The URL can be used to link to this page

2011, 10-18 Study Session AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, October 18,2011 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL 1.Mark Calhoun 2011 Budget Amendment Discussion/Information 2.Mike Stone Gateway Signage and Identity Discussion/Information 3.Mike Stone Car Shows Discussion/Information 4.Neil Kersten/Mike Stone Old Milwaukee Right-of-way Discussion/Information 5. Inga Note School Beacon Grant Opportunity Discussion/Information 6. Inga Note Speed Limits Discussion/Information 7.Neil Kersten Solid Waste Update Discussion/Information 8. Scott Kuhta/Neil Kersten Community Development Block Grant Discussion/Information (CDBG)Project Ideas 9.John Hohman Code Compliance Report Discussion/Information 10.John Hohman/Lori Barlow Sign Code Review Discussion/Information 11.Mike Jackson Revised Draft Legislative Agenda Discussion/Information 12.Mike Jackson/Mark Calhoun Streamlined Sales Tax Discussion/Information 13. Cary Driskell Helmet Safety Discussion/Information 14.Mayor Towey Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 15. Information Only (will not be discussed or reported): (a)Interstate Signing (b)Site Selector Update (c) Wastewater Fees 16.Mayor Towey Council Check in Discussion/Information 17.Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Note: Unless otherwise noted above,there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However,Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council,the Council reserves the right to take "action" on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term "action"means to deliberate,discuss,review,consider,evaluate,or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Study Session Agenda,October 18,2011 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information X admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed 2011 Budget Amendment. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: In order for the City to am end an adop ted bud get, State I aw requires the Council to approve an ordinance. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The Council last took formal action on the 2011 Budget when it was adopted on October 12, 2010. BACKGROUND: The City's 2011 Budget development process began in the early summer of 2010 and this budget was ultimately adopted via Ordinance#10-022 on October 12, 2010 (12 months ago). At the time the budget was prepared it was done so with the best information we had available at the time, but at this point we have the benefit of hindsight. The proposed 2011 Budget amendment reflects t hose changes that have occurred through the normal course of operations and affects a number of funds. Revenues are amended upward a total of $2,812,681 across 7 funds, and expenditures are amended upward $2,901,919 across 9 funds. Revenue Expenditure Fund Fund Increase Increase No. Name (Decrease) (Decrease) 001 General Fund 355,000 730,681 101 Street O&M 698,000 1,443,300 102 Arterial Street 0 58,019 302 Special Capital Projects 0 180,000 307 Capital Grants 150,000 150,129 308 Barker Bridge 150,000 150,000 309 Parks Capital Projects 0 (220,000) 311 Street Capital Improvements 2011+ 584,681 (500,000) 402 Stormwater 375,000 909,790 403 Aquifer Protection Area 500,000 0 2,812,681 2,901,919 OPTIONS: Options are to accept the proposed amendments in whole or in-part. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff seek Council consensus to move forward with amendments to the 2011 Budget as presented. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There a re adeq uate funds av ailable t o pay f or these amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: Fund level line-item detail of revenues and expenditures. P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Weblagendapacket 10-18-111item 1 budget amendment for 2011.docx 11SV-FS21UserslmcalhounlBudgets120111Amendment\amendment no 1 detail 2011 10 18 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 10/10/2011 2011 Budget Budget Amendment Requests ! s 1 Requested Account Description Justification 11 Amendment;; #001 General Fund. Expenditures Interfund transfers out-#311 40% of fund balance greater than $26mm 584,681 Capital outlay Purchase building permit software 146,000 Total expenditures = 730,681 Revenues Gambling tax revised estimate 175,000 Franchise fee/ Business Registrations revised estimate 150,000 State shared revenues revised estimate 30,000 Total revenues 355,000 #101 Street"O&M Fund Expenditures Interfund transfers out-#402 Pay for 1/2 of Shop facility with Storm 375,000 Capital outlay Snow plow acquisition 200,000 Capital outlay Grant financed projects 868,300 1Totai expenditures 1,443,30.0 1 Revenues EECB Grant Grant financed projects 443,000 CDB Grant Grant financed projects 88,800 interfund transfers in -#402 Grant financed projects 159,800 Miscellaneous Avista Rebate on LED Replace Proj 6,400 1Total revenues; 698,000;; #102 -Arterial:Street Fund Expenditures Interfund transfers out 1 Street O&M Close-out fund balance 58,019 Total expenditures 58,019- #302 -Special Capital Projects Fund Expenditures interfund transfers out-#307 Proj. #088 Broadway-Moore to Flora 30,000 Interfund transfers out-#308 Barker Bridge 150,000 ;Total expenditures ;7.80,000, Page 1 of 3 11 SV-FS21UserslmcalhounlBudgets12011 IAmendmentlamendment no 1 detail 2011 10 18 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 10/10/2011 2011 Budget Budget Amendment Requests Requested' Account Description 9 Justification. l : Amendment #307 'Capital.Grants Fund Expenditures . Capital outlay Proj. #088 Broadway -Moore to Flora 150,000 Miscellaneous close out fund 129 [Total;expenditures 750,129'; Revenues Grant proceeds Proj. #088 Broadway-Moore to Flora 120,000 Interfund transfers in -#302 Proj. #088 Broadway- Moore to Flora 30,000 [Total:revenues 1,50,0.00;s #308 -Barker Bridge Fund;. Expenditures Capital outlay Needed to complete project 150,000 Total expenditures 1;50,OOQ=E Revenues Interfund transfers in -#302 Needed to complete project 150,000 Total revenues 150,000 #309 . Parks,.Capital;Pro�ects Fund Expenditures Capital outlay $320k contingency not necessary (220,000) Total expenditures (220 000) #311 .::StreetCapital Improvements 20+17+ Expenditures Capital outlay Reappropriate to 2012 (500,000) !Total expenditures (500,000) Revenues Interfund transfers in -#001 40% of fund balance greater than $26mm 584,681 [Total:revenues 684,681;', Page 2 of 3 11 SV-FS21Userslmcalhounl Budgets120111Amendmentlamendment no I detail 2011 10 18 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 10/10/2011 2011 Budget Budget Amendment Requests '"Requestedz Account Descrip#ion " ` Justification Amendment #402 ',Stormwater Fund Expenditures Capital outlay Acquire and set-up shop facility 750,000 Interfund transfesr out-#101 Broadway Ave. resurfacing-sw element 159,790 �Totai;expenditures 909,790, Revenues Interfund transfers in -#101 Pay for 1/2 of Shop facility from Street om 375,000 Total revenues` 375,000 #403'-.Aquifer Protection""A.'rea. Revenues APA Fee collected by Spokane County 500,000 �Tota1 revenues; ':500,000.;.= Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Gateway Signage and Identity Development GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The City Council has reviewed several signage option concepts for potential entry signs. The Council asked that a citizen's survey be set up to solicit input from citizens on the various signage concepts. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has been in existence since 2003. There is a growing interest in establishing a City of Spokane Valley identity recognizable by our citizens. The City Council is interested in exploring potential signage options for a variety of City uses. The Parks & Recreation Department presented several signage concepts for the City Council's review and comments in July. Since then a citizen's survey was set up to allow citizens to vote for their favorite sign. OPTIONS: Select signage option OR provide additional direction to staff RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council Direction BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Once a sign is selected there will be a budget impact cost to construct, install and maintain the sign. STAFF CONTACT: Michael D. Stone, Director of Parks and Recreation ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation GATEWAY SIGNAGE AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT POKANE VALL MT• LA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING WWW.MY-LA.COM CONCEPT #1 - CORTEN STEEL SIGN WITH TIMBERS AND COBBLESTONE COLUMNS rr 4'6" 3 0 J Spokane �, Va 1 lc� ■r�,�1"1 s; c� r ` * { 111dr-T:_! .°J rim +ice Ls w� ars 15'-0" prow ylpp agrallrimit This two sided sign includes two Corten Steel panels be mounted on wood beams, centered between cobblestone columns. This sign could be located where two sign faces are required and includes a built in planter area for season color. Brushed aluminum letters would contrast with the dark Corten Steel to provide highly visible text. The city's logo would provide the text for this sign option and the steel reflects the form of the city's iconic logo. This sign can be scaled to down to approximately 5' in length by 3' tall for a city park or city facility sign. The logo could be reduced in size with the park or facility name installed below the logo. The masonry planter could be removed and landscaping installed around the base. Concept#1-Corten Steel Sign with Tibers and Cobblestone Veneer Columns Material Amount Unit Unit Cost Estimated Cost Metal work Cobblestone Base with Cap Concrete Column with Cap 1 45 2 45 1 1 1 85 1 allow sf Per Each Square Foot Area Lump Sum allow Lump Sum Square Foot Area allow 565.00 $65.00 $2,625.00 $300.00 $2,250.00 $1,200.00 $1,500.00 $0.50 $565.00 $565.00 $2,925.00 $5,250.00 $13,500.00 $2,250.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $42.50 $565.00 Corten Steel (Double Sided) Aluminum Signage Lettering and Border Timbers and Fasteners Footing Grass Demo Cost and Soil Prep Install Costs Plant Material 5 Gallon Shrubs 3 Gallon Shrubs 1 Gallon Shrubs 3"Topsoil&Compost Mix 15 Per Each plus Install Per Each plus Install Per Each plus Install Cubic Yard $40.00 $20.00 $15.00 $40.00 $0.00 $0.00 $225.00 $0.00 Range $20,443.13 $34,071.88 $27,257.50 Sign with Single Side $22,597.50 $16,948.13 $28,246.88 Smaller Park Sign $12,711.09 $15,888.87 3 CONCEPT #2 - CORTEN STEEL SIGN WITH COBBLESTONE BASE r 2 8 2'4.. �� Epp,� ft 2'-8" 15' This iconic sign reflects the history and character of Spokane Valley. The Corten Steel sign would be mounted on a cobblestone base with a concrete cap. The corten piece would be mounted with a slight arc to give greater visibility on a corner or city gateway. The use of cobblestone reflects the character of many historic homes and stone walls found in the Spokane Valley. Lettering of brushed aluminum will contrast with the dark corten steel background for a highly visible sign. This contrast between the aluminum and steel reflects the agricultural and industrial heritage of the Spokane Valley. Landscaping can be installed around the base of the sign to provide year round interest and soften the cobblestone base. This sign can be scaled to down to approximately 5' in length by 3' tall for a city park or city facility sign. Concept#2-Corten Steel Sign With Cobblestone Base Material Amount Unit Unit Cost Estimated Cost Cobblestone Masonry Base Concrete Cap Corten Steel Aluminum Signage Lettering and Border Supports Footing Grass Demo Cost and Soil Prep Install Costs 79 42 38 1 7 1 42 1 FF SF Square Foot Area Lump Sum Per Each Lump Sum Square Foot Area allow 65.00 40.00 300.00 2,558.00 500.00 2,250.00 $0.50 2,250.00 $5,135.00 $1,680.00 $11,400.00 $2,558.00 $3,500.00 $2,250.00 $21.00 $2,250.00 Plant Material 5 Gallon Shrubs 3 Gallon Shrubs 1 Gallon Shrubs 3"Topsoil&Compost Mix Per Each plus Install Per Each plus Install Per Each plus Install Cubic Yard $40.00 $20.00 $15.00 $40.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $28,794.00 Range $21,595.50 $35,992.50 Small Park Sign-10'Long $14,397.00 $10,797.75 $17,996.25 5 CONCEPT #3 - LARGE ENGRAVED STONE SIGN A large granite or sandstone boulder, with sandblasted lettering would provide a simple and natural sign option. Lettering would be painted so that text is highly visible. The boulder top would be shaped to reflect the mountain form of the city's logo. This sign can be scaled to down to approximately 5' in length by 3' tall for a city park or city facility sign. The logo could be reduced in size with the park or facility name installed below the logo. Landscaping could be installed around the base. Concept#3-Large Engraved Stone Material Amount Unit Unit Cost Estimated Cost Large Stone Engraving Grass Demo Cost and Soil Prep Install Costs 1 1 50 1 Per Each Lump Sum Square Foot Area allow $4,300.00 $0.50 500 $4,300.00 $0.00 $25.00 $500.00 Plant Material 5 Gallon Shrubs 3 Gallon Shrubs 1 Gallon Shrubs 3"Topsoil&Compost Mix Per Each plus Install Per Each plus Install Per Each plus Install Cubic Yard $40.00 $20.00 $15.00 $40.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,825.00 Range $3,619 $6,031.25 Range Park Sign Rock $2,625.00 $1,969 $3,281.25 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Car Shows in Parks GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The Spokane Valley Parks & Recreation Department manages and encourages the reservation of park facilities for the use, enjoyment, and safety of the public. Since incorporation, the Department has developed a series of policies intended to provide guidance and direction in the operation of the Department. These policies include such items as park reservations, special events, use of alcohol, and vendors in parks to name a few. Chapter 6.05 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code addresses Park regulations. The Parks & Recreation Director has the responsibility and authority to create, administer, and enforce a system to govern park reservations. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council Direction BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Car shows that utilize our Parks produce a small amount of revenue through the facilities application fee. STAFF CONTACT: Michael D. Stone, Director of Parks and Recreation ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation CAR SHOWS IN PARKS SPOKANE VALLEY PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PARK RESERVATIONS Spokane Valley Parks & Recreation strives to: Support strong community values Improve livability by providing and promoting quality recreation areas, programs, and facilities The Department manages and encourages the reservations of park facilities for the use, enjoyment, and safety of the public The Department's first priority is the general visiting public We encourage car shows as we do any other event PARK RESERVATIONS PARK RESERVATIONS ARE MANAGED TO ACHIEVE THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES: Promote a diverse range of activities and opportunities Ensure fair and equitable access to parks Balance needs of casual and organized park users, event participants, and park neighbors Ensure efficient and effective use of park space while at the same time protecting and preserving park environments Ensure that park activities are conducted in a safe and responsible manner PARK RESERVATIONS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS EVENTS HAVE ON PARKS A VARIETY OF MEASURES ARE APPLIED SUCH AS: Site monitoring Restricting activities Controlling amplified sound Limiting vehicle access BY ENSURING THAT PARK PRESERVATION MEASURES ARE IN PLACE AND ADHERED T0 : Event organizers and staff are ensuring the site's continued use for hosting events PARK RESERVATIONS SITE SUITABILITY Majority of Spokane Valley Parks have not been designed to support large scale events as they lack adequate: Restrooms/Washrooms Parking Water Power Most parks have differing feature and requirements: What is appropriate in one park may not be in another PARK RESERVATIONS VEHICLES IN PARKS ARE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE SVMC CHAPTER 6. 05 .070 Specifically: No person shall operate any motor vehicle on open space, trail or park property unless such area has been specifically designated and posted as such No person shall operate a motor vehicle within the boundaries of a city park except on roads, streets, highways, parking areas, or where otherwise permitted by posted notice PARK RESERVATIONS REASONS FOR RESTRICTING ACTIVITIES : Potential damage to the park Impact the activity will have on others' enjoyment of the park Risk management or public safety considerations DEPARTMENT STRIVES TO REDUCE USER CONFLICTS BY SCHEDULING RESERVATIONS IN THE APPROPRIATE SPACES AND AT APPROPRIATE TIMES PARK RESERVATIONS BIGGEST CHALLENGES : ■ Preserving and Protecting the City 's Properties/ Facilities Being Consistent With Our Users and Their Use of Parks PARK RESERVATIONS According to park reservation policy 500. 15, the Director has the authority to create, administer, and enforce a system to govern park reservations Accept Park Reservations beginning the first business day after the first of the year REQUIRED FORMS: Facility Usage Application and Fee • Refundable Damage Deposit Amplified Sound Permit (no charge) • Insurance (depending upon activity) • Special Event Permit (depending upon activity) PARK RESERVATIONS A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT IS DEFINED AS : Any activity of a temporary nature on public property which affects the ordinary use of public rights-of-way, public parking lots, public parks, intersections, sidewalks or streets, or which would significantly impact the need for City-provided emergency services such as police, fire or medical aid, for the purposes which include, but are not limited to, parades, walks/runs, street dances, fundraisers, sales, auctions, bikeathons, shows or exhibitions, filming/movie events, carnivals, circuses, car shows, horse shows, fairs and block parties, or other activity, demonstration or exhibition; or Any activity, function, or event, which is open to the general public, where 200 or more people are estimated to attend; or A private event ('. . .uses public property for. . .monetary or personal gain. . .which is closed to the general public.") PARK RESERVATIONS Permit Required : No person shall conduct a special event upon public property unless a permit has been obtained from the Parks and Recreation Director $5.00 processing fee PARK RESERVATIONS CAR SHOWS ARE UNIQUE MAJOR EVENTS CHALLENGES TO CONSIDER: Parking cars on the turf and possible damage incurred Time for turf to recover Turning off of irrigation systems days in advance normally during the hottest months of the year Safety conflicts between cars and park users Disruption of normal park use Elimination of other park reservations during a show PARK RESERVATIONS BASED UPON ALL OF THE ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE FOLLOWING APPLIES TO CAR SHOWS : Car shows are permitted at M i ra bea u Meadows Up to four car shows per year are allowed Car parking on turf is restricted to the areas shown on the map, because of ongoing turf, soil and drainage issues PARK RESERVATIONS ■ PARK RESERVATION FEES FOR MIRABEAU MEADOWS FOR ALL EVENT TYPES : Fees for groups up to 199 people: Shelter: $84 for up to 5 hrs Refundable Damage Deposit: $52 Fees for groups of 200 or more people: Shelter: $157 for up to 5 hrs Shelter (non-profit discount): $84 for up to 5 hrs Refundable Damage Deposit: $257 Example: All-day car show (10 hrs) with non-profit status: $84 + $84 + $257 - $257 refund = $168 total I y 4.% • Mirabeau Meadows Car Show Layout Lcgend ® Parking Allowed No Parking One Car Length Along Base of Knoll Allowed One('ar Length Along Asphalt Path Allowed Spokane �ualley Revised map in Summer 2011 allowing for even more parking as a result of collaborative discussions. 15 PARK RESERVATIONS IN SUMMARY: Car shows are allowed in our parks with the proper permits, etc. Based upon experience in working with car show promoters, we have created a venue that can safely host car shows We encourage car shows as we do any other event This year we only had one car show request We strive to be consistent will all events to ensure fairness and avoid long-term damage to our parks CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Old Milwaukee Right-of-Way GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: During the Spokane Valley and Spokane County Special Joint Meeting on August 31, 2011 it was agreed that Spokane Valley and County staff would begin working on a joint use agreement. It was also discussed that staff would come back to Council with questions to help start the process. Project Questions: • Public Process • Funding Level • Timelines • Project Scope OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten and Mike Stone ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: Oct 18th, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Fall 2011 Flashing Beacon Grants GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Washington Traffic Safety Commission has issued a Request for Proposals for School Zone Flashing Beacon projects. Applications are due November 1st and speed studies must be completed prior to submitting the application. Applicants will be notified if their projects have been selected on November 18. This past spring we were awarded $15,000 to complete two school zones. These funds were used at Orchard Center Elementary and Chester Elementary. The Public Works Department plans to submit applications again this year for several zones. With this round the eligibility has been expanded to include middle schools. The following criteria were used to determine which school zone to select: • School has frontage or major crosswalk on an arterial street. • High volume of traffic on street. • High percentage of students walking or biking. • Sheriff's Department identified school as problem area. • Priority from the School Districts. Based on the criteria above, we have ranked the schools that were analyzed in the order listed below: la. Evergreen Middle School 1b. East Valley Middle School 2. Bowdish Middle School 3. McDonald Elementary 4. Kindergarten Center We plan to submit applications to install beacons for the first four schools, but not for Kindergarten Center. Construction for any funded projects will be completed through the Spokane County maintenance contract. Surveying work will be contracted out to a consultant. The grant typically covers the majority of equipment purchase. The remaining equipment cost and all other expenses are paid from City funds, which amount to approximately $6,000 per school zone. OPTIONS: None. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum: 2011 Fall Flashing Beacon Grants Public Works Department rlr� t�f Traffic Engineering Spokane Talle 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: City Council From: Public Works Department Date: 10/11/11 Re: 2011 Fall Flashing Beacon Grants The Washington Traffic Safety Commission has issued a Request for Proposals for School Zone Flashing Beacon projects. Applications are due November 1st and speed studies must be completed prior to submitting the application. Applicants will be notified if their projects have been selected on November 18. This past spring we were awarded $15,000 to complete two school zones. These funds were used at Orchard Center Elementary and Chester Elementary. The Public Works Department plans to submit applications again this year for several school zones. Only middle schools and elementary schools are eligible for grant funds. A summary of characteristics for each potential school zone is shown in Table 1. The following criteria were used to determine which school zone to select: • School has frontage or major crosswalk on an arterial street. • High volume of traffic on street. • High percentage of students walking or biking. • Sheriff's Department identified school as problem area. • Priority from the School Districts. Evergreen Middle Evergreen Middle is located on the north side of 16th Avenue. 