The URL can be used to link to this page

2012, 02-28 Regular Meeting AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday,February 28, 2012 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Darrel Cole, Spokane Valley Wesleyan Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: Proclamations:March for Meals;Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a.Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS; TOTAL AMOUNT 02/09/2012 25144-25181; 202120026 $508,199.48 02/10/2012 25182-25207 $ 75,344.39 02/16/2012 3844-3847 $ 60,667.65 GRAND TOTAL $644,211.52 b. Approval of Payroll for period ending February 15,2012: $277,113.87 c. Approval of Minutes of February 7,2012 Special Council Meeting,Retreat d.Approval of Minutes of February 7,2012 Study Session Format Council Meeting e.Approval of Minutes of February 14,2012 Formal Format Council Meeting NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-002 Amending 2012 Budget—Mark Calhoun [public comment] 3.First Reading Ordinance 12-010, Signage and Sale of Alcohol—Kelly Konkright [public comment] 4.First Reading Ordinance 12-011 Amending Chapter 22.70,Landscaping—Karen Kendall [public comment] Council Agenda 02-28-12 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 5.Motion Consideration: Approval of Fire Department Interlocal Agreement —Cary Driskell [public comment] 6.Motion Consideration: 2012 Law Enforcement Interlocal Amendment—Kelly Konkright,Morgan Koudelka [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.)When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 7. Lodging Tax—Round Two—Mark Calhoun 8.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey INFORMATION ONLY(will not be discussed or reported): 9. Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) 10. Department Reports 11. Raised Concrete Medians on Arterial Streets 12.EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending/Potential Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)] ADJOURNMENT General Meetinj'Schedule(meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2nd and 4t'`Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats(the less formal meeting)are generally held the 1st 3rd and 5th Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments;but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. 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. Council Agenda 02-28-12 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 28, 2012 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report 111 pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS; TOTAL AMOUNT 02/09/2012 25144-25181; 202120026 $508,199.48 02/102012 25182-25207 $75,344.39 02/16/2012 3 844-3 847 $60,667.65 GRAND TOTAL $644,211.52 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist 02/09/2012 4:21:04PM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 25144 2/9/2012 002931 ALL WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 20968 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 210.27 Total : 210.27 25145 2/9/2012 002958 ALLISON, MINDEE CRYWOLF:3557765655 001.000.000 CRYWOLF REFUND:PERMIT#V42 25.00 Total : 25.00 25146 2/9/2012 000212 ANS OF WASHINGTON, INC FEBRUARY 2012 001.013.015 NOTARY SEAL,SURETY BOND,&L 164.51 Total : 164.51 25147 2/9/2012 000030 AVISTA JANUARY 2012 303.303.060 ARGONNE RD CORRIDOR UPGRAL 884.80 Total : 884.80 25148 2/9/2012 002655 AZTECH ELECTRIC INC Pay App#2 101.042.133 11-008 CONSTRUCTION CONTRAC' 98,247.57 Total : 98,247.57 25149 2/9/2012 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 28458637 001.058.057 JANUARY 2012: FLEET FUEL BILL 2,169.07 Total : 2,169.07 25150 2/9/2012 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 909940 001.058.055 RRTW-y WAYNE D MCGAVRAN 195.74 Total : 195.74 25151 2/9/2012 001926 FARR,SARAH EXPENSES 001.018.014 JANUARY MILEAGE 47.18 Total : 47.18 25152 2/9/2012 002507 FASTENERS, INC S3238244.001 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 7.22 Total: 7.22 25153 2/9/2012 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 37488 001.013.000 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 25.00 37489 001.058.056 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 237.15 37490 001.058.056 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 235.45 37492 001.058.056 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 80.75 37493 001.058.056 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 84.15 Total : 662.50 25154 2/9/2012 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL Jan 12 1042 001.011.000 LOBBYIST SERVICES 3,146.02 Total : 3,146.02 Page: 1 vchlist 02/09/2012 4:21:04PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher 25155 25156 25157 25158 25159 25160 25161 25162 Date Vendor Invoice 2/9/2012 000410 GRIFFIN PUBLISHING INC. 2/9/2012 002956 LELAND TRAILER AND EQUIPMENT 2/9/2012 002388 MJM GRAND INC 2/9/2012 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 2/9/2012 002948 NA DEGERSTROM 2/9/2012 000662 NAIL BARRICADE&SIGN CO 2/9/2012 001546 NORCO, INC 2/9/2012 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 15139 23762 6149 JANUARY 2012 Pay App#1 75321 09148526 1437031189 595686882001 596343728001 596343729001 25163 2/9/2012 002925 ORRICK, HERRINGTON&SUTCLIFFE 1347602 25164 2/9/2012 000881 OXARC 25165 2/9/2012 002836 PALADIN DATA SYSTEMS CORP. 25166 2/9/2012 002510 POHL SPRING WORKS INC SSS3722 SSS5224 33624 153955 Fund/Dept 001.016.000 101.000.000 101.000.000 303.303.060 303.303.157 101.000.000 101.000.000 001.018.013 001.016.000 001.013.015 001.013.015 001.013.015 101.000.000 101.000.000 001.058.057 101.000.000 Description/Account NEWSLE I I ERS:SCOPE SUPPLIES: PW Total : Total : 2011-2012 ON-CALL ROAD GRADEF Total : ARGONNE RD CORRIDOR UPGRA[ Total : CN SERVICES FOR 0157 SULLIVAN Total : Total : Total : SUPPLIES:PW SUPPLIES:PW SUPPLIES:ADMIN SUPPLIES FOR SVPD SUPPLIES:LEGAL SUPPLIES:LEGAL Total : LEGAL SERVICES:STREET BONDS Total : SUPPLIES:PW SUPPLIES:PW Total : PERMIT SOFTWARE:SMARTGOV II Total : SUPPLIES:PW Amount 436.50 436.50 415.78 415.78 6,200.00 6,200.00 150.00 150.00 113,572.50 113,572.50 239.14 239.14 23.91 23.91 21.85 516.54 47.92 7.74 594.05 541.25 541.25 538.02 126.44 664.46 17,160.00 17,160.00 2,337.48 Page: 2 vchlist 0210912012 4:21:04PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 25166 2/9/2012 002510 002510 POHL SPRING WORKS INC (Continued) Total : 2,337.48 25167 2/9/2012 002616 ROADWISE, INC 70774355 101.000.000 FREEZGARD ZERO:PW 13,465.25 70777847 101.000.000 FREEZGARD ZERO:PW 13,685.40 Total: 27,150.65 25168 2/9/2012 002959 SALLY BEAUTY HOLDINGS CRYWOLF:26928 001.000.000 CRYWOLF REFUND: PERMIT#V35 25.00 Total: 25.00 25169 2/9/2012 002288 SARGENT ENGINEERS INC. 27615 303.303.157 SULLIVAN BRIDGE TEMP REPAIRS 1,799.95 Total: 1,799.95 25170 2/9/2012 000064 SCHIMMELS,GARY EXPENSES 001.011.000 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 97.24 Total : 97.24 25171 2/9/2012 000235 SECURE SHRED 75558 001.090.000 SHREDDING CHARGES 131.52 Total : 131.52 25172 2/9/2012 002957 SHERWIN WILIAMS PAINT CRYWOLF: 101509714 001.000.000 CRYWOLF REFUND: PERMIT#374 165.00 'Total : 1 65.00 25173 2/9/2012 002021 SHRM 9004385982 001.018.016 MEMBERSHIP:SKINFILL 180.00 Total : 180.00 25174 2/9/2012 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD JANUARY 2012 101.042.000 2012 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 750.00 Total : 750.00 25175 2/9/2012 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 183532 101.000.000 SUPPLIES: PW 37.68 Total : 37.68 25176 2/9/2012 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE 322348 101.042.000 2011 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT#' 99.00 328012 101.042.000 2011 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT#' 60.00 338342 101.042.000 2011 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT#' 216.00 344375 101.042.000 2011 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT#' 138.00 346447 101.042.000 2011 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT#' 80.00 Total : 593.00 25177 2/9/2012 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 296792 001.018.016 HR ADVERTISEMENT:ACCT#5086f 235.40 Page: 3 vchlist 02/09/2012 4:21:04PM Voucher List Page: 4 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 25177 2/9/2012 000093 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW (Continued) Total : 235.40 25178 2/9/2012 002961 SUPERIOR CHAIN 2011-2135 101.000.000 SUPPLIES:PW 788.08 2011-2138 101.000.000 SUPPLIES:PW 257.79 2011-2146 101.000.000 SUPPLIES:PW 338.58 Total : 1,384.45 25179 2/9/2012 002555 T. LARIVIERE EQUIPMENT&, EXCAVATIC 1056 101.000.000 2011-2012 ON-CALL ROAD GRADEF 14,640.00 Total : 14,640.00 25180 2/9/2012 002188 VALLEY BEST-WAY BLDG SUPPLY 811688 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 55.19 Total : 55.19 25181 2/9/2012 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 1049525092 001.016.000 AIR CARDS FOR POLICE DEPARTN 860.34 Total : 860.34 202120026 1/31/2012 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER JANUARY 2012 001.016,000 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 211,999.11 Total : 211,999.11 39 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 508,199.48 39 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 508,199.48 Page: 4 vchlist 02/10/2012 11:37:40AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: Voucher 25182 25183 25184 25185 25186 25187 25188 25189 25190 25191 25192 25193 apbank Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account 2/10/2012 001081 ALSCO 2/10/2012 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 2/10/2012 000841 BC! CREATIVE INC 2/10/2012 000173 BINGAMAN, GREG January 2012 INV006985 10637 Expenses 2/10/2012 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9302081 S0025604 2/10/2012 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 2/10/2012 001148 COLUMBIA PAINT&COATINGS 2/10/2012 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING, INC_ 2/10/2012 002308 FINKE, MELISSA 2/10/2012 000715 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 2/10/2012 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 JAN 2011 2-8408 28612 February 2012 Jan 2012 January 2012 January 2012 2/10/2012 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 227368 001.016.000 001.016.000 001.076.305 001.018.014 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.058.056 001.076.305 001.076.305 001.076.301 001.076.305 001.076,300 101.042.000 001.076.305 FLOOR MATS:PRECINCT JANITORIAL SVCS:JAN 2012 Total : Total : WEB DESIGN AND EDITS:CENTER Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : LINEN SUPPLYAND SERVICE:CEN LINEN SUPPLYAND SERVICE:CEN Total : PETTY CASH: 10033,32,42,43 Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : Total : Total : Total : RECYCLING COLLECTION INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE UTILITIES: PARKS UTILITIES:PW Total : JANUARY 2012-CP CLEANING Amount 41.39 41.39 2,165.23 2,165.23 145.00 145.00 12.21 12.21 81.02 25.63 10665 5.00 5.00 15.20 15.20 27.50 27.50 1,128.80 1,128.80 391.56 391.56 166.00 67.50 233.50 7,136.00 Page: 1 vchlist 02/10/2012 11:37:40AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: Voucher 25193 25194 25195 25196 25197 25198 25199 25200 25201 25202 25203 25204 apbank Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account 2/10/2012 001635 001635 !SS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES (Continued) 2/10/2012 000012 2/10/2012 000132 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS INC. 2012 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 2/10/2012 000058 OMA 2/10/2012 002921 PARKER PAINT MFG.CO. INC. 2/10/2012 001860 PLATT 2/10/2012 000675 RAMAX PRINTING&AWARDS 2/10/2012 000748 ROTO-ROOTER 2/10/2012 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 2/10/2012 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES JAN 2012 January 2012 A500163 057013692 1037946 22314 63742 4127878 4527645 4532929 4544207 Feb 2012 2/10/2012 000731 SPOKANE RESTAURANT EQUIP, INC 33024 2/10/2012 001922 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC RG-1002730 RG-1002731 Total : 001.018.013 PIO JOURNAL OF BUSINESS SUBS Total : 001.076.302 UTILITIES: PARKS 101.042.000 UTILITIES: PW 001.018.016 PHYSICAL EXAMS:NEW EMPLOYE Total : Total : 001.016.000 PAINT SUPPLIES:CENTERPLACE Total : 001.076.305 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE Total : 001.076.305 PRINTING OF NAME TAG: CENTER] Total : 001.016.000 DRAIN CLEANING/MAIN SEWER LIT Total : 001.076.300 CONTRACT MAINT:JAN 2012 001.016.000 SNOW REMOVAL:JAN 2012 PRECI1 001.016.000 CONTRACT MAINT:JAN 2012 PREC 001.016.000 SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES: PREC Total : 001.076.302 SEWER CHARGES FOR FEB Total : 001.076.305 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 001.076.301 MOVIE LICENSE: MOVIE IN THE PA 001.076.301 MOVIE LICENSE: MOVIE IN THE PA Amount 7,136.00 39.95 39.95 1,446.39 8,353.44 9,799.83 130.00 130.00 131.62 131.62 42.36 42.36 14.68 14.68 213.60 213.60 48,215.08 1,331.58 210.77 108.70 49,866.13 1,842.93 1,842.93 226.69 226.69 511.98 457.63 Page: 2 vchlist 02110/2012 11:37:40AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account 25204 2/10/2012 001922 001922 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC (Continued) 25205 2/10/2012 001911 THE GLOVER MANSION 25206 2/10/2012 002254 TOWEY,TOM 25207 2/10/2012 002960 WICK, BEN 26 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 26 Vouchers in this report I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date CP444 Expenses Expenses Amount Total: 969.61 163.05 Total : 163.05 368.52 Total : 368.52 127.38 127.38 75,344.39 75,344.39 001.076.305 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 001.011.000 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 001.011.000 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : Bank total : Total vouchers: Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 02/16/2012 3:49:47PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 3844 2/17/2012 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben42596 001.231.14. 401A:Payment 23,012.90 Total: 23,012.90 3845 2/17/2012 000682 EFTPS 8en42598 001.231.11. FEDERAL TAXES:Payment 31,085.40 Total: 31,085.40 3846 2/17/2012 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PU Ben42600 001.231.18. 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:Payn 5,517.02 Total: 5,517.02 3847 2/17/2012 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC P1 Ben42602 001.231.14. 401 EXEC PLAN:Payment 1,052.33 Total: 1,052.33 4 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 60,667.65 4 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 60,667.65 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 02-28-2012 Department Director Approval : ❑ Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending February 15, 2012 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget/Financial impacts: Gross: $ 238,436.10 Benefits: $ 38,677.77 Total payroll $ 277,113.87 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL RETREAT MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL CenterPlace Regional Event Center 2426 N Discovery Place,Room 213 Spokane Valley,Washington February 7,2012 8:30 a.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager Brenda Grassel,Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks and Recreation Director Dean Grafos,Councilmember Neil Kersten,Public Works Director Chuck Hafner,Councilmember Cary Driskell,City Attorney Arne Woodard,Councilmember John Hohman,Community Development Dir. Ben Wick,Councilmember Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst Absent: Kelly Konkright,Deputy City Attorney Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Deanna Griffith,Administrative Assistant Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Others Present: John Whitehead,Human Resources Manager Mike Huffman,Valley News Herald Michelle Rasmussen,Administrative Assistant Nina Culver, Spokesman Review Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Joe Stoy,Planning Commissioner Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Rod Higgins,Planning Commissioner Doug Stumbough, Spokane Co. Library District Peggy Doering,Valleyfest Diana Wilhite Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and welcomed everyone. Following self- introductions, Mayor Towey said that this informal meeting this is an opportunity to exchange ideas for our city's future direction. OVERVIEW: City Manager Jackson explained that today's agenda is large, and the real "headliner" is street preservation; he encouraged Council to take as much time as possible to understand the street preservation plan in order to determine how to move forward in the short term, and how to address funding for the long term. Mr. Jackson said that many agenda items are interconnected as we'll realize when the Finance Director discusses such things as Capital Projects, and Ending Fund Balance; and said that today's meeting format presents a good opportunity to discuss the Citywide Survey; and he reiterated that Council should not feel rushed and should take as long as needed for each item. TAB A: 2012 Council Budget Goals City Manager Jackson said these goals were formulated last June; and said it is not too early for Council to start consideration of 2013 goals, and that we could come back in June for more discussion. Concerning the "Continue monitoring waster issues" goal, Mr. Jackson said the Wastewater plant was issued a permit and the plant opened last December; he said he heard there could be future challenges, adding that the County is still looking at the Saltese Flats for possible discharge options. Regarding the "Pursue the topic of Solid Waste"goal,Mr. Jackson said this is a large issue and it is still in transition for the City of Spokane; he said we renewed our contract until November 2014, so we have until then to determine the options of joining in the consortium, continue with the existing agreement with the City of Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 1 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT Spokane,or explore other alternatives. Mr.Jackson said he and Public Works Director Kersten have been discussing this and they feel a study needs to be done to determine true costs, and he added that Airway Heights City Manager Albert Tripp is also examining the alternatives,to haul it themselves or continue to contract with Spokane, or be a part of a regional consortium. Mr. Jackson said within the next few months, he hopes to have a schedule developed working back from the termination date. Mr. Kersten added that Commissioner French's plan is to meet within the next few months since Spokane City has not committed. Mr. Jackson said Mr. Kersten and Deputy Mayor Schimmels have been attending the meetings, with Mr. Kersten as our lead staff on the project; he said we probably should have renewed conversations,as we want something environmentally sound and sustainable for the long term. Concerning the third goal of"Review and evaluate development regulations,"Mr. Jackson explained that Community Development Director Hohman's staff has been working on the side code and comparing our regulations with neighboring jurisdictions. Mr. Jackson brought attention to page 63 in the 2012 Business Plan, Community Development Goals and Strategies, and mentioned how everything works together and that staff works to ensure we are allocating resources as we work on those council goals. Continuing with the next 2012 Budget Goals of"Develop a Shoreline Master Program," Mr. Jackson explained we are bringing in an outside attorney and developing a schedule in that regard; and Mr. Hohman said they are working with the attorney in anticipation of the February 21 Joint Council/Planning Commission meeting, and City Attorney Driskell said the contract with that attorney should be signed this week. Moving to the goal of "Pursuing a legislative capital budget request for Sullivan Bridge Replacement and park land acquisition adjacent to the Park Road pool," Mr. Jackson said we will be talking with Briahna Taylor today via phone conference for updates on the legislative process. The final council goal of"Create an economic development plan including options for a new city hall," Mr. Jackson said that after the goals were developed, funds were allocated in the budget for an economic development plan as Council's previous direction was to implement what we could to enhance economic development, although not necessarily develop a"plan or"book," and he said staff is not moving forward for a consultant or a scope of work; he said he and Mr. Hohman have been meeting with various groups this month and explained they want to make sure that is Council's expectation of not working toward preparing a document now. Councilmember Woodard said he realizes$75,000 was set aside for this topic and he would like to see some advertising to promote the City of Spokane Valley, or have a campaign to promote Spokane Valley as a destination. Councilmember Grafos said regarding the option for a new city hall, he would like to wait to see what Mr. Hohman has in mind concerning changing the permit center and what it will cost, and said with our current landlord's desire of a 3% increase in rent,that everything should be examined before we look at a new city hall; and said that Finance Director Calhoun told him for what we are spending on rent,we could spend about$8 million and come up with a building; and said we could buy a building someplace along Sprague for a lot less. Councilmember Hafner asked if we do a welcome wagon, and Mr. Jackson said that is up to the Chamber, but by the time a new business actually establishes here, they have had extensive meetings with our staff, sometimes as much as a year or two before opening. Mayor Towey said now that we have taken the first steps of evaluating our permit process,he suggests the second step is to get stakeholders involved and then implement suggestions from there. Mr. Jackson asked Mayor Towey if he would define "stakeholders" and Mayor Towey said he sees stakeholders as members of the community, and said we have to get community input regarding our economic development plan and then implement what we can from what we hear from the community. Mr. Jackson replied that we do not have a deadline for when to take the next steps,and he mentioned page 9 in the business plan; he said we are working on these things as a staff, then we will seek direction and guidance from council, and Mr. Jackson went over several of the "bullets" on page 9, "Executive Summary-Program Descriptions." Mr. Hohman added that when we discuss economic development later today, we will also talk about scheduling; that by the end of March they should have completed the work with the economic development partners,and will work then to add an economic development component Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 2 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT to our City's website. Mr. Jackson mentioned that he, Mr. Hohman and the committee have dedicated quite a bit of time on this but it is difficult to put things on a definite schedule; and Mr. Hohman added that a lot of these tasks will come out of meetings with our economic development partners to see what they are doing and where we can enhance that; he said a plan is in flux until those meetings have been conducted, and after that, he feels staff will be able to come up with a more concrete schedule. Councilmember Wick said instead of a consultant to create a book or a planning document,of those types of documents he has seen, it seems they contain a key element of leadership, and said we don't seem to have that element of our city taking the leadership role in getting these groups together and discussing how we can help each other; to focus on the larger picture; he said the Chamber is discussing putting together a task force; he said it is not necessarily to implement everything, but it is necessary to bring everyone together; he said he is not talking about a regional committee but to use our funds to help implement some of those ideas from the suggested committee or task force. Mr. Jackson said that is part of what we are trying to find out when we meet with other groups that support economic development, so that we know exactly what they are doing and share what we are doing so we don't duplicate efforts; he said staff can develop a description and articulate that to the groups and continue to develop that description as they meet. In response to a question about which groups are being referred to,Mr. Jackson mentioned it would include groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, Greater Spokane Inc, Convention and Visitor's Bureau, International Trade Alliance, Regional Sports Commission, and the Arts Council. Mayor Towey acknowledged that the problem is everyone working independently and that we would be stronger if we worked together as a region. Councilmember Grafos said he feels we are early in the process and that what Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hohman are doing now is the correct path; that is to gather the information and meet with those agencies to see what they're doing, and then determine how to put it all together. Councilmember Wick added that the issue is how we want to take that leadership role of bringing them all together, and Mr. Jackson replied that he anticipates coming up with a schedule and giving Council a progress report about April; he said the groups are excited to talk with us and staff is receiving good feedback,and he mentioned he has a meeting with the Chamber this Friday. Councilmember Grassel asked when do we add the component of the "big picture" list of things we want to see in Spokane Valley; she mentioned the ideas of expanding the River trail and proceeding much like the City of Burien; or like the library plan that has come up, and she asked when do we integrate all that and discuss the more specific ideas; she said the Convention and Visitor's Bureau(CVB) as well as the International Trade Alliance (ITA) are waiting for us to give them our concepts we want developed; and said they want to come in and partner with us; she mentioned she'll be participating on the new Sports Complex Board as we will want to be part of that conversation; she mentioned the idea of the City having a brochure of things to do and see specific to Spokane Valley, and to have those brochures in hotels; she said there are small things we can start doing now and have the larger economic development of implementing a more efficient, streamlined government; and then do the projects, and said she would like to see more direction from the Mayor and City Manager on this and to perhaps have a task force to meet for three months to come up with for example, the top ten ideas, and work together to implement that; she said this was discussed last year but it hasn't moved forward. Mayor Towey said he thought a task force of people from different backgrounds would be beneficial to define needed projects. Councilmember Woodard said he feels it is critical to have the "round table" discussion to define the plan and make projections for the next ten or twenty years; and said we need one "go-to person" as well. Mr. Hohman said the format is something they want to discuss. Mayor Towey also mentioned this City has not relied on committees or task forces in the past, and said it would be beneficial to define the objectives. Councilmember Hafner added that we want to make sure any group would be progressive and productive and the members must feel they play an important role and are not spending useless time on a committee; and said we need to look at the players and make sure the leaders move forward. Councilmember Grafos said we need to define the responsibility of the city and taxpayers as opposed to a vision of someone from California; and reiterated that he feels Mr. Hohman and Jackson are on the right path. Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 3 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT City Manager Jackson said these are a lot of great ideas and we need to start putting it into some shape; and suggested it would be good if council has time to reflect on the projects and what they mean to economic development; that he hasn't done research on the return on investment or the impact of projects on economic development; said our resources are scarce but we can start to give some form to this. Mr. Jackson said that Parks and Recreation Director Stone will also discuss the Parks & Recreation plan to talk about a sports complex or River access in order to get a feel for what those projects mean to the community; and again reminded Council not only do we have limited resources, but the region does as well as we can only put so much demand on the taxpayer; adding that we have to determine how we define our role and still have it reasonable and achievable. Mr. Jackson said we will also talk about the library plan, that there are lots of different parts and we will do our best to put all the parts together and come back to council to see if that is what Council is thinking; he said we are still trying to find our way and we need enough information and planning to articulate what we would want a committee to do and re-stated that the June retreat will be another good opportunity to continue this discussion and start to give it more shape. Councilmember Grassel suggested we might be making this harder than it is; that we could form a committee with participants already involved, such as the CVB,the Sports Commission, and some members of council, and have that group brainstorm to define some projects of interest; with that task only and to accomplish that in a few months; and afterwards, to report to council; or attend some community meetings and get further community feedback; the goal is to define projects, determine what is missing and what they want do so; she said the funding would affect what they can do but the concepts are needed first, and suggested that could be done by May of this year; and she stressed the need to be pro-active; and suggested additional ideas such as beautification on Sprague with perhaps better lighting, better signage; and suggested keeping it to the simpler projects;but to just do it. Councilmember Hafner agreed and suggested the need to have one person as the catalyst to guide and coordinate the group. Councilmember Wick suggested the task force, or committee come up with the goals and means or process to achieve those goals. Parks and Recreation Director Stone said that they'll be doing a similar process as we work to update the Parks Masterplan: make a list of priorities of what the community and businesses want, find out what is missing whether in the form of properties or facilities, and use the public stakeholders as the great resource they are. Mayor Towey said council would have to clearly define the task, the length of the task force, and have clearly defined goals and responsibilities, and Councilmember Hafner suggested not having too many people, but perhaps ten or fifteen, with a couple councilmembers. Councilmember Woodard suggested sending out an invitation to come talk about development; and we facilitate the meeting but not call it a"committee" as that complicates it;just determine who we want to be included and send them an invitation. Councilmember Grassel said she and Councilmember Wick and Mr. Hohman come determine such a list then come back to council with a plan, including defining goals and a facilitator and Councilmember Wick suggested the group also work with staff to develop the goals. Mr. Jackson said he is hearing two separate issues: one which is a focused economic development program which will keep staff busy, and the other to identify projects specific to economic development, more project oriented; and Councilmember Hafner suggested getting together with the agencies to devise the list of projects. Mr. Jackson acknowledged the need to get a feel for what people in the region want in relation to projects, and keep that separate; he said if we start to pull people together to discuss economic development in general, that might not clear the haze. Councilmember Grassel suggested having that started sooner rather than later; said early feedback is important; and that she feels now is the time to start moving forward. TAB C: Legislative Agenda: Phone Conference with Briahna Taylor City Manager Jackson said Lobbyist Briahna Taylor is standing by on speaker phone; and he mentioned the additional"Legislative Report"update from Gordon Thomas Honeywell,dated February 6,2012. Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 4 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT Lobbyist Briahna Taylor explained the following: The Fiscal Committee deadline cutoff is today, and earlier last week many bills did not pass the Policy Committee deadline; so if not voted out of committee by the end of today,many bills will be dead, except those deemed necessary to implement the budget; sometimes they really are necessary and other times they are just labeled so politically in order to move them forward. A large number of bills will die today, and then the legislators will be on the floor making speeches and voting on bills. Last week the House and Senate talked about the budget but in very preliminary conversation as most are waiting for the February 16 revenue forecast to be released, which will indicate if revenues have gone up or down; and of course many are hoping it will have gone up to eliminate some cuts. Early conversations indicate they will cut local government funding such as cities, counties, and special purpose districts like schools, about $300 million statewide, which is a huge cut. Alcohol revenues are likely to be included in that amount; early indications are the legislators are going to sweep local state-shared revenues into the state general fund; which is being lobbied against but it is an uphill battle. Finance Director Calhoun said if both the streamlined sales tax and the liquor tax get cut, we are looking about a $1.5 million loss.Ms. Taylor said the liquor profit revenue is protected under 1183, so we'd be guaranteed to receive the same liquor revenue as in previous years, but no additional revenues from any increase in liquor sales per the initiative. The initiative could be overturned with a 2/3rd vote of the legislators, but that is not likely. With that in mind,Mr. Calhoun said we would still look at a loss of about$1 million. Regarding Jobs and Transportation Packages: the initial thought was the transportation revenue proposal was going to be large, like $20 million with a significant gas tax increase;but it soon became evident that was not the voter's will or the legislator's to increase the gas tax significantly; so the transportation system lacks revenue; and if they don't generate some kind of money, projects on state transportation routes would end, so the solution developed is a fee package to serve as a short bandaid for the state transportation system to raise transportation related fees and fund transportation project, and which will be maintained through the Department of Transportation; that package will be relatively small and fee based and there will be limits on how those dollars can be used; they thought it could get done this year and then in 2014 have a larger gas tax. The Jobs Package is being discussed; they could bond some income revenues into the capital budget like the public works trust, then fund capital related projects that do not include transportation projects, but more like water and sewer projects. Sullivan Road Bridge is eligible for funding in either the transportation package or the jobs package since the jobs package includes important long-lasting infrastructure projects. The delegation has submitted that through both parties and they are working to get a portion of that funding if those packages move forward. If it moves, then they want to make sure it gets directed to Spokane Valley. Public Works Director Kersten asked about the proposed fees,and Ms. Taylor said there is a lengthy list,and after today's call, she will forward that list to Mr. Jackson for distribution. She said the list of fees is currently being negotiated and she will forward that list as well. Regarding House Bill 2253 to streamline the SEPA process, she noted the City testified in support of the bill and since that hearing, the bill has been amended twice; now it would require the Department of Ecology (DOE) to conduct rulemaking over the next two years to update the SEPA categorical exemptions, which will be done through a rule making process which will give the DOE deadlines to meet; and the environmental checklist will also be updated. The second part of the bill creates new statutory categorical exemptions for certain nonprojects, and last, it modifies other provisions related to planned actions and environmental checklist requirements. She expressed her appreciation to City staff for their help with this. Community Development Director Hohman said they look forward to this bill advancing as it will make a difference to our local projects which have about a six-week delay for no apparent reason but due to SEPA regulations; he said a boundary line adjustment always means a six- week delay and this bill will help streamline our process; and he extended thanks to Ms. Taylor for her work on this bill. Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 5 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT Regarding cutting local government revenues,Ms. Taylor said she heard they'll cut the revenues and then help in other ways to help generate revenues at the local level, or save money in other areas. She discussed local government revenue and local bills to provide revenue to cities; said these proposals were developed by the Association of Washington Cities and the Association of Counties and include House Bill 2728 and Senate Bill 6521, which have six different authorities to help cities raise revenues. Transportation Benefit Districts proposed legislation would allow proposing a $40 tab fee without voter approval. Another pending bill moves the voter-approval requirement for the local public safety sales and use tax, and increases property tax revenue limit to inflation instead of the 1%, which could increase property tax revenues each year, but said she thinks that requires a ballot vote. Ms. Taylor clarified the types of cost that SEPA can cover and authorizes cities to accept electronic payment, whereas counties already had that authority; which might not bring in more revenue but would streamline the process making for less delinquent payments. She said these bills have been heard in the house and senate but have not passed out of fiscal committee, which needs to be done today; and said some provisions will likely be removed but again, we won't know until they vote on the bill. She mentioned that Senate Bill 6582 would allow cities to impose voter approved gas increases in one cent, two cent, and three cent increments. The House version of bill 2641 would limit local government audits to once every three years, and allow cities and counties to use volunteers despite collective bargaining agreements. This bill might be deemed necessary to implement the budget;the Senate version was gutted and the house version didn't meet the cutoff, so if this were to move forward, it would have to connect with any of the local revenue cuts. She said that Representative Shea is working on a bill to increase the threshold for documents going through the Shoreline Master Program; the bill passed out of the House unanimously, and was referred to the Senate. She said Senator Patten has a bill to offer B&O(business and occupation) exemptions for small businesses; that it passed out of the economic policy committee and was referred to the Ways and Means Committee; and said it must pass out of there today, adding that it doesn't seem likely. She mentioned the bill regarding the lodging tax which was introduced last week to remove the sunset date, and she clarified that the use of the revenue clause which is scheduled to end 2013, might be removed. Councilmember Wick asked about the Waste-to-Energy plant and of a bill that would deem that renewable energy;but Ms. Taylor said she wasn't familiar with that, and it has not been scheduled for a hearing so it is not moving forward. Mr.Jackson and Council thanked Ms. Taylor for her update. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 10:02 a.m.,and reconvened the meeting at 10:16 a.m. 1.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT—JOHN HOHMAN Community Development Director Hohman said he put together some slides that were meant to spark discussion; he said he wanted to have that kind of dialogue so we can focus on the approach, which he said is a multi-tiered approach of focusing on the elements, then move to the foundation, and after we build a strong foundation to then layer elements on top of that; and thirdly, to work with council to put together some projects keeping in mind the need to focus on the economic benefits of those projects. Mr. Hohman also noted they have been working with economic development partners to identify potential programs. Mr. Hohman explained that one of those foundational items is as noted on his previous "roadmap" is to enhance the permitting process. Mr. Hohman said they had various public meetings a few months ago and many people expressed their appreciation,but said they doubted we would be able to undertake such a large project. Working on the Comprehensive Plan Chapter on Economic Development, Mr. Hohman said they will be going before the Planning Commission to initiate discussion there and make sure the over-arching guidance in the document will cover all the elements, and said the Planning Commission meetings will allow time for public comment for other ideas. Concerning the status of the "roadmap" and different tasks associated with that, Mr. Hohman said they have completed the meetings with staff to identify expectations; and Director Hohman went over the status of and steps for his "Roadmap for Enhanced Permitting" as shown on slides four through eight in the packet materials. Concerning task#3: Organize Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 6 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT Forms and Procedures, Mr. Hohman said they have completed work on all the Planning Commission forms and those are reflected on our website; he said they now have strict control on the forms and have eliminated the confusion about the forms; and said the planning procedure/process,which is to make sure all staff is handling everything the same way, is about 50% complete. Regarding Task #4 to improve communication with the development community, Mr. Hohman said they held a developer's forum in October and anticipate holding an informal roundtable discussion in March; he said staff is now structured but flexible enough so decisions can be made at the counter. For task 6 and 7, expanding express permitting and implementing counter plan review, Mr. Hohman said staff can now issue about 80% of the sign permits within about an hour or two. Mr. Hohman explained that free-standing signs are more difficult and need more structural review,but said staff is examining ways to streamline that as well, and said streamlining the process for the community means streamlining the process for staff. Director Hohman explained that Task 7: Implement Counter Plan Review, will probably mean some structural changes to the organization as the idea is to have a better trained permit center staff that can look at projects as they come in and process them without delaying the permit for days as they want to quickly process the simpler residential permits like sheds; and said he realizes it will take a higher quality employee of perhaps a project facilitator at the permit center, and said he and City Manager Jackson are working on that. Mr. Hohman said if we don't have highly trained employees as the first line of interaction with the public,we lose a lot as first impressions really are important; he said citizens want a knowledgeable person to guide them through the process; that citizens need to know we are here not just to explain the code, but to explain to citizens how they can achieve their goal. Mr. Hohman said that Task #8 to Review and Revise Development Code includes the completed Boundary Line Adjustment amendment and the landscaping code they are working on, as well as the sign code changes currently going through the Planning Commission. Concerning the relocation of the permit center, Director Hohman said that has not progressed as quickly as he would have liked, and part of that was due to our desire to occupy as much or all of the first floor, which meant a tenant would have had to re-locate to a different floor, and said they recently learned the tenant does not want to move,which means that doesn't provide the type of efficiencies we had hoped for, but are still looking at options on how to best move forward. Mr. Hohman said they hired an architect to help review the existing floor plan, which is also in today's packet materials; and said that plan will focus more on a front door approach; he said the estimate to make those structural changes to the floor and area is $200,000, and includes moving walls and creating a public counter to combine the permit center with the front area receptionist; and said they are looking for options to decrease the cost. That led to discussion of a City Hall. Mr. Hohman said the lease for our current city hall building expires March 2013, and at some point we will need council guidance on council's preference; he said it would be difficult to move to another building within a year's time and believes we are where we'll be for a while;and said the topic is open for discussion. City Manager Jackson said if we were to invest $200,000, we need to consider what is a reasonable amount of time to amortize that investment if we stay where we are for another four or five years and then what; or if we are interested in purchasing or building a facility, questions to consider are do we start now for a new building, or look at working an existing configuration of a City Hall. Mr. Jackson said we are coming close to needing to make a decision on how to move forward;that he feels we are most likely looking at a city hall facility that will be here a hundred years from now; that we have been in the current space for almost nine years now. He said we could invest the $200,000 and if the right deal came along,then move; and said it is largely a matter of how we look at the facility; and said this is a council goal but staff is not prepared to move forward without further council discussion. Mr. Jackson said we have not looked at potential facilities or potential land purchases; but that a four to five year horizon is not too long to begin planning. Councilmember Hafner said we should do something now for the development of our city;and Councilmember Wick added that he would like to at least start looking at having our own city hall. Finance Director Calhoun added that there is currently about$2.5 million in the capital facilities fund. Mayor Towey said the question to consider is, do we stay here for the next four to Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 7 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT five years, or use that $200,000 to renovate another building, or use that to renovate what we have now; and said council needs to make a decision of where we would like to be in four years. Councilmember Grassel asked if that would include a police precinct and Mr. Jackson replied that we own that building; and it works well, so the current concept is not to include a precinct in a new building. Police Chief VanLeuven added that smaller cities generally have a police precinct incorporated into a city hall, but cities our size generally have those facilities separate as a police precinct takes up a lot of space. Councilmember Grassel asked if staff could come back to council with comparisons to help council decide whether to remodel what we have or purchase a building; and said at some point we will need our own building. Mayor Towey said we have not actively pursued a different location and said there are a lot of buildings that have come up for sale that might fit our needs. Mr. Jackson added that we have an existing plan on how much square feet we need and that could be reduced from the original expectations; and said some questions to consider include whether we have reached our maximum staff size, and are we providing the services the citizens expect. Mr. Jackson said we put a lot of work into a city hall concept plan, but that doesn't preclude us from moving forward; that a $200,000 investment is substantial but said he feels it could be recovered if we were to stay here for another few years. Councilmember Grafos suggested looking at all those buildings on Sprague and Appleway while at the same time, Mr. Hohman refines the cost of the remodel; and he asked if we are "stuck" with the landlord's proposed 3% increase. Councilmember Woodard suggested it would take a few years to complete the remodel, and said if it appeared we were going to purchase our own building, what about the possibility of a month-to-month lease, or an annual lease with optional multi-year renewals; and said we would be aiding in creating economic development if we were to have a city hall building; which he added should be along Sprague or not far from it. Mr. Jackson interjected that all this will be brought forward as that idea develops; but that it wasn't meant for a topic of discussion for today. Community Development Director Hohman continued with his discussion, and explained that regarding Task 10 to implement a permit tracking system,that staff is undergoing training now with the new system with an anticipated "go-live" date of next Tuesday; and said all the old information from the County's PLUS System is being converted into the new system; and said the vendor is on-site for about four days to help us work through any issues that may come up. Mr. Hohman said eventually in a few months, this should open a web portal which will enable us to work with the development community and citizens to have all the permitting information on line. For Task #11 to Implement Performance Measures, Mr. Hohman said a project survey form is now completed so when a project is slowed,we will be able to send the applicant a form from which we print reports showing the status;which he added will be an important factor to measure how well we're doing; he said this feedback will help us determine what more we can do to help developers and others. Lastly for Task #12 to continue staff coaching and training, Director Hohman said we want to make sure we have the best trained and motivated staff as possible. Mr. Hohman explained that staff has been working with economic development partners such as GSI, CVB and others listed on his slide presentation on page 10; he said there hasn't been a central leadership role to date to focus the goals in any direction and said they will have to map out what everyone does in order to get all the pieces together, and then to focus on what is specific to the Valley; which he explained will be a work in progress. Director Hohman said we are a great city and a great amount of development activity is occurring now; he said some significant projects have begun as noted in the slide presentation, such as Lone Wolf Harley Davidson, Enterprise Rent-a-Car, and others; and that recent pre-application meetings and project review activity include CarMax and other manufactures seeking to expand their operations, such as Maverick Station. In conclusion, Director Hohman said staff continues to work to refine the City's business plan, work on comprehensive plan amendments, and look for further development of the three-tiered approach mentioned earlier. City Manager Jackson said we would integrate a project discussion in the plan as well. Councilmember Hafner mentioned the Spokane Boat Show and said some of those dealers reported this was their best selling year; and Councilmember Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 8 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT Woodard added that the real estate market has seen a substantial increase in people buying homes,noting that the value of homes has not increased, merely those seeking to buy a home under these economic conditions. Councilmember Grafos suggested we might look into allowing those boat dealers in the Corridor Mixed Use area. 2. STREET PRESERVATION—NEIL KERSTEN Public Works Director Kersten explained that as noted in the "2008 Pavement Management Plan," the annual preservation estimated project need was $7.3 million, and at the time of that plan, we thought we were bringing in about$3.1 million in grants,but said there was a shortfall. Mr.Kersten stressed that this is a concept plan. He said as you look at the ratings on the streets, keep in mind these are visual ratings and there have been no structural tests or core samples taken as doing so on the number of roads we have would result in a huge cost. Again Mr. Kersten said this is a guiding plan that helps with our understanding of the overall condition of roads; and that it appears our roads are in bad condition or getting in bad condition. He explained that in the 2008 plan we had roads that looked pretty good, but then some roads deteriorated faster than others. Mr. Kersten explained the map showing projects from 2009, 2010 and 2011; and notes which one are completed projects; which are proposed but did not have funding to complete; and which ones are not on the plan but became a project that needed to be done, and he mentioned the spreadsheets that go into greater detail on those projects. Mr. Kersten said when the plan was done in 2008,they realized a lot of streets were deteriorating faster than they should have so we came back with street standards that would keep that from happening in the future.Mr.Kersten explained some of the things that would cause streets to deteriorate so fast included not being properly designed, and he briefly explained some of those associated issues, such as cold joints in conjunction with our freeze/thaw climate. Mr. Kersten discussed some of the methods used to preserve the roads such as hot- paving and crack sealing; and of the cost comparison of preserving roads versus reconstructing roads, and mentioned some of the roads which had preventive maintenance and/or were reconstructed; and said staff works to explore as many options as possible to keep the pavement new and sealed; including what doesn't work on heavy traveled roads, like fog-sealing, noting that it works well on the less traveled residential roads. Mr. Kersten said the best method is a grind and overlay or just an overlay over the existing road to provide more structure; and said with this process, even some roads thought to be marginal will keep for several years longer; he said that is not a long term solution but is not near as expensive as the long-term solutions. Councilmember Woodward said he feels on the reconstructs, if the road is still drivable to leave them and let it go to gravel, then tear it up and do it right. Mr. Kersten also cited examples of recent road work such as Sprague, where costs could be as much as four times greater for a reconstruct. Mr. Kersten added that the real problem is the impact to businesses; as grind and overlay has almost no impact where a reconstruct could impact a business for three or four months. Mr. Kersten explained that the 2012 pavement plan spreadsheet shows we have a about a $6 million annual need in terms of preservation for arterials, and about $3 million a year for residential; and the question becomes do we do it now or later; he said there was about a $2.8 million shortfall in 2008 but leaving those roads unattended increases that shortfall exponentially in future years. In response to a question about road longevity, Mr. Kersten said roads should last about 16 years; but that figure varies depending on traffic load and truck traffic. He said that Appleway, Sprague, Dishman and Sullivan are ten to eleven years old and should be good for another six, seven or eight years, but they won't last without road preservation measures, and mentioned that the data in the packet material shows the funding level needed for the next six years to keep the roads from having to go into reconstruction. Mr. Kersten added that the idea is to update the Plan about every two years.The discussion moved to costs,grants,and our matching portion to pay in connection with grants; as well we the preservation projects proposed and completed over the last few years, as noted in the council packet materials. Mr. Kersten said that we received very few grants for preservation over the last two years, resulting in higher shortfalls than anticipated. Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 9 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT City Manager Jackson said it is difficult to show the projects in rank order as various factors are at play, including whether we received grants or if we have partnering opportunities, and when you do a new plan,the roads get assessed at that time and what might have been a higher priority originally could shift in rank order. Mr. Kersten said staff watch the roads and note which roads won't make it another year, like the hill on Bowdish, and said if they hadn't fixed it last year, it would have had to be reconstructed, and said there are several similar areas in the city; adding that one segment in one road could be worse than a segment of another road. Mayor Towey asked if it is critical now to take a look at a different revenue steam and Mr. Kersten replied it is if Council wants to fund this; that three years ago we were at $4.2 million, and if we spent that in 2008 we would have been okay,but now we're looking at$9 million; and that costs to keep that six-year plan keep rising, and again Mayor Towey said sooner or later,we will have to get another revenue source. Mr. Kersten said that Spokane City funded $200 million in bonds a few years ago and they can't begin to fix their streets; that their streets are now out of control because they got so far behind they will never catch up; and said sooner or later we will be there too. Mr. Jackson said that Finance Director Calhoun will talk about those potentials. Mr. Kersten said the plan for council is to determine which way to go, and whether you want to fund this or not. Mr. Kersten recommended the preservation funding option; and since this is an ongoing need, said we will need an ongoing, permanent revenue source rather than try to grab money from other funds. Councilmember Hafner suggested looking into that and said we owe this community good public safety and good roads and said we are losing ground. Mr. Jackson said the telephone tax in 2009 was specifically for the street fund and because of that tax, that fund is in good condition, and it covers such things as pothole repair, snow plowing and maybe a little preservation, and said council authorized a one-time set-aside of$500,000 from that fund for preservation; and he said the street fund is not the sole source of funding for preservation,and the lack of revenue is what is putting pressure on the system; he said we cannot squeeze any more from the budget. Mr. Jackson explained that most cities can't fund all of this, but we are still young enough and roads are still in pretty good condition, and that we can actually consider this issue while most cities find it totally impossible. Mr. Jackson said$10 million is a number within the realms of possibilities,while most communities need$100 million. There was further discussion about the figures,the phone tax,the unfunded component and the continuing raising need. Mr. Kersten said the issue is to determine how much revenue we think we can put together to determine what we can fund. Councilmember Hafner agreed we cannot keep getting further behind, and Mayor Towey said we have no revenue streams now and therefore the only alternative is to look seriously at different revenue options. Councilmember Grafos suggested going back to the business plan; that it shows a projection of 4% annual increase in expenditures and 2.3% increase in revenues and he talked about changing that bottom line; he said last year the increase was 1% and he asked why it would change back to 4%; and suggested keeping it at 1% and put in a line item for roads. City Manager Jackson responded that is what we started doing; council directed staff to take 40% of the ending fund balance over$26 million for just that purpose; that the business plan is a tool to use to look ahead; that we can project 3.5 to 4% inflation but it doesn't change the reality of what actually happens each year; and said we want to maintain enough fund balance in the future. Councilmember Grafos suggested just taking a figure to help fund those roads,for example, $2 million from the general fund and see where we are and see if we have a shortfall. Mr. Jackson said you would have a shortfall; you'd have to take $2 million from services from the budget to compensate for that; and if you spend the ending fund balance at the rate of$2 million each year,in ten years the city would be finally strapped; and said we realize an ending fund balance of 15% is too low to help a city out of a financial crisis. Mr. Jackson said you need a recurring revenue source; and said we will have a separate conversation about the ending fund balance later today. At 12:10 p.m.the meeting recessed for lunch;and reconvened at 1:00 p.m. To continue the discussion on street preservation,Mr. Jackson said if council still has questions about the plan, the main thing is even if we significantly reduced what the consultant provided, it still leaves us with a funding challenge;he said he would be happy to answer questions about the plan; that there will be Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 10 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT difficult decisions to make and it will take further discussion to determine how best to fund our street preservation; he said we have to have some confidence in the plan to have confidence in talking about additional revenue sources, and that Mr. Calhoun had talked about some general funding sources to help fund the street preservation. Mr.Kersten pointed out the core samples on the table and said that is what is occurring on our streets and said therein lies the dilemma; and for just Appleway and Sprague we'd be looking at $8 to $9 million and said those street are on the cusp, while others are going faster, including the entire Sullivan Corridor; and said those are all fairly new roads and that staff recognizes those roads were not being built quite right, but said he believes they have corrected future roads. Councilmember Wick encouraged finding new technologies to help in the solutions to keep costs down; and Councilmember Woodard mentioned the use of chip sealing. Mr. Kersten said WSDOT didn't have funds for asphalt so they used chip sealing recently from 32nd on State Route going south; and said they ended up with a tremendous amount of complaints as it is very rough, and rock flies off; and said we could do that if that is Council's direction; but he wouldn't recommend it. There was also some discussion on the cost of bike lanes and stripping with plastic versus paint, and Mr. Kersten said that it is Council's decision on how to prioritize this, and that staff will always recommend adding bike lanes and sidewalks where it makes sense to have those. Discussion turned to funding options and Finance Director Calhoun stated that these are just options with no recommendation from staff on option preferences. Mr. Calhoun explained that some options are linked directly to road preservation and some aren't;and any of the options would be a tax or fee increase. Options Mr. Calhoun discussed included(1) a general B&O (business and occupation) tax up to 2%; he said that it is fairly common on the west side and 38 Washington cities use that; that 2/10ths of a percent would generate $3.4 million; the problem is it is a tax not collected by the Department of Revenue so it would require additional staff to handle, and that the legislature is considering taking a portion of that tax as well as others. (2) a variety of utility taxes; that we could levy a tax but can't levy the tax on income earned in another district, such as an electric or gas district,that it could be as much as 6% or it could be higher with voter approval; and for water, sewer and storm drain utilities, there is no limit. (3) transportation benefit district: said this is attractive as a direct impact, and we could impose up to $20 per car tab; that each $10 imposed would generate about$600,000 so we would anticipate about$1.2 million; and that a $40 tab fee, which is what the legislature is considering to make available without voter approval, would generate about $2.1 million annually. (4) street maintenance utility tax: the city could create a utility like a water or sewer utility, and establish the rates to generate the necessary revenue that was pre-determined by an established citizen group. Mr. Jackson said this is not being considered this legislative session,but the additional tab fee and gas tax dominated the conversation with the street utility not getting much support. Mr. Calhoun added that the anticipated $2.1 million would help, but not fully cover our preservation problem. Further discussion included mention by Mayor Towey of the idea of lifting the lid on the property tax; with Councilmember Wick adding that the 1% property tax increase has not been used for the last two years. Mr. Jackson said that amounts to about $100,000 for each percent. Mayor Towey said he felt citizens don't notice an additional .02% on sales tax,but would notice an additional $20 car tab fee. Mr. Jackson said these issues can be discussed further and Mr. Calhoun added that likely imposing one single tax would not solve the problem. There was brief discussion about a TBD (Transportation Benefit District) fee and/or a regional TBD, and Councilmember Grassel suggested the Finance Committee could go over the study, adding that she is not in favor of any new tax or new fee increases council-manically, but would rather have the issue go before the voters; and said perhaps the $10 million figure is the top product and maybe we should only do a good job instead of a grand job; said she feels this needs more study by those familiar with the entire budget, and have them come back to council; and said perhaps we could find savings in other departments; and said she is not prepared to give a solution today; that the issue is not just raise revenues but find savings. Councilmember Hafner reminded everyone of the $10 million still needed for the Sullivan Bridge; and Councilmember Grafos said before we look at revenues, Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 11 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT we should look at re-prioritizing some budget items first. City Manager Jackson said the finance committee meets on an as-needed basis; and one of the things Council will discuss when they discuss the Governance Manual, is the function of the Finance Committee; and said the governance manual hasn't keep pace with what that committee is actually doing. Councilmember Grassel also noted that perhaps a half-day retreat could focus on just this topic. 3. CITYWIDE SURVEY—MORGAN KOUDELKA City Manager Jackson said this is the second survey the city has done other than the original community development survey, which was more related to SARP and planning at that time; he explained this was a mail-in survey while the first survey was a phone survey; and said since most other jurisdictions use the mail survey, it makes for easier comparisons. Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that hundreds of cities have conducted the same survey;he mentioned page 91 which shows the percentage of people who have a cell phone and no land line, and said the mail survey also contacts a greater range of citizens; and said respondents tend to give more negative answers in a mail survey than a phone survey; he mentioned the National Research Center recognizes these differences and the data shows comparisons with this and the 2009 results, and have adjusted the figures to make it equivalent as if the last survey were done by mail; he explained it was the 2009 and not the 2011 results which were adjusted. Mr. Koudelka went over the survey explaining the margin of error of 5%, some of the aspects of the overall data,the five options for answers,and the second report containing the "open-ended questions." Some of the data has shown that in general people want more sidewalks, Appleway extended, potholes fixed, streets preserved, areas cleaned up, a defined downtown, and slower growth, but don't want more strip malls and don't want to lose the feeling of community. Mr. Koudelka said it was also obvious from the open-ended questions that some people were answering as if they were referring to the City of Spokane or Spokane County rather than Spokane Valley. Mr. Koudelka said the purpose of the survey was to identify our strengths as well as areas that need improvement; that this helps us with our planning documents to determine how best to use our resources, and will be used in our Business Plan as well. He also extended thanks to our Public Information Officer Carolbelle Branch for her work on this survey, as well as that of the City's Administrative Assistant Michelle Rasmussen. He said the plan is to conduct this survey every year. 4.MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS—MIKE JACKSON City Manager Jackson said this is a good opportunity to look over the remaining items on the agenda and perhaps trim some items for future discussion; he said Council has discussed the Railroad Quiet Zone opportunity; and we can discuss the e-mail process in the future, adding that the e-mail discussion and citizen comment was also going to include a discussion about sidewalks; and that we could discuss this now or at a later meeting. Councilmember Grafos said perhaps a good study session item would be to discuss an ordinance or procedure to enforce the care of sidewalks. Concerning the animal shelter, Mr. Jackson said that he and Mr. Koudelka have been meeting with County Commissioner Mielke who indicated he would like to visit council to discuss this topic; and Mr. Jackson mentioned the vacated building at 6851 E Trent Avenue and of Mr. Mielke's proposal to have us share in the cost of the facility renovation. Mr.Jackson said we don't know whether the City of Spokane will participate;but the County proposes we all pitch in; and said our portion would be about $900,000. Mr. Jackson said when council discusses capital projects,we can add that potential.Mayor Towey asked about a regional committee,and Mr. Jackson said that was not discussed recently; and said the County is exploring possibilities with the owner. Mayor Towey remarked that the last time this issue was discussed, it was County-driven and we were not included in the process; and suggested it would be better for planning purposes if we could be involved early. Councilmember Woodard agreed and Councilmember Grafos said if the County moves forward,they will need a zone change.Mr. Jackson said we can invite them to make a presentation before council. At 2:28 p.m., Mayor Towey called for a recess. The meeting reconvened at 2:43 p.m. Mr. Jackson suggested taking some of the remaining items out of order, allow about thirty minutes for Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 12 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT brainstorming, then have Council move to defer the rest to a future council meeting. There were no obj ections. 6. OLD MILWAUKEE—MIKE JACKSON,NEIL KERSTEN City Manager Jackson explained that he and Mr. Kersten met with representatives from the County and they are agreeable with us developing that into a trail; that they are all talking about what kind of a transfer would be needed, whether an easement or other document; that they have not yet involved the STA but he and the County agreed that is the next step;and said they set an arbitrary deadline of about six months. Mr. Jackson said Commissioner Mielke asked if we would be willing to pay for any portion of that, and Mr. Jackson reported that he told Mr.Mielke that he felt that was not Council's intent as the idea is to have a facility available for all members of the community. Mr. Jackson said they will have further discussion and it appears it is now more a question of exploring the elements of actually getting this done; and said we are primarily looking for an easement; adding that it would be a Parks and Recreation and Public Works Department facility responsibility. 8.PARK LAND ACQUISITION—MIKE JACKSON,MIKE STONE Mr. Jackson mentioned that Library Board Chair Tim Hattenburg spoke at the January 10 council meeting and presented their plan about purchasing the Pring property on Sprague Avenue. Mr. Jackson said that he put together a team of his staff and they have been meeting with outgoing Library Director Mike Wirt and incoming Director Doug Stumbough; that everyone is working to bring this idea together if this is something Council wants to pursue, and that there are no apparent roadblocks in the ability for everyone to work together. Mr. Jackson said they discussed the library's need for the facility,that they are looking at about 50,000 square feet but could go to 60,000;they want about 242 parking spaces and want to make sure they have a drive-through for pick-up and return; that they discussed shared parking and it depends on how much parking is needed for each facility as both facilities would be open at the same times. As noted previously, Mr. Jackson said the Library is working to put out a bond measure in 2015, and of course the biggest unknown is whether that measure would pass. City Manager Jackson said he recommends pursuing the acquisition on the basis the bond would be successful and once all is completed, we would have an eight-acre park. It was mentioned there is also the possibility the bond would not pass. Mr. Jackson said the library would like the City to put up the majority of the funds, and said therefore the idea is we would purchase the property and the Library would pay the City about $500,000,and we would give them the right to build on that property in the future. Mr. Jackson explained the Library would need about two and one-half to four acres; that they have not completed a site plan or determined how to share the parking; and if the bond were successful, they would pay us for the portion of land they would need. Mr. Jackson added we would include the details in an Interlocal Agreement; that he feels the Library is agreeable and if the City wants to pursue this he said it needs to be a success because at that point,we would own the property. Mr. Jackson said we need to develop a site plan so we all understand what a four-acre park could provide; that it would be combined with Balfour,but we need to lay out the plan and determine whether four or eight acres is needed; and said between the Park Plan and the Comprehensive Plan,there is support for the acquisition of additional property. Mr. Jackson said we don't have a lot of people coming in telling us we should add park facilities, and in fact, have had every few calls in that regard since our incorporation, since finding a place for people to recreate doesn't seem to be a problem. Mr. Jackson said this issue depends on how Council wants to proceed;whether we start to move forward or delay and get additional information; and if the idea is to move forward, we would need at least a site plan and an appraisal, and then staff could bring this issue back for a motion if Council desires. Mr. Jackson said we want to be prepared; that we are not talking about spending huge amounts of money to do this; but rather come back and show how the park and the library might lay out together. Councilmember Woodard said he feels Mr. Jackson is on the right track, and adding eight acres or just four to Balfour is something that could be well used by our citizens; and said he would like us to move Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 13 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT forward with an Interlocal and see if the bond passes. Parks and Recreation Director Stone said to qualify for State Recreation Conservation Office funding, we would have to have our project completed by May 1, so the schedule for that is very tight; and that the state only offers those funding opportunities every two years; and said we would have a project for the acquisition with the ability for retroactivity for some reimbursement; but for this year, said he is uncertain he could pull everything together in three months; and that the maximum from that Office is about $500,000. Councilmember Grafos said he feels we should move ahead as quickly as possible. Mr. Jackson said even if that Office didn't fund the acquisition, there is a possibility of funding the development; and said it is good to get these projects in front of that Board; that staff can gather the information and write up a Request for Council Action form for a motion to move ahead with the site plan and other needed preliminary steps. Mayor Towey asked how this would be funded, and Mr. Jackson replied it would most likely come from the civic facilities fund and not from the ending fund balance. Mr. Jackson said staff has looked at that ending fund balance and recommends not using that fund; that we must be cautious until we come out of this economy; that we don't know what will happen in the future or with the State budgeting issues; that we look ahead and plan for the future and make sure we can maintain about 35%fund balance in ten years; and to do that,we must also examine the funding for capital projects. 10. CAPITAL PROJECTS—MARK CALHOUN Finance Director Calhoun explained that the listed projects will move forward; that some of these advanced to a 2012 budget amendment and will come off this list as a result of that amendment; he mentioned we talked about the animal shelter,potential park land acquisition and street preservation; and added that his figures and data is a result of a Department Director group effort. Mr. Calhoun explained that the projects are broken down between one-time cost and on-going cost like street preservation. He said the Sullivan Bridge repair will keep coming back as we have only secured half of the needed $20 million for that project and will have to find a way to fund that project. Mr. Calhoun also noted that street preservation for local streets and arterials is a problem which won't go away, but will only get worse. In response to a question of how long the temporary bridge repairs last, Public Works Director Kersten said probably four to five years, but it is unpredictable since we don't know if other problems or cracks will surface; and said the bridge gets some extreme traffic loads, but he is hopeful the temporary repairs will last before we get the new bridge built; and there was some brief discussion on funding possibilities for the bridge project; and mention of the need to include $2 million in city funds as our investment in that project. Mr. Jackson added that all these projects add up quickly which is why we must be careful with how we allocate our funds. 11.ENDING FUND BALANCE—MARK CALHOUN Finance Director Calhoun brought attention to the reserves and the fund balance; said we anticipate having $26.3 million after the 2012 budget; that as a measure of our recurring expenditures,this gives us a reserve balance of 76%; and rhetorically asked how much do we really need in a general fund reserve; and said the answer is,we need a reserve to provide cash flow and for operations; and if you think about a general fund,that general revenues and expenditures keep general pace,but an exception to that would be property tax; that there are about $35 million in revenues due in the assessor's office April 30 and October 31; and said that each six-month time period blows about a $5.4 million hole in the budget until those revenues come in about a month later; and explained that means we must set aside $5.4 million to provide for cash flow. Another piece, he explained would be the monthly remittance from Washington State for liquor profits; and said it is a timing issue to ensure we have cash in the bank at the end of the month; that by the end of January the $1.6 million in revenues is not technically there yet; and putting everything together means a need of at least $7 million in cash reserve, or 20%. On top of that,he said, we need funds just to pay the bills; so it comes down to how much do you need to set aside for operations. For some, he said one month is fine, while others prefer two months; and to be safe, we want between 8 and 16% reserve on top of the other reserve, or about $26 million total; and said that would be the minimum to have a two-month reserve; and with $26 million instead of$12 million,there would be some Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 14 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT excess but he is not advocating spending down the reserve as there are many unknowns; one of which is recurring general fund and liquor board profits, in addition to streamlined sales tax, and the overall economy. Mr. Calhoun said the economy is looking up in terms of sales tax as it appears we are doing reasonably well; but in 2011 we were just slightly over the 2010 revenues, and those 2011 revenues haven't been seen since 2005. Mr. Calhoun mentioned that other tax revenues like REET (real estate excise taxes)have hit a new low in 2011; he said volume is up but values are down and we are not out of the woods yet.Mr. Calhoun stated that the economy is not getting worse,but it is not getting substantially better, and said he would argue for holding on to what we have; adding that he recognizes there will be reasons in the future that will compel the policy setting body to use some of those funds, like perhaps with the Sullivan Bridge. City Manager Jackson said that state is proposing about a $1 million reduction but what they might propose in future years is not known; they could propose something more or shift some services to the city; and emphasized that budgeting is not just about one year. Mr. Jackson said we need to prioritize the list of capital projects and determine how to fund what we prioritize, keeping in mind we will need funds for the Sullivan Bridge. Mr. Jackson said he will be taking this issue to the Finance Committee which might recommend using some ending fund balance for street preservation; or perhaps remove the railroad quiet zone off the list. Mr. Jackson said we need to operate under a fiscal policy that when revenues reach a certain point,that frees us to move on to the next project. Councilmember Hafner said we have to work in the area of the funds we have, whether it be for bridge or road preservation; and do what is necessary and needed versus doing projects that are not needed. Councilmember Wick said he would like to see the City Hall project included on the list, noting the $200,000 was included, and Mayor Towey said we have not been pursuing a new or used city hall which is why it was not included. City Manager Jackson said we are still fairly young in terms of city years in existence; our revenue is fairly low per capital and our business model is to run a very lean, efficient government; he said we must be careful about adding services as those services come at a cost; and suggested we use the business plan so we don't find we have strayed from our business model; and said we collect relatively low revenues from our citizens as well; and that the phone tax raises$3.2 million at a cost to the taxpayer of about$1.20 a month. 12.BRAINSTORMING The following represents the ideas brought forth during the brainstorming process: Possible Goals for 2013: Councilmember Wick suggested "Pavement Preservation" to include determining the funding source. Councilmember Woodard suggested privatizing the Public Works Department similar to what was done in Centennial, Colorado. Mr. Jackson said we already have quite a bit of that department privatized. Councilmember Grassel added that representatives from Centennial, Colorado held a presentation at the National League of Cities Conference last fall in Phoenix, and she explained that City looked into that since they already contract about 50-80% of their services; she said they took about six months to determine which was a better fit for them and they issued a bid and partnered with CH2M Hill; she said they did keep a Public Works Director; she said their city is similar to ours in population and in size of staff. Mr.Jackson said he understands they have a lower employee count per capital, and that he will find out more about Centennial's change. Councilmember Woodard suggested we look into what we can do and how to encourage more home based businesses to form here; how to get them on board where they contribute to the sales tax; and to make sure they are coding their taxes correctly. Councilmember Wick said that probably rolls into economic development, and Director Hohman added that some work has been done by the Chamber in this regard with their business incubator. Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 15 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Hafner suggested we have one employee to work on finding businesses, who would go out and bring businesses into this area; to advertise that Spokane Valley is a good place to do business and why; that it would be one employee with that sole responsibility. Mayor Towey agreed we need to do a better job marketing our positive assets such as the River. Councilmember Grafos agreed and added that we need as comprehensive list of all our assets in the valley and said many members of the general public don't know if they're in the Spokane Valley or not; that everything is Spokane; he said GSI talks about Spokane as does the Journal of Business, and said we need a marketing plan to make Spokane Valley stand out. Councilmember Grassel said that could be part of the previously discussed committee. City Manager Jackson agreed with the need to develop some specific messages about Spokane Valley as an unlimited opportunity for businesses; and to put that on literature and brochures, and to repeat it over and over and get the word out about Spokane Valley. Councilmember Grafos added that GSI's information has everything except Spokane Valley, yet we are the ones "writing the check;" he said we need to tell them what we want them to do for us, and we need to be more proactive as GSI works on their publications. Councilmember Grassel said we just need to call Rich Handler and discuss our desires;that things such as our State of the City Address should be highlighted on GSI's webpage; that we need to separate and identify ourselves and said we should use GSI more; that they'd be happy to do that but we need to approach them and ask that they advertise our events. City Attorney Driskell mentioned there is also a mapping problem; that if you research our area you'll see Dishman, Opportunity, Trentwood, etc., but Spokane Valley is not on the maps, and said we need to be proactive by contacting those agencies to get those maps updated. Councilmember Grafos said he noted the signs on the freeway are gone; that he's not sure how that occurred, but we should contact WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) and get those signs put back up; and/or work to split the cost to get that accomplished. Councilmember Hafner agreed we need to promote our image and ask ourselves why people go to Post Falls or Coeur d'Alene instead of stopping here; that we need to portray we have the best education, library system,etc. Parks and Recreation Director Stone added that if we move forward with the Sprague land purchase and combine with the library,it would give us more of a community presence. Councilmember Woodard suggested people want an opportunity to volunteer for some part of some project; that concerning the possible land purchase with the Library, we could promote the area with drawings so people would be ready for a 2015 bond election;that people want to have that feeling of civic pride. Councilmember Wick suggested continuing the process of having a city hall. Councilmember Grafos said we should examine adding buildings to the historic building list much as Spokane County and the City of Spokane have done. Councilmember Grassel suggested looking into getting the word out in the community by having a flyer or some type of notice in such things as bills from Vera, Avista, or Modern Electric. City Manager Jackson said staff can look into that idea. Councilmember Wick suggested we become a well-connected city by perhaps going into neighborhoods to make sure every house has access to fiber optics; have a more forward-looking infrastructure. Councilmember Grafos suggested finding a way to have the provider of park benches upgrade those benches and add some bus shelters. Mr. Jackson said there is a future project in that regard; that that is primarily the responsibility of STA (Spokane Transit Authority); that they had an opportunity for grants and Mr. Kersten said there will be an upcoming "informational memo" in a council packet, including maps. City Attorney Driskell said the benches are provided by a private company and we have a contract with them that allows the placement of the benches;and that the company sells advertising. Councilmember Wick suggested expanding our parkland. Councilmember Hafner said we need to promote activities in our city and Councilmember Woodard suggested a farmer's market. Mr. Driskell mentioned the idea of a "chalk art festival" and Councilmember Wick added the idea of a "painter's park." Parks and Recreation Director Stone mentioned Greenacres also thought about having a monthly farmer's market. Councilmember Woodard added the idea of having a community garden, said he realizes there is a lot of work in that connection but no one knows how to get it started. Mr. Stone said the Valley Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 16 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT Partners were looking at the possibility of a community garden at Valley Mission Park; and said that phase two of the Greenacres Park includes a community garden,and said these things and others such as a pet park will be discussed further as we go through the Parks Master Plan. Councilmember Woodard said the city of Richfield has a community garden with a nominal charge for use of the space, and the City provides the water; that there are posted rules and the people take care of everything. Councilmember Hafner said we still need to address the issue of businesses and their property concerning weed control; and Mr. Driskell mentioned that will be discussed in the near future. Councilmember Wick suggested we examine our largest contract, the public safety contract, for efficiencies. Mr. Jackson said we can look at that; that we are trying to develop performance measures; that we trust our Sheriffs Office and our Chief to provide quality law enforcement; that if we want to look for efficiencies,we must fully understand the contract and how the contract works; that we have the best property crimes unit in the region and this Council supports seven positions in the Valley Police Department property crimes unit. Police Chief VanLeuven added that they are working on data for their year-end report, and once he has that, it should give a better understanding of the significance of their calls per officer per year and of the effective rate of solving crimes. Councilmember Grassel suggested Chief VanLeuven also attend some of the Town Hall meetings to speak to the people and allow the free- flow of questions; and said we could send out postcards to everyone of such meetings. Chief VanLeuven said he attends several of those types of meetings now in conjunction with the Sheriffs Office. Since it was apparent several items on the agenda would not be discussed today due to time constraints, it was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to amend the agenda and move the agenda items that were not discussed today, to a future study session. There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Wick, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Retreat minutes:February 7,2012 Page 17 of 17 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington February 7,2012 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager Dean Grafos,Councilmember John Hohman,Community Development Dir. Brenda Grassel,Councilmember Neil Kersten,Public Works Director Chuck Hafner,Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Ben Wick,Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Arne Woodard,Councilmember Cary Driskell,City Attorney Kelly Konkright,Deputy City Attorney Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager ABSENT: Karen Kendall,Assistant Planner Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. It was then moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Deputy Mayor Schimmels from tonight's meeting. 0 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Evergreen Road Preservation Project, 16th to 32nd—Neil Kersten It was moved by Mayor Towey and seconded that staff proceed with the Evergreen Road Preservation Project, 16"' to 32nd as proposed. Senior Engineer Worley explained that last week he presented a proposal for the City to partner with Vera on the reconstruction of Evergreen Road, 16th to 32nd; that at the last council meeting questions arose concerning the cost of the bike lane striping; and he said in looking at it in detail, to provide bike lane striping with plastic would be an additional $20,000 and it would go the entire length of the project; or to just paint the bike lanes would be $2,600; he said Evergreen Road doesn't have curbing and is an arterial, and in non-curbed areas, a narrow white fog line stripe is required if the wide bike lane striping is not installed; and said therefore, the costs indicated are the difference between providing the fog line striping where required and upgrading to the bike lane striping. Regarding what the cost would be for widening the portion of Evergreen Road for bike lanes, Mr. Worley said most of the widening occurs on the west side between 16th and 24th at an estimated cost of$53,000; and lastly the question of how does the pavement condition of this portion of Evergreen Road compare with other streets needing preservation work, Mr. Worley explained that as discussed at the retreat,the Pavement Management Program looks at the surface of the streets but doesn't look at the sub- surface, which are all things public works takes into consideration; that when the street was evaluated in 2008 or 2010, that is a snapshot in time for each street; and as the years go on, those roads continue to deteriorate. Mr. Worley said each winter has a different amount of impact on the roads depending on the current condition of the road; that they take that information together with traffic, how the road was built and the current condition from the last time it was evaluated, and all that data is pulled together so staff can come up with the best recommendation to preserve the streets as best they can with the funds available. Mr.Worley said they also look at opportunities for grants and opportunities for partnering with utility companies. Councilmember Hafner expressed his concern of whether doing these projects would Council Study Session Minutes 02-07-12 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT be more beneficial than other areas; and Mr. Worley assured Councilmember Hafner that Evergreen is heavily traveled; adding that he coordinates with the street maintenance crew who feels that Evergreen was by far, the worse street. Mayor Towey asked for public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Sports Marketing and Its Impact in the Valley—Eric Sawyer, Spokane Sports Commission Spokane Regional Sports Commission President and CEO Eric Sawyer gave a presentation on "Sports Marketing and its Impact in the Valley;"which included some of the upcoming spring and summer events in Spokane; explained they are launching a comprehensive Sports Facilities Assessment and Priorities Study to evaluate sports facilities countywide as they work towards correcting shortfalls. Mr. Sawyer said athletes come in from around the country and he mentioned many upcoming events dealing with NCAA events, as well as high school events; and said they will continue to build on the HUB and their wrestling tournament; and will continue to work with the girls' sports events, such as volleyball,which he said is one of the fastest growing sports events for women. Mr. Sawyer said that his Commission has formed a steering committee with participation from Councilmember Grassel, Community Development Director Hohman, and Parks and Recreation Director Stone, and said he feels the valley will be an active and important player as they start to further develop this committee, and said he hopes to come back within the next six to nine months with an updated report on their facilities study. Mr. Sawyer said it is important if we're going to grow as a community, to grow the notion that this is a community built for kids and families,and therefore,we need available sports and recreation facilities. 3. Fire Department Draft Interlocal Agreement—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell explained that this draft interlocal results from council's past discussion of the City's fee schedule; and said since we do not have authority to set the Fire Department's fees and that those fees are merely passed through us to them, the proposal is to amend the interlocal accordingly so rather than note in the interlocal that compensation to the fire department is as set forth in the City's master fee schedule, it will be as set by the Fire Department. Mr. Driskell said other than some minor typographical errors, those are the only changes proposed. There was no objection to staff bringing this forward at a future meeting for motion consideration. 4. Landscaping Code Amendments—Karen Kendall Planning Manager Kuhta and Assistant Planner Kendall went over the PowerPoint presentation explaining proposed code text amendments to the landscaping regulations; including clarifying fencing on flanking yards, corrections to the Clearview Triangle tables and definition, clarifying which zones allow barbed wire, streamlining landscape point calculations, removing landscaping requirements around signs in developed areas, providing more options to modify landscape requirements, and establishing a threshold when a landscape architect is required. Mr. Kuhta clarified that changes are not being proposed to the specific clearview triangle regulations, but are being proposed to make changes to ensure the references match the graphics. Discussion turned to the proposed changes regarding barbed wire with Mr. Kuhta stating that the Planning Commission had recommended some changes, one of which was no barbed wire against the right-of-way, with the rationale that is where most people walk; and as an aesthetic concern in the commercial corridors. There was also discussion of how we deal with complaints about people having barbed wire and no animals and Ms.Kendall replied that currently barbed wire is not allowed in any residential zoning district; that there are some properties that have barbed wire and while the property owner could be forced to remove it under the current code standards, it was mentioned that as we are complaint-driven, we rarely get complaints concerning barbed wire. Councilmember Grafos said that he would rather see it allowed up against the right-of-way,but the post would have to be straight up; and Ms. Kendall replied that the angle was not addressed and it could be angled outward. Councilmember Grafos said he feels the restriction against barbed wire anywhere should be removed, adding that apparently it has never been a problem in residential areas;but if there is barbed wire adjacent Council Study Session Minutes 02-07-12 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT to a right-of-way, it could be a standard straight pole or angled toward the property and not out over the right-of-way. After Planner Kendall went over how landscaping points are calculated, Councilmember Woodard noted a typo on page 2 of the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning Commission, under Goal LUG-3; it should read that "appeal to investors" rather than that "appeal to inventors." Council agreed to move this forward for a first reading. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:20 p.m.,and reconvened the meeting at 7:34 p.m. 5. Corridor Mixed Use and Garden Office—Scott Kuhta Planning Manager Kuhta said staff was asked to prepare a comparison study of permitted uses in the Corridor Mixed Use Zone,to uses permitted in those areas prior to the 2007 adoption of the City's zoning regulations;he explained that his comparison was similar to the comparison previously used in discussing the SARP zoning regulations; he noted page two of his February 7, 2012 memorandum which lists the uses permitted in the B-3 zone, and of uses permitted in the Corridor Mixed Use zones; he discussed the purpose of the Garden Office Zone as a buffer or transition between zones, and also noted uses permitted in Office that are not permitted in Garden Office. Councilmember Grafos said he would like to add boat sales, RV sales, and Building Supply/Home Improvement as permitted in the Corridor Mixed Use Zone. In examining the "Uses Permitted in Office-Not Permitted in Garden Office," Mr. Kuhta mentioned that some of the uses were clearly errors, such as a church as they are allowed almost everywhere, but cautioned against allowing gas stations to the Garden Office zones since again, that zone is clearly intended to be compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Grafos suggested adding the uses of pet shops, office and computer supplies, music store, hobby shop, medical and dental, ceramic shops, bike sales and service to Garden Office. Councilmember Woodard mentioned a property on Broadway from Argonne,the second property in,that could not put in a studio like a dance studio, and Mr.Kuhta said he would research that issue. There was also some discussion concerning why full service restaurants are allowed but not drive-in, fast food places, and Mr. Kuhta said the main concern is full service restaurants are where people park and go inside; whereas fast food drive ins have more constant traffic, which would have more of an impact on adjacent neighborhoods. Councilmember Grassel asked about group living in residential areas such as halfway houses, and Mr. Kuhta said that is permitted in some areas, but he would have to research that issue more as there are many different living categories. Mr. Kuhta said staff will go through the entire matrix to try to find those things that seem to be a little out of place. 6. Computer Laptop Agenda Training—Greg Bingaman IT Specialist Greg Bingaman gave Councilmembers a short training on the use of their laptops; which included how to connect to a wireless network,how to access the City Council's current agenda packet as well as how to locate other city documents; and briefly explained how to enhance the agenda packet in the Adobe format,as well as viewing council meetings live on the Internet. 7.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey No comments. 8. Community Development Monthly Report was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 9. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey Councilmember Grafos asked about the dividers at the intersection of Appleway and Barker. 10. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson Mr.Jackson had no comments. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending/Potential Litigation RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)) It was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive session for approximately twenty minutes to discuss pending/potential litigation, and that no action will Council Study Session Minutes 02-07-12 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:50 p.m. At 9:10 p.m. Mayor Towey declared Council out of Executive session and it was then moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:11 p.m. Thomas E.Towey,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes 02-07-12 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meetings Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,February 14,2012 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,City Attorney Dean Grafos,Councilmember Neil Kersten,Public Works Director Brenda Grassel,Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Chuck Hafner,Councilmember John Hohman,Community Dev. Director Ben Wick,Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Arne Woodard,Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Jerry Sponseller of Opportunity Baptist Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Scouts from Den 2,Pack 468 led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll;all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Woodard: reported that he attended the CLAC (City Legislative Action Conference) in Olympia; attended the City's winter retreat where road preservation and shoreline management were discussed; attended the Way-To-Go- Awards with City staff member Chris Thompson receiving an award; went to a Breakfast in Coeur d'Alene where the primary presented was the general manger of Southern Nevada Authority, and said he noted City Engineer Henry Allen was also in attendance, adding he would like to have a presentation from Mr. Allen on his perspective; went to the VIP International Auto Show at the Fairgrounds,and attended Mayor Condon's inaugural address. Councilmember Wick: stated that he went to the Elected Officials Essentials workshop in Spokane; attended the Spokane Valley Chamber's Gala Event; went to the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) CLAC Conference in Olympia; was inducted into the SNAP Board of Directors; and mentioned that the Spokane County Fair and Advisory Board is working on their strategic plan for the future. Councilmember Grafos: said he also attended the AWC, CLAC Conference in Olympia; went to the Fire Department Appreciation event at Mirabeau Hotel; participated in our City's retreat where economic development, road preservation and other topics were discussed, including the proposal from the Library associated with an expansion of Balfour Park; went to the VIP Auto Show, and attended a levy informational meeting for the Central Valley School District. Deputy Mayor Schimmels: reported he attended a Solid Waste Advisory Council meeting as well as a Solid Waste Liaison Board meeting; attended the Valley Chamber Transportation meeting, went to the open house for the Spokane Teacher's Credit Union Grand Opening; met in our Council Chambers with Council Regular Meeting 02-14-2012 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT the Mayor and Councilmember Woodard and spoke with second graders from St. John's class; and went to the Sullivan Bridge information meeting held by the City, and said part of the design team and staff were also in attendance. Councilmember Grassel: said she attended the AWC Conference and noted that the State continues struggling financially and said it is not looking good for cities;that on February 2 she chaired the Lodging Tax Committee Meeting for the second round of funding, which will be moving forward to Council, and she asked that each council member receive copies of the applications. Councilmember Hafner: said he met with some high school students and discussed how our government works;went to the STA (Spokane Transit Authority)meeting and reported that they have come up with a different organization of their board, that they split the board into two committees: one for planning and development and one for performance monitoring, and said these two committees will then meet as a steering committee before the regular board meeting. Councilmember Hafner also reported that he attended a Priority Spokane Committee meeting, and explained that it is a relatively new organization with the City of Spokane and other County people involved in the last four to five years, to identify community priorities in the county, and that one of the things they are examining is the school dropout figure; said he also added the City's retreat where they went through the 2012 Business Plan and talked about the Police Department training and their contribution to economic development as numerous trainees come to our area,thus generating use of many hotel rooms. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey reported that he attended the Fire Department Awards Banquet; he extended congratulations to City staff member Chris Thompson on her Way-To-Go-Award; met with newly appointed and elected officials of Spokane City Council and suggested the two councils hold a joint meeting; met with County Commissioner Richard; attended Mayor Condon's inaugural speech; and went to the open house for Fire Station 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comments. Nathan Dikes, 3005 S Ponderosa Lane: said he is the President and CEO of Sunshine Health Facilities, a family-owned business in Spokane Valley and of his concern for the safety of people in his community; said the property is adjacent to University Center along 9th Avenue going west from University; that although last winter wasn't bad, the two previous winters were and getting emergency vehicles at that location was difficult; said this is not on an arterial; that the facility is a 84-bed skilled nursing home with disabled and elderly people and he requests adding that location to one of the first areas plowed. On a separate topic, said he lives in the Ponderosa area and at the intersection of 36th and Woodruff, whoever re-surfaced that road didn't add a top layer so when you enter the road, the ground is very uneven and shifts and it feels almost like driving in a swale. Peter Higgins, 20221 E 8th: regarding roads, said last year they finally got sewered; that Barker was paved; and the problem he has is all intersections south of Sprague have a short radius, and anyone making a right-hand corner turn creates potholes on the inside surface; said he has one vehicle with a long wheel base; and going north off 8th on Barker, a wheel dropped into a pothole that hadn't been there in 35 years; said the turn lanes on Sprague and Barker were not installed; that there was money contributed for turn lanes for 20 years on that intersection; that it was totally torn up this year and it still has a pothole on that intersection,the northeast corner off Sprague onto Barker;he said if the pothole gets fixed,it returns. Cory Hinsz, 10821 E. Fairview Avenue: spoke concerning more of the valley having quiet zones along railroad tracks; said where he is it is technically a quiet zone but in reality, it is anything but a quiet zone; said he has called the superintendent of the railroad and complained about the trains going by and blowing their horn in a stated quiet zone; and said it seems the man can't remember that area is quiet; said more people would sell homes thus raising home values if it could be made a quiet zone; said there is no Council Regular Meeting 02-14-2012 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT purpose for train horns; that he complained to the railroad but they will not adhere. Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Hinsz if the railroad encouraged him to bring this matter to Council and suggest if everything was a quiet zone, it would it easier for railroad staff to remember, and Mr. Hinsz confirmed that was the case. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2012 Amended Budget—Mark Calhoun Mayor Towey opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Finance Director Calhoun gave the history on the proposal to amend the 2012 budget, to include $120,000 for the West Gateway at Thierman Project, and $630,000 for the Sprague Swale upgrades. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Towey closed the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a.Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 12/23/2011 24709-24776 $298,007.73 12/30/2011 24777-24791; 1222110145 $ 19,096.28 12/30/2011 24792-24805 $ 20,482.12 01/03/2012 5388-5391 $ 682.00 01/04/2012 3795-3809; 24806-24811 $250,478.52 GRAND TOTAL $588,746.65 b.Approval of Payroll for period ending December 30, 2011: $312,427.77 c.Approval of Minutes of December 27,2011 Formal Format Council Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-002 Amending 2012 Budget—Mark Calhoun After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance ordinance 12-002, amending Ordinance 11-017 which adopted the 2012 budget, to a second reading. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 4.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-003 Amending SVMC Title 2-Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell explained that as the changes for this and the subsequent seven ordinances represent mostly changes to correct references, Council could waive the rules and adopt each ordinance on the first reading. After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to waive the rules and adopt Ordinance 12-003 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 2. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 5.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-004 Amending SVMC Title 5 -Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to waive the rules and adopt Ordinance 12-004 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 5. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. Council Regular Meeting 02-14-2012 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT 6.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-005 Amending SVMC Title 7 -Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to waive the rules and adopt Ordinance 12-005 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 7. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 7.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-006 Amending SVMC Title 8 -Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to waive the rules and adopt Ordinance 12-006 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 8. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 8.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-007 Amending SVMC Title 19-Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to waive the rules and adopt Ordinance 12-007 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 19. Mayor Towey invited public comments;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 9.