2003, 08-05 Study Session MinutesAttendance:
Councilmembers:
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Richard Munson, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Study Session
August 5, 2003, 6:00 p.m.
Staff:
David Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Dir.
Scott Kuhta, Long Range Planner
Marina Sukup, Comm Development Dir.
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Neal Kersten, Public Works Director
Kevin Snyder, Current Planning Manager
Public Works Staff
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.
Employee Introductions: City Manager Mercier introduced Public Works Director Neil Kersten, who
then introduced his engineering staff: City Engineer Dick Thiel, Assistant Engineer Sandra Raskell,
Senior Engineer Steve Worley, Senior Engineer John Holman, Assistant Engineer Shane Arlt,
Engineering Technician Steve Stamatoplos, Traffic Engineer Don Ramsey, Public Works Superintendent
Mac McDonald, and Construction Inspector Kevin Severance.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Discussion: Community Development Director Marina Sukup
discussed her PowerPoint presentation on the Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Element, adding that the
plan will likely take twelve to eighteen months to complete.
Budget Process Presentation: Finance Director Ken Thompson discussed the 2004 budget process and
highlighted items council will likely see included in that budget; and asked Council to direct staff to
include or exclude items as necessary. Thompson also mentioned that Council should schedule a retreat
some time within the next three to four weeks to set goals and review budget items. Finance Director
Thompson added that Council should also consider if they want full recovery of costs, subsidize costs, or
make other adjustments. Thompson said the goal is to also have a contingency fund to cover unexpected
expenses and to establish a reserve fund.
Mayor DeVleming called for a short recess at 7:15 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Proposed Budget Amendment: Finance Director Thompson went over the highlights of his August 5,
2003 Budget Amendments as areas which need to be amended, and mentioned the important part is the
fund to be adjusted. City Manager Mercier added that some of these are items which Council previously
approved, and we are now placing them in the budget. Additionally, some items in the initial budget were
placed in the incorrect funds and those adjustments will be made during the budget amendment. It was
the consensus of Council to move forward with the budget amendment.
Study Session Minutes 08 -05 -03 Page 1 of 2
Date Approved by Council: 08 -12 -03
Franchise Ordinance Update: Deputy City Attorney Driskell continued his general policy discussion
with item #6 of his original July 9, 2003 memo. Council concurred with the recommended language as
noted in item #6: "restore the surface of the right -of -way or public property to at least the currently
adopted City standards or as required by the City Engineer through a right -of -way permit, depending
upon special circumstances." Driskell went on to explain paragraph #7 and further discussion ensued
regarding the need to require as -built plans, the one -call system, and the need to know locations of
facilities for economic development and potential liability issues. City Manager Mercier added that he
feels the proposal is not that the City be the prime repository for all as -built plans or act as a central
clearinghouse, but rather to concentrate on other responsibilities and to recognize the value of being able
to place the facilities in the public right -of -way. It was also suggested to make it a condition of the
franchise agreement that a copy of the plans shall be stored at City Hall in some form, whether hard copy
or in electronic form. Another item mentioned was the need for consistency of treatment within the
category of business. It was suggested to give staff additional time to determine how to categorize the
approach to cover the concern about the various types of uses in a right -of -way without overburdening
those, and to ask for records if they exist. Driskell explained his item #8 and council agreed with his
recommendation. In the interest of time, this issue will be about back to the next study session beginning
with #9 on his memo.
Advance Agenda Additions: Councilman Munson said he would like to see the issue of wastewater on
every agenda. Councilman Flanigan mentioned that he feels at some point council needs to develop a
philosophy regarding the sewer system, that there were some presentations but we never established what
we want, that council needs to take control of the process, weigh the options, and explain what is
expected and wanted. City Manager Mercier mentioned that he hopes to have more information and a
better sense of options after the August 13 meeting with the Department of Ecology. It was also
determined that the Council Retreat will be held Monday, August 11, beginning at 6:00 p.m., in the
Council Chambers.
Council Check -in: City Manager Mercier explained the purpose of this is to set time aside for internal
housekeeping to ascertain if things are working well and to discuss overall interactions. Councilman
Munson mentioned he feels out of touch with the public and doesn't know their complaints since staff
gets the letters and council tends to lose contact. Mercier explained that most complaints are code
enforcement issues; others are public works issues such as obstruction areas such as hidden signs.
City Manager Comments: City Manager Mercier reported that he attended the Washington State Public
Works Meeting in Seattle and said that perhaps our septic tank elimination program might fit into their
Construction Loan Program. Mercier also mentioned that the Executive Director of the Public Works
Board said he will come to Spokane Valley and coordinate with other funding agencies and provide an
overall presentation to the entire staff so we can be alerted to which programs work best with each other,
thus accelerating the knowledge of the programs and enhancing the possibility to acquire successful
funding.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
- "Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Study Session Minutes 08 -05 -03
Date Approved by Council: 08 -12 -03
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Page 2 of 2
Comprehensive PIan:
LAND USE ELEMENT
Community Development
11J A
.
Land Use Planning &
Implementation
• Growth Management Act (GMA)
• Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP)
• Interim Plan Provisions
• Plan Implementation
• Process
Prrip rty
owriess,
City
Oourtril
.ST RTC
,� 1 ( S VM)oy Ok 3rle
I�i(�htd Community , tot/61y
/
Spe ia1 \
Qinlrds Ch3mtief of
CoritOctro
Cleve l6pe:r s
1
rwrrrr undIm
GM, Mandate
Srxvi frwr
sae_
Val Ir'
_ Steenng
Committee
°I
p'
n
rh
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT
Planning Goals
• Urban Growth -efficient
• Reduce Sprawl
• Transportation - efficient multi -modal
• Housing affordability for all
• Economic Development
• Property Rights
• Permits — timely & fair
• Natural Resource Industries
• Open Spam & Recreation
• Environment
• Citizen Participation & Coordination
• Public racitities & Services
• Hlstorrr Preservation
AIL
CWPP
Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates
Countywide Planning Policies
• Early and continuous citizen participation
• Protection of Neighborhood Character
• Aquifer Protection
• Ethnic Diversity
• Urban Character
• Economic Vitality
• Protection of Private Property Rights
Existing Conditions
COMMUNITY '
INPUT i
Community Workshops
Stakeholder Meetings
Public Hearings
Drafts to interested groups
Web publication
Forecast Integrate Policy Directives
• Priorities
1
The Plan
Urban Growth Areas (UGAs)
• Area within Corporate limits defined as "urban"
• Areas to de developed within 20 Year period
• UGA d etermine d after recommendation from
Steering Committee to County Commissioners
• Population growth allocated by County
Commissioners - requires capacity analysis
and ability to provide services and facilities
UGA Policies
• No obstruction of regional transportation
• Land within high- intensity corridors should
support economic provision of multi -modal
transportation - Adequate transportation
access- coordination of land use with Spokane
Regional Transportation Council (SRTC)
• Protect Utility Corridors
• Airport Protection — Felts Field
• Critical Area protection and Shoreline
Management by City required
UGA Policies: Development
Standards
• Expansion of Industrial /commercial areas may
be located outside City UGA
• Compatibility of mixed density residential uses
• New development should provide own
infrastructure
• Concurrency required
• Fair Share of Housing and Essential Facilities
• Joint Planning in UGAs for 40 year term
PLAN RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES
• Low Density Residential - Density range of 1
to and including 6 dwelling units per acre.