16th Avenue is a three lane minor arterial with bike lanes and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. There are two crosswalks along 16th One is located in front of the school building and the other is located on the west leg of Airpark Dr. This is frequently patrolled by the police due to the lack of drivers adhering to the school zone speed limit. In addition over half of the students attending the school are walkers. Evergreen Middle stated that they would have applied for the grant themselves if the City did not apply for it. Vehicles waiting to enter the school lot backed up on 16th Avenue generating a queue of vehicles. Buses also pull out of the school's bus lane into the traffic causing more congestion. Because of the congestion, many oncoming vehicles near the crosswalk in front of the school are either stopped(westbound), or maintain a low rate of speed (eastbound). Similarly,because of congestion,vehicles at the Airpark Drive crosswalk maintain a low rate of speed. Westbound vehicles slow significantly at the sight of the taillights due to vehicles waiting to enter the west parking lot, and due to the mass of students walking on the north sidewalk. Due to the congestion and number of walkers this school is a good candidate for a school zone beacon. Table 1: Summary of School Zone Characteristics Functional Avg Daily Traffic %Walkers Posted School Location of Zone Classification Volume /Bikers Speed Limit 16th—300' east of Minor Evergreen Bolivar to 200' 4,800 veh/day 50%-67% 35 mph Middle west of Warren Arterial East Valley Progress— ° Middle Wellesley to Collector 7,500 veh/day 20% 35 mph Crown Bowdish Bowdish—24th to Minor Middle 20th Arterial 5,800 veh/day 42% 35 mph McDonald 16th—Woodlawn Minor 5,000 veh/day 80%-90% 35 mph Elementary to Clinton Arterial Central Valley Barker—750' south of Mission to Minor Kindergarten 300' north of Arterial 13,100 veh/day 0% 35 mph Center Mission Trent SR 27 -Grace to Principal 14,700 <15% 35 mph Elementary Railroad Tracks Arterial veh/day Adams Adams—6th to 8th Minor 2,900 veh/day 50% 25 mph Elementary Arterial Wellesley— Conklin to Flora Skyview Minor Flora—Wellesley Arterial 1,700 veh/day <15% 35 mph* Elementary to 600' south of Wellesley University 16th- University Minor 5,900 veh/day 50% 35 mph Elementary to Glen Arterial 24th—Calvin to Collector 2,400 veh/day 25 mph Sunrise Adams 42-50% Elementary Adams—24th to Minor 900 veh/day 25 mph 22nd Arterial tStudents are not permitted to walk along SR 27,percentage of walkers and bikers is relatively low. *School is located on a corner with a 15 mph advisory speed. East Valley Middle East Valley Middle is located on the northeast corner of Wellesley Ave and Progress Rd on the northern boundary of the City and Spokane County. If selected this application would be to install flashing beacons on Progress Rd. Progress is a two lane collector with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. There is a crosswalk directly in front of the building with an overhead flashing yellow signal. The flashing signal is activated by the crossing guard when children are crossing in the morning and afternoon. The school mentioned that crossing guard has stated that vehicles are not"seeing her". Vehicles entering the City from the County are typically traveling at high speeds and do not expect a school zone. East Valley Middle stated that they would have applied for the grant themselves if the City did not apply for it. The students are required to cross at this crosswalk; however, students often cross individually or in pairs at the intersection of Progress Road and Crown Avenue. In addition, before the middle school is released, a number of high school students cross the middle school athletic fields and cross Progress Road at Broad Avenue. Vehicles park along both sides of Progress Road between Broad and Crown Avenues and pick up students from approximately 2:40 pm until 3:00 pm. Because of the 4-way stop at Progress Road and Wellesley Avenue,buses entering traffic, and parked cars, there is a significant amount of congestion during the school's release. Because of the congestion, many oncoming vehicles maintain a low rate of speed. Since there is a crossing guard and due to the congestion and location this school is a good candidate for a school zone beacon. Bowdish Middle Bowdish Middle is located on the west side of Bowdish Road between 23rd and 20th Avenues. Bowdish is a two lane minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The school is located at the bottom of a steep hill,but there is good visibility of the crosswalks. There are crosswalks located on Bowdish at the south leg of 22nd, on the north leg of 23rd, and on the north leg of 24th None of the crosswalks are manned, and most of the kids crossed at 22nd. Because of the congestion due to parked cars and students on the gravel shoulder, many oncoming southbound vehicles maintain a low rate of speed. During an observation, most drivers saw the students on the gravel shoulder and slowed down and/or stopped to allow students to cross Bowdish Road. McDonald Elementary McDonald Elementary is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of McDonald Road and 16th Avenue. If selected this application would be to install flashing beacons for the school zone on 16th Avenue. 16th Avenue is a three lane minor arterial with bike lanes and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The only marked crosswalks are at the 4-way stop controlled intersection of McDonald Road and 16th Avenue. The school is predominately a walking school. There is only one bus, and it only makes a few stops. There are crossing guards at the crosswalk and it is school policy that students cross with the assistance of crossing guards. However it was observed that a few kids would randomly cross the street elsewhere. Also during the observation, many drivers were impatient and entered the intersection before students finished crossing. This school is a candidate, but it ranks below several other schools. Central Valley Kindergarten Center Central Valley Kindergarten Center is located on the east side of Barker Road south of Mission Avenue. Barker Road is a three lane minor arterial with bike lanes and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. We received an e-mail from the Kindergarten Center requesting a school zone beacon. This year they mentioned that they have two walkers, and typically there a very few if any walkers. According to Central Valley Transportation students are either bussed or picked up by parents. During observations the kids were kept well back from the street and were attended by school staff until they boarded the bus or entered a parent's car. Therefore, this site does not appear to be a high risk area for students and not a good candidate for a school zone beacon. Trent Elementary Pines (SR 27) at Trent Elementary is a 5-lane arterial between the railroad tracks and Grace Road. Just a short distance south of Trent Avenue (SR 290),many vehicles, both southbound and northbound, maintain a high rate of speed that appears to be at or greater than 35 mph; despite the school zone. The school currently does not allow students to walk along Pines; however, they want to eliminate the need for bussing between the school and the new apartments east of Pines. The installation of a crosswalk, flashing beacons, and use of a crossing guard would allow students to walk safely. The school estimates that an additional 100 students might walk/bike if a crosswalk was installed. Vehicles struggle to exit the school parking lot amid the high volume and relatively high speeds of vehicles on Pines. This seems like a location that would benefit from added attention to the school zone. Due to the speed and characteristics of SR 27, if the school is selected, additional safety features to add conspicuity to the crosswalk are suggested. Current plans are to wait until the intersection is signalized before a crosswalk is installed. Adams Elementary Along Adams between 6th and 8th, this school zone is very apparent to passers by. With marked crosswalks at both 6th and 8th and a four way stop at 8th,most vehicles are traveling at or below the 20 mph school zone speed limit. Vehicles have already possibly slowed due to the St. Mary's Catholic School at 4th Avenue, since most southbound drivers appeared to maintain their school zone speed from one school to the next. Adams Elementary has plenty of parking and loading areas on school grounds as well as wide on-street parking along both sides of Adams. The school also sends out crossing guards at the two crosswalks when school is out. Although there were still some drivers witnessed driving above 20 mph, the need at this site pales in comparison to the need at other candidate schools. Skyview Elementary Skyview Elementary is in a rural area of northern Spokane Valley at the end of two roads, on the corner of Wellesley Avenue and Flora Road. Situated on the inside of a sharp curve between the two streets with a 15 mph advisory speed limit, this school is not the recipient of excessive through traffic. Rather, most vehicles are likely local residents or destined for the schools in the area along Wellesley Avenue. Further, the circulation within the school grounds for student pickup appears to be efficient with logical entrance and exit points. To the west of Skyview Elementary is the East Valley High School, possibly preparing eastbound drivers for subsequent school zones. The minimal houses surrounding the school and the prevalence of pasture land provide limited, if any, destinations for students crossing the street against traffic. Also, during the site visit, all walking children systematically travelled west along the south edge of Wellesley to the crosswalk at Sunnyvale Rd; at which point a crossing guard assisted those students across the street. There were no observed pedestrians along Flora Rd. Although a number of pick-up vehicles were observed stopping on the street and partially obstructing traffic, this site does not appear to be a high risk area for students. University Elementary University Elementary is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of University Road and 16th Avenue. Flashing beacons with speed panels on University were installed the summer of 2006 from north of 18th Avenue to 16th Avenue. If selected this application would be to install flashing beacons for the school zone on 16th Avenue. 16th Avenue is a three lane minor arterial with bike lanes and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Some walkers/bikers left through a back entrance and did not use 16th Avenue or University Road. There are marked crosswalks at the signalized intersection of University Road and 16th Avenue and on the west leg of the 16th Avenue and Oberlin Road intersection. Most of the students that walked along 16th used the north side of 16th from University Road to Oberlin Rd (approximately 300 feet). At each crosswalk there were two crossing guards. Only a few students walked along 16th east of University Road. The school does not allow students to walk along the south side of 16th Avenue. However, 16th Avenue has a high traffic volume. Students only crossed 16th Avenue at the signalized intersection and only walked along it for a short distance, so a school zone on 16th Avenue would only slightly reduce the risk for students. Sunrise Elementary Sunrise Elementary is located on the northwest corner of 24th Avenue and Adams Road. 24th Avenue is 2-lane collector road and Adams Road is a 2-lane minor arterial, and both roads have a posted speed limit of 25 mph. There are crosswalks located on 24th Avenue at Calvin Road and Adams Road at 22nd Avenue. The intersection of 24th Avenue and Adams Road is a 4-way stop controlled intersection with crosswalks on all legs. There is a crossing guard at each crosswalk. The majority of students crossed 24th Avenue at either, with only a few students crossing Adams Road at 22nd Avenue. Also, some students exited from the back of the school and did not cross or walk along either 24th Avenue or Adams Road. Due to the location of the school, flashing beacons should be installed on both 24th Avenue and Adams Road. The school is located close to neighborhoods, and has approximately 250 to 300 walkers (42% to 50% of enrollment). Neither road has a high traffic volume, and traffic did not appear to speed through the school zone since it was has to stop at the four way stop. East of Adams Road 16th Avenue is uphill, which reduces the sight distance for westbound traffic as it approaches the school. Due to the close proximity of the 4-way stop and the posted speed limit of 25 mph, this site does not appear to be a high risk area for students. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: Oct 18th, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Speed Limits GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Resolution to change the speed limit was not passed on 7/26/11. BACKGROUND: A resolution to change the Indiana Ave. speed limit from 25 to 35 mph was put before Council on 7/26/11. The resolution did not pass. At Council request, staff is bringing the resolution back for further discussion. Council also requested information on other speed limit concerns, which are discussed below. This RCA also includes a brief discussion of statutory speed limits as one option to make arterial speeds more uniform. Speed Concerns There are a few other areas in the City where speed limits have been questioned either through staff or citizen comments. Street Segment Current Speed Concerns Limit Dishman-Mica to 35 University Complaints regarding inconsistency with 8th Avenue University to Pines 25 speed limit. Little difference in roadway characteristics along 8th Avenue. Pines to Sullivan 35 New subdivision planned with 200+ new South of 8th 35 homes. Residents have requested change to Park Road 30 mph. Trent to Bridgeport 35 Neighborhood residents have requested change to 30 mph. Pines to Sullivan 30 Complaint regarding consistency of speed Mission limit. Ave Neighborhood residents have requested Flora to Barker 35 change to 30 mph. Thierman Sprague to Broadway 25 Minimal industrial development. Speed limit Road could be raised. Statutory Speed Limits Some Cities have adopted a "statutory speed limit" for their arterial streets. The City of Spokane and the City of Seattle use 30 mph on all arterials unless otherwise posted. A few arterial speed limits are higher as recommended by an engineering study. The City of Spokane Valley could adopt a similar resolution. This would make the speed limit a consistent 30 mph on all arterials and then speed limits could be increased on select arterials based on an engineering and traffic study. There are several commercial and rural arterials that would likely retain their 35-45 mph speed limit. The impact of this would mean raising the speed limit from 25 to 30 mph on several residential arterials, such as 24th, Adams, Thierman, 4th, parts of 8th, Conklin, Vista, Euclid, and a few others. OPTIONS: 1) Approve the recommendation from Public Works for speed limit change. 2) Deny the recommendation for the speed limit change. 3) Request additional analysis of speed limit by Public Works. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: At a future meeting via a draft resolution, consider changing the speed limit of Indiana Avenue from Sullivan Road to Flora Road to 35 mph; establish a 35 mph speed limit on Indiana Parkway and Mission Parkway. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Speed limit signing will need to be changed. This will be completed under the county maintenance contract. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. Current Master Speed Limit Schedule 2. RCA from 7/29/11 3. Draft Resolution 11-006 4. Draft Master Speed Limit Schedule 5. RCW 46.61.400 — Basic Rule and Maximum Limits 6. RCW 46.61.415 —When local authorities may alter maximum limits 7. WAC 308-330-270 — Model Traffic Ordinance: Local authority - Authority 8. Arterial Speed Limit Map CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 10-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON,ESTABLISHING TWO NEW SCHOOL SPEED ZONES; REVISING AN ARTERIAL SPEED LIMIT PURSUANT TO SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.05.030; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City Council from time to time may lower the speed limit in response to increased traffic in and around school property; and WHEREAS, the City Council from time to time may modify arterial speed limits to better reflect changing traffic conditions and roadway characteristics; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 9.05.030, which, in part, provides that the maximum speed limits for streets can be established by ordinance or resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authority under SVMC 9.05.030 to change speed limits, provided that such alternation shall be made on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, be reasonable and safe, and in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this City; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 9.05.030, which, in part, provides that the City of Spokane Valley may amend or adopt such school speed zones as necessary and may designate school speed zones with any of the signage options pursuant to WAC 392- 151-035 as adopted or amended; and. WHEREAS,these changes will be listed in the Master Speed Limit Code adopted by the City. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Establishing New School Speed Zone: The following City road sections shall be designated as a school speed zone: • Alki Avenue from 400 feet west of Pines Road to Pines Road. • Pines Road from 18'h Avenue to 20th Avenue. Section 2. Modifying an Arterial Speed Limit: The speed limit on the following City road section shall be increased from 25 mph to 35 mph: • Mansfield Avenue from Montgomery Avenue to Pines Road. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence or clause of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Resolution. Resolution 10-018 Establishing two school zones and an arterial speed limit Page 1 of 2 Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Adopted this 16th day of November,2010. City of Spgkante Valley Mayor Thomas ' . Towey ATTEST: y{) v-vx-C.% - ct/L A- (-'z'\/ City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: , Office he City Attorney Resolution 10-018 Establishing two school zones and an arterial speed limit Page 2 of 2 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Speed Limit Schedule Page No. Schedule A: School Speed Zones 2 Schedule B: Playground Speed Zones 4 Schedule C: Speed Limits 5 Master Speed Limit Schedule 11/17/10 Page 1 of 6 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Schedule A—School Speed Zones SCHOOL SPEED ZONES The following road sections have been designated as school zones. The maximum speed allowable on the said road sections shall be twenty miles per hour as designated with any of the signage options pursuant to Washington Administrative Code section 392-151-035 as adopted or amended. The Council shall establish any changes to speed limits or school speed zones by resolution. TWENTY MILES PER HOUR: 4th AVENUE from six hundred (600) feet west of Adams Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Adams Road; from three hundred (300) feet west of Bradley Street to three hundred (300) feet east of Coleman Street; and from three hundred (300) feet west of Long Road to Moen Street. 8th AVENUE from three hundred (300) feet west of Adams Road to eight hundred (800) feet east of Adams Road. 9th AVENUE from Herald Road to Felts Road. 10th AVENUE from Wilbur Road to Union Road. 12th AVENUE from Wilbur Road to Union Road. 16th AVENUE from three hundred (300) feet west of University Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Glenn Road; from Woodlawn Road to Clinton Road; and from three hundred (300) feet east of Bolivar Road to two hundred (200) feet west of Warren Road. 24th AVENUE from Union Road to Pines Road and from three hundred (300) feet west of Calvin Road to two hundred (200) feet east of Adams Road. 32°d AVENUE from three hundred (300) feet west of Pines Road to Woodlawn Road. ADAMS ROAD from 9th Avenue to three hundred fifty (350) feet north of 4th Avenue and from eight hundred fifty(850) feet north of 24th Avenue to 24th Avenue. ALKI AVENUE from Glenn Road to Pierce Road and from four hundred (400) feet west of Pines Road to Pines Road. BARKER ROAD from seven hundred fifty(750) feet south of Mission Avenue to three hundred (300) feet north of Mission Avenue. BOWDISH ROAD from 20th Avenue to 24th Avenue and from three hundred (300) feet south of 1 lth Avenue to three hundred (300) feet north of 11th Avenue. BRADLEY ROAD from 5th Avenue to 3rd Avenue. BROADWAY AVENUE from four hundred (400) feet west of Fan Road to four hundred (400) feet east of Fan Road; from one hundred (100) feet west of VanMarter Road to Johnson Road; from three hundred (300) feet west of Progress Road to St. Charles Road; from four hundred (400) feet east of McDonald Road to Blake Road; from three hundred (300) feet west of Felts Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Felts Road; and from three hundred (300) feet west of Ella Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Ella Road. BUCKEYE AVENUE from two hundred (200) feet east of Park Road to three hundred fifty (350) feet east of Center Road. CENTER ROAD from Marietta Avenue to Utah Avenue. Master Speed Limit Schedule 11/17/10 Page 2 of 6 CIMMARON DRIVE from Sunderland Drive to three hundred (300) feet east of Woodruff Road. COLEMAN ROAD from 5th Avenue to 3rd Avenue. FARR ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Valleyway Avenue to three hundred fifty (350)feet north of Valleyway Avenue. FLORA ROAD from six hundred (600) feet south of Wellesley to Wellesley Avenue. HERALD ROAD from 11th Avenue to 9th Avenue. LONG ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of 4th Avenue to 2nd Avenue. MCDONALD ROAD from Broadway Avenue to Cataldo Avenue; from three hundred fifty (350) feet south of 16th Avenue to 14th Avenue; and from 7th Avenue to 5th Avenue. MISSION AVENUE from five hundred (500) feet west of Bowman Road to Park Road; from SR-27 to seven hundred fifty (750) feet east of SR-27; and from Barker Road to five hundred (500)feet east of Barker Road. PARK ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Mission Avenue to Nora Avenue and from one hundred (100) feet south of Carlisle Avenue to four hundred (400) feet north of Buckeye Avenue. PINES ROAD from 25th Avenue to 23`d Avenue, from 40th Avenue to five hundred (500) north of 32nd Avenue, and from 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue. PROGRESS ROAD from six hundred fifty (650) feet south of Broadway Avenue to Broadway Avenue and from Wellesley Avenue to Crown Avenue. SCHAFER ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Cimmaron Drive to three hundred (300)feet north of Cimmaron Drive. SR-27 from two hundred (200) feet south of Mirabeau Parkway to one hundred (100) feet north of Pinecroft Way and from three hundred (300) feet north of Broadway Avenue to three hundred (300)feet south of Broadway Avenue. UNION ROAD from 12th Avenue to 10th Avenue. UNIVERSITY ROAD from 19th Avenue to 16th Avenue. VALLEYWAY AVENUE from three hundred (300) feet west of Marguerite Road to one hundred fifty (150) feet east of Hutchinson Street. VISTA ROAD from Frederick Avenue to two hundred (200) feet south of Buckeye Avenue. WELLESLEY AVENUE from seven hundred (700) feet west of Adams Road to two hundred (200)feet east of Bums Road and from Conklin Road to Flora Road. WILBUR ROAD from 12th Avenue to 10th Avenue. WOODRUFF ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Cimmaron Drive to three hundred (300)feet north of Cimmaron Drive. Master Speed Limit Schedule 11/17/10 Page 3 of 6 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Schedule B—Playground Speed Zones PLAYGROUND SPEED ZONES The following road sections have been designated as playground zones. The maximum speed allowable on said road sections shall be as shown below when signs are in place. TWENTY MILES PER HOUR: MISSION AVENUE from two hundred fifty (250) feet west of Bowdish Road to one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet west of Bowdish Road. TWENTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: MIRABEAU PARKWAY from one thousand (1,000) feet east of Pinecroft Way to one thousand three hundred (1,300) feet north of Mansfield Avenue. Master Speed Limit Schedule 11/17/10 Page 4 of 6 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Schedule C—Speed Limits The following road sections have maximum speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour. THIRTY MILES PER HOUR: 3`d AVENUE from west city limits to Fancher Road. MISSION AVENUE from Pines Road to Sullivan Road. MONTGOMERY DRIVE from Argonne Road to Dartmouth Lane. THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: 1st AVENUE from Eastern Road to Thierman Road. 4th AVENUE from west city limits to Eastern Road. 8th AVENUE from west city limits to Park Road; from Dishman-Mica Road to University Road; from Pines Road to Sullivan Road; and from Barker Road to Hodges Road. 16th AVENUE from Dishman-Mica Road to Sullivan Road. 32nd AVENUE from Dishman-Mica Road to Best Road. 44th AVENUE from Locust Road to Sands Road. APPLEWAY