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-008 Amending SVMC Title 20-Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to waive the rules and adopt Ordinance 12-008 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 20. Mayor Towey invited public comments;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 10.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-009 Amending SVMC Appendix A-Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to waive the rules and adopt Ordinance 12-009 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Appendix A. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments; none were offered and Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Towey reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. 11. Spokane Valley's 10th Anniversary—Carolbelle Branch Public Information Officer Branch explained that one of the goals included in the City's Six-Year Business Plan is to enhance community interest and involvement in City Government as a strategy to promote a unique Spokane Valley identity, especially for the celebration of the City's ten-year anniversary. Ms. Branch explained that the ten-year anniversary will be March 31, 2013 and it's not too early to start planning; she said at the five year anniversary we held events throughout the year to engage the community and help build civic pride, and said she proposes organizing a community committee for this anniversary as well. Councilmember Woodard suggested including the proposed City Gateway sign in conjunction with this anniversary; Councilmember Wick suggested some of the people involved with the Fair and Expo Center Advisory Board might be interested in participating on such a committee, and asked Council if there is any interest to renew a Mayor's Ball as part of the celebration. City Manager Jackson explained that past Mayor's Balls were separate events not funded or sponsored by the City, and said such a decision would be up to Council's discretion. Ms. Branch said she will start committee recruitment,and will bring council an update possibly in March. 12. Park Master Plan—Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone stated that the current Parks and Recreation Master Plan is now six years old and needs to be updated. Director Stone explained that the purpose of the Plan is to establish Council Regular Meeting 02-14-2012 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT needs based on citizen input, and said it would include such things as inventories of existing parks and recreation facilities. Mr. Stone also briefed Council on some of the advantages of a Master Plan, and more detailed purposes of a plan; that in addition to park inventories, the plan would include goals, policies and objectives; an analysis of existing operations; a needs assessment which includes public surveys and recommendations; and then explained some of the next steps to update the plan; said they plan to hire a design team to guide the process, they will solicit public input, distribute surveys, hold community meetings and establish focus groups,update the parks and facilities inventory with the update emphasizing acquisition of parkland, special facilities like skate parks, and identifying future park property. Director Stone said the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) ad has been placed to solicit a design team. Director Stone added that the goal is to have a draft plan to Council for review by July or August of this year. Councilmember Grafos asked if prior to the completion of this plan, if Council determined there was a piece of property that was prime parkland, could council proceed with that acquisition, and both Director Stone and City Attorney Driskell responded that there is no legal reason why Council could not proceed with parkland acquisition. City Manager Jackson added that the City's Comprehensive Plan recommends expanding the park system; he said this Parks and Recreation Master Plan will expire regarding State Recreation Conversation Office grants, so we must renew the plan in order to be eligible for those funds; and said another reason we invest in the revision, is that funding acquisition is the one area that can be done retroactively. Councilmember Grassel suggested including the financial impact of maintaining whatever it is we want to add, and Director Stone agreed that is an important element as there is a cost to the City for preservation and maintenance. Councilmember Grassel asked if the River Trail would be included as part of the plan, or perhaps have that come up on a survey. Director Stone said the current plan discusses the River and Centennial Trail and references ownership of property; he said we don't own property right along the River although we own property adjacent to the River; and said he will examine tying in other entities with the river plan; sand said there are many stakeholders in the Community so we will make sure we get all the input possible. Councilmember Woodard asked how would a community garden fit into such a plan and Director Stone said it would start in Parks and Recreation, and said he would be willing to help property owners create a community garden. City Manager Jackson said the plan takes an inventory of all recreation resources in our City and in some cases,the region, such as schools, and said we would expect to reveal all those ideas and suggestions through the public process. 13. Gateway Signs—Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone said when this subject was last discussed, Council talked about images and improvements, and said tonight he brings forward two designs for further Council consideration and additional input and suggestions; and he asked Council to keep in mind the costs as we want to make sure what we do makes sense economically. Mr. Stone reminded Council that the figures are all estimates,that they include sales tax and contingencies;that once Council determines which design is preferred, that he will put together a more specific cost estimate and try to determine which areas we might solicit help from the community. Mr. Stone said this also lead to staff discussion about a city policy concerning donations to the city, and since there currently is no such policy, staff has started work in that regard;and said that way,the public will understand the process for making donations to the City. Mr. Stone went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining the differences between Concept 3 and 4; and after further discussion, there appeared to be a consensus for Concept 4, although Councilmember Hafner said he feels we need to look at others to assist in funding and does not agree with the City paying $120,000. There were also some Council suggestions about moving trees to block the Display House gravel parking lot, a caution not have trees block businesses, or to have the trees dwarf the sign or have the sign lost in the trees. Councilmember Grafos said he feels we should move forward with this project as soon as possible; doesn't have a problem with the $120,000 and feels we can't afford to wait; that the $120,000 was approved to be added to the budget as an amendment, but said if we can do it for less,that Council Regular Meeting 02-14-2012 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT would be preferable. Councilmember Hafner suggested getting more people involved with the project. Mr. Stone said he would propose having a professional landscape architect recommend trees; that we would put in the sign and start the project in phases; or remove all the trees and put in the sign first, and he cautioned Council that looking at the diagrams can be misleading concerning elevation, and said the trees will be off to the side and the sign will be below the branches. Councilmember Grassel said she agreed with that idea and suggested keeping some flexibility as the plan moves forward. Director Stone again stated that this is a concept, and actual plans, specifications and engineering drawings will be forthcoming. 14.Alcohol Advertising Regulations—Kelly Konkright Deputy City Attorney Konkright explained that the Washington State Liquor Control Board oversees and regulates the outdoor advertising by liquor licenses regarding sale and service, and limits the retail licensed premises to a total of four outdoor signs with a total signage area of 1600 square inches; and said that the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provides that local jurisdictions have the option to exempt liquor licenses within the City from those outdoor advertising restrictions through the adoption of an ordinance. Mr. Konkright said that Mr. Mike Robb, owner of the Iron Horse Bar and Grill has requested we adopt such an ordinance. There was discussion about whether there were any complaints about this establishment or others, and whether time is a factor, and Mr. Konkright said he would check. Mr. Jackson said staff will research those issues, determine if time is critical, and bring this for a first reading February 21 or 28,based upon those issues. 15. Governance Manual Discussion—Chris Bainbridge,Mike Jackson City Clerk Bainbridge briefly went over the changes previously discussed; followed by discussion of the other areas for Council consideration, as noted on the February 14, 2012 Request for Council Action Form. Councilmembers agreed with the suggested change on page 6 concerning request for outside presentations; discussed telephone/video conference on page 13 and City Clerk Bainbridge will re-draft that section omitting the first line in 7(b), and adding language about councilmembers viewing public hearings; and council agreed to keep the suggested change on page 18 regarding council material (18a). Discussion turned to page 35 and the duties of the Finance Committee, and City Manager Jackson explained that historically the finance committee has been used above and beyond what is written in the Code; said the Finance Committee usually meets with the City Manager, Deputy City Manager and Finance Director to discuss the budget; that the items listed are the responsibility of the City Manager to administer, and that the Finance Committee is largely advisory, but said Council can continue to use the Finance Committee in that regard,or could change it specifically; adding that he feels it is very beneficial to sit down with two or three members of council and discuss financial issues, much like he sits down with two members of the Governance Manual to discuss that manual's contents. After further discussion, Councilmember Wick said that he feels as long as the committee is advisory, he would not want to impede communications with the City Manager, and provided the committee has no discretionary powers, said he sees no harm in keeping things as they are now. Mayor Towey agreed that the committee is not a decision making committee, but a committee to have dialogue with the City Manager as Council as a whole has the responsibility to come back with budget or other financial suggestions. Councilmember Grafos said he also sees the committee as an advisory board,but also as a conduit to narrow issues based on conversations with council and/or the public, and feels the committee's input if valuable to the City Manager, as the issues always come to full council for final consideration; and said he does not want to change that. Mr. Jackson suggested making a change to add a sentence at the end to state that the City Manager may also request meetings to discuss matters of financial interest with the finance committee; adding that all issues always come back to full council, and said he would work toward keeping the full council more informed of the committee's topics and discussions. Council decided they would like to see the Manual once more in draft form before bringing it back with a resolution to adopt the amended manual. Council Regular Meeting 02-14-2012 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT 16.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey Comments were made concerning the sign code amendments, and it was noted that is scheduled to come to Council in March. INFORMATION ONLY: Agenda Item 16 TIGER Discretionary Grant (Sullivan Road W. Bridge Replacement Project); and Item 17 STA Agreement Sidewalk and Transit Authority Project #0154; were for discussion only and were not reported or discussed. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Thomas E.Towey,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 02-14-2012 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 28, 2012 Department Director Approval: g Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑admin. report Ig pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading of Proposed Ordinance #12-002 Amending the 2012 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: To date the Council has heard presentations on the 2012 Budget Amendment on two previous occasions including an Admin Report on January 31St and a Public Hearing held on February 7th. Ordinance #12-002 was also approved in its first reading on February 14, 2012. BACKGROUND: • Throughout the 2012 Budget development process a number of capital projects were discussed by Council but not included in the initial budget that was ultimately adopted via Ordinance #11-017 on November 15, 2011. At the December 6, 2011 Council meeting capital projects were again discussed and at that time Council expressed interest in amending into the 2012 Budget three capital projects including the West Gateway at Thierman project estimated at $120,000; a railroad quiet zone study at Park and Vista (UP only) estimated to cost $83,000; and Sprague Swale upgrades estimated to cost $630,000. • During a January 31, 2012 Administrative Report presentation, Council reached consensus to advance just two of the previously discussed capital projects to a budget amendment including: o $120,000 for the West Gateway at Thierman Project to be financed from Fund #310 — Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund and o $630,000 for Sprague Swale upgrades to be financed from Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area Fund. • During January 31 and February 7, 2012 presentations by public works staff, Council deliberated and ultimately approved the Evergreen Road Preservation Project from 16th to 32nd at a total cost of$959,000 utilizing a variety of financing sources including: o $500,000 of Street O&M Fund #101 reserves o $111,000 of Street Capital Improvements 2011+ reserves o $275,000 from Vera Water& Power for their portion of the project o $73,000 of EECBG grants • Finally, the 2012 Budget was also initially adopted with an appropriation of $1,086,881 in Fund #311 — Street Capital Improvements 2011+, with no specific projects in mind but with the understanding that City staff would seek Council approval prior to expending any of these monies. o Since that time Council approved expending up to $200,000 of Fund #311 money towards temporary Sullivan Street Bridget repairs, and o $111,000 towards the Evergreen Road Preservation Project -16th — 32nd that was approved at the February 7, 2012 Council meeting. 11SV-FS21Usersl mcalhounlBudgets12012t4mendment No 112012 02 28 RCA 2nd Read Ord 12-002 amending 2012 Budg.docx 0 In this budget amendment we are proposing the appropriation in Fund #311 be reduced by $775,881 to just the $311,000 necessary for the bridge repairs and road preservation project. The total $311,000 will be transferred to Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects where we account for all street related capital projects. o Any additional commitment of Fund#311 money would therefore require a formal budget amendment to appropriate additional money. Revenue Expenditure '. Fund Fund increase Increase No Name !(Decrease) (Decrease) 101 Street O&M i 0 0 I 303 1Street Capital Projects 1,159,000 1,159,000 310 1Civic Buildings Capital Projects 0 1 120,000 311 1Street Capital Improvements 2011+ 0 1 (775,881)1 403 lAquifer Protection Area © 1 630,000 3 1 . .._ 1,159,000 1 1,133,119 OPTIONS: Options are to accept the proposed amendments in whole or in-part. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance #12-002 amending Ordinance#11-017 which adopted the 2012 Budget. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This action amends the appropriations initially adopted for the 2012 Budget. There are adequate funds available to pay for these amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: -Fund level line-item detail of revenues and expenditures. -Ordinance#12-002 IIS V-FS21Userslmca lhounBBudgets120121Amendment No 112012 02 28 RCA 2nd Read Ord 12-002 amending 2012 Budg.dacx 11SV FS21Userslmca lhoun\Budgets120121Amendment No 1\amendment no 1 detail 2012 0214 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2012 Budget Budget Amendment Requests Line Item Detail 2/8/2012 Account Description; Accouiitt Number . , . : tion .Iustifica ; Initial Bud`s get amendment Amended ,:Budget #101 Street O&N Flirtd Expenditures Capital outlay Transfers out 101.042.133.595.64.41.05 Changed nature of transaction to a transfe 500,000 (500,000) 101.042.000.597.41.55.02 To#303-Evergreen Rd Pres 16th-32nd To tai.ecpenditures #303 Street:Capital-Projects Fund Revenues Vera Power&Wate 303.303.160.367.12.01 303.303.160.339.18.11 303.303.160.397.95.08 303.303.160.397.95.14 303.303.157.397.95.14 EECBG Transfers in Transfers in Transfers in Expenditures Capital outlay Capital outlay Share of Evergreen Rd Pres 16th-32nd Grant-Evergreen Rd Pres 16th-32nd From#101-Evergreen Rd Pres 16th-32nd From#311-Evergreen Rd Pres 16th-32nd From#311-Temp Sullivan St Bridge Repa 0 0 500,000 500,000 0 275,000 275,000 0 73,000 73,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 111,000 111,000 0 200,000 200,000 Total,revenues 1 159;000 303.303.157.541.50.41.11 Temp Sullivan St Bridge Repairs 303.303.160.595.30.63.00 Evergreen Rd Pres 16th-32nd 0 200,000 200,000 0 959,000 959,000 Total.expenditures . _.. '[.,:;159;000,':: :#3,10t4CiviCIBUIldingsCaPitarProjettSfinidt Expenditures Capital outlay 310.000.000.594.76.63.00 West Gateway at Thierman 0 120,000 120,000 Total:expenditures 120,0;0;0; 11SV-FS21Usersl mcalhounlBudgets120121Amendment No 11amendment no 1 detail 2012 02 14 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2012 Budget Budget Amendment Requests Line Item Detail 2/8/2012 ccount Account Inntial Amended Description Number.... Justification Budget Amendment Budget #311 Street Geprta[:%Improvomerits°;2Q11*' Expenditures Capital outlay Transfers out Transfers out 311.311.000.594.63.63.41 Capital outlay 1,086,881 (1,086,881) 0 311.000.000.597.41.55.02 To#303-Temp Sullivan St Bridge Repair: 0 200,000 200,000 311.000.000.597.41.55.02 To#303-Evergreen Rd Pres 16th-32nd 0 111,000 111,000 Total expenditures #40.3Y4Y Aquifer"P:rotection Area Expenditures Capital outlay 403.000.000.595.40.63.00 Sprague swale upgrades 0 630,000 630,000 Total expenditures„ 630,00;0 Totals Across;all Fu"ri Total revenues Total expenditures 1,159,000 1,133,119 � 1 DRAFTCITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 12-002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON,AMENDING ORDINANCE 11-017 ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON,ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1,2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2012 APPROPRIATING FUNDS; CREATING A NEW FUND (403): AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA;ESTABLISHING SALARY SCHEDULES FOR ESTABLISHED POSITIONS;AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO." WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance 11-017 on November 15, 2011, which adopted the 2012 annual budget; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the 2012 annual budget, it has become necessary to make changes by adding new revenue appropriations, amendments, and transferring funds in order to properly perform City functions, services and activities;and WHEREAS, the budget changes set forth in this Ordinance could not have been reasonably anticipated or known when the 2012 annual budget was passed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the best interests of the City are served by amending the 2012 budget to reflect unanticipated revenue, expenditures,transfers, and appropriating the same as set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington do ordain as follows: Section 1. Amended Revenues and Appropriations,_ Ordinance No. 11-017 adopted a budget for the twelve months beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2012. Each item, revenue, appropriation, and fund contained in Section 1 and 2 of Ordinance 11-017 is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment A,which is fully incorporated herein. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley this 28th day of February,2012. ATTEST: Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Ordinance 12-002 Amending 2012 Budget Page 1 of 2 Ordinance 12-002 Amending 2 012 Budget ao CD N 0 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2012 Budget Amendment Ordinance Ordinance No.124)02 2/8/2012 Sources Revenues-.. .:` 001 General 26,633,061 34,908,800 101 Street O&M 1,834,574 4,902,800 103 Paths&Trails 36,186 8,000 105 Hotel/Motel Tax 253,356 430,700 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 353,231 700 121 Service Level StabBvation 5,477,795 10,000 122 Winter Weather Reserve 506,168 700 123 City Facilities Repair&Replacement 2,027,259 399,000 0 204 Debt Service LTGO 03 0 617,623 0 0 34,908,800 61,541,861 35,196,500 0 35,196,500 26,345,361 0 4,902,800 6,737,374 5,431,263 0 5,431,263 1,306,111 0 8,000 44,186 0 0 430,700 684,056 430,700 0 700 353,931 0 0 10,000 5,487,795 0 0 700 506,868 0. 399,000 2,429 0 617,623 617,623 617,623 301 Capital Projects 302 Special Capital Prects 303 Street Capital Projects 0 0 44,186 0 430,700 253,356 0 0 353,931 0 0 5,487,795 0 0 506,868 0 0 2,426,259 0 617,623 0 194,277 475,400 0 475,400 669,677 456,279 0 456,279 213,398 X47015 477,000 0 477,000 2,024,015 1,540710 0 1,540,710 483,305 73,456 9,655,804 1,159,000 10,814,804 10,888,260 9,566,804 1,159,000 10,725,804 162,456 304 Mirabeau Precis 44,302 0 0 0 44,302 0 307 Capital Grants 0 0 0 0 0 0 309 Parks Capital Projects 123,329. 100,000 0 100,000 223,329 170,000 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects 2,939,745 : 6,000 0 6,000 2,945,745 0 311 Street Capital Improvement 2011+ 1,084,681 2,200 0 2,200 1,086,881 1,086,881 402 Stormwater Management 1,236,400 1,908,667 0 1,908,667 3,I45,067 2,153,441 403 Aquifer Protection Area 500,000 502,500 0 502,500 1,002,500 0 501 Equipment Rental&Replacement 706,379 100,000 0 100,000 806,379 0 502 Risk Management 20,420 319,000+ 0 319,000 339,420 319,000 0 0 44,302 0 0 0 170,000 53,329 120,000 120,000 2,825,745 (_775,881) 311,000 775,881 0 2,1 53,441 991,626 630,000 630,000 372,500 0 0 806,379 0 319,000 20,420 Total of all Funds 45,591,634 54,824,894 1,159,000 55,983,894 101,575,528 56,969,201 1,133,119 58,102,320 43,473,208 :01?Q 0A11OaJJ CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 28,2012 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-010 Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 5.25 Regarding Alcohol Beverage Signage. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: WAC 314-52-070 BACKGROUND: The Washington State Liquor Control Board oversees and regulates the outdoor advertising by liquor licensees regarding the sale and/or service of liquor pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). WAC 314-52-070 (2) limits retail licensed premises to a total of four(4) outdoor signs referring to alcoholic beverages, brand names, or manufacturers. The same provision also limits the total signage area to 1,600 square inches. A"sign" is defined as a board,poster,neon,or placard display to advertise. WAC 314-52-070(2) specifically provides that local jurisdictions have the option to exempt liquor licenses within the City from the outdoor advertising restrictions through the adoption of an ordinance. The proposed ordinance will exercise the local exemption option. OPTIONS: Proceed to Second Ordinance Reading or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION: I move to advance Ordinance 12-010 to a second reading at the March 13,2012 Council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Kelly Konkright—Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance 12-010 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 12-010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, RELATING TO ALCOHOL ADVERTISING REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD; ADOPTING A NEW SECTION TO SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.25 WHEREAS,the Washington State Liquor Control Board(LCB)has established in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 314-52 alcohol advertising regulations to promote public safety;and WHEREAS,WAC 314-52-070 provides administrative regulations enforced by the LCB limiting each retail licensed premises to a total of four outdoor advertising signs,totaling no more than 1,600 square inches,which refer to alcoholic beverages,brand names,or manufacturers;and WHEREAS, WAC 314-52-070(2) specifically provides that a local jurisdiction has the option to exempt liquor licenses located within that local jurisdiction from the limitation on the number of signs regulated under WAC 314-52-070 or other applicable sections of the Washington Administrative Code, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,do ordain as follows: Section 1. Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 5.25 regarding alcoholic beverage signage. The City Council adopts a new section 5.25 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code is adopted as follows: 5.25 Alcohol Advertising Regulations Premises located within the City limits and licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board to sell alcohol are exempt from all provisions in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 314-52-070(2) restricting the number and size of signs referring to alcoholic beverages, brand names, or manufacturers that are affixed or hanging in the windows and on the outside of the premises. Premises so licensed remain subject to the sign regulations contained in SVMC 22.110.010 through .130. All other provisions of WAC 314-52-070 shall remain in effect. As used herein, the terms "premises" shall be as defined in WAC 314-01-005 and used in WAC 314-52-070. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5)days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of ,2012. ATTEST: Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Approved As To Form: Date of Publication: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 12--010—Alcohol Advertising Regulations Page 1 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 28,2012 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ®new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 12-011: amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)22.70(Fencing, Screening and Landscaping). GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council held a study session on February 7, 2012 for amendments to SVMC 22.70. BACKGROUND: City Council directed staff to proceed with modifications to the fencing and landscaping standards(Chapter 22.70) in the SVMC. On August 25, 2011 the Planning Commission was presented an overview of landscaping standards and outlined proposed changes. Planning Commission met on the following dates; 1. September 22,2011 —Study Session 2. November 10,2011 —Public Hearing 3. December 8,2011 —Continued Public Hearing and deliberation 4. January 12,2012—Continued deliberations and made recommendation 5. January 26,2012—Approved findings and recommendations to City Council Based upon staff's recommendation,the Planning Commission made a motion 7 to 0 to move the proposed amendments on to the City Council for review and decision. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to SVMC 22.70; 1. Section 22.70.020.B—Allow fences to be placed on the property line in a flanking yard(corner lot)outside of the front yard setback. 2. Section 22.70.020.0—Modify language to provide more clarity to the clear view triangle definition and update references to tables and figures to ensure this section is administered correctly. 3. Section 22.70.020.F—Define which zones allow barbed,concertina or razor wire. 4. Section 22.70.030.E.9 and Table 22.70-4—Consolidate all landscape point calculation requirements into Table 22.70-4 and moved Section 22.70.040.N beneath table. 5. Section 22.70.030.E.9—Consolidated into Table 22.70-4. 6. Section 22.70.030.G.5.f—Modified language so tree staking is optional and specified a time limit for removal. 7. Section 22.70.030.G.6—Consolidated into Table 22.70-4. 8. Section 22.70.030.G.9—Added flexibility to landscaping requirements relating to new parking stalls. 