The URL can be used to link to this page

2009, 10-20 Study Session MinutesAttendance: Councilmembers Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ian Robertson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Diana Wilhite, Councilmember MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington October 20, 2009 Staff 6:00 p.m. Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Officer Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Munson opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., welcomed everyone to the study session, and explained that Deputy Mayor Denenny would be arriving later as he is attending a TMDL (total maximum daily load, wastewater) meeting. Mayor Munson reported that he received a request from Mr. Allen Curryer, CEO of Rockwood Retirement Communities in Spokane, asking for a letter of support for the Rockwood Retirement Communities affordable senior housing project in Spokane Valley, which will use HUD and Low Income Housing Tax credit funding; and that the retirement development will include thirty- eight, one - bedroom units designed to serve very low- income elderly households. There was no objection from Council to the Mayor sending such letter of support. Mayor Munson then recognized and welcomed Spokane County Commissioner Mager, who thanked Council for the welcome and noted that Commissioner Richard is en- route. NON - ACTION ITEMS: 1. ICMA Law Enforcement Report — Leonard Matarese Mayor Munson explained the protocol for this agenda item; that first we will have a presentation from 1CMA Consulting, followed by Sheriff Knezovich and Chief VanLeuven, then the Commissioners if they desire, followed by council questions and comments; and said this is strictly information gathering and there were be no decisions made tonight; but Council hopes to have a public comment opportunity in December. Mayor Munson gave some background on the commissioning of this report, he said that 180% of the total amount of property taxes goes to law enforcement which amounts to approximately $15 million, and said Council feels obligated to assess that budget item; and Council also wanted to have a baseline for a Plan B as contracts don't last forever and can be cancelled or replaced, and Council wants to be ready in case something like that should happen; and that having an alternate plan doesn't mean this City will start its own police force or is even leaning that direction. Mayor Munson mentioned that there are some items in the report which are policy questions for Council to consider and some which are administrative for the City Manager's consideration; and again stressed that tonight is an information gathering session. Mayor Munson invited Mr. Matarese to present and introduce his team. Mr. Leonard Matarese introduced himself and his team; he explained that he is the Director of Public Safety Services for ICMA, which is a worldwide association of professional public administrators which works with the federal government and with municipal governments in the United States and Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -20 -09 Page 1 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -17 -09 internationally, and works in the field of public safety. Mr. Matarese introduced the following members of his team: • Dr. Kenneth Chelst: Senior Consultant who just completed his tour as Chair of the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering at Wayne State University, he has expertise in public safety operations, and research techniques, has a Ph.D. from MIT where his dissertation was on mathematical models for police patrol deployment. • Dr. Dov Chelst: son of Dr. Kenneth Chelst, head of statistical and data quantitative analysis at ICMA, and he holds a Ph.D. in mathematics from Rutgers University. • Dr. Paul O'Connell: former NYPD Police Officer, has a Juris Doctorate, a Ph.D. from John Jay, two masters degrees, recently published a book on the Comstad Model of Police Management, and is currently chair of Criminal Justice at loness College in New York. • Major (Ret) George Aylesworth: Juris Doctorate; retired commander of Metro Dade Sheriff's Department where he was in charge of a large legal bureau for twenty -five years; prior to that was a working police officer, and has considerable experience working with state and federal law enforcement agencies. • Chief William Berger: holds a Juris Doctorate and B.A., is currently the Police Chief in Pombay Florida, and is the former president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police; prior to appointment in Pombay, was the chief in North Miami Beach, and prior to that was the youngest chief of homicide in the City of Miami's history. • Ms. Patricia Kettles: Vice President for Director of Quantitative Services for Springstead, Inc., which is a strategic partner of ICMA that conducts considerable municipal consulting around the United States. • Chief (Ret) Jim Gabbard: via telephone, Vero Beach Florida City Manager and Previous Police Chief in Vero Beach; prior to that was a Commander with the West Palm Beach Police Department in their homicide division, and he is a former president of the Port of Police Chief Association, and personally was cited for bravery by Governor Jeb Bush before a joint session of the Florida Legislature for his actions during several hurricanes that struck Vero Beach a few years ago. • Christine Cole: via telephone; Executive Director of the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management at Harvard University at the John F. Kennedy School of Government; she holds a Masters Degree in public administration, and was a community liaison and police advisor to the Superintendent of Police, and has considerable experience and is nationally recognized and internationally recognized in victim and witness advocates rights and also of citizen's rights. Mr. Matarese said there were several other people who played important backup roles, including Akia Garnett, who is the director of operations and management for ICMA. Mr. Matarese said that as Mayor Munson said, and the team concurs, we have a fine law enforcement situation; that the Sheriff and Sheriff's Office and the Police Department are excellent; that his team identified some things for them and /or Council to consider, and as is true of any organization, there are always ways to improve; and said the team found no red flags or serious problems within the organization, and he extended his congratulations to the Sheriff and his team for their work in building an organization. Mr. Matarese stated that ICMA takes no position on whether the City should or should not contract services, start its own police department, or any other alternatives, as his job is to provide information, and there is a lot of information to digest; and he said he hoped the end result will be that whatever path Council chooses, it will use this information to further improve law enforcement services to the community. Senior Dr. Chelst began the presentation of the first PowerPoint, explaining the data analysis and how it was collected and analyzed, use of February and August percentage calls per day by initiator, by category, by months; number of units responding by category; percentage calls and work hours by category in August; deployment and workload for weekdays in February and August; average response time by hour Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -20 -09 Page 2 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -17 -09 of day for February and August; average response time components by category; average dispatch, travel and response times by priority; and then gave a brief summary of response time and workload. Ms. Patricia Kettles then went through the second PowerPoint presentation, that of Cost Projections of an Independent Police Department; that they looked at what the costs have been, looked at other city police departments to see if a standard exists, and that they had discussions with current city staff concerning current contracts. She explained that her analysis looked at start up costs in the first year as well as ongoing capital and operating costs, and in maintaining current contracts with the County, she said her understanding is that there is a law enforcement contract as well as the communications and emergency management, but she focused on the law enforcement piece. She went over the personnel costs based on the initial work by the team, they examined the projected number and recommended number of positions of 95, that the salary survey included numerous cities, and she said the numbers the county is using now are the numbers she felt most comfortable using, which was the 2009 Spokane County Average salary, as well as adding to the total salary 6% for overtime, sick, and holiday pay; and said that the personnel cost estimate is $9.78 million. Ms. Kettles explained they also examined property and equipment costs, some of which included the startup costs such as firearms, uniforms, and radios, which amounted to $5,000 per officer, and with 92 officers equals $460,000. [It was noted that Deputy Mayor Denenny arrived at 6:30 p.m.] Ms. Kettles said there are also ongoing costs of telephone, building maintenance, and fuel, which gives a first year estimated cost of $884,900, with the majority of those costs as startup costs, and ongoing costs at $425,000. Other items they reviewed, Ms. Kettles explained, included things which would be continued such as property room, records management, the SCOPE Program, garage, radio, and forensics for an estimated total cost of $1.5 million, with the majority of that cost in property room /records management and radio. Ms. Kettles also mentioned supply costs, and other costs such as insurance, recruitment, testing, and maintenance and operation, with maintenance and operations a large