AVENUE from Sprague Avenue to east city limits. APPLEWAY BOULEVARD from Thierman Road to University Road. ARGONNE ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to SR-290. BARKER ROAD from south city limits to four hundred twenty (420) feet north of Bridgeport Avenue. BLAKE ROAD from SR-27 to Saltese Road. BOWDISH ROAD from Sands Road to Mission Avenue. BROADWAY AVENUE from Havana Street to Flora Road. CARNAHAN ROAD from south city limits to 8th Avenue. DISHMAN ROAD from 8th Avenue to Appleway Avenue. DISHMAN-MICA ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of 8th Avenue to Sprague Avenue. EUCLID AVENUE from Sullivan Road to Flora Road; from Flora Road to Barker Road; and from Barker Road to east city limits. EVERGREEN ROAD from 32nd Avenue to Indiana Avenue and from SR-290 to Forker Road. FANCHER ROAD from the Freeway (PSH No. 2)access on 3rd Avenue to SR-290. FLORA ROAD from Sprague Avenue to Montgomery Avenue and from the north side of the Spokane River to Wellesley Avenue. INDIANA AVENUE from SR-27 to Sullivan Road. Master Speed Limit Schedule 11/17/10 Page 5 of 6 MADISON ROAD from Thorpe Road to Pines Road. MANSFIELD AVENUE from Montgomery Avenue to Pines Road. MARIETTA AVENUE from Sullivan Road to Euclid Avenue. McDONALD ROAD from 16th Avenue to Mission Avenue. MIRABEAU PARKWAY from SR-27 to Indiana Avenue. MISSION AVENUE from Argonne Road to SR-27 and from Flora Road to east city limits. MONTGOMERY DRIVE from Dartmouth Lane to SR-27. MULLAN ROAD from Appleway Avenue to Indiana Avenue. PARK ROAD from Beverly Drive to Bridgeport Avenue. PINES ROAD from Madison Road to 16th Avenue. PROGRESS ROAD from Wellesley Avenue to Crown Avenue. RUTTER AVENUE from west city limits to Park Road. SALTESE ROAD from l6th Avenue to Blake Road. SANDS ROAD from 44th Avenue to Bowdish Road. SCHAFER ROAD from 44th Avenue to Dishman-Mica Road. SPRAGUE AVENUE from west city limits to east city limits. SR-27 from SR-290 to five hundred (500) feet south of 16th Avenue. SULLIVAN ROAD from Saltese Road to Wellesley Avenue. THORPE ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to Madison Road. UNIVERSITY ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to Mission Avenue. WELLESLEY AVENUE from McDonald Road to Flora Road. FORTY MILES PER HOUR: BARKER ROAD from Euclid Avenue to SR-290. SR-290 from west city limits to twelve hundred (1,200)feet west of University Road. FORTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: DISHMAN-MICA ROAD from south city limits to three hundred (300) feet south of 8th Avenue. SR-27 from five hundred (500) feet south of 16th Avenue to south city limits. FIFTY MILES PER HOUR: SR-290 from twelve hundred (1,200) feet west of University Road to east city limits. Master Speed Limit Schedule 11/17/10 Page 6 of 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 26th, 2011 Department Director Approval: lir Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 11-006: Indiana Avenue Extension Speed Limit GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion on 7/19/11 BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley adopted the speed limits established by Spokane County upon incorporation. This RCA seeks to address the adopted speed limit of Indiana Avenue and its extension (Mission Parkway and Indiana Parkway) from Sullivan Road to Flora Road. The MUTCD states that "States and local agencies should conduct engineering studies to reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone significant changes since the last review, such as the addition or elimination of parking or driveways, changes in the number of travel lanes, changes in the configuration of bicycle lanes, changes in traffic control signal coordination, or significant changes in traffic volumes." (MUTCD, 2B-13)This is the case of Indiana Avenue, which is currently being extended from approximately 0.75 miles east of Sullivan Road to where it transitions at Flora Road into Mission Avenue. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) also states that"when a speed limit within a speed zone is posted, it should be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed* of free- flowing traffic." (MUTCD, 2B-13) Currently, Indiana Avenue does not meet this condition. A speed study was conducted on Indiana east of Sullivan and the 85th percentile speeds are 35.3 mph for eastbound drivers and 34.5 mph for westbound drivers. Additionally, Indiana west of Sullivan Road is posted at 35 mph, and Mission Avenue east of Flora is posted at 35 mph. Because drivers are travelling at 35 mph approaching this segment of Indiana, it is recommended that the segment be posted at 35 mph to create continuity and to prevent driver confusion. Furthermore, Public Works engineers have designed the Indiana Extension (Mission Parkway and Indiana Parkway) to have a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Consequently, all vertical and horizontal curves of the roadway meet the minimum requirements of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)for 35 mph. *The 85th Percentile Speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the motor vehicles travel. Speeds are measured with traffic tube counters during typical driving conditions;the speeds measured are free-flow speeds.The 85th percentile speed is derived from these counts. Table 1. Modification to Arterial Speed Limit Speed Limit Comments Road Segment 65%Speed Adopted Posted from Study Recommended Indiana Sullivan Road to 35.3 mph Avenue Flora Road 25 mph 25 mph 34-5 mph 35 mph Minor Arterial Figure 1. Indiana Avenue from Sullivan Road to Flora Road,.r.. c. �iu.....„4,.. , . . Z X- ai 't4• .1, 0 ter... r/, . i. ` y .4.14 +, "'` 11I_ , o �• ,r_ - _E m�issionAvy —)0 r,3 � : InnYSpikane , . _ " -�-k-gti i la rw_ "� 4 s i n .ire Ii 4-41.-rte ,r a - r 11] 11Cj l _ _� ' r ti-r• r `ors 7_ .. 'T.414,- elin Figure 2. Indiana Avenue Extension ii VW limi . OD MOON AIEME _ s - �-.j`---- - MO �.QHII ' / .F.,,,,..-- I C 1� - - ur - ._.----- ------- --/ 7.- ,-;Foe ( J!i-L i` liii a� 11■1 lag ra 11 -'' 141 irsTirmilmIre hi-5=1E115 OPTIONS: 1) Approve the recommendation from Public Works for speed limit change. 2) Request additional analysis of speed limit by Public Works. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve Resolution 11-006, which changes the speed limit of Indiana Avenue from Sullivan Road to Flora Road to 35 mph, and establishes a 35 mph speed limit on Indiana Parkway and Mission Parkway. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Speed limit signing will need to be changed. This will be completed under the county maintenance contract. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Ingo Note, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 11-006 2. Draft Master Speed Limit Schedule DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 11-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, REVISING AN ARTERIAL SPEED LIMIT PURSUANT TO SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.05.030; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City Council from time to time may modify arterial speed limits to better reflect changing traffic conditions and roadway characteristics; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 9.05.030, which, in part, provides that the maximum speed limits for streets can be established by ordinance or resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authority under SVMC 9.05.030 to change speed limits, provided that such alteration shall be made on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, be reasonable and safe, and in the interest of the health,safety and welfare of the citizens of this City;and WHEREAS,these changes will be listed in the Master Speed Limit Code adopted by the City. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,as follows: Section 1. Establishing an Arterial Speed Limit: The speed limit on the following City road sections shall be established at 35 mph: • Indiana Avenue from Sullivan Road to Indiana Parkway. • Indiana Parkway from Indiana Avenue to Flora Road. • Mission Parkway from Indiana Parkway to Flora Road. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence or clause of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Resolution. Section 53 Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Adopted this 26th day of July,2011. City of Spokane Valley ATTEST: Mayor Thomas E.Towey City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 11-006 Establishing an arterial speed limit Page 1 of 1 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Speed Limit Schedule Page No. Schedule A: School Speed Zones 2 Schedule B: Playground Speed Zones 4 Schedule C: Speed Limits 5 Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26/11 Page 1 of 6 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Schedule A— School Speed Zones SCHOOL SPEED ZONES The following road sections have been designated as school zones. The maximum speed allowable on the said road sections shall be twenty miles per hour as designated with any of the signage options pursuant to Washington Administrative Code section 392-151-035 as adopted or amended. The Council shall establish any changes to speed limits or school speed zones by resolution. TWENTY MILES PER HOUR: 4th AVENUE from six hundred (600) feet west of Adams Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Adams Road; from three hundred(300) feet west of Bradley Street to three hundred(300) feet east of Coleman Street; and from three hundred(300)feet west of Long Road to Moen Street. 8th AVENUE from three hundred (300) feet west of Adams Road to eight hundred (800) feet east of Adams Road. 9th AVENUE from Herald Road to Felts Road. 10th AVENUE from Wilbur Road to Union Road. I2th AVENUE from Wilbur Road to Union Road. 16th AVENUE from three hundred (300) feet west of University Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Glenn Road; from Woodlawn Road to Clinton Road; and from three hundred (300) feet east of Bolivar Road to two hundred(200) feet west of Warren Road. 24th AVENUE from Union Road to Pines Road and from three hundred (300) feet west of Calvin Road to two hundred(200) feet east of Adams Road. 32"d AVENUE from three hundred(300)feet west of Pines Road to Woodlawn Road. ADAMS ROAD from 9th Avenue to three hundred fifty (350) feet north of 4ch Avenue and from eight hundred fifty (850) feet north of 24t'' Avenue to 24`h Avenue. ALKI AVENUE from Glenn Road to Pierce Road and from four hundred (400) feet west of Pines Road to Pines Road. BARKER ROAD from seven hundred fifty (750) feet south of Mission Avenue to three hundred (300)feet north of Mission Avenue. BOWDISH ROAD from 201 Avenue to 24th Avenue and from three hundred (300)feet south of 11`h Avenue to three hundred(300) feet north of 1 11h Avenue. BRADLEY ROAD from 5th Avenue to 3"d Avenue. BROADWAY AVENUE from four hundred (400) feet west of Farr Road to four hundred (400) feet east of Fan Road; from one hundred (100) feet west of VanMarter Road to Johnson Road; from three hundred (300) feet west of Progress Road to St. Charles Road; from four hundred (400) feet east of McDonald Road to Blake Road; from three hundred (300) feet west of Felts Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Felts Road; and from three hundred (300) feet west of Ella Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Ella Road. BUCKEYE AVENUE from two hundred (200) feet east of Park Road to three hundred fifty (350)feet east of Center Road. CENTER ROAD from Marietta Avenue to Utah Avenue. Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26/11 Page 2 of 6 CIMMARON DRIVE from Sunderland Drive to three hundred (300) feet east of Woodruff Road. COLEMAN ROAD from 5th Avenue to 3rd Avenue. FARR ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Valleyway Avenue to three hundred fifty (350)feet north of Valleyway Avenue. FLORA ROAD from six hundred(600)feet south of Wellesley to Wellesley Avenue. HERALD ROAD from 1 Ith Avenue to 9th Avenue. LONG ROAD from three hundred (300)feet south of 4th Avenue to 2nd Avenue. MCDONALD ROAD from Broadway Avenue to Cataldo Avenue; from three hundred fifty (350)feet south of 16th Avenue to 14`h Avenue; and from 7`h Avenue to 5`h Avenue. MISSION AVENUE from five hundred (500) feet west of Bowman Road to Park Road; from SR-27 to seven hundred fifty (750) feet east of SR-27; and from Barker Road to five hundred (500)feet east of Barker Road. PARK ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Mission Avenue to Nora Avenue and from one hundred (1 00) feet south of Carlisle Avenue to four hundred (400) feet north of Buckeye Avenue. PINES ROAD from 25th Avenue to 23rd Avenue, from 40th Avenue to five hundred (500) north of 32nd Avenue, and from 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue. PROGRESS ROAD from six hundred fifty (650) feet south of Broadway Avenue to Broadway Avenue and from Wellesley Avenue to Crown Avenue. SCHAFER ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Cimmaron Drive to three hundred (300)feet north of Cimmaron Drive. SR-27 from two hundred (200) feet south of Mirabeau Parkway to one hundred (100) feet north of Pinecroft Way and from three hundred (300) feet north of Broadway Avenue to three hundred (300)feet south of Broadway Avenue. UNION ROAD from 12th Avenue to 10th Avenue. UNIVERSITY ROAD from 19th Avenue to 16`h Avenue. VALLEYWAY AVENUE from three hundred (300) feet west of Marguerite Road to one hundred fifty (150)feet east of Hutchinson Street. VISTA ROAD from Frederick Avenue to two hundred(200) feet south of Buckeye Avenue. WELLESLEY AVENUE from seven hundred (700) feet west of Adams Road to two hundred (200)feet east of Burns Road and from Conklin Road to Flora Road. WILBUR ROAD from 12''' Avenue to 10th Avenue. WOODRUFF ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Cimmaron Drive to three hundred (300)feet north of Cimmaron Drive. Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26/11 Page 3 of 6 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Schedule B—Playground Speed Zones PLAYGROUND SPEED ZONES The following road sections have been designated as playground zones. The maximum speed allowable on said road sections shall be as shown below when signs arc in place. TWENTY MILES PER HOUR: MISSION AVENUE from two hundred fifty (250) feet west of Bowdish Road to one thousand five hundred(1,500)feet west of Bowdish Road. TWENTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: MIRABEAU PARKWAY from one thousand (1,000)feet east of Pinecroft Way to one thousand three hundred(1,300)feet north of Mansfield Avenue. Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26111 Page 4 of 6 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Schedule C —Speed Limits The following road sections have maximum speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour. THIRTY MILES PER HOUR: 3rd AVENUE from west city limits to Fancher Road. MISSION AVENUE from Pines Road to Sullivan Road. MONTGOMERY DRIVE from Argonne Road to Dartmouth Lane. THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: 1st AVENUE from Eastern Road to Thierman Road. 46 AVENUE from west city limits to Eastern Road. 8t'' AVENUE from west city limits to Park Road; from Dishman-Mica Road to University Road; from Pines Road to Sullivan Road; and from Barker Road to Hodges Road. 16th AVENUE from Dishman-Mica Road to Sullivan Road. 32"d AVENUE from Dishman-Mica Road to Best Road. 44th AVENUE from Locust Road to Sands Road. APPLEWAY AVENUE from Sprague Avenue to east city limits. APPLEWAY BOULEVARD from Thierman Road to University Road. ARGONNE ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to SR-290. BARKER ROAD from south city limits to four hundred twenty (420)feet north of Bridgeport Avenue. BLAKE ROAD from SR-27 to Saltese Road. BOWDISH ROAD from Sands Road to Mission Avenue. BROADWAY AVENUE from Havana Street to Flora Road. CARNAHAN ROAD from south city limits to 8111 Avenue. DISHMAN ROAD from 8th Avenue to Appleway Avenue. DISHMAN-MICA ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of 8`h Avenue to Sprague Avenue. EUCLID AVENUE from Sullivan Road to Flora Road; from Flora Road to Barker Road; and from Barker Road to east city limits. EVERGREEN ROAD from 32"d Avenue to Indiana Avenue and from SR-290 to Porker Road. FANCHER ROAD from the Freeway (PSH No. 2) access on 3rd Avenue to SR-290. FLORA ROAD from Sprague Avenue to Montgomery Avenue and from the north side of the Spokane River to Wellesley Avenue. INDIANA AVENUE from SR-27 to Indiana Parkway. Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26111 Page 5 of 6 INDIANA PARKWAY from Indiana Avenue to Flora Road. MADISON ROAD from Thorpe Road to Pines Road. MANSFIELD AVENUE from Montgomery Avenue to Pines Road. MARIETTA AVENUE from Sullivan Road to Euclid Avenue. McDONALD ROAD from 16th Avenue to Mission Avenue. MIRABEAU PARKWAY from SR-27 to Indiana.Avenue. MISSION AVENUE from Argonne Road to SR-27 and from Flora Road to east city limits. MISSION PARKWAY from Indiana Parkway to Flora Road. MONTGOMERY DRIVE from Dartmouth Lane to SR-27. MULLAN ROAD from Appleway Avenue to Indiana Avenue. PARK ROAD from Beverly Drive to Bridgeport Avenue. PINES ROAD from Madison Road to 16th Avenue. PROGRESS ROAD from Wellesley Avenue to Crown Avenue. RUTTER AVENUE from west city limits to Park Road. SALTESE ROAD from 16th Avenue to Blake Road. SANDS ROAD from 44th Avenue to Bowdish Road. SCHAFER ROAD from 44th Avenue to Dishman-Mica Road. SPRAGUE AVENUE from west city limits to east city limits. SR-27 from SR-290 to five hundred(500) feet south of 16`h Avenue. SULLIVAN ROAD from Saltese Road to Wellesley Avenue. THORPE ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to Madison Road. UNIVERSITY ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to Mission Avenue. WELLESLEY AVENUE from McDonald Road to Flora Road. FORTY MILES PER HOUR: BARKER ROAD from Euclid Avenue to SR-290. SR-290 from west city limits to twelve hundred(1,200) feet west of University Road. FORTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: DISHMAN-MICA ROAD from south city limits to three hundred(300) feet south of Bch Avenue. SR-27 from five hundred (500)feet south of 16th Avenue to south city limits. FIFTY MILES PER HOUR: SR-290 from twelve hundred(1,200) feet west of University Road to east city limits. Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26/11 Page 6 of 6 ARTERIAL J %" ' MISAGYJ AVE `, /'. &POADWAY AVE I SPEED ..; ENT pv£ iF - ; I ` ' �� ''� i I � LMOAOBW p R5 £ �� p �� 4... . ISTH AYE & K ..... 24FH AYE '� El''"VI1 Irak LIMITS WELLESLEY AVE. "' "'A� 6ROAOWAY 6 y 0 /``�` IIIME in LEGEND 25 MPH ARTERIALS 30 MPH ARTERIALS 35 MPH ARTERIALS III .. INpANA AYE 22 2 II"' • 41H AYE. -- I .. .... BM AYE I ` i'�� ` A I£. ^K — �4' -MEN =I 40 MPH ARTERIALS . pFFLWpY P�. 9p A�` ¢ �. 4M AYE. BTN AYE. MI 45 MPH ARTERIALS I I I jmALt _� M � 4M A£ I ... B 4 50 MPH ARTERIALS _� . 1 1 1 I6 i/I AYE. t '. r��u_ �u - 247H A W.. iI It_� HMO^� ..11 Al S61 w• g. i �� Iu�� LOCAL ROADS OR THOSE NOT UNDER THE CITY'S JURISDICTI❑N etlinveTTOTYHS.tlxg • dia, =•■ Q — __ _— - — ...MI 1 H PLOT TOTE:01/07/2009 FILE No.:aP '� 1111. -O ifilip Y. — I w No. Date By Du. Pppl. Revision Drawn Updated By: MP Date:10/28/09 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works 11707 E. SPOKANE p VALLEY, WA.Suite 9920606 (509) 921-1000 n I l�' SPOKANE VALLEY PROJECT No. City o f Spokane Valley SPEED LIMITS SHEET 1 of 1 By: IMN Date:11/17/10 HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL: SCALE 57,600 N/A RCW 46.61.400: Basic rule and maximum limits. Page 1 of 1 WNW WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLAT _ • �' • b ch I Help RCWs >Title 46 >Chapter 46.61 > Section 46.61.400 Inside the Legislature * Find Your Legislator 46.61.385 « 46.61.400 » 46.61.405 * Visiting the Legislature * Agendas, Schedules and RCW 46.61.400 Calendars * Bill Information Basic rule and maximum limits. * Laws and Agency Rules * Legislative Committees (1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and * Legislative Agencies prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then * Legislative Information existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding Center with any person,vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with * E-mail Notifications legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. (Listserv) R Civic Education (2) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with • History of the State subsection (1)of this section,the limits specified in this section or established as hereinafter Legislature authorized shall be maximum lawful speeds, and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits. Outside the Legislature (a)Twenty-five miles per hour on city and town streets; * Congress-the Other Washington (b) Fifty miles per hour on county roads; * TVW * Washington Courts (c)Sixty miles per hour on state highways. * OFM Fiscal Note Website The maximum speed limits set forth in this section may be altered as authorized in RCW Access 46.61.405,46.61.410, and 46.61.415. I ►Washingtono Qr Slab Gov.rnm.nrW.b.ld (3)The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subsection (1)of this section, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing,when approaching and going around a curve,when 41114 approaching a hill crest,when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when c4e�a special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or a. x highway conditions. hood [1965 ex.s.c 155§54;1963 c 16§1.Formerly RCW 46.48.011.] Notes: Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule-- IRLJ 6.2. Saving of existing orders, etc., establishing speed limits -- 1963 c 16: "This act shall not repeal or invalidate existing orders and resolutions of the state highway commission or existing resolutions and ordinances of local authorities establishing speed limits within their respective jurisdictions." [1963 c 16 § 7. Formerly RCW 46.48.016.] http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.400 9/22/2011 RCW 46.61.415: When local authorities may alter maximum limits. Page 1 of 1 • STATE L b ch I Help RCWs >Title 46 >Chapter 46.61 > Section 46.61.415 Inside the Legislature * Find Your Legislator 46.61.410 « 46.61.415 » 46.61.419 * Visiting the Legislature * Agendas, Schedules and RCW 46.61.415 Calendars * Bill Information When local authorities may alter maximum * Laws and Agency Rules * Legislative Committees limits. * Legislative Agencies * Legislative Information (1)Whenever local authorities in their respective jurisdictions determine on the basis of an Center engineering and traffic investigation that the maximum speed permitted under RCW * E-mail Notifications 46.61.400 or 46.61.440 is greater or less than is reasonable and safe under the conditions (Listserv) found to exist upon a highway or part of a highway,the local authority may determine and A Civic Education declare a reasonable and safe maximum limit thereon which A History of the State (a) Decreases the limit at intersections;or Legislature Outside the Legislature (b) Increases the limit but not to more than sixty miles per hour; or * Congress-the Other (c) Decreases the limit but not to less than twenty miles per hour. Washington * TVW (2) Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall determine by an engineering and * Washington Courts traffic investigation the proper maximum speed for all arterial streets and shall declare a reasonable and safe maximum limit thereon which may be greater or less than the maximum * OFM Fiscal Note Website speed permitted under RCW 46.61.400(2) but shall not exceed sixty miles per hour. Access Ii►I+Jashingtono (3)The secretary of transportation is authorized to establish speed limits on county roads S,adGov.rnm.ntW.b.in and city and town streets as shall be necessary to conform with any federal requirements which are a prescribed condition for the allocation of federal funds to the state. (4)Any altered limit established as hereinbefore authorized shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected. Such maximum speed limit may be c Desocncy declared to be effective at all times or at such times as are indicated upon such signs; and """14 differing limits may be established for different times of day, different types of vehicles, varying weather conditions, and other factors bearing on safe speeds,which shall be effective when posted upon appropriate fixed or variable signs. (5)Any alteration of maximum limits on state highways within incorporated cities or towns by local authorities shall not be effective until such alteration has been approved by the secretary of transportation. [1977 ex.s.c 151 §36; 1974 ex.s.c 103§3;1963 c 16§4.Formerly RCW 46.48.014.] Notes: Federal requirements --Severability-- 1977 ex.s. c 151: See RCW 47.98.070 and 47.98.080. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.415 9/22/2011 WAC 308-330-270: Local authority—Authority. Page 1 of 1 ...,4141111/17111A' WASHINGTON WASHINGTON STATE, LEGISLATURE 1 !PI :_— ch I Help f S I I WACs>Title 308> Chapter 308-330> Section 308-330-270 Inside the Legislature * Find Your Legislator 308-330-265 « 308-330-270» 308-330-275 * Visiting the Legislature * Agendas, Schedules and WAC 308-330-270 No agency filings affecting this section since 2003 Calendars * Bill Information Local authority — Authority. * Laws and Agency Rules * Legislative Committees After an engineering and traffic investigation by the traffic engineer,the local authority may by * Legislative Agencies resolution: * Legislative Information (1) Decrease maximum speed limits pursuant to RCW46.61.415; Center * E-mail Notifications (2) Increase maximum speed limits pursuant to RCW 46.61.415; (Listserv) * Civic Education (3) Determine and declare the maximum speed limits on arterial highways pursuant to RCW * History of the State 46,61.415; Legislature (4) Determine and declare upon what highways angle parking shall be permitted pursuant to RCW Outside the Legislature 46.61.575(3); * Congress-the Other (5) Prohibit, regulate, or limit, stopping,standing, or parking of vehicles on any highway at all times Washington or during such times as shall be indicated by official traffic control devices; * TVW A Washington Courts (6) Determine and declare parking meter zones upon those highways or parts thereof where the * OFM Fiscal Note Website installation of parking meters will be necessary to regulate parking; Access (7) Close any highway or part thereof temporarily to any or all traffic; LLkWashingtont nrrul KW+nxvr•nnnni noeu-. (8) Determine and declare one-way highways pursuant to RCW 46.61.135; (9) Determine and declare arterial highways pursuant to RCW 46.61.195 and 46.61.435. A't'5L On1Une Ikmocrac) Aural [Statutory Authority:RCW 46.90.010.94-01-082,§308-330-270,filed 12/13/93,effective 711194.] http://apps.leg.wa,gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=308-330-270 10/10/2011 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Solid Waste Discussion GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Discussion of solid waste disposal issues and options: • Proposed Regional Solid Waste Management Alliance. Commissioner Al French has moved the commitment date to January 16, 2012 • Extension of the Interlocal Agreement between City of Spokane, Spokane County and Spokane Valley sent to the City of Spokane and Spokane County on September 6, 2011. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Extension of the Solid Waste Interlocal. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Spokane GARY P.DRISKELL—CITY ATTORNEY Valley11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0235 • Fax: 509.688.0299 • cityattorney@spokanevalley.org Mayor Mary Verner Board of County Commissioners City of Spokane 1116 West Broadway 808 West Spokane Falls, Blvd. Spokane,WA 99260 Spokane,WA 99201 Re: Proposed extension of 2003 interlocal agreement for solid waste Dear Board of County Commissioners and Mayor Verner: The City of Spokane Valley requests that the City of Spokane and Spokane County execute this letter extension whereby the Interlocal Agreement (Ch.39.34 RCW) Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley Re: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") between the parties is modified pursuant to Section 8 (Amendments) as follows: Section 9—DURATION AND TERMINATION. A This Agreement shall run until 11:59 p.m on November 16, 2014, unless a different date is agreed upon in writing by the Parties.be for an initial term of 8 years or for such longer term as any Bonds or Additional Bonds remain Outstanding. The remainder of the Agreement shall remain unchanged by this amendment. This amendment shall become effective on the date of the last signatory hereto. DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE By: Title: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: Terri Pfister, City Clerk Howard F. Delaney, City Attorney City of Spokane City of Spokane Dated: SPOKANE COUNTY ATTEST: Al French, Chair Daniela Erickson, Todd Mielke, Commissioner Clerk of the Board Approved as to form: Mark Richard, Commissioner James P. Emacio Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dated: SPOKANE VALLEY Approved as to form: Mike Jackson, City Manager ATTEST: Office of the City Attorney Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Spokane GARY P.DRISKELL—CITY ATTORNEY Valley11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0235 • Fax: 509.688.0299 • cityattorney@spokanevalley.org Mayor Mary Verner Board of County Commissioners City of Spokane 1116 West Broadway 808 West Spokane Falls, Blvd. Spokane,WA 99260 Spokane,WA 99201 Re: Proposed extension of 2003 interlocal agreement for solid waste Dear Board of County Commissioners and Mayor Verner: The City of Spokane Valley requests that the City of Spokane and Spokane County execute this letter extension whereby the Interlocal Agreement (Ch.39.34 RCW) Between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley Re: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") between the parties is modified pursuant to Section 8 (Amendments) as follows: Section 9—DURATION AND TERMINATION. A This Agreement shall run until 11:59 p.m on November 16, 2014, unless a different date is agreed upon in writing by the Parties. The remainder of the Agreement shall remain unchanged by this amendment. This amendment shall become effective on the date of the last signatory hereto. DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE By: Title: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: Terri Pfister, City Clerk Howard F. Delaney, City Attorney City of Spokane City of Spokane Dated: SPOKANE COUNTY ATTEST: Al French, Chair Daniela Erickson, Todd Mielke, Commissioner Clerk of the Board Approved as to form: Mark Richard, Commissioner James P. Emacio Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dated: SPOKANE VALLEY Approved as to form: Mike Jackson, City Manager ATTEST: Office of the City Attorney Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2012 Community Development Block Grant Program — Potential CDBG Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: In May, 2011, Spokane Valley entered into a three year ag reement (2012-2014) t o continue participation as a m ember oft he S pokane C ounty CDBG/HOME Consortium. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley is a member of the Spokane County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consortium. Each year the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development provides about $1.5 million in CDBG entitlement funding to Spokane County. In 2008, Spokane County agreed to amend the CDBG funding policies to establish a 20% s et-aside o f t he County's annual f ederal appr opriation for C ity o f S pokane Valley infrastructure projects. Due to uncertainty in how much the next Federal CDBG allotment will be, the County anticipates that Spokane Valley's share will be between $225,000 and $310,000 for eligible, high priority infrastructure projects. Although Spokane Valley has a guaranteed set aside, the City must still participate in the same application process as all of her agencies requesting C DBG funding. Applications are due i n November; therefore a public hearing on the City's potential projects is scheduled for October 25, 2011. City staff met to identify infrastructure projects that would qualify for CDBG funding. Projects must be located in low to moderate income target areas (see attached map). Proposed projects must also be ranked as a "high priority" in the Spokane County 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan, the g uiding doc ument for S pokane C ounty's C DBG pr ogram. H igh pr iority i nfrastructure projects include water, sewer and street improvements. CDBG funds may also be used to address barriers to accessibility on a citywide basis. Projects such wheelchair accessible sidewalk ramps qualify for CDBG funding on a citywide basis. Since the City is not a sewer or water provider, only street improvement projects and ADA improvement are proposed for the 2012-13 program year. The following preliminary projects have been identified by City staff based an evaluation of CDBG eligible projects. Proposed CDBG Projects: Estimated Costs 1. Sprague Avenue Resurfacing $430,000 (Havana to Fancher) 2. ADA Sidewalk Improvements TBD OPTIONS: Identify other potential projects for consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Provide staff direction to prepare for the scheduled public hearing on October 25, 2012 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Undetermined at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, Planning Division Manager Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: CDBG Target Areas Map 2010-2014 Consolidaion Plan / 36 E , g. 32 r 011400., 24 2 I -11- -----A - . I '64 f 36 .1 olo:po r5 1 4 .,1600 31 i Legend 0 Hos p r la -Ma o I,grimy = =SsSes's.'s s 11 .aN - '1 N- -1"'"'"J'II NV-.., ...a...1r T26N T26N 01 ,-: LI ' '9 1 N 011405 - 3 - st. 021 ....4,, .=I 011400 1 _ 05 ; N 4000 06 011500 1 I 05 ' r 11 013201 NNE Cg.t.of 1\4111,lood A Street Index IP 1 g 69, .,....-: -66 [ ggg ggg.igg 12' ..ggg-g°' ogino • fV. --g i 1- 011700 g 4 56 1 , — 0 all 4E01150'0 6666g- 2 I - ". E- . -g° 12 , .,., 'g -4 IE .,^•_a'--.,,Nino.,y1 1:I - 4- „../OF 15 T.--6O 011700 I„._.. _0 1700 ,66666 „...„ F 07=1- tItyp 012200 Spoka1W ■ _ " 1 4; • - -11'11 6.66 '''kk -4 011900 01180 L0 ..-g 013,100 -4 6.1F 012000 , 2-OF•6 II 2 i-411 • .... 1„, i 1 ... • — a 012100 , 012901 .1. A CA).(El Liberty Like 3 1 . i 128br • —.... -r..-- 600 ..... IL =Mr' - - ., .,--F -: 4 .. 5 011900.111 012901 -- 1 5 I 1.66 , 13000 i a ' 013100 '013100 012,100, 0 8 , 12 liNg1.1411.111, % . __ It— • I _ a JL -,==r-- rrr-=,1,1 IIIVIIIIEM grn i 12 . lar - II 11111110111111 /I - 01 2701 9)981g.A .6 1 i . , ' ■ i ,, f - A N— I — IN'''=, r 012300 „ 123 4 '39 012500 90 -• 41 - 012600 ,,, • F,,66, •gg ;A: ' Eil , F0,,t 2 "^ F' 012600 711 012902 . F A 23 -1-- N111- 1- I / , -t-;" . MM. - - -- -MI j gg' g E„1- 1 012902 Ili ' ' .' '24 A 1 .9r =NN1,42_ _ , 4 - ,-• M .012500 M a 012;01! I, ri,2 i H _t. 6,4 M , 6 666 :6 3 0128_02 3 ,,• 8 „.4 . 62" I 7 .0128• 2 01201 012702 012902 013000 0681.0305 00 0 6, 25 -A—L, m I- 4:...j.- ' , ,',1 - N- - - 012802 6,0 46 , F 26 ' • '''46 25 29 = = i 1 L •.. 12 - 801 0 2 I L2 022801 .F„„, 4 4, F 6 012902 5 1-1 32 I,31 400 0 / 44 I 9 012401 „ -.44 i ,. ' 4 ggg"F„ 69. - , ° gl 11 I 36 44 41. 41. 1 6. . 1— _ '9.01240 - T25N 36 32 -_. • ■2 F o,/ -J —W-1411 N....,„,L gggg 1: 'g,g, 35 1-- 35 44 1 1 34 J T21N ,013401 01 06 . - 4 012402 03 02 01 1 - N _ 02 I - 012401 9, 'Ok At 4 ,,, 06 I I 05 I I '., .4 f;00 II v rm:'7177-7.7a Stioliail `I -7ZSEFFZE-.."..4.. ■•OValleY. — A - —el -..FL CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing information ® admin. report Spending legislation executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Code Compliance Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Code Compliance Officers, will present information regarding the City's code compliance program through a discussion of the following: • Processes • Types of complaints • Extreme compliance cases • Abatements • Possible future code amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation Code Compliance Update Overview Process Before and After Judicial Abatement Code Amendments Spokane Valle Overview Currently complaint driven based on health and safety violations Assist other City departments and outside agencies with complaints they receive regarding Spokane Valley properties ,.. Status Snapshot — TotalViolations 100 20 10 Code Violation Totals I Fl IA I I 1 1 1 1 I LI 1 1 1 1 1 - romm Iummo 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec •2011 20 20 30 45 8o 63 55 86 31 0 0 0 •2010 62 97 76 51 70 43 44 64 43 18 27 23 Status Sf12p5ilOt- Violations by Type 100% - 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% - 30% 20% 10% -- - ■ ■ 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ 2011 Code Total Violations Reported _1_4_ - by Category in ii I I ■ . • IIII ____ , ■ ■ ■ • WI � Mi 1 .. J=11r MI W I.11 NI 1.1 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CI Clear View Triangle 0 2 1 0 0 0 14 8 3 •Complaint- No Violation 1 1 1 6 2 5 3 4 1 ■Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 •Junk Auto 6 3 6 8 7 11 8 14 5 •Property 4 4 8 11 10 22 20 37 14 ©Signs 0 1 0 5 47 2 0 1 0 ■Solid Waste 9 9 14 15 14 23 9 21 10 Process The Code Compliance process: Complaint received Field verification - respect property rights Processing Warning with voluntary compliance as the goal Notice and Order, Civil Monetary Fines Voluntary Compliance Agreement Appeal Process and the Hearing Examiner Types of Complaints & Violations Solid Waste Animals Junk Autos Property Use Right of Way Clearview Triangle Critical Areas Illegal Business Air Pollution Dangerous Building Illegal Dumping Noise Grading A. Vegetation. 1. Overhanging limbs or branches that are less than eight feet above a public walkway or sidewalk, or less than 14 feet above a public street. 2. Vegetation that obstructs or hinders the use of any public walkway, sidewalk, or street, or that obstructs or obscures the view of traffic or traffic control devices, pursuant to clearview triangle policies adopted by the City. 3. Any growth of noxious weeds or any toxic vegetation shall be subject to Chapter 16-750 WAC as currently adopted and hereafter amended. Before After Before After Before After B. Buildings, Structures, Fences. 1. Buildings or portions thereof which are deemed dangerous pursuant to the Spokane Valley building code (currently adopted International Property Maintenance Code and the International Existing Building Code) ; provided, that such conditions or defects exist to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the public or the structure's occupants is endangered. 2. Any fence that obstructs or obscures the view of traffic or traffic control devices, pursuant to clearview triangle policies adopted by the City. Before After Before After -., E . Accumulations of Metals, Garbage, Recyclables, Furniture, Machinery 1. Building and Construction Materials. Accumulations, stacks, or piles of building or construction materials not associated with a current, in- progress project including metal, wood, wire electrical or plumbing materials in disarray or exposed to the elements on the property. This provision does not apply to a designated contractor's yard, as defined in the currently adopted Spokane Valley Zoning Code. Before After E . Accumulations of Metals, Garbage, Recyclables, Furniture, Machinery. 2. Garbage, Recyclables, Compost, and Infestations. a. Garbage not kept in a proper receptacle with a tight fitting lid. b. Accumulations of broken or neglected items, litter, salvage materials, and junk not in an approved enclosed structure. in the front, back or side yards of the property. c. Recyclables not properly stored and regularly disposed of, d. Creating or maintaining accumulations of matter, including foodstuffs, that harbor or are an attraction for the infestations of insects or vermin; failing to eliminate such infestations; or failing to eliminate intrusive insects. Before After Before figichrig film 4 %1ii0R iR9°N1n11,11iilul Rwm r' emu+:I,1Pf kri op liljfll�_ppl:idA9fLI6r11 RYf#I+n IITII IA{�11'Ifl1Y��Idd+AfllF.l '" 411741 I j+I elfin°r3; " .1■ILMJILMJ11..1111 Rig nIFIMAIPlifil 11_Ii.IS A IIIl lll+j LI ASI■Mel ' 111�[IIMPi{p,fll.. ''f119II EMI itli n After Before After F. Fire Hazards. Stacks or accumulations of newspapers, dead vegetation (excluding properly maintained compost piles), cardboard, or other paper, cloth, or wood products left in a manner that could pose a substantial risk of combustion or the spread of fire. Before After fir • ' P. All junk vehicles, or parts thereof, placed, stored or permitted to be located on private property within the City limits are public nuisances to be abated as provided in this chapter. Before • ■ r'`• 1:4L! J After Before After O. Yard Sales The holding or permitting of a yard sale on the same real property more than seven consecutive days, or more than two consecutive weekends. Before After Extreme Ongoing Cases Foreclosed Properties Property Hoarder Animal Hoarder Foreclosure; Four positions on Deed of Trust Foreclosure apparently abandoned by Lender Extreme Property Hoarder Extreme Property Hoarder cocat..,tki Extreme Property Hoarder Extreme Property Hoarder Extreme Property Hoarder Extreme Property Hoarder Extreme Animal Hoarder Extreme Animal Hoarder MEM AIM IIN IN Extreme Animal Hoarder Extreme Animal Hoarder Extreme Animal Hoarder Judicial Abatement Spokane County Superior Court Budget driven Before and after. N Adams Abatement Before N Adams Abatement After N Adams Abatement Before N Adams Abatement After ,m, N Skipworth Abatement Before N Skipworth Abatement After Code Amendments Staff is reviewing the current code for possible amendments to: Improve customer service, Streamline processes, Clarify the regulations Timeframe for code amendments First quarter of 2012 Questions ? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sign Regulations Review GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC Chapter 22.110 Signage Regulations PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On July 5, 2011 an overview of the sign regulations was provided. Staff was directed to complete a review of the sign regulations. BACKGROUND: At the August 15th Council meeting staff presented a review of the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) sign regulations and compared them to Spokane and Liberty Lake. The review looked specifically at prohibited signs, which sign types required building permits or temporary sign permits, standards for the various sign types which included area, height, number of signs allowed, and planning review fees. The Council requested that the comparison be expanded to include Spokane County's regulations as well as information regarding building permit fees, landscaping regulations associated with freestanding signs, and allowances for institutional and multi-family uses. The summary conclusions are highlighted on page 2 of the memo, but the most notable conclusions that can be drawn from the review are that the COSV is the only jurisdiction that does not allow A-frame signs, the only jurisdiction to charge for a temporary sign permit, and one of the few to require temporary sign permits. The review of permanent signs indicated that the COSV was the least restrictive when it came to wall sign area, monument sign area, and in general the number of properties allowed to have free standing signs. The COSV's Building Permit Fees were the lowest of the jurisdictions reviewed. The purpose of the review is to assist City Council to determine what, if any, sign code revisions should be initiated. Staff is requesting direction on how to proceed. OPTIONS: Council Direction RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community Development Director; Lori Barlow, AICP-Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Council Memo dated August 4, 2011; Revised August 29, 2011 Sign Regulations Comparison Tables C111 (M pokane From the Community Development Department 4000 Valley Interoffice Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Lori Barlow,Senior Planner CC: Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager; John Hohman,Director Date: August 4,2011; Revised August 29,2011 Re: Sign Regulations Comparison Review This memo provides information to the City Council regarding the current sign regulations applicable to the city's non-residential zoning districts, and compares the regulations to the adjacent jurisdictions that include the City of Spokane and Liberty Lake. The memo has been revised to include Spokane County in the comparison. The original information reviewed compared prohibited signage, permit requirements, sign standards, and planning review fees. At the request of City Council the review also includes building permit fees, landscaping requirements for freestanding signs, and institution and multi-family sign allowances in residential zones. Last, the direction provided thus far by Council to Staff at the August 15th Meeting has been summarized. The purpose of this review is to assist the City Council to determine if sign code revisions should be initiated. Overview Chapter 22.110, Sign Regulations of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) regulates permanent, temporary, and portable signs. The Chapter addresses all aspects of signage including signs in both residential and non-residential areas, prohibited signs, general regulations, location and setbacks, permitting requirements, sign area calculations, billboards, non-conforming signs, and maintenance. The information provided in this memo does not consider regulations applicable to signs in residential zones (except for institutional and multi- family uses), master sign plans, aesthetic corridors, nonconforming signs, or billboards. Instead, the focus is on the most common sign types and relevant regulations that affect local businesses. All referenced information is contained in the attached tables. Signage is defined by the SVMC as: A visual communication device, structure, or fixture, which is visible from any right-of-way and is intended to aid in promoting the sale of products, goods, services, events, or to identify a building using graphics, letters, figures, symbols, trademarks, or written copies. It is further defined to include any board, poster, placard, banner, flag, pennant, streamer, or similar structure, electronic or otherwise which is Memo to City Manager Sign Comparison Memo August 4,2011;Revised August 29,2011 Page 2 of 9 constructed, placed, attached, painted or fastened, in any manner for the purpose of attracting attention of the public to any place,person, entity, or business. Summary Conclusions Based on the comparison of the code requirements reviewed for the three jurisdictions, the following general conclusions can be made: 1. The City of Spokane Valley is fairly consistent with the adjacent jurisdictions in the types of signs that are prohibited. One significant difference is that Liberty Lake, Spokane, and Spokane County either allow, or are processing a code text amendment to allow, sandwich boards or A-frame Signs. 2. The City of Spokane Valley requires fewer temporary sign permits than Liberty Lake, but more than Spokane and Spokane County. Spokane and Spokane County do not require temporary sign permits except that Spokane requires notice of A-frame signs be provided to the city. 3. The City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County provides the largest wall sign area allowance out of the jurisdictions compared. 4. Spokane Valley and Spokane County allow freestanding signs in all non-residential zoning districts if standards are met. The City of Liberty Lake and Spokane limit the zoning districts that allow freestanding signs. 5. Spokane Valley allows a greater freestanding sign area than Spokane County for businesses in general since the standards do not change between commercial or industrial zones. Spokane County reduces the freestanding sign area for industrial zoned properties. 6. Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake limit free standing signs to 1 per arterial frontage; Spokane and Spokane County limit the number of freestanding signs based on a street frontage ratio. Larger parcels may be allowed additional freestanding signs. 7. Spokane Valley allows a greater monument sign area than the other jurisdictions compared for small single business sites. 8. Spokane Valley has more categories of temporary signage than the other jurisdictions reviewed and results in more temporary sign area allowed than the other jurisdictions. However, the regulations are confusing to the public. 9. With the exception of temporary signs, planning review fees charged by the City of Spokane Valley are generally consistent with Spokane and the County. Liberty Lake does not charge a planning review fee. 10. Spokane Valley is the only jurisdiction out of the four compared that charges a fee for temporary signs. Memo to City Manager Sign Comparison Memo August 4,2011;Revised August 29,2011 Page 3 of 9 11. Generally Spokane Valley's Building Permit Review Fee is less than Liberty Lake and Spokane, and significantly less than Spokane County's Building Permit Review Fees. 12. Spokane Valley's requirement for landscaping at the base of freestanding signs for new development and existing development is consistent with Liberty Lake and Spokane County, with the exception that the County may not require landscaping for signs proposed within existing development; Spokane has no landscaping requirement associated with signs. 