bank CDs. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202012020 10 31.docx Page 3 Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 20) Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through October and total $20,666,191 including general, criminal justice, and public safety taxes. This figure is $331,768 or 1.63% greater than the same nine -month period in 2019. Economic Indicators (pages 21 — 23) The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 21) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 23) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 21 provides a 10-year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) with monthly detail beginning January 2011. • Compared with calendar year 2019, 2020 collections have increased by $324,683 or 1.81%. • Tax receipts reached an all-time high in 2019 at $24,204,762, besting the previous record year of 2018 when $22,642,856 was collected. • This activity reflects the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. Page 22 provides a 10-year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2011. • Compared with calendar year 2019, 2020 collections have decreased by $238,860 or 42.28%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2019 of $743,851, exceeding the previous high set in 2018 of $646,976. • This activity reflects the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. Page 23 provides a 10-year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2011. • Compared with calendar year 2019, 2020 collections have decreased by $126,618 or 4.96%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2018 of $3,800,432, and subsequently decreased to $3,333,549 in 2019. • This activity reflects the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 24) This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. • The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value for property taxes which for 2020 is $10,200,357,539. Following the December 1, 2019 debt service payments, the City has $11,715,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 7.66% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.53% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. Of this amount: o $4,390,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1 % sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $590,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. o $6,735,000 remains on bonds issued for construction of the new City Hall. The bonds are to be repaid with General Fund revenues. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202012020 10 31.docx Page 4 Street Fund Revenue Sources (pages 25 and 26) The last two charts reflect a history for the two primary sources of revenue in Street Fund #101. These include: • Page 25 provides a 10-year history of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2011. o Compared with calendar year 2019, 2020 collections have decreased by $222,883 or 14.74%. o Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at just approximately $2.1 million, and subsequently decreased to a range of approximately $1,858,000 to $2,027,000 in the years 2011 through 2019. o This activity reflects the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. • Page 26 provides a 10-year history of Telephone Utility Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2011. o Compared with 2019, 2020 collections have decreased by $144,004 or 12.15%. Unlike tax revenues collected by the State and remitted monthly, these taxes are paid to the City directly by the service provider. Consequently there is not a "clean cutoff' in terms of when a vendor pays the tax. o Tax receipts peaked in 2009 at $3,054,473 and have decreased each year since due to what we suspect is the reduction in land lines by individual households. o The 2020 Budget is set at $1,521,000. We will watch actual receipts closely as the year progresses. o The City has hired a consultant to perform an audit of providers who pay the telephone utility tax. The audit will assess whether providers are accurately remitting all taxes owed to the City, and the consultant will be paid on a contingent basis out of revenues recovered from the telephone providers. Three audits have been completed, and the City has received payments totaling $398,865 which is comprised of recovered revenue plus interest and penalty fees. Per the contract with the consultant, the City paid $99,716 or 25% of the amount recovered. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202012020 10 31.docx Page 5 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 #001 - GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Property Tax 12,432,400 251,768 7,210,110 (5,222,290) 57.99% Sales Tax 24,632,900 2,258,489 18,310,061 (6,322,839) 74.33% Sales Tax - Public Safety 1,162,600 101,146 853,278 (309,322) 73.39% Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 2,052,300 180,614 1,502,852 (549,448) 73.23% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 384,000 7,610 130,624 (253,376) 34.02% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,220,000 8,275 649,604 (570,396) 53.25% State Shared Revenues 1,688,200 328,001 1,740,520 52,320 103.10% Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 1,077,700 35,865 566,579 (511,121) 52.57% Community and Public Works 2,129,800 102,970 2,748,364 618,564 129.04% Recreation Program Revenues 659,200 537 143,161 (516,039) 21.72% Miscellaneous Department Revenue 21,000 7 20,972 (28) 99.87% Miscellaneous& Investment Interest 791,700 12,592 276,447 (515,253) 34.92% Transfers in - #105 (h/m tax-CP advertising) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 48,281,800 3,287,875 34,152,572 (14,129,228) 70.74% Expenditures City Council 622,187 41,971 440,245 181,942 70.76% City Manager 997,882 72,595 733,699 264,183 73.53% City Attorney 707,942 53,460 522,380 185,562 73.79% Public Safety 26,599,214 3,501,113 21,899,009 4,700,205 82.33% Deputy City Manager 277,187 19,071 230,270 46,917 83.07% Finance / IT 1,478,523 107,745 1,089,388 389,135 73.68% Human Resources 313,316 26,539 244,590 