cost; and she compared the first year costs with ongoing costs. Capital outlay included vehicles, she explained, and she brought up the issue of whether to purchase or lease vehicles; and said that the ICMA report recommends vehicle purchase, as a large factor in purchasing versus leasing is the ability to take advantage of the State Cooperative Purchasing Agreement which allows for good vehicle prices, and as those vehicles are used, they are passed to different departments. Ms. Kettles said that other miscellaneous capital is estimated at $450,000 annually; and the K -9 purchase of four units as well as the dog and training and supplies, is another factor. Ms. Kettle said they estimated 10% of the budget as overhead; and said the end result in looking at the current law enforcement contract of $15.5 million and the initial year, it looks like there would be a projected loss of about $250,000; but ongoing could be a $1.1 million savings. Major (Ret) George Aylesworth said he was asked to compare the current contract with other contracts from Washington, and he also compared it with contracts from other areas; he said they are not addressing the validity of the contract, but they had some areas for consideration; that there is an array of services which would be need to be replicated if Spokane Valley were to have its own police department; that some are difficult to setup and maintain, but we have the advantage of a large police department which can sustain some of these activities. Major Aylesworth said he noticed in the services, there were not a lot of measurable indicators to get an idea if things are working the way you want them; and one of the areas he noted is response time as that is measurable, as is the turn - around time for reports and members of the public having easy access to those reports or having the ability to get those reports easily from Spokane Valley. He noted that there is a selection of the police chief which provides that the Sheriff will provide the city with one or more candidates for the police chief position; and that at any time that only one person is provided, that takes away the choice from the city; he also mentioned that if someone is not working out, the ability to replace that person is not addressed to precisely explain such scenario; under liability, he explained that the City has an advantage regarding having a contract with an independent contractor to handle these issues including the risk management aspects. Major Aylesworth also mentioned that when property or assets are forfeited due to drug cases through state law and when the Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -20 -09 Page 3 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -17 -09 police provided part of the service, they are entitled to share back some of that money; and one thing to consider is for officers that are being paid for by the city, when their activities result in revenues of that sort, that the money be spent in the city, and he said those types or arrangements are do -able and are done commonly between agencies, that there are restrictions on how the funds are to be spent, and is something to examine if revenue if being generated. Regarding legal issues concerning having a stand -alone agency, he stated that the biggest issue is to avoid liability, which is one of the biggest advantages of contracting, including acts of employees, hiring, firing, promoting, etc; and if the City were to start a police department, he would recommend to search out an experienced police chief and use the resources out there such as the State Law Enforcement Chiefs Associations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, or other organizations that can do such a search; and that the chief should be empowered to assemble an initial command staff of experienced people; that ultimately we would want to bring our own people into those ranks, and ideally to bring from those people, your future police chiefs. He also recommended ultimately obtaining national accreditation, and recommended starting an executive development program right away, and said one of the missions that the chief would have would be to start developing from the officers which populate the department, the future higher- ranking officers and future police chiefs. Mayor Munson took a few minutes to recognize several people in attendance, including Spokane County Commissioner Mark Richard, Spokane Police Chief Ann Kirkpatrick, and SCOPE Leader Rick Scott. Chief William Berger said that he and Jim Gabbard, who is on the phone, each have over thirty years of law enforcement experience; that their task, as shown on pages 10 through 22 of the report, was to examine the operations, which includes management administration to vehicles and equipment; and he emphasized how much he appreciated the assistance of Chief VanLeuven and Lt. Steve Jones; he said they are impressed with the officers' sense of community, that they went on calls with the officers and were impressed with how they handled the calls. Mr. Berger said that one thing that caught his attention was that people tell him if you want to find the police department building, look for the White Elephant sign; and said it is extremely important to make sure our focus is on our police department, and that people have a sense of where it is and a feeling of accessibility; that the front lobby presents a tremendous opportunity to market this city and this department and those who work there; and he said it was alarming that if a citizen were to come up in an emergency situation, and it was after 5:00 p.m., that unless they had their own phone, there is no way to connect with people inside the facility; and he said that needs to be addressed; that although it is run by a Sheriff's Office, it is a municipal operation. Mr. Berger said he noted a document from the Sheriff's Office entitled "Intelligence Led Policing" which is a new concept concerning data - driven policing, whereby you analyze everything you do; that although this team was only here for a short time, most of the data he saw was dated, such as organizational charts from 2007, and that a lot of material they requested was not easily obtainable. Jim Gabbard stated that he examined patrol and detective operations and was particularly looking for job knowledge, and said the patrol officers and detectives have an excellent understanding of their responsibilities within the City of Spokane Valley; and after reviewing reports, manuals, investigative material, telecommunications and other documents, they concluded there is a concerted effort by the department's leadership to provide opportunities for continued education, training and continual performance improvement; and noted the very active in- service training programs; he said they were impressed with uniforms, firearms, vehicles, computers, and other support equipment that was well maintained; they reviewed the department staffing and said it appears the twelve -hour shifts work well and the officers are committed to that; that they spent a lot of time looking at the detective bureau and he urged Council to examine that portion of the report as they believe there should be some staff level improvements there; but overall they do a pretty good job of handling the cases; that in talking with some of the citizens, the perception of the community seems that they cannot differentiate between the Spokane Valley Police and the Sheriff's Deputies, although the officers know they are Deputy Sheriffs first, but Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -20 -09 Page 4 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -17 -09 they are committed in working in Spokane Valley and to those community problems while they are there; and in discussions with those officers, the question was posed if they would be willing to work exclusively for Spokane Valley and there was a great deal of reluctance to give up the Sheriff's Office identity as they are very committed to the Sheriff and his goals; that they looked at leadership issues and found that all of the Spokane Valley police officers are deputy sheriffs and ultimately they know they are accountable to the Sheriff as the top law enforcement officer in the county and the management team recognizes they are all accountable first to him and the city second, but the police chief acknowledges that this works well, and he works well with the City Manager and constantly mentioned the good relationship the Police Chief has with the city; and he said they recognize the Sheriff has other assets such as canine and special weapons, and that they were very impressed with the SCOPE program. Mr. Berger explained that the crime rate is a concern with any community, and that crime has gone up, not significantly over the last year, but it will probably continue to go up in property crimes; but one of the things he is envious of is that a real measure of police services is calls for service; and this report measured 52,000 annually, and he said coming from a community that has 18,000 a month, that indicates there is still plenty of opportunity to do pro- active police work with the current configuration. Dr. Paul O'Connell said he examined the areas of professional responsibility, that he observed an impressive array of training programs, specifically regarding the regional training; he said he feels the programs are delivered economically and by dedicated professional staff, and said he was impressed with the OPS, Office of Professional Responsibility, with whom they met; that he worked to differentiate between the "nice to have" and the "needs to have" and that he didn't observe any needs as there were no glaring deficiencies or red flags; he said the most pointed recommendation was the suggestion that the department develop the capacity to actively track, as