Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2010, 01-05 Study Session Minutes
MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington January 5,2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rose Dempsey,Councilmember Dave Mercier,City Manager Bill Gothmann,Councilmember Mike Jackson,Deputy City Manager Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mike Connelly, City Attorney Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Cary Driskell,Deputy City Attorney Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Ken Thompson,Finance Director Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Neil Kersten,Public Works Director Tom Towey, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks&Recreation Director Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk In the absence of a council chair, City Clerk Bainbridge called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1. Council Officer Elections—Chris Bainbridge City Clerk Bainbridge explained the procedure for selecting the Mayor and Deputy Mayor; and she then opened the floor for nominations. Councilmember Dempsey nominated Councilmember Gothmann for Mayor; and Councilmember McCaslin nominated Councilmember Towey for Mayor. City Clerk Bainbridge asked if any councilmember wished to speak to the nominations, and Councilmember Gothmann said he wished to speak to his own nomination. Councilmember Gothmann explained that since several councilmembers don't know him very well, it might be helpful to indicate some of the issues he has helped out on in the past; and Councilmember Gothmann distributed copies to Councilmembers of the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10 Neighborhoods, and said the reason that chapter is in the Comp Plan was due to his and Ian Robertson's efforts; he distributed copies of a survey he conducted which was included on the September 19, 2008 council agenda, and said he analyzed the sheriff departments of twenty-one of the largest cities in Washington and he then read the executive summary of that document explaining the effectiveness of the City's police efforts; he distributed a copy of a survey concerning the effects of television on Council and Community dated 1-25-08; also distributed was a copy of financial data based upon the six-year forecasts; he mentioned the directional issue of Sprague and suggested that be separated from the SARP (Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan)and that the options be presented to citizens for a vote; he said he believes the SARP needs to be returned to the Planning Commission, that previous entitlements should be added to existing entitlements; and regarding customer service, he distributed copies of Comp Plan Chapter 1 Introduction as well as city philosophy and the principles guiding our customer service philosophy, as well as ratings of customer service as a result of a scientific survey conducted early last year. City Clerk Bainbridge invited further comments; no further comments were offered, and City Clerk Bainbridge closed the nominations, and distributed the paper ballot to each councilmember for voting for Mayor. City Clerk Bainbridge collected the ballots for Mayor with the following results: those voting for Councilmember Towey included Councilmembers Schimmels, Grafos, Towey, McCaslin, and Grassel; Council Meeting Minutes: 1-05-2010 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 01-19-2010 and those voting for Councilmember Gothmann included Councilmembers Gothmann and Dempsey. Therefore,the results showed a majority vote for Councilmember Towey for mayor. Mayor Towey thanked everyone on Council and in the audience, said this is a new turning point as we have never had a council with four new people; and said they are going in the direction they think the Valley citizens want them to go, and said if Council doesn't go in that direction, the citizens will let Council know. Mayor Towey then explained the process for selecting the Deputy Mayor, which is the same as that for Mayor, and he opened nominations for Deputy Mayor. Councilmember Grassel nominated Councilmember Schimmels, and Councilmember Dempsey nominated Councilmember Gothmann. There were no further nominations and Mayor Towey closed the nominations. City Clerk Bainbridge distributed the paper ballots to each councilmember; and after they voted, she collected the ballots with the following results: those voting for Councilmember Schimmels included Councilmembers Schimmels, McCaslin, Grassel, Grafos and Mayor Towey. Those voting for Councilmember Gothmann included Councilmembers Gothmann and Dempsey. Therefore, the results showed a majority vote for Councilmember Schimmels for deputy mayor. Deputy Mayor Schimmels thanked everyone for their support. It was moved by Councilmember McCaslin, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the rii fie:` rd it'3 cill' ` oti Co ,ail ilcati0nie hers[added Councilmember McCaslin made the following motion: `pursuant to his current employment agreement and consistent with the provisions of RCW 35A.13.130, RCW 35A.13.140, the City Council of Spokane Valley hereby requests that David Mercier, City Manager tender his resignation for the convenience of the City, effective on February 5, 2010, and declares that the City Manager will be on paid administrative leave status until the effective date of said resignation. This action constitutes a no-fault separation from service for the convenience of the City. The City Council hereby expresses its sincere appreciation to David Mercier for his service since 2003 as the first City Manager of Spokane Valley. " Councilmember Grafos seconded the motion. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded by Councilmember Dempsey to postpone this issue until next week. Councilmember Gothmann explained that it has been the practice of this council for the past seven years, that any time there is a substantial issue for discussion, that such be included on the agenda, and said none of the City's constituents have been notified that this item is on the agenda, and therefore, he said citizens cannot speak to the issue, either in favor or against; and Councilmember Gothmann asked if Council will have open council discussions or closed discussions where citizens do not get a chance to express their views,and he said that is his reason for his motion to postpone this issue, and he said that he feels it is a good thing to have open meetings. Councilmember McCaslin responded that this is an open meeting; and said the question is before the Council as well as before the citizens and said they will be allowed to speak to this issue, so there is nothing closed about this as this meeting is open now and will continue to be open. Councilmember Gothmann replied that there are thousands of citizens in our city who were not notified of this issue as the official notification went out last Friday concerning the contents of tonight's agenda; and this personnel matter was not included on that agenda; and he again expressed that postponing the issue one week would give opportunity for notifying the citizens of this issue. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked City Attorney Connelly for an opinion on the postponement. City Attorney Connelly said that the agenda was amended by a vote of the Council; and Council can postpone or not based upon the will of Council. Vote by acclamation to postpone this issue until next week: In Favor: Councilmembers Gothmann and Dempsey; Opposed: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel, Grafos, and McCaslin; Abstentions: None. Motion failed. Council Meeting Minutes: 1-05-2010 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 01-19-2010 At Mayor Towey's request, City Clerk Bainbridge re-read the main motion: `pursuant to his current employment agreement and consistent with the provisions of RCW 35A.13.130, RCW 35A.13.140, the City Council of Spokane Valley hereby requests that David Mercier, City Manager tender his resignation for the convenience of the City, effective on February 5, 2010, and declares that the City Manager will be on paid administrative leave status until the effective date of said resignation. This action constitutes a no- fault separation from service for the convenience of the City. The City Council hereby expresses its sincere appreciation to David Mercier for his service since 2003 as the first City Manager of Spokane Valley." Councilmember Dempsey said that she does not support the motion because she said she feels we have had one of the best city managers around anywhere, who has guided the City through these economic times so we are stable, balanced, and in good shape, and that he has done this at the will of the City Council; that this has not been Dave Mercier's operation but has been the operation of the City Council and she said she feels they are shooting the messenger,and said she very much opposes this motion. Councilmember Gothmann said he has mixed emotions as he feels it is unfair to ask a City Manager to work for a council that does not support him. Councilmember Gothmann said he is bound for the good of the City to see not what is better for Dave Mercier but what is better for the City, and that he will vote against the motion; that the survey he mentioned earlier concerning ratings of the customer service of this city showed customer service ratings good to excellent; that he wanted to make sure that it is known that every action done by Mr. Mercier was at the request of the Council; Councilmember Gothmann said he has witnessed criticism of Mr. Mercier for not getting out in front, and said that the City Council asked Mr. Mercier not to get out in front; and witnessed criticism of Mr. Mercier for not living within the city limits, and Councilmember Gothmann said that was an agreement between the City Council and the City Manager, and asked why people would punish someone for doing as stated in a contract; and said for the good of the city,he would vote no on this motion. Mayor Towey invited public comments. Darla Arnold, 10512 E 44th Avenue: she said she is here as a citizen and is also a City employee; and said she needs acknowledgement and information from this Council to the citizens of this City, approximately 89,000 citizens,why asking Mr. Mercier to leave is a good idea; she said she hasn't heard any reason why other then they just want him to leave; and she asked Council to perhaps give the citizens another chance to voice their comments,as council works for the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley. Mayor Towey said that this is a new council; that by the vote of the citizens, they have told Council which direction to go and he said Council will go in that direction; he said that Mr. Mercier is probably the most professional individual he has ever met in his life; and said that he (Mayor Towey) or none of the Councilmembers on the dais approached Mr. Mercier with the idea of separation; but that Mr. Mercier approached them because Mr. Mercier knew that the new City Council is going in another direction; and said that Mr. Mercier is so professional that he knew that his worth with the Spokane Valley is up. Mayor Towey said that Mr. Mercier started this city, he worked hard for this city, and this was a new incorporation, and he did it; and Mayor Towey said he thinks that Mr. Mercier now realizes in him approaching Council, that Mr. Mercier realizes that it is a new era and Council is going in a new direction. E. Bert Darrah, 12010 E 33`d Avenue: he said Council keeps talking about direction, and he asked Council which direction they are going to go and said he hears this but doesn't hear any specifics on which direction this Council will go. Mayor Towey said hopefully in the next couple of months, he will find out which direction this council will go. Mr. Darrah said he is sure the current Councilmembers were in favor of disincorporating the City, and that this is just one more step to sabotage the City. Mayor Towey said they were not in favor of disincorporation, and said he doesn't think there is one Councilmember on the dais that was for that, but Mr. Darrah said"I'm sorry if I don't believe you." Mr. Darrah said he doesn't Council Meeting Minutes: 1-05-2010 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 01-19-2010 believe any of the councilmembers; that this city has problems and this is just one more step to sabotage this city, and said he told a friend of his that this was going to happen, and it did; and he asked what other surprises will the citizens get. Mayor Towey said that is up to the Council, and Mr. Darrah said that is what he is afraid of. Jennie Willardson, 12722 E 23`d Avenue: said she feels the new council is a wonderful positive change for the city; that Mr. Mercier has done a City Manager's job for seven years, and his service is appreciated, however, it's time for a change, and said she ran in 2005 because she felt the problems the City Council experiences were on the advice of Mr. Mercier; and said she doesn't know to what extent the City Council on looking into alternative library services instead of staying with the County, or in examining alternative police forces instead of staying with the County services, and on continuing to force the SARP when most of the city has not been in favor of it; and said it is time for a change; and she thanked him for his years of service, but said this is an at-will position and it is time for a change. Mike DeVleming, 3418 S Melissa Drive: said he doesn't envy council's position as it is a tough position; they are up there, most have never sat on this council before, it is a big job and said it seems like almost every Tuesday they will face very difficult decisions; and he said without the experience of sitting here and knowing exactly how things run, for them to go "off the bat" and make such a major decision, astounds him. Mr. DeVleming said that perhaps this council has already researched what it will take to replace a city manager, what the cost will be to this city, and he asked them if they are aware of those costs; and said for a group touting how important it is to save money, they just bit off a pretty big chunk of money on something that wasn't a priority; and he recommended the Council give it the week to allow the members of Council to hear what the rest of the citizens might say about this type of decision. Mike King, 9300 E Sprague: said that council should listen; that this City is one of the most fiscal responsible cities in the State of Washington contrary to Spokane County and contrary to Spokane City; that the fiscal responsibility has a lot to do with the city manager and how the city has been managed; and Council's stewardship and their present management shows fiscal irresponsibility; and he asked them not to do something so fiscally irresponsible. Patty Bischoff 2218 S Dusk Lane: said she realizes she may be "sticking her neck out" as a Spokane Valley employee; said she works for the Parks and Recreation Department; that she previously worked for the State for eleven years, and she left that job to work for the City of Spokane Valley, that she loves her job and she wanted to be a part of her city; and she voted for the City's incorporation and was happy it became a city; and said she is proud of her city; she said regarding the comments about disincorporation, she said he respectfully disagrees with Mayor Towey's previous comments, as she knows for sure that one or two current councilmembers were for disincorporation and were not for the City she loves but wanted to get rid of the city she loves, which was disconcerting to her; and she said she was not happy they were elected to council; she said read numerous articles about negative comments about Mr. Mercier and she was concerned this action might be on the agenda tonight; she said our city would not be what it is were it not for Mr. Mercier. She said concerning the information in the media about our city in a bad financial position, we are in fact in a great position, especially comparing our city with Spokane City or Spokane County; and she was disturbed about certain councilmembers wanting across-the-board pay cuts; she said she took