9. Section 22.70.030.J.4—Remove landscape requirement for new signs in developed areas. 10. Section 22.70.030.L.1.e—Add additional flexibility to landscaping requirements for industrial zoned properties. 11. Section 22.70.030.M—Clarified the party certifying the landscaping at project completion. 1 of 2 12. Figure 22.70-14—Added an alternative to above ground tree staking for more options. City Council was presented an in-depth look at proposed changes to the fencing and landscaping standards in SVMC 22.70 on February 7, 2012. Concerns were raised regarding restrictions for barbed wire adjacent to public right-of-way. Revised language is proposed for Section 22.70.020.F as shown below in yellow with strike-through and underline representing Council's direction. The proposed change is also reflected in attached ordinance 12-011. F.Barbed wirc or razor wire may be used for security purposes in mixed use,commercial and industrial zoning districts in the absence of a residential component only on the upper one-quarter of the fence in industrial zoning districts.Barbed wirc, concertina or razor wire shall not be permitted in any residential zoning district except for confining animals(see Section 22.70.020.G and H)or in any commercial and mixed use zoning district adjacent to any public right of way. Barbed wire shall be installed either vertically or projecting into the property. An administrative determination may be made by the Director for community facilities seeking relief from barbed wire requirements. Council requested language to address the non-conforming concerns of existing barbed wire fences within the City. SVMC 19.20.060.3 addresses non-conformity of fences with the following; `Any permanent structure lawfully used or constructed that was in existence at the time of annexation into the City and which has since been in regular and continuous use;" In conclusion, the City's regulations currently address non-conforming fences and allow such fences to remain. No additional language is necessary. OPTIONS: Proceed as proposed,or as modified;or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance 12-011 to a second reading at the March 13,2012 Council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall—Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: (1) Draft Ordinance 12-011 (2) Planning Commission's findings and recommendations (3) Planning Commission's proposed draft language 2 of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 12-011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING SECTIONS OF SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE 22.70 FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted the Uniform Development Code (UDC) pursuant to Ordinance 07-015,on September 25,2007;and WHEREAS,the Uniform Development Code (UDC)became effective on October 28,2007; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A;and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, the City issued a Determination of Non- significance (DNS) for the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS at City Hall,and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies;and WHEREAS, the City provided a copy of the proposed amendment to Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC)initiating a 60-day comment period pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106; and WHEREAS, SVMC 22.70 as amended, bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare and protection of the environment; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, On November 10, 2011, the Commission held a public hearing and received evidence, information,public testimony and a staff report with a recommendation; and WHEREAS, On December 8, 2011, the Commission continued the public hearing and received evidence,information,public testimony,a staff report with a recommendation and deliberated;and WHEREAS, On January 12,2012,the Commission deliberated and provided a recommendation; and WHEREAS, On January 26,2012,the Commission approved the findings and recommendation; and WHEREAS,on February 7,2012,Council reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2012, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH BELOW: Section One: SVMC 22.70 is amended as follows: Draft Ordinance 12-011 Amending SVMC 22.70(Fencing,Screening and Landscaping) Page 1 of 9 DRAFT 22.70.020 General provisions—Fencing. B. Any fence or wall,erected or placed behind the minimum required front yard setback line on a flanking,side or rear yard may be erected or maintained to a maximum height of eight feet above the adjacent grade in residential zoning districts. Lots with double street frontage may have a fence constructed on the property line around the yard not used as the main point of access(the apparent backyard rear yard). C.Neither residential,commercial or industrial fencing,nor any sight obstruction including vegetation,which constitutes a hazard to the traveling public shall be permitted on any corner lot in any zone within the area designated as the"clearview triangle"as set forth below: 1.A clearview triangle is a measurement applied at the intersection of two streets or the intersection of an alley,private road or commcrcial driveway and a street to ensure unobstructed vision of motorists and pedestrians.Within the clearview triangle,the space between three and one-half feet and seven feet above the street,or three feet above the sidewalk,must be unobstructed and calculated as follows: Clearview triangles for new development and new commercial driveway approaches shall be calculated using the methods presented in SVMC 22.130.040 Street Standards. a.Uncontrolled Intersection. The right isosceles triangle having sides of 50 feet measure along the curb line of each intersecting local access street(or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs),alley or commcrcial driveway (see Figure 22.70-2);or Replace Figure 22.70-2 (Uncontrolled Intersection)with: Figure 22.70-2 Uncontrolled Intersection sou sou Local Access Street Local Access Street CURB 1 ��PROPERT � R,CITY GHT-OF-� d a z z NOTE:If no curb is present, cW. cW. measure in 5 feet towards the o a property line from the edge of the roadway. t_CrRBJ CITY CITY RIGHT-OF- RIGHT-OF- Draft Ordinance 12-011 Amending SVMC 22.70(Fencing, Screening and Landscaping) Page 2 of 9 DRAFT Replace Figure 22.70-3 (Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection)with: Figure 22.70-3 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection See Table Through St e0.1 Through Street CUR j;I' RIGHT-OF- PROPERT Y LINE W � C4 NOTE:If no curb is present, measure in 5 feet towards c the property line from the cm( edge of the roadway. RIGHT-OF- CrR CITY GHT-OR Table 22.70-1 Table 22.70-1 Yicla Controlled Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Posted Speed (in MPH) Distance (in Feet) 25 70 30 95 35 110 Draft Ordinance 12-011 Amending SVMC 22.70(Fencing, Screening and Landscaping) Page 3 of 9 DRAFT Replace Figure 22.70-4 (Yield-Controlled Intersection)with: Figure 22.70-4 Yield-Controlled Intersection--t t- Through street Through street CURB I 7 9 M # 1C Oir 7;.:.±1_ / PROPERTY RIGHT-OF- LINE CITY I URB 1 AL RIGHT-OF-WAY CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY Move below Figure 22.70-4 e. All-Way Stop Controlled. The triangle determined by the City traffic engineer using AASHTO sight distance requirements for all-way stop controlled intersections; or Replace Figure 22.70-5 (Noncommercial Driveway)with: Figure 22.70-5 Noncommercial Street H H str et CUR Z� ___PROPERTY CITY �� RIGHT-OF- A i_ EDGE OF---- EDGE OF DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY Draft Ordinance 12-011 Amending SVMC 22.70(Fencing, Screening and Landscaping) Page 4 of 9 DRAFT F. Barbed wire or razor wire may be used for security purposes in mixed use, commercial and industrial zoning districts in the absence of a residential component only on the upper one-quarter of the fence in industrial zoning districts. Barbed wire, concertina or razor wire shall not be permitted in any residential zoning district(except for confining animals, see Section 22.70.020.G and H)mixed use zoning district adjacent to any public right of way. Barbed wire shall be installed vertically or projecting into property. An administrative determination may be made by the Director for community facilities seeking relief from barbed wire requirements. G. In any residential zoning district, barbed wire fences may be used to confine animals, if the parcel meets the requirements contained in Section 19.40.150. H. Electric fences may be used for the confinement of animals; provided,however, that: 1. The fence is marked with warning signs at least 24 square inches in area located every 150 feet; and 2. The electric fence is located not less than 24 inches from the property line; and 3. Access to the fence is limited by conventional fencing or enclosure. 114. A combination of sight-obscuring fences and landscaping shall be required between incompatible land uses as established in SVMC 22.70.030. I H. Fencing shall not block the view of fire protection equipment from approach. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.70.030 Screening and buffering. B. Type I—Full Screening. 3. All trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the standards of the American Association of Nurserymen Standard for Nursery Stock. All newly planted trees and shrubs shall be mulched and maintained to give a clean and weed-free appearance. C. Type II—Visual Buffering. 2. All trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the standards of the American Association of Nurserymen (a copy of which is on file in the planning dep.�t) Standard for Nursery Stock. All newly planted trees and shrubs shall be mulched and maintained to give a clean and weed-free appearance. Draft Ordinance 12-011 Amending SVMC 22.70(Fencing,Screening and Landscaping) Page 5 of 9 DRAFT E. General Provisions—Landscaping Table 22.70-4 —Landscaping Points Required Size of Developed Number of Points Required for Development,Additions or Area Site Alterations 0 500 sq. ft. Site points — 10 500—2,500 sq. ft. Site points =25 2,5019—5,000 sq. ft. Site points = 50 More than 5,000 sq. Site points = 50 plus one point for each 200 sq. ft. of area over ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Parking lots Two points per required parking space and one point for each proposed additional parking space 3. Landscaping Plan Requirements. A landscaping plan shall be prepared and sealed by a registered landscape architect when proposal exceeds 100 required landscape points. All landscape plans shall include the size and type of landscaping materials, the dimensions of the tract, and a point calculation showing compliance with this provision. 43. An additional 10 percent in the number of points shall be required adjacent to the following aesthetic corridors: a. State Route 27 from 16th Avenue South to 32nd Avenue and Mansfield Avenue to Trent Avenue; b. Appleway Boulevard (south side from Park Road to Dishman Mica Road); c. Mirabeau Parkway from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue; d. Dishman Mica Road from 8th Avenue, south to City limits; e. 32nd Avenue within the City limits; f. Appleway Avenue from Barker Road to Hodges Road. 54. Points for required full screening or visual buffers shall be in addition to the points required to meet landscaping requirements of this section. 65. A maximum of 25 percent of required landscape points may be claimed within the street right-of-way. Draft Ordinance 12-011 Amending SVMC 22.70(Fencing,Screening and Landscaping) Page 6 of 9 DRAFT 76. A minimum of 60 percent of points shall be used for landscaping in the front and side yards. 8q. A minimum of 25 percent of required points shall be used for evergreen plantings. 9S. A maximum of 25 percent of required points may be used for turf grass. (Turf located within the street right-of-way is excluded.) 9. Any addition to existing building(s) or alterations to an existing site exceeding 500 square feet shall require: a. One point of landscaping for every 200 square feet of developed arca, with a minimum of 10 points; and b. Two points of landscaping for every parking space installed for the building additieft. G. Landscaping Requirements for Parking Areas. 5. Amount and Location f. Each tree shall be planted a minimum of two feet away from the outside of any permanent barrier of a landscaped area or edge of the parking area. Trees sal may be staked for a period of notes more than 12 months after planting; b. Any construction within or expansion or reconstruction of existing parking facilities in excess of 500 square feet shall be required to come into compliance with the requirements of this chapter. 61. Parking areas limited to commercial loading and truck maneuvering are limited to provision of street trees along public rights-of-way,planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center. 78. Modifications to protect drainage features, easements, or facilities shall be allowed. 83. The requirements of this section shall not apply to parking garages or parking decks, or display areas for automotive and equipment sales and rentals. 9. Proposals require ten (10)new parking stalls or less are exempt from landscaping points found in Table 22.70-4. Draft Ordinance 12-011 Amending SVMC 22.70(Fencing,Screening and Landscaping) Page 7 of 9 DRAFT J. Landscaping Requirements for Freestanding Signs. 4.New sign structures on a fully developed site will require minimal xeriscaping pursuant to subsection K of this sectionare exempt from landscaping. L. Modification of Landscaping Requirements. e. Additions or expansions on developed Industrial zoned properties may be exempt from landscaping requirements, where it is shown that the installation of landscaping is not feasible. M. Installation,Maintenance, and Enforcement. 1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, person(s)who prepared landscape plan a registered landscape architect will certify that the irrigation systems and landscaping have been installed in accordance with approved plans and specifications. Figure 22.70-14 Example of Suggested Deciduous Tree Planting • • 1 rr� �rr I r4 Mulch to 1 m Lover stake , radius N. Landscaping Plan Requirements. The landscaping plan shall be prepared and sealed by a registered landscape architect and include the size and type of Draft Ordinance 12-011 Amending SVMC 22.70(Fencing,Screening and Landscaping) Page 8 of 9 DRAFT landscaping materials, the dimensions of the tract, and a point calculation showing compliance with this provision. Section Two: All other provisions of SVMC 22.70 not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section Three: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrases of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section Four: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after the publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of March , 2012. Mayor, Thomas E. Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Draft Ordinance 12-011 Amending SVMC 22.70(Fencing,Screening and Landscaping) Page 9 of 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION January 26,2012 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. A. Background: 1. The proposal is a City initiated code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.70,Fencing, Screening and Landscaping. . 2. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 10,2011,with deliberations continuing on December 8,2011 and January 12,2012. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to SVMC 22.70; a. Section 22.70.020.B—Allow fences to be placed on the property line in a flanking yard (corner lot)outside of the front yard setback. b. Section 22.70.020.0—Modify language to provide more clarity to the clearview triangle definition and update references to tables and figures to ensure this section is administered correctly. c. Section 22.70.020.F—Define which zones allow barbed,concertina or razor wire. d. Section 22.70.030.E.9 and Table 22.70-4—Consolidate all landscape point calculation requirements into Table 22.70-4 and moved Section 22.70.040.N beneath table. e. Section 22.70.030.E.9—Consolidated into Table 22.70-4. f. Section 22.70.030.G.5.f—Modified language so tree staking is optional and specified a time limit for removal. g. Section 22.70.030.G.6—Consolidated into Table 22.70-4. h. Section 22.70.030.G.9—Added flexibility to landscaping requirements relating to new parking stalls. i. Section 22.70.030.J.4—Remove landscape requirement for new signs in developed areas. j. Section 22.70.030.L.1.e—Add additional flexibility to landscaping requirements for industrial zoned properties. k. Section 22.70.030.M—Clarified the party certifying the landscaping at project completion. 1. Figure 22.70-14—Added an alternative to above ground tree staking for more options. Section 22.70.030.N—Moved to Section 22.70.030.E.3—Provide a landscape point threshold for requiring a landscape architect to prepare a landscape plan and clarifying who will certify the installed landscaping at time of completion B. Findings: The Planning Commission finds the proposed code text amendment to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act,Countywide Planning Policies and the City's Comprehensive Plan; 1. GMA Policies The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. 2. Countywide Planning Policies The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) are based on principles developed through a lengthy citizen participation process. One of the guiding principles coming out of that process was the importance of protecting neighborhood character. For most citizens, neighborhood character is one of the primary ingredients in their perceived quality of life. It is the intent of the CWPP to Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for CTA-03-11 Page 1 of 2 maintain neighborhood character and prevent neighborhoods from suffering the negative effects of growth. 3. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP. a. Policy LUP— 1.2: Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. b. Goal LUG—3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive,easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors,consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. c. Policy LUP—4.5: Ensure compatibility between mixed-use developments and residential areas by regulation height, scale, setbacks and buffers. d. Policy LUP—4.6: Develop community design guidelines to promote common open space,public art,and plazas in commercial and office developments. e. Policy LUP—8.2: Integrate sidewalks,bike lanes,landscaping,and area lighting in office areas to provide a safe and attractive working environment. f. Policy LUP— 10.2: Encourage a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. g. Policy LUP— 11.3: Provide appropriate buffering,landscaping and other development standards for industrial areas. h. LUP-14.1 requires the use of performance and community design standards to maintain neighborhood character,achieve a greater range of housing options,and to create attractive and desirable commercial and office developments. i. Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. The Planning Commission finds the proposed code text amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. Conclusions: The proposed City initiated,code text amendments to SVMC 22.70 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of proposed City initiated, code text amendments to SVMC 22.70 (Fencing, Screening and Landscaping) as attached. Approved this 26th d fu January,2012 Bill Bates,chairman TEST 4. eaftila- Dea na Griffith, Secre Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for CTA-03-11 Page 2 of 2 Chapter 22.70 FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING Sections: 22.70.010 Purpose and intent. 22.70.020 General provisions — Fencing. 22.70.030 Screening and buffering. 22.70.010 Purpose and intent. The use of fencing and screening reduces visual, noise and lighting impacts on adjacent properties and provides visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. It also serves to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community by eliminating dangerous conditions and preserving property values. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.70.020 General provisions— Fencing. A. No sight-obstructing fence more than 36 inches in height, nor any non-sight-obstructing fence (cyclone) more than 48 inches in height may be erected and/or maintained within the required front yard of any lot used for residential purposes. B. Any fence or wall, erected or placed behind the minimum required front yard setback line on a flanking, side or rear yard may be erected or maintained to a maximum height of eight feet above the adjacent grade in residential zoning districts. Lots with double street frontage may have a fence constructed on the property line around the yard not used as the main point of access (the apparent backyardrear yard). C. Neither residential, commercial or industrial fencing, nor any sight obstruction including vegetation, which constitutes a hazard to the traveling public shall be permitted on any corner lot in any zone within the area designated as the "clearview triangle" as set forth below: 1. A clearview triangle is a measurement applied at the intersection of two streets.or the intersection of an alley, private road or commercial driveway and a street to ensure unobstructed vision of motorists and pedestrians. Within the clearview triangle, the space between three and one-half feet and seven feet above the street, or three feet above the sidewalk, must be unobstructed and calculated as follows: CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 1 Figure 22.70-1 Clearview Requirements VlGITA'IION WITHIN CLIL ARV!W TR IANGLH 4• , / 'M 7' t _ 3, MINIMUM . - 3 iAXIMJM 35 r_,--- h+fAXINIIaI►4 IDIWAL1 i SMUT 1 Clearview triangles for new development and new commercial driveway approaches shall be calculated using the methods presented in SVMC 22.130.040 Street Standards. a. Uncontrolled Intersection. The right isosceles triangle having sides of 50 feet measure along the curb line of each intersecting local access street (or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs), - - . _ __••••- _ e .. -. - . (see Figure 22.70-2); or Figure 22.70-2 Uncontrolled Intersection . 'X1 FT. : ` M-7i A0:2 STREET LK'y AOC CM •... . r .. • er •- lin'LINE -■49•4foror 14,40 14$rj 1440100 , , P 411 , . .0/44"/ 4 4 ! I. ""tr illej:/:jir'°111 NOTE F NO CU+IS PRESENT. _'i 5 TOWAR06 THE PROPERTY LIB EROA4 T)-E EDGE OF ROADWAY crrr waHr--WAY am NNrr-OF-w Y CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 2 Figure 22.70-2 Uncontrolled Intersection soft sots Local Access Street Local Access Street CURB CITY PROPERTY LINE � �i z z- •ROPERTY LINE ~HT-OF-WAY z J� z a a NOTE:If no curb is present, 0 o measure in 5 feet towards a a the property line from the edge of the roadway. t—CURBi CITY CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY b. Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection. The right triangle having a 16-foot side measured along the curb line of a local access street (or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs), alley or commercial driveway, and the distance shown on Table 22.70-1 based on posted speed along the side along the curb line of the intersecting street (or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs) (see Figure 22.70-3); or F.•ure 22.70-3 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection • UM' 701111• 1FF • F 7(x1 Pomprn.1.11P/71N1114 EGII CF 114 NOr DOW V 1 V V C1171Q1160.-vM1' GIY CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 3 Figure 22.70-3 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection See Table l Through Street I See Table Through Street CURB paiimii;),zzo CITY lr\° RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPERTY LINE o NOTE:If no curb is present, i measure in 5 feet towards the property line from the CITY At—CURB edge of the roadway. RIGHT-OF-WAY CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY Table 22.70-1 — Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Posted Speed (in MPH) Distance (in Feet) 25 70 30 95 35 110 c. In cases including, but not limited to, arterials with posted speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour, one-way streets, steep grades and sharp curves, the City traffic engineer will determine the appropriate measurement; or d. Yield-Controlled Intersection. For intersections of local streets with 25 mile per hour speed limits, the right triangle having a 35-foot side measured along the curb line or edge of pavement of the yield-controlled street, and an 80-foot side measured along the curb line or edge of pavement of the intersecting street. Triangles for yield-controlled intersections on collectors or arterials, or streets with speeds higher than 25 miles per hour, will be determined by the City traffic engineer(see Figure 22.70-4); or CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 4 c. All-Way Stop Controllcd. The trianglc dctcrmincd by the City traffic cnginccr using 1 . •. - 22.70-4 Yield-Controlled Intersection i -- - . H - El FT. lllid{IG11 - T}•f40U011 STREET f-C6418 _.7_1.41: 4efar 40). ... ,/(5-77,'.:.. 74.7 '..,. .. _._.-----77_7F-„._ _, _aft FIGHT-CF-WAY delP PROPERTY LIE d -_--T 1 1 J/ -cue-J OTT FU;a4T- -MIAY an,} 4T-Cr-WAY Figure 22.70-4 Yield-Controlled Intersection--f Through Street H B. Street 7 r_....,,4„,r 4 ,;-, 5, Or "or }-I PROPERTY RIGHT-OF-WAY 4. `t LINE CITY CURB RIGHT-OF-WAY CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY e. All-Way Stop Controlled. The triangle determined by the City traffic engineer using AASHTO sight distance requirements for all-way stop controlled intersections; or f. Signal-Controlled Intersection. The triangle determined by the City traffic engineer using AASHTO sight distance requirements for signalized intersections; or g. Noncommercial Driveway Serving Three or More Residences. The right isosceles triangle having sides of 15 feet measured along the curb line of the street and the edge of the driveway (see Figure 22.70-5). CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 5 Figure 22.70-5 Noncommercial Driveway ' -1 is FT - - . - VI TT - OWN - - -�'' --- - • ,�� i Orr Pall- -WAY r Y er •. Figure 22.70-5 Noncommercial Driveway --1 r ir- 15ft -1 H 1t Street Street CURB PROPERTY LINE CITY T 3 w RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 EDGE OF��EDGE OF DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY D. Exemptions. Clearview triangle regulations of this chapter shall not apply to: 1. Public utility poles; 2. Trees, so long as they are not planted in the form of a hedge and are trimmed to a height of at least seven feet above the street surface; 3. Properties where the natural ground contour penetrates the clearview triangle; and 4. Traffic control devices installed by the City. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 6 E. Fences in nonresidential, commercial, mixed use and industrial zoning districts shall not exceed eight feet in height. F. Barbed wire or razor wire may be used for security purposes in mixed use, commercial and industrial zoning districts in the absence of a residential component only on the upper one-quarter of the fence industrial zoning districts. Barbed wire, concertina or razor wire shall not be permitted in any residential zoning district (except for confining animals, see Section 22.70.020.G and H)or in any commercial and mixed use zoning district adjacent to any public right-of-way. An administrative determination may be made by the Director for community facilities seeking relief from barbed wire requirements. G. In any residential zoning district, barbed wire fences may be used to confine animals, if the parcel meets the requirements contained in Section 19.40.150. H. Electric fences may be used for the confinement of animals; provided, however, that: 1. The fence is marked with warning signs at least 24 square inches in area located every 150 feet; and 2. The electric fence is located not less than 24 inches from the property line; and 3. Access to the fence is limited by conventional fencing or enclosure. I#. A combination of sight-obscuring fences and landscaping shall be required between incompatible land uses as established in SVMC 22.70.030. Jt. Fencing shall not block the view of fire protection equipment from approach. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.70.030 Screening and buffering. A. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply only to multifamily and nonresidential projects. B. Type I — Full Screening. 