68,726 78.07% City Hall Operations and Maintenance 296,270 11,509 235,624 60,646 79.53% Community & Public Works - Engineering 1,971,731 134,021 1,260,349 711,382 63.92% Community & Public Works - Econ Dev 1,119,829 72,473 756,616 363,213 67.57% Community & Public Works - Bldg & Plan 2,420,414 174,451 1,836,981 583,433 75.90% Parks & Rec - Administration 352,227 27,131 265,533 86,694 75.39% Parks & Rec - Maintenance 917,500 86,895 696,802 220,698 75.95% Parks & Rec - Recreation 325,921 16,931 147,827 178,094 45.36% Parks & Rec - Aquatics 501,853 1,635 85,842 416,011 17.11% Parks & Rec - Senior Center 43,447 2,310 23,750 19,697 54.66% Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 965,359 42,885 575,717 389,642 59.64% General Government 1,321,111 61,585 709,508 611,603 53.71% Transfers out - #204 ('16 L TGO bond debt service) 401,450 0 301,088 100,362 75.00% Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 160,000 0 120,000 40,000 75.00% Transfers out - #311 (Pavement Preservation) 982,023 0 736,517 245,506 75.00% Transfers out - #501 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 0 27,450 9,150 75.00% Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 410,000 0 307,500 102,500 75.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 43,221,986 4,454,319 33,246,684 9,975,302 76.92% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 5,059,814 (1,166,444) 905,888 (4,153,926) Page 6 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 #001 - GENERAL FUND - continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Potential Settlement Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0.00% Grant Proceeds 70,000 3,555 22,519 (47,481) 32.17% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 70,000 3,555 22,519 (47,481) 32.17% Expenditures Public Safety (carpet & workstation replacement) 15,000 0 0 15,000 0.00% Public Safety (full facility generator) 0 0 86,109 (86,109) 0.00% Public Safety (SV Police Athletic League Grant) 0 0 1,263 (1,263) 0.00% City Hall Chambers (east wall repairs) 0 3,754 232,353 (232,353) 0.00% Building(equipmentfornewcodeenfofficer) 13,700 0 0 13,700 0.00% Community & Public Works (Appleway Trail ED Sti 0 1,080 31,106 (31,106) 0.00% Community & Public Works (Housing Action Plan) 0 19,652 29,467 (29,467) 0.00% Community & Public Works (2020 SMP Periodic RI 0 6,083 6,083 (6,083) 0.00% Parks & Rec (CenterPlace carpeting) 9,500 0 9,500 0 100.00% General Government (City Hall generator) 0 0 13,590 (13,590) 0.00% General Government - IT capital replacements 190,000 0 85,054 104,946 44.77% General Government (Covid-19 Related Costs) 0 2,348,209 2,688,192 (2,688,192) 0.00% Transfers out - #122 (replenish reserve) 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers out - #309 (CenterPlace West Lawn) 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0.00% Transfers out - #501 (new code enf vehicle) 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,758,200 2,378,778 3,182,715 (1,424,515) 181.02% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (1,688,200) (2,375,223) (3,160,195) (1,471,995) Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures 3,371,614 (3,541,667) (2,254,308) (5,625,922) Beginning fund balance 37,427,218 37,427,218 Ending fund balance 40,798,832 35,172,910 Page 7 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 - STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Telephone Utility Tax 1,521,000 85,607 1,041,645 (479,355) 68.48% Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax 2,046,700 194,728 1,284,241 (762,459) 62.75% Multimodal Transportation 131,500 0 98,887 (32,613) 75.20% Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee 70,000 4,874 11,745 (58,255) 16.78% Investment Interest 17,000 44 734 (16,266) 4.32% Miscellaneous Revenue 10,000 0 344 (9,656) 3.44% Total Recurring Revenues 3,796,200 285,254 2,437,596 (1,358,604) 64.21% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 1,059,613 77,811 751,935 307,678 70.96% Supplies 146,050 6,305 100,280 45,770 68.66% Services & Charges 2,426,467 160,106 1,713,114 713,353 70.60% Snow Operations 543,776 99,984 576,303 (32,527) 105.98% Intergovernmental Payments 922,000 49,792 615,975 306,025 66.81% Transfers out - #501 (non -plow vehicle rental) 14,500 0 10,875 3,625 75.00% Transfers out - #501 (plow replace) 48,500 0 36,375 12,125 75.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 5,160,906 393,999 3,804,857 1,356,049 73.72% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures (1,364,706) (108,745) (1,367,261) (2,555) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Insurance Proceeds (traffic signal cabinet) Transfers in - #312 0 (3,457) 400 400 0.00% 1,364,706 0 1,023,530 (341,177) 75.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 1,364,706 (3,457) 1,023,930 (340,776) 75.03% Expenditures Emergency Traffic Control Repairs 0 0 7,142 (7,142) 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 0 7,142 (7,142) 0.00% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,364,706 (3,457) 1,016,788 (347,918) Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures 0 (112,202) (350,473) (350,473) Beginning fund balance 556,265 556,265 Ending fund balance 556,265 205,792 #103 - PATHS & TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest 8,600 821 5,417 (3,183) 62.98% 400 3 64 (336) 16.01% Total revenues 9,000 824 5,481 (3,519) 60.90% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 9,000 824 5,481 Beginning fund balance 14,115 14,115 Ending fund balance 23,115 19,596 (3,519) Page 8 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget #104 - TOURISM FACILITIES HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel Tax 420,000 38,357 207,855 (212,145) 49.49% Investment Interest 24,000 403 10,976 (13,024) 45.73% Transfers in - #105 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues Expenditures Capital Expenditures Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance #105 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest 444,000 38,760 218,831 (225,169) 49.29% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 