• Medium Density Residential — Density range
of greater than 6 to and including 15 dwelling
units per acre.
• High Density Residential — Densities > than
15 units per acre *.
* Professional office uses are allowed within this
category.
PLAN MIXED -USE CATEGORIES
• Neighborhood Centers - Small mixed use area
containing a civic green or park, transit stop,
neighborhood businesses and services, day
care center, church or school Identified through
neighborhood planning efforts.
• Community Centers — Higher intensity mixed -
use areas designed to serve two or more
neighborhoods. May have a mix of uses,
including commercial, civic, high - density
residential and recreational uses.
PLAN MIXED -USE CATEGORIES
• Urban Activity Centers
Planned residential and commercial areas.
Pedestrian oriented, strong Zink to transit
Offices, recreational and cultural facilities.
• Mixed - Use Areas
Transit friendly, encourages local commercial
uses, medium - density residential and office
along transportation corridors
Discourages auto - dependnt uses_ Focus on
pedestrian - emphasis on aesthetics and design
PLAN COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES
• Regional Commercial -- Intensive commercial
areas intended to draw customers from
throughout the County and outlying areas.
• Community Commercial — Retail, service and
office serving multiple neighborhoods - located
as business clusters.
• Neighborhood Commercial — Small - scale local
retail and office uses - located as business
clusters.
PLAN INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
• Light Industry — Emphasis on aesthetics,
landscaping and internal and community
compatibility. May include complementary office
and commercial support uses
• Heavy Industry — Intense industrial with
potentially significant impacts on surrounding
areas
Legal Construction
Zoning is a development regulation that
is specific and will generally control
over Comprehensive Plan which is
general
8
I l •
ti
r
I
INTERIM ZONING MAP
Comp Plan Designations & Interim
Zoning Districts
• Low Density Residential • UR -3.5, UR -7
• Medium Density Residential • UR -7, UR -12
• High Density Residential • UR -22
• B-1,13-2
• Neighborhood
Centers/Comrnercial
• Community Centers
• B-2
• Urban Activity Centers • UR -22, 8-1, B -2
Comp Plan Designations & Interim
Zoning Districts
•Mixed Use Areas •UR -12, UR -22, B -1, B -2, I -1
•Community Commercial •B -2
•Regional Commercial •B -3
=Light Industrial •I.2
•Heavy Industrial •I -3
City Plan Not to be Inconsistent
with County Plan
• Urban Design • Parking
• Signage • Link Parks /Open space
• Consider traffic impacts of land use
• Tree Preservation and Reforestation
• Detached Single- family residential most
protected classification — minimum
density 4 du/ acre for
development
0
PROCESS
• Development Regulations MUST be adopted
within 180 days of adoption of the Comp Plan
• Practically, staff recommends developing the
Comp Plan and zoning regulations in tandem
Community Involvement
• Early and Continuous
• Schedule individual Plan elements for review at
Planning Commission meetings — community
resources to be present
• Allocate a portion of each meeting to receiving
public comments on individual elements
• Compile all elements and schedule 6-8
Community Workshops at locations throughout
the community
• Schedule Stakeholder meetings
• Schedule public hearings before Planning
Commission and Council
S"pukane
Community Involvement
• Draft documents should be published on the
website
• Other forms of notice to the public to be
investigated
• Development Regulations should be
developed concurrently with the Plan
Neighbortuxo
Spokane Valtey
Community
Special ---- - Qev'elaperp
Districts i -- ?
Chamber at
Cticnnierr e
gismii
12
/Valley
2004 BUDGET
PROCESS
DISCUSSION
August 5, 2003 Ken Thompson
IV. Community Profile
A. History of Area
B. Population
C. Leading Industries, Employers
V. Map with Spokane Valley Reference
VI. Organization Chart
City of Spokane Valley
2004 Budget Process Discussion
August 5, 2003
L Calendar
IL The Usual Financial Charts, Graphs and Schedules
III. Budget Message
A. Highlights
B. Accomplishments
C. Goals
D. Major Budget Issues
I. Sales Tax
2. Tylirabeau Point
VII. About the Budget
A. Explanation
B. Background
C. Procedures
D. Process
V111. Fund StnictureiHow Budget Organized
IX. Budget
A. Significant Revenues Explanation
B. Program or Activity Format
C. Contingency
D. Service Level Stabilization Fund
X. Capital Improvement Plan
XL Most Significant Budget Policies
XII. Ordinances
A. Levy Property Taxes
B. Adopting Budget
XIII Schedule of Number of Employees and Salary Range
August 5, 2003
2
•
August 2003
August
End of August
September 8
September 23
October 14
October 14
Week of Oct. 20
Week of Oct. 20
Week of Oct. 27
October 28
November 1 -14
November 18
November 25
November 25
December 1
Council Retreat
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
BUDGET CALENDAR
2004 BUDGET
Request to departments for detailed
revenue and expense estimates
Departments submit estimates to Finance
Preliminary Budget to City Manager
City Manager submits estimates on 2003 revenues and
Preliminary 2004 revenues and expenditures to Council
Council holds public hearing on revenues for 2004
City Manager files preliminary budget and message
with City Clerk and Council
City Clerk publishes notice of budget filing
City Clerk publishes notice of hearing on final budget
City Clerk publishes second notice of hearing
Council sets property tax levy
Council sets hearing on budget or parts thereof
Copies of preliminary budget available
Final Budget Hearing
Council adopts 2004 budget
Copies of budget sent to state and MRSC
August 5, 2003 3
Expenditure Category
Personnel
Materials & Services
Capital
Transfers
Contingency
Total General Fund
Personnel
Materials & Services
Capital
Transfers
Debt Service
Contingency
Total Special Revenue Funds
Materials & Services
Debt Service
Total Debt Service Funds
Materials & Services S 346,896
Capital 2,127,270
Transfers
Total Capital Projeci Funds S 2,474,166
Personnel
Materials & Services
Capital
Transfers
Debt Service
Contingency
Total Enterprise Funds S 14,788,581
Ta b)e 3
FUND TYPE SUMMARY BY EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
2001 -2002 Adopted Budget
1998 -1999
Actual
1999 -2000
Actual
5 8,596,315 S 9,548,536
3,057,947 3,022,917
155,811 65,198
1,398,568 716,513
2000 - 2001......