1. Where required for full screening, a sight-obscuring fence shall be installed consistent with the requirements for a clearview triangle. The fence shall be at least six feet high and 100 percent sight obscuring. Fences may be made of wood, ornamental iron or aluminum, brick, masonry, architectural panels, chain link with slats, or other permanent materials, berms, walls, vegetative plantings, or some combination of these. 2. The required fence shall be further screened by a mix of plantings located within a five-foot buffer strip that are layered and/or combined to obtain an immediate dense sight-obscuring barrier of two to three feet in height, selected to reach six feet in height at maturity as follows: CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 a. A mixture of conifers and deciduous trees, planted at a distance of not less than 35 feet on center, with a maximum of 50 percent of the trees being deciduous; b. Evergreen shrubs shall comprise at least 75 percent of the plantings, planted at a distance of not less than six feet on center; c. A minimum of 24 points of landscaping shall be installed for every 25 linear feet of buffer area; d. Plantings used for full screening adjacent to public or private rights-of-way shall be located outside the fence or security system. Figure 22.70-6 Example of Type I Landscaping with Sight-Obscuring Fence (Not to Scale) I Evergreen Tree I.1L r x _ 1 Sixae !o r,c,i -4- --,:i..,■:11:-41 '. - 4.9,,. --z-: .-,, -LI 0 ,;-.)-: ‘,1 - _,:-) .,-,-,---,f.--- —4..— 0 --2i tfo ° 4 ;.i.714f-c-....-31,1› _fir 35 Icxx Q C"'' e'l Yin , ((r44<-1-1't S.cj d k 8curirlU Wilco 3. All trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the standards of the American Association of NurserymenStandard for Nursery Stock. All newly planted trees and shrubs shall be mulched and maintained to give a clean and weed-free appearance. ff a 1 ANTNGMIXTURE' d•1•I i �.— . .� • 5I(}T•O5cING FEE Nr nsn JAN Rican-03-wn Figure 22.70-7 Type I Full Screening C. Type II —Visual Buffering. 1. Where required to minimize the incompatibility between adjacent land uses, a visual screen of not less than five feet in width which may consist of fencing, architectural panels, berms, walls, vegetative plantings, or some combination of these shall be installed as follows: a. A mixture of conifers and deciduous trees, planted at a distance of not less than 35 feet on center, with a maximum of 75 percent of the trees being deciduous; CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 I 8 b. Evergreen shrubs shall comprise at least 50 percent of the plantings; c. A minimum of 18 points of landscaping shall be installed for every 25 linear feet of buffer area. 2. All trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the standards of the American Association of Nurserymen (a copy of which is on file in the planning d'°^ t)Standard for Nursery Stock. All newly planted trees and shrubs shall be mulched and maintained to give a clean and weed-free appearance. Figure 22.70-8 Example of Type II Landscaping Evergreen Tree Deciduous Shrubs 0 ,0' - 4 04 4 o � 10 400Q *44 µ ilit 044 35 rife max„ Gratt Grass 3. The buffer shall run the entire length of the abutting lot line(s). A natural, undisturbed wooded area at least 20 feet in width may substitute for landscaping. D. Full screening and buffering are required for land use classification as shown on Table 22.70-2. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 9 Table 22.70-2 —Buffers Required by Type R-1, R-2, MF-1, NC, C, CMU, City Zoning Districts R-3, R-4 MF-2 0, GO RC MUC Center 1-1, 1-2 Planned Residential I I I I I I 1 Development Manufactured Home Parks 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MF-1, MF-2 1 n/a 1 11 11 11 1 0, GO 1 1 n/a 11 n/a n/a n/a NC, C, RC 1 1 11 n/a n/a n/a n/a CMU, MUC 1 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a City Center 1 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1-1, 1-2 1 I I I I I n/a I —Type I Full Screening 11 —Type 11 Visual Buffering n/a— Not Applicable E. General Provisions— Landscaping. 1. Applicant may use any combination of planting materials to meet the requirements of this section. Points are assigned based on the following: Table 22.70-3 —Landscaping Point Values Minimum Size (at time of planting) Type of Plant Point Material Deciduous Trees Evergreen Trees Value (in caliper inches) (in feet of height) Large Tree 8-inch or greater 22 ft. and over 26 CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 10 Table 22.70-3 —Landscaping Point Values Minimum Size (at time of planting) Type of Plant Point Material Deciduous Trees Evergreen Trees Value (in caliper inches) (in feet of height) 7-inch 19—21 ft. 24 6-inch 16— 18 ft. 22 5-inch 13— 15 ft. 20 4-inch 11 — 12 ft. 18 3-inch 9— 10 ft. 15 Medium Tree 2-inch 7—8 ft. 12 Small Tree Single trunk: 1-inch 5—6 ft. 9 Ornamental Tree Multiple trunk (minimum 3 trunks): smallest 5—6 ft. 9 trunk 1-inch caliper Large Shrub 5-gallon and 24-inch height at planting 3 Medium Shrub 3-gallon and 12-inch height at planting 2 Small Shrub 2-gallon and 8-inch height at planting 1 Ornamental 1 gallon 1/2 Grasses Groundcover 1 gallon 1/2 4-inch pots 1/4 Existing Trees Greater than 6-inch caliper 22—50 Landscaped Berm 30-inch height; 10-foot length; 3:1 slope 1 per 5 linear ft. Turf Grass n/a 1/4 per sq. yd. 2. Landscaping must equal or exceed a minimum number of points based on the size of the lot, parcel or tract and the number of parking spaces. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 11 Table 22.70-4 -Landscaping Points Required for Development, Additions or Site Alterations Size of Developed Number of Points Required Area 0- 500 sq. ft. Site points - 10 500-2,500 sq. ft. Site points =25 2,5014-5,000 sq. ft. Site points = 50 More than 5,000 sq. Site points = 50 plus one point for each 200 sq. ft. of area over ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Parking lob Two points per required parking space and one point for each proposed additional parking space 3. Landscaping Plan Requirements. A landscaping plan shall be prepared and sealed by a registered landscape architect when proposal exceeds 100 landscape points. All landscape plans shall include the size and type of landscaping materials, the dimensions of the tract, and a point calculation showing compliance with this provision. 48. An additional 10 percent in the number of points shall be required adjacent to the following aesthetic corridors: a. State Route 27 from 16th Avenue South to 32nd Avenue and Mansfield Avenue to Trent Avenue; b. Appleway Boulevard (south side from Park Road to Dishman Mica Road); c. Mirabeau Parkway from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue; d. Dishman Mica Road from 8th Avenue, south to City limits; e. 32nd Avenue within the City limits; f. Appleway Avenue from Barker Road to Hodges Road. 54. Points for required full screening or visual buffers shall be in addition to the points required to meet landscaping requirements of this section. 68. A maximum of 25 percent of required landscape points may be claimed within the street right-of-way. CTA-o3-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 12 7S. A minimum of 60 percent of points shall be used for landscaping in the front and side yards. 8�. A minimum of 25 percent of required points shall be used for evergreen plantings. 94. A maximum of 25 percent of required points may be used for turf grass. (Turf located within the street right-of-way is excluded.) - - - -! - -- shall require: a. Onc point of landscaping for cvcry 200 squarc fcct of dm/doped area, with a minimum of 10 points; and b. Two points of landscaping for every parking space installed for the building addition. 10. The type and location of vegetation shall not interfere with utilities and the safe and efficient flow of street traffic. Approval by the appropriate City departments responsible for street and utilities shall be required. 11. Any turf grass planted in the street right-of-way shall be excluded from turf point credits. 12. Street trees are included for point calculation. 13. All plant material planted to meet the minimum requirements of these regulations shall be in a healthy condition at the time of planting and shall meet quality standards set forth by the American Standard for Nursery Stock. 14. Turf grass shall be planted, seeded or re-seeded as necessary, watered and maintained in such a manner as to completely cover all exposed areas of soil after one full growing season. 15. No disturbed ground shall be left exposed. Grass and other approved and appropriate ground covers or mulch shall cover all nonpaved and nonbuilt developed areas. 16. Landscaping may be included within stormwater facilities, providing it does not impede on functionality and is consistent with stormwater guidelines. F. Street Trees. 1. Street trees shall include deciduous trees planted in or within 10 feet of any public or private right-of-way, planted at a distance of not less than 35 feet on center in sleeves designed to direct root development as shown in Figure 22.70-9 of this chapter. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 13 Figure 22.70-9 Root Barrier for Trees Planted Near Walkways f 1 _ 4 FI 1iDMED GRADE I S 4-- . ..-- 3-A"514 CRmrimrm GRAY EL i. P. r ' I F noweroWm�ca OOUwi ROOT DARRK14 •r r l ROOT BARRIER FOR.PLANTINGS TREES NEAR.WAU WAYS wt ry soma 2. If construction is adjacent to any local access, collector or arterial, at least one medium tree shall be planted for each 40 linear feet, or fraction thereof, for that portion of the development abutting the right-of-way. 3. Where overhead utility lines are present, use appropriate street tree species as specified in Appendix 22-A, Recommended Planting List, in subsection 0 of this section. G. Landscaping Requirements for Parking Areas. 1. Headlight Screening. Where parking lot design includes spaces which allow vehicles to park perpendicular to public rights-of-way or structures located on adjacent parcels, headlight screening shall be required. Headlight screening should not exceed 30 inches in height for the length of the parking area. a ._ , r ' '. r+ r� Rri Irr .wr Figure 22.70-10 Headlight Screening 2. When a parking area abuts residentially zoned property along any interior side or rear property line, Type I full screening is required. 3. A maximum of 10 percent of the number of required parking spaces may be replaced with landscaping. Ten points of landscaping shall be required for each substituted parking space. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 14 4. A minimum of 25 percent of required points for parking areas shall be evergreen plant materials. 5. Amount and Location. a. Each parking lot island and/or peninsula shall be a minimum of 130 square feet with a minimum average width of five feet; b. Each parking lot island and/or peninsula shall contain a minimum of one medium tree; c. The distance between any parking space and a landscaped area shall be no more than 75 feet; d. All parking lot planting areas shall be protected with concrete curbs, or equivalent barriers. Bumper blocks shall not be used for boundaries around the landscaped area; e. All landscaping must be located between parking stalls, at the end of parking columns, or between stalls and the property line. Landscaping which occurs between the parking lot and a building or recreation area shall not be considered as satisfaction of these requirements; f. Each tree shall be planted a minimum of two feet away from the outside of any permanent barrier of a landscaped area or edge of the parking area. Trees shall may be staked for a period of not less more than 12 months after planting; g. Ground cover or grasses shall be planted to cover each parking lot planting area within three years from the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. All ground cover shall have a mature height of not more than 24 inches. Loose rock, gravel, decorative rock or stone, or mulch shall not exceed 20 percent of the planting area; h. Space devoted to required parking lot planting areas shall be in addition to any required front, side, and rear yard buffer requirements; i. Stand-alone parking lots shall require three points of landscaping for each parking space and shall be exempt from other landscaping requirements. 6. Any construction within or expansion or reconstruction of existing parking facilities in excess of 500 square feet shall be required to come into compliance with the requirements of this chapter. 6�. Parking areas limited to commercial loading and truck maneuvering are limited to provision of street trees along public rights-of-way, planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center. 78-. Modifications to protect drainage features, easements, or facilities shall be allowed. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 15 84. The requirements of this section shall not apply to parking garages or parking decks, or display areas for automotive and equipment sales and rentals. 9. Proposals requiring ten (10) new parking stalls or less are exempt from landscaping points found in Table 22.70-4. H. Landscaping Required for Common Open Space. 1. Fifty percent of the required common open area shall contain irrigated plantings. I. Screening of Loading Docks. Off-street loading spaces and apron space should be screened from view of the abutting streets for a minimum of 35 feet: 1. By a combination of permanent architectural and landscape elements such as walls, berms, trees and shrubs with a mature height of at least to the height of the top of the dock door but no greater than 12 feet above the truck dock apron; and 2. Shall, when viewed at a perpendicular angle from the street, screen the loading spaces completely, except for driveway opening(s). J. Landscaping Requirements for Freestanding Signs. 1. New freestanding sign structures serving a new development shall provide a landscaping area as follows: a. Structures on Slab. A landscape border of 18 inches or more measured from the edge of slab for monument signs. b. Single Pole Structures. A landscape border not less than 32 square feet in area located 18 inches or more measured from the edge of footing if flush with natural grade, or 18 inches from the pole, provided the footing is covered with not less than 18 inches of soil. c. Multiple Pole Structures. A landscape border not less than 60 square feet in area located 18 inches or more measured from the edge of footings. The landscape border may be placed adjacent to the poles provided footing is covered with not less than 18 inches of soil. 2. New freestanding sign structures located within 208 swales areas require no additional landscaping. Footings shall be installed in such a way that the biofiltration function of the swale is not diminished. 3. New freestanding sign structures located within existing developments where landscaping meets the requirements of subsection C of this section require no additional landscaping. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 16 4. New sign structures on a fully developed site will require minimal xeriscaping pursuant to subsection K of this section.are exempt from landscaping. 5. Points for landscaping of sign structures may be used to meet the minimum requirements of this chapter. K. Xeriscaping. 1. The number of required points may be reduced by up to 20 percent for use of recommended xeriscape planting materials combined with decorative hardscape. Xeriscape planting materials need fewer waterings than typical lawn grasses and can tolerate, resist, or avoid drought after they are established. They have attractive ornamental features and are relatively easy to grow. Xeriscape planting materials have not been invasive in local growing conditions. 2. Use drip or trickle irrigation. 3. Mulch with three to four inches of shredded or ground bark, well-rotted compost, wood shavings or chips at the time of installation. L. Modification of Landscaping Requirement. 1. The director may approve alternative landscaping proposals where: a. Only a portion of the parcel is being developed; b. Landscaping would interfere with the adequate storage, conveyance, treatment or control of stormwater runoff or would interfere with the maintenance of stormwater facilities or natural drainage systems; c. Applicant proposes xeriscaping in conformance with subsection K of this section; d. Existing structures or improvements preclude installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems as prescribed herein. e. Additions or expansions on developed Industrial zoned properties may be exempt from landscaping requirements, where it is shown that the installation of landscaping is not feasible. 2. Where applicant proposes to preserve existing healthy trees, a credit may be applied to points for required landscaping; provided, however, that not more than 25 percent of the total points may be located within the public right-of-way. Credit may be approved as follows: CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 17 Table 22.70-5 —Credits for Tree Preservation Size of Preserved Deciduous Height of Existing Preserved Conifer Landscape Points Applied Tree* 6-inch caliper 16— 18 ft. 25 7-inch caliper 19—21 ft. 28 8-inch to 10-inch caliper 22—28 ft. 30 10.1-inch caliper to 15-inch DBH 29—32 ft. 35 15.1-inch to 20-inch caliper 33—36 ft. 40 20.1-inch to 25-inch caliper 37—40 ft. 46 Over 25-inch caliper > 41 ft. 58 3. The decision of the director regarding modification of landscape requirements shall be final unless an aggrieved person appeals that decision to the hearing examiner. M. Installation, Maintenance, and Enforcement. 1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, person(s)who prepared landscape plan a registered landscape architect will certify that the irrigation systems and landscaping have been installed in accordance with approved plans and specifications. 2. The director may authorize a delay where planting season conflicts would produce high probability of plant loss. In the event the director authorizes a delay, a limited access agreement, not to exceed six months, may be issued to complete the installation of required landscaping. Maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owner. All landscaping required by this chapter shall be permanently maintained in a healthy growing condition. Trees that become diseased, severely damaged or die shall be removed by the owner. All trees removed under this section shall be replaced in accordance with the approved landscaping plan for the property. Lack of maintenance shall constitute a violation of this code. a. Tree guards are to be used around the base of each tree in lawn areas. b. Trees are to be planted a minimum of four feet from any curb stop whenever possible. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 18 c. Landscaping must be maintained to allow fire protection equipment to be seen from approach. d. All landscaping must provide for a three-foot clear area around all fire protection equipment. Figure 22.70-11 Example of Suggested Shrub Planting 0 4cr o� 0 0 FORM 5AUaR WTTT1 Oa 3'CONTINUOUS EN WWI c I.; SftCIFI ED PLANTING — MIY. WATER 1r T'14P II liF +`I'+ f—^ TO REMOVe AIR 1i_ -41 FOCFET5 •AITINI. I.= immi CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 19 Figure 22.70-12 Example of Suggested Deciduous Tree Planting FLAN SO TNAAT TOP OF RODr au L 15 nvm wr1i TNtE IAISHM GRACIE crrr I' TRg GrtM 0.S NEEDF❑HARDWOOD 5T+iF. 1.35TAf.F52'X2' DRJVrH(MIN 18')FIRMLY INTO 51!3 GRADE FRIOI[ 1O 5AG>C FIUIWG 5TAKE ABOVE FIRST DRANCHE5 OR AS NECESSARY FOR EIRAA f ? AR O' suPPORT i ri — SPECIFIED PLANTING MIX r'1� !�1- WATER*TAMP TO .=.11 RaeaVE AIR POCKETS =._ 011W 1 , 1 I xu[�A. CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 20 Figure 22.70-13 Example of Suggested Deciduous Tree Planting J - r- N • P ' ' _ r wit, rider -OILMEN 140111511101.CH AN AT6hAi - cur Wei pi OM FLAG O I EACH TO=PEA= '+41ML1TY-Ar NDTI[tir1WI MIPE$ASTMEY mew wood.MAY TLAWM/DI0i01 uILVAAIesn cat wow o OMEJR d KIN OMEN to at AT Loa F OI YL GRADE F�//4� "Ali. MUM f�,�ff :. --- INa+LY IVMiD MIXER':WElyricIl \!\\/\\;. .:.. f miCLE Of YAW)NMI 5113 MAYS \ff\\f\\y ; 04 E,L6PE MD lOR TYPE 4.,f\z,/r.; \f�f�r-\i. .• *7717 eaia#SRi19ECVT FE�VVE \r,/tii� .:/\`/\�i\ .e?i f-IAA,, MP w Ce WRAP.MffS IOCEOINDRiIF W1ERIAL \\ \/tif\\'\t'\t-\\titi\f\1f1 \�'\/� Tiv../\\ pfiLLKT[TALLYPItIA tiL ///////f/////j//f:%/f4,,/fJ/////!r� ,/,%?..ev\\\!\\r--fevv,ice-'-"-"•'r\�,t " RED 9.R#7L70 Wm PEOWA.15Porno F=T TL NF CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 21 Figure 22.70-14 Example of Suggested Deciduous Tree Planting • • • • • rr .I r • Mulch to 1 m Low stake radius CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 22 Figure 22.70-154 Example of Suggested Conifer Tree Planting 1AULL1±PIJ 7 TO 3'RADIUS MOM 01 It PANS sI VI.IICW PAUL 4' WUM SI nn. Roof viif]'NH 2•-'A9DYr ruNki 4Gr 7DIL GRAM' -111 1 III FORS'W+LICER wirri 3"CCOITINUCu3 Mu N■o l'INI5t1 GRADE •100011. li=11,=11,i A�.a l _ TI Ili :AFT rxi5TNG NA GOIX FLAW]VG SUL i I x 8ALL CAA L landscape and include thc size and type of landscaping materials, thc dimensions of the tract, and a point calculation showing compliance with this provision. O. Recommended Planting Species. Refer to Appendix 22-A. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). CTA-03-11 Planning Commission Recommended language 1-26-12 23 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 28, 2012 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information [' admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Fire Department Interlocal Agreement Amendment - Fees GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 39.34 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of original interlocal agreement July 19, 2006; adoption of amended interlocal July 25, 2008. BACKGROUND: In the course of reviewing the Master Fee Schedule as part of the 2012 budget adoption, there was discussion regarding the Fire Department's permitting fees contained in our Master Fee Schedule. These fees relate to the review the Fire Department does in the City's construction permitting process, including fire safety review and inspections. The Department sets their own fees, and the City collects them and passes them through to the Department. In researching why this particular arrangement exists, it was found that the interlocal agreement includes several references to having these costs in the City's Master Fee Schedule as the means to collect them. It is unnecessary to require that such pass-through fees be in the City's fee schedule. The Department bases its fees on cost recovery for its services. By having the Department's fees in the City's fee schedule, the City could exercise control over cost recovery for the Department - a separate jurisdiction. The essential issue is this would chang the language in the interlocal to reflect that the Department will send the City the Department's fee schedule, which can be updated from time to time in writing. The City would continue to collect these fees and forward them to the Department. Staff recommends that the Council approve the proposed interlocal. Staff also found various typographical errors that should be corrected, which are also reflected in this proposed agreement. OPTIONS: (1) motion to approve as drafted; (2) request additional changes; or (3) reject the proposed revised interlocal agreement. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we authorize the City Manager to execute the Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services in the City of Spokane Valley as proposed. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Mike Thompson, Fire Chief ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services in the City of Spokane Valley. DRAFT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE SERVICES IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between Spokane Valley Fire Department, a special purpose district organized and operating under the laws of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 10319 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as the "Department" and the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "City," jointly hereinafter referred to as the "Parties." The Department and the City agree as follows. SECTION NO. 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS A. Cities and special purpose districts may contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform under chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act). B. The City has been annexed into the special purpose district served by the Department and the Department provides most emergency fire protection services in the City. C. The City has adopted land use regulations, a series of safety codes for building construction, maintenance, and the use of structures and their occupancies, including the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Fire Code (IFC). D. The City has code enforcement authority pursuant to RCW 19.27.050 and fire investigation authority under RCW 43.44.050. E. The Department has a Fire Prevention Division, staffed by trained personnel that regularly conduct fire code safety inspections and conduct fire investigations to determine the origin and cause of fires within the City pursuant to RCW 52.12.031(7) and RCW 43.44.050. F. Both the City and the Department have a need for the Services of the other and the City and the Department have the ability to provide these Services. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 1 of 11 DRAFT G. The duty of the Department to provide emergency services within the special purpose district or under the provisions of this Agreement is a duty owed to the public generally and by entering into this Agreement, the Department does not incur a special duty to the City, the property owners, residents or occupants of the City. H. This Agreement is entered into for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement only and shall confer no benefits, direct or implied, on any third persons. This Agreement is intended to modify and replace the prior Interlocal Agreement For Fire Services in the City of Spokane Valley entered into by the Parties on the 25th of July, 2008. SECTION NO. 2: DEFINITIONS A. Agreement: "Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement between the City and the Department regarding fire code compliance-related services. B. City: "City" means the City of Spokane Valley. C. Compensation: "Compensation" means the amount of money which the City will collect and pay the Department for providing Services as identified in the Department's currently adopted fee schedule, which may be updated from time to time by the Department and provided to the City. D. Department: "Department" means Spokane Valley Fire Department. E. Services: "Services" means all of those responsibilities set forth in Section 5, Parties Responsibility. F. Uncontrollable Circumstances: "Uncontrollable Circumstances" means the following events: riots, wars, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism, external fires and floods, volcanic eruptions, lightning or earthquakes at or near where the Services are performed and/or that directly affect providing of such Services. SECTION NO. 3: PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce to writing the Parties' understanding as to the terms and conditions under which the City and the Department will provide Services to each other. It is the intent of the Parties that Services to be provided will be consistent with the City's Council/Manager form of government provided for in chapter 35A.13 RCW. SECTION NO. 4: DURATION/WITHDRAWAL This Agreement shall commence on the date the last signature is affixed hereto, and run through December 31 , 2012. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 2 of 11 DRAFT At the conclusion of the initial term (December 31, 2012), this Agreement shall automatically be renewed from year to year thereafter effective January 1st to December 31st All renewals shall be subject to all terms and conditions set forth herein or as amended pursuant to Section 13 below. Any Party may withdraw at any time from this Agreement for any reason whatsoever upon a minimum of 180 days written notice as provided for in Section 8 to the other Party. SECTION NO. 5: PARTIES RESPONSIBILITIES: The Department will administer the International Fire Code, as currently adopted or subsequently amended, for the City by maintaining a Fire Prevention Division, performing plan reviews, and by conducting inspections and investigations. A. The Department agrees to designate a fire code official to implement, administer, and to work with the City to enforce the provisions of this code as provided for in the International Fire Code Section 103. B. Inspections of existing occupancies shall be conducted as follows: 1. Inspections shall be performed under Section 104 and Section 105 of the IFC. 2. Inspections in accordance with Section 104 and 105 shall be conducted on an annual basis except Group H occupancies, which may be inspected semi-annually. In all cases the inspections are to be conducted in a regularly scheduled manner. 