a 25% pay cut when she left State employ for her City of Spokane Valley job, and she did so because she wanted to be a part of this city; and she commented on the amount of negativity and the lack of support; and she asked for pardon for her impassioned plea, but said we should keep Mr. Mercier; and said at the least, the issue should be postponed for a week to give council time to consider the matter, and for citizens to voice their comment; and she said it is a drastic measure to take; and she said there were a lot of people who didn't vote, and said if people knew more of the issues; and if people had known how great the council was before, perhaps there would have been more support, and she said she was grateful for the video taping of the meetings. Council Meeting Minutes: 1-05-2010 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 01-19-2010 Tony Lazanis, City of Spokane Valley: said the valley has a lot of assets, and in order to utilize those assets,to be better for the valley, he feels some changes need to be made; and said he hopes Council does that. Dick Behm, 3626 S Ridgeview Drive: said there has been a lot of rhetoric during the last four or five months; that the "silly season" is over and it is now time to roll up sleeves and get to work; he said he does not have a problem with the motion but has a problem in that with all the rhetoric about open government and keeping the citizens informed, to pull this out and pass it without notifying the public at large of this being on the agenda, he said is irresponsible on this Council's part; he said they stated, all of those who ran for election, that keeping the citizens informed was the most important thing; and he said now is the time to do that, and not just at a meeting tonight, but to publicize in the paper what Council will do and what the agenda will be; he said he has no problem with however Council passes this,but said he has a problem with not notifying the citizens. Mayor Towey invited further comments; and no further comments were offered. Councilmember Dempsey said that she would like to state something, and have people realize she means no harm, and said that the City Councilmembers from the very beginning have been elected by a majority of the people; and said every councilmember was elected by a majority; and so every councilmember has done what they felt was the will of the people,which she said is not always easy to know what the will of the people is; that at times there would be people who come close to council who have the same ideas, while the people who don't share those same ideas, stay away, but who may come out later to let councilmembers know they do not agree. Councilmember Dempsey said she wanted to remind everyone that although the new councilmembers have a mandate, so did the former councilmembers; and they did what they felt was best as this council will do what this council's feels is best, and such should be done with due deliberation and to allow the citizens to have the opportunity to speak. Councilmember Gothmann said that another custom that has happened for seven years, is before every motion or action, the fiscal impact is addressed; and every action in the past was brought forward noting how much money it would cost; and he asked those who are proposing this, what is the cost of this motion to the City in dollars. Councilmember Schimmels said he wasn't in on the conversation regarding this matter, but said he believes it was an agreeable effort on both sides, and said that down the road a month, three months or six months, that he believes this would happen "irregardless of what we say and irregardless of what we do"and he said Council is in a position to carry through this with; and said that he believes the decision is there and that's how it's going to be. At Mayor Towey's request, City Clerk Bainbridge re-read the motion: "pursuant to his current employment agreement and consistent with the provisions of RCW 35A.13.130, RCW 35A.13.140, the City Council of Spokane Valley hereby requests that David Mercier, City Manager tender his resignation for the convenience of the City, effective on February 5, 2010, and declares that the City Manager will be on paid administrative leave status until the effective date of said resignation. This action constitutes a no- fault separation from service for the convenience of the City. The City Council hereby expresses its sincere appreciation to David Mercier for his service since 2003 as the first City Manager of Spokane Valley. " Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grafos, Grassel, and McCaslin. Opposed: Councilmembers Gothmann and Dempsey. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. City Manager Dave Mercier said given the consensus of Council, he gave the following response: "In response to the City Council of Spokane Valley request for my resignation as City Manager for the convenience of the City pursuant to my current employment agreement and consistent with the provisions of RCW 35A.13.130, and RCW 35A.13.140, I hereby tender my resignation, effective on February 5, 2010, and acknowledge that I will be on paid administrative leave status until the effective date of said Council Meeting Minutes: 1-05-2010 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 01-19-2010 resignation. My requested resignation in response to the request of the City Council constitutes a no-fault separation from service for the convenience of the City." Mr. Mercier also commented that"as I take my leave this evening, that it has been my distinct pleasure to serve during the formative years of this Washington's newest city; and as I go I want my parting words to be compliments to the city staff; that they have done terrific work over the course of many months, many years, sometimes under very very difficult circumstances; and so they have my admiration; and I'm proud to have been associated with you. • Thank you and good evening." Mr.Mercier left the room to a standing ovation. 3. Gambling Ordinance Amendment—Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson explained that the rules for gambling tax is handled as per our ordinance; and it sets out that concerning the due date, that the 15th of the month following the completion of a quarter, the gambling establishments will present their report and pay their taxes to the City. Mr. Thompson said that has never worked very well as it is too quick of a turn-around, and said that some gambling establishments have more than one outlet; and he suggested changing that date from the 15th of the month to the 30`h to give the City and the gambling establishments more time to respond; and he said that is the only change he is proposing, and added that such change was also suggested by the State Auditor's office as they too realize the quick turnaround time; and if council agrees, this matter will come back before Council next week for a first reading of an ordinance. There was Council consensus to move forward as staff proposed. 4.Advance Agenda—Mayor Discussion included comment from Councilmember Gothmann about setting a date for a winter retreat; and it was determined Deputy City Manager Jackson will propose some dates next week after querying councilmembers and staff about possible dates; and Councilmember Dempsey said she is not available on any Wednesday. Mr. Jackson said the retreat is normally one day, and the date and time is at the Council's pleasure. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked Mr. Jackson what he could tell council about the upcoming AWC meeting Friday and Saturday, of the times and whether Mr. Jackson had information; and Mr. Jackson said staff can supply the agenda to councilmembers,that it is an all day event Friday and half day Saturday. Deputy Mayor Schimmels also asked about the legislative meeting in Olympia, and if information would be forthcoming or if Mr. Jackson needed council input. Mr. Jackson said that event is January 27 and 28, and staff would need Council input and the issue of the legislative agenda could be placed on next week's agenda, and Council concurred. Councilmember Gothmann said he inquired earlier if they were making appointments over there now to meet with the legislature, and he was told they are working on it, and said he assumes our lobbyist is trying to set up some appointments for council; and Mr. Jackson said he needs to confirm that and will check back with Council. Mayor Towey mentioned that the legislative meeting in Olympia could necessitate an adjustment on Council's meeting schedule as it would conflict with the January 26 meeting if such would result in a lack of quorum for that council meeting. City Clerk Bainbridge asked Mayor Towey when he might want to consider making the committee appointments; and it was noted many of the committees, boards or agencies, started January 1st; and Mayor Towey said he will solicit each councilmember's desires for what committees they prefer, and Council concurred with that process and to also place this matter on next week's agenda for action. S. Information Only: CenterPlace Food Service Contract: this was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 6. Council Check in Councilmember Gothmann mentioned the HCDAC (Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee) upcoming proposals; and Deputy Mayor Schimmels said there may by a solid waste liaison board meeting the 27th but the agenda for that meeting is unknown now. Council Meeting Minutes: 1-05-2010 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 01-19-2010 7. City Manager Comments Deputy City Manager Jackson said that Dave Mercier is well respected and liked by staff, he is very professional, and said as a staff, we are indebted to him for his leadership, mentorship and support given to staff over the years; and appreciate him. Mr. Jackson also suggested that as in past practices, that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor meet weekly with the City Manger and the City Clerk to go over the agenda items to review the packet material to make suggestions, and to build potential items which can be discussed with the full council; and he suggested such meetings perhaps start Monday; and Mayor Towey agreed it is needed, and said he and staff can discuss a date for such meeting later. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Land Acquisition and Potential Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)(b);RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)] It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately one hour to discuss pending litigation and land acquisition, and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into executive session at 7:03 p.m. At 8:05 p.m., Deputy City Attorney Driskell announced the executive session would be extended until approximately 8:20 p.m. Mayor Towey declared council out of executive session at 8:37 p.m.; and it was then moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST • i 1. t '/ Thomas E. Towey, Mayor "' a hristine Bainbridge, ity Clerk / Council Meeting Minutes: 1-05-2010 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: 01-19-2010 Ballot for L puty Mayor I vote for a / for Deputy Mayor f Signed: .e , Sig nature of Person Casting Vote January 5,2010 o Ballot for Iputy Mayor I vote for ) cO' a, r for Deputy Mayor Signed: Signature of Person Casting Vote January 5,2010 ,3 Ballot for L puty Mayor I vote for for Deputy Mayor Signed: ' 2/. Signature of Person Casting Vote January 5,2010 is Ballot for L puty Mayor I vote for ary 511 rn ,y,e_1 s for Deputy Mayor Signed: ,0(.�i�-- --� Signature of Person Casting Vote January 5,2010. Ballot for L Duty Mayor I vote for CA1i< z �/ M i 2 L—�� � for Deputy Mayor Signed: ,'.r Signature of Person Casting Vote January 5,2010 Ballot for [ puty Mayor I vote for 6-a„r s for Deputy Mayor Signed: Signa ure of Person Casting Vote January 5,2010 Ballot for T puty Mayor I vote for ���� ��/% for Deputy Mayor Signed: Signature of Person -4'ng Vote January 5,2010 1 Ballot forii4ayor I vote for ` j C,- ,/4 a Y) for Mayor Signed: /� - - -/ Signature of Person astir_ Vote January 5,2010 Ballot for414ayor I vote for for Mayor Signed: Signature of Person Cisting Vote January 5,2010 Ballot foriVayor I vote for r1.`f( for Mayor U� Signed: /1 Signature of Person Casting Vote January 5,2010 Ballot for Mayor I vote for / D J'? ! 6 GJ for Mayor Signed: c Cotd,.`, Signature of Person Casting Vote January 5,2010 Ballot forelayor I vote for awe. E for Mayor Signed: / , _ , Signature of Person asting V: January 5,2010 Ballot for 4114 ayor I vote for o for Mayor Signed: � ' Signature of Person C. g Vote January 5,2010 Ballot for ayor I vote for for Mayor Signed: Signature of Person Casting Vote January 5,2010 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 10— NEIGHBORHOODS 10.0 Introduction Neighborhoods — their character, their livability, their development — these are some of the vital elements of the attractiveness of a city. Neighborhoods are the most immediate symbols of the context in which we live our lives. Empowering neighbors and neighborhoods is vital to encourage a sense of control and balance to the life of the average citizen. While many of the complex issues and opportunities facing the City are addressed effectively at the city-wide level, others require a more specific solution. In addition, neighborhoods and sub-areas may face unique issues which differ from those in other parts of the community. 10.1 Planning Context The Washington Growth Management Act' and Washington Administrative Code(WAC)provide for the inclusion of optional elements2 relating to physical development in the Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood and sub-area plans may be included, provided they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The initial adoption of a neighborhood/sub-area plan that does not otherwise modify the comprehensive plan policies and designations applicable to the sub-area is not limited to the annual update and may be enacted at any time3. 10.2 Neighborhood/Sub-Area Planning 10.2.1 Purpose. Neighborhood/sub-area plans should be used to create, enhance or maintain civic identity and to revitalize under-utilized areas. Infill development is the process of developing or redeveloping under-utilized parcels of land within existing urban areas that are already provided with services. Infill development policies help utilize existing utilities and services before considering costly extensions. Neighborhood/sub-area plans include plans for residential neighborhoods, industrial/commercial development, mixed-use development and joint planning areas. The adoption and incorporation of neighborhood/sub-area plans into the Comprehensive Plan adds greater detail, guidance and predictability to the Plan. This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan provides Neighborhood/sub-area organizations a tool to provide advisory input to city government regarding all issues of governance in their respective geographic area. By accepting this advisory input, the City Council may receive greater citizen input in its decision and policy-making endeavors. A Neighborhood/sub-area is a geographic neighborhood/sub-area within the City of Spokane Valley and could include adjacent jurisdictions and joint planning areas. The extent of a neighborhood is variable and may be defined by tradition, common interests and uses, period of building and development, or subdivision patterns. Neighborhood boundaries may include such features as major streets, natural geographic boundaries or other physical features. A neighborhood-based organization is an entity composed of individuals, businesses and/or institutions associated with one or more specific neighborhoods that are recognized by the City as a partner in communicating information and providing assistance in securing public participation. Neighborhood/sub-area planning will provide stakeholders a greater opportunity to be involved in a planning process that is more identifiable and predictable. Local residents, business owners and property owners will gain a clearer understanding of the potential changes that may affect their neighborhoods. 