Loading...
2003, 07-01 Study Session MinutesMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Study Session July 1, 2003 Attendance: Councilmembers: Michael DeVleming, Mayor Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Richard Munson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Staff Present: David Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Stanley Schwartz, Interim City Attorney Dick Warren, Interim Public Works Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Manager Ken Thompson, Finance Director Cal Walker, Police Chief Bill Hutsinpiller, Interim Parks & Recreation Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor DeVleming opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., welcomed all in attendance, reminded everyone that this is a study session and there will be no public comments, and requested that all electronic devices be turned off for the duration of the meeting. 1. Employee Introductions: City Manager Dave Mercier introduced Ken Thompson, Finance Director recently from Albany Oregon; Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director recently from Sterling, Colorado; Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager recently from Gresham, Oregon; and Marina Sukup, Community Development Director recently from Allen Texas. Mayor DeVleming and all councilmembers welcomed the new employees. 2. Proposed Parks Title Transfer Update. Interim Parks & Recreation Director Bill Hutsinpiller deferred to City Attorney Stanley Schwartz for the update. Schwartz explained that there are three pending issues regarding this title transfer: (1) Buttercup Park, a former hazardous waste site: although the site was capped and cleaned, if we accept the property we would be responsible for all cleanup so we proposed some indemnification language to protect us. Schwartz said he needs to respond to a letter just received from Emacio regarding this topic. (2) five -year probation on sale of property with a public hearing requirement: Schwartz said the City feels the five -year period is acceptable but to require a public hearing would be to usurp council's authority. The response from the County is that the County would like to impose a public hearing requirement on any disposition of park property transfers. (3) a "me too" clause, meaning if the County offers any services to other jurisdictions, we should also be entitled to those services. Schwartz said the County's response was no, that the County wants to be able to offer services to other jurisdictions at lesser costs. Schwartz explained that he has not yet received a response from his June 24 letter to Emacio wherein Schwartz asked three questions: (1) if we fail to reach indemnification for Buttercup and the City refuses Study Session Minutes 7 -01 -03 Page 1 of 5 Date Approved by Council: 07 -08 -03 to accept Buttercup, will the other properties be transferred; (2) if the City refuses to accept the County imposed public hearing requirement will the properties be transferred; and (3) if we can't reach agreement on the "me too" clause will the properties be transferred. Schwartz then gave a brief history on how the County received the Buttercup property, and added that once the materials on the property have been analyzed, those findings will be reported to council. Schwartz said the matter is proceeding as rapidly as possible, that the Commissioners meet every Tuesday and he will do what he can to resolve the issue but needs a response from the County. Mayor DeVleming recognized County Commissioner Kate McCaslin. Commissioner McCaslin said the Commissioners met today and agreed they would indemnify and that they too are anxious to resolve this issue. McCaslin said from a public policy standpoint she could not imagine this council selling park property without public input; however, there is a question of future councils. In reference to the "me too" clause, McCaslin said the County works hard with all the struggling small towns; she realizes everyone has budget issues but the small towns' budget issues pale in comparison; the County has programs they offer only to small towns and there is approximately $100,000 available to those small towns for proposals such as for park restroom improvement. She said the feels they should not have to and are not comfortable in making those offers to Spokane Valley. She mentioned that perhaps some compromise could be worked out, but that they would still like to keep that discretion with the small towns. McCaslin concluded by stating that as the County agreed with the indemnification, and perhaps an agreement can be reached on the other two issues. Councilmember Munson suggested passing an ordinance to require public hearings in matters of this type, and McCaslin said that if the City passed an ordinance, the County would consider that. Schwartz added that indemnification is more complicated as it also involves restrictive covenants which obligates the property owner to notify the Department of Ecology annually that the property and the cap have undergone visual inspection and repairs are maintained; also that the City needs to know what has been done and what is below ground and that we need discussions on the scope of the indemnification. Councilmember Munson asked about the ramifications if we were to proceed with the rest of the properties and not take Buttercup. City Manager Mercier said if Buttercup were not an issue, the transfer would be expedited. Council directed staff to continue to work on the issues. 3. Proposed Parks & Recreation Maintenance Agreement Update. Hutsinpiller stated that this item and the previous item are tied together at this point, that on an interim basis, we have effective maintenance at the parks, he has received positive feedback from the community on the maintenance of the parks, and that he hopes to finalize these matters soon. It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to instruct staff to take Buttercup off the table and to continue to negotiate on it and move forward with the rest of the package. Discussion then ensued on the pros and cons of the motion, including discussion on the other two issues at hand (the public hearing requirement and the "me too" clause). Vote by Acclamation: Ayes: DeVleming, Denenny, Flanigan, Munson, Schimmels, Wilhite. Nays: Taylor. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. & 6. Cost Comparison Wastewater Treatment, and Sewer Extensions and Operation (STEP) Agreement with Spokane County. Interim Public Works Director Dick Warren acknowledged the presence of and publicly commended the work of Bruce Rawls and Kevin Cook for their efforts on the design of the STEP program. Warren explained that because there are a number of suggested changes, he asks to defer action on the STEP Agreement at this time and to combine that with whatever they finally arrive at on the agreement on the wastewater treatment issue. Warren said that he is attempting to meet with Schwartz and Emacio to finalize the agreement, that the City of Spokane should be in contact with Mayor DeVleming soon, and that Warren is confident negotiations will begin again regarding the Study Session Minutes 7 -01 -03 Page 2 of 5 Date Approved by Council: 07 -08 -03 wastewater treatment. Warren explained that he has a letter from the Commissioners regarding this issue, but the Warren feels there is time to proceed to determine if there is any further prospect for a regional agreement when the City of Spokane is ready to bring the matter back on the table for discussion. Warren said they will respond to the County's letter and commend them on the low interest loan from the State, and will ask that DOE discussion continue as part of that response. Warren then discussed his June 13, 2003 memo regarding the Status of Wastewater Collection and Treatment Agreements, Issues and Costs. Warren concluded by stating that there are possible savings by having a regional approach, that they will set a September date by which to make a decision, and in the meantime, they can either continue with regional planning or stop that and go with the plan already in place by the County. Warren said that the City and County agree on cost and capacity issues. In reference to the agreement, Mayor DeVleming asked about section 1 -10 and stated that it was his understanding that GFC's for new development were going to be eliminated. Warren explained that matter is before the County now, and that new development is still being subsidized. Rawls explained that there would be a proposal to amend the ordinance in the fall for actual implementation January of next year that would eliminate subsidy for new development, but that he would recommend to adjust the subsidy for the sewer portion so people in the septic tank elimination program would see the same subsidy and would pay the same price; and that he anticipated more detailed discussion of this matter next week. Munson stated his preference for not subsidizing new housing developments. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Munson to eliminate new construction from the STEP program, or being eligible for the STEP program. Vote by acclamation: Ayes: Unanimous. Nays: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Discussion then ensued regarding utility tax, ownership of the sewer system, sales tax revenues to the sewer program, and allocation of REET. Rawls said that his July 10` 5:30 presentation will help explain those issues, including issues of possible increase in fees. Rawls said his primary focus of the July 10 meeting will be financing and funding and what happens with decreased real estate and sales tax. After further brief discussion on the TMDL (total maximum daily load) and permits acquired by Liberty Lake, Mayor DeVleming called for a recess at 7:30 p.m. Mayor DeVleming reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m. 4. Parks Maintenance Report. Hutsinpiller briefly discussion his "Park Assessment 2003" report and said this is to give perspective of things that need to be done in the future. Councilmember Munson said he would like to see a prioritization of these items to determine what must be done to maximize public safety, and what can wait. Mayor DeVleming asked how these items will work in conjunction with the parks portion of the Comprehensive Plan. City Manager Mercier said this list is primarily concerned with maintenance dollars, and that the current budget and any budget amendment which may be proposed would not contemplate expanded expenditure on the parks, that we have a master plan for the parks to help decide which park has the greatest server potential for citizens, and will keep this in mind as the Comprehensive Plan is considered. Mayor DeVleming thanked Hutsinpiller for his diligent work. 7. Proposed Affordable Housing Interlocal Agreement. Planning Manager Greg McCormick explained that Substitute House Bill 2060, enacted last year, provided for a $10.00 surcharge on instruments recorded with the county auditor's office; that the law allows the auditor's office to withhold 5% of these funds for administration of the program, that 60% of the remaining funds are retained by the county in which they are collected, and 40% go to the state to fund state -wide affordable housing programs. McCormick said the main part of this agreement is agreeing to participate in this program. It was the consensus of the Council that this item be placed on the next Council Consent Agenda. Study Session Minutes 7 -01 -03 Page 3 of 5 Date Approved by Council: 07 -08 -03 8. Proposed Alarm and Fee Collection Ordinance. Police Chief Cal Walker briefly discussed the proposed ordinance establishing alarm regulations and imposing fees, adding that there are approximately 4,000 false alarms per year, half of which are from the Valley. Discussion then ensued regarding the fine for false alarms and subsequent false alarms; fees and proposed fees, full recovery in the fine schedule; and that schools are not charged for false alarms. It was recommended to remove the fees from the body of the ordinance, that the City's current fee schedule addresses these fees and will be revised over time, and to schedule this re- drafted ordinance as a regular agenda item for the July 8 meeting. 9. Columbia Fiber Agreement Discussion. Deputy City Manager Nina Regor and Deputy City Attorney Cary Driskell discussed the draft franchise agreement for Columbia and discussed and responded to the proposed changes as per the "proposed amended" offer dated June 27, 2003. City Attorney Schwartz also mentioned that State Statute requires franchises to be accomplished through ordinance. Further discussion ensued regarding the fees and the dark and lit fibers, after which John Everett of Columbia Fiber reiterated the points made in his letter and mentioned he still disagrees with some issues in the agreement, adding that $20.00 per fiber likely will not cover his costs. City Manager Mercier stated that when municipalities franchise they have an opportunity to access a franchise fee and often in lieu of that, they look for service exchange, and that there is yet unquantifiable value to having those facilities located in the public right -of -way so communities look to balance that public value with an exchange in services to be used in government purposes and not to be used in competition. Driskell mentioned former Deputy City Manager Stan McNutt conducted research to determine if $20.00 per month is reasonable, and that data from several communities on the west side showed $18.87 per month, so $20.00 per month is reasonable. Mercier said there is no element on the fee schedule that applies to this franchise, and said perhaps there should be no fee charged in lieu of having dark fiber. It was determined that a "clean" copy will be brought back as a regular agenda item on the July 8 agenda. 10. Cable TV Advisory Board. Deputy City Attorney Cary Driskell went over the documents in the packet and suggests making a proposed addition to the agreement to give any party the right to withdraw after reasonable notice; that there is an issue about determining proportionate representation and in this case is not easy to determine as numbers could be based on subscribers rather than population. Councilmember Munson mentioned this would be an advisory board which might be of help in future negotiations and study of the cable system. The revised agreement will be brought back on the regular July 8 council agenda for consideration. 11.12.13. Ordinance Establishing Policy for Purchase of Goods, Services, etc; Ordinance granting Contract Authority to City Manager; and Resolution Establishing Signature Limits. City Manager Mercier explained that the first ordinance is a "second touch" suggestion on how to provide broad based purchasing policy, the second ordinance is to create the authority for distributing purchasing, and the resolution is the medium by which council would provide authority limits. Discussion ensued regarding making purchasing decisions within budget limitations and it was mentioned that the Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 12 mentioned in the second "whereas" that this will be done "providing the expenditure is within the scope of the City budget." Councilmember Munson expressed concern with the resolution having a $200,000 limit for the public works even though that is the statutory maximum amount allowed. It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to change the description on #1 for public works small works roster from $200,000 to $100,000, and leave the remaining amounts as written. Due to the time, it was then moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to extend the meeting for fifteen (15) minutes. Vote by acclamation: Ayes: Denenny, Flanigan, Munson, Schimmels, Taylor, Wilhite. Nays: DeVleming. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Study Session Minutes 7 -01 -03 Page 4 of 5 Date Approved by Council: 07 -08 -03 Mayor DeVleming called for the vote on Munson's notion: Ayes: Munson. Nays: Denenny, DeVleming, Flanigan, Schimmels, Taylor, Wilhite. Abstentions: None. Motion failed. These documents will be added to the July 8 council agenda. 14. Council Check -in Procedures and Interactions. City Manager Mercier explained that this is to give council an opportunity to review internal logistics, to discuss if things are going well or if they prefer to handle anything differently, and as a mechanism to improve communications among council and staff; and that this formula is practiced by many new city councils. Councilmember Munson said he would like council to approve the agenda prior to finalization. After discussion on this topic including the "advance agenda," it was suggested to perhaps include "agenda comments" at the end of study session agendas. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to extend the meeting time for two minutes. Vote by Acclamation: Ayes: Flanigan, Munson, Schimmels, Taylor, Wilhite. Nays: Denenny, DeVleming. Motion carried. Councilmember Taylor asked for council consideration is not taking a final vote on the financing proposal on Mirabeau until he returns from vacation July 19. It was the consensus of the Mayor and Council to place that item on the July 15 study session and on the July 22 council agenda. Councilmember Taylor asked to be excused from the council meetings of July 8 and 15. It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to excuse Councilmember Taylor from the aforementioned meetings. It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to extend the meeting time ten minutes. Vote by acclamation: Ayes: Unanimous. Nays: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 15. City Manager Comments: City Manager Mercier reported that the Light Rail Steering Committee is offering four elected officials the opportunity to experience the light rail in Portland Oregon. Councilmember Schimmels indicated his desire to attend. Mercier will check the dates to determine if the date is July 30 or July 31. Mercier also reported that he received information from the Department of Revenue about sales taxes in the community and that staff is working to ensure that appropriate revenues have been reported. Mercier also circulated a memo showing the employee hires that have occurred, where they came from, and where they are on the classification system. It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. — Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Study Session Minutes 7 -01 -03 Date Approved by Council: 07 -08 -03 APPROVED: Michael DeV eming, Mayor • Page 5 of 5 CITY Cie VALLEY PARKS AND RECREAh, DEPAF riu ENT PARK ASSESSMENT 2003 The following is the total estimated assessment costs for all City of Spokane Valley Parks which need to be improved and brought up to City standards. Park Name Assessment Totals Balfour Park $294,925.00 Brown's Park $220,945.00 Buttercup Park $0.00 Castle Park $383,420.00 Edgecliff Park $251,760.00 Mirabeau Park Under Construction Valley Mission Park $692,960.00 Sullivan Park $546,280.00 Terrace View Park $379,452.00 Park Road Pool $104,820.00 Mrytle Point Undeveloped Opportunity Township Hall $165,000.00 Grand Total $3,039,562.00 New Aquatic Facility. Funding available from the County $1,600,000 facility 9--/ -63 C`o'� I F SP's. _ 1NE VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATIi PARK ASSESSMENT 2003 The following information is intended to identify repairs or improvements needed to bring existing park facilities up to an acceptable standard for public use. In addition to this report I suggest you consider the development of standards used in preparing plans and specifications for implementing improvements to all parks that will appropriately reflect a conscious effort to consistently develop and maintain parks throughout the city at the same level. .�'rEPARTl1'.i11 <: Sullivan Paik Cost Each Quantity Total Cost • Seal coat parking lots and stripe $30,000.00 $30,000.00 • Construct new restroom $90,000.00 $90,000.00 • Replace all shelters $60,000.00 $60,000.00 • Survey, develop and fence all park property $20,000.00 $20,000.00 • Add automatic irrigation to the lower sheltered area $45,000.00 $45,000.00 • Install play equipment and appropriate landing surface $70,000.00 $70,000.00 • Handicap access to all shelters $20,000.00 $20,000.00 • Replace 1012' of 4' brown clad fencing fabric $15.00 1,012 $15,180.00 • Replace 410' of 6' galvanized fabric (RJC track) $20.00 410 $8,200.00 • Replace litter receptacles $500.00 12 $6,000.00 • Replace picnic tables $800.00 8 $6,400.00 • Replace seats and tops on permanent picnic tables $500.00 $500.00 • Install water service to park to eliminate well use $100,000.00 $100,000.00 • Repair dance hall roof $50,000.00 $50,000.00 • Develop pathways /stairways to the river $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Total for Sullivan Park $546,280.00 Terrac_eView Park: Cost Each Quantity Total Cost • Seal coat parking lot and stripe $20,000.00 $20,000.00 • Construct a shelter $60,000.00 $60,000.00 • Enhance the property between the road asphalt and the fence line $40,000.00 $40,000.00 • Develop larger area around swimming pool for parents to recreate while waiting for children to swim or receive lessons $40,000.00 $40,000.00 • Pour new concrete sidewalks around swimming pool building and rE $30,000.00 $30,000.00 • Install electricity in restroom $6,000.00 $6,000.00 • Install several electrical pedestals throughout park for Valleyfest vei $25,000.00 $25,000.00 • Replace play equipment $70,000.00 $70,000.00 • Minimum, replace landing surface materials for play equipment $15,000.00 $15,000.00 • Replace 153' of 3' brown clad fencing fabric $14.00 153 $2,142.00 • Replace 946' of 4' brown clad fencing fabric $15.00 946 $14,190.00 • Replace 191' of 6' galvanized fencing fabric $20.00 191 $3,820.00 • Replace 1256' of 7' galvanized fencing fabric $20.00 1,256 $25,120.00 • Replace 304' of 7' galvanized fencing fabric around the swimming $20.00 304 $6,080.00 • Replace litter receptacles $500.00 15 $7,500.00 • Replace picnic tables $800.00 12 $9,600.00 • Replace seats and tops on 10 permanent picnic tables $500.00 10 $5,000.00 Total for Terrace View $379,452.00 711f2003 3:54 PM CI ; SPI. _ 'NE VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATI(: PARK ASSESSMENT 2003 5rowns • Install drinking fountain by softball field • Install sports court • Landscape turf and install drywells to drain softball field • Install tall fencing to limit neighboring property damage caused by fl • Replace landing surface materials for play equipment • Replace 155' of 3' brown clad fencing fabric o Replace 1492' of 4' brown clad fencing fabric • Replace 116' of 4' galvanized fencing fabric • Replace 85' of 6' brown clad fencing fabric • Install fencing, 145' galvanized 4'; 99' galvanized 5'; 101' galvanized 41 "; 148' galvanized 6'; 85' wood 6'; 87' wood 46" • Replace litter receptacles • Replace picnic tables e Replace seats and tops on 6 permanent picnic tables Total for Browns Park astle Park • Largely underdeveloped • Additional parking • Drinking fountain o Shelter • Sports courts • Restrooms o Play equipment • Replace 340' of 4' galvanized fencing fabric (may be homeowners fence) • Replace 1021' of 6' galvanized fencing fabric (may be homeowners fence) • Replace 175' of 6 "x6" barrier at parking area • Replace litter receptacles • Replace picnic tables Total for Castle Park VaIIev Mis5ioL .Park: (the entire park is ready for a complete redesign, may consider skate park, skywalk from old park across Mission Avenue to the new pool, etc.) o Replace shelter e Replace the existing wooden play equipment with metal and plastic structure e Minimum, replace play structure landing surface o Parking lot need maintenance, patch, fill, router cracks, and reseal i • Irrigation system is not as efficient as it should be • Turf needs re- grading • Remodel restroom • Replace 1462' of 2 rail wooden fencing Cost Each Quantity $4,000.00 $75,000.00 $50,000.00 $12,000.00 $15,000.00 $15.00 155 $15.00 1,492 $15.00 116 $20.00 85 $25,000.00 $500.00 $800.00 $500.00 Cost Each Quantity $125,000.00 $4,000.00 $60,000.00 $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $60,000.00 $15.00 340 $20.00 1,021 $5,000.00 $500.00 3 $800.00 3 Cost Each Quantity $85,000.00 $100,000.00 $30,000.00 $50,000.00 $175,000.00 $75,000.00 $70,000.00 $20.00 1,462 Total Cost $4,000.00 $75,000.00 $50,000.00 $12,000.00 $15,000.00 $2,325.00 $22,380.00 $ 1,740.00 $1,700.00 $25,000.00 8 $4,000.00 6 $4,800.00 6 $3,000.00 $220,945.00 Total Cost $125,000.00 $4,000.00 $60,000.00 $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $60,000.00 $5,100.00 $20,420.00 $5,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,400.00 $383,420.00 Total Cost $85,000.00 $100,000.00 $30,000.00 $50,000.00 $ 175,000.00 $75,000.00 $70,000.00 $29,240.00 7/1/1003 3:54 PM ■ .. .NE VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATII __ JIEPARTFVLL .. PARK ASSESSMENT 2003 Valley Mission Parl_Continued; • Replace 305' of 6' galvanized fencing fabric with 3 strands of barbed wire (owned by splash down) • Replace 538' of 6' galvanized fencing along the west side of the pal • Replace 474' of 10' black clad fencing fabric around the tennis cour • Replace 197' of 7' galvanized fencing around swimming pool • Replace 454' of 4' brown clad fencing fabric, including a 16' gate • Replace 542' of 4' galvanized fencing • Replace fitter receptacles • Replace picnic tables • Replace seats and tops on 10 permanent picnic tables Total for Valley Mission Park Edgecliff Park: • Remodel restroom which is old and dated (however it is functional) • Tennis courts need to be removed and replaced with sport court • Replace landing surface for the play equipment • New fencing • Remodel shelter • Replace old concrete slab behind softball backstop • Replace 1493' of 6' galvanized fencing fabric (tennis court included' • Replace 133' of 12' fencing fabric (tennis court) • Replace litter receptacles • Replace picnic tables • Replace seats and tops on 9 permanent picnic tables Total for Edgecliff Park Cost Each Quantity Total Cost $20.00 305 $20.00 538 $20.00 474 $20.00 197 $15.00 454 $15.00 542 $500.00 25 $800.00 20 $500.00 10 Balfour Park Cost Each Quantity • Fencing should be replaced on the east half of the park $15.00 • There