Adopted Revised
Budget Budget
General Fund
S 10,480,500 S 10,530,500
3,120,600 3,247,000
39,500 54,500
577,500 581,500
1,113,300 917,900
5 13,208,641 S 13,353,164 S 15,331,400 S 15,331,400
S 3,297,393
6,246,128
4,048,401
152,308
35,203
S 13,779,433
S 3,607,018 S
3,750,464
4,732,812
54,080
2,644,207
5 3,547,489 S 3,993,700 S 4,055,000
6,630,551 8,384,200 9,330,300
2,312,1 11 7,355,100 7,686.900
43,221 32,000 82900
39,778 39,200 39,200
204,300 148,600
S 12,573,150 S 20,008,500 5 21,342,900
Debt Service Funds
5 2499 5 1,154 S 6,400 S 6,400
1,072,868 1 ,734,263 3,1 50,500 3,1 50,500
S 1,075,367 S 1,735,417 S 3,156,900 S 3,156,900
Capital Project Funds
5 42,657 S 35,000 S 145.000
2,834,335 15,680,800 1 8,820,800
146,630 58,000 58,000
S 3,023,622 S 15,773,800 S 19,023,800
Enterprise Funds
3,679,811 5 4,395,600 S 4,395,600
4,486,719 5,715,300 6,715,300
3,725,257 22,814,500 21.820,500
4,612 8,800 8,800
2,441,843 6,481,000 6,481,000
1,213,000 1,207,000
S 14,338,242 5 40,628,200 5 40,628,200
2001 -2002
Adopted
Budget
S 11,368,400
3,443,000
20,000
556,000
973,600
S 16,361,000
S 4 ,327,900
10,136,500
7,504,100
47,100
81,100
188,400
S 22,285,100
S 5,500
3,257,600
S 3,263,100
S 4,798,400
5,825,400
17,367,800
45,000
6,643,300
1,225,000
S 35,904,900
Percent
Over(Under)
2000 -2001
Revised
Budget
6.73%
8.64%
(2.38 %)
(43.18°i' )
106.89%
26.78%
4.41%
Percent
of Fund
Budget
7.96% 69.49%
6.04% 21.04%
(63.30%) 0.12%
(4.39 %) 3.40%
6.07% 5.95%
6.72% 100.00%
19.42%
45.49%
33.67%
0.21%
036''
0.85%
100.00%
(14.06 %) 0.17%
3.40% 99.83%
3.36% 100.00%
S 231,000 59.31% L64%
13,807,600 (26.64 %) 97.96%
56,000 (3.45 %) 0.40%
S 14,094,600 (25.91%) 100.00%
9.16% 13.37%
(13.25 %) 16.22%
(20.41 %) 48.37%
411.36% 0.13%
2.50% 18.50%
1.49% 3.41%
(11.63 %) 100.00%
Continued .
August 5, 2003 4
•
Expenditure Category
Personnel
Materials & Services
Capital
Unappropriated
Total Trust & Agency Funds
Personnel
Materials & Services
Capital
Transfers
Debt Service
Contingency
Unappropriated
Total All Fund Types
Table 3
FUND TYPE SUMMARY BY EXPENDITURE CATEGORY (Continued)
2001 -2002 Adopted Budget
Transfers _
0.7%
Capital J ;
41.0 °i°
1998 -1999
Actual
Personnel S 1,429,231
Materials & Services 1,270.981
Capital 546,542
Transfers -
Contingency
Total Internal Service Funds 5 3,246,754
S - S
42
S 42,475 S
S 16,929,957
14,717,390
11,610,836
1,604,956
3,752,278
S 48,615,417
Debt Service
10.3%
1999 -2000
Actual
S 1 ,686,466 S 2,009,900 S 2,009,900 S 2,191,100 9.02% 49.60 °0
1,206,085 1,273,600 1,446,400 1,394,000 (3.62%) 31.56%
100,786 696,300 626,300 827,500 32.13% 18.73%
37,100 17,100 5,000 (70.76 %) 0.11%
S 2,993,337 S 4,016,900 S 4,099,700 S 4,417,600 7.75% 100.00%
- S - S
73,524 86,300
105, 100
73,524 S 191,400 S
S 18,462,302
15,463,607
9,037,687
910,976
4,215,884
S 48,090,456
S
All Fund Types
S 20,879,700 S 20,991,000
18,621,400 20,978,700
46,586,200 49,009,000
676,300 731 ,200
9,670,700 9,670,700
2,567,700 2,290,600
105,100 105,100
S 99,107,100 S 103,776,300
Internal Service Funds
Trust & Agency Funds
2000 -2001
Adopted Revised
Budget Budget
2001 -2002 Budget by Expenditure Category
Contingency
2.5%
2001 -2002
Adopted
Budget
88,300 80,100
105,100 112,900
193,400 S 193,000
Unappropriated
0.1%
S 22,685,800 8.07% 23.S0%
21,115,500 0.65% 2I.88%
39,527,000 (19.35 %) 40.95%
704,100 (3.71 %) 0.73%
9,982,000 3.22% 10.34%
2,392,000 4.43% 2.48%
112,900 7.42% 0.12%
S 96,519,300 (6.99 %) 100.00%
Materials & Services
21.9%
Personnel
23.5%
Percent
Over(Under)
2000 -2001
Revised
Budget
Percent
of Fund
Budget
(9.29%) 41.50%
7.42% 58.50%
(0.21%) 1 00.00%
August 5, 2003 5
August 5, 2003
March 20, 2003
City of Spokane Valley
The Honorable Mayor DeVleming and Councilors
City of Spokane Valley
Spokane Valley, Washington
Dear Mayor DeVleming and Councilors:
It is with considerable pleasure and satisfaction that I present you with recommendations
for this City's first annual budget for the year ending December 31, 2003. This budget
will be followed by an endless succession of similar documents over the years. However,
there can be only one starting point that attempts to address the hopes and aspirations of a
new community.
This budget is also important in that it represents a justification for the efforts made to
incorporate this City by responding to the various issues and concerns that led the citizens
of Spokane Valley to make this decision. These concerns can best be summarized as (1)
planning and growth management to improve the quality of life in this community, (2) a
desire to maintain or improve the level of public safety and law enforcement, (3)
improve transportation and traffic management, (4) expand family recreation and cultural
opportunities, and (5) economic development to create new job opportunities. The
success of this, and future budgets, will ultimately be determined by your success in
addressing these major concerns. In addition, the City will be tested by its ability to
establish a strong financial and organizational foundation that will ensure a successful
future for this City.
Budget Format
Pages that follow provide increasing levels of detail about our recommended budgets for
the City's Funds. Major funds are the General Fund, Street Fund, Street Capital Projects,
Sewer Fund, and Stormwater Management. Descriptions and goals of these funds are
included in the budget detail sheets that follow.
Speaking broadly, the General Fund accounts for services while the Street Fund and
Street Capital Project Fund accounts for items. Essentially these three funds are the ones
from which most direct expenditures are made. In addition to these, the Stormwater
11707 E. Sprague • Suite 106 • Spokane Valley, \Va. • 99206 • (509) 921 -1000 • Fax (509) 921 -1008
6
16. Columbia Fiber Franchise Negotiation Report: Interim Deputy Cit Stan McNutt
indicated he discussed this franchise agreement with John Everett, and then introduced John Everett.
General Manager of Columbia Fiber Solutions (CFS). Everett said that his company (formerly Avista)
operates a franchise with the County of Spokane. and that they serve a number of businesses here
including schools: that fiber optics are expensive, and that if we have free access to fiber. his company
will lose money every monthly; that his company is concerned that if we allow fiber to be provided to
other customers and prospects, that would also result in lost revenues to CFS. Everett then explained his
proposal as outlined in his June 17, 2003 letter to Stan McNutt. McNutt asked council for guidance as he
has not had an opportunity to study the letter just received, and asks council if staff should continue
negotiations or pursue alternate proposals. Mercier said staff is trying to develop general approaches in
dealing with franchises and in the process of negotiating, staff proposes a '`me too" clause, which means
we determine what the franchise operator does for other entities, and we ask that those terms be extended
to us also; and that he hopes council direction may apply to all franchises. Councilmember Munson said
that we want to be business friendly but that we intend to provide value for the service. Councilmember
Denenny said he would like staff to pursue this and look at all underlying arrangements. Councilmember
Tai for added that he would like staff to develop general policy for dealing with all franchises and that it
would be good to start formulating such policy. It was decided this matter will be brought back at a
future date for further review.