'RCW 36.70A.080 2 WAC 365-195-345 3 RCW 36.70A.130 Adopted April 25, 2006 Chapter 10—Neighborhood/Sub-area Page 1 of 3 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 10.2.2 Process. Guidelines and options will be developed for the planning process in the development of neighborhood/sub-area plans. 10.3 Goals and Policies Goal NG-1 Maintain consistency between adopted Neighborhood/sub-area plans and the City Comprehensive Plan. Policies NP-1.1 Conduct periodic review of sub-area plans for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Goal NG-2 Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. Policies NP-2.1 Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. NP-2.2 Review and revise as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-fill development. NP-2.3 Encourage the development of parks and the dedication of open space in and adjacent to residential areas. Open space dedication shall be proportionate to the size of the development. NP-2.4 Preserve site characteristics that enhance residential development(trees, bodies of water, vistas, and similar features) using site planning techniques such as clustering, planned unit developments, transfer of development rights, and lot size averaging. NP-2.5 Allow zone changes within the Low Density Residential category only when specific criteria are met. Criteria may include: • Substantial changes within zone change area. • Clear mapping errors. • Adequate facilities and services(e.g. sewer,water capacity). • Consistency with densities in the vicinity of the zone change. NP-2.6 Establish appropriate design guidelines with buffer zones and transition requirements to protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with arterials,freeways and rail corridors. NP-2.7 Encourage rehabilitation and improvement programs to conserve and upgrade existing properties and buildings. NP-2.8 Encourage programs targeted at neighborhood preservation, including Weed and Seed, housing rehabilitation and crime prevention programs, such as Neighborhood Watch, McGruff Houses,etc. NP-2.9 Integrate retail developments into surrounding neighborhoods through attention to quality design and function. Encourage neighborhood retail and personal services to locate at appropriate sites where local economic demand and design solutions demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood. Adopted April 25, 2006 Chapter 10—Neighborhood/Sub-area Page 2 of 3 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan NP-2.10 Develop guidelines and options for Neighborhood/sub-area associations which facilitate the refinement of Neighborhood/sub-area plans. Goal NG-3 Encourage neighborhood/sub-area planning for commercial, industrial and mixed use properties to enhance the quality, vibrancy and character of existing development. Policies NP-3.1 Establish regulations and identify potential incentives that encourage multi-use areas that integrate a broad range of appropriate and compatible land use activities, and encourage the development and redevelopment of land in conformance with the SVCP. NP-3.2 Encourage the remediation of environmentally contaminated sites to return the land to productive commercial and industrial use. NP-3.3 Encourage commercial development that is designed and scaled in a manner that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Goal NG-4 Work with Neighborhoods/sub-areas to determine the need, if any, and the preferred approach for outreach activities in order to maintain the flow of information between the city and its citizens. Policies NP-4.1 Work with schools and non-profit organizations to identify and address housing and neighborhood concerns. Adopted April 25, 2006 Chapter 10—Neighborhood/Sub-area Page 3 of 3 Effectiveness and Efficiency Indicators For Spokane Valley Police • s , 1 • • ) : -NZ-74 Bill Gothmann Revision 1, Sept. 19, 2008 This report is solely the product of Bill Gothmann and does not purport to represent the views of either the City of Spokane Valley or its Council. Table of Contents Page Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Executive Summary 3 Effectiveness Indicators 3 Efficiency Indicators 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 8 Spreadsheet Data 9 - - ,''o'-4- L ' likti, r f z' r, a41l __ _.... ..k1,' x -� a _ L�� L � . CENTERP'LACE te ice . ° t ; .a p 1 T x 7. T b, s,Al},, �i +.. ff��i.", t 4 � Y QJ'� At+C� Mf� r�'''G �'c � '' s �1� Revision 1: 09/19/2008 Added data on Kennewick 2 Effectiveness and Efficiency Indicators of Spokane Valley Police Introduction The purpose of this report is to publish indicators of efficiency and effectiveness for the Spokane Valley Police. Efficiency asks the question, "To what degree was the mission accomplished?" Effectiveness asks the question, "How many resources were used in the effort?" In most cases, these indicators are compared with the 21 largest cities within the State of Washington. Spokane Valley is the seventh largest city in the State, by population. The data obtained within this report came from Washington State OFM, the FBI, the 2008 budgets of 21 Washington cities, and the Spokane County Sheriff's Information System. The report is organized into two sections. The first section presents indicator graphs and discusses each of them. The second section presents the spreadsheet data from which the indicator graphs were constructed. Executive Summary In effectiveness, the City ranks fourth in crime rate and second in the reduction of crime rate, 2006 to 2007, when compared with the 21 largest cities of the State. The response time to priority one complaints has decreased from 6.36 minutes in 2002 to 4.47 minutes in 2008. In addition, a 2004 survey of citizens indicate over 92% feel safe within their own neighborhoods. In efficiency, Spokane Valley ranks lowest in cost per capita, second lowest in officers per thousand, and has a salary scale averaging 19% below that of the City of Spokane. Effectiveness Indicators loo --- — Crime Rate per 1000 eI 80 - ----- ---- --- 70 s • 60.3 - •w 50 — — — — — 40 30 I III III — V l0 - � 11111 _ II u u _ _ - .. U Q z w m _ Y N cc F Y — > :J co Q lL As can be seen, Spokane Valley ranks fourth in the 21 cities for Crimes per Thousand. 3 2s --- _ — — — — Crime Rate Reduction 2006-2007 20 — — a. 15 " i — — v 10 5 11111111 � 1 111111 I 1iJLh1L u E c � c E E 0 2 is p Y r3 U o c> p c k;; 2 3 O c O >> -5 u v c e e' E Yo L o >- � z ¢ O t Y m u cC Y C., __, CD O u. a_ Spokane Valley reduced its crime rate by 19.1% from 2006 to 2007. It should be noted that the crime rate for the whole state declined by 10.2% during this period. Priority 1 Response Times Spokane Valley 6.36 5.09 4.52 4.39 4.34 4.47 Ks- Jul-Dec Jan-Dec Jan-Oct 2005 Data Apr-Dec Jan-Dec Jan-May 2002 2003 2004 NA 2006 2007 2008 Priority one are the most serious calls. The chart shows response time in minutes from dispatch to arrival at the scene. From 2002 to 2008, response time decreased from 6.36 minutes to 4.47 minutes. 4 In April, 2004, Clearwater Research reported on a wide-ranging survey of residents concerning multiple aspects of Spokane Valley. Two of their findings were as follows: Spokane Valley is a Safe Place to Live 60 50 -- 40 — 30 20 10 — 0 Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Their Neighborhood is a Safe Place to Live 60 50 40 --- _ 30 a 20 - -- 10 _..— 0L— -i i Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Quoting the Clearwater report, "These findings point to Spokane Valley residents having a strong sense of being safe within their neighborhoods as nearly all respondents (92%) either strongly or somewhat agreed that their neighborhood was a safe place to live." 5 Efficiency Indicators 400 350 Police Cost per Capita c 300 - — - - 250 200 1 • a.`m 150 C 100 11111 III III 50 11 t 11 t III > G U O 0 "6 ? c7 C G fJ U 3 ' +f, -0 C ra C) c > N Y g g r E Q 5 O Y+' t O Y -2 C O O a = } C tO 3 W 'a Q CL ~f5 G G L C = V) CC Y — O C1 m > U m J O u_ The cost per capita was calculated by examining each of the city's police budgets, excluding courts,jails, code enforcement, and animal control. It is interesting to note that the two lowest cities contract with their respective sheriff departments for police service. Spokane Valley's cost was $166 per capita, and Shoreline's was $169. Officers per Thousand 2.50 -- 2.00 0 0 N EE1 D. 0..0 , 1 11111111111111111 1 11111111 11111111 Ja„se,QS�rao '2'44 `\2' °4..c•4‘0(‘a e�J-\.(( a a\�a<ze ya�` a ��P� e��a ��e. c ea��\� ace �mac ec 59 i„, p aet "24e It should be noted that, although Shoreline is lower in officers per thousand (1.11) than Spokane Valley (1.14), its density is twice that of ours. Thus, to patrol Spokane Valley, officers must drive twice the number of miles to cover the same number of citizens. 6 I - - Officers/1000 Versus Population 2.2 I _. 2.0 — — —— c c 18 4 1.6 — r�� — — —Actual m I I —Calculated C.u—. 1.4 -- - - E' --------... _ O 1.2 1.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Population,Thousands The broken line of the above graph plots the actual officers per thousand for each of the 21 cities versus their populations. The graph shows that the officers per 1000 increases as the city population increases. Shoreline has the lowest value (1.11) and Spokane Valley has the next lowest value (1.14). From this data, a trend line was computed, representing what the average city has in officers per thousand based upon their population. If Spokane Valley were to have an average number of officers, it would have 1.50 officers per thousand based upon its population of 88,920, rather than its actual number of 1.14 officers per thousand. Average Pay from Salary Schedule $140,000 $120,000 >, $100,000 -■ °' $80,000 rs c $60,000 . `Z $40,000 . . .111 •SCSO $20,000 - ■ ■ ■ ■SPD $0 O& e-.e `sec a �.'e cyQ e Oe9.) Loci , This chart compares the mid-point of each of the salary schedule categories of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office (SCSO) and the Spokane Police Department (SPD). Overall, the schedule salaries of the SCSO are 19% lower than those of the SPD. 7 Conclusions and Recommendations In this paragraph, I will try to summarize, and then try to answer the question, "Where do we go from here?" It is apparent from the data, that Spokane Valley has a great record for effectiveness and efficiency. The data shows that it is among the best in the State. With this as a baseline, we must then direct our every effort into working as an effective partner in addressing crime within our city. But how can we do this? Shoreline's experience may provide some clues. In going through the city data, Shoreline's great record jumped out at me. They were near the top for every statistic. Incorporated in 1995, Shoreline, like Spokane Valley, is adjacent to another, larger city. Also like Spokane Valley, Shoreline contracts with the Sheriff for police services. Since they have been around for more years than we, is it possible that there are some lessons we can learn from them? I suggest there are. The first observation I make is that their police services are very visible. Along with other departments of the City, Shoreline Police Department has its own web page. On that page you can find tips on preventing auto theft, crime statistics (both for business and residential), how to start a block watch program, where neighborhood centers are, and how to stop student laptop thefts. By having such a page, residents know that their police department is the "go to" place for help in crime solution and crime prevention. Thus, police and police chief visibility should be one of our goals in our pursuit of crime solution and crime prevention. The second observation I can make comes from Shoreline's budget. Instead of a monolithic entry, "Sheriff's Contract," they have a complete, detailed budget for the department. Each section within the Police Department has its own (1) Highlights, (2) Purpose, (3) Strategic Objectives, (4) Effectiveness Measures, (5) Efficiency Measures, and (6) Workload Measures. This is done for the following seven functions: Police Administration Police Community Storefronts Police Investigations Crime Analysis Street Crime Investigations Police Patrol School Resource Officer Program Police Support Services (911 Center, Major Crime Investigation, Canine Services, Etc.) Since each is listed separately, Council learns about the details of each function. They can then make effective policy decisions about which services to increase and which to decrease, all based upon an intelligent understanding of what each function does. I would suggest that we could learn much from both Shoreline and King County. Perhaps we could make a visit to them, or we could invite some of their key people to our meetings. In so doing, we would using their great program to make our excellent program even better. --Bill Gothmann 8 PRIMARY STATISTICS PAGE Crimes Crimes per per Police Police Estimated City Name Population 1000 Ronk 1000 Rank Percent Rank Budget Adjustments Budget Dollars Rank Officers Officers 22 008 2006 Best=1 2007 Best=1 Reduction Best=1 Dollars Note 2 Total Estimated Per Capita Best=1 2005 2008 Comments Seattle 592800 75.9 15 64.5 14 15.0 5 216,681,234 216,681,234 365.52 21 1281 1250 Spokane 204400 64.8 12 63.0 13 2.8 19 47,436,813 6,323,000 41,113,813 201.14 6 281 296 Intergovernmental transfer Tacoma 202700 93.9 20 83.4 20 11.2 9 58,619,407 58,102,546 286.64 17 372 381 Vancouver 162400 45.8 8 45.2 9 1.3 21 31,278,405 31,278,405 192.60 4 195 207 Bellevue 119200 38.1 3 36.7 5 3.7 17 36,312,274 36,312,274 304.63 19 172 175 Everett 102300 95.7 21 91.6 21 4.3 16 24,945,633 24,945,633 243.85 13 172 197 Spokane Valley 88920 44.4 7 35.9 4 19.1 2 14,782,631 14,782,631 166.25 1 100 101.267 Federal Way 88040 64.0 11 58.9 11 8.0 12 20,039,662 20,039,662 227.62 9 111 137 Kent 86980 80.0 17 62.6 12 21.8 1 27,836,248 27,836,248 320.03 20 116 135 Yakima 84300 93.7 19 76.3 19 18.6 3 21,123,742 1,417,020 19,706,722 233.77 10 120 138 Detention&criminal justice services Renton 78870 80.3 18 71.6 18 10.8 10 24,593,327 3,197,133 21,396,194 271.28 16 88 123 Jail estimated 13%of budget Bellingham 75750 7S.6 14 69.7 17 7.8 13 22,900,570 5,150,000 17,750,570 234.33 11 104 111 Intergovernmental transfer Auburn 67005 79.4 16 69.4 16 12.6 8 19,338,700 2,671,800 16,666,900 248.74 15 85 114 Intergovernmental transfer Kennewick 65860 48.2 9 42.0 8 12.9 7 14,337,348 2,510,314 11,827,034 179.58 3 87 92lnterg.+2 code inf.Officers Lakewood 58780 72.2 13 68.5 15 5.1 14 17,333,333 17,333,333 294.88 18 97 105 Used Spokane County Info Shoreline 53440 41.8 6 34.3 2 17.9 4 9,047,574 9,047,574 169.30 2 42 59.18 See Note 3 concerning Officer Count Pasco 52290 41.1 4 39.2 6 4.6 15 10,223,061 10,223,061 195.51 5 56 64 Redmond 51320 36.2 2 34.9 3 3.6 18 12,540,721 12,540,721 244.36 14 71 85 Kirkland 48410 41.7 5 40.9 7 1.9 20 13,591,607 2,775,155 10,816,452 223.43 8 63 69 Care for Prisoners Richland 46080 34.9 1 30.2 1 13.5 6 10,493,762 272,523 10,221,239 221.82 7 53 58 1.8 FTE of 69.30 FTE are code enforcement Olympia 44800 52.8 10 48.4 10 8.3 11 10,530,257 10,530,257 235.05 12 68 68 20-City Average 61.93 55.58 10.2 240.97 Washington State Average 48.2 43.3 10.2 - Notes: 1.Data sources: Copied and Sorted for Graph Population-OFM Per Capita 400 Crimes per 1000,2006 and 2007-OFM Spokane Valley 166.25 350 Police Cost er Ca ita Police budgets-individual city budgets(except for Lakewood). Shoreline 169.30 c 300 Lakewood--obtained from Spokane County Sheriff's Information Coordinator. Kennewick 179.58 « 250 I Officers,2005-FBI Vancouver 192.60 " , 1111111111, , , , Officers,2008--Spokane County Sheriff's Information Coordinator. Pasco 195.51 i 200 , , , , , , , , , , 2.The Adjustments column subtracts out costs for courts, Spokane 201.14 m 150 jails,animal control,and code enforcement. Note that Richland 221.82 0 100 ' , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , estimates had to be made for Renton and Richland. Kirkland 223.43 50 ' , , , , I I I I " , I I I ' I I I I I Unidentified large intergovernmental transfers were assumed Federal Way 227.62 0 ' , , , , , III " " , I I I I I I I to be for one of these four services and were subtracted via Yakima 233.77 = c u `u a c E a a c ,o a the Adjustments column.See the Comments column. Bellingham 234.33 > a ,, . i o .c . 