444,000 38,760 218,831 (225,169) 2,690,945 2,690,945 3,134,945 2,909,776 650,000 59,116 326,133 (323,867) 50.17% 6,000 108 2,440 (3,560) 40.67% Total revenues 656,000 59,224 328,573 (327,427) 50.09% Expenditures Transfers out - #001 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Tourism Promotion 795,000 1,814 68,159 726,841 8.57% Total expenditures 825,000 1,814 68,159 Revenues over (under) expenditures (169,000) 57,410 260,414 Beginning fund balance 518,240 518,240 Ending fund balance 349,240 778,654 756,841 (1,084,268) 8.26% #106 - SOLID WASTE Revenues Solid Waste Administrative Fees 225,000 121,323 430,329 (205,329) 191.26% Solid Waste Road Wear Fee 1,500,000 0 843,658 656,342 56.24% Investment Interest 12,000 245 7,166 4,834 59.71% Total revenues 1,737,000 121,569 1,281,152 455,848 73.76% Expenditures Transfers out - #311 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0.00% Education & Contract Administration 237,000 6,633 56,498 180,502 23.84% Total expenditures 1,737,000 6,633 56,498 1,680,502 3.25% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 114,936 1,224,655 (1,224,655) Beginning fund balance 540,182 540,182 Ending fund balance 540,182 1,764,837 #107 - PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG Contribution Investment Interest 79,000 0 38,851 40,149 49.18% 0 20 545 (545) 0.00% Total revenues 79,000 20 39,396 39,604 49.87% Expenditures PEG Reimbursement - CMTV 39,500 0 22,288 17,212 56.43% Capital Outlay 45,500 0 1,331 44,169 2.93% Total expenditures 85,000 0 23,619 Revenues over (under) expenditures (6,000) 20 15,777 Beginning fund balance 128,255 128,255 Ending fund balance 122,255 144,032 61,381 27.79% (21,777) Page 9 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget #108 - AFFORDABLE & SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TAX FUND Revenues Affordable & Supportive Housing Tax Investment Interest 0 0 19,592 92,152 (92,152) 0.00% 13 43 (43) 0.00% Total revenues 0 19,605 92,195 (92,195) 0.00% Expenditures Affordable & Supportive Housing Program 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 19,605 92,195 (92,195) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 92,195 #120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 #121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 Ending fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 #122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 5,400 3 1,139 (4,261) 21.10% Transfers in - #001 0 0 0 0 0.00% Grant Proceeds - Windstorm Cleanup 0 0 0 0 0.00% Subtotal revenues 5,400 3 1,139 (4,261) 21.10% Expenditures Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Transfers out - #101 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures (494,600) 3 1,139 (504,261) Beginning fund balance 23,336 23,336 Ending fund balance (471,264) 24,475 Page 10 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget #204 - DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 459,500 0 84,750 (374,750) 18.44% Transfers in - #001 401,450 0 301,088 (100,362) 75.00% Transfers in - #301 80,375 0 60,281 (20,094) 75.00% Transfers in - #302 80,375 0 60,281 (20,094) 75.00% Total revenues 1,021,700 0 506,400 (515,300) 49.56% Expenditures Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace 459,500 0 84,750 374,750 Debt Service Payments - Roads 160,750 0 10,375 150,375 Debt Service Payments -'16 LTGO Bond 401,450 0 118,225 283,225 18.44% 6.45% 29.45% Total expenditures 1,021,700 0 213,350 808,350 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 293,050 (1,323,650) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 293,050 20.88% Page 11 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget 1,000,000 182,656 1,138,721 138,721 113.87% 35,000 489 13,543 (21,457) 38.69% 1,035,000 183,145 1,152,264 117,264 111.33% Expenditures Transfers out - #204 80,375 0 60,281 20,094 75.00% Transfers out - #303 1,089,148 0 140,532 948,616 12.90% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 772,639 0 0 772,639 0.00% Transfers out - #314 49,041 0 222,809 (173,768) 454.33% Total expenditures 1,991,203 0 423,622 1,567,581 21.27% Revenues over (under) expenditures (956,203) 183,145 728,642 (1,450,317) Beginning fund balance 2,798,194 2,798,194 Ending fund balance 1,841,991 3,526,836 #302 - SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2 - Taxes Investment Interest 1,000,000 182,656 1,138,721 138,721 113.87% 35,000 748 20,629 (14,371) 58.94% Total revenues 1,035,000 183,405 1,159,350 124,350 112.01% Expenditures Transfers out - #204 80,375 0 60,281 20,094 75.00% Transfers out - #303 404,318 0 93,461 310,857 23.12% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 772,638 0 0 772,638 0.00% Total expenditures 1,257,331 0 153,742 1,103,589 12.23% Revenues over (under) expenditures (222,331) 183,404 1,005,608 (979,239) Beginning fund balance 4,391,870 4,391,870 Ending fund balance 4,169,539 5,397,477 Page 12 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Developer Contribution 110,499 0 471,030 360,531 426.28% Grant Proceeds 6,596,718 194 1,321,512 (5,275,206) 20.03% Transfers in -#301 1,089,148 0 140,532 (948,616) 12.90% Transfers in -#302 404,318 0 93,461 (310,857) 23.12% Transfers in - #312 114,512 0 68,780 (45,732) 60.06% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 8,315,195 194 2,095,315 (6,219,880) 25.20% Expenditures 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 195,499 9,657 104,993 90,506 53.71% 249 Sullivan & Wellesley Intersection 100,000 5,171 77,199 22,801 77.20% 259 North Sullivan ITS Project 810,232 183,239 732,212 78,020 90.37% 267 Mission SW - Bowdish to Union 19,852 0 134 19,718 0.67% 273 Barker/I-90 Interchange 90,000 0 77,865 12,135 86.52% 275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 3,729,143 375,381 910,006 2,819,137 24.40% 276 Barker Rd Widening - Euclid to Trent 0 0 36,176 (36,176) 0.00% 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 300,000 490 235,135 64,865 78.38% 291 Adams Sidewalk Infill Project 444,645 42 279,947 164,698 62.96% 292 Mullen Preservation: Broadway -Mission 0 0 4,822 (4,822) 0.00% 