is room for a water feature, walkways, and additional trees on the newly developed west half of the park $75,000.00 • Parking area should be seal coated and striped $20,000.00 • Consider installing a picnic shelter with electricity $70,000.00 • There is room for additional parking on the north end of the park $80,000.00 • Edging and bark placement around 25 trees $250.00 25 • Edging and bark placement around 42 bushes $250.00 42 • Replace 549' of 3' green clad fencing fabric $15.00 549 • Replace 556' of 4' galvanized fencing fabric $15.00 556 • Replace litter receptacles $500.00 14 • Replace picnic tables $800.00 12 Total for Balfour Park $6,100.00 $10,760.00 $9,480.00 $3,940.00 $6,810.00 $8,130.00 $12,500.00 $16,000.00 $5,000.00 $692,960.00 Total Cost $0.00 $75,000.00 $20,000.00 $70,000.00 $80,000.00 $6,250.00 $10,500.00 $8,235.00 $8,340.00 $7,000.00 $9,600.00 S294,925.00 Cost Each Quantity Total Cost $85,000.00 $85,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $20.00 1,493 $29,860.00 Priced in tennis court costs $500.00 12 $6,000.00 $800.00 8 $6,400.00 $500.00 9 $4,500.00 $251,760.00 7/1/2003 3:54 PM CI11' � r S I N : , ..NE VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATI(: EPARTM�. PARK ASSESSMENT 2003 Park Road Pool: • Parking lot should be seal coated and striped • The north side of the parking lots should have parking bumpers • Install play equipment • nepiace rbt' 01 b' galvanize° rencing raonc tvvest valley cnooi District fence) • Replace 305' of 7' galvanized fencing fabric around the swimming • Replace litter receptacles • Replacce picnic tables Total for Park Road Pool Mirabeau_P_ark: • Under construction ORportunityj ownship Hall' Would recommend an engineers study to provide drawings and • cost for remodel • The outside of the building needs to be refinished and painted • The roofing should be replaced within five years • The parking lots should be seal coated and striped for parking • There should be a more attractive barrier system established along the property line south of the building • ADA improvements for access and restroom Total for Opportunity Township Hall Cost Each Quantity Total Cost $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $20.00 $20.00 $500.00 $800.00 $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 756 $15,120.00 305 $6,100.00 4 $2,000.00 2 $1,600.00 $104,820.00 $20,000.00 $60,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 $165,000.00 7/1/2003 3:54 PM S$ ��� t„�. y� � � �1 °.fir A .g � k „ t , ��i� ��� r.r , o � � • � � �' .fS. 16:fr �:? . �`� ter. � t n >' _ w �. _ arsc � �`'� � � 8 3 � w � z r, w ,o- .S.,t$ � -51.0-Ai l :.� �" tG o . r ..- ,Y>'. ; Larson Susan Mica Administrative Assistant City Manager White Female 12 1 Alley Debra Spokane Valley Administrative Assistant PW /CD White Female 11 2 Conklin Peggy Post Falls Administrative Assistant Parks & Recreation White Female 14 4 Cornell Karen Spokane Senior Center Specialist Parks and Recreation White Female 13 1 James Gay Spokane Office Assistant II City Manager /Clerk Div. White Female 11 1 Pearson Susan Ritzville Deputy City Clerk City Manager /Clerk Div. White Female 13 Open Alt Shane Veradale Assistant Engineer Public Works VVhite Male 14 4 (Grade 15 Underfill) Bainbridge ChristinMoscow, ID City Clerk City Manager White Female 16 2 1 Saslington Ma ry Spokane Valley Administrative Assistant City Manager White Female 12 3 Goss Shelley Spokane Valley Recreation Coordinator Parks and Recreation White Female 13 1 Hamois Rockford Associate Planner Community Development White Fenale 15 1 Hohman John Mead Senior Engineer Public Works White Male 17 Open Jackson Mike Sterling, CO Parks and Recreation Dir. Parks and Recreation WNIte Male 19 Open Kauer Heather Spokane Planning Technician Community Development White Female 13 1 Karsten Neil Fairbanks, AK Public Works Director Public Works Whlte Mate 21 4 Kuhta Scott Spokane Associate Planner Community Development White Male 15 3 VACANT Planning Manager -Cure. Community Development McCormick Greg Federal Way Planning Manager - LR Community Development White Male 18 4 t'.1cDonald Robert "Mac" Spokane public Works Superintendent Public Works White Male 15 Open Reger Nina Gresham, OR Deputy City Manager City Manager White Female 21 Open Scholtens Thomas Boise, ID Building Official Community Development White Male 18 Open Severance Kevin Elk Construction Inspector Public Woks White Male 14 3 Stamatoplos Steve Mead Engineering Technician Public Works White Male 14 4 Sukup Marina Allen, TX Comm. Dev. Director Community Development White Female 21 4 PENDING Thiel Dick North Bend, WA City Engineer Public Works White Male 19 Open Thompson Ken Albany, OR Finance /Admin. Services Dir. Finance 8 Admin. Services While Male 21 4 Todd John Spokane Assistant Planner Community Development Black Male 14 2 Wortey Steve Spokane Senior Engineer Public Works While Mate 17 Open City of Spokane Valley Employees Hired by City Manager Dave Mercier 6130/2003 May 22, 2003 Mayor Mike DeVleming City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane, Washington 99206 Re: lV/ast ivater .Funding and Finaitcirtg 111eetiig VIA MAIL & EMAIL Dear. Mayor. DeVleming: This letter is in follow up to the joint County /Cite meeting held May 5, 2003. At that meeting County Utilities Director Bruce Rawls handed out a Wastewater Funding and Financing Briefing Paper. An additional copy is enclosed with this letter. That paper outlines the funding and financing sources used by the County to finance the wastewater collection system in the Valley. The paper was prepared at your request so the City Council and City staff could be fully informed on this subject in preparation for a subsequent joint County /City meeting to address this topic. As you know, significant expenditures will be required to complete the wastewater collection system in the Valley as well as to provide new regional wastewater treatment capacity. Pending and future decisions may have significant impacts on the rates and charges that are necessary to finance the completion of the remaining projects. The Board believes it is important to insure that decisions regarding the allocation of funding and financing sources are made with a full base of knowledge regarding the possible outcome of these decisions. The Board proposes that a meeting be scheduled during the first 2 weeks of June to discuss funding and financing of the wastewater collection system. This meeting would include the Spokane County Commissioners, the City of Spokane Valley Mayor and Council, and respective staffs. Mayor Mike DeVleming May 22, 2003 Page 2 We request that your administrative representative coordinate with Linda Lemley of our office to schedule the meeting and set the agenda. Ms. Lemley can be reached by telephone at 477 -2265. We look forward to this meeting and a productive discussion to make sure we are coordinating effectively on this subject. Sincerely, PHILLIP D. HARRIS, Chair Spokane County Board of Commissioners Enc.: Wastewater Funding and Financing Briefing Paper cc: City Council Members, City of Spokane Valley David Mercier, City Manager, City of Spokane Valley Bruce Rawls, Spokane County Utilities Director INTRODUCTION Wastewater Funding and Financing Briefing Paper Presented to City of Spokane Valley May 5, 2003 Prepared by: Bruce Rawls The Spokane County Board of Commissioners scheduled a workshop on May 5, 2003 with the City Cotuicil to discuss wastewater funding and financing However, Mayor DeVleming requested that the agenda item be deleted from the agenda, and replaced with a written briefing paper. This briefing paper is intended to provide some background information to the City Council regarding historical and future funding and financing considerations relevant to completion of the sewer construction program for septic tank elimination, and to construction of regional wastewater treatment capacity. Funding and financing of the remaining wastewater improvements will include significant policy decisions to be made by the elected officials of Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley. SEPTIC TANK ELIMINATION PROGRAM OVERVIEW For the past 20 years, Spokane County has been constructing sewers in the Spokane Valley and north Spokane Unincorporated area. Significant areas have been completed. Ilowever, completion of the sewer program is still far from completion, and an additional $96 million is projected to complete the program inside of the City of Spokane Valley, and $18 million in the unincorporated areas. Based on recent scheduling, it is anticipated that the sewer program will be completed in year 2010. In addition, over $100 million of expenditures are anticipated over the next 20 -years to provide wastewater treatment capacity to the City of Spokane Valley and