3 x m E 6 E ? ' 3 g a a a 3.The FBI shows Shoreline with 42 commissioned officers in 2005. Olympia 235.05 „ `o c - c N c a x 0 5 a s n m In 2008,Shoreline has 48 fulltime,commissioned officers.In Everett 243.85 s > v m a addition,their 2008 budget includes 11.18 FTE for such services as Redmond 244.36 al 911,canine,and major crimes investigations that are contracted Auburn 248.74 on an hourly basis from King County. Renton 271.28 Tacoma 286.64 Lakewood 294.88 Bellevue 304.63 Kent 320.03 Seattle 365.52 Page 9 I CRIME RATE AND CRIME RATE REDUCTION GRAPHS Crimes per Crimes per Copied and 2007 Copied and Population Thousand Rank Thousand Rank Percent Rank Sorted Data for Crime Sorted Data for Percent 2008 2006 Best=1 2007 Best=1 Reduction Best=1 Graph Rate Graph Reduction Seattle 592800 75.9 15 64.5 14 15.02 5 Richland 30.2 Kent 21.75 Spokane 204400 64.8 12 63.0 13 2.78 19 Shoreline 34.3 Spokane Valley 19.14 Tacoma 202700 93.9 20 83.4 20 11.18 9 Redmond 34.9 Yakima 18.57 Vancouver 162400 45.8 8 45.2 9 1.31 21 Spokane Valley 35.9 Shoreline 17.94 Bellevue 119200 38.1 3 36.7 5 3.67 17 Bellevue 36.7 Seattle 15.02 Everett 102300 95.7 21 91.6 21 4.28 16 Pasco 39.2 Richland 13.47 Spokane Valley 88920 44.4 7 35.9 4 19.14 2 Kirkland 40.9 Kennewick 12.86 Federal Way 88040 64.0 11 58.9 11 7.97 12 Kennewick 42 Auburn 12.59 Kent 86980 80.0 17 62.6 12 21.75 1 Vancouver 45.2 Tacoma 11.18 Yakima 84300 93.7 19 76.3 19 18.57 3 Olympia 48.4 Renton 10.83 Renton 78870 80.3 18 71.6 18 10.83 10 Federal Way 58.9 Olympia 8.33 Bellingham 75750 75.6 14 69.7 17 7.80 13 Kent 62.6 Federal Way 7.97 Auburn 67005 79.4 16 69.4 16 12.59 8 Spokane 63 Bellingham 7.80 Kennewick 65860 48.2 9 42.0 8 12.86 7 Seattle 64.5 Lakewood 5.12 Lakewood 58780 72.2 13 68.5 15 5.12 14 Lakewood 68.5 Pasco 4.62 Shoreline 53440 41.8 6 34.3 2 17.94 4 Auburn 69.4 Everett 4.28 Pasco 52290 41.1 4 39.2 6 4.62 15 Bellingham 69.7 Bellevue 3.67 Redmond 51320 36.2 2 34.9 3 3.59 18 Renton 71,6 Redmond 3.59 Kirkland 48410 41.7 5 40.9 7 1.92 20 Yakima 76.3 Spokane 2.78 Richland 46080 34.9 1 30.2 1 13.47 6 Tacoma 83.4 Kirkland 1.92 Olympia 44800 52.8 10 48.4 . 10 8.33 11 Everett 91.6 Vancouver 1.31 100 90 Crime Rate per 1000 25 Crime Rate Reduction 2006-2007 a 80 20 e. 70 - - E v _60 ., 15 e > 50 u 1 40 0 10 a 30 11.11.11.1.1,1.1.1.1.11, 1 0 5 E 0 u 20 100 C Si 2 a . V = ` E 2 i2 C N T -g 8 v a p a V a a - m «a 3 8 E 3 -. 3 2 v E 5 7 2 c t > 8 6 ` - m c c - o E E o a v . i 6 a m a > p Y o o 7. W N E 3 Y «, O L C O d N t K C f O a ..= Y m W 0 C 9 y E d Y a o '' Y 8 a ,, ' 00 0 1 2 Y V 1 p cc > K N K m Y O N N v Q 5 K r 1-- W o LL 0 Y a J y a .. 0 LL 1 a N Page 10 DISPATCH TO ARRIVAL RESPONSE TIME IN MINUTES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Averages Copy for Graph Avg 2002 Priority 1 8.68 6.36 7.91 5.25 5.03 4.91 6.356667 Jul-Dec 2002 6.36 Priority 2 9.72 11.12 9.16 10.18 9.1 9.51 Jan-Dec 2003 5.09 Priority 3 15.58 16.48 15.14 13.7 13.75 13.15 Jan-Oct 2004 4.52 Priority 4 16.24 20.26 16.58 13.56 17.61 11.45 2005 Data NA Priority 5 15.26 20.26 18.16 26.05 21.48 9 Apr-Dec 2006 4.39 2003 Jan-Dec 2007 4.34 Priority 1 4.63 8.81 4.48 5.45 7.15 4.49 4.64 3.99 3.74 5.28 3.82 4.65 5.094167 Jan-May 2008 4.47 Priority 2 8.62 8.93 8.21 8.47 8.34 7.06 7.8 7.55 6.96 7.01 7.47 7.26 Priority 3 13.14 14.57 13.47 14.55 12.52 9.25 10.31 10.71 11.05 10.11 11.49 11.47 Priority 4 14.82 16.48 14.74 17.74 13.4 11.86 12.39 13.17 12.21 19.07 13.94 9.95 Priority 1 Response Times Priority 4 13.65 18.45 8.4 19.08 17.42 8.65 13.47 13.03 9.87 27.65 21.92 11.74 Spokane Valley Priority 1 4.12 6.99 5.35 4.6 5.34 3.28 3.48 4.44 3.72 3.85 6.36 Priority 2 7.12 7.46 7.59 7 7.34 7.33 6.72 7.29 6.95 6.95 5.09 Priority 3 11.23 12.39 11.42 11.14 10.49 10.86 11.54 12.15 11.05 13.31 4.52 4.39 4.34 4.47 Priority 4 13.94 9.72 10.34 17.1 12.11 14.51 11.99 15.17 15.5 11.77 Priority 5 15.05 15.96 6.92 17.12 6.3 26.44 13.42 10.21 16.16 10.42 2005 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Jul-Dec Jan-Dec Jan-Oct 2005 Data Apr-Dec Jan-Dec Jan-May Priority 5 2002 2003 2004 NA 2006 2007 2008 2006 __ Priority 1 3.93 3.43 3.73 4.99 5.23 4.56 3.84 4.49 5.3 4.388889 Priority 2 6.88 7.01 7.84 7.02 8.2 7.1 7.16 7.31 7.37 Priority 3 12.49 11.26 13.15 12.78 12.31 11.76 12.2 11.51 12.31 Priority 4 9.43 21.59 40.47 24.4 21.69 13.14 14.58 12.97 14.95 Priority 5 14.07 22.56 7.94 11.16 17.07 10.67 7.43 13.78 16.7 2007 Priority 1 3.96 3.44 3.38 4.29 4.18 4.33 4.35 4.4 4.39 4.54 5.42 5.37 4.3375 3.85 Priority 2 7.28 6.7 7.28 6.64 7.29 7.04 7.12 7.31 6.88 7.62 7.03 7.37 Priority 3 10.97 10.18 10.68 13.47 10.89 10.85 10.71 12.08 9.99 10.61 11.13 11.9 Priority 4 12.47 17.43 25.93 11.25 16.17 11.7 24.05 11.9 9.05 12.06 16.83 9.35 Priority 5 25.58 12.3 10.55 4.39 19.63 12.26 7.55 13.45 11.78 15.28 14.88 9.38 2008 Priority 1 5.71 5.09 3.66 4.54 3.35 4.47 4.47 Priority 2 7.14 7.21 7.23 7.07 7.17 Note: Data is from Spokane County Sheriffs Information Coordinator. Priority 3 11.52 12.15 10.54 10.7 12.4 Priority 4 15.6 11.18 13.21 21.28 10.4 Priority 5 15.9 17.64 7.89 10.34 13.3 Page 11 CLEARWATER SAFE VALLEY QUESTIONS Percent Spokane Valley is a Safe Place Spokane Valley is a Safe Place to Live Strongly Disagree 2 to Live Somewhat Disagree 5 60 Neutral 6 50 Somewhat Agree 49 `>•:' 40 ic::.! Strongly Agree 38 c 3 - , u 30 C a 20 , I: 10 r 0 ��yTl ∎u 1 Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Their Neighborhood is a Safe Place to Live Strongly Disagree 1 Somewhat Disagree 4 Their Neighborhood is a Safe Place to Neutral 3 Somewhat Agree 38 Live Strongly Agree 54 60 50 40 c Note: Data is from Clearwater Research Report, 6 v 30 April,2004 a 20 10 - 0 ® , , Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Page 12 OFFICERS PER THOUSAND GRAPH DATA Trend Model Calculations-- a 0.000670 b 1.086465 c I.410400 Officers per Thousand Officers per 1000 vs Population opt=a•pop ob+c Sorted Graph Data Copied and Sorted Graph Data 2008 2008 See per Population Population Officers Note Thousand 1000's Actual Calculated Squared City Off/1000 City Population Actual Calculated Shoreline 53440 59.18 4 1.107 53.44 1.107 1.460887 0.12494577 Shoreline 1.107 Olympia 44.80 1.5179 1.4584 Spokane Valley 88920 101.267 1.139 88.92 1.139 1.498187 0.12911947 Spokane Valley 1.139 Richland 46.08 1.2587 1.4596 • Pasco 52290 64 1.224 52.29 1.224 1.459708 0.05558476 Pasco 1.224 Kirkland 48.41 1.4253 1.4619 Richland 46080 58 1.259 46.08 1.259 1.453379 0.03790765 Richland 1.259 Redmond 51.32 1.6563 1.4646 Vancouver 162400 207 1.275 162.4 1.275 1.579302 0.09282473 Vancouver 1.275 Pasco 52.29 1.2239 1.4656 Kirkland 48410 69 1.425 48.41 1.425 1.455746 0.00092539 Kennewick 1.321 Shoreline 53.44 1.1074 1.4667 Spokane 204400 296 1.448 204.4 1.448 1.627254 0.03208144 Kirkland 1.425 Lakewood 58.78 1.7863 1.4718 Bellingham 75750 111 1.465 75.75 1.465 1.484156 0.00035378 Spokane 1.448 Kennewick 65.86 1.3210 1.4788 Bellevue 119200 175 1.468 119.2 1.468 1.531101 0.00396656 Bellingham 1.465 Auburn 67.01 1.7014 1.4799 Olympia 44800 68 1.518 44.8 1.518 1.452084 0.00432612 Bellevue 1.468 Bellingham 75.75 1.4653 1.4886 Kent 86980 135 1.552 86.98 1.552 1.496108 0.0031.3295 Olympia 1.518 Renton 78.87 1.5595 1.4918 Federal Way 88040 137 1.556 88.04 1.556 1.497244 0.00346535 Kent 1.552 Yakima 84.30 1.6370 1.4973 Renton 78870 123 1.560 78.87 1.560 1.487462 0.00519357 Federal Way 1.556 Kent 86.98 1.5521 1.5000 Yakima 84300 138 1.637 84.3 1.637 1.493243 0.02066916 Renton 1.560 Federal Way 88.04 1.5561 1.5011 Redmond 51320 85 1.656 51,32 1.656 1.458715 0.03902984 Yakima 1.637 Spokane Valley 88.92 1.1389 1.5020 Auburn 67005 114 1.701 67.005 1.701 1.474953 0.05126287 Redmond 1.656 Everett 102.30 1.9257 1.5158 Lakewood 58780 105 1.786 58.78 1.786 1.466391 0.10235580 Auburn 1.701 Bellevue 119.20 1.4681 1.5335 Tacoma 202700 381 1.880 202.7 1.880 1.625295 0.06468378 Lakewood 1.786 Vancouver 162.40 1.2746 1.5802 Everett 102300 197 1.926 102.3 1.926 1.512628 0.17063554 Tacoma 1.880 Tacoma 202.70 1.8796 1,6251 Seattle 592800 1250 2.109 592.8 2.109 2.099969 0.00007513 Everett 1.926 Spokane 204.40 1.4481 1.6270 Kennewick 65860 92 1.397 65.86 1.397 1.473755 0.00590629 Seattle 2.109 Seattle 592.80 2.1086 2.1000 0.94844595 Officers per Thousand Officers/1000 Versus Population 2.50 2.2 2.00 _ 2.0 - 1so ci i. 1.8 1.00 ffmtil-H-H-1 _ _ 1.6 � I -Actual 0.50 8 1.4 .1111111 -Calculated 0.00 1.2 Iii 1 . /Afro Saga°'0a4s��-48.aka aF Ss° 4ia 0.,..<40.1 os Pre°8 e°°a e t �� _ Sr° "act acc Ot.hQO`,'4 0. ot\ ,if Q c`-0'86 t..‘° a .catp+,¢t, 10 �,ya J .�. 0¢ �� 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 5 Population,Thousands Notes:1.Population was obtained from OFM and officers from each agency(per Spokane County Sheriff's Information Coordinator). 2.The math model for the trend line is(OFFICERS PER 1000)+-0.000670•(POPULATION°1.086465)+1.410400. 3.The math model was calculated by finding the minimum of the sum of the squares of the difference between the predicted value and the actual value. 4.See comment about Shoreline on Page 9,Note 3 Page 13 SALARY DATA Spokane County Sheriff Spokane Police Department Percent Lowest Highest Mean Lowest Highest Mean Greater Deputy/Police Officer $40,643.28 $59,999.76 $50,321.52 $41,070.96 $73,434.96 $57,252.96 13.77 Corporal/Detective $60,149.76 $66,467.52 $63,308.64 $71,263.44 $78,383.52 $74,823.48 18.19 Sergeant $66,202.80 $73,156.32 $69,679.56 $80,346.24 $88,385.04 $84,365.64 21.08 Lieutenant $83,841.84 $92,647.92 $88,244.88 $100,495.44 $110,684.88 $105,590.16 19.66 Captain/Inspector $96,665.28 $106,818.48 $101,741.88 $118,577.52 $130,604.40 $124,590.96 22.46 Mean: 19.03 Copied for Graph SCSO SPD Average Pay from Salary Schedule Deputy/Police Officer 50321.52 57252.96 $140,000 Corporal/Detective 63308.64 74823.48 $120,000 Sergeant 69679.56 84365.64 ,, $100,000 Lieutenant 88244.88 105590.16 a $80,000 Captain/Inspector 101741.88 124590.96 ' c $60,000 a c $40,000 , 1. 1111 1111 I. ■SPDO Note: Data from SCSO and SPD salary tables,obtained from $20,000 Spokane County Sheriff's Information Coordinator. $0 6 J �° oI>L ea o m` a` Page 14 Survey of Washington City Council Leaders Concerning the Effects of Television on Council and Community Bill Gothmann, Councilmember City of Spokane Valley 1-25-08 www.mrsc.orq/GovDocs/72TvMtaiSrvv.pdf Survey of Washington City Council Leaders Concerning the Effects of Television on Council and Community Bill Gothmann, 1-25-08 Introduction: This questionnaire was sent to 50 Washington City Council Chairs. The results are shown following: Dear [Title] [Name]: Spokane Valley is considering whether to televise and/or webcast our City Council Meetings. I understand that [City Name] provides this service at the present time. I would appreciate your insights in answering the following four questions by replying to this email. Your comments would greatly help us in making this decision. 1. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the practice of telecasting/webcasting (If you were there when this occurred)? 3. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence Council-community relations? 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley about webcasting/telecasting? Bill Gothmann, Councilmember City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: 509-688-0047 bgothmannCa�spokanevalley.org [Note: The Survey then prints in detail each of the responses of each city responding]. • II Summary of Comments from Cities Concerning Council Broadcasting on TV _ Bill Gothmann 2-12-2008 C i t i e s .a H c a� 8' 3 ,a coo e In m L m Comment Responses Percent 'a r 2 10 'a o° 3 1:1 'a E d g �> • E 'c c c E o e 3 0 0 I-o o a a o a e gi E es o c • a a 0 d o 2 E L .., c a E E g B ac c 3 °a E .a a m a c 2 c •E c 0 'C t �a c E a a 9 c 0 E e o 2 7 a 3 c > GI Gl >. !IS o 0 01 a 0 7 a 0 0 o as QCOmGW W W �C �C �LJdaao: kcn0varnco1- 1— > 3 >- Effect on Meeting No Change 13 50 x x x x x x x x x x x x x Discussion more formal/focused 8 31 x x x x x x x x I pay more attention to appearance 2 8 x x More articulate 1 4 x Council members playing to camera 14 54 Initally 2 8 x x Rare 4 15 x x x x Some 7 27 x x x x x x x Regularly 1 4 x But does not affect discussion 5 19 x x x x x Forget camera is there 11 42 x x x x x x x x x x x Some citizens may use it as"air time" 4 15 x x x x May make some citizens shy 1 4 x Effect of change Some change but dissipated 2 8 x x A Council member introduced sensitive topic 1 4 x Effect on Citizens Engages citizens 19 73 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x _ x x x Useful to those who stay at home 9 35 x x x x x x x x x _ Informs the public 1 1 42 x x x x x x x x x x x I hear from those who watch 9 35 x x x x x x x x x Other Council should have a class on TV 2 8 x x We don't televise open meeting portion 2 8 x x We Televise the open portion 5 19 x x x x x I recommend it 21 81 x x x x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I do not recommend it 0 0 Percent of CAN who watch 25-30% 25% Auburn, From: Sue Singer [mailto:leeandsuesinger @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:02 AM To: 'Bill Gothmann' Subject: RE: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Hello Bill I would be happy to answer your questions. See below. Sue 1. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? Auburn Council has a culture of civility, and that has not changed at all. I personally find myself more conscious of being as articulate as possible, which has improved my public speaking. We have one council member who likes to speak to "his constituents" - looking into the camera to explain something in detail to his audience. This frankly annoys the rest of us who are trying to get down to business. 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the practice of telecasting/webcasting (If you were there when this occurred)? The discussion is less open now. Any disagreements are handled in committee meetings. Every issue is now vetted through 2 council committees so 6 of 7 council members have had a chance to discuss it. Unless something comes up at the last minute there are no questions from the council. Some of this may be because our more shy members are less apt to speak up. We are also more conscious of the possibility of saying something that will get us into legal trouble. 3. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence Council-community relations? Many more people are interested in what we are doing. Strangers approach me regularly to comment that they saw me on TV. More people are expressing interest in running for office. There is far more understanding of what we are doing. We have a better opportunity to inform the community. 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley about webcasting/telecasting? I feel it is an important service to provide because it better connects the people to their government. I would suggest asking your local cable provider to teach a class on how best to present yourself on camera. By the way, we don't televise the audience participation part of the agenda. The Mayor thinks we would have too many people just wanting to see themselves on TV if we give them their"moment in the sun." I disagree with him. I think it makes us look like we just don't want anyone to hear us be criticized. We limit people to 3 minutes already so I think that would take care of the problem. Hope this helps. Sue Singer Bainbridge Island HI Bill, I have left a message on your phone contact and looking forward to chatting with you regarding our TV coverage Bill Knobloch City Council Bainbridge Island www.billknobloch.com I called Bill at Bainbridge Island. The following are his comments from that conversation: In the long run, use TV. You are going to have a problem. Some Council members will pontificate, initially, and use it as a soap box. The Chair must crack the whip. After a while, you will ignore the cameras. There is no doubt that you should have TV. I get emails that say, "I watched you and . . . . " If you want to operate in a vacuum [relative to constituents] , don't use TV. It influences the Council-community in a very positive manner. People feel part of the communications loop. We have PEG. The City gets a franchise fee and passes it through to Bainbridge Island TV [non-profit corporation] . We now have two channels, and that second channel is vary valuable. Right now we are nenewing our contract with Comcast. Don't exclude Public Comments from the broadcast. A city your size -- you HAVE to televise. Feel free to contact Scott Schmidt at BITV, 206-280-2980. -- Bill Gothmann Bonney Lake From: Dan Swatman [mailto:danswatman @gmail.com] Sent: Monday,January 21, 2008 9:25 AM To: 'Bill Gothmann' Subject: RE: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Bill, Thanks for asking I have included my thoughts below. Hopefully it works for you and you can fill me in on the details if you go to AWC :) Thanks, Dan Swatman Spokane Valley is considering whether to televise and/or webcast our City Council Meetings. I understand that Bonney Lake provides this service at the present time. We do not currently do either, only the audio is available in a recorded from online which can be downloaded and played, its in MP3 format. I would appreciate your insights in answering the following four questions by replying to this email. Your comments would greatly help us in making this decision. 1. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? This is one of the main questions we also wrestle with, we have a slim majority which will just not buy into televising meetings. The best ideas I have heard around this is that council use the council meeting for more of the public information time. We have four meetings each month two of them being workshop discussion type meetings were most of the issues are hashed out. The official council meeting is the main one which makes sense to me to televise (our public cable system time is shared via an agreement we have with Rainer communications, they manage public access for many cities in our area) because we are charged for the time. Thus with all the possibly contentious debates not happening at the official formal council meeting it becomes a great forum for informing the public what the city is doing for them, how they are doing it and why they are doing it. As you might guess I see TV as a great tool if used carefully for getting information to the public. Many cities large and small in our area do broadcast their meetings including Sumner, Orting, Fife and Tacoma are a few I know of. Since we have not yet broadcast our meetings I can't tell you the effect of it on our city but I am a huge fan and firmly believe the value greatly out ways the possible bad effects of making some uncomfortable. My main issue is the transparency of government what better way to allow the public to see their government at work, no doubt TV is a sharp tool and it needs to be handle by adults. 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the practice of telecasting/webcasting (If you were there when this occurred)? 3. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence Council-community relations? 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley about webcasting/telecasting? While I really like the idea of web casting it would seem to be more of a better solution of recording and latter playback not live, though there are many nice things you can add to it such as agenda scrolls and other overlays. Burien From: Joan McGilton (joanm @burienwa.gov] To: Bill Gothmann Subject: Re: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings 1. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? This was of some initial concern when the council decided to telvise. I think it puts us on our "good behaviour" the majority of the time. We do get some grandstanding by select councilmembers when they are not of the majority opinion. I also notice campaigning on screen during election season. But we have a very forthright council who are willing to dicuss and debate on camera. I think this kind of open discussion gives the community some sense of how difficult some of ;these decisions can be. 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the practice of telecasting/webcasting (If you were there when this occurred) ? Yes, I was there. After the first few months, things settled in for the most part. The council member who was most pleased to be televised was not reelected, either time he ran. 3. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence Council- community relations? We are a small community, 31,000 residents that incorporated in 1993 but we have 3 and 4 generations who know us and are not afraid to speak up. We are recognized personally when we are in the public arena. TV may give us some more visibility but, generally, when I am stopped at the grocery store or post office, the comments that I get are positive and helpful. I don't think we get any more "naysayers" than we did before we were televised. The same folks who don't like government don't stay away because they can watch us on TV. They still come to council and confront us directly. 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley about webcasting/telecasting? We started out just televising the regular council meetings to save money but we found that our study sessions deserved the same air time. We are on 4 times per month live and then the weekly tapes get played several times during the week. The other piece that is a lot of fun is when we invite people to give a 5 minute presentation on the cool stuff that they are doing. The high school kids are the best. We had a "Trash" fashion show with young women from the Occupational Skills Center. We try to get school district representatives on occassionally as well as our non-profit groups and boards and commissions. We hope to do more of this through our public access TV group but they don't do it for free. Anyone of us on council would say that TV is a critical part of our community outreach, both on our good and bad days. . Good luck. My home phone is xxx-xxx-xxxx. Joan DuPont From: Jennifer Crouse Ucrouse @ci.dupont.wa.us] To: Bill Gothmann Subject: RE:Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Dear Councilmember Gothmann, Thank you so much for your inquiry, it is my pleasure to respond. I hope my answers below are of help. If you have any further questions, please feel free to write again. Sincerely, Jennifer Crouse 1. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? When we first started telecasting I noticed a change in the tone of the meetings, everyone was very careful about what they said and somewhat nervous. It stopped a lot of the chitchat and made the meeting proceed more formally. Once we got used to having the cameras there though, it was easy to forget them, especially when discussing a hot topic. I also noticed that we all paid more attention to our appearance for those meetings. We only televise the first meeting of the month. 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the practice of telecasting/webcasting (If you were there when this occurred) ? There is one councilmember who seemed to choose only the televised meetings to introduce sensitive topics and make speeches. Otherwise, I didn't notice any change in the discussion. 3. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence Council- community relations? I must say that this has been a way to increase the level of communication between the council and the community significantly. I was not expecting so many people to watch, and I was often surprised by people commenting that they had seen me on tv. 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley about webcasting/telecasting? I would strongly urge you to do this, making council meetings available on tv or streaming video online is an effective way to increase communication and participation. Many people are uncomfortable coming to sit in on a council meeting or have other priorities for their time. Making the meeting available for viewing from their home and at their convenience has been incredibly well received. Ellensburg From: "Nancy Lillquist" <lillquis @kvalley.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:48:57 -0800 Mr. Gothmann, I recently replaced Obie O'Brien as mayor of Ellensburg and was asked to respond to your questions. 1. Most of the time I personally forget the camera is on and interact with the people in the room as I would normally. The camera probably does make some difference, however. Some people may bring issues and make statements to the Council because they know they have "air-time", which can be useful for publicizing community events. The Council enforces rules regarding slanderous speech, promotional speech, and keeping topics to those the Council at least has some authority over. The camera may make others more uncomfortable and shy about speaking. 2. The meetings were televised long before I joined the Council 6 years ago. 3. I am frequently surprised by how many people watch the proceedings. I'll hear "yeah, I saw that discussion on TV last night. . " I believe it helps people to stay informed about City issues and how their Council operates. And it's helpful for people who want to follow a topic or discussion but don't want to leave home to sit in the Council Chambers in uncomfortable chairs on cold snowy evenings. 4. Do it. It's good for the community. I cannot think of a downside. Nancy Lillquist Mayor, City of Ellensburg Enumclaw From: kmahelona @comcast.net To: Bill Gothmann Subject: Re: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Bill, My answers to your questions are noted below. Feel free to request additional clarification on any point. Regards, Kevin 1. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? Neither has had any impact on our council discussions or decisions. 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the practice of telecasting/webcasting (If you were there when this occurred)? Telecasting predated my term however webcasting is relatively new. As noted in quesiton 1 -there has been no impact to council discussions. 3. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence Council-community relations? It has not influenced the tone or nature of community relationships. It has been surprising to find out how many households do watch our council meetings -either live or delayed broadcast. The feedback I've received from our citizens is they appreciate not being required to come to city hall to find out what is going on and not relying on the newspaper's version of events. The additional advantage of webcasting is it makes our meetings accessible to those who reside outside of our city boundaries but who have business or other interests within city limits. Making council meetings readily accessible to your community via telecast or webcast is a visible and tangible committment by the council to meeting the intent of the open meetings act and transparency in governmental activities. 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley about webcasting/telecasting? You should move forward with this. Everett Dear Councilman Gothmann: The City of Everett has been televising its City Council meetings on a tape-delay basis for many years. We recently switched to "live" telecast, and we continue to air the tape-delay format at various times during the week. I will attempt to answer your specific questions by number: 1 & 2. When the program first began, I was not here but I understand that the Council members were somewhat "nervous" about saying/doing something that would be viewed by their constituents (the citizens asked for the meetings to be televised, and the Council at the time reluctantly implemented it) . Since few citizens attend our meetings, many people only see our proceedings by watching them on television. I am sure most of my colleagues would agree that we are sensitive to the fact that our comments/conduct are on public display, but it doesn't override the discussion or the comments we make. We have had instances where certain Council members seem to use the television to "posture" on specific issues or to stir up controversy, particularly during election cycles, but this has been very minimal. We are more likely to experience a special interest group or some other organization's attempt to advocate their cause at our meeting, perhaps because they know it will be aired (although the presence of the written media correspondents would insure that their point, if interesting/controversial, would be printed anyway) . 3. The community has viewed our telecasting in a very positive way and we have received praise for our recent addition to live-casting. I have many citizens comment that they "saw me on TV . . ." and I receive email and phone calls from citizens who was the meeting on TV and either did or didn't like what I said. So, I think it has been a very positive influence on community relations. Incidentally, our IT department is currently evaluating how/when we can webcast our meetings. 4. No other comments. Good luck! Brenda Stonecipher Everett City Council Kelso From: David Futcher [David @futcher-henry.com] To: Bill Gothmann Subject: RE:Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Bill, Thanks for your message. Our meetings are shown on a local public access cable channel. They replay them on Saturday and on our 'off' weeks in between meetings. We fund the public access group with some of the franchise taxes we collect on the cable services. I'll give you my formal answers to the questions you posed; if you want any off-the- record reflections, feel free to give me a call. ;) 1. The council usually has few attending the meetings, so the 'big brother is watching' feeling probably helps keep the proceedings more formal and focused than they might otherwise be. Of course, the potentially larger audience also can result in some slight grandstanding. 2. The meetings were televised prior to my time on the council, so I can't speak to any change that may have occurred when they started. 3. I believe televising the meetings has given community members an opportunity to feel like they can 'keep an eye' on us without having to come sit in on the meetings. It also gives us another forum for disseminating information that we think is relevant to a large portion of the population. 4. My advice would be to embrace this or any other opportunity that helps demystify the council meetings for your citizens. I'm a believer in open government being a win for both the community and the electeds. Better communication, regardless of the medium, will make your life easier in the long run. Good luck as you consider this opportunity! David Futcher-Henry Group, PS David Futcher, CPA Kent Council member Gothmann, To answer your questions: 1. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? Honestly, it hasn't influenced our discussions at all - most council members weren't even aware when we made the transition. 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the practice of telecasting/webcasting(If you were there when this occurred)? No -we were already accustomed to having our meetings video-taped and shown over and over on TV so having them live really didn't have an impact. 3. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence Council-community relations? So far, the community seems to be really enjoying it- seeing things in real time. We get more immediate feedback. 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley about webcasting/telecasting? Go for it- I think it is a good thing. Starting this January we have a new council president-Council member Debbie Raplee. I will ask her to respond to your questions as well. Good luck, Debbie Ranniger Kirkland From: James Lauinger [mailto:JLauinger©ci.kirkland.wa.us] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 12:05 PM To: Bill Gothmann Subject: RE: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings 1. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? /really do not think that the telecasting has effected our discussions.We have used video for some time, and moving to a live broadcast and web really did not effect our rich and candid discussions. 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the practice of telecasting/webcasting(If you were there when this occurred)?No, none whatsoever. I actually never really think about it. 3. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence Council-community relations? I know that all CC members take the endeavor seriously...we will often ask for staff clarification or explanation of an acronym for both the "visiting audience and those tuned in at home."We hear regularly that citizens get a substantial amount of public knowledge from our televised meetings. Viewing is fairly high, too. 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley about webcasting/telecasting? We believe it to be a significant additional service that brings the citizen closer to their government and to their electeds. We are always looking for positive additions to services that have an immediate public benefit. This, along with the city's ability to access all government documents electronically as well as the week's Council Packet underscores an open local government process....something that local government may be as the only governmental body accomplishing today! Hope this is of a help,Jim Lynnwood MEMORANDUM. . DATE: February 1,2008 TO: Council Member Bill Gothmann City of Spokane Valley, WA FR: Council President Loren Simmonds City of Lynnwood, WA RE: Telecasting/Web Casting Council Meetings COMMENTS: Thank you for your e-mail dated January 21,2008. My hoped is that my response will be helpful in your deliberations. 1. In what manner does telecasting/web casting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? Lynnwood only provides delayed TV broadcasts of business meetings — not work sessions. The items on the business meeting agenda have all been discussed in work sessions from one to several times. This cuts down discussion time in front of the TV camera. We also encourage Council Members to limit responses to 90 seconds to avoid possible monopoly of time—works most of the time pretty well. 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the telecasting? The discussions have become more issue oriented and fewer personal attacks; more professional and orderly. The Council has to discipline itself and allow the other Members to request"edits"when deemed necessary. Either the Mayor or the Council President is usually the first to speak up if a situation arises. 3. In what manner does telecasting/web casting influence Council—Community Relations? To the best of our knowledge, 25-30% of our citizens watch the delayed video on a regular basis. These folks know the"players" and the"issues" and form the foundation of the voting block in our community. They also serve as informal ambassadors to others in the community—be that positive or negative. The City web site also carries agendas and support documentation for those really interested plus a delayed audio recording of the meetings including the work sessions. This seems to cut down on public information requests. 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley? Our current budget for TV broadcasts is about$15,000 per year. It is worth every penny in my opinion. Please note we only have a weekly local paper in Lynnwood and no radio or TV. Our City newsletter comes out quarterly. Pasco Upon receipt of the survey, Mayor Joyce Olson of Pasco asked me to call her. The following are my notes from our conversation: We have no regrets we spent the money [on televising] . The public expects and demands transparency in government. There was a volunteer citizen who videotaped the entire Council meeting and then gave it to our public TV station to broadcast. However, because Council ran more than two hours and the station only permitted two hours, we found he was editing the media - at times to favor his view. Also, there were a couple of Council members who played to the camera. We decided to have our own camera in a fixed position that showed a panoramic view of the entire Council. This stopped the showboating. However, the disadvantage is that you cannot see the personal expressions of the Council members. It has been a positive change. In the past, some member shot from the hip. Now, you must do your homework and understand the issue. It has eliminated showboating. You have to be polite and courteous. It makes the meetings more productive. More people are now watching the meetings. We are closer to our constituents. New people are seeing the meetings. The biggest issue is cost. We anticipated soapboxing during public comment periods being an issue but it just never happened. There was only one person and we permitted him to make his pitch. We have not had people coming to meetings just so they can be on TV. We have had TV for two years. One individual who regularly attends wants us to ship a large rock to Israel (for world peace) . Now, when he gets up to speak, I ask him if it is about the rock. When he says it is, I tell him the Council has made their decision, and I do not invite him to the podium. --Bill Gothmann Port Orchard From: Michelle Merlino [mmerlino @ci.port-orchard.wa.us] To: Bill Gothmann Subject: Re: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Hi Mr. Gothmann Our Council meetings are currently being broadcast by our local cable channel. I have answered your questions below: 1. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? We have seen no change in the character of the Council discussion. 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the practice of telecasting/webcasting (If you were there when this occurred) ? I attend all City Council meetings, as the City Clerk and have not noted any change in the discussion. 3. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence Council- community relations? Again no noted change has been identified. 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley about webcasting/telecasting? The only comment I can make is we have more citizens attending our meetings. Also because you cannot see the cameras, the Council and audience do not even realize they are being filmed. I hope this answers your questions, please let me know if you have any further questions. Michelle Merlino City Clerk City of Port Orchard Port Townsend Hi Bill I apologize for the delay in my reply, I have been down with the flu. Thank you for asking about our televised meetings. In my opinion there is the good and the bad that comes with being on TV, but that extends to having the media of any form in on meetings. Having the television on them can cause councilors to be circumspect in their comments or on a soap box depending on the character of the councilor. Many councilors will play to the camera. I have been on the council for 6 years and the meetings have been televised for the entire duration (they started in the late 1990's) , so I don't have knowledge of the change (if any) . I believe the community appreciates that the meetings are assessable, though for us we only do local cable programming and not web streaming, which I think is really a must these days. We hope to have that soon along with the ability to search the web streaming by agenda items, with a software program we have researched. Given that we are only on cable that has limited the audience and in fact the number has gone down over the years (what with the proliferation of satellite dishes) . I have seen citizens on several occasions get out of bed or off the couch come down to testify about an item under debate because they saw us on TV- that obviously is the good news! Good Luck with your decision. Open government is always the goal in my opinion. Best, Michelle Sandoval Michelle Sandoval Mayor City of Port Townsend, WA Redmond From: Nancy McCormick [mailto:nmccormi©halcyon.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:55 PM To: Bill Gothmann Cc: Michelle McGehee; Patrick Hirsch Subject: ebcasting Council Meetings Mr. Gothmann, I will be happy to try to answer your questions from my perspective but I have also forwarded your email to the staff member who does the actual work. Redmond has televised our meeting, both regular Council meetings and study sessions since 1996. The first few weeks there was probably some nervousness over"being televised" but Councilmembers and staff quickly got over that and I think it is rare that anyone even thinks about it anymore. The TV cameras are on the wall, so unlike in the beginning, you don't have the cameraman at the back of the room to remind you your every word is going to be on tape. I don't feel that being on live TV has affected our discussions at all; there have been a few times where someone may search for a better word to use that the first thing that came to mind, but overall, being televised has not limited discussion at all. #3 - It is amazing the number of people in the grocery store etc., or especially if you're out doorbelling, when someone will say to you, I know who your are or I saw you on TV last week. I think the having the meeting televised has increased community awareness of issues a great deal. Not that we'd be at the top of the ratings, but a significant number of people do watch. Our meetings are replayed three or four times a week after the initial "live" meeting. In addition, Planning Commission and Arts Commission meetings are also televised. 4. Having the meetings on a tape, provided by the cameraman is nice for those times when someone misses a Council meeting; they can watch the tape and be caught up with their fellow Councilmembers discussion, see what the public might have said under Items from the Audience at the beginning of the meeting. In general, I view having the meetings televised (and webstreamed as of a little over a year ago) a huge plus for our citizens, a very positive experience. Go for it, especially as a newer City. Also, please feel free to contact Patrick Hirsch for any more technical questions you may have, PHIRSCHaREDMOND.GOV I am also forwarding Patrick's email to me. Nancy McCormick Redmond City Councilmember From: Patrick Hirsch To: Nancy McCormick ; Talley Hudson Cc: Jane Christenson Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:47 PM Subject: RE: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings I would be most happy to respond however it appears these questions are directed more towards the possible effects cablecasting may have on councilmember/public relationships and the legislative process in general. Based on my experience in nearly a dozen jurisdictions the net effect is pretty minor as far as the "electeds" are concerned, as the novelty tends to wear off pretty quickly (electioneering aside). As far as public impact, it ebbs and flows with the tenor and scope of the issues but tends to remain a highly valued method for keeping in touch with local government and lends legitimacy to the perception of transparency. Feel free to have Mr. Gothmann or staff to contact me if I can be of assistance. Patrick Richland From: John Fox [jfoxishere @charter.net] To: Bill Gothmann Subject: Re: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Dear Mr. Gothmann, Background: Richland began televising council meetings before I joined the council; I believe it was about 2000 or so, in conjunction with a cable TV franchise agreement which dedicated a channel for use by the city and school district in exchange for an additional fee or tax on cable customers with the proceeds paid into a restricted fund for the city's TV production operation. Our operation funds a staff of 1.7 FTE technicians at a 2007 annual cost of about $150K. We now televise the regular twice monthly council meetings and the monthly meetings of the planning, parks & rec, and utility advisory commissions. In addition, we have a monthly schedule of interviews with council members, senior staff, community events or special interest meetings. Programs are rerun at different hours of the week. Available cultural TV programs are shown in the remaining time to provide a full daytime and evening schedule. Pasco now televises its council meetings, but Kennewick does not. now, to answer your questions. 1. It has made them more civil and less contentious. Members are well aware they are on TV and rather more careful in wording. Staff is more sensitive, though, about criticism or sometimes even raising a lot of questions about a staff recommendation or, say, a street project well behind schedule. 2. I attended some council meetings before TV as a member of the parks and planning commissions, and saw some rude and insulting discussions. At present, we can disagree on particular issues without personalizing them. 3. It's surprising to me how many people watch and comment on it. It increases emails some. A certain segment of the community pays attention to it, though there is some migration to satellite TV now among those viewers. We have some recent requests for showing workshops "where everything is decided, anyway"! 4. I recommend it. It is a positive influence on council member behavior, at least in the meetings and in our community a good connection with those in the public having a serious interest in community affairs. Our meetings are also shown in Kennewick, and I have had comments from people there and even visitors who have seen it in their hotel. . I don't see a downside, except cost. will be interested to hear what you decide. John Fox Sammamish From: Lee Fellinge [mailto:lfellinge @ci.sammamish.wa.us] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:05 PM To: Bill Gothmann Cc: City Council; Ben Yazici; Tim Larson Subject: RE: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Dear Councilmember Gothmann, We initially had concerns that this might change our discussion, but for the most part it has not. I think that most of us forget it is there. The only exception would be close to election time there were some longer comments by some of those running for re-election. I think that televising council meetings is positive for community relations since it provides more openness which increases trust and understanding. We have had a number of comments from citizens who did not realize all the issues we deal with and the complexity of those issues. It also provides an avenue to reach citizens who are not able to attend meetings but are interested in city government. I think it is a plus and would recommend that you give it a try. Best wishes, Lee Fellinge, Mayor City of Sammamish Seatac From: Ralph Shape [mailto:rshape @ci.seatac.wa.us] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 12:44 PM To: Bill Gothmann Subject: RE: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Dear Councilmember Gothmann In answer to your questions: 1. Initially we were quite concerned. We brought in a consultant who told us about dressing properly, sitting up, talking correctly and avoiding side comments. The first meeting we tried all of that but since then we have almost forgotten that the cameras are there. I would say there is almost no influence to Council discussions. 2, We do have one or two Councilmembers who sometimes get carried away and may be playing to the TV audience. But that's all right. Discussions still get heated sometimes. Only rarely have we had to edit out the bad words, but that's all the editing we do. 3. Telecasting has greatly enhanced community relations. I hear from many people how much they enjoy watching the meetings. Many of our citizens are elderly and can't get out so this lets them see what's going on with the city. Many learn the procedures and are more apt to attend meetings to express their concerns. That's all good. The more citizen input the better. 4. We were initially concerned about people coming in to make public comments and using the time for political or commercial uses or just rambling on about anything. We have not had one case of that occuring in the year we have been broadcasting. I would urge any city to do this because the public benefit is so great. We have not yet purchased cameras fora permanent installation. There is a local company which we contract with who comes in each meeting, sets up the cameras, makes the recording and then we play it on our local TV channel. We wanted to see how it worked before making a major purchase and will continue this for another year. I hope this helps. Ralph Shape, Mayor, SeaTac Seattle Dear Council President Conlin: Spokane Valley is considering whether to televise and/or webcast our City Council Meetings. I understand that Seattle provides this service at the present time. I would appreciate your insights in answering the following four questions by replying to this email. Your comments would greatly help us in making this decision. 1. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? I THINK AT FIRST IT WAS A BIT INHIBITING, BUT NOW I THINK IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. IT GIVES A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EVEN IF THERE ARE FEW PEOPLE ACTUALLY IN THE CHAMBERS. 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the practice of telecasting/webcasting (If you were there when this occurred) ? NO 3. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence Council- community relations? IT GIVES PEOPLE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT WE ARE DOING, AND HAS BROUGHT US A LOT OF GOODWILL -- 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley about webcasting/telecasting? I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO FULL STEAM AHEAD -- IT IS A GREAT WAY TO BUILD BETTER CITY-COMMUNITY RELATIONS Spokane From: Shogan, Joe [JShogan@SpokaneCity.org] To: Bill Gothmann Subject: Re: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Bill, in answer to your questions, here is my reply: 1. We hardly notice the fact of telecasting in our debates. 2. I was not on the Council when telecasting started. I suggest you contact Al French or Steve Corker about this. 3. I am confident that telecasting has a positive effect on Community relations by enhancing our contact with the Community and providing actual real-time information to the Community about decisions made by the Council. 4. I suggest that you contact our Channel 5 staff (John Delay at 625- 6355 or Jaye Nordling at 625-6359) for a wealth of information on telecasting. Good luck, Joe Sunnyside [From a councilmember] "I have no problem with what we do and certainly don't let the possibility of someone watching our meetings on the webpage change the way I do my job. Bottom line, a non issue for me. " Tacoma From: Baarsma, Bill [bbaarsma @ci.tacoma.wa.us] To: Bill Gothmann Subject: Re: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Thanks for your communication. I would say that televising our meetings does, in fact, attract what I would characterize as "season ticket holders" to our council meetings. To keep their comments under some control, we have public comment--up to five minutes depending on the number signed up--at the beginning of each council meetings. Once those comments are completed, we consider each resolution and ordinance without additional comments from the public. This was done after some of the regulars would speak on every issue--just to get camera time. Obviously, under these circumstances, elected officials also play to the cameras--from time to time. But despite all of this, I support the televising of the meetings. (On the first Tuesday of every month, after all business is completed we allow for a citizens' forum session where topics not on the agenda and pertinent can be brought to the council's attention. Again, the regulars use this session as well.) We are now broadcasting all of our budget workshops which are presentational discussions involving the manager's budget requests. These are very useful, I believe. There are no public comments during these sessions--although once the budget comes before us, the public can weigh in. We have been televising all council meetings for the past 15 years at least. Webcasting is new and it remains to be seen as to its impact. But the more we get information out there the better, I will put you in contact with out media people for any additional information,Bill Baarsma Tumwater Hi Bill, this is in reply to your 1/21/08 e-mail. Sorry for the delay. We have been broadcasting our regular city council meetings (1st and 3rd Tuesday evenings) for many years now. We do not broadcast subcommittee meetings or council worksessions (worksessions are generally the evening of the 1st Monday of the month; committee meetings typically occur every other week during the day). This has worked well for us. I've had a lot of people come up to me and say they had seen us on TV. Mostly people who would never attend a City Council meeting. So it is working from a community outreach and education perspective. find myself explaining why I'm taking a position on an issue a bit more when I'm aware we are on TV. Mainly because I see it as a teaching opportunity for people who don't follow us closely and want to make sure they understand what we are talking about. Other than that, I don't think it's inhibited us at all (at least not me). If there is really something you'd prefer to discuss off camera, you can arrange to have it discussed first at a council worksession or subcommittee meeting. When we first looked into this, there was some concern the Council wouldn't discuss issues openly or play up to the camera. In general, I haven't seen this as a problem. Certainly not for me. Olympia has had a problem with some fringe community members coming on TV during the public comment period of the council meetings to read the bible and do stuff like that. They had to put a time limit on public comment to control that. Fortunately, we have not had that problem. We do not use makeup or anything. I believe some councils do. I do tend to dress up a bit more and shave before an evening meeting (avoid the 5 o'clock shadow effect) since I know we are on TV and should look professional. We started out with only one meeting a month being televised and cameras on tripods being brought in. Kind of a trial basis. Once we realized it didn't create a problem,we invested in permanent cameras and some lighting. That makes it less intrusive but isn't necessary. The public TV station has a truck they park outside City hall to connect to and control the cameras. Olympia has a broadcast booth in the back of their counil chambers but again you don't need that to get started. Eventually, we may install a control booth. I'd certainly encourage you to consider broadcasting meetings. I think it has helped us connect with our community. Hope that is helpful. Pete Kmet Tumwater City Council Vancouver From: Pollard, Royce [mailto:Royce.Pollard @ci.vancouver.wa.us] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 4:23 PM To: Bill Gothmann Subject: FW: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Dear Councilmember Gothmann, Thanks for your inquiry about televising City Council meetings. I wasn't here when we began televising meetings so have consulted with our staff about our history and our experience. I hope these thoughts will be of help to you. We have been televising our Council meetings since 1984 on our local government cable channel, CVTV. We began televising our pre-council workshop sessions in approximately 1991. We added webcasting of all of our CVTV programming in the fall of 2005. (You can view our council meetings or any of our programming by going to www.cvtv.orq) We have always seen the televising of our meetings, and now the webcasting, as an extension of the public meetings process.. a window on local government. Initially I am told, televising the meetings prompted a more professional demeanor by all Councilmembers.(Prior to 1984 Councilmembers routinely smoked during council meetings and at least two members would knit or do needlework during sessions. That all stopped when the meetings were televised although nothing was ever said!) There was concern at the time that televising the meetings would encourage more people to run against incumbents (which is not a bad thing!), however, we have seen no increase or decrease in the number of people who run for City Council. We have a time for citizen communications at the beginning of council meetings where people can talk about any topic that is not related to an agenda item. There are some people who use this time to get their message"out to the public" because the meetings are televised, but this has not been a huge issue. Plus, we limit these comments to 3 minutes per person. There are times that I feel some council members have"played to the cameras" through the years, but we need to remember if something is appropriate or not appropriate to do because a meeting is being televised, it would be appropriate (better explanation of staff reports, for example) or not appropriate (side conversations that are not conducted in public) if the meeting were not being televised. Televising our meetings is how we do business in Vancouver and it is an accepted and expected part of the culture of our community. At any given time, our surveys indicated that at least a quarter of our cable subscribers watch and depend on Council meetings being televised. It makes the process of government easier to understand for the average citizen and makes government more accessible. Adding the webcasting feature has only made local government that more accessible for non-cable subscribers. Believe me, when there is an occasional problem with a computer server and folks miss a webcast, we hear about it! Perhaps one of the best testimonials for the value of televising public meetings for the public is the fact the Port of Vancouver began televising their commission meetings last year through a contract with CVTV. Commissioners were concerned that televising the meetings would interfere with the informal nature of their meetings. Yes, some of that informality is gone, but the value to the community far outweighs any inconvenience to staff or the Commissioners, and they are now vocal advocates for televising their meetings. As you can tell, I am a huge advocate for televising our meetings as a way to better connect with our community. Our citizens would tell you the same. I hope that these thoughts have been of help to you. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have more questions, or feel free to contact Donna Mason, our Media Services/Cable TV Director, who has overseen CVTV since it began. Royce Woodinville Dear Mayor Hageman: Spokane Valley is considering whether to televise and/or webcast our City Council Meetings. I understand that Woodinville provides this service at the present time. I would appreciate your insights in answering the following four questions by replying to this email. Your comments would greatly help us in making this decision. 1. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence the character of Council discussions, if at all? It does not seem to influence the character of council discussions to any great degree. There may be the occasional councilmember who may grandstand or the occasional citizen who may be trying to play to the larger audience, but in general, the cameras fade into the background and business gets done in the usual fashion. 2. Did you note any change in the discussion after your city started the practice of telecasting/webcasting (If you were there when this occurred) ? One councilmember who was new to the council seemed to be playing to the camera at times, but his behavior was an anomaly. With the council members who were on the council before the telecast, I did not notice any significant change in their behavior or the discussions. Yes, I have been on the council since before we implemented this technology and was very supportive in getting it to happen. 3. In what manner does telecasting/webcasting influence Council- community relations? I think the influence is a positive one. There may be a bit less intellectual risk taking or throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks during council discussions as some members don't want to get sound bit as a community member may only tune in for a few minutes of a discussion. However, our community has been very receptive to it and appreciates that we are doing it for their convenience. It has been a benefit to help us educate our citizens to the process of their government. I would endorse it for council meetings at all levels of government. If you do it, you will be surprised to find how many citizens will tune in to it. I know I was. 4. Do you have any further comments or advice for Spokane Valley about webcasting/telecasting? It is not an easy process to implement, but with a substantial amount of funding from Comcast, it was not expensive for our city. Best wishes, Scott Yakima From: Edler, Dave [dedler @ci.yakima.wa.us] To: Bill Gothmann Subject: Re: Telecasting/Webcasting Council Meetings Bill, We have been telecasting our meetings the entire time that I have served on our council. It has been a valuable tool for our community. It allows citizens to see what is happening in our city and provides an opportunity for us as a council to cast vision as to where we are going. The only down side that I see is that there are times when individual members use the "spot light" to push a personal agenda. All in all it has been a great asset. Dave The following data is based upon the six-year forecasts presented in late 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. It plots the estimated carry- over for each of the four years. It is presented to get and idea of the "trend of the trends." Bill Gothmann 12-6-09 20 - - Carryover Forecast Trends 15 -- 10 C 0 2006 5 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 111 201- 201 2014 _5 •2007 - 2003 -10 -2009 -15 -20 --- - -25 - I July 28, 2006 estimate: City of Spokane Valley Multiyear Financial Plan-General Fund-Problem Statement#1 7/28/2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate General Fund Revenues: Sales Tax $ 17,340,000 $ 17,686.800 $ 18,040,536 $ 18,401,347 x $ 17,600,000 $17,952,000 Property Tax $ 8,281,000 $ 9,125,000 $ 9,316,250 $ 9,509,413 $ 9,704,507 $ 9,901,552 Gambling Tax $ 910,000 $ 910,000 $ 910,000 $ 925,000 $ 925,000 $ 925,000 Franchise Fees/Bus.Reg. $ 717,000 S 724,170 $ 731,412 $ 738,726 $ 746,113 $ 753,574 State Shared Revenues $ 1,121,000 $ 1,121,000 $ 1,149,025 $ 1,177,751 $ 1,207,195 $ 1,237,375 Service Fees $ 1,450,000 S 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 Fines&Forfeitures $ 1,250,000 S 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,300,000 Recreation Program Fees $ 345,516 $ 408,000 $ 412,080 $ 416,201 $ 420,363 $ 424,566 Interfund Transfers $ 80,000 S 85,600 $ 90,736 $ 96,180 $ 101,951 $ 108,068 Investment Interest $ 259,000 S 250,000 $ 252,500 $ 255,025 $ 257,575 $ 266,621 Carryover from prior yr $ 7,000,000 S 2,526,281 $ 4,189,998 $ 5,074,190 $ 4,405,166 $ 818,753 Total General Fund $ 38,753,516 $ 35.686,851 $ 37,942.537 $ 39,443,833 $ 38,217.870 $35,287,510 General Fund Expenditures: Legislative $ 304,267 S 242,393 $ 259,361 $ 277,516 $ 296,942 $ 317,728 Executive&Legislative $ 470,105 $ 535,721 $ 573,221 $ 613,347 $ 656,281 $ 702,221 Public Safety $ 17,173.000 S 18,256,400 $ 19,716,912 $ 21,294,265 $ 22,997,806 $24,837,631 Deputy City Manager $ 519,000 $ 519,212 $ 555,557 $ 594,446 $ 636,057 $ 680,581 Finance $ 516,895 $ 782,652 $ 837,438 $ 887,684 $ 949,822 $ 1,016,309 Legal $ 263,750 $ 344,933 $ 369,078 $ 391,223 $ 418,609 $ 447,911 Human Resources $ 161,120 $ 165,944 $ 177,560 $ 188,214 $ 201,389 $ 215,486 • Public Works $ 980,192 $ 1,142.887 $ 1,222,889 $ 1,296,262 $ 1,387,001 $ 1,484,091 Planning $ 1,195,000 $ 999,967 $ 1,069,965 $ 1,134,163 $ 1,213,554 $ 1,298,503 Building $ 1.040,892 S 1,296,209 $ 1,386,944 $ 1,470,160 $ 1,573,071 $ 1,683,186 Parks Admin $ 847,703 $ 979,509 $ 1,048,075 $ 1,110,959 $ 1,188,726 $ 1,271,937 Recreation $ 199,475 S 242,947 $ 259,953 $ 275,550 $ 294,839 $ 315,478 Aquatics $ 299,921 S 259,450 $ 277,612 $ 294,268 $ 314,867 $ 336,908 Senior Center $ 69,269 $ 75,301 $ 80,572 $ 85,406 $ 91,385 $ 97,782 CenterPlace $ 438,298 S 498,328 $ 533,211 $ 565,204 $ 604,768 $ 647,102 Transfer to Street Fund $ 2,000,000 S 900.000 $ 900,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 400,000 Transfer to Capital $ 750,000 $ 410,000 $ - $ 360,000 $ - $ - Transfer to Civic Facilities $ 600.000 S 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Library $ $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Transfer to Serv.Level $ 2,105,000 S 200.000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 General Government $ 2,500,000 $ 3.025,000 $ 2,800,000 $ 2.900,000 $ 3,274,000 $ 3,380,000 Total General Fund 32,433,887 31,496,853 32,868.347 35,038.667 37.399.116 39.932,853 