13. Spokane Valley is the only jurisdiction that does not allow wall signs on multi-family buildings, but by far allows the largest wall sign area for institutional uses. Review and Analysis The following sections provide a comparison of the applicable regulations by jurisdiction. The attached tables provide more detailed information regarding the regulations. In some cases regulations have been generalized in order to make the comparison. This was necessary primarily when reviewing permanent signage regulations since the City of Spokane has many commercial zoning districts with differing sign regulations. Prohibited Signs Prohibited signs are those signs that are not allowed under any circumstances within each jurisdiction. Table 1 (see attached) identifies the signs prohibited within each jurisdiction. As noted in the general conclusions, Spokane Valley is less restrictive than Liberty Lake, and fairly consistent with Spokane and Spokane County when comparing the sign types that are prohibited. All jurisdictions prohibit flashing signs, portable readerboard signs, signs on vehicle trailers, and off-premise signage. Spokane and Spokane County allows A-frame signs, if criteria are met, and Liberty Lake is currently considering a comprehensive plan amendment that would allow A-frame signs. Currently Liberty Lake only allows A-frame signs for real estate purposes, such as open house advertising. Spokane Valley allows electronically changeable message signs, roof signs, video boards and temporary inflatable signs. Liberty Lake and Spokane County prohibits video boards and roof signs; Spokane allows roof signs in the Central Business District(CBD) zone. Billboards are prohibited in all four jurisdictions. However, Spokane Valley allows existing billboards to be replaced with a structure and copy area that is equal or smaller in size within the mixed use and nonresidential zoning districts. Criteria, such as spacing requirements, limits new billboard location in order to avoid having billboards clustered within concentrated areas. The City has an inventory of existing billboards, which includes location, height, dimensions, and the date that the sign was erected. Permits Required Memo to City Manager Sign Comparison Memo August 4,2011;Revised August 29,2011 Page 4 of 9 Staff also compared the jurisdictions to determine which sign types require permits (See Attached Table 2). Generally speaking, jurisdictions have two types of sign permits: A Sign Permit, which is a building permit, is required for all permanently mounted signage. A Temporary Sign Permit is required for signs intended to be temporarily displayed and then removed, and generally not constructed of long lasting materials. Temporary Signs are approved over the counter by Spokane Valley staff. Each jurisdiction differs in the type of sign that require permits, with one exception: All jurisdictions require a sign permit for any permanently mounted signs. Signs that require a building permit include wall signs, freestanding or pole signs, and monument signs. The requirement for temporary sign permits varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Liberty Lake requires a temporary sign permit for almost all forms of temporary signs, including real estate and political signs. However, staff at Liberty Lake indicated that at this time due to staff cuts, this requirement is often not enforced. Spokane and Spokane County do not require temporary sign permits for any type of temporary signage. Both jurisdictions do have code sections that identify standards associated with most categories of signage including real estate and political signs. Spokane has one exception to the "No Permit Requirement" - A-frame signs require that notice be provided to the city, which includes, among other items, written acknowledgement of the requirements applicable to the sign use. Spokane County's regulations indicate that approval from the Planning and Building Division is required. However, according to County staff, temporary signs are displayed without any approval from the Planning and Building Division whatsoever. Spokane Valley requires a temporary sign permit for all types of temporary advertising signage that include banners, pennants, flags and streamers with copy, inflatables and other types of special event signage. In comparison to Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley does not require temporary sign permits for signage not geared toward sales, such as pennants and streamers without copy, political signs, or flags. None of the jurisdictions require permits for directional signs or name plates so long as they remain within the limits noted per jurisdiction. Table #2 identifies the sign type and notes if a permit is required by the individual jurisdiction. Comparison of Standards (Area,Height,Number of Signs Allowed) The standards for all sign categories were reviewed(See Attached Tables 3 and 4). The review compared maximum sign area, number of signs allowed, and height standards when applicable. The review of Temporary Signs included the same standards, but also took into consideration any time periods associated with their display. The comparisons are discussed below. Permanent Signs: The three categories of permanent signs are Wall Signs, Pole Signs and Monument Signs. This discussion considers the individual sign categories separately. (See Attached Table 3) Wall Signs: Spokane Valley and Spokane County allow up to 25% of the wall area as the maximum wall sign area. This is the largest allowance out of the jurisdictions compared. Spokane and Liberty Lake limit the maximum area to either 10% or 15%. All jurisdictions Memo to City Manager Sign Comparison Memo August 4,2011;Revised August 29,2011 Page 5 of 9 apply the wall sign area standard uniformly in that persons may have as many signs as they choose, so long as the area does not exceed the maximum area allowed. Wall sign area allowed has not been an issue in Spokane Valley. Freestanding Signs: It is difficult to compare freestanding sign standards between jurisdictions, primarily because Spokane has many commercial zoning districts with different standards applicable. Generally, all jurisdictions allow a minimum of one Pole sign per parcel in the districts that allow Pole Signs. Spokane Valley, Spokane, and Spokane County allow one sign per arterial frontage; Liberty Lake only allows Pole Signs on properties along the I-90 corridor or within the interchange area. Spokane allows pole signs in most commercial zones and all industrial zones and allows signs based on lineal frontage, i.e. 1 sign per 300' lineal frontage. Spokane County is similar to Spokane, except that multiple businesses sites may have 1 sign per 500' of lineal frontage. Height limits for all jurisdictions generally range from 20' to 40' with higher limits, ranging from 50' to 60', established for freeway areas. Spokane Valley allows 30' for single business, with additional height allowed for multi-business complexes up to 40'. Maximum area allowed per sign varies considerably since different allocation standards are utilized. Spokane Valley and Spokane County allow 100 to 200 square feet for single business depending on the lineal frontage a site has; Spokane Valley allows up to 250 square feet for freeway properties and multi-business complexes. Spokane bases the area allowed on linear frontage and number of businesses not to exceed 150 square feet, with the exception of their CBD area, where 250 square feet is allowed. Spokane County is similar to Spokane Valley by allowing 100 to 200 square feet of signage area relative to street frontage in commercial zones, but allows 40 — 80 square feet relative to frontage in industrial zones. Monument Signs: Monument Signs are allowed in all commercial and industrial zoning districts per jurisdiction. The number of signs allowed varies from 1 per parcel, 1 per building, 2 per street frontage, or 2 per each 500' of lineal frontage. Liberty Lake allows minimally 1 monument sign in addition to a pole sign in the freeway areas. Spokane Valley limits the monument signs to the maximum number of signs allowed for either pole signs or monument signs. Spokane County allows a greater number of monument signs compared to pole signs as an incentive to encourage business to utilize monument signs rather than pole signs. The area allowed varies from as little as 15 square feet in Spokane, up to 90 square feet in Spokane Valley and Spokane County. Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake provide additional area for multi-business complexes, ranging from 75 square feet up to 150 square feet, while Spokane County provides additional signage for multi-business complexes related to lot frontage. Spokane Valley allows the greatest area for single business and multi-business complexes in a single sign, but Spokane County's ratio approach for signage could result in more signs, with more total frontage on large sites. Temporary Signs: The most common type of Temporary Signs are banners, pennants, flags, streamers, inflatable or balloon signs, real estate signs, political signs, construction signs, and A-frames. Each jurisdiction regulates the signs through different classifications. For example, Spokane Valley Memo to City Manager Sign Comparison Memo August 4,2011;Revised August 29,2011 Page 6 of 9 calls out banners as a separate temporary sign type, while Spokane only allows banners as part of grand opening or special event signage. Both Spokane and Liberty Lake have detailed regulations for real estate, construction, and political signs. However, regulation of these sign types has not been an issue for Spokane Valley, and therefore the discussion will focus on banners, pennants, special event signage and A-frame signs. Table 4 identifies the area and time limits associated with the temporary signs discussed(See Attached Table 4). Banners: Spokane Valley allows banners for a 30 day period, twice per year, compared to 30 days per quarter in Spokane County, and a single 30 day period in the other two jurisdictions. Spokane and Liberty Lake only allow banners associated with grand openings or special events. Liberty Lake has a maximum area of 75 square feet. The other jurisdictions have no maximum area limits. Spokane County permits a single banner, while Spokane Valley permits an unlimited number for that 30 day period. Pennants, flags, and streamers: Spokane Valley allows this signage to be displayed for up to 60 days, twice per year. The 60 days for pennants, flags, etc, is in addition to the 30 days for the banners, and special event signage allowance. Spokane and Liberty Lake only allow this signage in association with grand openings or special events. Spokane County allows a banner or pennants flags and streamers for 30 days each quarter. Special Event Signage: As noted above, Spokane and Liberty Lake allow temporary signage when associated with grand openings and special events. Both jurisdictions allow 30 days to display the signage. Other parameters on special event signage include area limits ranging from 20 — 75 square feet of signage, and height limits for balloon signs not to exceed 25'. Spokane County treats all temporary banners, flags, pennants the same and does not provide additional opportunity beyond the 30 days per quarter as noted above. Spokane Valley allows special event signage for 7 day periods, 4 times per year, with no limits on number of signs, or sign area. A-frame or Sandwich Board Signs: Spokane Valley does not allow this type of signage. Currently regulations in Liberty Lake allow this signage type only for real estate purpose. The height limit is 3' and maximum area is 5 sq. ft.. Spokane County and City of Spokane both allow A-frame signs so long as they do not exceed a maximum area of 9 sq. ft. Spokane has additional requirements that include a height limit of 3', hours of use, and placement within 12' of the business entrance. As previously mentioned Spokane does not require temporary sign permits. However, a sandwich board sign does require notification to the City and an acknowledgement of the applicable rules. Fee Comparison The review also included the Planning fees and Building fees charged by each jurisdiction (See Attached Table 5). Planning Review fees are separate from the Building Permit Fees charged for permanent signage. Planning Review Fees for permanent signage ranges from $50.00 to $60.00 for all jurisdictions, with the exception that Liberty Lake does not have a separate planning review fee. Spokane Valley is the only jurisdiction that charges a planning review fee Memo to City Manager Sign Comparison Memo August 4,2011;Revised August 29,2011 Page 7 of 9 for Temporary Signs. The fee is $50.00. Table 4 identifies the fees charged by each jurisdiction for the various sign types. Building Permit Fees for permanent signage vary significantly due to additional charges that are applied per jurisdiction. Generally, the fees range from $30.00 up to $75.00 for wall signs and from $68.00 up to $321.26 for freestanding signs. However, Spokane has a $25.00 processing fee that is added to each permit, while the County adds an inspection fee that ranges from $128.66 up to $192.99 per sign. Spokane Valley does not charge an inspection fee or a processing fee and therefore results in the lowest building permit fee charged by the jurisdictions compared, and significantly less than Spokane County. According to the Spokane County 2011 Fee Schedule, their fees are based on the actual average cost to the Building Department to process permits, review plans and perform inspections. This applies to all construction permits, not just signs. This is presumed to explain why their fees are significantly higher. Sign Permit Process: During the August 15th meeting, Council members asked for clarification on the sign permit process, including length of time for review, number of signs included in a permit and clarification of engineering sign requirements. As noted above temporary signs are reviewed by the Planning Division only, and approved as an over the counter permit. Wall signs and freestanding signs are reviewed by the Building Division and the Planning Division. Upon application, permits are first given to the Building Division. Generally, the permit is reviewed by the Senior Plans Examiner within the same week of submittal, and then passed on to the Planning Division for review and approval. Planners generally review sign permits the same day received. However, the review may take longer, if additional information is required. Permits may include numerous signs per building, and more than one freestanding sign on the site. Building permit fees are charged per sign. However, signage for separate buildings, even if on the same site, requires separate permit applications. See Table 5 for fee amounts as discussed above. As mentioned at the meeting, freestanding signs greater than 6' in height must be engineered. This requirement originates from the International Building Code. The sign application is being updated to reflect this requirement in order to inform applicants. Landscaping Requirements for Signs At the August 15th meeting Council also requested information regarding landscaping requirements for freestanding signs. All four jurisdictions were reviewed to identify landscaping standards, and it appears that all four jurisdictions deal with the landscaping requirement differently. Spokane Valley's current regulations identify landscaping requirements for two development conditions: New freestanding signs in new development, and new freestanding signs proposed in existing developments. Liberty Lake and Spokane County both require all freestanding signs to be placed in"maintained landscaped" areas. The difference is in how the regulation is implemented. Spokane County doesn't require new landscaping for the sign, the requirement is that the sign be placed within a landscaped area if landscaping were required for the site. Liberty Lake requires landscaping at the base, so the Memo to City Manager Sign Comparison Memo August 4,2011;Revised August 29,2011 Page 8 of 9 sign may be placed in a landscaped area, or landscaping must be provided. Spokane, in contrast, does not require landscaping in association with signage. Table 6 identifies the regulations by jurisdiction. The issue of landscaping at the base of signs was previously discussed with council, and staff was directed to propose a code text amendment eliminating landscaping at the base of signage proposed on developed sites. Staff is currently working on the development of a number of code text amendments to Chapter 22.70 Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping which will be brought to Council for review and approval following Planning Commission Review. Sign in Residential Zones for Institutional and Multi-family Uses Sign standards for Institutional and Multi-family uses were reviewed for each of the jurisdictions. All four jurisdictions establish standards for institutional type uses. Spokane Valley and Spokane provide general standards for all institutional uses, and separate standards for multi-family uses, while Liberty Lake and Spokane County provide standards that further break down the institutional category into semi-public (churches, multi-family and child care, etc.) and schools/public (schools, and all public uses). Institutional uses are generally defined as establishments or organizations that are associated with public, education, or charitable causes or programs. Additionally, each jurisdiction has separate standards for each of the sign categories (wall, freestanding, and monument signs.) Table 7 identifies the specific standards for each sign type in each category. Wall signs The City of Spokane Valley has the least restrictive wall sign allowance for institutional uses, and the most restrictive regulations for multi-family wall signs, since no wall signs are allowed for multi-family uses. Spokane Valley allows up to 25% of the wall area for institutional uses, while Liberty Lake and Spokane County limit the maximum area from 20 sq. ft. up to 32 sq. ft. Spokane's maximum sign area allowed is 50 sq. ft., but may be smaller since the area is linked to the ratio of the building wall length. Wall sign area for multi-family complexes are limited to 1 sign per building with maximum area ranging from 10 sq. ft. up to 20 sq. ft. Free standing signs The comparison of the freestanding sign regulations for multi-family and institutional uses indicates that Spokane Valley's regulations provide the largest area for multi-family free standing signage, and a height limit that is not exceeded by any of the jurisdictions. Liberty Lake does not allow freestanding signs for multi-family uses or institutional uses. Spokane Valley's maximum sign area for institutional uses is consistent with Spokane County, and slightly less than Spokane. The height limits range from 10' up to 20', with Spokane Valley having the lowest maximum height. Monument Signs The comparison of monument sign regulations is similar to the freestanding sign regulations for multi-family and institutional uses in that Spokane Valley provides the largest area for signage and the tallest height allowance, with one exception - Spokane County provides an area bonus if a monument sign is kept under 7' in height. Memo to City Manager Sign Comparison Memo August 4,2011;Revised August 29,2011 Page 9 of 9 Council Direction At the August 15th City Council Meeting, Council members noted sign regulation items that should be revised during the discussion. While staff anticipates that this list will continue to evolve with Council discussion, the following items will be clarified with the Council to determine which items will move forward as a code text amendment: 1. Develop dimming requirements for electronic signs (lighting standards); 2. Ensure that churches are allowed reasonable signage in residential zones; 3. Properties along Trent and other arterials should have additional sign allowances; 4. Temporary sign fees and permits should be eliminated; 5. Regulations for the purposes of enforcement should be developed that address the following topics: a. Temporary signs should not distinguish between banners, pendants, flags, etc or special events; b. Time frames for displaying temporary signs should be increased; or c. Time frames for temporary signs should be eliminated and replaced with aesthetic standards that would determine when signs should be removed; 6. A-frames or sandwich boards should be allowed for businesses and real estate purposes; 7. Eliminate landscaping requirements at the base of free-standing signs on developed sites; Items that the Council noted that fall outside of the scope of the Planning Division include: 1. Limit the type of code compliance complaints that may be filed by citizens. i.e. no anonymous complaints. Please let me know if you would like additional information. Sign Regulations Comparison Tables Table 1 Prohibited Signs By Jurisdiction Note: Revised August 24,2011 Sign Type Spokane Valley Liberty Lake Spokane Spokane County Flashing Signs Il Il Il Portable Signs (includes readerboards and A-frame signs) Readerboards El Il Il Il A-frames El 0 except A- frame signs are allowed for real estate purposes> than 6 sq.ft.** Signs on Vehicle Trailers 0 0 0 0 Billboards—(Note-Existing Billboards are non-conforming and allowed to remain) 0 0 0 0 Off Premises Signs 0 0** 0 0 Electronically changeable message signs (freestanding) 0 Roof signs 0 Allowed in the CBD zone only. El Video Boards 0 0 Inflatable Signs or permanent balloon signs 0 0 Note: Permanent Balloon signs not allowed. Temporary inflatable signs only. ** Note: The City of Liberty Lake is currently processing a code text amendment that would allow A-frame signs up to a maximum of 3' height and 6 sq.ft. of area and is also prohibiting off premise signage. August 15, 2011; Revised August 24, 2011 Page 1 Sign Regulations Comparison Tables Table 2 Sign Permits Required by Sign Type and Jurisdiction Revised on August 24,2011 Sign Type Spokane Valley Liberty Lake Spokane Spokane County Wall Signs 0 0 0 0 Free Standing or Pole Signs 0 0 0 0 Monument Signs 0 0 0 0 Banners (Temporary Sign) 0 TS I TS NR NR Pennants,flags, and streamers with copy I TS I TS NR NR Special Event Signage (including search lights& inflatables) I TS I TS NR NR Temporary Commercial Signs ( i.e. Construction,for sale or lease) NR I TS NR NR A-Frame Signs or Sandwich Boards Prohibited I TS NR— However notice to City is required acknowledging the requirements NR Electronic Signs 0 Prohibited 0 0 Official Signs NR NR NR NR National and State Flags; Flags of political sub- divisions; Symbolic flags of non-profit institutions NR NR NR NR Notice Signs; Legal Notices NR NR NR NR Pennants and Streamers w/o advertising copy; Barber Poles: Seasonal Decorations associated w/ national, local or religious holiday NR I TS NR NR Political signs for candidates or ballots NR 0 TS NR Name Plates<4' sq.feet in area NR NR NR< 2 sq.ft. NR Directional Signs<4' sq.feet in area NR NR NR< 3 sq.ft NR TS=Temporary Sign Permit NR= Not Required August 15, 2011; Revised August 24, 2011 Page 2 Sign Regulations Comparison Tables Table 3 Location and Height Requirements for Permanent Signs in Commercial Zones Comparison by Jurisdiction Spokane Valley Liberty Lake Spokane Spokane County Wall Signs Number per wall No limit-may not exceed maximum area No limit—may not exceed maximum area. No limit-may not exceed max area (except in CC4 zone) No limit-may not exceed maximum area. Area 25%of wall area per building 1 sq.ft./10 sq.ft. of wall up to a max. of 150 sq.ft.; 1-90 properties-300 sq.ft. max.; Director may increase wall area allowance if no other signage is proposed. 1.0 - 1.5 sq.ft. per 10 sq.ft. of primary bldg wall or 15% of the primary building wall whichever is greater; CC2 and CB(2) allow 1.5 sq.ft. of primary bldg wall if no freestanding signage exists 25%of the total wall area or 250 sq.ft. max per sign, whichever is smaller.; Multi business complex, each business is allowed a 250 sq. ft. sign so long as the total of all wall signs does not exceed 25%of the wall area. Max. area per sign None 150 sq.ft; 300 sq.ft. in 1-90 properties. 