unincorporated areas. WASTEWATER RATES AND CHARGES Spokane County has implemented rates and charges to cover construction, operation, and maintenance of sewers, pumping stations, interceptors, and treatment facilities. Monthly Sewer Service Charges are billed to each customer to pay for the cost of administering, operating and maintaining the wastewater system. Currently, the sewer Wastewater Funding and Financing service charges are $20.50 per month per single- family dwelling. Apartments, commercial and manufactured home parks pay at a proportionate cost of service rate. Wastewater Treatment Plant Charges (WWTP) are billed to each customer to pay for the cost of upgrades at the City of Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (SAWTP). Currently, the WWTP charge is $4.00 per month per single- family dwelling. General Facilities Charges (GFC) are billed to each new customer when they connect to the regional sewer system. The GFC is used to pay for major regional wastewater facilities such as pumping stations, interceptor sewers, and wastewater treatment plant capacity. Currently the GFC for a single family dwelling is $2,510, but is subsidized at 25 % down to $1,885. Capital Facilities Rates (CFR) are billed to each new customer inside of a sewer project implemented by Spokane County for the septic tank elimination program. The CFR covers the cost of installing the sewer system in the neighborhoods, and also includes the GFC for each customer. The CFR for a single family dwelling in year 2003 is set at $4,950. This rate includes the cost reduction from a Washington State Extended Grant and a 25 % subsidy from Spokane County. Prior to construction of the annual sewer projects, Spokane County estimates the costs of construction and then deducts grant monies, deducts subsidy monies, and estimates the cost per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). The cost per ERU is set by the Board of County Commissioners to recover the cost of the sewer program, and does not generate any significant surplus revenues. HISTORICAL FUNDING SOURCES In 1996, Spokane County secured an Extended Grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The Extended Grant was for $75 million over 20 years for construction of the septic tank elimination program. Currently, the County receives $3.75 million per year, which is used to reduce the cost of the sewer construction program that is allocated to parcels within that year's sewer program. Historically, the Board of County Commissioners have allocated significant amounts of the County's Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues to payments on debt service for the Valley Interceptor and the North Spokane Interceptor. in the year 2002, debt service payments in the amount of $1,202,000 were made from REET revenues by Spokane County. In 1985, the voters of Spokane County approved an Aquifer Protection Area (APA) and authorized Aquifer Protection Area Fees. The APA Fees are collected by Spokane County and used for aquifer protection, aquifer monitoring, and sewer construction for septic tank elimination. Approximately $1.8 million per year is collected for sewer construction in the unincorporated areas, and is used to fund the subsidy of sewer construction (currently at 25 %). An additional $500,000 is allocated to the City of Spokane for their wastewater program. Wastewater Funding and Financing I- Iistorically, since the mid- 1980's, Spokane County has allocated one - eighth of the sales tax revenues collected by the County to the sewer construction program. Prior to the Spokane Valley incorporation, revenues to the sewer program were approximately $3.6 million per year. Of this revenue, it was estimated that approximately $2.4 million per year was generated within the City of Spokane Valley areas. The sales tax revenues were used to fund the subsidy of sewer construction (currently at 25 %). FINANCIAL MODELING There are 4 major elements to the Spokane County Financing program, including; (1) Wastewater Operations and Maintenance, (2) Sewer Construction Program, (3) SAWTP Upgrades, and (4) New regional treatment and major conveyance facilities. The attached chart illustrates in a simplistic manner how the funding and financing model works for Spokane County. The financial model computes cost of service sewer service charges to cover the costs of wastewater operations and maintenance. Reserves are accumulated in this fund (Budget Fund 401) to cover future replacement costs of infrastructure. This part of the model is completely separate from the financial modeling for capital improvements. It has been estimated that about $20 million of upgrades are needed at the SAWTP to maintain the County's current capacity allotment of 10 million gallons per day. The financial model has analyzed revenues for the next 20 -years from the \VWTP charges, and projects excess revenues that would be used to reduce the cost of new regional wastewater treatment plant capacity. When the County performed it's most recent financial planning, in 2001, it was anticipated that sales tax revenues, APA fees, and BEET revenues would continue through the end of the sewer construction program. Further, it was assumed that sewer construction subsidies would continue at 25 % through the end of the program. Under this scenario, a significant amount of excess revenues from sales tax and APA fees would be available to use for reduction of the cost of new regional wastewater treatment plant capacity. SEWER RESERVES FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS Excess APA fees and sales tax revenues have been accumulated in fund reserves, and at the end of year 2002 totaled approximately $27 mullion. In addition, approximately $3 million of reserves are in the WWTP fund, and $9.6 million in the GFC fund. These reserves, along with future revenues from APA Fees, Sales Taxes, WWTP Charges, and GFC's were used to project future rates and charges in the County's financial modeling. Wastewater Funding and Financing IMPACTS FROM REDUCED FUNDING SOURCES The Spokane Valley Incorporation reduced the amount of REET revenues to Spokane County by approximately $1.7 million per year, and reduced the amount of sales tax revenue to the sewer program by about $2.4 million. Spokane County has requested that the City of Spokane Valley use their REET revenues to pay the Valley Interceptor debt service to complete the final three $500,000 annual payments, and that the 1/8 allocation of sales tax revenues to the sewer program be continued. Over the next 8 years, through completion of the sewer program, these two revenue sources would generate approximately $20 million that would be used for the sewer program and regional wastewater treatment plant improvements. In order to get an approximate idea of the impact of losing sales tax revenues and REET revenues, Spokane County ran the financial model assuming no revenues from those sources. The result was that either the General Facilities Charge would need to increase by about $500, or the WWTP charge would need to increase by about $7 per month. This analysis will need to be refined once all of the funding, financing, and wastewater cost issues are defined. The interesting dilemma that the Utilities Division is contemplating at this time is that the Board of County Commissioners have indicated a desire to continue some level of REET and sales tax revenues to the sewer program to support wastewater improvements in the unincorporated sewer service areas. if the City of Spokane Valley chooses to not allocate REET and/or sales tax revenues to the sewer program, the result will likely be differential rates for unincorporated customers compared to City of Spokane Valley customers, and significant increases in rates or charges for the City customers. PROPOSED CHANGE. TO GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGE SUBSIDY Recently Utilities Division staff have recommended that the subsidy for General Facilities Charges for new development be eliminated. When the sewer program was started in the 1980's, the subsidies were implemented to reduce the hardship on our residents who were being asked to abandon their septic tank and connect to the new sewer. Since new development does not abandon a septic tank, the subsidy of their GFC does not seem consistent with the original intent for the sewer program. Elimination of the GFC subsidy for new development would save about $400,000 per year of subsidy monies that would be available to construct regional wastewater treatment facilities. CONCLUSION The funding and financing program for the sewer program and wastewater treatment plant improvements is complex, and has numerous variables that affect the cost to our customers. Policy decisions on revenue sources, subsidies, and other variables can have a significant impact to rates and /or charges. Wastewater Funding and Financing Wastewater Funding and Financing If one or more Council members would like to have an individual or group briefing session to discuss funding and financing, we will be available upon request. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dick Warren DATE: June 13, 2003 RE: Status of Wastewater Collection and Treatment Agreements, Issues and Costs MEMORANDUM COLLECTION: We have submitted to Council (June 17, 2003) a proposed agreement with Spokane County for their Utilities Division to continue the septic tank elimination program (STEP) by building and operating sewers in Spokane Valley following the County adopted plan and schedule. As you know, the 2003 STEP projects are now underway. As part of this agreement, we require the County to continue the 25% subsidy of connection charges such that Valley users will pay on the same basis as before incorporation. We requested that the subsidy be funded from the County sewer reserve fund. This saves the City more than $2 million each year if we had to put up cash for the subsidy. In addition, it frees up $500,000 per year of our REET funds that the County had been using to repay earlier sewer bonds. Council should be aware that at some point after 2005 -2007, the wastewater treatment rate charged to all sewer users in the City will probably have to increase, in increments, from the current $4.00 /month to $6.50 - $7.25 /month. This is a fairer way to deal with new treatment capacity than making new hook -ups pay higher and higher rates. At the July 10 meeting, expect the County to complain about this approach. However, we should hold firm. At some time, perhaps as early as 2005, the City may want to consider taking over the sewer program. This is a big undertaking, but quite feasible. The takeover may include the staff of the County Utilities Division, including the monthly billing system and maintenance, a total of 20 -25 people. All would be paid from monthly sewer fees, currently $20.50 /month. Upon assumption of the sewer system, our share of the sewer reserve fund should also come to the City. WASTEWATER TREATMENT: In the next 7 -10 years, we will need additional wastewater treatment capacity. In exploring our options, we have basically four approaches: 1. Work with the County to implement their proposed plan with provision for City ownership at some future date. 2. Work with the City of Spokane and Spokane County to create a regional agency that would own the existing Spokane treatment plant, construct and own a new treatment plant east of Spokane, and own the existing City of Spokane interceptor lines between the two plants. The City of Spokane Valley would be a proportionate owner of the regional system. Option Location Initial Capacity (MGD) (2) Initial Cost (millions) (2) 1 Stockyards 12 $116.4 2 Browns /Stockyard 12 5112.51114.4 (1) 3 Not Determined 12 Same as #1 or Icss 4 Browns 12 $112.5 COST IMPLICATIONS: After several meetings with the staffs of the City of Spokane, Spokane County, Liberty Lake Water and Sewer District, DOE and ourselves, we. are in agreement that there is not a significant cost difference between the four options from the City of Spokane Valley standpoint. The costs we have all agreed upon for these options are as follows: 3. Prepare a separate plan and build our own treatment plant somewhere on the west edge of the City. We would need to own the sewer collection system for this to be feasible and collect our share of both the sewer reserve fund and the wastewater treatment fund held by the County. 4. Work out an agreement only with the City of Spokane 10 create a two -party regional wastewater treatment system the same as Option 1. We would be joint owners. The County would retain the sewer system in north Spokane, but Spokane Valley would own the Valley sewer system. Costs Attributable to Spokane Valley and County Costs do not reflect potential savings of $15-20 million for solids handling at SAWTP. Spokane Valley would reserve and own 85% of this capacity and be responsible for this share of all costs. The County and Liberty Lake WSD would be responsible for the balance. Based on a study by their consultants, the City of Spokane could save more than $20 million with a regional plant combined with the City's needed CSO requirements. Based on the County Plan, the City of Spokane Valley could save as much as $10 -15 million with a regional plant, since solids handling could be handled at the existing Spokane treatment plant and would not have to be duplicated. Regardless of which option is implemented, sewer customers within the City of Spokane Valley should realize Tower operating costs since the City of Spokane surcharge will no longer apply. A decision on new treatment capacity needs to be made before the end of 2003 in order to have the capacity available by 2010 -12. cc: Dave Mercier, Dick Thiel 06/13/2003 14:3P WITI- EERSPOON KELLEY 4 9P9211068 I' e y.2 g_a2003G;1C\CitY of S okane Valley 143241Interiocal A r entsl astewate A.. -e eerlt - DLtr 3. 3.d•c Return to: Board of County Commissioners Clerk of the Board 1116 W. Broadway Spokane, Washington 99206 [uterlocai Agreement Between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County Regardin Wastewater THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of June, 2003, by and between the CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, Washington, a municipal corporation of the Avenue, of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 11707 East Spragu e Suite 106, Spokane Valley Washington, 99206 hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", and SPOKANE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West Broadway, Spokane Washington, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY," jointly referred to, along with the CITY, as the "PARTIES." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the CITY is located in the Aquifer Protection Area established by the COUNTY by Ordinance 85 -061 dated July 30, 1985; and WHEREAS, prior to the incorporation of the CITY, the COUNTY had, with the direction and approval of the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), begun the extension of sanitary sewers within the Aquifer Protection Area, which area includes that area now incorporated as the City of Spokane V� COUNTY; wing a program to be completed in b accordance with the plan developed by the WHEREAS, the COUNTY has created a Utilities Division within the Public Works Department capable of implementing the completion of the sanitary sewer program to standards acceptable to the CITY; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has prepared and adopted the Spokane County 2001 Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (Plan) for implementation of a sewer program for the Urban Growth Areas within the Aquifer Protection Area and WHEREAS, the CITY wishes to see the completion of the sanitary sewer system to protect and serve the CITY'S residents, businesses, and the aquifer, and Page 1of10 11 NO.453 0002 06/13/2003 14 : 3E W I Ti FRTOON KELLEY 3 9P921108 1 r and Page 2 of 10 1 '1 .ity_Qpok 1 3241Inte 1 Ca. Wa. tewa erA_'e . tent ED,. IF •.1 .03.d.c WHEREAS, the COUNTY has received an Extended Grant from the State of Washington Centennial Clean Water Fund to be used to reduce the cost impacts of sewer construction in the Aquifer Protection Area (APA); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.36 RCW, the citizens of the COUNTY voted to implement an the to subsidize he cost of sewers, which Fee will sunset in year 2005 unless it is reauthoriz ed by voters; WHEREAS, the COUNTY has historically allocated the one - eighth of 1% local option sales tax revenues collected pursuant to RCW 82.14.030(2) to the sewer utility to subsidize the cost of sewers; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has accumulated substantial fund balances in the sewer utility fiend from sales tax allocations and APA Fees; and WHEREAS, a significant part of the APA Fees and sales tax revenues were contributed from within the area of the CITY; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has a policy of assisting property owners by reducing the net cost of the Capital Facilities Charge Rate (CFR) paid by each property within the sewer program; WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY are obligated to complete the elimination of septic tanks in the Urban Growth Area by extending sewer service to all properties to the extent practicable; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY owI1s, operates, and maintains all of the existing public sewer system within the CITY; and WHEREAS, nigsuant to RCW 36.44 the CI TY has the primary