293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 99,000 73,724 79,939 19,061 80.75% 294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels 47,775 5,407 38,230 9,545 80.02% 295 Garland Avenue Extension 150,000 236 1,061,932 (911,932) 707.95% 299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont 32,000 3,928 52,706 (20,706) 164.71 % 300 Pines & Mission Intersection Improvements 516,000 3,323 47,943 468,057 9.29% 301 Park & Mission Intersection Improvements 0 4,996 40,388 (40,388) 0.00% 302 Ella Sidewalk: Broadway to Alki 371,760 3,750 325,308 46,452 87.50% 303 S. Conklin Road Sidewalk 124,125 4,027 110,388 13,737 88.93% 310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Rep. 0 234 16,188 (16,188) 0.00% 313 Barker Road/Union Pacific Crossing 0 6,651 36,919 (36,919) 0.00% 318 Wilbur Sidewalk: Boone to Mission 0 2,778 8,161 (8,161) 0.00% 321 Argonne Corridor Impry - North of Knox 0 78 78 (78) 0.00% Contingency 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0.00% Total expenditures 8,030,031 683,111 4,276,670 Revenues over (under) expenditures 285,164 (682,917) (2,181,355) Beginning fund balance 67,402 67,402 Ending fund balance 352,566 (2,113,953) 3,753,361 (9,973,241) Note: Work performed in the Street Capital Projects Fund for preservation projects is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that were bid with the pavement preservation work. 53.26% Page 13 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued #309 - PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #312 Investment Interest Miscellaneous Revenues Total revenues Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Actual Actual through Budget % of Budget October October 31 Remaining Budget 2,500 0 1,289,453 1,286,953 51578.11% 1,660,000 0 120,000 (1,540,000) 7.23% 7,500 0 231,658 224,158 3088.78% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 (0) (0) 0.00% 1,670,000 0 1,641,111 (28,889) 98.27% Expenditures 268 Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan 5,000 42,019 1,417,031 (1,412,031) 28340.62% 296 Browns Park 2019 Construction Improvements 5,000 71,971 22,765 (17,765) 455.29% 304 CenterPlace West Lawn Phase 2 1,500,000 173,756 1,825,962 (325,962) 121.73% 305 CenterPlace Roof Repair 0 107,734 580,899 (580,899) 0.00% 314 Balfour Park Frontage Improvements 0 5,503 17,187 (17,187) 0.00% 315 Brown's Park 2020 Improvements 0 17,213 28,525 (28,525) 0.00% 316 Balfour Park Improvements - Phase 1 0 0 10,947 (10,947) 0.00% Total expenditures 1,510,000 418,197 3,903,315 Revenues over (under) expenditures 160,000 (418,197) (2,262,204) Beginning fund balance 78,627 78,627 Ending fund balance 238,627 (2,183,577) #310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest (2,393,315) 258.50% 2,364,426 17,000 119 3,409 (13,591) 20.05% Total revenues 17,000 119 3,409 (13,591) 20.05% Expenditures Transfers out 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 17,000 119 3,409 (13,591) Beginning fund balance 855,985 855,985 Ending fund balance 872,985 859,394 Note: The fund balance includes $839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839,285.10. Page 14 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget #311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 982,023 0 736,517 (245,506) 75.00% Transfers in - #106 1,500,000 0 0 (1,500,000) 0.00% Transfers in - #301 772,639 0 0 (772,639) 0.00% Transfers in - #302 772,638 0 0 (772,638) 0.00% Grant Proceeds 10,588 0 84,251 73,663 795.72% Developer Contribution 0 0 0 0 0.00% Investment Interest 0 439 9,972 9,972 0.00% Total revenues 4,037,888 439 830,741 (3,207,147) 20.57% Expenditures Pre -Project GeoTech Services 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00% Pavement Preservation 4,217,523 0 0 4,217,523 0.00% 248 Sprague Street Pres - Sullivan to Corbin 0 0 (167) 167 0.00% 267 Mission SW - Bowdish to Union 0 194 665 (665) 0.00% 269 Evergreen - Mission Connector to Indiana 0 0 305 (305) 0.00% 284 Argonne Rd. Pres - Valleyway to Broadway 0 0 40 (40) 0.00% 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 0 51,550 1,544,797 (1,544,797) 0.00% 286 Broadway Preservation: Havana to Fancher 0 0 78 (78) 0.00% 287 University Pres - Dishman Mica to 16th 0 0 7,500 (7,500) 0.00% 290 2019 Local Access Streets (Midilome) 0 0 7,500 (7,500) 0.00% 292 Mullen Preservation: Broadway -Mission 0 0 5,086 (5,086) 0.00% 297 2019 SCWD#3 Street Preservation 0 0 (3,199) 3,199 0.00% 309 Local Access Streets: Barker Homes 0 226 500,411 (500,411) 0.00% 320 Sullivan Preservation: Sprague-8th 0 7,980 15,124 (15,124) 0.00% 323 Evergreen Road Preservation Project 0 5,307 6,346 (6,346) 0.00% Total expenditures 4,267,523 65,257 2,084,486 2,183,037 48.85% Revenues over (under) expenditures (229,635) (64,819) (1,253,746) (5,390,184) Beginning fund balance 4,425,201 4,425,201 Ending fund balance 4,195,566 3,171,455 #312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers in - #310 0 0 0 0 0.00% Investment Interest 100,000 1,617 54,946 (45,054) 54.95% Total revenues 100,000 1,617 54,946 (45,054) 54.95% Expenditures Transfers out - #101 1,364,706 0 1,023,530 341,177 75.00% Transfers out - #303 114,512 0 68,780 45,732 60.06% Transfers out - #309 7,500 0 231,658 (224,158) 3088.78% Transfers out - #314 64,192 0 61 64,131 0.09% Land Acquisitions 0 0 4,110 (4,110) 0.00% Total expenditures 1,550,910 0 1,328,138 222,772 85.64% Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,450,910) 1,617 (1,273,193) (267,826) Beginning fund balance 12,936,816 12,936,816 Ending fund balance 11,485,906 11,663,624 Page 15 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued #313 - CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION FUND Revenues Investment Interest Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Transfers out - #312 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 #314 - RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 12,808,751 0 2,679,513 (10,129,238) 20.92% Investment Interest 0 0 367 367 0.00% Transfers in - #301 49,041 0 222,809 173,768 454.33% Transfers in -#312 64,192 0 61 (64,131) 0.09% Total revenues 