Carryover to next yr 1,319,629 4.189,998 5.074.190 4.405,166 818.753 (4,645,343) Less Constant fund bal. $ 5,000,000 Sept. 26, 2007 estimate: City of Spokane Valley Multiyear Financial Plan-General Fund-Problem Statement#1 Preliminary 9126/2007 9/26/2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate General Fund Revenues: Sales Tax $ 18,631,000 $ 19,003,620 $ 19,383,692 x $ 18,600,000 5 18,972,000 S 19,351,440 $ 19,738,469 Property Tax $ 9,650,000 $ 10,300,000 $ 10,503,000 $ 10,708,030 S 10,915,110 $ 11,124,261 $ 11,335,504 Gambling Tax $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 S 600,000 S 600,000 $ 600,000 • Franchise Fees/Bus.Reg. $ 875,000 $ 883,750 $ 892,588 $ 901,514 S 910,529 S 919,634 $ 928,830 State Shared Revenues $ 1,222,000 $ 1,252,550 $ 1,283,864 $ 1,315,961 5 1,348,860 5 1,382,582 $ 1,417,147 Service Fees $ 1,900,000 5 1,900,000 S 1,900,000 $ 1,900,000 5 1,900,000 5 1,900,000 $ 1,900,000 Fines&Forfeitures 5 1,315,000 S 1,315,000 $ 1,315,000 $ 1,315,000 S 1,300,000 5 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 Recreation Program Fees 5 450,000 $ 475,000 $ 479,750 5 484,548 5 489,393 5 494,287 $ 499,230 lnterfund Transfers $ 80,000 $ 84,800 $ 69,888 $ 95,281 5 100,998 5 107,058 $ 113,482 Investment Interest $ 680,000 $ 686,800 5 693,668 $ 700,605 S 707,611 S 714,687 $ 721,834 Carryover from prioryr $ 7,000,000 $ 1,892,363 $ 5,688,845 5 8,107,940 5 7,317,621 $ 4,288,612 $ (1,077,601) Total General Fund $ 42,403,000 $ 38,393,903 $ 42,830,295 $ 44,728,879 5 44,562,122 $ 42,182,561 $ 37,476,894 General Fund Expenditures: Legislative $ 296,393 $ 319,991 $ 345,590 $ 373,238 S 403,097 S 435,344 $ 470,172 Executive&Legislative $ 546,921 $ 997,076 5 1,076,842 $ 1,162989 $ 1,256,029 5 1,356,511 $ 1,465,032 Public Safety $ 18,256,400 $ 19,297,300 $ 20,841,084 $ 22,508,371 $ 24,309,040 $ 26,253,764 5 28,354,065 Deputy City Manager $ 522,012 S 627,178 $ 677,352 $ 731,540 5 790,064 S 853,269 $ 921,530 Finance S 782,652 5 824,249 $ 890,189 $ 961,404 5 1,038,316 $ 1,121,382 $ 1,211;092 Legal $ 369,933 above Human Resources $ 165,944 5 204,280 $ 220,622 $ 238,272 5 257,334 5 277,921 5 300,154 Public Works $ 1,476,000 $ 789,437 $ 852,592 $ 920,799 5 994,463 $ 1,074,020 $ 1,159,942 Corn.Dee. $ 2,493,276 below Dev.Services $ 2,627,960 $ 2,838,197 $ 3,065,253 $ 3,310,473 5 3,575,311 $ 3,861,335 Long Range Plan. $ 696,322 S 752,028 6 812,190 S 877,165 S 947,338 $ 1,023,125 Code Enf. $ 238,857 $ 257,966 $ 278,603 S 300,891 S 3_24,962 $ 350,959 Library $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Parks Admin 5 905,309 $ 929,535 $ 1,003,898 $ 1,084,210 S 1,170,946 $ 1,264,622 $ 1,365,792 Recreation $ 242,947 5 211,549 5 228,473 5 246,751 5 266,491 $ 287,810 $ 310,635 Aquatics S 259,450 $ 351,150 5 379,242 $ 409,581 5 442,348 $ 477,736 $ 515,955 Senior Center 5 76,201 $ 90,955 5 98,231 5 106,090 5 114,577 S 123,743 3 133643 CenterPlace $ 603,179 $ 1,061,231 $ 1,146,129 $ 1,237,820 5 1,336,845 $ 1,443,793 3 1,559,297 Transfer to Capital 5 410,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Transfer to Street Fund $ 900.000 S - $ - Purchase of Precinct $ 880,000 S - $ - Transfer to Civic Facilities $ 2,906,000 5 - $ - $ - 5 - $ - 5 - City Buildings Depreciation $ 397,000 Transfer to Serv.Level 5 361,000 $ - 5 - $ - $ - 5 - $ - General Government 5 2,640,000 5 3,397,988 $ 3,093,920 5 3,254,147 5 3,385.431 5 3,422,636 $ 3,588.370 Total General Fund 35,510,617 32,705.058 34,722,356 37,411,257 40,273,510 S 43,260,162 5 46,611,298 Less constant tuna bat. (5,000,000) Carryover to nextyr 1,892,383 5,688,845 8,107,940 7,317,621 4,288,612 (1,077.601) 19,134,403) x Law ent.Sales tax ends.after 2009 ^SST affect unknown 1 August 4, 2008 estimate: City of Spokane Valley Multiyear Financial Plan-General Fund-Problem Statement#1 8-4-08 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate General Fund Revenues: Sales Tax S 19,380,000 x 5 19,380,000 5 18,500,000 3 18,870,000 5 19,247,400 5 19,632,348 $ 20,024,995 Property Tax 5 10,000.000 5 10,675,000 5 10,881,750 5 11,090,568 $ 11,301,474 $ 11,514,489 5 11,527,503 Gambling Tax 5 525,000 5 525,000 5 525,000 $ 525,000 5 525,000 $ 525.000 $ 525,000 Franchise Fees/Bus.Reg. 5 955,000 S 964,550 $ 974,196 5 983,938 5 993.777 $ 1,003,715 5 1,013,752 State Shared Revenues S 1,222,000 S 1,252,550 5 1,283,864 $ 1,315,961 $ 1,348,860 $ 1,382,582 5 1,417,147 Service Fees 5 1,950,000 5 1,965,000 $ 1,950,000 $ 1,965,000 $ 1,965,000 $ 1,900,000 5 1.900,000 Pines&Forfeitures 5 1,300,000 $ 1,300.000 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 5 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000 Recreation Program Fees $ 507,000 5 512,070 $ 517,191 $ 522,363 5 527,586 $ 532,862 $ 538,191 Interfund Transfers $ 165,000 5 174,900 $ 185,394 $ 196,518 $ 208,309 $ 220,807 $ 234,056 Investment Int.&Misc. $ 414,100 5 418,241 $ 422,423 $ 426,647 $ 430,913 $ 435,222 $ 439.574 Carryover from prior yr $ 13.523,612 5 12,166,644 5 13,247,561 S 12,429,028 S 10,474,185 $ 5,918,791 S (1,430,194) Total General Fund $ 49,941,712 S 49,333.955 $ 49,787,379 S 49.625,023 $ 48,322,504 $ 44.365,816 $ 37,490,023 General Fund Expenditures: Legislative $ 319,991 5 330,900 $ 357,372 $ 385,962 $ 416,839 $ 450,186 $ 450,186 Executive&Legislative $ 997,076 5 1,033,321 5 1,115,987 $ 1,205,266 $ 1,301,687 5 1,405,822 $ 1,405,822 Public Safety $ 19,297.300 5 20,841,084 5 22,508,371 5 24,309,040 5 26,253,764 $ 28,354,065 $ 28,354,065 Deputy City Manager 5 627,178 $ 661,420 $ 714,334 $ 771,480 $ 833,199 5 899,855 $ 899,855 Finance 3 824,249 5 878,437 $ 948,712 S 1,024,609 $ 1,106,578 S 1,195,104 $ 1,195,104 Human Resources 5 204,280 $ 236,285 $ 255,188 $ 275,603 $ 297,651 5 321,463 5 321,463 Public Works 5 789,437 $ 817,068 $ 882,433 5 953,028 $ 1,029,270 $ 1,111,612 5 1,111,612 Dev.Engineering 5 2,627,960 $ 870,199 $ 939,815 $ 1,015,000 $ 1,096,200 $ 1,183,896 $ 1,183,896 Planning $ 696,322 $ 1,393,427 $ 1,504,901 $ 1,625,293 $ 1,755,317 $ 1,895,742 5 1,895,742 Building $ 238,857 $ 1,325,213 $ 1,431,230 5 300,891 5 324,962 $ 350,959 $ 379,036 Parks Admin $ 929,535 $ 956,933 $ 1,033,488 3 1,116,167 5 1,205,460 $ 1.301,897 $ 1,301,897 Recreation $ 211.549 $ 232,187 $ 250,762 $ 270,823 S 292,489 $ 315,888 5 315,888 Aquatics $ 351,150 5 403,616 $ 435,905 $ 470,778 5 508,440 3 549,115 $ 549,115 Senior Center $ 90,955 $ 94,194 5 101,730 5 109,868 5 118,657 $ 128,150 $ 128,150 CenterPlace $ 1,061,231 $ 1,125,110 $ 1,215,119 $ 1,312,328 5 1,417,315 $ 1,530.700 $ 1,530,700 Transfer to Capital $ 70,000 $ 20,000 5 20,000 $ 70,000 5 120,000 $ 129.600 5 120,000 Inc.Bus.Plans $ - S - 5 393,005 $ 424,702 $ 535,087 $ 577,894 $ 700,000 General Government $ 3,437,998 ` 5 4,867,000 $ 3,250,000 3 3,510,000 5 3,790,800 $ 4,094,064 $ 4,094,064 Total General Fund 32,775,068 36,086,394 37,358,351 39,150,838 $ 42,403,713 $ 45.796.010 S 45,936.593 Net 17,166,644 13,247,561 12,429,028 10,474,185 5,918.791 (1,430,194) (8,446,570) Less cash flow reserve (5,000,000) Carryover to next yr 12,166,644 13,247,561 12,429,028 10.474.185 5,918.791 (1.430.194) (8,446.570) x Law enforcement sales tax ends after 2009 Oct. 15, 2009 Estimate: City of Spokane Valley Multiyear Financial forecast-General Fund-Problem Statement#1 " 10-15-09 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Estimate Estimate Estim te Estimate Estim te Estimate General Fund Revenues: Sales Tax $ 15,900,000 $ 16,600,000 5 16,600,000 S 16,600,000 $ 16,600,000 $ 16,600,000 Property Tax $ 10,675,000 $ 10,969,500 $ 11.000,000 5 11,000.000 $ 11,000,000 S 11,000,000 Gambling Tax $ 525,000 $ 425,000 $ 425,000 S 425,000 $ 425,000 $ 425,000 Franchise Fees/Bus.Reg. $ 1,000,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,111,000 S 1,122,110 $ 1,144,664 $ 1,156,111 State Shared Revenues $ 1,400,000 $ 1,450,000 $ 1,486,250 S 1,523,406 $ 1,600,528 $ 1,640,541 Service Fees $ 1,800,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 Fines&Forfeitures $ 1,700,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 Recreation Program Fees $ 525,000 $ 650,000 $ 656,500 S 670,000 $ 683,467 $ 690,302 Intertund Transfers $ 165,000 $ 160,000 $ 165,000 S 165,000 $ 170,000 $ 170,000 Repayment from St.fund $ - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 S 150,000 $ - $ - Investment Int.&Misc. $ 450,000 $ 561,350 $ 425,000 S 425,000 $ 425,000 $ 425,000 Carryover from prior yr $ 21,000,000 $ 14,375,606 $ 13,600,419 S 9,789,250 $ 2,806,453 $ (7,583,058) Total General Fund $ 55,140,000 $ 49,541.456 $ 48,719,169 $ 44,969,766 $ 38.055,112 $ 27,723,896 General Fund Expenditures: Legislative 5 330.900 $ 322.120 $ 347,890 $ 375,721 $ 405,778 5 438,241 Executive&Legislative $ 1,033,321 $ 1,063,842 5 1,148,949 S 1,240,865 $ 1,340,135 $ 1,447,345 Public Safety $ 20,841,084 $ 22,062,268 $ 23,827,249 S 25,733,429 $ 27,792,104 $ 30,015,472 Deputy City Manager $ 661,420 $ 620,574 $ 670,220 S 723,838 $ 781,745 5 844,284 Finance $ 878,437 $ 1,023,373 $ 1,105,243 S 1,193,662 S 1,289,155 $ 1,392,288 Human Resources 5 236,285 $ 248,435 $ 268,310 5 289,775 $ 312,957 $ 337,993 Public Works $ 817,068 $ 893,793 5 965,296 S 1,042,520 $ 1,125,922 $ 1,215,996 Dev.Engineering $ 870,199 $ 791,719 5 855,057 S 923,461 $ 997,338 $ 1,077,125 Planning $ 1,393,427 $ 1,447,411 $ 1,563,204 S 1,688,260 $ 1,823,321 $ 1.969,187 Building $ 1.325,213 $ 1,313,320 $ 1,418,386 S 1,531,856 $ 1,786,757 $ 1,929,698 ParksAdmin $ 956,933 $ 987,556 $ 1,066,560 S 1,151,885 $ 1,244,036 $ 1,343,559 Recreation $ 232,187 $ 237,846 $ 256,874 S 277.424 $ 299,617 $ 323,587 Aquatics $ 403,616 $ 422,550 $ 456,354 S 492,862 $ 532,291 $ 574,875 Senior Center 5 94,194 $ 85.503 $ 92,343 5 99,731 $ 107,709 S 116,326 Library Services $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CenterPlace $ 1,125,110 $ 1,192,578 $ 1,287,984 S 1,391,023 $ 1,502,305 $ 1,622,489 Transfer to Capital $ 123,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 5 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Inc.Bus.Plans $ - $ - $ 425,000 $ 535.000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 General Government $ 4,422,000 $ 3,128,149 $ 3.075,000 S 3,372,000 $ 3,497,000 $ 3,734,000 Total General Fund 35,764,394 35,941,037 38,929.919 $ 42,163,313 $ 45.638,170 $ 49,182,464 Net 19,375,606 13,600,419 9,789.250 2,806,453 (7,583,058) (21,458,567) Less cash flow reserve (5,000.000) Carryover to next yr 14,375,606 13,600,419 9,789,250 2,606,453 (7,583,058) (21,458,567) +initiative 1033? -city usually spends less than budget *This forecast is a diagnostic tool for strategic planning purposes rather than an estimated spending plan. City of Spokane V-"-v Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (SVCP) lays out a vision for the future of Spokane Valley during a 20-year period and responds to the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 and subsequent amendments. The SVCP is also consistent with and incorporates the Spokane County Countywide Planning Policies (CVVPPs). The Spokane Valley City Council and Planning Commission held a series of joint workshops in the spring of 2004. The objective of these joint workshops was to draft a Vision Statement for Spokane Valley which forms the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. The resulting Vision Statement is: Spokane Valley: "A community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and businesses can flourish and prosper." In the Summer of 2005, the City Council adopted a series of core values designed to guide policy decisions in the City. Those core values are: Community Identity and Pride. Spokane Valley promotes an environment that supports the home and family, and job and education opportunities. Highlight areas: • A friendly, wholesome, safe place to live and raise a family; • A City Center and economically healthy, diverse downtown area; • Preservation of neighborhoods. Focus on the Future. Spokane Valley is a visionary city encouraging its citizens and their government to look to the future beyond the present generation, and to bring such ideas to public discussion, enhancing a sense of community identity. Highlight areas: • A balanced approach to growth and development; • Stewardship of land and resources, such as parks, recreation and natural areas; • Preservation and growth of the economic and commercial job base of the community. Open, Collaborative Government. Spokane Valley values a "user-friendly" government, in which governance practices and general operations consider how citizens will be served in the most responsive, effective and courteous manner. Highlight areas: • Citizen participation in the decision-making process; • Strategic use of public/private and other partnerships; • A Can-Do attitude on the part of City employees, and fair and consistent interpretation and implementation of regulations. This chapter gives an overview of the comprehensive planning effort, profiles Spokane Valley's past and present, and concludes with a discussion of Spokane Valley's vision for its future. • Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 7-31-2008) Chapter 1 -Introduction Page 1 of 8 City Philosophy • Contracting Approach to City Services • Key Value — Customer Service • Best Practices • Sustainability • Strategic Financial Plan • Business Plan e December 09 Pi:. e 34 �"-fir 1' sr �.. �K;�:: it1:��!y.:.•.. ■ Customer Service . • • The rinci les guiding our customer p p service hiloso h p pyar e ❑ Integrity ❑ Respect . o Responsiveness `, ecember 09 31 Customer Service Definition Customer Service Key Statement: The City of Spokane Valley strives to provide service in a respectful, knowledgeable and welcoming manner. Key Definitions: Respectful ❑ Demonstrating courtesy and professionalism ❑ Listening effectively ❑ Responding in a timely manner ❑ Exemplifying a "no surprises" atmosphere Knowledgeable ❑ Fostering a team-oriented approach ❑ Providing alternatives ❑ Anticipating questions ❑ Having and knowing your resources ❑ Being organized Welcoming ❑ Acknowledging customers when they enter ❑ Steering customers in the right direction ❑ Promoting an enjoyable work environment ❑ Maintaining a clean and uncluttered work environment ❑ Treating people as individuals December 09 32 1111. , 1 . y ."':v•.,:7• . Customer Care ■ As employees of the City of Spokane Valley we need not labor under a cloud of uncertainty about the quality of customer care expected of us. Rather, the City Council has set the tone whereby citizens will encounter respectful, informative and responsive treatment when they do business with their local • government. To that end, the following guidelines should help orient our thinking and behavior toward genuine customer care. ❑ Listen and seek to understand what customers are telling us. ❑ In the Gong-term, our way of interacting with customers is just as important as any transaction between us. ❑ Let's not take our "bad hair day" out on anyone we serve. ❑ When we are feeling out-of-sorts due to illness and it impairs our ability to behave appropriately, let's do a good deed for ourselves and our customers by getting well at home. ❑ Help generate an understanding of our inquisitiveness by letting customers know how they benefit from the information we ask them for. ❑ Act proactively by giving customers what they need, which may be different than what they asked for. ❑ If you can predict that customers will have difficulty navigating a governmental process or procedure, be their navigator. ❑ If your customer is having trouble understanding and completing city paperwork, offer to work on it with them. ❑ Let us not shift the responsibility for quality service to others; give it your best before personally connecting th...,i with whomever may be of further assistance. ❑ If you are doing things that make you feel like a "bureaucrat," ask for your supervisor's help in improving the process or procedure. ❑ Tell and teach your co-workers about the customer care successes you achieve. ❑ SMILE. A lot! December 09 33 Ratings of City Employees (Among Those Who Had Contact) Positi"° Knowledge 34% 16% 87% Responsiveness 43% 13% 11 ° 89% Courtesy 38% 11 % 111 % 89% Overall impression 36% 14% 15% 85% I I I 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents who had contact with an employee in previous 12 months Excellent Good Fair Poor