opposed to just recording, Terry stops that are occurring in the valley. [Note: Terry Stop is an investigate technique when an officer reasonably suspects criminal activity and they have the right to perform such procedure.] Dr. O'Connell said these stops are taking place in the valley, and the recommendation contained in the report suggests that the department develop a capacity to discern how many of these are occurring in the valley, and to identify who is being stopped, when they are being stopped, why and where; that this is important from a risk management standpoint and form a planning perspective; and said these procedures need to be tracked from a quantity and quality perspective; he said regarding the ability to discern the amount of work coming specifically from the Valley, it appears as a theme in different areas of the report. Christine Cole, speaking from the telephone, said her task was to examine community engagement and access; that she's the people person, she spent time meeting with people across the department and in the community; she met with members of the command staff, the Chief, the Sheriff, the SCOPE director and members of neighborhood watch, and met with other operational entities including special standards and training, and crime analysis to understand the relationship with and the inclusion of the community in sharing information and data; she said she was provided a large amount of material from a variety of sources; she did a ride - along, visited SCOPE stations, and attended the SCOPE Executive Action Committee meetings; all of which conveyed to her a deep and clear focus on community based goals and quality community engagement; she said she thought citizens and deputies have a real partnership; that the citizens get a lot from the volunteer efforts and the officers benefit from the level of engagement; and she mentioned she was very impressed with the SCOPE program; as a result of her ride - along, she observed that the activities and behavior of the deputies are community - centric and demonstrate a trust and respect for the volunteers, for citizens who are arrested, for the person on the street, and for the disconnected; that she witnessed interactions with drunk and disorderly pedestrians and the degree of professionalism and quality of demeanor and respect exhibited by the officers was impressive; she said in the section of the report regarding recommendations, there are opportunities for increasing the depth of the relationship; that many of those recommendations fall into management or administrative data reporting or physical access or information access; and said this is whether it concerns a building or pro- Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -20 -09 Page 5 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -17 -09 active reporting of certain administrative data, that it provides both increased degree of transparency and with that a sense of confidence and legitimacy in the eyes of the community; things such as providing more clear information on some professional standards, what are the citizens complaints and internal complaints that are filed, how are they resolved, what becomes of them, what are the numbers, and tracking those trends in comparison with law enforcement activities begins to give an idea of how people are doing; she said those become important not just for management benchmarks, but for the community to have a sense of what their department is doing, and to include such things as use of force, and providing access to timely information about the department, whether it is crime trends or outcomes; all of which she explained will increase the depth of interaction between the community and the police department. Ms. Cole said she did not see a lot of written expectations for behavior or rewards around those activities which she said is interesting as it is clear that is a major focus of this department; having to go into Spokane and not use the valley precinct is a hardship on the citizens, and as a municipal precinct, you would want to have access to as many services as possible locally; and she said the number of volunteer hours and time devoted is impressive; and they are an enormous supplement to the department and they value the work they do; that the officers in the valley appear to have a deep loyalty to the community they serve and the work they do, and in the geographic area in which they work. Mayor Munson invited Sheriff Knezovich, Chief VanLeuven, and the County Commissioners to come forward to speak. Sheriff Knezovich distributed a handout which he described as painting a picture of an agency committed to their community, and one which realizes it is not perfect and strives to improve; that they work diligently on the training aspect; he said for ten years no one from the Spokane County Sheriff's Office had attended a national academy; and in three years two members attended with the hope of another attending soon; he said three weeks ago, every sergeant and lieutenant not on vacation went through a results -based executive leadership course which focused on setting targets and making sure everything they do is within a budget premise. Sheriff Knezovich said that the only part of the report that came to light regarding their concern, was that which focused on diversity; he said the word used in the report was "nonchalant" and Sheriff Knezovich assured everyone that his agency does not take that particular subject nonchalantly; that his hiring department consists of one deputy who is very engaged throughout the community, he sits on various boards for diversity, and the agency has become known as a lead agency in that type of community involvement; and he said if there is any question or doubt concerning diversity that his agency takes that very seriously; he said he realizes law enforcement across the nation is under scrutiny because of those issues; and said he understands the importance of that issue. The next thing of concern in the report, Sheriff Knezovich said, was the staffing levels suggested for Spokane Valley; he said the officer per thousand is a measurement which is being replaced as it does not account for the visitors in the community and is only based on the community's population; he said based on recent training, the Sheriff's Office is beginning to examine what that term means regarding workload, and many agencies are moving to a "call for service" to determine when they need to increase staff; he said the worksheet shows 102 personnel for the valley but that does not account for the 42% employees that Spokane Valley pays for which makes up the backbone of the non -sworn personnel for Spokane Valley; that they looked at other agencies which have non -sworn personnel which are about 80% of their current staffing, but Spokane County is only 25% of the current staffing; and he said his agency is run very lean; and he said the only way to reduce the cost was to back -out thirteen deputies according to the suggested manpower staffing; and he said he doesn't think anyone would agree that would be a wise decision. Sheriff Knezovich said they agree with the ICMA Report concerning the shift/workload as the busiest times are from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., the shift change is from 5:30 to 7; and as noted the lowest staffing level is during one of the busiest times; and he said some of that manpower needs to be shifted, and he said they are preparing to do that; and that it will be easier for the Valley to do so and more difficult for the county due to forced reductions they are facing; and he said he is very interested in that model and said he had hoped to get a little clearer picture on that model from ICMA. Regarding improvements, the Sheriff said there are things which can be improved; and said he would like to get Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -20 -09 Page 6 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -17 -09 more real time regarding his ability to pull up data; and said a dashboard system would be of great help in that regard, to manage resources and to answer questions from the public. He further said they would like to work on more real time data for the officers on the street; that normally officers can pull up data by 11 p.m. in a program that they created called PRISM, which program didn't come without some glitches, and they had to re -write it; and had to have training; and he said he realizes many of these issues are connected with funding. Sheriff Knezovich said he agrees with Chief Burger in that they need to do a better job of marketing the agency; and said citizens must know where their police station is located, how to access the system, and that the Sheriff's office is working on the ability for citizens to log -on to the website and express concerns; although he said it has been his experience that citizens do not have a concern on gaining access, as he receives telephone calls and e-mails and readily responds to such. Sheriff Knezovich said law enforcement is very expensive but is isn't as expensive here as in other places; in looking at his data for Federal Way and Lakewood, the expenses are considerably higher; and he said on page four, it is noted that the calls per officer comparison shows Spokane Valley with a higher call rate then Federal Way and Lakewood; he mentioned the budgets shown on the data and said the Spokane Valley budget for law enforcement, not including public safety and jail, is about 35 %; he said he realizes the budget is 184% total of the property taxes for the criminal justice system; but explained that for the County that figure is an estimated 275% of the property taxes. The Sheriff explained the budget per officer spent in 2008, which shows $145,888 spent per officer in Spokane Valley compared with Federal Way of $167,442 and Lakewood of $170,791. Sheriff Knezovich mentioned that the information compiled by Councilmember Gothmann last year is also included in this handout; that out of twenty -one communities, Spokane Valley is eighteen as far as crime, and 87`" in the nation, which he said speaks to the dedication of the officers; he said he is committed to examining the ICMA information and will improve in those areas where they can improve, and said the goal or benchmark of the sheriff's office is for 90% from the citizens, and internally as well. Chief VanLeuven said that it is evident we have a dedicated and professional law enforcement agency; one which is committed to solving crimes and being engaged in the community; and he referenced data given to Council previously which showed that SCOPE workers dedicated over 27,500 hours within six months; he said we went from 131 to 87` safest city in the nation in the last two years since he has been here; that intelligence led policing has been very successful and the regional task forces have been very successful in aiding in the solving of several burglaries, drug and gang activities and other criminal activities; and mentioned such work as conducting five simultaneous search warrants with fifty investigators a few weeks ago would not have been possible without that regional support. Chief VanLeuven said there are many good suggestions in the ICMA report, some suggestions can be easily implemented, but other costly changes will need Council approval, such as having our own records division. Sheriff Knezovich also recognized the presence of Chief Kirkpatrick; he said he and Chief Kirkpatrick are good partners and talk at least monthly on various issues; that he meets monthly with all the chiefs in the region; he said one of the issues with Chief Kirkpatrick concerns diversity; and he said that she has written a letter on his behalf regarding that, which letter he hopes to share with Council. Sheriff Knezovich said they just hired two analysts and moved a deputy who has a master's degree in analysis, into their own in -house analytical component; and said that the State of Washington is in the process of re- building its intelligence core as in September, 2008 their funding was cut and WAJAC no longer exists. [Note: WAJAC is the Washington Joint Analytical Center, a product of the State -Wide Integrated Intelligence Proposal, a joint effort to maximize law enforcement efforts to prevent crime and potential terrorist attacks]. He said that Chief Kirkpatrick sits on the de- fusion board, that he sits on the Homeland Security Intelligence Board, and both are tasked to re -ramp that system. Sheriff Knezovich also mentioned that they are the agency they are because of Spokane Valley, and without that partnership, no Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -20 -09 Page 7 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -17 -09 one would have the capability they currently have concerning law enforcement; and he said what this all boils down to is relationship; and he said he is committed to improve those relationships. Mayor Munson said there are three positives from this process: that a Plan B is in place; that we have a report that confirms the outstanding level of service from the County Sheriff and that the Sheriff's Department has recognized as professionals, that there are places to improve; and he thanked both teams for comments; and said now that there is a Plan B in place, we can make Plan A work a lot better. Councilmember Gothmann said that he would like further explanation of the issue stated on page 10 of the report where it discusses blurring of lines between the Sheriff's Office and the City Police Department hurting the effectiveness, as he said there is no evidence to show such. Mr. Berger said there is respect and a feeling that the Sheriff is the boss, and the blurring of the lines is that it is a delicate situation because the Sheriff constitutes his officers being here, but that identify must be reinforced that the Police Department is clearly the City's police department, under the auspices of the Sheriff's Department as the citizens don't know the difference. Mr. Matarese added that there is another model, and keeping in mind ICMA is not making any recommendation; and he gave Broward County Florida as an example, where the Sheriff's Office contracts with fourteen police departments, and none of those city police departments call it the Police Department as it is the Sheriff's Office, and the cars are all marked Sheriff's Office, with an added line of their City as the district; so that is a possibility; that each City chooses their police chief but that person is really like a major in the Sheriff's Office, so he said that the choices would be to strengthen the image of a separate police department, even though there is no separate police department, as it is really the Sheriff's Office with a precinct in Spokane Valley, so Council may want to think about how to market what is being delivered; and an option would be to call it the Spokane Valley District of the Spokane Sheriff's Department; but if you want to maintain that separate image, such needs to be marketed to do that. Sheriff Knezovich said there is another model, that of a partnership, just as is stated on the back of their cards, "Spokane Valley Police Department in Partnership with Spokane County Sheriff's Office" and he said that is how the citizens view this; and said the best blend in identifying what it is which should be communicated to the public, would be the sense of partnership. Councilmember Gothmann asked if there is any evidence that cutting seven detectives from the City's staff would affect the crime rate; as that was the recommendation made if we wanted to develop our own. Mr. Berger said that the organizational chart submitted shows percentages of positions, and he said when he spoke to some of the individuals who were giving the percentages, they indicated to him that they spent very little time in actual police work within the Spokane Valley community; and he said that the reduction was taking the percentages of the positions and putting it together as total persons; as if they worked for Spokane Valley, they couldn't be half here and half non - existent. Chief VanLeuven said that during the last homicide in Spokane Valley, they used all their resources available and had to use additional personnel from the Sheriff's Office, some of which are designated as 50/50 detectives; and said such happens on other occasions. Other discussion included intelligence led policing; contracting with a private agency; credentials needed to conduct law enforcement within Spokane County including officer certification; mention of problems associated with a private contractor for running the jail in Harding, Montana; that the highest liability cost for any city is land use and law enforcement; use by the Sheriff's Office of Lexipol Policy and Procedures to maintain their accreditation and liability, which policies and procedures are based on risk management philosophies. There was mention by Councilmember Robertson that page 75 of the ICMA report states that the Interlocal agreement is poorly written and difficult to follow and interpret regarding cost allocation; and Mr. Matarese suggested council consider buying a percentage of deputies on duty at all times instead of a certain number of individuals; to focus more on the outcomes instead of the inputs, and said an agreement could be structured which would be easier to implement and monitor and focus on the outcomes and not the individual bodies. Sheriff Knezovich agreed this issue has been a challenge as it is Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -20 -09 Page 8 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -17 -09 difficult to structure manpower and service when the debate is over who has the 50/50 employee and where that person should be located. Mr. Matarese also mentioned that ICMA strongly believes that the Chief needs an assistant; that the management structure puts too much responsibility on the chief for daily activities and it therefore takes away his abilities to manage overall, and he said he realizes the Sheriff agrees with this and Mr. Matarese said this could be an area for council's future discussion. Sheriff Knezovich said for the last two years, the Sheriff's Office has loaned a deputy chief to the Spokane Valley because they realize that weakness exists. Sheriff Knezovich said they presented a new cost plan to Mr. Mercier, that they are working with a private consultant who indicates they are on firm basis for the cost plan, which is a cost per unit instead of purchasing 50/50 employees; that the purchase would be for a block of law enforcement, and it includes a component of the model to indicate payment for services, such as dispatch. Deputy Mayor Denenny said that a few years ago he made the comment that he wanted to look at forming our own police department, which statement he said was taken out of context; but that he wanted justification for doing what we are doing and finding ways to improve it; and he said the overall tenor of the report is extremely positive, and brought out such things as the identity question, which is a policy decision on how strongly to identify the police department as a municipal police department and what is gained by doing so; he said some of the questions to be addressed are concerning communication, and to ask ourselves what can we implement and at what cost, and what will we gain by that; and he asked for clarification concerning some of the inadequacies of management, as noted on page 12 of the report. Mr. Berger said based on the 2007 organizational chart, there was no clear definition how much time any individual spent in our community even though the City was charged