12,921,984 0 2,902,749 (10,019,235) 22.46% Expenditures 143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation 11,475,292 53,014 2,524,760 8,950,532 22.00% 223 Pines Rd Underpass 1,562,500 1,189,218 1,680,659 (118,159) 107.56% 311 Sullivan Rd./SR 290 Interchange Project 0 4,416 14,180 (14,180) 0.00% Total expenditures 13,037,792 1,246,648 4,219,599 8,818,193 32.36% Revenues over (under) expenditures (115,808) (1,246,648) (1,316,850) (18,837,427) Beginning fund balance 1,008,638 1,008,638 Ending fund balance 892,830 (308,212) Page 16 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 - STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees Investment Interest Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget 1,900,000 33,788 1,221,900 (678,100) 64.31% 40,000 299 9,463 (30,537) 23.66% Total Recurring Revenues 1,940,000 34,086 1,231,363 (708,637) 63.47% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 519,582 33,368 337,679 181,903 64.99% Supplies 14,750 3,088 41,242 (26,492) 279.61 % Services & Charges 1,298,153 113,514 911,207 386,946 70.19% Intergovernmental Payments 37,500 20,916 40,452 (2,952) 107.87% Vehicle Rentals - #501 14,000 0 10,500 3,500 75.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,883,985 170,887 1,341,080 542,905 71.18% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 56,015 (136,800) (109,717) (165,732) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 59,828 0 304 (59,524) 0.51% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 59,828 0 304 (59,524) 0.51% Expenditures Capital - various projects 500,000 0 9,285 490,715 1.86% 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 0 350 18,437 (18,437) 0.00% 302 Ella Sidewalk: Broadway to Alki 0 0 60,590 (60,590) 0.00% 303 S. Conklin Road Sidewalk 0 0 29,105 (29,105) 0.00% 309 Local Access Streets: Barker Homes 0 444 3,332 (3,332) 0.00% Watershed Studies 80,000 910 43,333 36,667 54.17% Stormwater Comprehensive Plan 100,000 0 0 100,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 680,000 1,704 164,082 515,918 24.13% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (620,172) (1,704) (163,779) 456,393 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (564,157) (138,504) (273,495) 290,662 Beginning working capital 2,180,773 2,180,773 Ending working capital 1,616,616 1,907,278 Note: Work performed in the Stormwater Fund for preservation projects is for stormwater improvements that were bid with the pavement preservation work. #403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 460,000 0 203,098 (256,902) 44.15% Grant Proceeds 349,000 0 0 (349,000) 0.00% Investment Interest 20,000 294 8,430 (11,570) 42.15% Total revenues 829,000 294 211,528 (617,472) 25.52% Expenditures Capital - various projects 500,000 13,409 215,046 284,954 43.01 % Total expenditures 500,000 13,409 215,046 284,954 43.01% Revenues over (under) expenditures 329,000 (13,115) (3,518) (902,425) Beginning working capital 2,118,299 2,118,299 Ending working capital 2,447,299 2,114,781 Page 17 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Budget Year Elapsed = 2020 83.33% 2020 Budget Actual Actual through Budget October October 31 Remaining % of Budget #501 - ER&R FUND Revenues Interfund vehicle lease - #001 28,000 0 21,000 (7,000) 75.00% Interfund vehicle lease - #101 14,500 0 10,875 (3,625) 75.00% Interfund vehicle lease - #101 (plow replace) 48,500 0 36,375 (12,125) 75.00% Interfund vehicle lease - #402 14,000 0 10,500 (3,500) 75.00% Transfers in - #001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 0 27,450 (9,150) 75.00% Transfers in - #001 (Code Enforcement Vehicle) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Investment Interest 19,000 199 5,648 (13,352) 29.73% Total revenues 190,600 199 111,848 (78,752) 58.68% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 0 52 19,437 (19,437) 0.00% Small tools & minor equipment 20,000 0 0 20,000 0.00% Vehicle purchase 30,000 241 27,472 2,528 91.57% Snow plow purchase 235,000 0 125,590 109,410 53.44% Total expenditures 285,000 293 172,499 112,501 60.53% Revenues over (under) expenditures (94,400) (94) (60,651) (191,252) Beginning working capital 1,496,093 1,496,093 Ending working capital 1,401,693 1,435,442 #502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in - #001 0 33 173 173 0.00% 410,000 0 307,500 (102,500) 75.00% Total revenues 410,000 33 307,673 (102,327) 75.04% Expenditures Auto & Property Insurance 410,000 0 337,987 72,013 82.44% Unemployment Claims 0 0 6,713 (6,713) 0.00% Total expenditures 410,000 0 344,700 65,300 84.07% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 33 (37,027) (167,628) Beginning working capital 276,004 Ending working capital 276,004 276,004 238,977 SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds Per Revenue Status Report Difference Total of Expenditures for all Funds Per Expenditure Status Report 90,026,301 90,026,301 4,216,764 4,216,764 51,812,386 51,812,386 89,713,567 89,713,567 9,835,049 9,835,049 59,230,003 59,230,003 Total Capital expenditures (included in total expenditures) 28,000,346 2,427,417 15,004,619 Page 18 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Investment Report For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 Beginning Deposits Withdrawls Interest Ending 001 General Fund 101 Street Fund 103 Trails & Paths 104 Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel 105 Hotel/Motel 106 Solid Waste Fund 107 PEG Fund 108 Affordable & Supportive Housing 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 Winter Weather Reserve 301 Capital Projects 302 Special Capital Projects 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Project 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 311 Pavement Preservation 312 Capital Reserve Fund 313 City Hall Construction Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 Stormwater Management 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 Risk Management "Local Government Investment Pool 11/16/2020 LGI P" NW Bank CD #2068 UMPQUA CD #0689 Total Investments $ 67,279,876.50 $ 3,075,557.68 $ 2,101,932.42 $ 72,457,366.60 3,191,616.32 0.00 0.00 3,191,616.32 (2,500,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (2,500,000.00) 10,627.11 0.00 0.00 10,627.11 $ 67,982,119.93 $ 3,075,557.68 $ 2,101,932.42 $ 73,159,610.03 matures: 7/23/2021 11/15/2020 rate: 0.40% 1. 