17. Proposal for Joint Meetings with School Districts: City Manager Mercier explained that this
might be a good time to begin to formulate relationships with the school districts. or select one district at
a time to ex-tend an invitation to meet jointly and exchange ideas. Mayor DeVleming suggested
contacting Central Valley after July 4 and perhaps others before school starts in the fall. It was
determined City Manager Mercier will choose some dates when most people are available.
18. Council Workplan Priorities: City Manager Mercier explained that he and McNutt suggest council
determine five top concerns and give staff further direction to pursue. After discussion of many topics,
including mention of a need for a mission and vision statement, strategic planning, and the comprehensive
plan, the following is the result of the topics and the number of votes for each:
Sewer issues: 6
Mirabeau Point 5
Overall Communication 4
Comprehensive Plan 4 (includes couplet)
Strategic Planning 2
Raw Inventor) 2
Park Evaluations 2
Financing 1
State Legislation 1
Bridging the Valley 1
Webpage 1
1 Tearing Examiner 1
Contracts
Prior to finalization of the top issues. and because of the late time (8:55 p.m.). it was moved by
Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Taylor to proceed in time with the meeting.
Vote by acclamation: Ayes: Unanimous. Nays: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
Mercier said with almost a complete tuniover in key staff about to occur, and being in the midst of
vacation season. he recommends moving forward on these issues in the fall. Council concurred.
August 5, 2003 7
August 5, 2003
Shoreline
Community Profile
The City of Shoreline is located in the northwestern corner of King County along the shores of
Puget Sound. Shoreline is generally bounded by the City of Lake Forest Park to the east, the
City of Seattle to the south, Puget Sound to the west, and Snohomish County to the north
(including the Cities of Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds, and the Town of Woodway).
Shoreline Yesterday
Before the Turn of the Century: The area which is now Shoreline was once forested with deep
woods, pockets of meadows, and bog areas. The area provided rich fishing, hunting, and
gathering opportunities for local Native Americans, who occupied permanent settlements along
Lake Washington, and temporary camps on Puget Sound. Homesteaders began arriving in the
area in the 1880's, following the loggers and mill owners who had earlier set up operations
along the waterways. Farmers cleared the fields and built modest homes. Richmond Beach is
the site of the first village in the area. Located on the new Great Northern railroad line running
along Puget Sound, this area gained its identity in 1890. By the turn of the century, numerous
businesses were clustered around Market Street, now known as N.W. 195th Place.
Early 1900's until World War 1: By the early 1900's an additional community had developed up
the hill known as the Richmond Highlands centered at the current intersection of Aurora and
185th. The Interurban Railroad increased access to the area upon its opening from Seattle to
Halls Lake in 1906. The next year the Great Northern railroad depot opened, providing
additional transportation facilities to the area. Around 1910, the Seattle Golf Club and the
Highlands were established, and Greenwood, or Country Club Road, as it was known then, was
the only good road into Seattle. The Interurban was completed to Everett that year, causing
more development along its line, particularly in the Ronald area, located roughly along 175th.
The North Trunk Road, now known as Aurora or highway 99, was bricked in 1914 and became
the primary automobile corridor in the area.
Between World War 1 and World War 11: In the 1920's, 30's and 40's residential development
continued. The area that became as known as North City developed in the late 1920's along
15th Ave. N.E., and Lago Vista was also developed during this period with its own clubhouse.
During this time, the North Trunk Road was upgraded and became known as Aurora, and was
designated as Highway 99 in 1930. Aurora served as the emerging center of commerce, and
by the mid -20's was home to numerous businesses and roadhouses. Innis Arden was
developed by the Boeing Family, and became a prime residential community in the 1940's.
Following World War 11: The area which is now Shoreline experienced tremendous growth after
World War 11 as the suburban lifestyle grew in popularity. The Shoreline School District was
established in 1944, and in response to the growth, Shoreline High School was built in 1955.
Shoreline Community College was founded in 1963 and the 1 -5 freeway was opened the next
year. Commercial development thrived along Aurora in the mid -60's with the opening of Aurora
Village and Sears.
Through the 60's, 70's and 80's the community continued to grow. Additional parks and
schools were developed including Shorewood and Shorecrest High Schools, and changes were
made to reflect the needs of the community. Shoreline High became the Shoreline Center, and
a site that had once been considered for a high school to be called Shoreview High became
8
SHORELINE, WASHINGTON
The City of Shoreline is located in the northwestern comer of King .County along
the shores of Puget Sound. It is bounded by the City of Lake Forest Park to the
east, the City of Seattle to the south, Puget Sound to the west, and Snohomish
County to the north (including the Cities of Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds, and
the Town of Woodway). The Washington State Office of Financial Management
(OFM) ranks the City of Shoreline as the 13 most populous in the State of
Washington. In 2002, OFM estimated 53,250 people reside in Shoreline
occupying a land area of 12.8 square miles.
August 5, 2003
9
Preplan
I dedm; Posidon
rrll continue
• New Addling
City Podia
contract i Office of the
Positions I City Attorney
i (Consulting) i I — _ • _ • _ _ 1
L
nldg Inspector It
4101
Associate
Plainer
2117
1�56L d n;
Manner
1)10
Administrative
Auefahnt (%
Shed vdi PW)
12120/02
Lurren 'tanning
Mgr
1120
Long Range
Planning Mgr.
1127
August 5, 2003
1
Plans Examiner
3124
Permit Spedaitcl
3/24
Asslstant Planner
(DON)
Assistant Planner
(00
annsng
Tediidan
II City of Spokane Valley
Staffing and Organization Chart
WM Adua�MUdpaledSlad Deles Fiscal Year With Actual/Anticipated Start Dates Fiscal Year 2003)
Comet!
Development Dtr.
8115
mi
ve
Assistant ('4
Shared with CD)
12120102
1
Capital Projeds
Senior Engineer
7101
Capital Projects
Assistant Eng.
(DON)
I Tra01u
Enceleffing
GIS Tech. • 1/2
5120
Code Enforcement O
811
Pubic Wbrlu
Director
615
City Engineer
3/17
Ck1tens of
Spokane Valley
City Manager
511
Engineering
Tec vidsn
01
1
Develop nenl
Senior Engineer
5101
Development
Assistant Eng.
NOM
City Council
Chief of Poke
I I
Acrrninistrative
Assistant
(DON)
1
On Cal
Contracted I
Services: ,
•IT
Ariministrative
Analyst
m
fl rycdy
Manager
L • 611
1r specialist • 112
5/20
HUM*.
Assistant
213
01Rce Assistant
(Receptionist)
lzroro2
Deputy City Clerk
7/1
(DON) • Depending on
Need; Position will be
budgeted but not lied until
work load Justifies need
Finance Ikeda'
7/1
Accounting
Manager
1120
Actounlantl
Budget Anafysl
8115
Accounting
Tedrridan
2115
1
Parks and
Recreation Dir.
111
AdrninistraIve
Aasisiant
5/15
Senior Center
—1 Coordinator
Recreation
Coordinator
1/21
Resection
Assistants
1
About the Budget and the Budget Process
The budget includes the financial planning and legal authority to obligate public funds.
Additionally, the budget provides significant policy direction by the City Council to the staff
and community. As a result, the City Council, staff and public are involved in establishing
the budget for the City of Spokane Valley
The budget provides four functions:
1. A Policy Document
The budget functions as a policy document in that the decisions made within the budget will
reflect the general principles or plans that guide the actions taken for the future. As a policy
document, the budget makes specific attempts to link desired goals and policy direction to
the actual day - to-day activities of the City staff.