for it; and when they did some questioning to officers about how much time they actually spend in the Valley, the response was maybe one day a month; and he said when the model is changed to go with services versus people, it should be clearer; as based on the old model, he felt Spokane Valley was not getting its money's worth for that position, and for a 50/50 position, that person should be spending 50% of their time in Spokane Valley doing specifically Spokane Valley work; but he realized blending occurs and that they are dealing with lump sums; but there is no data to truly indicate precisely the amount of time; and Mayor Munson noted that could also be applied to the percentages noted on page 86, in that the solution would be the pay for services to clearly define what Spokane Valley would get for its dollars. Sheriff Knezovich said it comes down to the work position; for instance, Spokane Valley pays 50% of the command staff, that the investigative captain is the Sheriff's command staff for the Sheriff's Office, he does that work for Spokane Valley yet he is located downtown, and very rarely does he come to Spokane Valley, but Sheriff Knezovich assured Council that at least 50% of that officer's time is dealing with issues of the investigative unit, and that more than 50% of that is a shared asset as only five detectives are assigned in the unincorporated area; there are six assigned to Spokane Valley, and every other detective asset is a 50/50 plan that works all over; and he confirmed that it is the percentage model that causes such difficulty. The Sheriff said the report has helped them focus on certain aspects, and there were other aspects of concern, and he said he had a thirty-one page response to some parts of the report; that the report verified the heavy call load period but that he had hoped for some solutions. In response to question from Deputy Mayor Denenny about the take -home cars, Sheriff Knezovich said he believes that is the direction to go; that overtime can be cut drastically by taking cars home as it eliminates the travel transition, the cars are better maintained, the mileage actually drops, and the officers are deployed quicker. Mr. Matarese agreed and said ICMA strongly supports that idea, and said there could be tax advantages for the officer as well, especially in the unincorporated area; and he encouraged some of the ability to use the cars off -duty as well as. Councilmember Dempsey said she is pleased to see the benchmarks in the report; and Sheriff Knezovich said the Sheriff's Office really does not have clear expectations, and he agrees that they are working to develop those expectations and to wrap their minds around those benchmarks or expectations as there is Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -20 -09 Page 9 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -17 -09 no clear cut program for that and he recognizes that need. Chief VanLeuven added that there are several things to do to provide a quality professional service, and to meet the expectations of the community so they feel safe. Concerning the recommendations section on page 95, Mayor Munson asked how to make the precinct presence more obvious and what will it cost. Chief VanLeuven said some things to make a positive identification in Spokane Valley include wearing the Spokane Valley patch; to have different patrol cars with different markings, and including the Spokane Valley logo on police officer's cards, in cooperation with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. Sheriff Knezovich said proper signage for the precinct is needed and mentioned that the report discussed having a consistency in vehicle color scheme which will give the appearance of having a larger police presence Mayor Munson mentioned that item #3 mentions an alternative to processing ordinance violations, which entails $116.00 charge back to the City, which is not reflected in the City budget; that the City could issue a civil citation similar to a traffic summons with the required thumbprint, which would save time and money for the officer; and he asked if Sheriff Knezovich had reviewed that recommendation. Sheriff Knezovich said they will need to examine that to determine the legal ramifications. Mayor Munson mentioned that page 96 of the report has recommendations for recruiting and training, and he asked if the Sheriff feels the recommendations are valid; and Sheriff Knezovich said he believes those are already in place. Mayor Munson said Council looks forward to developing a new contract and of working together; and Sheriff Knezovich said they are working on benchmarks and expectations; and said the Mayor will be receiving a letter shortly from him requesting opening of the contract negotiations as the County has designated him as the lead negotiator, and said Mayor Munson will be receiving a list of things they would like to examine in the contract, and said he looks forward to seeing Spokane Valley's recommendations on issues Spokane Valley would like to examine in the contract; and said he would like to get the contract negotiated so that everyone can move forward with a better cost plan and to build a better policing agency for the entire region. Mayor Munson called for a recess at 8:36 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. 2. Amending 2009 Budget — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson said that each year staff works to amend the budget if necessary, and he brought Council's attention to the list of items noted including figures for street fund, debt service fund, capital grants, and Barker Bridge and Parks Capital; he said there were four street projects that actually rolled into portions of 2009; and we spent about $6 million this year for the Barker Bridge. Mayor Munson said he would like to next address Agenda Item #6, fee resolution. 6. Fee Resolution 09 -015 — Ken Thompson It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny and seconded to approve Resolution 09 -015. As noted on the memorandum before Council, Mr. Thompson explained the additional changes to the fee resolution, most of which are edits in wording, but that it also includes the false alarm fees. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. 3. Council External Committee Reports - Councilmembers Councilmember Gothmann said he met with the Chair of the Transportation Improvement Board who mentioned that we currently have no representation on the Area Aging Committee, and that they will be meeting next week to discuss moving toward us receiving a seat on that board. 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Munson Mayor Munson reminded everyone that there will be no meeting November 3. Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -20 -09 Page 10 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -17 -09 5. Information Only: The Shoreline Master Program Public Participation Program, 2010 Sewer Paveback Program and Community Development Block Grant Projects were for information only and were not reported or discussed. Council Check -in — Mayor Munson Councilmember Schimmels said he wants to see something done with the sound system at CenterPlace; that at the last meeting held there it was obvious people had a difficult time hearing; that he is aware there are people in the area who do nothing but try to address those type of acoustic problems; and said the sound is better than at first, but it still is not good. There was council consensus to ask Mr. Mercier to investigate that issue, and Mr. Mercier asked that Councilmember Schimmels let Mr. Stone know of the company in mind for helping with the acoustics. Mayor Munson said last week he and Mr. Mercier met with an individual who is with an engineering and architectural firm about a pending development on the outskirts of our community, and they discussed the concept of green buildings, and they are anxious to prepare an introduction to a firm subscribed as one of the top firms to foster such a project, and also indicated there could be federal funds to assist with such an endeavor. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier Mr. Mercier had no additional comments. 7. Executive Session: Land Acquisition [RCW 42.30.110(1)(6) and Potential Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)0). It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session to discuss land acquisition and potential litigation for approximately thirty minutes, and that no action is anticipated upon return. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:55 p.m. Mayor Munson declared Council out of executive session at 9:29. It was then moved by Councilmember Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTEST: tine Bainbridge, City Clerk chard M. Muns Mayor Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -20 -09 Page 11 of 11 Approved by Council: 11 -17 -09 30,000 20,000 10,000 2008 POPULATION Federal Way, WA Or 4/7647 Lakewood, WA Spokane Valley 88;040 • % i « SU 920'.. 88p -£ _ • \ \ \ % t H 1 W Syit 58,780sf � t x F'- M x ;: ,�> �y -G Y+ t + ryp``.' 'a'y t '.- r a`i � a- ni✓_ tirm - . n -rm L f \\ ' \ 5 « « • \T � � \ \, \ y 2 30,000 20,000 10,000 2008 POPULATION Federal Way, WA Or 4/7647 Lakewood, WA Spokane Valley 2.00 1.80 1.60 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Federal Way, WA OFFICERS PER THOUSAND POPULATION Lakewood, WA Spokane Valley T t > _ ,`]�. :.Y j 4 ta.i`. 1� f yR Y.Y' q{ •r t"'T 'ii~� X [♦ IA t { Y: 3: }:r y'�F ': "fl' f s£ .i'R + rgf,.3 'S k +.'.dt r T lk ° .. y�V / ' 4'43 + F V }. G A h> .S" :♦ `+, r . (,:4 — t e, y }'. `.Y_..