75% Balance Earnings Current Period Year to date Budget $ 35,185,212.83 $ 5,550.64 280,333.10 43.82 17, 501.22 2.74 2,580,531.03 403.39 690, 548.47 107.95 1,568,545.48 245.20 127, 734.61 19.97 81, 763.32 12.78 0.00 0.00 5, 500, 000.00 0.00 21,705.61 3.39 3,127,769.85 488.94 4,786,746.16 748.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 762,152.32 119.14 2,806,364.89 438.70 10, 343, 870.02 1,616.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,911,819.96 298.86 1, 882, 008.15 294.20 1, 273, 066.66 199.01 211, 936.35 33.13 204,349.59 $ 700,000.00 733.96 17, 000.00 64.03 400.00 10, 975.92 24, 000.00 2,440.32 6,000.00 7,165.56 12, 000.00 545.13 0.00 43.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,139.39 5,400.00 13, 542.92 35, 000.00 20,629.03 35,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,408.71 17, 000.00 9,972.49 0.00 54, 945.54 100, 000.00 0.00 0.00 366.78 0.00 9,463.09 40,000.00 8,430.13 20,000.00 5,648.38 19, 000.00 172.89 0.00 $ 73,159,610.03 $ 10,627.11 $ 354,037.07 $ 1,030,800.00 Page 19 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 10 31 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Receipts For the Ten -Month Period Ended October 31, 2020 Month Received 2019 2020 11/16/2020 Difference February 2,530,639.23 2,559,296.59 28,657.36 1.13% March 1,861,849.29 2,015,206.15 153,356.86 8.24% April 1,758,550.64 1,897,614.47 139, 063.83 7.91% May 2,208,350.09 1,847,551.89 (360,798.20) (16.34%) June 2,200,987.91 1,875,335.44 (325,652.47) (14.80%) July 2,333,320.72 2,570,769.98 237,449.26 10.18% August 2,530,196.67 2,677,467.88 147,271.21 5.82% September 2,405,945.26 2,682,700.17 276,754.91 11.50% October 2,504,583.31 2,540,248.50 35,665.19 1.42% 20, 334, 423.12 November 2, 422, 514.22 December 2, 341, 644.57 January 2,284,009.79 20,666,191.07 27, 382, 591.70 20, 666,191.07 331, 767.95 1.63% Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.9%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.9% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: - State of Washington 6.50% - City of Spokane Valley 0.85% - Spokane County 0.15% - Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% * - Criminal Justice 0.10% - Public Safety 0.10% * 2.40% local tax - Juvenile Jail 0.10% * - Mental Health 0.10% * - Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * - Spokane Transit Authority 0.80% * 8.90% Indicates voter approved sales taxes In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 20 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Sales Tax\2020\sales tax collections 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Collections - For the years 2011 through 2020 January February March April May June July August September 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1,460,548 990,157 1,015,762 1,284,180 1,187, 737 1,248,218 1,332,834 1,279,500 1,294,403 1,589,887 1,009,389 1,067,733 1,277,621 1,174, 962 1,290,976 1,302,706 1,299,678 1,383,123 1,671,269 1,133, 347 1,148, 486 1,358,834 1,320,449 1,389,802 1,424,243 1,465,563 1,466,148 1,677,887 1,170, 640 1,201,991 1,448,539 1,400,956 1,462,558 1,545,052 1,575,371 1,552,736 1,732,299 1,197, 323 1,235,252 1,462,096 1,373,710 1,693,461 1,718,428 1,684,700 1,563,950 1,863,225 1,316,682 1,378,300 1,640,913 1,566,178 1,641,642 1,776,653 1,746,371 1,816,923 1,992,273 1,369,740 1,389,644 1,737,933 1,564,119 1,751,936 1,935,028 1,877,899 1,946,689 2,078,412 1,536,252 1,564,282 1,926,551 1,762,119 1,871,077 2,053,961 1,980,940 2,019,198 2,240,908 1,648,657 1,549,275 1,955,470 1,946,112 2,067,987 2,232,342 2,121,051 2,223,576 10/29/2020 2019 to 2020 Difference ok 2,253,852 12,944 0.58% 1,776,898 128,241 7.78% 1,687,355 138,080 8.91% 1,627,596 (327,874) (16.77%) 1,651,937 (294,175) (15.12%) 2,291,842 223,855 10.82% 2,368,495 136,153 6.10% 2,393,597 272,546 12.85% 2,258,489 34,913 1.57% Collected to date 11,093,339 11,396,075 12,378,141 13,035,730 13,661,219 14,746,887 15,565,261 16,792,792 17,985,378 18,310,061 October 1,291,217 1,358,533 1,439,321 1,594,503 1,618,821 1,822,998 1,898,067 2,005,836 2,134,985 0 November 1,217,933 1,349,580 1,362,021 1,426,254 1,487,624 1,652,181 1,768,817 1,925,817 2,064,504 0 December 1,247,920 1,323,189 1,408,134 1,383,596 1,441,904 1,664,983 1,856,989 1,918,411 2,019,895 0 Total Collections 14,850,409 15,427,377 16,587,617 17,440,083 18,209,568 19,887,049 21,089,134 22,642,856 24,204,762 18,310,061 Budget Estimate 14,210,000 14,210,000 15,250,000 16,990,000 17,628,400 18,480,500 19,852,100 20,881,900 22,917,000 24,632,900 Actual over (under) budg 640,409 1,217,377 1,337,617 450,083 581,168 1,406,549 1,237,034 1,760,956 1,287,762 (6,322,839) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 104.51% 108.57% 108.77% 102.65% 103.30% 107.61% 106.23% 108.43% 105.62% n/a % change in annual total collected 5.34% 3.89% 7.52% 5.14% 4.41% 9.21% 6.04% 7.37% 6.90% n/a % of budget collected through September 78.07% 80.20% 81.17% 76.73% 77.50% 79.80% 78.41% 80.42% 78.48% 74.33% % of actual total collected through September 74.70% 73.87% 74.62% 74.75% 75.02% 74.15% 73.81% 74.16% 74.31% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September 20,000,000 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 ■ September 11111111111111111111111111111 324,683 1.81% September 2 August ■ July ■ June ■ May ■ April I. March ■ February ■January 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 21 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax\2020\105 hotel motel tax 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - September Actual for the years 2011 through 2020 January February March April May June July August September 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 22,212 22,792 24,611 38,230 33,791 41,403 49,312 57,452 58,908 21,442 21,549 25,655 52,130 37,478 43,971 52,819 57,229 64,299 