2. An Operational Guide
The budget of the City reflects its operation. Activities of each City function and
organization have been planned, debated, formalized, and described in the following
sections. This process will help to maintain an understanding of the various operations of the
City and how they relate to each other and to the attainment of the policy issues and goals of
the City Council.
3. A Link with the General Public
The budget provides a unique opportunity to allow and encourage public review of City
operations. The budget describes the activities of the City, the reason or cause for those
activities, future implications, and the direct relationship to the citizenry.
4. A Legally Required Financial Planning Tool
The budget is a financial planning tool, which has been its most traditional use. In this light,
preparing and adopting a budget is a State law requirement of all cities as stated in Title 35A
of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The budget must be adopted as a balanced
budget and must be in place prior to the expenditure of any City funds. The budget is the
legal authority to expend public moneys and controls those expenditures by limiting the
amount of the appropriation at the fund level. The revenues of the City are estimated, along
with available cash carry- forward, to indicate funds available. The budget takes into account
unforeseen contingencies and provides for the need for periodic adjustments.
The Budget Process — First Year
The budget process for a new city in its first year is different than the normal budget process.
Prior to the official date of incorporation, the interim council must adopt a first year budget.
The budget will actually deal with only a partial year, covering the period from the official
date of incorporation until January 1 of the following year.
The interim City Manager will prepare a preliminary budget to be made public at least 60
days prior to the official incorporation date. For this preliminary budget that was not possible
due to a lack of data concerning staffing and service contracts. A budget hearing must be
August 5, 2003 11
held before the incorporation date and any taxpayer may appear and be heard regarding the
proposed final budget.
Following the budget hearing, the council may make any adjustrnents or changes in the
proposed budget as it deems necessary. The council may adopt the final budget (by
ordinance to be effective on the official incorporation date) at the conclusion of the public
hearing or at any time before the official incorporation date.
Year 2004 Budget Process
The budget process for the City of Spokane Valley is, in some respects, an ongoing, year -
round activity. The formal budget planning begins in July with discussions between the City
Manager and City Council during a mid -year retreat. Following the retreat, the City Manager
and the Department Directors prepare the preliminary budget based upon the City Council
priorities. The City Council reviews the preliminary budget during November and December.
The City of Spokane Valley budget procedures are mandated by RCW 35A.33.135. There are
several steps in the budget process. The first requirement is that the City Manager submit
estimated revenues and expenditures to the City Council on or before the first Monday in
October. The preliminary budget is presented to the City Council in November. Public
hearings are held to obtain taxpayers' comments, and revisions, as applicable, are made. The
Council makes its adjustments to the preliminary budget and adopts by ordinance a final
balanced budget no later than December 31. The final operating budget as adopted is
published, distributed, and made available to the public during the first three months of the
following year.
The City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts within an account; however,
any revisions that alter the total expenditures of a fund, or that affect the number of
authorized employee positions, salary ranges or other conditions of employment must be
approved by the City Council.
When the City Council determines that it is in the best interest of the City to increase or
decrease the appropriation for a particular fund, it may do so by ordinance approved by one
more than the majority after holding one public hearing. This is usually performed once a
year.
August 5, 2003 12
Operating Budget Procedures and Amendments Process
The City's budget procedures are mandated by Chapter 35A.33 of the Revised Code of
Washington. The budget, as adopted annually by the City Council, constitutes the legal
authority for expenditures. The budget covers the fiscal year from January 1 to
December 31 The City's budget is adopted at the fund level and, therefore,
expenditures during the year may not legally exceed the total appropriation within any
specific fund.
Budgets are appropriated and adopted for all of the City's funds. All fund budgets, with
the exception of the capital funds, are adopted on an annual basis. For operating funds,
all appropriations lapse at year -end. Programs or projects that need to continue into the
following year can be included in the annual re- appropriation process. This process
allows budget authority to be carried forward into the new fiscal year for any
commitments that have been made for purchases or contracts that were not completed
in the prior year.
The City Manager is authorized to transfer appropriations during the fiscal year,
between department and programs within the same fund. However, any revisions that
change the total expenditures of a fund or that affect the number of authorized
employee positions, salary ranges, hours, or other conditions of employment must be
approved by the City Council. The budget is typically only amended during the year to
provide for new grant or other revenue sources or for program developments and new
opportunities that occur outside of the timing of the typical budget process.
The City prepares a cash basis budget in accordance with Washington State Law RCW
35A.33. A cash basis budget is a basis of accounting in which transactions are
recognized only when cash is increased or decreased. Calendar year budgets are
adopted by the City Council for all operating and intemal service funds. Total project
budgets are approved by the City Council when the six -year Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) is adopted. However, budgets for the capital funds are appropriated annually for
that year's portion of each capital project.
The City's financial statements are organized on the basis of funds and account groups.
Each is considered a separate accounting entity. The governmental fund financial
statements are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are
recognized when measurable and available to finance current expenditures, and
expenditures are recognized when goods and services are received and liabilities are
due and payable at year -end.
Governmental fund operating statements focus on measuring changes in financial
position rather than net income. Proprietary funds are accounted for on the accrual
basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized when earned and expenditures are
recognized when incurred.
August 5, 2003
BUDGET PROCEDURES AND PROCESS
13
BUDGET DOCUMENT STRUCTURE
The City's budget document is organized into sections by Fund Type. Each Fund Type section contains
summaries by fund and activity. Each activity is explained by its functions and responsibilities, budget
year objectives, significant budget changes, three -year expenditure history, staffing summary and
performance measures.
FUND TYPE
General Fund
[Special Revenue Funds
Debt Service Funds
Capital Projects Funds
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Trust & Agency Funds
Within those seven
Fund Types there are
29 funds.
Within each activity are budgeted seven
"expenditure categories." This is the lowest
level of budget appropriation.
For management purposes only,
the City budgets by "line item" within
each expenditure category. The line
item budgets are not included within
the budget. Anyone wishing to review the
line item detail may do so by
contacting the City's Finance Office.
August 5, 2003
USER'S GUIDE
The highest level of budgeting is by Fund Type.
The City budgets using seven Fund Types.
SPECIAL REVENUE
TYP FUNDS
'Streets Fund
Parks and Recreation Fund
Sewer Fund
Water Fund
(Various Other Funds)
Budgeted within each fund is at least one "activity."
The number of activities is based on the level of management
control needed to effectively control expenditures.
SPECIAL REVENUE TYPE
FUNDS:
STREETS FUND
ACTIVITIES
Street Maintenance
I Urban Forestry
1 ransportation Management
Street Capital
North Albany Street SDC
Albany Transportation SDC
SPECIAL REVENUE TYPE
FUND:
STREETS FUND:
URBAN FORESTRY ACTIVITY:
Expenditure Category
Personnel and Services
I Materials and Services 1
Capital
Debt Service
Contingency
Unappropriated
Transfers
MATERIALS AND SERVICES
Line Item
Telephone
Postage
(Various Line Items)
14
Resource Analysis
General Fund
The General Fund is the City's principal operating account, which is supported by taxes and fees that
have no restriction on their use.