15 sq.ft in CCR; 50-100 sq.ft other zones; and 250 sq. in CBD zones 250 sq.ft. Free Standing Signs Note: a combination of free- standing and monument signs may not exceed the limit per parcel of either sign type. Note: Only allowed along 1-90 corridor. (M-2, C-2, P zones) Design standards apply. Note-Pole signs are not allowed in all commercial zones- in that case a monument sign is allowed; and freestanding signs are not allowed if a projecting sign exists or wall signage is <1 sq.ft. to 1 ft. of building wall. Note: Sites that are allowed more than 1 free standing sign must provide a 500' separation between signs. Number per parcel 1 per arterial street frontage 1 freestanding sign if along 1- 90 corridor and 1 monument sign along access street per parcel for single business Varies by zone district: 1/arterial street frontage; or 1/300 ft of arterial street frontage and 1 for each additional 300 ft of frontage. Single Business - 1 per site: additional signs are allowed if the site has multiple arterial frontages Multi- Business—1 per 500' of frontage in all commercial and industrial zones, except NC. Height Single Business 30' Multi-Business 40' Freeway 50' 30' Varies by zone district: 20- 35'; 60' in CBD-5 zone; No height allowance for multi- business sites. Varies by zone district: 20' or 30 '; no height allowance provided for multi-business sites. August 15, 2011; Revised August 24, 2011 Page 3 Sign Regulations Comparison Tables Table 3 Location and Height Requirements for Permanent Signs in Commercial Zones Comparison by Jurisdiction Spokane Valley Liberty Lake Spokane Spokane County Area Single Business - 100 sq.ft. or 200 sq.ft.for lots with > 100' of frontage Multi-Business and Freeway -250 sq.ft. 150 sq.ft.—250 sq.ft. 1 sq.ft. per 1 ft. of arterial or local street frontage; or 50 to 75'with an additional 25 sq. ft.for each additional business not to exceed 150sq.ft.; 250sq.ft. in CBD, GC, and Industrial zones 50 sq.ft.—100 sq.ft. in Neighborhood Corn; 100 sq.ft. or 200 sq.ft.for lots with > 100' street frontage in other commercial zones;40 sq.ft. or 80 sq.ft for lots with >than 100' of frontage in industrial zones. The maximum amount is allowed for multi-business sites in all zones. Monument Signs Note:the total of free-standing and monument signs may not exceed the limit per parcel of either sign type. Only allowed in M-1, M-2, M- 3, C-1, C-2, I, P, 0 zones Note: Monument Signs are not allowed if a projecting sign already exists or if wall signage exceeds 1 sq.ft. to 1 ft. of lineal building wall. Note: Monument signs may be substituted for free standing signs —sites may not have both sign types, with the exceptions that an industrial park may have 1 entrance/identification monument sign. Number per parcel 2 per street frontage Single Business— 1/parcel; Multi Bus.—1/street frontage Varies by district- 1 per building or 1 per arterial street frontage Varies by district: 1-2 per site(Neighborhood corn.); 2 per each 500' of street frontage ( other commercial and industrial zones) Height Single Business -7' Multi-Business -7' 8.5' 5' 7' Area (sq.ft.) Single Bus. 90 sq ft. Multi-Bus. 150 sq.ft. Single Business-50—75' Multiple Business -75-100' Varies by district- 15-50 sq. ft 75 sq.ft. Neighborhood corn; and 90 sq.ft. other non residential zones. August 15, 2011; Revised August 24, 2011 Page 4 Sign Regulations Comparison Tables Table 4 Temporary Sign Location and Height Requirements in Commercial Zones Comparison by Jurisdiction Spokane Valley Liberty Lake Spokane Spokane County Banners 30 days per year; 1 renewal allowed Banners, pennants,flags, and streamers are all regulated the same. - 30 days per year and 75 sq.ft. maximum; except properties in 1-90 corridor allowed 150 sq.ft. max. Banners, pennants,flags, and streamers are only allowed in associated with Grand Opening Displays or Special Event Signage. See Below: A single banner,flags, pennants, searchlights or Inflatable are allowed for 30 days/quarter. Approval from the County is required. Pennants, flags, and streamers 60 days with 1 renewal or an annual 75 day permit Special event signage 7 days duration; not more than 4 special event permits per year See above Grand Opening Displays: 30 days prior to event—no maximum area or height limits. See above—no special regulations for special event. Special Event: 30 days prior- limited to 20 sq.ft. area maximum with no height limits. Balloon signs: limited to 30 days— 2x year; Vertical height limit is 25' and no max. area Temporary on- premise commercial signs Construction Signs: 16 sq.ft. max area and limited to 7' in height; no TS permit required Construction Sign: 1 sign/construction site, limited to 32 sq.ft. and 6' height; Real Estate Wall Signs: area limited to 1 sq.ft./ 10 sq.ft of wall. Real Estate Free-standing Commercial signs: 1 sign/frontage; 16' sq.ft. area max. 6' height max. Construction Signs: commercial zones- limited to 32 sq.ft. and 10' in height Real Estate Signs— Limits range generally from 1 per street frontage up to 5 sq.ft. and 7' height; Construction signs: 40 sq. ft. max.; 10' height limit. Real Estate: 32 sq.ft. max. and 10' height limit. Open house/directional signs: 5 sq.ft. and 3' high max; 1 per each access street. A-Frame or Sandwich Board Signs Not Allowed Currently allowed only for real estate uses i.e. Open Houses; Proposed rules would allow A-board signs up to 6' sq.ft. area and 3'height for limited commercial uses. One Sign per business- Limited to 9 sq.ft. area and 3' height; displayed during business hours; located within 12' of entrance Max area of 9 sq.ft. Permanent Banners Allowed; included in permanent signage square footage consistent w/projecting signs and fascia August 15, 2011; Revised August 24, 2011 Page 5 Sign Regulations Comparison Tables Table 5 Comparison of Planning And Building Sign Fees by Jurisdiction and Sign Type Sign Type Spokane Valley Planning/Building Fees Liberty Lake Planning/Building Fees Spokane Planning/Building Fees Spokane County Planning/Building Fees Wall Signs $50.00/$48.00 per sign No Fee/$75.00 $50.00/$30.00 + $25.00 processing fee 59.27/$52.16 + $128.66 inspection fee Free Standing Signs $50.00/$68.00 per sign No Fee/$115.00 $50.00/$75.00+ $25.00 processing fee 59.27/321.26+ 192.99 inspection fee Monuments $50.00/$68.00 per sign No Fee/$115.00 $50.00/$75.00+ $25.00 processing fee 59.27 Temporary Signs $50.00/ No fee No Fee/ No fee No Fee— No Permit Required No Fee / No Fee Note: The fees do not include State Surcharge Fees or Electrical fees for lighted signs. Table 6 Landscaping Requirements at the Base of Free Standing Signs by Jurisdiction Development Type Spokane Valley Liberty Lake Spokane Spokane County New Development New free-standing sign structures in new development shall provide landscaping at the base. Area required varies based on sign structure and can range from 32 sq.ft.for single pole sign to 60 sq.ft.for multiple pole structure. All freestanding and monument signs required to be placed in a maintained landscaped area. No landscaping requirements related to signage for new development or existing development. All free standing and monument signs shall be located in a required landscape area if landscaping is Existing Development No additional landscaping is required for new signs in development that meet current landscaping requirements; or New sign structures on fully developed site require minimal xeriscaping. required as part of the development proposal. August 15, 2011; Revised August 24, 2011 Page 6 Sign Regulations Comparison Tables Table 7 Sign Standards for Multi family Complexes and Institutional Uses in Residential zones by Jurisdiction Sign Type Spokane Valley Liberty Lake Spokane Spokane County Wall Signs Multi-family or Semi-Public No wall signs allowed 1 sign up to 10 sq.ft. 1 per building up 15 sq.ft. 1 sign up to 20 sq.ft. Institutional or Schools/Public Max. area 25%of wall 1 sign up to 20 sq.ft. 1 sq.ft. pe1 'of primary building wall if free-standing sign is present or 1.5 sq.ft. per primary building wall if no freestanding sign exists; 50 sq.ft. max per sign 1 sign up to 32 sq.ft. Freestanding Signs Note: Spokane allows 1 wall sign or 1 freestanding sign for multi family complexes. Multi-family or Semi-Public Multi-family and Institutional: 1 free standing sign per arterial frontage; 10' height and 32 sq.ft. max area allowed. Not allowed 1 per building up to 15 sq.ft. and 10' height. 1 sign allowed; 16 sq.ft and 6' height maximum Institutional or Schools/Public Not allowed 1 sign/street frontage; area is limited to 1 sq.ft per linear street frontage or 50 sq.ft. area and 20' height limit 1 sign allowed; 32 sq.ft. and 15' height maximum. Monument Signs Multi-family or Semi-Public Same as for free standing signs 1 sign allowed; 16 sq. ft and 6' height maximum Same as for free standing signs Same as above, except maximum sign area may be increased to 60 sq.ft for monument signs 7' or less in height Institutional or Schools/Public 1 sign allowed; 32 sq. ft. and 6 ' maximum. Notes Liberty Lake and Spokane County categorize uses by Semi-Public or Schools/Public uses. Spokane Valley and Spokane categorize by Multi-family or Institutional uses. Semi-public includes churches, multi-family, and child day care centers, etc. ; School/Public uses includes schools, and all public uses August 15, 2011; Revised August 24, 2011 Page 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2011 - 2013 DRAFT Amended Legislative Agenda GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: The Legislative session in Olympia will convene on January 9, 2012. In the past, the City Council has considered various legislative items to promote with the Legislature. At the October 4, 2011 council meeting, Council discussed possible items to consider in the amended 2011 - 2013 Legislative Agenda. A copy of the revised DRAFT agenda is attached for Councils' review. OPTIONS: 1. Discuss the amended 2011 - 2013 Legislative Agenda. 2. Revise the proposed amended agenda. 3. Give the matter further thought. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place this item on an upcoming council agenda for adoption consideration as drafted, or with specific revisions. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft 2011 - 2013 Amended Legislative Agenda DRAFT FOR OCTOBER 18, 2011 COUNCIL MEETING Spokane Valley® 2011-13 Legislative Agenda The following is the City of Spokane Valley's 2011-2013 legislative agenda,adopted by Council at their October 26,2010 Council meeting,amended by Council Consensus at their November 16,2010 meeting and again at the December 28,2010 meeting: Principle Items of Interest: Budget Request: 1. Seek Funding to Acquire Park Land Adjacent to Park Road Pool and Centennial Middle School. The City of Spokane Valley has a population of 89,440 people,but only 172 acres of public parks— drastically below the 6.25-10.5 acres/1,000 population(559-938 acres) specified in the City Parks Master Plan. In the past, Spokane Valley has successfully partnered with the State Legislature to acquire and develop Greenacres Park,adjacent to Central Valley School District's future elementary school. A similar opportunity presents itself with Park Road Pool. The City requests $300,000 in funding to acquire land adjacent to Park Road Pool for a park near Centennial Middle School. Policy Requests: 1. Protect the state shared revenues the City receives. The City of Spokane Valley encourages the state to preserve local state-shared revenues. During the 2011 Legislative Session,these funds were cut 3.4%. Moving forward,the City requests that the funds remain intact. These funds include the Liquor Excise Tax Account,Liquor Revolving Account, Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation,Municipal Criminal Justice Assistance Account, and City-County Assistance Account. 2.Additional Lien Authority to Recoup Code Enforcement Costs. The City of Spokane Valley seeks legislation to provide cities with additional tools to recoup costs for enforcing code compliance when a court order is issued and a city performs the abatement itself or through a contractor. This is anticipated to include enacting lien authority similar to a tax lien,including the authority to execute such a lien in the following year. 3. State Environmental Policy Act–Amend Certain Requirements Imposed by State Law. The City supports amending SEPA requirements to make the process less duplicative. SEPA thresholds to consider: (1)Convert some discretionary SEPA exemptions to categorically exempt; (2)Raise the level of SEPA exemptions across the board;(3)Make most actions within UGAs categorically exempt with discretion given to cities;(4)Eliminate excessive costs associated with providing notice for every Determination of Non-significance and Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance application. 4. Support the Association of Washington Cities'legislative agenda items that serve the best interests of the City of Spokane Valley. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing [' information X admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: History of Streamlined Sales Tax (SST) and the impact of SST Mitigation Payments on the City Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: • Governments across the country have for some time been interested in collecting sales taxes on internet sales but have been unable to do so in large part because of the differing tax structures between States. In response to this, a Stream Lined Sales Tax project was developed with the idea to create a uniform taxing structure that would simplify the computation of sales taxes for sales that occurred between different taxing jurisdictions. • New rules related to SST went into effect in the State of Washington on July 1, 2008. • Under the old rules, sales taxes collected on a sale were credited to the jurisdiction where the sale occurred. • Under the new rules (SST), sales taxes collected on a sale are credited to the jurisdiction where the goods are delivered. For example: o If a resident of Cheney purchases a couch in Spokane Valley and loads it into the back of their truck at the store, the point of delivery is in Spokane Valley and the City of Spokane Valley receives the tax. o If a resident of Cheney purchases a couch in Spokane Valley and has it delivered to their home, then the tax is credited to Cheney. • Prior to the State of Washington adopting the SST legislation, there was much discussion among cities across the State with differing points of view and levels of support. o Positively Impacted Cities (PICs) composed largely of smaller jurisdictions with relatively few retail shopping opportunities were in favor of SST because this meant they would receive the sales tax on goods delivered to their community. o Negatively Impacted Cities (NICs) composed largely of population and retail centers were opposed to SST because it meant they would lose the sales tax related to goods delivered to outlying areas. The NICs argued that because they are responsible for maintaining the infrastructure that allows delivery trucks and customers access to and from their community, they should receive the sales tax related to sales because this money allows them to maintain that infrastructure. • The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) was in an awkward position related to SST because they represent both PICs and NICs. • Regardless of the differences of opinion between municipal jurisdictions in the State, the State of Washington determined that the SST would generate a substantial amount of extra sales taxes that would be credited to State coffers. Consequently the State agreed to mitigate the losses experienced by the NICs and this was the genesis of the mitigation payments that have been made since the latter part of calendar year 2008. • When the idea of mitigation payments was developed, we're unaware of any discussion or agreement that the SST mitigation payments would terminate at any point in the future. • Now that the State is contemplating eliminating the mitigation payments altogether, we've looked at our own City budget to determine what this would mean to us. Historical SST mitigation receipts in our General Fund thus far have been: o 2008 $197,476 o 2009 $372,374 o 2010 $569,899 o 2011 $442,083 through 3 quarters. I anticipate this will annualize out to approximately $589,000. o 2012 $560,000 is budgeted • If the State plans to eliminate the SST mitigation payments beginning on January 1, the City of Spokane Valley would need to plan to reduce our revenue estimate by $560,000 with some corresponding reduction of$560,000 in General Fund expenditures. • If however the State plans to eliminate the SST mitigation payments at the beginning of their fiscal year 2013 budget that begins July 1, 2012, then we would plan to reduce our revenue estimate by $280,000 with some corresponding reduction of$280,000 in General Fund expenditures. • If it was the Council's desire to impact recurring General Fund operations the least in 2012, I would recommend that we first consider reductions in the nonrecurring expenditure budget which includes: o $346,600 appropriated for emergency/contingency o $89,000 appropriated as a transfer for street construction projects o $100,000 appropriated as a transfer for park capital projects These reductions in 2012 expenditures are temporary, however it's important to understand that ultimately the impact on the 2013 Budget would likely be a reduction in recurring expenditures and the City programs and services that are attached to them. • If the decision were to make reduction of$280,000 to $560,000 in the recurring expenditure portion of the General Fund budget, it would not be possible to do so without a significant impact on historic levels of service. Ultimately this would be a policy decision on the part of the Council as to which services would be cut back. • The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) will meet with State officials in Olympia on Friday, October 12, 2011, to discuss the proposal to eliminate the SST mitigation payments. Based upon the results of this meeting, elected bodies across the State that receive these payments may be asked to contact their Legislators to oppose the mitigation elimination. OPTIONS: For discussion only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Support A WC and/or I obbyist e fforts t o oppo se t he elimination of SST mitigation. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: At risk are the SST mitigation payments the City receives from the State. In our 2012 Budget, we estimate the revenue loss to be $560,000. STAFF CONTACTS: Mike Jackson and Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint presentation provided by Briahna Taylor two: Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation Proposed Final Report Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee January 5, 2011 Peter Heineccius, JLARC Staff Statute Mandates Study ROW 44.28.815 directs JLARC to review the mitigation provisions enacted when Washington became a full member of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement Slreamllned Sates Tax Mitigation January 5,2011 2 I I What is the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA)? r • Multistate agreement to simplify state tax laws and facilitate taxation of interstate sales • Currently 20 full member states • Washington became a full member on July 1 , 2008 - i -i- -.1, i F:r: fl SSUTA Full Member ! ~ `�t 411‘ T' Report p.3-4 Streamlined Sates Tax Mitigation January 5,2014 3 SSUTA Membership Has Two Om Primary Effects on Local Sales Tax O New revenue from out-of-state retailers registered with SSUTA O Membership required changes to Washington's sales tax laws Report p.4 Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation January 5,2011 4 2 Q New Revenue From SSUTA 1 Registered Retailers • Generally, states cannot require out-of-state retailers to collect and remit sales tax .Internet retailers without a physical presence in WA do not need to collect sales tax on sales in WA • However, retailers registered with SSUTA voluntarily collect and remit sales tax to SSUTA member states This new source of revenue is known as "Voluntary Compliance Revenue" Report p.4 Stream€Ined Sales Tax Mitlgatlon January 5,2011 5 Q Required Changes to WA's a w% • Sales Tax Sourcing Laws • Sourcing laws determine the taxable location of a sale • Location determines the sales tax rate and which jurisdictions receive local sales tax Old Rule: New Rule: Origin Sourcing Destination Sourcing 'EMS °"` i Seattle e Kent received local sales tax Seattle receives local sales tax Report p.5.6 Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigalon January 5,201i 6 3 Change to Sourcing Rules Impacted ri, ..a 364 Local Taxing Jurisdictions i'M 4- ,_;' . i• .,;, -. 1 , : i'' '''r\-. \ \ , -:-..,-,-` . I • -',.-- , Citiesriowns(281) . rt 1 . „-•-, i N, s'• • .,- - - . . *.! Eg Transit Areas(27) ‘, V ' • ' -, Other(17)not displayed . I ._--,"'--- Report p.8-7 Strearrarned Sales Tax 1.05gallon January 5,2011 7 4'4 Change to Sourcing Rules Shifted _A-. ff I'IV Distribution of Local Sales Tax • Majority of jurisdictions experienced a gain in local sales tax revenue due to sourcing change • Minority of jurisdictions experienced a loss o- ---, City A-4 _ _ K City B Revenue from Origin Sourcing: $3 $1 Revenue from Destination Sourcing: $1 $3 Gain/Loss From Sourcing Change: -$2 +$2 Report p.6-7 Slrearrilned Saes Tax lAitigation January 5,2011 8 4 Legislature Enacted Provisions r, I/ .r to Mitigate Net Losses • Net loss equals the loss from sourcing change, offset by voluntary compliance revenue • Jurisdictions receive mitigation payments for net losses City A Mitigation Less From Sourcing Change: -$2 Payment Voluntary Compliance Revenue: +$1 Net Loss; -$1 Report p.7-10 Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation January 5,2011 9 Overview of JLARC Observations • DOR and Treasurer followed statutory provisions • Payments and revenues lower than expected • Extent that payments mitigate actual losses unclear • Mitigation provisions may not address all losses • No other states have mitigation provisions Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation January 5,2011 10 5 DOR and Treasurer Followed n tr ,., Statutory Provisions FY 2008 FY 2009 1. DOR compares tax return data from Sales Data Sales Data before and after the sourcing change for Origin Destination changes in businesses' sales patterns ‘1,1.11 ! y Voluntary ' Quarterly Quarter) Volunta i,.Sourcing •f ompliance ® : << 111_ ®1 Mitigation Loss Revenue �' ` Payment 2. DOR estimates a jurisdiction's quarterly sourcing loss 3. DOR offsets a jurisdiction's sourcing loss by its voluntary compliance revenue to determine its quarterly net loss 4, State Treasurer makes quarterly mitigation payments to the local jurisdiction from the State General Fund Report p.7-10 Streamlined Sales TaxFItgalion January 5,2011 11 Payments and Revenues y Lower Than Expected • Currently 62 jurisdictions receive payments • Nine quarterly mitigation payments to date FY 2009 FY 2010 Fiscal Note Actual Fiscal Note Actual Estimate Amount Estimate Amount Mitigation Payments $31 .6 M $21 .4 M $41 .5 M $26.1 M Voluntary Compliance $49.1 M $5.6 M $59.0 M $7.1 M Revenue Report p.11-12 Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigalion January 5,2011 12 6 Extent That Payments T.1 i r r. Mitigate Actual Losses Unclear • Payments are based on DOB's estimates of the losses caused by the sourcing change • Data is not available to calculate the actual impact of the sourcing change • Cannot verify DOR's estimates against actual amount of losses Report p.13 Streamlined Sales Tax fhiligation January 5,2011 13 Mitigation Provisions May Not A1 Address All Losses • Future Payments: -All payments are based on DOR's estimates of losses experienced in Fiscal Year 2009 -Losses experienced in future years will not be reflected in future payments • Past Payments: -Corrections or refinements to DOR's estimate only apply going forward -DOR does not make retroactive adjustments for payments that have already been made Report p.13-14 Streamlined Safes Tax Mitigation January 5,2011 14 7 No Other States Have F l 1w : Mitigation Provisions • Other full member states did not experience a similar impact to local sales tax revenues -- Already used destination sourcing - Do not have local sales tax - Local sales tax structured differently • States similar to Washington have delayed implementing the change to destination sourcing Report p.15-16 Streamlined Sales Tax Mitgalion January 5,2011 15 Association and Agency Comments • Association of Washington Cities: -Mitigation is still an important effort -"Origin sourcing" used by other states is not the same as origin sourcing used in Washington • Washington State Association of Counties: -WSAC concurred with the report • Washington State Transit Association: -Noted concern with the accuracy of the fiscal note • DOR / OFM: -JLARC review important, no additional comments Report p.21-21 Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation January 5,2011 16 V Contact Information re Staff Contact Information: Peter Heineccius 360-786-5123 Peter.Heineccius©leg.wa.gov www.jlarc.leg,wa.gov Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation January 5,2011 17 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Bicycle Helmets GOVERNING LEGISLATION: NA PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On September 20, 2011, the City Council heard a presentation from the Spokane Regional Health District regarding helmets for bicycles and other wheeled vehicles. Following the presentation, the Council expressed interest in scheduling a Council discussion to discuss the new law recently passed by Spokane County, as well as the one adopted by the City of Spokane in 2004. Copies of those code provisions are attached to this RCA for reference by the Council. BACKGROUND: The City Council previously considered whether to adopt a code provision requiring helmets for wheeled vehicles. After consideration, the Council chose not to adopt such requirements in 2004. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Advise staff on how the Council would like to proceed. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Helmet code provisions for Spokane County and Spokane City of Spokane Municipal Code Chapter 10.17 Helmet Safety Section 10.17.010 Purpose and Policy A. This chapter is enacted as an exercise of the authority of the City of Spokane to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare. Its provisions shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes. B. It is the express purpose of this chapter to provide for and to promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this chapter. C. It is the specific intent of this chapter to place the obligation of complying with its requirements upon any person included within its scope, and no provision of, or term used in, this chapter is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon the City of Spokane or any of its officers or employees for whom the implementation or enforcement of this chapter shall be discretionary and not mandatory. D. Nothing contained in this chapter is intended to be, nor shall be construed to create or to form the basis for, a liability on the part of the City of Spokane or its officers, employees or agents, for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of any person subject to this chapter to comply with this chapter, or by reason or in consequence of any act or omission in connection with the implementation or enforcement of this chapter on the part of the City of Spokane by its officers, employees or agents. Date Passed: Monday, June 4, 2007 Effective Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Recodification ORD C34041 Section 1 Section 10.17.020 Definitions As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated,unless the context clearly requires otherwise: A. "Approved helmet"means a head covering designed for safety that shall meet or exceed the requirements safety of standards adopted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC) 15 USCS 6004, or Z-00.4 set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Snell Foundation, the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), or other subsequent nationally recognized standard for helmet performance as the City may adopt. The helmet must be equipped with either a neck or chin strap that Page 1 of 6 shall be fastened securely while the wheeled vehicle is in motion. B. "Bicycle"means every device propelled solely by human power: 1. upon which a person or persons may ride, and 2. having two tandem wheels either of which is eleven inches or more in diameter, or three wheels, any one of which is more than twenty inches in diameter. 3. Within this chapter, the term"bicycle" shall include any: a. attached trailers, b. side cars, and/or c. other device being towed by a bicycle. C. "Electric-assisted bicycle"means a bicycle with: 1. two or three wheels, 2. a saddle, 3. fully operative pedals for human propulsion, and 4. an electric motor. D. "Electric personal assistive mobility device (EPAMD)"means any device meeting the design characteristics as defined in Title 16A SMC. E. "Guardian"means a: 1. parent, 2. legal guardian, 3. adult with custody, or 4. temporary guardian,who maintains responsibility,whether voluntary or otherwise, for the safety and welfare of a person under the age of sixteen years. F. "In-line skates, roller skates and skate shoes"mean every device which is attached to the rider much like a pair of shoes or boots and which has two or more wheels attached in- line or next to each other beneath, and footwear which has internal or external wheels incorporated as a part the footwear,which wheels are incorporated either in-line or next to each other on the bottom of the footwear. G. "Public area"means public roadways, sidewalk, bicycle paths, parks or any right- of- way,publicly owned facility or publicly owned property within the City. H. "Scooter"means every device with a platform having two or more wheels beneath it and a balancing handpost or steering device,which the rider balances on top of, and which is propelled solely by human power. Page 2 of 6 I. "Skateboard"means every device with a platform having two or more sets of wheels beneath it, which the rider balances on top of, and which is propelled solely by human power. Date Passed: Monday,November 10, 2008 Effective Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009 ORD C34333 Section 15 Section 10.17.030 Helmet Required A. Any person riding or otherwise operating any bicycle, electric-assisted bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, in-line skates,roller skate(s), skate shoe(s), scooter or skateboard, including any passenger thereon and/or person being towed thereby, on any public area in the City shall wear an approved helmet, and shall have either the neck or chin strap of the helmet fastened securely while the device is in motion. B. No person shall transport another person on or tow another person on a device listed in subsection (A) of this section upon any public area in the jurisdiction of the City,unless the passenger is wearing an approved helmet. C. A guardian is responsible for requiring that a child under the age of sixteen years who is under the guardian's care wears an approved helmet, the neck or chin strap of which is fastened securely, while upon a device listed in subsection (A) of this section in motion, or riding as a passenger on a device listed in subsection (A) of this section in any public area in the City. D. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section that the guardian responsible for a child under the age of sixteen did require the child to wear an approved helmet at all times that the child was in the guardian's presence. E. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section for a person wearing an unapproved helmet that the helmet was furnished in conjunction with his rental, lease or use of a device listed in subsection (A) of this section by a person or organization engaged in the business of renting, leasing or loaning such devices, and that the helmet was fastened securely while riding. F. Provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any wheeled devices such as, but not limited to, electronic scooters or wheelchairs that are designed and utilized for medically related reasons. G. For purposes of this chapter, the requirement to wear a helmet shall mean that the helmet shall be worn on the head of the person(s)who is required to wear a helmet with the neck or chin strap of the helmet fastened securely while the device is in motion. Page 3 of 6 Date Passed: Monday, June 4, 2007 Effective Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Recodification ORD C34041 Section 1 Section 10.17.040 Special Events Including, But Not Limited to, Races, Exhibitions, Demonstrations, Parades and Events—Helmet Required A. Any person or organization managing a race, an organized event involving bicycling, a bicycle tour or devices listed in SMC 10.17.030(A) in which will take place in whole or in part in any public area in the City, shall require that all participants riding on or in tow wear approved helmets, and such persons and organizations shall reject participants who fail to comply with the provisions of this chapter. B. The person or organization managing any such event, race or tour shall include the requirement to wear approved helmets in any promotional brochures and on registration materials. C. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section for a person or organization managing an event, race or tour that all participants were wearing approved helmets at the start of the event, race or tour and were instructed to discontinue their participation by a person responsible for management of the event, race or tour at any point where the participant failed to comply with the requirement of wearing an approved helmet. Date Passed: Monday, June 4, 2007 Effective Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Recodification ORD C34041 Section 1 Section 10.17.050 Rent, Lease or Loan of a Bicycle, Electric-assisted Bicycle, Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device, Skateboard, Roller Blades, Roller Skates, Skate Shoes or Scooter— Helmet Required A. Any person engaging in the business of renting, leasing or loaning (e.g., "test ride") any of the devices listed in SMC 10.17.030(A) for use in any public area in the City shall supply the person(s)renting, leasing or using any of the devices with approved helmet(s) along with the devices unless the riders and passengers possess approved helmets of their own, and offer proof thereof, for use with the device and further shall notify such persons of the requirements of this chapter to wear a helmet meeting the safety standards described in SMC 10.17.020. B. The rental, lease or loan documents (contract, agreement,brochure or receipt) shall advise the person renting, leasing or using any of the devices listed in SMC 10.17.030(A) of the helmet requirements of this chapter. Date Passed: Monday, June 4, 2007 Effective Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Recodification ORD C34041 Section 1 Page 4 of 6 Section 10.17.060 Helmet Sales— Safety Standards A. No person shall sell or offer for sale an approved helmet that is required for use under this chapter,which does not meet or exceed the safety standards described in SMC 10.17.020. B. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section that the sale or offer for sale was an isolated sale of used merchandise made by an individual who was not engaged in the business of selling or repairing recreational equipment, such as a seller at a garage or rummage sale. Date Passed: Monday, June 4, 2007 Effective Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Recodification ORD C34041 Section 1 Section 10.17.080 Penalties—Civil Infraction A. Any person violating SMC 10.17.030(A), SMC 10.17.040(A), SMC 10.17.050(A) or SMC 10.17.060(A) shall have committed a class 4 civil infraction and shall be liable for monetary penalties as set forth in SMC 1.05.210. B. The court may waive,reduce or suspend the civil penalty and clear the civil infraction as a warning for a person who has not been cited under this chapter within one year and provides proof that he has acquired an approved helmet at the time of appearance in court or has taken class on helmet safety sponsored by the Spokane Regional Health District. C. A guardian may be cited for a separate violation of this chapter for each child under sixteen years of age riding on or in tow of a device listed in SMC 10.17.030(A)not wearing an approved helmet. D. Each rental and each event under subsection (A) of this section shall be a separate violation. Date Passed: Monday, June 4, 2007 Effective Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Recodification ORD C34041 Section 1 Section 10.17.090 Enforcement A. The City of Spokane police department shall be responsible for enforcement of the provisions of this chapter. B. For the purpose of this chapter, law enforcement officers may at their discretion: 1. enter, during business hours, the premises of a business selling,repairing, leasing, loaning or renting bicycles or selling sporting or recreation equipment, to determine compliance with this chapter; Page 5 of 6 2. post outside the premises of a business that offers for sale,rent, lease, loan or other public purpose a list of helmets that do not meet the safety standards of this chapter, so that the public is informed; and 3. stop a participant in a race or organized event involving any of the devices listed in SMC 10.17.030(A) or a tour that takes place in a public area when there is a violation of the requirements of this chapter. Date Passed: Monday, June 4, 2007 Effective Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Recodification ORD C34041 Section 1 Section 10.17.100 Information and Education A. Information about the need for helmets, safe helmet use, traffic safety education and helmet safety programs are available at the City of Spokane police department and the Spokane Regional Health District. B. The City encourages any person engaging in the business of selling bicycles or any of the devices listed SMC 10.17.030(A) to include information on helmet safety and the helmet requirements of this chapter with each bicycle or devices sold. C. The City encourages any person engaging in the business of selling helmets to include information on safe helmet usage with each helmet sold. Date Passed: Monday, June 4, 2007 Effective Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Recodification ORD C34041 Section 1 Page 6 of 6 6 ORDINANCE NO. //— vg lb AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, REGULATING THE USE OF APPROVED HELMETS BY PERSONS RIDING OR OTHERWISE OPERATING A BICYCLE, ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLE, ELECTRIC PERSONAL ASSISTIVE MOBILITY DEVICE, IN-LINE SKATES, ROLLER SKATE(S),SKATE SHOE(S),SCOOTER SKATEBOARD WITHIN ANY PUBLIC AREA WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SPOKANE COUNTY; ESTABLISHING PENALTIES IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON,as follows: SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND POLICY A. This Ordinance is enacted as an exercise of the authority of the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare. Its provisions shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes. B. It is the express purpose of this Ordinance to provide for and to promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this Ordinance. C. It is the specific intent of this Ordinance to place the obligation of complying with its requirements upon any person included within its scope, and no provision of, or term used in, this Ordinance is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon the County of Spokane or any of its officers or employees for whom the implementation or enforcement of this Ordinance shall be discretionary and not mandatory. D. Nothing contained in this Ordinance is intended to be, nor shall be construed to create or to form the basis for, a liability on the part of the County of Spokane or its officers, employees or agents, for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of any person subject to this Ordinance to comply with this Ordinance, or by reason or in consequence of any act or omission in connection with the implementation or enforcement of this Ordinance on the part of the County of Spokane by its officers, employees or agents. Page 1 of 6 /I— ogio SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS As used in this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: A. "Approved helmet" means a head covering designed for safety that shall meet or exceed the requirements safety of standards adopted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 15 USCS 6004, or Z-00.4 set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Snell Foundation, the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), or other subsequent nationally recognized standard for helmet performance as the County may adopt. The helmet must be equipped with either a neck or chin strap that shall be fastened securely while the wheeled vehicle is in motion. B. "Bicycle"means every device propelled solely by human power: 1. upon which a person or persons may ride, and 2. having two tandem wheels either of which is eleven inches or more in diameter, or three wheels,any one of which is more than twenty inches in diameter. 3. Within this Ordinance,the term"bicycle"shall include any: a. attached trailers, b. side cars,and/or c. other device being towed by a bicycle. C. "Electric-assisted bicycle"means a bicycle with: 1. two or three wheels, 2. a saddle, 3. fully operative pedals for human propulsion, and 4. an electric motor. D. "Electric personal assistive mobility device (EPAMD)" means motorized foot scooters, motorized skateboards, and all other similar devices, but shall be deemed to exclude motorized wheel chairs. E. "Guardian"means a: 1. parent, 2. legal guardian, 3. adult with custody,or 4. temporary guardian, who maintains responsibility, whether voluntary or otherwise, for the safety and welfare of a person under the age of sixteen years. F. "In-line skates, roller skates and skate shoes" means every device which is attached to the rider much like a pair of shoes or boots and which has two or more wheels attached in-line or next to each other beneath, and footwear which has internal or external wheels incorporated Page 2 of 6 as a part the footwear, which wheels are incorporated either in-line or next to each other on the bottom of the footwear. G. "Person" for purposes of Section 3A of this Ordinance, "participants" for the purposes of Section 4A of this Ordinance, and "person(s) renting, leasing or using" for the purposes of Section 5A of this Ordinance includes those individuals who are at least the age of three (3) and under the age of sixteen(16). H. "Public area" means public roadways, sidewalk, bicycle paths, parks or any right-of-way, a Spokane County publicly owned and operated facility or Spokane County publicly owned and operated property within the unincorporated area of Spokane County. I. "Scooter" means every device with a platform having two or more wheels beneath it and a balancing handpost or steering device, which the rider balances on top of, and which is propelled solely by human power. J. "Skateboard"means every device with a platform having two or more sets of wheels beneath it,which the rider balances on top of,and which is propelled solely by human power. SECTION 3: HELMET REQUIRED A. Any person riding or otherwise operating any bicycle, electric-assisted bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, in-line skates, roller skate(s), skate shoe(s), scooter or skateboard, including any passenger thereon and / or person being towed thereby, on any public area within the unincorporated area of Spokane County shall wear an approved helmet, and shall have either the neck or chin strap of the helmet fastened securely while the device is in motion. B. No person shall transport another person on or tow another person on a device listed in subsection (A) of this section upon any public area in the unincorporated area of Spokane County,unless the passenger is wearing an approved helmet. C. A guardian is responsible for requiring that a child under the age of sixteen years who is under the guardian's care wears an approved helmet, the neck or chin strap of which is fastened securely, while upon a device listed in subsection (A) of this section in motion, or riding as a passenger on a device listed in subsection (A)of this section in any public area in the unincorporated area of Spokane County. D. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section that the guardian responsible for a child under the age of sixteen did require the child to wear an approved helmet at all times that the child was in the guardian's presence. E. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section for a person wearing an unapproved helmet that the helmet was furnished in conjunction with his rental, lease or use of a device listed in subsection(A) of this section by a person or organization engaged in the business of Page 3 of 6 /1— "/0 renting, leasing or loaning such devices, and that the helmet was fastened securely while riding. F. Provisions of this Ordinance shall not apply to any wheeled devices such as, but not limited to, electronic scooters or wheelchairs that are designed and utilized for medically related reasons. G. For purposes of this Ordinance, the requirement to wear a helmet shall mean that the helmet shall be worn on the head of the person(s)who is required to wear a helmet with the neck or chin strap of the helmet fastened securely while the device is in motion. SECTION 4: SPECIAL EVENTS INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,RACES, EXHIBITIONS,DEMONSTRATIONS,PARADES AND EVENTS -HELMET REQUIRED A. Any person or organization managing a race, an organized event involving bicycling, a bicycle tour or devices listed in Section 3 (A)which will take place in whole or in part in any public area in the unincorporated area of Spokane County, shall require that all participants riding on or in tow wear approved helmets, and such persons and organizations shall reject participants who fail to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance. B. The person or organization managing any such event, race or tour shall include the requirement to wear approved helmets in any promotional brochures and on registration materials. C. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section for a person or organization managing an event, race or tour that all participants were wearing approved helmets at the start of the event, race or tour and were instructed to discontinue their participation by a person responsible for management of the event, race or tour at any point where the participant failed to comply with the requirement of wearing an approved helmet. SECTION 5: RENT,LEASE OR LOAN OF A BICYCLE,ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLE,ELECTRIC PERSONAL ASSISTI VE MOBILITY DEVICE, SKATEBOARD,ROLLER BLADES,ROLLER SKATES, SKATE SHOES OR SCOOTER—HELMET REQUIRED A. Any person engaging in the business of renting, leasing or loaning (e.g., "test ride") any of the devices listed in Section 3 (A) for use in any public area in the unincorporated area of Spokane County shall supply the person(s) renting, leasing or using any of the devices with approved helmet(s) along with the devices unless the riders and passengers possess approved helmets of their own, and offer proof thereof, for use with the device and further shall notify such persons of the requirements of this Ordance to wear a helmet meeting the safety standards described in Section 2(A). Page 4 of 6 //- og/6 B. The rental, lease or loan documents (contract, agreement, brochure or receipt) shall advise the person renting, leasing or using any of the devices listed in Section 3(A) of the helmet requirements of this Ordinance. SECTION 6: HELMET SALES--SAFETY STANDARDS A. No person shall sell or offer for sale an approved helmet that is required for use under this Ordinance,which does not meet or exceed the safety standards described in Section 2(A). B. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section that the sale or offer for sale was an isolated sale of used merchandise made by an individual who was not engaged in the business of selling or repairing recreational equipment, such as a seller at a garage or rummage sale. SECTION 7: ENFORCEMENT A. The Spokane County Sheriffs Office and / or person(s) specially commissioned by the Spokane County Sheriff shall be responsible for enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance, B. For the purpose of this Ordinance,law enforcement officers may at their discretion: 1. enter, during business hours, the premises of a business selling, repairing, leasing, loaning or renting bicycles or selling sporting or recreation equipment, to determine compliance with this Ordinance; 2. post outside the premises of a business that offers for sale, rent,lease, loan or other public purpose a list of helmets that do not meet the safety standards of this chapter, so that the public is informed; and 3. stop a participant in a race or organized event involving any of the devices listed in Section 3(A) or a tour that takes place in a public area when there is a violation of the requirements of this Ordinance. SECTION 8: PENALTIES A. Any person violating Section 3(A), Section 4(A), Section 5(A), or Section 6(A) may be provided educational instruction on the need for and availability of approved helmets. B. Information about the need for helmets, safe helmet use, traffic safety education and helmet safety programs are available at the Spokane County Sheriff s Department and the Spokane Regional Health District. C. The Board of County Commissioners and Spokane County Sheriff encourage any person engaging in the business of selling bicycles or any of the devices listed Section 3(A)to include information on helmet safety and the helmet requirements of this Ordinance with each bicycle or devices sold. Page 5 of 6 D. The Board of County Commissioners and Spokane County Sheriff encourage any person engaging in the business of selling helmets to include information on safe helmet usage with each helmet sold. SECTION 9: SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. DATED this /..3/2 clay of ilk" / //� ,2011. COMAI 4S:p, kh BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �o • cod. Q2 % 0g .40' . rJ OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON h i' SEAL ��. ��` cots . Al FRENCH, ` air ATTEST: ‘`N.