authority or constructin • o • ratin° and maintaining a se_e_system within the CITY unless the CITY desires _throueh wri tten consent that the COUNTY continue to own, operate, and maintain the public sewer system within the CITY,, — NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the PARTIES hereto do mutually agree as follows: SECTION 1: OWNERS. OPERAT S MAINTENANCE AND ADMIr'ISTRATION 1-1 The CITY es utter -te— authorizes the COUNTY to own, operate and maintain the sanitary sewer system (System) within the CITY as a public utility. For the purpose of this Agreement the terminology "System" shall mean all publicly owned sewers, manholes, appurtenances, and pumping stations within public rights of way or within public easements within the CITY. NO.453 [003 06/13/2003 14:3E)/ WITHERSPOON KELLEY - 9P9211008 1 -2 The CITY shall grant a franchise to the COUNTY for use of CITY public right of way for the purpose of providing said sanitary sewer service. There shall be no cost to the COUNTY for said franchise. In return for the franchise a1�d the pi$ht to maintain the S - em the COUNTY shall not enact or im • •se an tax on : oss revenues enerated Page 3 of 10 • �C\City o S pokane 'Valley 14324\Interlocal ' ' ` � ' `" . eeements \Wastewater.Aereement- REDLIN 5.13.03.doc A by the S the CITY ursuant to RC`'✓ 36.94.160. 1 -3 Th e CITY shall adopt the provisions of Spokane County Code Chapter Code ") in its entirety. The CITY sly adopt future revisions may P COUNTY to Spokane County Code Chapter 8.03 within 90 calendar days adoption by the COUNTY. Nothin• contained herein shall revent the from exercisin • its 1e • 'slative discretion to amen • m • • i or • eal the deemed reasonabl ' neces to serve the best intere is • the CI Y. 8.03 ( "Sever made by the of the date of Ci Council NO.453 0304 1-4 The CITY delegates authority to lh C �0��,°Y 5�� Amin stet, bill, collect County Code Chapter 8.03 within account for all char es and s ce ees 1 ed t• the S ' e CITY shall be responsible for initiating any civil and/or criminal litigation for enforcement through its own legal counsel. • • ' in • ection activities en _'neerin _ services 1e • al or other action vide taken by the crrr to enforce or monitor compliance with t` r S I n the In pent the benefit to the S em shall first be referred to the COUN TY . e action identified above or takes action to benefit the Sv em inc din but not limited to surveys studies or expenses a obligations. W shall 4 ��en ate the CITY for its reasonable costs, p S 1 -5 All permits issued by the COUNTY for connection to the System shall be reported to the CITY. The COUNTY will direct sewer installers to the CITY for permits to work in the CITY rights of way. CITY shall retain all fees for right of way penny 1 -6 Each year in January, the COUNTY will report to the CITY (i) System extensions completed for the previous calendar year (ii) the number of actual connections (I RU) completed the previous year, and (iii) the total FRU count for the System within the CITY. 1 -7 The COUNTY shall be delegated the authority to administer and enforce connection requirements to the sewer system, in accordance with Spokane County Code Chapter 8.03. COUNTY shall submit an annual report in January year and address of all properties where sewer service is available but which have not completed the connections to the System. I 1 -8 The COUNTY, through its Board of County Commissioners, will establish, set, and adopt all rates and charges for the sanitary sewer system. To the maximum extent possible, rates and charges will be based on cost of service. Prior to setting rates and charges for the following year, the COUNTY shall present hits proposal to the CITY and attempt to reach agreement on any changes. If the cost of service varies substantially for a class of customers ement of the CITY. If compared are unable to differential on rates may be adopted won a� 06 ✓13 ✓2003 14:30 W I THE SPOON KELLY 4 9P9211008 ates and char e The form of the Page 4 or 10 z _ - -1C \City of Snokane Valle 1431a1. Agreements\W • tewate • a eement -' ' 6. .03 doe es for CITY customers the ediation shall be as a eed between the arties. dia 'on. 1 -9 The COUNTY, consistent with RCW 36.94.140 and RCW 35.67.020, shall set monthly sewer service fees based on the cost of operation and maintenance of the System including current costs for treatment of the wastewater. Currently, wastewater treatment is at the City of Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (SAWTP) for which the COUNTY has a contract with the City of Spokane for up to 10 million gallons per day of capacity. The COUNTY shall endeavor to maintain the cost of treatment capacity, including both present and future capacity required to serve the CITY, at the lowest practicable cost to CITY sewer users. The COUNTY acknowled yes that a ortion of the above sewer ca • acit ' has been ac • uixed by the ro rties connected to the S 'steno. 1 -10 CITY and COUNTY agree that the future revenues for new treatment plant capacity, upgrades of the SAWTP, interceptors and pumping stations will be generated through a combination of General Facilities Charges (GFC's) and Wastewater Treatment Plant Charges. CITY agrees GFC's that should bsubsidies t at a level to genera a development eliminated, and that GFC to pay for new treatment plant capacity. COUNTY agrees that surplus revenues (above the amount necessary to subsidize CFR's) in the reserve funds will be used to offset the cost of new wastewater treatment plant capacity. 1 1 -11 Annually, prior to adoption, the COUNTY will provide the CITY with the proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and proposed Capital Facilities Rates (CPR's) for extension and operation of the System within the C1TY. NO. 453 71135 enerated 1 -12 The Coun meow that site cant revenues from the S r tem aye been b CITY r ro.e e connected to the System and that those revenues should be used to • nefit the development and cons ction of the S stem and treatment 'lant facili develo p ment or u .grade deli u ed to • erve the 1. ttached is an exhibit show 11 the resent balance of the S ewer unds the assets and liabilities o the S3- tem and the funds available and dedicated to development the em and treatment facilities serve the CITY. SE O 2: PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERS 2 -1 The COUNTY will update the Spokane County 2001 Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (Plan) as necessary to conform to the o Spokane Valley Gounty Comprehensive (land_use) Plan and make W.en revisions to Plan policies asce necessary. 2 -2 The COUNTY shall be responsible for diligently pursuing the completion of the sanitary sewer system and septic tank elimination program (STEP) in accordance with the Plan and the Six Year Sewer Construction Capital Improvement Program, as 06/13/2003 WITNFRSPOON KELLEY 4 9P9211008 Page 5 of 10 :1 \Ci ° of S okane Valley 14" 41I terl cal reementslVastcwaG;r.4 ement- REDLINE 6.13.03.doc amended annually. This responsibility shall include the planning, design, and construction of new sewers, as identified in the Plan, within the System through the life of this Agreement 2-3 The COUNTY may extend the System to areas outside of the CITY, provided that adequate sewer capacity is maintained to serve properties within the CTTY• Extension of sewer service outside of the CITY shall not cause additional costs to accrue to CITY sewer users. 2-4 The COUNTY shall restore all CITY streets, in which sewer construction takes place, with full width reconstruction the � street base, shall not be less than the standards adopted and approved by the CITY, which s for all additional applied by the COUNTY prior to incorporation. The CITY shall pay costs to provide full width pavement, beyond the normal trench width pavement replacement( Width- 1.8x Depth) At the beginning of each construction season, COUNTY staff in collaboration with CITY staff will evaluate the condition of streets and roads within the CITY, and determine the scope and cost for full width pavement in that year's projects. Full width pavement will not be included in the construction projects for the next construction season until the CITY and COUNTY staffs' agree, in writing, to the scope and budget for full width paving. During the construction period, COUNTY will provide monthly invoices to the crrY for 30llcal width day completed, and CITY shall provide payment to the COUNTY 2 -5 The COUNTY shall continue to actively pursue grants Grants an loans shall loans to apple costs of the sewer construction prow• proportionally to COUNTY sewer customers outside and inside of the CITY. 2 -6 The COUNTY will pursue the reauthorization of the Aquifer Protection Area Fees as provided for in Chapter 36.36 RCW to reduce the cost of sewers to users of the System. The CITY shall pascconsider -a resolution to support this effort to obtain additional funds to reduce the cost of sewers to City residents and properties. 