Retail Sales and Use Taxes
Retail Sales or Use Taxes are the largest General Fund revenue source. They are imposed upon the sale
or consumption of goods and/or services, with a few exceptions. The City levies a one percent tax on
gross sales within the City limits with 15 percent of the tax collected going to Spokane County. Sales tax
proceeds are split, going first to meet the needs of the Police Pension Fund (12 %), with the balance
flowing to the General Fund. Overall, sales tax is projected to increase by approximately one percent over
2000 estimated total receipts and not 2001 projections, due to a stagnant economy. Due to the loss of the
motor vehicle excise tax, approximately $800,000 of the sales tax revenue is now being used to help fund
the Combined Communications Center Fund. The actual General Fund portion of Sales Tax represents
20.6 percent of total General Fund revenues.
General Property Taxes
This is the second largest single revenue source available to the General Fund. The City Council sets the
total levy amount based on the Mayor's recommendation. Under State Law the total levy amount can only
increase by one percent (1 %) per year as long as that does not increase the levy rate over $3.60 per
$1,000 assessed valuation. The County Treasurer acts as an agent to collect property taxes levied in the
County for all taxing authorities. The County Assessor determines the individual property taxes based
upon the monies requested by the taxing districts and the assessed valuation within these districts.
The City is permitted by law to levy up to $3.15 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for general purposes
levy for govemmental services. In addition, the law also allows up to $0.45 per $1,000 of assessed
valuation to satisfy Firefighters' pension obligations, the proceeds of which are deposited in the
Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund. Combined, to a maximum rate is $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed valuation
for general property tax levy. The general levy may be reduced for the following reasons:
1. The Washington State Constitution limits the total regular property taxes to one percent of
assessed valuation or $10 per S1 ,000 of value. If the taxes of all districts exceed this amount, taxes are
reduced per formulas in State law until the total is at or below the one percent limit.
2. Washington State law limits the growth of the regular property tax levy (total amount collected) to
one percent per year by a majority vote of the Council, plus adjustments for new construction,
annexations, and changes in value of state assessed property. Property tax levy could be increased
above the one percent by a vote of the people.
3. Under Washington State law the City may also, by a vote of the people, increase the General
Levy lid up to the $3.60 allowed under law.
The City Council approved a one percent increase in the total levy amount for 2002, not an increase in the
rate. A one percent increase of last year's levy is $301,040 of which $263,410 goes to the General Fund
with the balance of $37,630 going to the Firefighter's Pension Trust Fund. The General Fund portion of
Property Tax represents 22.5% of the total General Fund revenues.
August 5, 2003 15
ACTIVITY HIGHLIGHTS AND OBJECTIVES
• Supervise the Parks & Recreation support staff
effectively and encourage the support staff to
seek out pertinent training.
Goals and Objectives
Parks & Recreation Fund: Sports Program (04 -760)
Responsible Manager/Title: Charlie Green, Sports Program Supervisor
Functions and Responsibilities
• Accurately plan, prepare, monitor and control • Hire, train, and supervise sports officials, gym
the Sports Program budget.
supervisors, and score keepers for various
programs.
• Hire and train concession managers.
Target Supports
Completion Date Status Citywide Goal
Budget Year 2000 -2001
• Obtain a temporary employment July 2000 Completed Exemplary Service
agency to supply payroll services
for sports officials and gym
supervisors.
• Reduce overhead costs for sports June 2001 Unchanged Exemplary Service
programs.
Budget Year 200 1 -2002
• Secure and install a vendor for July 2001 Quality Public Service
Bryant Park concessions.
• Reduce overhead costs for sports September 2001 Quality Public Service
programs.
August 5, 2003 16
Expenditure Categories
Personnel
Materials & Services
Capital
Transfers
Debt Service
Contingency
Unappropriated
Activity Totals
Activity Resources
Concession Sales
Sports Program Fees
Total Activity Resources
Staffing Summary
FT Es
Performance Measures
Percent of Albany residents who participate
in a City sports program during the year
(Standard = 15 %)
Percent of Albany residents who are
satisfied or very satisfied with the level of
service of the sports program (Standard =
75 %)
Property tax subsidy to the Sports Program
(Standard = 30 %)
ACTIVITY BUDGET DATA
Parks & Recreation Fund: Sports Programs (04 -760)
2000 -2001
1998 -1999 1999 -2000 Adopted Revised
Actual Actual Budget Budget
S 80,408 S 81,484 S 86,900
150,493 125,011 144,000
S 230,901 S 206,495 S 230,900 $ 230,900 S 219,500 (4.94%)
S 33,913
121,065
S 154,978
1.00
1 1.5%
65.0%
S 23,429
119,593
S 143,022
1.00
n/a
n/a
32.9% 30.7%
S 31,500
130,000
$ 161,500
S 86,900
144,000
$ 31,500
130,000
S 161,500
1.00 1.00
2.0% 12.0%
30.1%
Percent
Over(Under)
2001 -2002 2000 -2001
Adopted Revised
Budget Budget
S 85,300 (1.84 %)
134,200 (6.81%)
S 15,500
120,000
S 135,500
1.00
12.0%
80.0% 80.0% 80.0%
30.1% 38.3%
(50.79 %)
(7.69 %)
(16.10 %)
August 5, 2003 17
City Attorney's Office
Department Overview
2003 Budget
Prosecuting Attorney
Prosecution services are provided
through a contract with a private law
firm. Violations of the Shcreliine
Municipal Code and certain state
statutes are prosecuted in Shoret:ne
Municipal Cour.
Contract Service
Expenditures
% of General Fund
Number of FTE's
S 469,991 $
2.02%
1 1
2000 Actual 2001 Actual
1 49%
2002. Cdrtent 2002
810 Projected 2003: Adopted
392,446i S 458,855 S
1.89%
1 1 1
412,530 S 473,716
1.55% 1.84%
1.75 2.5
2tturent
versus Percentage
2eb3'eopted Change
S14,B61 3.2%
(0.06%) (3.06%)
1.5 150.0'
City Attorney F&storical Comparison rw'r1 Expenditures
--�—
Number of FTE's
5500,000 7
5450,000 ±
5400,000 -
5350,000 '-
5300,000 -I-
5250,000
5200,000
5150,000 -'
5100,000 4
550,000
SO
August 5, 2003
2000 2001 2002 2002 2003
Actual Actual Current Rooected Adopted
Budget
City Attorney
The City Attorney provides iega
advice and representation to the
officers and employees of the City.
-5
3
2
1
1.75 FTE
Domestic Violence
Assists in the prosecution of
domestic violence crimes and
provides assistance to victims anc
witnesses.
0.75 FTE
2003 City Attorney as a Share of the General Fund
5473,716
(1.84%) —
525,790,325
18
KEY OBJECTIVES:
CITY OF BATTLE GROUND
ANNUAL BUDGET
2002
SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE
This fund was established in 2000. It is funded by
transfers from the general fund. This fund was built to
provide a security for years in which there may not be
adequate revenues and it will serve to stabilized the general
fund. Major negative financial impacts may be avoided by
having a Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund to draw
upon.
August 5, 2003 19
BUDGET PROCEDURES AND PROCESS
The Annual Capital Improvement Plan Process
Each year the City Council adopts a six -year Capital Improvement Plan. The annual
CIP process begins in April. The status of current projects and funding sources is
reviewed. Departments begin to develop requests for new capital projects for inclusion
in the CIP.
In May, departments complete their CIP project updates and new requests and submit
them to Finance for review. Once Finance completes its review, the proposed CIP is
presented to the CIP Coordination Team. The CIP Coordination Team reviews and
prioritizes the proposed CIP and submits a recommended CIP to the City Manager.