+ i t k.'1' iYJT c} d : y �xG •56 '� - t."' -' , ' _Y i tk i`u SY. t r :a v" . re d 1 \ ' ( \\ \ i\ ' 1 LQ t . - y j C: « :d > s , » "fa\l t„ �� \ i r 5 2.00 1.80 1.60 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Federal Way, WA OFFICERS PER THOUSAND POPULATION Lakewood, WA Spokane Valley • Traditional is # of Officers per 1000 population — Does not take into consideration the number of "guests to our City that are served" — Does not take into consideration our service to County residents • Contemporary is # of Calls per Officer — Total number of calls for service divided by number of staff — More accur',ate representation of demands on service — Takes into consideration all variables Algorithm 1,600 2008 Calls Per Officer Comparison 1400 ' 1,200 y R n x 1 ,. n;: r 1.� I r Lx _ YY_ 1,000 ¢ a fl(�Q °- �aJJ ��J .. -r Y = ��-� >�. � � _ k r �- i. t� v 800 YL C a.. , 600 r 1 .. 400 - X P I S ,L . � . _ � ".T� M" 200 � -'-� "S°- - -....+ = ..', ="° `-.-�- ! -�� A y '"^x L � + l .3` n v � . :.. .. � YxY� � _ ... ». -- ;:>...h:.: # .. x:. ..... « .. _ ^�•+� �p A pt Federal Way PD Lakewood PD i Spokane Valley PD Based on officers assigned to respond to calls for each agency Law Enforcement to General Fund Comparisons - 2008 Federal Way Lakewood SV LE Actual $21,600,000 $17,420,674 $14,734,680 General Fund Actual $41, 100,000 $37,457,720 $42,074,400 % LE of General Fund 52.55% 46.51% 35.02% Law Enforcement to General Fund Comparisons - 2008 $155,000 $150,000 $145,000 $140,000 $135,000 $130,000 2008 LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY BUDGET SPENT PER OFFICER Federal Way, WA Lakewood, WA Spokane Valley r 67 2 ::1117.0;19.1 IP' tatzk, . d v.i R N J^y� :k { f 9j xU. 'Y C k h cy !' hi'G1 :• i [ f. +i•'�y,a`�-2^1t¢ -y h I.Y Q. ' w •' l „ r q. , _ . == $145,8884: • , Ot4 1. f ! YS # Arm C t, et:rye: '' ...:. $155,000 $150,000 $145,000 $140,000 $135,000 $130,000 2008 LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY BUDGET SPENT PER OFFICER Federal Way, WA Lakewood, WA Spokane Valley Cost Change as New PD Last year county] contract First year new PD 2008 Actual cost 2009 adopted budget Federal Way (New 1997) $8,100,000 1 $9,882,000 $21,600,000 $23,500,000 Lakewood (New 2005) $13,521,780 $14,061,220 $17,420,674 $18,449,841 Cost Change as New PD WAGES • Wages are based on comparables — SVPD comparables will be higher salaries than accounted for by ICMA recommendations • $636,035 additional salary cost when averaging comparable for the transition year • Officer, Corporal and Sergeant have five step increase with comparables which is not included in cost estimates 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -; - o 0 c r 0 4- = c 0 v = 0 = - V c c 0 r c ` _ EE y r CO th CC f v Crime Rate per 1000 0 n f > '_' • 0 � f C iD (4 .R O J 0 - 3 v - o rii ▪ 1 .� 7- r o V) 0 c( • C c ) • LJ L) 0 V) r - 0 -J CO 0 Lt- In 2007 Spokane Va ley had the fourth lowest Crime Rate per 1000 of the 21 largest cities in Washington State 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Police Cost per Capita O U U 0 CO o t C) r- r t- = 2 i - _ C (D CO ▪ C Q! > Q 0 0 4.... • r Y 7 Y " = U O n C O 0 > ▪ Y 0 o d 0 i y - CI C.0 _ > > C 3 G U CO CC n [t Y r = 0 U 4 I- Y m v� v U J U m LL 2007 Cost per capita from Bill Gothmann's September 19, 2008 report 2820 N Cherry St • Multi -unit housing built in summer of 2006 • I n 2005, we had 0 calls to that location • I n 2008, we had 402 calls to that location • Within walking distance to the apartment complex we had the following reports taken: — 2005: total of 977 reports — 2008: total lof 1,450 reports 2820 N Cherry St (Cont'd) • Within walking distance to the apartment complex we had a substantial increase in the following crimes from 2005 to 2008: I — Adult rape 100% — Assault 32% — Burglary 57% — DV 62% — Malicious Mischief 16% — Robbery 500% — Stolen Vehicles 35% — Vehicle Prowling 89% Hours of Operation for Police Agencies in Washington State Of the largest 21 cities in Washington State (including Sp kane Valley), 20 of them close their police stations in evenings and on weekends. This schedule is a cost savings process adopted throughout the state. 911 and Crime Check are used to summon assistance ICMA Recommendations: No supporting funds allocated • OPS lieutenant recommended but not funded • Staffing of a sergeant and officer for training unit recommended but not funded • Grant person recommended but not funded • Criticized SC SO O for only having two patrol lieutenants, but only one is funded in recommendation • Training facility /location to house detectives that are currently 50/50 out of PSB not funded Issues with ICMA Final Report • After receiving the draft of the report, a 31 -page paper listing errors in the report was sent to ICMA — Of those 31 pages only 14 items were corrected in the final report • ICMA does not understand the cooperation between police agencies in this area - SCSO and SPPD share a number of services to minimize costs — Example: SVPD on page 21 is listed as joint tenant with dispatch center ownership unclear and "RMS is controlled by SVPD ". SPD is the joint tenant with SCSO and controls RMS not SVPD. Issues with ICMA Final Report Cont'd • The only way ICMA was able to recommend an independent police department lat a similar cost was to reduce the number of commissioned officers from 101to89. • ICMA does not seem to understand the Civil Service laws of Washington • SCSO is accredited through WASPC Issues with ICMA Final Report Cont'd • Diversity in Spokane Valley — Considerable information was sent to ICMA on this diversity. • Correct diversity percentages • All programs SCSO is involved in to help recruit a diverse work force • Awards received in this area for work performed by SCSO individuals — None of the information sent to ICMA on this topic made; it into the final report Issues with ICMA Final Report Cont'd • Report has no specific information on how the number lof officers needed was developed • Lack of promised recommendation for changes in shift hours or assignment areas 2008 UCR DATA Population Officers Per 1000 Violent Crime Property Crime Property Crimes per 1000 Pop. Spokane Valley 88,920 1.14 290 2,876 32 ICMA Independant SVPD 88,920 .99 290 2,876 32 Palm Bay 101,759 1.65 539 1,011 10 Vero Beach 16,689 3.44 86 689 41 2008 UCR DATA 1, Spol�ane . Memorandum To: Mayor and Councilmembers; Dave Mercier, City Manager From: Ken Thompson Date: October 20, 2009 Re: Fee Resolution Edits Page 13 — added Patio Event Package - $300 per event 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org The following changes have been made to the fee resolution: Page 5 — Fee Refund Policy — edited to further explain policy Page 8 - #8 removed — as the repairs or additions are listed throughout Page 9 — removed comments; "Appliances" and "Private Sewage disposal system" were removed not because they are listed elsewhere, but because we do not issue permits for those items. Page 14 — Senior Center Wing — changed from $840 to $850 per 6 hours (typo) Page 15 — "Mirabeau Springs ", "Mirabeau Meadows" format changed to show in all caps Added "and Valley Mission" to Mirabeau Meadows Moved " ** for events reserving CenterPlace or Mirabeau Meadows Only" — under "Event Pictures." t. 1 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 09-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING RESOLUTION 08 -022, AND APPROVING AN AMENDED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE 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 fees for City programs, permits and services, and periodically, the fee resolution must be updated to incorporate new or modified services; and WHEREAS, Council desires to modify 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 changes needed at this time are incorporated into the attached schedules and include new fees and changes to existing fees. Section 2. Repeal. To the extent that previous fee schedules are inconsistent with those set forth herein, they are repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect on January 1, 2010. Approved this day of October, 2009. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Richard M. Munson, Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 09 -015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 1 of 17 1 DRAFT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Fee Schedule Page No. Schedule A: Planning 3 Schedule B: Building 5 Schedule C: Fire Code 11 Schedule D: Parks & Recreation 13 Schedule E: Administrative 16 Schedule F: Other Fees 16 Schedule G: Police Fees 17 Resolution 09 -015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 2 of 17 1 DRAFT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Schedule A — Planning AMENDMENTS Comprehensive Plan amendment $1,500 Zoning or other code text amendment $1,500 APPEALS Appeal of Administrative Decision $1,050 Appeal of Hearing Examiner findings $315 TranscripUrecord deposit fee on appeals of Hearing $157 Examiner's decisions ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Single dwelling (when required) $100 All other developments $350 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Review, min. $2,200 deposit Addenda of existing EIS Review $350 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit $840 Critical Areas Floodplain Permit $315+ $52 Per lot OTHER PERMITS Home Occupation Permit & Ace. Dwelling units $84 Conditional Use Permit $840 Temporary Use Permit $157 LAND USE ACTIONS Subdivisions Preliminary plat $2,324 Plus 540.00 per lot Final plat $1,424 Plus 510.00 per lot Time extensions — file review and letter $80 Short Plats Preliminary 2 -4 lots Final Plat 2-4 Lots $924 Preliminary plat 5 -9 Lots $1,424 Plus $25 per lot Final Plat 5 -9 Lots $1,224 Plus $10 per lot Time extensions — file review and letter $80 Resolution 09 -015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 3 of 17 $1,224 DRAFT Plat Alteration Subdivision plat $682 Short plat $278 Binding Site Plan Binding site plan alteration $1,474 Change of Conditions 5650 Preliminary binding site plan $1,674 Final binding site plan $924 Aggregation/Segregation Lot line adjustment 5105 