24,185 25,975 27,739 40,979 40,560 47,850 56,157 63,816 70,794 25,425 26,014 29,384 48,246 41,123 52,618 61,514 70,384 76,100 27,092 27,111 32,998 50,455 44,283 56,975 61,809 72,697 74,051 31,887 27,773 34,330 52,551 50,230 55,060 65,007 73,700 70,305 27,210 26,795 31,601 52,242 50,112 60,637 69,337 76,972 80,173 28,752 28,878 31,906 57,664 51,777 62,048 71,865 79,368 79,661 31,865 32,821 40,076 59,117 53,596 73,721 84,628 91,637 97,531 36,203 31,035 37,395 24,959 16,906 28,910 41,836 49,772 59,116 10/29/2020 2019 to 2020 Difference 4,338 13.61% (1,786) (5.44%) (2,681) (6.69%) (34,158) (57.78%) (36,690) (68.46%) (44,811) (60.78%) (42,792) (50.56%) (41,865) (45.69%) (38,415) (39.39%) Total Collections 348,712 376,572 398,056 430,807 447,471 460,843 475,079 491,919 564,992 326,132 (238,860) (42.28%) October 39,028 43,699 43,836 45,604 49,880 55,660 56,631 61,826 77,932 0 November 37,339 39,301 42,542 39,600 42,376 46,393 47,090 52,868 59,252 0 December 32,523 30,432 34,238 33,256 41,510 33,478 37,180 40,363 41,675 0 Total Collections 457,603 490,004 518,672 549,267 581,237 596,374 615,980 646,976 743,851 326,132 Budget Estimate 480,000 430,000 490,000 530,000 550,000 580,000 580,000 580,000 600,000 650,000 Actual over (under) budg (22,397) 60,004 28,672 19,267 31,237 16,374 35,980 66,976 143,851 (323,868) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% 103.64% 105.68% 102.82% 106.20% 111.55% 123.98% n/a % change in annual total collected 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% 5.82% 2.60% 3.29% 5.03% 14.97% n/a % of budget collected through September 72.65% 87.57% 81.24% 81.28% 81.36% 79.46% 81.91% 84.81% 94.17% 50.17% % of actual total collected through September 76.20% 76.85% 76.75% 78.43% 76.99% 77.27% 77.13% 76.03% 75.95% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 September 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 September • August ■ July ■ June • May ■ April • March • February ■ January Page 22 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\REET\2020\301 and 302 REET for 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 1st and 2nd 1/4% REET Collections through September Actual for the years 2011 through 2020 January February March April May June July August September Collected to date 2011 64,128 36,443 95,880 79,681 124,692 81,579 79,629 129,472 68,020 2012 I 2013 46,359 56,115 71,730 86,537 111,627 124,976 101,049 106,517 63,517 56,898 155,226 72,172 90,377 116,165 139,112 128,921 117,150 174,070 2014 61,192 67,049 81,724 105,448 198,870 106,676 208,199 172,536 152,323 2015 96,141 103,508 165,868 236,521 165,748 347,421 217,375 202,525 179,849 2016 104,446 83,583 220,637 205,654 192,806 284,897 248,899 231,200 178,046 2017 153,661 124,514 282,724 169,060 202,734 248,768 449,654 472,420 187,348 2018 239,437 146,892 310,562 218,842 646,397 277,424 302,941 261,626 259,492 2019 120,809 199,209 193,913 347,528 263,171 465,044 327,636 300,312 335,824 2020 212,512 242,927 203,774 197,928 258,784 329,801 234,040 365,838 381,224 11/19/2020 2019 to 2020 Difference 91,703 43,718 9,861 (149,600) (4,387) (135,243) (93,596) 65,526 45,400 75.91 % 21.95% 5.09% (43.05%) (1.67%) (29.08%) (28.57%) 21.82% 13.52% 759,525 768,426 1,050,091 1,154,016 1,714,956 1,750,170 2,290,883 2,663,613 2,553,446 2,426,828 (126,618) (4.96%) October 61,396 238,095 117,806 123,505 128,833 253,038 207,895 584,792 225,216 0 November 74,753 104,886 78,324 172,227 129,870 186,434 229,800 263,115 319,161 0 December 65,077 74,300 75,429 117,682 157,919 164,180 278,995 288,912 235,726 0 Total distributed by Spokane County 960,751 1,185,707 1,321,650 1,567,429 2,131,578 2,353,822 3,007,573 3,800,432 3,333,549 2,426,828 Budget estimate 780,000 875,000 975,000 1,100,000 1,400,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,800,000 2,000,000 Actual over (under) budget 180,751 310,707 346,650 467,429 731,578 353,822 1,007,573 800,432 533,549 426,828 Total actual collections as a % of total budget 123.17% 135.51% 135.55% 142.49% 152.26% 117.69% 150.38% 126.68% 119.06% n/a % change in annual total collected (0.16%) 23.41% 11.47% 18.60% 35.99% 10.43% 27.77% 26.36% (12.28%) n/a % of budget collected through September 97.37% 87.82% 107.70% 104.91% 122.50% 87.51% 114.54% 88.79% 91.19% 121.34% % of actual total collected through September 79.06% 64.81% 79.45% 73.62% 80.45% 74.35% 76.17% 70.09% 76.60% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 September 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1 2018 2019 2020 • September • August • July • June • May • April • March • February • January age 23 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Debt Capacity\2020\debt capacity 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Debt Capacity 4/1 /2020 2019 Assessed Value for 2020 Property Taxes 10,200,357,539 Voted (UTGO) Nonvoted (LTGO) Voted park Voted utility 1.00% of assessed value 1.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value Maximum Outstanding Remaining Debt as of Debt ok Capacity 12/31/2018 Capacity Utilized 102,003,575 153,005,363 255,008,938 255,008,938 765,026,814 0 102,003,575 11,715,000 141,290,363 0 255,008,938 0 255,008,938 11,715,000 753,311,814 0.00% 7.66% 0.00% 0.00% 1.53% 2014 LTGO Bonds Road & LTGO Bonds Period Street 2016 LTGO Grand Ending CenterPlace Improvements Total Bonds Total 12/1/2014 Bonds 12/1/2015 Repaid - 12/1/2016 12/1/2017 12/1/2018 12/1/2019 225,000 175,000 185,000 190,000 230,000 255,000 1,260,000 135,000 125,000 130,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 795,000 360,00 300,00 315,000 320,000 365,000 395,000 2,055,000 0 0 75,000 150,000 155,000 160,000 540,000 360,000 300,000 390,000 470,000 520,000 555,000 2,595,000 12/1/2020 290,000 140,000 430,000 165,000 12/1/2021 320,000 145,000 465,000 170,000 12/1/2022 350,000 150,000 500,000 175,000 12/1/2023 390,000 155,000 545,000 180,000 12/1/2024 430,000 0 430,000 185,000 12/1/2025 465,000 0 465,000 195,000 12/1/2026 505,000 0 505,000 900,000 12/1/2027 395,000 0 395,000 '05,000 12/1/2028 300,000 0 300,000 15,000 12/1/2029 245,000 0 245,000 