�..� --� 41/ TODD MIELKE,Vice Chai Daniela Erickson /1— dg/b Clerk of the Board l • • /`` I,Commissioner Page 6 of 6 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of October 12,2011; 12:00 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk,by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings October 25,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Oct 17] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Amended Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CDBG—Scott Kuhta (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-014,Bike/Pedestrian Master Program—Mike Basinger(15 minutes) 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, 11-015 Levy Property Tax—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-016,tax confirmation—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 6.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-017 Adopting 2012 Budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 7.First Reading Proposed Ordinance, 11-018 Franchise Agreement Bonneville Power—Cary Driskell(20 minutes) 8. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution for 2012—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 9.Motion Consideration: Draft Legislative Agenda—Mike Jackson (10 minutes) 10.Motion Consideration: Participation in Traffic School Program—Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) 11.Admin Report: Lodging Tax Funding—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 12. Comprehensive Plan Discussion—John Hohman (15 minutes) 13. Info Only: (a) Stormwater Update;(b)Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 170 minutes] November 1,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Oct 24] 1. Spokane Regional Sports Commission Update—Eric Sawyer (10 minutes) 2. Public Facilities District Presentation,Proposed Convention Center Completion—Kevin Twohig (20 minutes) 4. Economic Development Update—Mike Jackson,John Hohman (30 minutes) 5. Railroad Quiet Zones—Roger Crum (20 minutes) 6. Stormwater Grants—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 7. Chapter 1,Draft Governance Manual—Mayor Towey,Councilmember Gothmann,C.Bainbridge (30 min) 8.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 130 minutes] November 8,2011,No meeting (3 councilmembers attending a conference) November 15,2011, Special,Formal Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Nov 7] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-017 Adopting 2012 Budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2011 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Funding Allocation,Lodging Tax—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] November 22,2011; NO MEETING(Thanksgiving week) November 29,2011, Study Session Format 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Nov 21] 1. Street Maintenance Contract Renewal—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 2. Sweeping Contract Renewals—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 3. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 10/13/2011 3:47:42 PM Page 1 of 2 December 6,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Nov 28] 1. Oath of Office for Council positions#3 and 5—Chris Bainbridge (10 minutes) 2. Landscaping Code Amendments—John Hohman (30 minutes) 3. Police Department Accreditation—Rick VanLeuven (15 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] December 13,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Dec 5] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2011 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 3. Committee,Boards,Commission Mayoral Appointments—Mayor Towey (15 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Street Maintenance Contract Renewal—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: Sweeping Contract Renewals—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] December 20, 2011, No meeting(Christmas Week) December 27, 2011,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Dec 19]] 1. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] January 3,2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Tue,Dec 27] 1. Oath of Office for Council positions #2, 3 and 6—Chris Bainbridge (10 minutes) 2.Mayor and Deputy Mayor Elections—Chris Bainbridge (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Bidding Contracts(SVMC 3.—bidding exceptions) Centennial Trail Agreement Contracts,Annual Renewals,histories,etc. Franchise Ord.,Bonneville Power(2°d reading) Greenacres Trail/Northern Railroad Investment Accounts Milwaukee Right-of-way Mission Ave Design(Mission&Long ped. crossing) Parking/Paving Options(for driveways,etc.) Pavement Management Program Update Prosecution Services Public Input Process for Capital Projects Railroad Quiet Zones Retreat(Jan or Feb 2012) Revenue Policy,Cost Recovery School Flashing Beacons,Bowdish Middle, et al Senior Housing Shoreline Draft Goals and Policies Sidewalks Speed Limits(Indiana etc) Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment Stormwater Projects for Grant Funding,and in general Stormwater Contracts WIRA,Water Protection Commitment,Public Educ. *time for public or council comments not included Draft Advance Agenda 10/13/2011 3:47:42 PM Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: Oct 18th, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 1-90 Signage Analysis GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion on 6/29/10 and 7/26/11 BACKGROUND: A request was made at the 7/26/11 City Council meeting for staff to continue researching the replacement of the Sprague Avenue exit signs to include Appleway Avenue, and also for the establishment of a business route on the Sprague Avenue corridor. This memorandum provides additional information on the cost and timeline for this project. The replacement of the 1-90 signage would require WSDOT to design and manage the construction of the new cantilever structures and signage. The Aprri MEM City would be responsible for all costs associated with the design and Law construction. WSDOT Eastern Region staff would complete the design work. There are two options for the east end of the business route. Staff would need to establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Liberty Lake to make the Greenacres Exit (294) the eastern terminus. If that is not approved, then the Barker Exit (293) could be considered. WSDOT has determined that existing Motorist Information Signing, such as The Nut Factory's signage, could remain in place with the addition of a Business Loop. EXIT 175 1 HIHHFSOU COUNTY /BUSINESS • 105 46 90 i Oakland Ave 11/4 MILES Example exit sign with Business Route Shield Costs The cost estimate below could be better refined once WSDOT completes the sizing of the new signs and evaluation of the sign structures. WSDOT Engineering Cost $50,000 Replace 2 overhead signs and structures at Sprague Ave Exit (285) to include Appleway Ave and the Business Route Shield. Replace 2 post-mounted signs for $200,000 Greenacres Exit (294) or Barker Exit (293) to include the Business Route Shield. Construction Management $60,000 Install follow-through signage on Sprague and Appleway $10,000 Corridors Total $320,000 Process and timeline for establishment The steps for approval, design, and construction of the signage is outlined below. City works with Liberty Lake on proposal for business route Fall 2011 starting within their city limits City sends request to WSDOT Planning (including a letter indicating the City will pay the cost to change the signing if Fall 2011 approved and maintain the Sprague Avenue route markers) City sends request to WSDOT Planning (including a letter indicating the City will pay the cost to change the signing if Fall 2011 approved and maintain the Sprague Avenue route markers) WSDOT approves and sends request to the district FHWA Fall 2011 Office FHWA District office approves and forwards request to Winter 2012 FHWA HQ in Washington, DC WSDOT notifies and applies for approval with AASHTO once the request has cleared both FHWA offices Late Winter 2012 (WA state and DC HQ) AASHTO writes to FHWA to notify them of receipt and Late Winter 2012 request their decision, if none is noted in step #4 AASHTO presents to the Special Committee on US Route Number to make final a decision Spring 2012 (at National AASHTO meeting) Special Committee decision and FHWA decision is presented Spring 2012 to the Standing Committee on Highways (at National AASHTO meeting) WSDOT initiates design process Fall 2011* or Summer 2012 Project put out to bid Spring 2012* or Spring 2013 Construction Summer 2012* or Spring/Summer 2013 * The City could pay for the design work to be initiated prior to approval of the business route to ensure the project could be bid and constructed in 2012 OPTIONS: 1) Authorize staff to ask Liberty Lake for agreement to the concept and execute a Memorandum of Understanding. Then execute a contract with WSDOT to begin the design work or provide other direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Preliminary Estimate at $320,000 STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: None {rr of poane From the Community Development Department Valley Interoffice Memorandum To: Mike Jackson,City Manager From: Scott Kuhta,AICP, Planning Manager CC: John Hohman, PE, Community Development Director Date: October 11, 2011 Re: Regional Site Selector Website Upgrade The Regional Site Selector Consortium, comprised of the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake, Spokane County and Avista, is pleased to announce that the newly updated Select Spokane economic development website (www.selectspokane.com) is nearing its public launch. The original website went live in 2007 and has been a useful tool for site selectors, corporate brokers and others in the economic development profession. GIS Planning, the original web site developer, has created a new platform with the following features and benefits: • Faster application • Mobile phone version • Totally revised and easier to use interface • Enhanced map quality • Multiple base map options • Sketch, measure and label on maps • Google StreetView • Community demographic and business reports • Ability to create custom searches by drawing shapes on the map • Richer set of information easily viewable on a single page • Still the same set of great local GIS and Commercial Real Estate Data GIS Planning, Inc. has programmed the new site at NO ADDITIONAL COST to the Regional Site Selector Consortium. The Consortium will host a "soft launch" for Spokane area commercial brokers on October 27, 2011 at CenterPlace. The intent of this meeting is to familiarize the brokers with the new website and to provide training to those individuals who may not be familiar with how commercial properties for lease or sale can be listed on the site.The Consortium will announce the official website launch at a meeting for Spokane area elected officials and agency staff in November, time and place to be determined. Please contact me if you have questions. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Wastewater Fee Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: The County has proposed changes to the Wastewater fee. Attached is a presentation that was given to the Wastewater Policy Advisory Committee on October 10tH OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS: Wastewater Fee Presentation SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ITTILITIES WASTEWATER RATE STUDY UPDATE Wastewater Policy Advisory Board (WPAB) October 10, 2011 Presented by: Bruce Rawls P.E., Spokane County Utilities Director Angie Sanchez Virnoche, Principal/Project Manager • FCS GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting Snag COMP(tw Cost of Service Rate Study Update • Last Rate Study Completed in 2009 ➢ Rates set for 2010, 2011 and 2012 • Current update addresses: ➢ Continued economic slowdown ➢ Updated County operating costs ➢ Updated capital costs ➢ TMDL requirements (Saltese Flats) ➢ Loss of City of Spokane Valley Aquifer Protection Area (APA) revenue • FCS GROUP Objective of Rate Study Update 1 • Evaluate the sufficiency of current rates in meeting total wastewater program financial obligations ➢ Operating costs ➢ Capital costs • Update rate strategy for 2012-2014 • FCS GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting 3 Wastewater Program Monthly Charges Operations & Maintenance Costs: Cover Operation and Maintenance Costs of the Collection System and Treatment Plants 4FCS GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting Mw Capital & Debt Costs: Cover Capital Program Upgrades to the City Plant and the County Plant 4 Total Wastewater Monthly Program Costs Anticipated System Growth I a_ • Lower growth levels extended due to economic downturn • New development equivalent residential units (ERU) ➢ 0.6% - (300 ERUs) in 2012 ➢ 0.7% - (400 ERUs) in 2013 and ➢ 1 .2% - (680-700 ERUs) per year thereafter • Additional 5,330 ERU connections from Septic Tank Elimination Program (2012 — 2014) • FCS GROUP • Current sewer service charge = $27.29/Mo/ERU • Key Changes > Riverside Park WRF O&M cost increase delayed: 2014 -* 2018 — Reduction of $925,000 - $1 .7 million per year (2014 — 2017) > Spokane County WRF flows at plant lower in 2012 and 2013 — Average reduction of $500,000 per year > Biosolids O&M increased by $ 150,000 per year > NEW: PCB Studies and Regional Task Force $250,000/year > NEW: NPDES Water Quality Compliance Monitoring - $ 100,000/year • FCS GROUP Sewer Service Charge Summary 2014 I Expenses: RPWRF Operations SCRWRF Operations Other Operating Expenses Replacement Reserve Funding $ 4,767,045 $ 1,455,703 $ 1,545,460 $ 1,663,983 6,116,316 6,679,307 7,335,680 6,851,618 8,716,264 9,019,233 9,534,357 577,268 923,321 1,195,507 Total Expenses Sewer Service Charge Required Annual Change 2009 Rate Study Projection Difference from 2011 Update $11,618,663 $16,865,551 $18,167,320 $19,729,528 $ 1,775,491 $ 1,857,709 7,888,687 8,263,819 9,842,450 10,165,394 1,468,450 1,742,221 $20,975,077 $22,029,144 $ 27.29 $ 27.29 $ 28.04 $ 28.79 $ 29.79 $ 31.04 $ $ 0.75 $ 0.75 $ 1.00 $ 1.25 $ 27.29 $ 28.54 $ 29.79 $ 31.07 $ - $ 1.25 $ 1.75 $ 2.28 $ 32.03 $ 32.99 $ 2.24 $ 1.95 • Riverside Park WRF costs include: treatment costs, payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to Spokane phased out per agreement, pre-treatment program costs, interceptor maintenance • Spokane County WRF includes: design/build/operate costs and NVI/SVI conveyance electricity costs • Other operating expenses include: other 401 fund operating costs, TMDL study/monitoring, Biosolids, PCBs, water quality compliance, Saltese Flats O&M, NVI/SVI conveyance direct labor/overhead • Replacement reserves for SCRWRF (per contract) and collection system replacement funding • FCS GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting 7 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Charg • Current WWTP charge = $ 17.75/month/ERU • Key Changes (2011 — 2016) since 2009 study ➢ Funding Sources $4 million reduction in non program GFC revenue (2011 — 2016) Total APA annual revenue average $975,000 • City of Spokane Valley APA revenue removed (low of $3 85,000 to high of $500,000 per year) ➢ Annual debt service reduced $4 — 6 million/year — $33 million new debt issue in 2011 removed (Saltese Flats phase 2) — Interest rates realized on bonds lower than anticipated ➢ 2011 — 2016 capital program: $150 million — $31 million reduction in water reclamation program and facilities (Saltese Flats phase 2) ➢ Increased capital costs at RPWRF • FCS GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting 8 Summary of Rate Scenarios • Three scenarios developed for the WWTP Charge: • Scenario 1 : decrease WWTP charge in 2012 • Scenario 2: retain current WWTP Charge level • Scenario 3 : include Saltese Flats Phase 2 — Issue $33.5 million in revenue bonds in 2014 • 20-year revenue bonds @ 4.95% —> additional $2.7 million per year in debt service • All rate scenarios assume recovery of diverted APA revenue to City of Spokane Valley • Surcharge to City accounts of $ 1 . 10/mo/ERU • FCS GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting 9 Summary WWTP Charge Rate Scenario 1 2009 Rate Proposal WWTP Charge $17.75 I $18.29 $18.84 $19.38 $19.92 Current 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Scenario 1: Reduce WWTP Charge - County $17.75 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50 WWTP charge WWTP Charge - City $17.75 $17.60 $17.60 $17.60 $17.60 $17.60 Scenario 2: Level WWTP WWTP Charge - County $17.75 $17.75 $17.75 $17.75 $17.75 $17.75 charge 2011 Rates WWTP Charge - City $17.75 $18.85 $18.85 $18.85 $18.85 $18.85 Scenario 3: Saltese WWTP Charge - County $17.75 $17.75 $17.75 $18.50 $19.25 $20.25 Flats Phase 2 WWTP Charge - City $17.75 $18.85 $18.85 $19.60 $20.35 $21.35 2009 Rate Proposal WWTP Charge $17.75 I $18.29 $18.84 $19.38 $19.92 $20.47 • FCS GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting 10 Projected Ending Balance — Capital Funds 1 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $- r 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Scen 1: Reduce WWTP Charge Scen 2:2011 Level WWTP Charge Scen 3:Saltese Flats Phase 2 Fund Minimum Notes: — Ending fund balance target currently $4.0 million — $14 million for Riverside Park WRF capital during 2017 —2020 is accounted for in balances 4FCS GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting 11 rummary of Proposed Total Monthly Charges i _ II - J l IMP (Total Monthly Charge I $45.04 I $46.83 $48.63 $50.45 Existing 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Scenario 1: Reduce Total Mo. Charge - County $45.04 $43.79 $44.54 $45.29 $46.29 $47.54 WWTP charge Total Mo. Charges - City $45.04 $44.89 $45.64 $46.39 $47.39 $48.64 Scenario 2: Level Total Mo. Charge - County $45.04 $45.04 $45.79 $46.54 $47.54 $48.79 WWTP charge 2011 Total Mo. Charges - City $45.04 $46.14 $46.89 $47.64 $48.64 $49.89 Rates Scenario 3: Saltese Total Mo. Charge - County $45.04 $45.04 $45.79 $47.29 $49.04 $51.29 Flats Phase 2 Total Mo. Charges - City $45.04 $46.14 $46.89 $48.39 $50.14 $52.39 2009 Rate Proposal (Total Monthly Charge I $45.04 I $46.83 $48.63 $50.45 $51.95 $53.46 • FCS GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting •urvey of Wastewater Rates • I 2011 Mo. SF Rate Airway Heights, City of Seattle, City of Colville, City of Olympia, City of Spokane, City of (2012) Redmond, City of Spokane County - 2011, 2012 Option 2 & 3 Spokane County - 2012 Option 1 Spokane, City (Existing) Chewelah, City of Deer Park, City of Clark Regional Wastewater District Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District Post Falls ID, City of Coeur D'Alene ID, City of $67 $53 $53 $50 $49 $48 $45 $43 $43 $42 $39 $34 $29 $28 $24 .50 .46 .00 .04 .64 .42 .04 .79 .74 .00 .95 .00 .16 .79 .43 • FCS GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting • Meet with Wastewater Policy Advisory Board on October 17 for follow-up meeting • Select preferred scenario and prepare notice of public hearing October 18 • Public Hearing on Sewer Rates: November 8 • FCS GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting 14 Sjö1 arl� Valley® 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921,1008 • cityhall®spokanevalley.org October 13, 2011 Honorable Al French, Chair Honorable Todd Mielke, Commissioner Honorable Mark Richard, Commissioner Spokane County Board of Commissioners 1116 West Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA 99206 Commissioners: At the October 11, 2011 Council meeting,the Spokane Valley City Council discussed Measure#1 included in the November 8, 2011 election, a proposal to increase the County general property tax levy in order to pay for a new animal shelter. Our primary focus is the latest Spreadsheet-SCRAPS Model—ESTIMATED, received by the City of Spokane Valley September 22, 2011, and our continued interest in an equitable, regional system. Our Council supports allowing the citizens of Spokane County to decide whether to fund the new shelter. However, as you know, our Council has expressed past concern over the potential (as outlined in the Spreadsheet) of subsidizing other jurisdictions in the ongoing operation of a regional animal control system. In fact,Section No. 29 of our existing Interlocal Agreement for Animal Control Services between Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley prevents the City of Spokane Valley and the County from subsidizing any other jurisdiction receiving animal control services. To avoid any future confusion, the Spokane Valley City Council wishes to affirm our commitment to Section No. 29 and to communicate our desire to continue to pay our true and full cost of animal control. We do not intend to subsidize other jurisdictions. The Council recognizes the need for a new facility and supports a regional animal control concept that serves the entire County. We also feel that this will only be successful if all parties participate in a fair and equitable system of cost recovery. We feel that all participating jurisdictions should pay according to the percentage of animal control services consumed. Likewise,the August 26, 2011 letter from Spokane Mayor Verner to the Spokane County Commissioners states that the City of Spokane does not intend to have any other jurisdiction underwrite the cost of services provided to the City of Spokane. At this time, the Council does not fully understand how to reconcile the assumptions posed in the Spreadsheet, which seem to conflict with the City of Spokane's intention to not have other jurisdictions underwrite their costs for animal control (i.e. the column labeled "Adopted Costs Based on No Increase for City of Spokane," which indicates increased costs to other jurisdictions). However, we are committed to a regional animal control system, and we believe continued dialogue and exploration of options can lead to a fair and equitable system of cost recovery. For many years Ms. Hill and the staff at SCRAPS have provided a quality service to the City of Spokane Valley and we look forward to continuing our arrangement with SCRAPS, Spokane County and other potential stakeholders. We simply wish to make our position clear. The Spokane Valley City Council is not agreeing to cost assumptions outlined in the Spreadsheet. We do support the regional concept. Work yet remains to define an equitable financial arrangement for all parties concerned. Sincerely, Thomas Towey, Mayor cc: Mayor Mary Verner, Spokane Mayor Daniel Mork, Millwood Mayor Tom Trulove, Cheney Mayor Wendy Van Orman, Liberty Lake Attachment: Spreadsheet- SCRAPS Model—ESTIMATED Spokane County SCRAPS Model -ESTIMATED (Based on 2010 Activity and 2011 Budgeted Revenue/Expenditures) Expenses ASSUMPTIONSIISSUES Salaries/wages/benefits 1,796,125 RerkrdRegimm City pays cost of converting SpokAnimal Data to SCRAPS Correction Workers 140,525 RrOkrd Wend Unknown costs-Facilities Maintenance M&O 496,343 e.vmama Unknown casts-Capreciation Sub Total 2,432,993 Unknown casts-Utilities indirect Costs: 20% 466,599 R4YU.0 R.5.4• Prosecutor (63,186) Eof.i.d Grants&Contracts 38,617_ Total Expenses 2,895,023 Revenues County License&Fees 747,745 205 HMO SpakAnimal License&Fees 800,961 Esrm:r.laud on 2DDl Inrurmntlon Projected Increase 200,000 Total Revenues 1,746,706 Expenses less Revenues 1,146,317 Indirect Cost on Grants&Contracts (38,6171 Pill hr C.unFi Net Operating Costs 1,107,700 r 1 , Estimated AdldS!Ier AdjUSted tJvsl Ferran!of Adiusled CoAl Estimated Percent of Indirect Based on Services Based on No Services(Excfuding Pald by Percent of (Excluding City of Increase for Investigations) Cost County Services Spokane) City of Spokane 2011 Budget Net Savings Spokane County 19.61% 217,220 38,617 255,837 49.35% 308,187 360,435 72,249 Spokane Valley 18.34% 203,174 203,174 46.16% 252,139 305,799 53,660 Millwood 0.35% 3,877 3,877 0.88% 4,811 8,157 3,348 Cheney 0.79% 8,722 8,722 1.98% 10,824 13,509 2,665 Liberty Lake 0.65% 7,145 7,145 1.62% 8,867 12,636 3,768 City of Spokane 60.27% 667,566, _ 667,666 561,492 561,492 Total 100.00% 1,107,700: 1,146,321' 100.00% 1,146,319 r 1,282,028 135,7091