Lot line elimination $105 Zero lot line 5105 Plus 510 per lot Plat vacation $1,474 SIGNS Review of permanent sign $50 Plus $25 if Public Works review is needed Review of temporary sign 550 SITE PLAN REVIEW $550 STREET VACATION APPLICATION $1,365 OTHER Administrative Exception 5315 Variance 51,575 Preapplication Meetings $250 Deducted from land use application fee if application is filed within 1 year of preapplication meeting Administrative Interpretations 5100 ZONING Zoning map amendments (rezone)* 51,650 Planned resi. development plan 51,575 Plus $26 per lot Planned resi. Development modification $525 Zoning letter $210 *If rezone is combined with other action(s), cost of other action(s) is additional. Resolution 09 -015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 4 of 17 1 DRAFT 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 will 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 are collected prior to issuance of the permit. Fees for outside professional services required during the permit process will 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 Plan review fees are non - refundable once any plan review work has been started. Permit fees are non - refundable once work authorized by the permit has begun. Applicants/permit holders of projects eligible for refund must request a refund in writing within 180 calendar days of application submittal or permit issuance. Requests received after 180 calendar days are not eligible for refund. Building Pplan review fees will be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing. A o ra gtc of 100 %le% $35.00 administrative fee will be retained. If the paid building plan review fee exceeds $35.00 the amount for refund will be calculated at the rate of 100% of the building plan review fee oaid minus $35.00. Building Tapering fees will be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing within 180 days of permit issuance.at the rate of 95% with at least one hour of staff time retained (as designated in this An amount eoual to the hourly rate for one hour of staff time as designated in this schedule will be retained. If the building permit fee is less than the amount for one hour of staff time the building permit fee will not be refunded. If the paid building permit fee exceeds the amount for one hour of staff time, the refund will be calculated at the rate of 95% of the building permit fee paid in accordance with Schedule B of the Master Fee Schedule. FEES GENERAL: Hourly rate for City Employees $61 Overtime rate for City Employees (1.5 times regular rate) $92 Investigation fee: Work commenced without required permits Equal to permit fee Replacement of lost permit documents Hourly rate; 1 hr. min. Revisions to plans requested by the applicant or permit holder will 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) WSBCC Surcharge (Multi- Family) Resolution 09-015 Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 5 of 17 $4.50 /permit $4.50 first dwelling unit + $2.00 each additional unit I DRAFT 1 BUILDING PERMIT: Building permit fees for each project are set by the following fee schedule. The table below is to 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 greatest. Valuations not listed in the Building Safety Journal: Building Type Residential garages /storage buildings (wood frame) Residential garages (masonry) Misc. residential pole buildings Residential carports, decks, porches Building Permit Fee Calculation Table Total Valuation $1 to $25,000 $25,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $1,000,000 and up Valuation per square foot $ 19 sf $ 22 sf $ 19 sf $ 15 sf Building Permit Fe $69.25 for the first $2,000 plus $14 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $25,000 $391.25 for the first $25,000 plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $50,000 $643.75 for the first $50,000 plus $7 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $100,000 $993.75 for the first $100,000 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $500,000 $3,233.75 for the first $500,000 plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $1,000,000 $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000 plus $3.15 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof Plan Review Fee Calculation Table Plans review fee (general) Plans review fee — Group R -3 occupancies (single family less than 7,999 sq. ft.) Plans review fee — Group R -3 occupancies (single family 8,000 sq. ft. or greater) Plans review fee —U -1 or U -2 occupancies (sheds, barns, etc.) Initial Plan Review Fees are capped at $35,000 not including pass - through expenses for outside review as noted in the `Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Resolution 09 -015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 6 of 17 65% Of bldg permit fee 40% Of bldg permit fee 65% Of bldg permit fee 25% Of bldg permit fee { Formatted 1 1 DRAFT OTHER BUILDING PERMITS: Over -the- Counter Service $61 (flat fee) Demolition Permit Single Family Residence $46 (flat fee) Commercial buildings $131 (flat fee) Garage or accessory building associated with a residence or $21 (flat fee) commercial building Foundation Only 25% of bldg permit fee Swimming Pools, over 5,000 gallons $52 plus plumbing fees Re -roof Permit No plan review fee will be charged unless Based on project valuation plans are submitted for review. Change of Use or Occupancy Classification permit Towers, Elevated tanks, antennas GRADING PERMIT: Cubic Yards Grading Permit Fee 100 or less $21 101 to 1,000 $21 for the first 100 Cu. Yd., plus $7.00 for each additional 100 Cu. Yd. 1,001 to 10,000 $88 for the first 1,001 Cu. Yd., plus $6.00 for each additional 1,000 Cu. Yd. 10,001 to 100,000 $154 for the first 10,000 Cu. Yd. plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 Cu. Yd. 100,001 to 200,000 $386 for the first 100,000 Cu. Yd. plus $15.00 for each additional 100,000 Cu. Yd. 200,000 or more $528 for the first 200,000 Cu. Yd. plus $15.00 for each additional 200,000 Cu. Yd. Resolution 09 -015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page _7 of 17 Hourly Hourly GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEE: Cubic Yards Plan Checking Fee 50 or less No fee 51 to 100 $12 101 to 1,000 $21 1,001 to 10,000 $27 10,001 to 100,000 $27 for the first 10,000 Cu. Yd. plus $7 for each additional 10,000 Cu. Yd. 100,001 to 200,000 $104 for the first 100,000 Cu. Yd. plus $6 for each additional 100,000 Cu. Yd. 200,001 or more $166 Land Clearing only (without earth being moved) $68 Paving Permit (greater than 5,000 SF — new paving only) $263 DRAFT MECHANICAL PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. Mechanical Permit Fees A. Basic fees 1) Basic fee for issuing each permit $37 2) Basic for each supplemental permit $8 Unit fees (in addition to the basic fee) B. 1) Furnaces & suspended heaters - Installation or relocation a. up to and including 100,000 btu $13 b. over 100,000 btu $16 2) Duct work system $11 3) Heat pump & air conditioner a. O to 3 tons $13 b. over 3 to 15 tons $21 c. over 15 to 30 tons $26 d. over 30 to 50 tons $37 e. over 50 tons $63 4) Gas water heater $11 5) Gas piping system $1 Per outlet 6) Gas log, fireplace, and gas insert installation $11 7) Appliance vents installation; relocation; replacement $10 Each 8) Repairs -or additions 8-46 89) Boilers, compressors, and absorption systems a. 0 to 3 hp — 100,000 btu or less $13 b. Over 3 to 15 hp — 100,001 to 500,000 btu $21 c. Over 15 — 30 hp— 500,001 to 1,000,000 btu $26 d. over 30 hp— 1,000,001 to 1,750,000 btu $37 e. over 50 hp — over 1,750,000 btu $63 814) Air Handlers a. Each unit up to 10,000 cfm, including ducts $13 b. Each unit over 10,000 cfm $16 10+) Evaporative Coolers (other than portable) $11 1 l2) Ventilation and exhaust a. Each fan connected to a single duct $11 b. Each ventilation system $13 c. Each hood served by mechanical exhaust $13 Resolution 09 -015 Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 8 of 17 I DRAFT 123) Incinerators a. Installation or relocation of residential $21 b. Installation or relocation of commercial $23 4-4) Appliances, each 344 135) Unlisted appliances a. under 400,000 btu $52 b. 400,000 btu or over $105 146) Hood a. Type I $52 b. Type II $11 154) L P Storage tank $11 168) Wood or Pellet stove insert $11 179) Wood stove system— free standing $26 PLUMBING PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at application as noted in the `Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. A. Basic fees 1) Basic fee for issuing each permit $37 2) Basic for each supplemental permit $8 Unit fees (in addition to the basic fee) B. 1) For each plumbing fixture on a trap (including garbage disposals, dish washers, $6 back flow device drainage, hot tubs, built in water softener, water closets, lavatories, sinks, drains, etc ) 2) Pr z_...