The City Manager finalizes the proposed CIP in June for submittal to the City Council in
early July. The Council holds a public hearing to receive public comment on the
proposed CIP and adopts the CIP in late July or early August.
An appropriation for the first year of the Adopted CIP is included in the Proposed
Operating Budget that is adopted by the City Council in late November. This first year
appropriation may be modified from what was included in the Adopted CIP if changes
occur in the City's financial condition during the interim period. This situation occurred
during the adoption of the 2003 budget. The City Council adopted the 2003 — 2008
Capital Improvement Plan on July 22, 2002. An appropriation for the first year of the
plan (2003) was included the proposed operating budget that was presented to the City
Council on October 21, 2002. During a statewide election that was held on November
5, 2002, voters approved Initiative 776 (1 -776), which revoked a local vehicle license
fee. The City has been relying upon this fee to fund maintenance of local roadways.
Funding that had been programmed for transportation improvement capital projects was
diverted to fill this gap. This resulted in a reduction of $400,000 in the transportation
portion of the CIP.
August 5, 2003 20
City of Spokane Valley
Selected Budget Policies
Department directors have primary responsibility for formulating budget
proposals in line with City Council and City Manager priority direction, and for
implementing them once they are approved.
The Finance Department is responsible for coordinating the overall preparation
and administration of the City's budget and Capital Investment Program Plan.
This function is fulfilled in compliance with applicable State of Washington
statutes governing local government budgeting practices.
The Finance Department assists department staff in identifying budget problems,
formulating solutions and alternatives, and implementing any necessary corrective
actions.
Interfund charges will be based on recovery of the direct costs associated with
providing those services.
Regular employee positions will normally be budgeted only in the City's
operating funds and will be retained in accordance with rules established by the
Finance Department.
Budget adjustments requiring City Council approval will occur through the
ordinance process at the fund level coordinated by the Finance Department and
will occur prior to fiscal year end.
The City's budget presentation will be directed at displaying the City's services
plan in a Council/constituent- friendly format.
Ending fund balances, excluding contingency funds, for all operating funds will
be budgeted at a level of no less than five or more than ten percent of the total
budgeted new revenue for each year. For the purpose of this policy "new
revenue" means total budgeted revenue, less beginning fund balances and
interfund receipts.
The City will maintain equipment replacement funds that will receive annually
budgeted contributions from the operating expenses of departments owning the
capital equipment in an amount necessary to replace the equipment at the end of
its useful life. Life cycle assumptions and required contributions will be reviewed
annually as part of the budget process
August 5, 2003 21
ORDINANCE NO. 314
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHORELINE, WASHINGTON
LEVYING THE GENERAL TAXES FOR THE CITY OF SHORELINE IN
KING COUNTY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1,
2003, ON ALL PROPERTY BOTH REAL AND PERSONAL, IN SAID
CITY WHICH IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PAYING SUFFICIENT REVENUE TO CONDUCT CITY BUSINESS FOR
THE ENSUING YEAR AS REQUIRED BY LAW
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shoreline has considered the City's
anticipated financial requirements for 2003 and the amounts necessary and available to be raised
by ad valorem taxes on real, personal, and utility property; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHORELINE,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Levy Limit. The City will use a levy limit of 101.0% of the statutory
maximum levy, plus new construction, annexation, and any increase in the assessed value of
state- assessed property for establishing the 2002 levy for collection in 2003.
Section 2. Levy Changes. The 2002 property tax levy for collection in 2003 is
$6,634,097 (the amount levied in 2001 for collection in 2002), plus estimated increases of
$114,097 (1.74 %) based on increases in assessed values, annexations, prior year levy refunds
and an increase equal to the amount allowed under the new construction provisions of RCW
84.55.010.
Section 3. 2002 Levy Rate. There shall be and hereby is levied on all real, personal, and
utility property in the City of Shoreline King County, current taxes for the year commencing
January 1, 2003, a levy at the estimated rate of $1.35706 per thousand dollars of assessed
valuation.
The said taxes herein provided for are levied for the purpose of payment upon the general
indebtedness of the City of Shoreline, the General Fund, and for the maintenance of the
departments of the municipal government of the City of Shoreline for the fiscal year beginning
January 1, 2003.
Section 4. Notice to King County. This ordinance shall be certified to the proper County
officials, as provided by law, and taxes herein levied shall be collected to pay to the Finance
Department of the City of Shoreline at the time and in the manner provided by the laws of the
State of Washington for the collection of taxes for noncharter code cities.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force five days after
publication of this ordinance, or a summary consisting of its title, in the official newspaper of the
City, as provided by law.
August 5, 2003 22
Section 6. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this Ordinance be preempted by State
or Federal law or regulation, such decision or preemption shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 25, 2002.
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk
Date of Publication: November 29, 2002
Effective Date: December 4, 2002
Mayor Scott Jepsen
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ian Sievers
City Attorney
August 5, 2003 23
ORDINANCE NO. 62
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTLNG A BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 31, 2003
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2003; ESTABLISHING AN ARTERIAL STREET
FUND; ESTABLISHING A SEWER FUND; ESTABLISHING AN EQUIPMENT
RENTAL & REPLACEMENT FUND; ESTABLISHING A RISK MANAGEMENT
FUND; ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS OF FUNDS FOR 2003; AND
ESTABLISHING POSITIONS AND SALARY SCHEDULES FOR 2003.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.02.132 requires the City Council to adopt a first year budget for
the period from incorporation to the end of the fiscal year AND
WHEREAS, a "Preliminary Budget" was submitted to the City Council and City Clerk
on March 18, 2003; AND
WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled and held a Public Hearing on the Proposed
Budget on March 25, 2003, AND
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish an Arterial Street Fund, a Sewer Fund,
an Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund, and a Risk Management Fund to be
included in the 2003 budget;
NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do
ordain as follows:
Section 1. Arterial Street Fund Established. There is hereby established in
the City treasury a fund known and designated as the "Arterial Street Fund" for the
purpose of providing funds for construction and maintenance of arterial highways and
city streets as authorized by RCW 46.68.070 or otherwise.
Section 2. Sewer Fund Established. There is hereby established in the City
treasury a fund known and designated as the "Sewer Fund" for the purpose of providing
funds for construction and maintenance of arterial highways and city streets in
coordination with the Spokane County Sewering project
Section 3. Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Established. There is
hereby established in the City treasury a fund known and designated as the "Equipment
Rental and Replacement Fund" for the purpose of providing funds for acquisition and
maintenance of equipment to be used by city departments as authorized by Chapter
36.33A RCW and RCW 35.21.088, respectively.
Section 4. Risk Management Fund Established. There is hereby established
in the City treasury a fund known and designated as the "Risk Management Fund" for the
purpose of providing funds for the City's risk financing activities.
August 5, 2003 24
Section 5. Funds Appropriated. The Budget for March 31, 2003 through
December 31, 2003 is appropriated by fund as follows:
Fund Budget
General Fund $13,892,900
Street Fund 3,941,315
Arterial Street Fund 400,000
Hotel/Motel Fund 10,000
County City Loan Fund 50,500
Capital Projects Fund 550,000
Special Capital Projects Fund 550,000
Street Capital Projects 1,500,000
Sewer Fund 1,000,000
Stormwater Management Fund 555,000
Equipment Rental & Replacement 70.525
Total Budget: $22,520,240
Section 5. Positions and Salary Schedules. The various positions and salary
ranges for City employees are attached to this Ordinance as Appendix A.