2 -7 The COUNTY shall continue to provide a subsidy to the cost of Capital Facilities Rates using the computational method currently in effect, within the limits of available funds and for the subsidy. A copy of that method is attached hereto use Sewer Reserve Fund as Attaclunent incorporated herein by reference. The COUNTY monies obtained from properties within the CITY or such other sources as the COUNTY may elect to fund this subsidy. For the purpose of this Agreement the terminology "Sewer Reserve Fund" cha11 mean those monies reflected in Budget Funds 403 and 436, indicated as Beginning and End Fund Balances. Sewer Reserve Funds are for authorized sewer uses and APA program uses, and are not solely for the subsidy of Capital Facilities Rates. The CITY will not be obligated to contribute any additional funds to this subsidy. SECTION 3: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY h-00.453 0006 06/13 14 : W I TI- RSPOON KELLEY a 9P9211008 _, �. W ! :1C \City of S okane Valle 1432411nterlocal ' r INE 6.1 .03 doc AmementslW astewaterAereement - REDI. 3 -1 The CITY and COUNTY agree to work jointly the COUNTY for `areas. treatment capacity needed by the C1TY and y Such planning shall include the possibility of a regional system to provide capacity to the City of Spokane, the COUNTY, the CITY, and other governmental units. This Agreement does not serve as approval by the CITY of the Wastewater Treatment plan now being finalized by the COUNTY. Such approval can only result from the above - referenced joint planning effort and an Amendment to this Agreement, or through a separate Interlocal Agreement. ecment- C O 4: NOTICE All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (1) the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (ii) the third SY following the day on which the same have been nailed by first class delivery, ,, other address as addressed to COUNTY at the address set forth below for such Party, or such COUNTY shall from time -to -time designate by notice in writing to the other PARTIES: COUNTY: Spokane County Chief Executive Officer or his/her authorized representative 1116 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260 CITY: City of Spokane Valley City Manager or his/her authorized representative Redwood Plaza 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 SECTION 5: COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be c•xecuted in any an original, bm such counterparts shall together constitute but executed and delivered, shall t one and the same. SECTION 6: ASSIGNMENT No p arty may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of all other PARTIES. SECTION 7: I. ,IA,BILITY (a) COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers, loss, a nd emplo and or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, negligent act or damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any ne g Page 6ofl0 N0.453 d007 06/13/2003 14:3Ey --1 WIThROON KELLEY 4 9P9211008 T Glee n ; M g 003 G:�CICi o f S kane Valley 143241Interlocai Aereements\Wastew^aterA reement- REDLPN'E 6.13.03.doc omission of COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against CITY, COUNTY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that CITY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of goverrunental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against CITY, and its officersentsofficers employees, or any of agents, and employees, , CO m '(JNTY�sh�al t CITY and COUNTY and their respective shall satisfy the same. (b) CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of CITY, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them relating to or arising out of prong services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against COUNTY, CITY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that COUNTY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against COUNTY and CITY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, CITY shall satisfy the same. (c) The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each party's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, Chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indernnitor's employees. The PARTIES acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by there. (d) COUNTY and CITY agree to either self insure or purchase polices of insurance covering the matters contained in this Agreement with coverages of not Less than $5 liability ,000,00er c auto with. $5,000,000 aggregate limits including for ENGINEERS professional liability coverages. SECTION 8: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES The PARTIES intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee, servant or representative of COUNTY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of C1TY for any purpose. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant or representative of CITY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of COUNTY for any purpose. SECTION 9: MODIFICATION This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES. SECTION 10: DURATION Page 7 of 10 NO.453 P008 06/132003 14 : 3Ej ' �, W I TNERSPOON KELLEY 4 9P921100B T This Agreement shall be effective as the h s forth herein above and shall continue until terminated by mutual consent of both SECTION 11: TERMINATION by �e �h the CITY =T This Agreement may be terminated end y n twelve 2 months advance written notice. If the CITY and COUN a ta.. - e ' a ' . s er of pro , facilities and ui rent ursuant to RCW 36.94.180 Ttermination shall be accomplished by execution of a formal Termination Agreement. The Termination Agreement shall address transfer of assets, transfer of employees, transfer of fund balances, establishment of system value, payments, transfer of debts, and all other aspects of an equitable termination of this Agreement. In the event the parties a e unable t t he content of the Termination Qg eement the CITY ma ' roceed with an assum don of the System through RCW Chapter 35.13A. In the event that the CITY and COUNTY cannot agree on the agree i t o acc of ion Agreeme and prior to a CITY assurn pjgoz both parties agr appoint to attempt to resolve all disagreements regarding the content of a Termination I Agreement. . , :1C \City of S . okanc Valle 1' 24' Ae \WastewaterAsnc REDLINE 6.13.03.doc s SECTION 12: PROPERTY ANT) E UIWMENT The ownership of all property and equipment utilized by the COUNTY under the terms of this Agreement shall remain with the COUNTYea$e '' -a hece: ^_t° --fie 60Ruvft. SECT7 13: ALL W RITINGS CO .T) HEREtNIBINUINO EFFECT This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto, their successors and assigns. SECTION 14: VENUE ST PUT.,ATTON This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered Agreement ' in the State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each party shall be governed by the laws of the State of. Washington both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. SECTION 15: SEVERA ILTT'Y Page 8 of 10 NO.453 9009 06/1 3/2003 14:3E(' - W I T � RSPOON KELLEY 4 9P9211008 :1C\Ci . of .ok- e alle 143 4 , el Aereements lWastewaterAareexnent- RED LINE 6.13.03_doc It is understood and agreed among the PARTIES that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the PARTIES p t o r affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear a of the State of provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision. „ SECTION 16: RECORDS All public records prepared, owned, used or retained by COUNTY in conjunction with this Agreement shall be deemed CITY property and shall be made available to CITY upon request by the CJTY Manager. COUNTS will notify CITY of any public disclosure request under chapter 42.17 RCW for copies or viewing of such records as well as the PROSECUTOR'S response thereto. SECTION 1 READINGS The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. SECTION 18: STATIONARRY CITY agrees COUNTY will use COUNTY'S stationary in conjunction with meeting its responsibilities under the terms of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: ATTEST: VICKY M. DALTON CLERK OF THE BOARD BY: Page 9of10 BOARD OF COUNTY COM14, 1SSIONLRS OF SPOK.ANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON JOHN ROSK.ELLEY PHILLIP D. HARRIS, Chair Daniela Erickson, Deputy M. KATE MCCASLIN 10 .453 0019 06/132003 14:3E WITHERSPOON KELLEY 4 9P9211008 DATED: Attest: Acting City Clerk Approved as to form only Acting City Attorney • e :1C\C tY of Spokane Valley l4324\Int erlocal A rcements `Vaste«ater,4ae�:menr - REAL DUNE 6.13.03.doc CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: By: Its: (Title) N0.453 0011