___ i "_ dissesal _m 824 23) Water heater $6 Each 34) Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, except kitchen $16 type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps. 44) Repair or alteration of water piping, drainage or vent piping $6 Each fixture 56) Atmospheric type vacuum breaker $6 Each 64) Backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers $6 Each 78) Medical gas 56 Per outlet 89) Interceptors $6 Each I Resolution 09 -015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page _9 of 17 DRAFT MIGHT -OF -WAY PER%IIT: 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 (hourly rate for city employees) applies to all ROW permits that require a traffic plan. If additional staff time is required, it will be charged at the hourly rate. Category 1 Non -cut obstruction without clean -up $73 2 Non -cut obstruction with clean -up 5110 3 Pavement cut obstruction non - winter 5168 4 Pavement cut obstruction, winter 5210 5 Approach Permit $52 SIGN PERMIT: Sign permits are subject to assessment of planning division review fees as found in Schedule A- Development. Sign Permits are also subject to the assessment of the WSBCC fee as noted in `General" section of Schedule B. Signs mounted on buildings $48 per sign (flat fee) Sign and pole mounting $68 per sign (flat fee) Resolution 09 -015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 10 of 17 DRAFT Schedule C - FIRE CODE FIRE ALARM, SPRINKLER AND OTHER PROTECTION SYSTEMS City processing fee of $37 is added to these Fire District 1 fees. Plans check and review fees, inspections, and permit for installation of separate fire alarm system or sprinkler system applications, and other fire protection systems. Fire Alarm System New installation 1 -4 devices $165 5 -100 devices $275 Additional 100 devices $ 55 Each additional panel $ 44 Sprinkler supervision only $ 83 Each additional floor $ 44 Fire Sprinkler Systems 1 -9 heads $ 58 10 -49 5182 50 -100 $303 101 -200 5358 201 -300 5385 301 -400 5413 401 -500 $468 500+ $550 + 5.36 per head For hydraulically designed systems multiply the above fee by 2 New Suppression Systems Range hoods, halon. CO2, dry chemical, FM 200, intergen spray booths, etc. Unit 1 -5 nozzles $110 Over 5 nozzles $110 + $11 per nozzle Bottle(s) 533 per bottle Fire Pump Installation Plan review & inspection fee Underground Fire Mains — Plan review and inspect. $550 $165 Standpipes not a part of automatic suppression system Plan review and inspection 5165 Resolution 09 -015 Fee Resolution for 2010 Page I I of 17 DRAFT Other Protection Systems Fire extinguishing system (other than sprinklers) - $ 55 plus $1.50 per nozzle Standpipe installation Class I and Class II $ 64 Class III $ 77 Tank installation - per tank Flammable and combustible liquids - storage tanks installation $ 70 Hazardous materials — storage tanks installation $ 70 Liquefied petroleum $ 70 Gaseous oxygen systems $ 70 Nitrous systems $ 70 Medical gas systems $ 70 Hazardous material recycling systems $ 70 Vapor recovery system $ 70 Cryogenic $ 70 Removal, abandonment or any combination thereof of flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks $ 105 Emergency or standby commercial power generator install $ 70 PERMITS Conditional Use Permit $ 70 Temporary Use Permit $ 70 Tents/canopy Permit $ 70 Event Permit TBD PLANS CHECK AND REVIEW BY THE BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION New commercial plans check and inspection (for projects not mentioned elsewhere) $ 70_0060 LAND USE Subdivision/PUD Preliminary $140 Final $ 70 Short Plat Preliminary $140 Final $ 70 Resolution 09.015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 12 of 17 DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Basic fees to be considered when applying rates Administrative Fee Refuse Fee Schedule D — PARKS & RECREATION Resolution 09-015. Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 13 of 17 $32 $52 AQUATICS Pool admission (age 5 and under) Pool admission (age older than 5) SI Pool punch pass (25 swims) $20 Weekend family discount Swimming Lessons $30 Swim Team Fee $35 Reservation (less than 50 people) $105 Per hour* Food fee Of applicable) $25 Reservation (50 —100 people) $131 Per hour* Food fee Of applicable) $52 Reservation (101 — 150 people) $157 Per hour* Food fee (if applicable) $79 *Minimum 2 hours ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT Alcoholic Beverage Permit Fee $10 free 1 child under 13 free with paying adult CENTERPLACE Conference Center Wing Auditorium $79 Per hour Auditorium $475 Per day Auditorium $236 Per half day Auditorium w/Presentation System $52 Per hour * Auditorium w/Presentation System $315 Per day * Auditorium w/Presentation System $158 Per half day * Auditorium Deposit $52 Executive Conference Room $52 Per hour Executive Conference Room Deposit $52 Meeting Room (Day & Evening Use) $42 Per hour Meeting Room $263 Per day Large Meeting Room $75 Per hour $225 Per half day $450 Per 9 hr day Meeting Room $131 Per half day Meeting Room Deposit $52 Patio Event Packape $300 per event Portable Sound System 5150 Per event Platinum Package $500 Per Event I DRAFT • Requires rental of presentation system on page 14 Great Room Kitchen w/Dining Room Rental Kitchen — Commercial Use (2 hour min.) Kitchen Deposit Multi- Use /Banquet Hall Multi-Use/Banquet Hall Multi-Use/Banquet Hall Small Dining Area Deposit Stage Stage Removal Table Settings (linens & tableware) Senior Center Wing Lounge with Dance Floor Lounge with Dance Floor Lounge Deposit Meeting Room (Evening Use) Meeting Room (Evening Use) Meeting Room (Weekend Use) Meeting Room (Weekend Use) Meeting Room Deposit Private Dining Room Private Dining Room Deposit Wellness Center Miscellaneous Cleanup fee Host/Hostess (after hours) Presentation System (includes projector /podium/ DVDNCR/sound system/camera system) Room Setup Satellite Video Conferencing Sound System Technical Support Television/VCR Touch Pad Voting System LCD Projector Coffee Service Linens only Wine glass only rental Resolution 09 -015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 14 of 17 $105 Per use 552 Per hour $52 $105 Per hour $840 9 hr session 51,575 All day(6am -lam) 552 Per hour $210 521 Per section per day $150 53 Per place setting $105 Per hour 58540 Per 6 hoursday 5210 $42 Per hour 5131 4 hr session 5262 Per day 5131 Per half day $52 $52 Per hour 552 $105 Per hour $52 -315 $16 5262 $26 $262 542 $42 $79 5121 +516 525 $100 $25 55 $.50per glass Per event Per hour Per day Per hour Per hour Per day Per hour Per day Base station per day Per keypad per day Per hour Per hourday Per bygepviee ServiceTable Per TableGless 1 DRAFT EVENTS — includes Pavilion Events include but are not limited to activities such as car shows, tournaments and activities involving 200 or more people. The Director of Parks and Recreation will make the final determination. General Fee $157 Non - profit applications SPECIAL EVENTS: Per Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15.010, i.e. National Night Out 55 FIELD RENTAL Use Fee $26 First hour plus $15 each additional hour INDOOR USE Open gym admission Playground program admission (10 entries) Milt3,13£4' $2 $21 MIRABEAU SPRINGSirnbeauSprings Small shelter and waterfall $250157 Maximum 24 hours Refundable deposit (less than 200 people) $52 Event Pictures $150 per hour" * *for events reserving CenterPlace or Mirabeau Meadows only MIRABEAU MEADOWS AND VALLEY MISSION rabcg Shelter (less than 200 people) $84 Shelter (200 or more people) $157 Refundable deposit (less than 200 people) $52 Refundable deposit (200 or more people) $257 PICNIC SHELTERS Picnic Shelter (less than 200 people) $84 for 5 hours50 Picnic Shelter (200 or more people) $157 Refundable deposit (less than 200 people) $52 Refundable deposit (200 or more people) $257 $84 Or free with sponsorship* PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY Permit Fee $26 Annual RECREATION Recreation program fees are set to recover costs as specified in the Parks and Recreation revenue policy. VALLEY MISSION ARENA Rental* $105 Per weekend Refundable deposit $52 'Renter responsible for on -site preparation. Rental requires liability insurance. Resolution 09-015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 15 of 17 1 DRAFT COPY FEES Copy of audio tapes, video tapes, photos, maps or other records needing reproduction Copy of written records (per SVMC 2.75.070) Copy — Large format Copy of full documents OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE FEES NSF Check $26 Other Adult Entertainment Licenses Adult Arcade Device License Manager License Entertainer License Past Due Calendar Days 7 -30 31 -60 61 and over BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEES Business registration $13 each year Nonprofit registration $ 3 each year Each single - family unit each year All other properties each Schedule E - ADMINISTRATIVE Schedule F - OTHER FEES ADULT ENTERTAINMENT FEES Establishment Licenses Live Adult Entertainment $1,575 Adult Arcade $1,575 Late License Fee — Charged in addition to license fee. ./ FALSE ALARM FEES Repeated malfunctioning security false alarms in a given six -month period. First alarm Second alarm $32 Third alarm $74 Fourth and subsequent alarms $126 STORM WATER UTILIT GE : LS TOW OPERATOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEE OVERSIZED LOAD PERMIT FEE Resolution 09 -015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 16 of 17 $157 $157 $157 Percent of License Fee 25% 50% 75% At cost $0.15 Per page $3 Per page At cost $105 $21 $21 Per 3,160 square feet of impervious surface $26 No charge DRAFT Schedule G: Police Fees A. The rates for the annual alarm system registration are: 1. Residential alarm systems: $25.00 per year. 2. Commercial alarm system: $35.00 paaear. If the alarm site has no false alarms during the registration year, the following year's registration fee is reduced to $15.00 per vear for residential and $25.00 per year for commercial, B. The annual registration fees and the false alarm cost recovery fees are one -half in the case of an eligible person. An eligible person is one who: 1. has a gross annual income of less than: a. nineteen thousand one hundred dollars, in the case of a one - person household; or b. twenty -one thousand eight hundred fifty dollars, in the case of a household of two or more persons; or 2. is substantially disabled, meaning that the person has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities or functions, such as caring for oneself performing manual tasks such as walking, seeing. hearing. speaking breathing and leaming. C. The fee for filing an appeal regarding a false alarm is twenty -five dollars. D. The service fees for response to a false alarm are: 1. Residential false alarm incident: $85.00 per incident. 2. Commercial false alarm incident: $165.00 per incident. Resolution 09 -015, Fee Resolution for 2010 Page 17 of 17