Section 6. Transmittal. A complete copy of the budget as adopted, together
with a copy of the adopting Ordinance, shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the
Division of Municipal Corporations of the Office of State Auditor and the Association of
Washington Cities.
Section 7. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this
Ordinance be preempted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-
emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its
application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 8. Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance shall be in full
force and effect on the official date of incorporation provided publication of this
ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided
by law.
PASSED by the City Council this 27 day of March, 2003.
/s/
Mayor, Michael DeVleming
August 5, 2003 25
City Attorney
City Attorney
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Clerk
City Clerk
City Clerk
City Council
City Council
City Council
City Manager
City Manager
City Manager
City Manager
City Manager
City Manager
Department
Communications & Intergovt. Relations
Communications & Intergovt. Relations
Communications & Intergovt. Relations
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
Planning & Development Services
August 5, 2003
2003 City of Shoreline Budgeted Positions and FTE's
Job Title
City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney
Domestic Violence Victim Coordinator
Department Total
City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
Communication Assistant
Administrative Assistant I
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
Councilmember
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Management Analyst
Executive Asst. to the CM
Administrative Assistant II
Director
Assistant Director
Management Analyst
Planning Manager
Planner II (Transportation Planner)
Planner III
Planner II
Planner I
Technical Assistant
Building Official
Plans Examiner III
Plans Examiner I
Project Inspector II
Project Engineer
Code Enforcement Officer
Technical Assistant
Administrative Assistant II
Administrative Assistant I
Department Total
Department Total
Department Total
Communications & Intergovt. Relations Director
Coord. Office of Neighborhoods
Communications Specialist
Department Total
Department Total
Position FTE
Count Count
1 1.00
1 0.75
1 0.75
3 2.50
1 1.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
4 4.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
5 5.00
7 7.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
6 6.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
3 3.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
2 2.00
3 3.00
2 2.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
2 2.00
1 1.00
2 2.00
0 0.90
1 1.00
3 3.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
25 25.90
26
Range
#
Title
Exempt
Salary Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Maximum
Step 5 Step . 6
33
Annual
34,950
4
36,344
37,783
1
39,3 5
4C 872
,
42,521
34
Annual
35.810
37,249
38.736
40.292
41,894
43,566
35
Annual
36.692
38.178
39,688
41,290
42,939
44,657
36
Annual
37,644
39,130
40,710
42,312
4.4,007
45.772
37
Annual
38,550
40.106
41,708
43.380
45,099
46,910
38
Annual
39,502
41.081
42,730
4.4,448
48,237
48,071
39
Annual
40,501
42,126
43,821
45,563
47,398
49.279
40
Annual
41,522
43.194
44,913
46.724
48,582
50,533
41
Exec Asst to the City Mgr
Annual
42.567
44286
46,051
47.985
49,790
51.787
Planner 1
42
Annual
43,636
45,377
47.189
49,070
51,020
53.087
43
Recreation Coordinator
Annual
44.727
46,515
48,373
50,301
52.321
54,411
44
Annual
45,842
47.676
49.581
51,555
53,621
55,758
45
Grants Specialist
Annual
46,980
48,861
50,811
52,855
54,968
57,174
Planner II
46
Budget Analyst
Annual
48,141
50,092
52,089
54,156
56.338
58.591
Management Analyst
Staff Accountant
47
Human Resources Analyst
Annual
49,395
51,346
53,412
- 55,526
57.755
60,077
48
Purchasing Officer
Annual
50.602
52,623
54,736
56,919
59.195
61,564
Project Engineer (non - licensed)
49
Coordinator Office of Neigh
Annual
51,880
53,947
56,105
58,336
60.681
63,096
Customer Rasp. Team Superv.
Parks Superintendent
Planner III
Surface Water Ping. Coord.
50
Communications Specialist
Annual
53.157
55,270
57,500
59,799
62,191
64,675
IS Project Manager
Network Administrator
51
Public Wks. Maint Supervisor
Annual
54,481
55,664
58,939
51,285
63,747
66.301
52
Capital Projects Manager I
Annual
55,874
58,103
60,426
62,841
65.349
67.973
Public Worts Administrative Manager
53
City Clerk
Annual
57.267
59.543
61,935
64,420
66,998
69.658
54
Financial Operations Manager
Annual
58.684
61,029
63,468
66.022
68,670
71 410
Senior Budget Analyst
Traffic Engineer
55
Assistant City Attorney
Annual
60,147
62,562
65,070
67.671
70.388
73.198
GIS Specialist
56
Capital Projects Manager 11
Annual
61,680
64,141
66,696
69.376
72.130
75,033
57
Database Administrator
Annual
63,212
65,744
68,368
71,108
73,941
76,914
Economic Devel. Coord
58
f nnual
64.792
67.369
70.063
72.873
75799
78.818
59
Building Official
Annual
66,417
69,088
71,828
74,708
77,703
80 792
Planning Manager
August 5, 2003
03 Salary cable
27
Washington State
Public Works Board
Public Works Trust Fund
Construction Loan Program 2004 Funding Cycle
Application Pool 162 Applications
From 111 Jurisdictions
Requesting $421,594,453
City
County
Irr. Dist
PUD
W/S Dist
Summary of Application Pool by Jurisdiction Type
Fast West Total
3
2
8
39
513 723,032
$82,578,746
95 Applications
From 72 Jurisdictions
Requesting $280,446,667
519,473,221
56,200.000
53,427,000
57,918
537,018,821
5234,879,445
530,754,038
50
51 1,287.273
562,094.951
5339,015,707
5169,247,395
$23,458,000
59,943,320
540 779,131
5243,427.846
2003 Funding Cycle - 107 Applications
Average Loan Request $2.1 million
Average Score Total: 72
Average Score Effort: 46
Average Score Need: 26
5290,763,623
S39.554,038
5744,536
514,714,273
575,817983
5421,594,453
Funding Range (Minimum of 75 total points with a minimum of 40 points in effort)
City
County
PUD
W/S Dist
Total
WIPP
5188,720,616
529,658,000
$13,370,320
548,697
5280,448,667
76% of projects are on the west side
24% of projects are on the east side
Cast
Water 23
Road '...
Sewer - Sr r'
Storm Jv +�
Bridge
SW/R _ t
L
Summary of i \ppi cdtiun Pool by -' e.t Type
West Total
i
572,707,460 MEW
533.039,979
57 135 362
535,853 405
50
$1.000,000
$5 550 000
582,578,746
5106,580,004
5146 152,788
$13,575,475
50
50
5339,015,707
5139,619,983
579,842,822
5182 006.173
513 575,475
51,000,000
55,550,000
$421,594,453
80% of projects are on the west side
20% of projects are on the east side
Water
Road
Sewer
Storm
Bridge
SW /R
Summary of Minimum Funding Range Pool by Proiect Type
East West Total
Nor
519,180,618
54,750,000
59,138,203
50
S 1 000.000
52,950,000
537, 018,821
550, 592,324
564.425,460
5119
59,080 799
SO
SO
5243.427,846
569,772.942
569,175,460
$ 128,467,466
59,080,799
51,000
52,950.000
5280.448.667
2004 Funding Cycle - 162 Applications
Average Loan Request $2.9 million
Average Score Total: 84
Average Score Effort: 52
Average Score Need: 32