2'0,000 12/1/2030 225,000 0 225,000 2. ,000 Bonds 12/1/2031 180,000 0 180,000 23.,000 Remaining 12/1/2032 130,000 0 130,000 246,000 12/1/2033 165,000 0 165,000 250,000 12/1/2034 0 0 0 260, 1 00 12/1/2035 0 0 0 270,000 12/1/2036 0 0 0 280,0 0 12/1/2037 0 0 0 290,0 0 12/1/2038 0 0 0 305,00 12/1/2039 0 0 0 315,00 12/1/2040 0 0 0 330,000 12/1/2041 0 0 0 340,000 12/1/2042 0 0 0 355,000 12/1/2043 0 0 0 365,000 12/1/2044 0 0 0 375,000 12/1/2045 0 0 0 390,000 595,000 635,000 675,000 725,000 615,000 660,000 705,000 600,000 515,000 465,000 450,000 415,000 370,000 415,000 260,000 270,000 280,000 290,000 305,000 315,000 330,000 340,000 355,000 365,000 375,000 390,000 4,390,000 590,000 4,980,000 6,735,000 11,715,000 5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 7,275,000 14, 310, 000 Page 24 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\MVFT\2020\motor vehicle fuel tax collections 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Collections - September For the years 2011 through 2020 January February March April May June July August September ti 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 154,792 146,353 141,849 165,019 154,700 158,351 165,398 153,361 173,820 159,607 135,208 144,297 153,546 144,670 159,827 160,565 164,050 171,651 146,145 145,998 135,695 156,529 151,595 167,479 155,348 173,983 195,397 152,906 148,118 131,247 156,269 156,850 161,965 157,805 172,308 173,299 152,598 145,455 140,999 157,994 156,259 164,872 168,205 186,277 174,505 163,918 163,037 145,537 167,304 171,829 157,737 177,427 177,567 194,640 150,654 164,807 138,205 168,000 174,211 174,838 177,019 195,780 184,342 162,359 175,936 139,826 168,796 193,986 144,308 194,267 205,438 180,874 148,530 181,823 131,009 144,080 185,669 175,985 169,733 195,107 180,605 152,686 170,461 146,280 90,589 130,168 128,359 138,932 136,633 195,550 10/29/2020 2019 to 2020 Difference ok 4,156 2.80% (11,362) (6.25%) 15,271 11.66% (53,491) (37.13%) (55,501) (29.89%) (47,626) (27.06%) (30,801) (18.15%) (58,474) (29.97%) 14,945 8.27% Collected to date 1,413,643 1,393,421 1,428,169 1,410,767 1,447,164 1,518,996 1,527,856 1,565,790 1,512,541 1,289,658 (222,883) (14.74%) October 158,889 153,022 133,441 160,539 161,520 166,369 163,780 158,062 162,187 0 November 160,461 162,324 164,303 165,871 181,771 176,178 194,814 199,282 196,240 0 December 124,714 138,223 142,140 141,298 153,338 152,787 154,298 148,960 155,728 0 Total Collections 1,857,707 1,846,990 1,868,053 1,878,475 1,943,793 2,014,330 2,040,748 2,072,094 2,026,696 1,289,658 Budget Estimate 1,875,000 1,905,800 1,868,900 1,866,400 1,867,700 2,013,400 2,048,900 2,061,100 2,039,500 2,055,300 Actual over (under) budg (17,293) (58,810) (847) 12,075 76,093 930 (8,152) 10,994 (12,804) (765,642) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 99.08% 96.91 % 99.95% 100.65% 104.07% 100.05% 99.60% 100.53% 99.37% n/a % change in annual total collected 27.96% (0.58%) 1.14% 0.56% 3.48% 3.63% 1.31% 1.54% (2.19%) n/a % of budget collected through September 75.39% 73.11% 76.42% 75.59% 77.48% 75.44% 74.57% 75.97% 74.16% 62.75% % of actual total collected through September 76.10% 75.44% 76.45% 75.10% 74.45% 75.41% 74.87% 75.57% 74.63% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 September ■ 11111111111111111111111 September um August • July • June • May • April • March • February • January 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 25 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Telephone Tax\2020\telephone utility tax collections 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Telephone Utility Tax Collections - September For the years 2011 through 2020 January February March April May June July August September 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 241,357 230,366 245,539 238,561 236,985 239,013 244,191 349,669 241,476 193,818 261,074 234,113 229,565 227,469 234,542 226,118 228,789 227,042 217,478 216,552 223,884 214,618 129,270 293,668 213,078 211,929 210,602 210,777 205,953 208,206 206,038 210,010 210,289 205,651 205,645 199,193 177,948 212,845 174,738 214,431 187,856 187,412 190,984 185,172 183,351 182,167 173,971 177,209 171,770 174,512 170,450 174,405 171,909 170,476 162,734 163,300 162,536 157,285 161,506 156,023 157,502 150,644 155,977 130,196 164,060 158,416 146,519 149,434 150,780 147,281 148,158 141,290 136,615 132,538 138,727 126,455 135,704 129,602 130,723 127,303 128,018 123,292 121,596 121,938 120,016 118,018 117,905 120,922 112,351 85,643 11/19/2020 2019 to 2020 Difference (13,323) (9.75%) (10,942) (8.26%) (16,789) (12.10%) (6,439) (5.09%) (17,686) (13.03%) (11,697) (9.03%) (9,801) (7.50%) (14,952) (11.75%) (42,375) (33.10%) Collected to date 2,267,157 2,062,530 1,931,079 1,861,762 1,714,737 1,566,869 1,427,507 1,336,134 1,185,685 1,041,681 (144,004) (12.15%) October 237,111 225,735 205,559 183,767 183,739 166,784 153,075 142,925 127,214 0 November 240,246 225,319 212,947 213,454 175,235 166,823 151,208 139,209 125,027 0 December 236,449 221,883 213,097 202,077 183,472 168,832 161,115 140,102 126,226 0 Total Collections 2,980,963 2,735,467 2,562,682 2,461,060 2,257,183 2,069,308 1,892,905 1,758,370 1,564,152 1,041,681 Budget Estimate 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,900,000 2,750,000 2,565,100 2,340,000 2,000,000 1,900,000 1,600,000 1,521,000 Actual over (under) budg (19,037) (264,533) (337,318) (288,940) (307,917) (270,692) (107,095) (141,630) (35,848) (479,319) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 99.37% 91.18% 88.37% 89.49% 88.00% 88.43% 94.65% 92.55% 97.76% n/a % change in annual total collected (0.17%) (8.24%) (6.32%) (3.97%) (8.28%) (8.32%) (8.52%) (7.11%) (11.05%) n/a % of budget collected through September % of actual total collected through September 75.57% 68.75% 66.59% 67.70% 66.85% 66.96% 71.38% 70.32% 74.11% 68.49% 76.05% 75.40% 75.35% 75.65% 75.97% 75.72% 75.41% 75.99% 75.80% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1 2011 2012 1 2013 2014 2015 September 2016 • • 1 2017 2018 2019 2020 • September • August • July • June • May • April • March • February • January Page 26