3. The Department shall serve written notice of a violation of the IFC to the property and/or business as is appropriate. Re-inspection of failed inspections will be conducted not more than 30 calendar days after the initial inspection. The 30 day limit may be exceeded if so doing does not endanger persons occupying or accessing the occupancy and the fire inspector sets and comments in writing a date certain for re- inspection. 4. If compliance is not achieved after the first re-inspection, a second written notice shall be served unless there is an immediate hazard to public safety. 5. If after the second re-inspection non-compliance still exists, the Department shall confer with the Building Official and jointly prepare the enforcement action. The City shall be responsible for costs of code enforcement actions. The Building Official shall issue stop work orders as deemed appropriate. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 3 of 11 DRAFT 6. At the time of the first inspection, Fire Prevention Division Inspectors shall determine if a valid permit has been issued to occupancies requiring a permit, pursuant to IFC Section 105. If a valid permit has not been issued, the Department inspector will take appropriate action to inform the occupant of the local requirements. 7. Notwithstanding the foregoing, immediate enforcement and or other actions may be undertaken by the City in lieu of warnings or re-inspections if to do so is necessary to comply with applicable law or for other circumstances determined by the City. C. The Department shall conduct Fire Investigations in conformance with the IFC and other City, state and federal requirements. All investigations involving arson or mischievous burning shall be reported to the appropriate enforcement agency. D. A copy of plans submitted to the City for building construction and alteration shall be submitted by the City to the Department for review. The Department shall be responsible for determining: 1 . Fire hydrant locations. 2. Connections for locations of standpipes and sprinkler systems. 3. Key box locations and approvals. 4. Fire flow availability in all areas where the water provider does not have sufficient information. 5. Road access requirements to property and buildings for fire fighting purposes, including designated fire lanes. The City shall be responsible for implementing the Department's determinations through the CITY'S permitting process. E. The Department shall further assist the City in the review of plans for Automatic Fire Suppression Systems and Fire Alarm and Detection Systems. F. The City and the Department shall both conduct final inspections of new buildings other than single family dwellings or private garages. G. The Department shall review applications and perform field inspections of public fireworks displays to insure compliance with applicable State and City requirements. H. The City shall assist the Department as necessary in implementing and enforcing the Department's determinations under this Section No. 5. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 4 of 11 DRAFT I. The Department shall refrain from performing any of the services specified in this paragraph upon request by the City. SECTION NO 6: COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENTS The City shall pay the Department the costs for Services provided by the Department under this Agreement as set forth in the Department's currently adopted fee schedule. The City shall collect and retain a $35 processing fee in addition to the fees listed in the currently adopted fee schedule. Fees collected on behalf of the Department shall be forwarded by the City on a quarterly basis to the Department. Either Party may dispute any claimed moneys owed. In the event the Parties cannot mutually resolve any dispute over moneys owed within 30 calendar days from the time a written claim is made, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the matter shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth in Section No. 16. The selection of arbitrators as provided for in Section No.16 shall commence within 30 calendar days of the running of the 30 calendar day time frame. The Parties recognize that it is not always possible for either Party to discover errors in payment. The Parties further recognize that there must be some finality to addressing such errors. Accordingly, the Parties agree that both Parties are foreclosed from challenging any errors in payment unless the challenge is made in writing to the other party within 30 calendar days of the last invoice of the calendar year. Errors raised within this time frame that are not mutually resolved shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth in Section No. 16. SECTION NO. 7: RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROVIDING SERVICES A Department representative shall make reasonable efforts to attend staff or Council meetings as requested by the City Manager. A Department representative shall make reasonable efforts to meet upon request by the City Manager or his/her designee to discuss any Service provided under the terms of this Agreement. SECTION NO. 8: NOTICE All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (1) the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (ii) the third day following the day on which the same have been mailed by first class delivery, postage prepaid addressed to the Department or the City at the address set forth below for such Party, or at such other address as either Party shall from time to time designate by notice in writing to the other Party: Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 5 of 11 DRAFT DEPARTMENT: Spokane Valley Fire Department 10319 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 CITY: City of Spokane Valley City Manager or his/her authorized representative 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 SECTION NO. 9: ASSIGNMENT No Party may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of the other Party. SECTION NO. 10: DEPARTMENT/CITY EMPLOYEES The Department shall appoint, hire, assign, retain and discipline all employees performing Department Services under this Agreement according to applicable collective bargaining agreements and applicable state and federal laws. The City shall appoint, hire, assign, retain and discipline all employees performing City Services under this Agreement according to applicable collective bargaining agreements and applicable state and federal laws. SECTION NO. 11: LIABILITY A. The Department shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the Department, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the City, the Department shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the City reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the City, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the City and the Department and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the Department shall satisfy the same. B. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the Department and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the City, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the Department, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the Department reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 6 of 11 DRAFT involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the Department, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the Department and the City and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the City shall satisfy the same. C. If the comparative negligence of the Parties and their officers and employees is a cause of such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the Parties in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such proportion. D. Where an officer or employee of a Party is acting under the direction and control of the other Party, the Party directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity and/or omission giving rise to liability shall accept all liability for the other Party's officer or employee's negligence. E. Each Party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. F. The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified Party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indemnitor's employees. The Parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. G. The Department and the City agree to either self insure or purchase policies of insurance covering the matters contained in this Agreement with coverages of not less than $3,000,000 per occurrence with $3,000,000 aggregate limits including professional liability and auto liability coverages. SECTION NO. 12: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES The Parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The Department shall be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of the City, that the City is interested only in the results to be achieved and that the right to control the particular manner, method and means in which the services are performed is solely within the discretion of the Department. Any and all employees who provide Services to the City under this Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of the Department. The Department shall be solely responsible for the conduct and actions of all employees under this Agreement and any liability that may attach thereto. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant or representative of the City shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the Department for any purpose. It is understood that the Department shall from time to time upon identification of a life safety violation of code or a parking violation impairing access to fire hydrants or routes of ingress or egress to emergency scenes or restricted fire zones, need to immediately Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 7 of 11 DRAFT issue citations for these violations. It is further understood that the Fire Department, under the authority of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office may, if necessary, take such actions under the sole authority of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office and/or the Department and pursuant to a separate agreement with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. Any costs or liability that may result from these actions shall be the responsibility of either the Fire Department or Sheriff's Office respectively. SECTION NO. 13: MODIFICATION This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written agreement of the Parties. Proposals for modification shall be submitted to the other party at least 60 days before the end of the calendar year. SECTION NO. 14: PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in conjunction with providing the Services shall remain with the original owner, unless otherwise specifically and mutually agreed to by the Parties to this Agreement. For the purpose of this section, the terminology "owner" means that Party which paid the full purchase price for the property or equipment. SECTION NO. 15: ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN/BINDING EFFECT This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. The Parties agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the Parties unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by the Parties. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties hereto, their successors and assigns. SECTION NO. 16: DISPUTE RESOLUTION Any dispute between the Parties which cannot be resolved between the Parties shall be subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to writing and considered by the Department and the City Manager. If the Department and the City Manager cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The provisions of chapter 7.04A RCW shall be applicable to any arbitration proceeding. The Department and the City shall have the right to designate one person each to act as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the Parties and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04A RCW. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 8 of 11 DRAFT The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the Parties. Each Party shall be responsible for its own costs in preparing and presenting its case. SECTION NO. 17: VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each party that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. SECTION NO. 18: SEVERABILITY The Parties agree that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision. SECTION NO. 19: RECORDS All public records prepared, owned, used or retained by the Department in conjunction with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed City property and shall be made available to the City upon request by the City Manager subject to the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges set forth in statute, court rule or case law. The Department will timely notify the City of any public disclosure request under chapter 42.56 RCW for copies or viewing of such records as well as the Department's response thereto. SECTION NO. 20: HEADINGS The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 9 of 11 DRAFT SECTION NO. 21: UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES/IMPOSSIBILITY A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from Uncontrollable Circumstances shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement. A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from any change in or new law, order, rule or regulation of any nature which renders providing of Services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement legally impossible, and any other circumstances beyond the control of the Department which render legally impossible the performance by the Department of its obligations under this Agreement, shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement. SECTION NO. 22: FILING This Agreement shall be filed by the Department with such offices or agencies as required by chapter 39.34 RCW. SECTION NO. 23: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL The Parties warrant that the officers executing below have been duly authorized to act for and on behalf of the Party for purposes of confirming this Agreement. SECTION NO. 24: INITIATIVES The Parties recognize that revenue reducing initiative(s) passed by the voters of Washington may substantially reduce local operating revenue for the City, Department or both Parties. The Parties agree that it is necessary to have flexibility to reduce the contracted amount(s) in this Agreement in response to budget constraints resulting from the passage of revenue reducing initiative(s). If such an event occurs, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution in a timely fashion. SECTION NO. 25: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The Parties shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. SECTION NO. 26: DISCLAIMER Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall not be construed in any manner that would limit either Party's authority or power under law. Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 10 of 11 DRAFT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT ATTEST: Monte Nesbitt, Board Chair Mike Thompson Fire Chief/ District Secretary DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST: Mike Jackson, City Manager Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: Office of the City Attorney Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services, Spokane Valley Fire Department Page 11 of 11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 28, 2012 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business ® new business [' public hearing [' information ❑ admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: 2012 Amendments to Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Interlocal Agreement C010-109 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Interlocal Agreement C010-109 approved by Council on August 10, 2010 BACKGROUND: The Intelligence Led Policing position has been performed by a deputy who is no longer available. There are no current deputies qualified for this position and the skills necessary for this position are not typically possessed by a deputy. Chief VanLeuven and Sheriff Knezovich recommend this position be filled by a detective/corporal. The Interlocal Agreement provides that these services are to be provided by a deputy. To fill the position with a detective/corporal, the Agreement will need to be amended. Additionally, the Sheriff and County have made a number of (a) previous changes to the services detailed in Exhibit 1 of the Agreement which includes the Commissioned Officer Worksheet and List of Services, and (b) updates to the Cost Calculation Model (CCM) and Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Plan (LCAP). The proposed amendments to Exhibit 1 of the Agreement were previously presented to Council but formal action was not taken. The Council should consider these changes, and if Council approves, authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment memorializing the changes. The specific amendments are detailed in the attachments to this Request for Council Action. OPTIONS: Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Agreement or give staff further direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager to execute the "2012 Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Law Enforcement Services in the City of Spokane Valley" consistent with the attachments. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $4,500 additional cost for change to Intelligence Led Policing position. STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst; Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Amendment to Interlocal Agreement; 2) Information Memorandum Dated December 13, 2011 3) Spreadsheet Illustrating Changes to LECAP Cost Allocation Bases; 4) Spreadsheet Illustrating Changes to the Commissioned Officer Worksheet of Exhibit 1 (A) to the Agreement. DRAFT 2012 AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COSTS INCIDENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY WHEREAS, on August 17, 2010, the City of Spokane Valley (City), Spokane County (County) and Spokane County Sheriffs Department (Sheriff) (collectively the Parties) entered into an Agreement (the Agreement) for provision of law enforcement services by the Sheriff for the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 34 of the Agreement, entitled "MODIFICATION," the Parties are entitled to modify the Agreement. Such modifications must be in writing and signed by all of the Parties; and WHEREAS, the Parties have determined through the course of operating the Agreement that revisions are appropriate so that the services may be provided and accounted for in a more efficient and accurate way. THEREFORE, the Parties hereby amend the Agreement by: (A) Replacing the original Exhibit 1 of the Agreement with revised Exhibit 1, attached hereto. Hereafter, any reference to Exhibit 1 in the Agreement (or exhibit thereof) shall be construed to only refer to Exhibit 1 as revised and attached hereto. (B)Replacing the CCM (Exhibit 2 of the Agreement) cost calculation methods with the CCM attached hereto as revised Exhibit 2. For the year 2012 going forward, any reference in the Agreement (or exhibit thereof) to the Cost Calculation Model, CCM, or Exhibit 2 shall hereinafter be construed to refer to revised Exhibit 2 only. (C)Replacing the LECAP (Exhibit 3 of the Agreement) cost calculation methods with the LECAP that the County sent to the City on September 29, 2011. For the year 2012 going forward, any reference in the Agreement or any exhibit thereof to the Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Plan, LECAP, or Exhibit 3 shall hereinafter be construed to refer only to the LECAP sent to the City on September 29, 2011; identical copies of which are to be kept in each respective clerks' office of the County and City. The Commissioned Officer Worksheet contained in the LECAP is a fluid document which can change periodically. The Commissioned Officer Worksheet in revised Exhibit 1 (attached hereto) is used to calculate actual amounts due the County for the year the costs were incurred. 2012 AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT,LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES Page 1 of 2 DRAFT DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON Todd Mielke, Chair Mark Richard, Vice-Chair Clerk of the Board Daniela Erickson Al French, Commissioner DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST: Mike Jackson, City Manager Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: Office of the City Attorney DATED: SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Ozzie Knezovich, Sheriff 2012 AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT,LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES Page 2 of 2 Revised Exhibit 1 - 2012 (Page 1 of 3) Services The COUNTY will provide law enforcement services consisting of the following: Category 1--Dedicated FTE's • Valley Police Administration • Patrol • Traffic Investigation • Property Crimes • Community Services • Domestic Violence Unit • School Resource Officer Category 2--Shared Services Investigative/Community Services/K-9 • Major Crimes • Sex Crimes o Property Crimes Task Force • Investigative Support Unit • Investigative Task Force o Criminal intelligence Unit o Drug Endangered Children Detective o Joint Terrorism Task Force • Meth Detective • Drug Task Force • Gang Enforcement • Intelligence LED Policing • Marine/Search and Rescue • K-9 Category 3—Allocated with Administrative Costs • Administration—Undersheriff and Staff • Public Information Officer • Office of Professional Standards and Training Category 4—County Responsibility and Other Cost Recovery Method • Civil Process • Marine Patrol Grant • DEA Grant • Drug Task Force Grant • Sex Offender Registration • Sex Offender Residency Verification Grant • nt •sex Predator Grant • ISU Federal Seizures • Sheriff Revised Exhibit 1 - 2012 (Page 2 of 3) Law Enforcement Services Allocated by Various Bases • SCOPE/SIRT • Radio Dispatch • Helicopter • Forensics • Crime Check • Records Management • Property Room • Explosive Disposal • Communications Law Enforcement Services Included in the Per Commissioned Officer Rate • LEIS • Crime Analysis Unit • Garage • Firing Range • Fleet • SWAT/Hostage Negotiation • Extra Duty Employment • Reservist and Explorer Units • Countywide Indirect Costs—OMB A-87 • Annual Changes in Accrued Leave Sheriffs Office-2011 Commissioned Officer Worksheet Total Commissioned FTE: 223.00 Total included in Commissioned Officer Charge: 205.92 Excludes those allocated along with administrative costs and those that are County responsibility. Category 1 Dedicated FTEs Note:"Unincorporated"here includes small cities. Unincorp Valley Medical Lk Deer Park Total Admin Chief/Inspector 1 1 Sergeant 1 1 Lieutenant - 1 1 Patrol Captain 1 1 Lieutenant 2 2 4 Sergeant 8 6 14 Detective/Corp. - 6 6 Deputies 55.5 44 4.5 2 106 TrafficlCVEO Sergeant - 1 1 Detective/Corp. 2 1 3 Deputies 4 5 9 Property Crimes Sergeant - 1 1 Detective/Corp. 3 6 9 Community Services Deputy 1 1 2 Domestic Violence Detective/Corp. 1 1 Deputy 1 1 SRO Deputies 3 4 - 7 Total Dedicated FTEs 80.5 81 4.5 2 168 Dedicated FTEs excluding SROs 77.5 77 4.5 2 161 Revised Exhibit I -2012 (Page 3 of 3) Category 2 Shared Services Investigative! Community Services/K-9 Major Crimes Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Sex Crimes Sergeant Detectives Deputies Investigative Task Force Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives CIU/DECIJTTF/Meth%IDTF Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Deputies 6 1 4.84 1.00 0.25 1 6 3.83 0.25 Gang Enforcement Sergeant 1.00 Detective/Corp 2.00_ Deputies - Total Investigative 30.17 Intellelligence Led Policing Detective/Corporal 1 Marine/Search Rescue Deputies 1.75 K-9 Deputies 5 Total Investigative/Support Sery 37.92 Revised Exhibit 1-part 2 2011 Comm Officer Worksheet Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff Undersheriffs PIO Sergeant Training/OPS Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Deputies 1 2 1 2 Total Administrative 8 Category 4 County Responsibility! Other Cost Recovery Method Civil Lieutenant Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy DTF Detective/Corp Deputies 3 0.25 1.50 0.75 Sex Offender Registration Detective/Corp 0.16 Sex Off.Res.Verif.SA03 Detective/Corp 1.00 ISU Federal Seizures Lieutenant Detective/Corp Admin Sheriff 0.75 0.67 1 Total County/Other 9.08 Spokane County Sheriffs Office Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model Summary of Client Charges Based on 2010 Actuals Summary-Budget Other Allocations Spokane Spokane Valley Deer Park Millwood Spangle Rockford Airway Heights Fairfield Liberty Lake Medical Lake Latah Waverly Cheney Fairchild AFB Unincorporated County Total County Responsibility/Other Cost Recovery Total Costs Net of Revenues Commissioned Officer Rate Other Allocations Charge for 2010 1,616,411 2,392,661 120,932 83,826 3,380 9,981 93,965 7,112 71,765 81,875 2,780 1,034 1,971 4,143 1,888,428 6,380,263 39,273,440 45,653,703 Revised Exhibit 2 -2012 (page 1 of 8) Type of Allocation: r $ 134,932 0.00% 1.250% 2011 2011 COLA MULTIPLIER 20,205 29,908 1,512 1,048 42 125 1,175 89 897 - 1,023 35 13 - 25 - 52 23,605 - 79,753 490,918 BUDGET 2011 CONTRACT 1,636,616 2,422,569 122,444 84,874 3,422 10,106 95,140 7,201 72,662 82,898 2,815 1,047 1,996 4,195 1,912,033 6,460,016 39,764,358 0.00% 2012 COLA 1.250% 2012 MULTIPLIER 20,458 30,282 1,531 1,061 43 126 1,189 90 908 1,036 35 13 25 52 23,900 80,750 Other Allocations BUDGET 2012 CONTRACT 1,657,074 2,452,851 123,975 85,935 3,465 10,232 96,329 7,291 73,570 83,934 2,850 1,060 2,021 4,247 1.935.933 6,540,766 497,054 40,261,412 570,671 46,224,374 1,687 Revised Exhibit 2 2010 Actuals to 2012 w Multplrs 136,619 577,805 46,802,179 1,708 138,327 Revised Exhibit 2-2012 (page 2 of 8) Sheriffs Office-2011 Commissioned Officer Worksheet Total Commissioned FTE: 223.00 Total included in Commissioned Officer Charge: 205.92 Excludes those allocated along with administrative costs and those that are County responsibility. Category 1 Dedicated FTEs Note:'Unincorporated'here includes small titles. Unincorp Valley Medical Lk Deer Park Total Admin Chief/Inspector 1 1 Sergeant 1 1 Lieutenant - 1 1 Patrol Captain 1 _ 1 Lieutenant 2 2 4 Sergeant 8 6 14 Detective/Corp. - 6 6 Deputies 55.5 44 4.5 2 106 Traffic!CVEO Sergeant - 1 1 Detective/Corp. 2 1 3 Deputies 4 5 9 Property Crimes Sergeant 1 Detective/Corp. 3 6 9 Community Services Deputy 1 1 2 Domestic Violence Detective/Corp. 1 1 Deputy I 1 1 SRO Deputies I 3 4 - 7 Total Dedicated FTEs 80.5 81 4.5 2 168 Dedicated FTEs excluding SROs 77.5 77 4.5 2 161 * This Commissioned Officer Worksheet of the CCM is a fluid document which can change periodically. It is used to estimate the Sheriff's and County's costs. The Commissioned Officer Worksheet in Exhibit 1 of the Agreement is used at the settle and adjust period to calculate the actual amounts due to the County/Sheriff for the year the costs were incurred. Category 2 Shared Services Investigative/ Community Services/K-9 Major Crimes Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Sex Crimes Sergeant Detectives Deputies Investigative Task Force Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives CIU/DECIJTTFIMeth%IDTF% Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Deputies Gang Enforcement Sergeant Detective/Corp Deputies Total Investigative Intellelligence Led Policing Deputies 4.84 1.00 0.25 1 6 3.83 0.25 1.00 2.00 30.17 MarinelSearch Rescue Deputies 1.75 K-9 Deputies 5 Total Investigative/Support Sery 37.92 Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff Undershenffs PIO Sergeant Training/OPS Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Deputies 2 2 1 2 Total Administrative 8 Category 4 County Responsibility! Other Cost Recovery Method Civil Lieutenant Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy DTF Detective/Corp Deputies 0.25 1.50 0.75 Sex Offender Registration Detective/Corp 0.16 Sex Off.Res.Verif.SA03 Detective/Corp 1.00 [SU Federal Seizures Lieutenant Detective/Corp Admin Sheriff 0.75 0.67 1 Total County/Other 9.08 Revised Exhibit 2 -2012 (page 3 of 8) Spokane County Sheriff's Office Type of Allocation: Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model A-87 Allocation of Commissioned Officers Between Unincorporated and Small Cities Based on 2010 Actuals ' % of Regular Population Total Officers Unincorporated - District 8 10,265 85.2% 5.11 Millwood 1,786 14.8% 0.89 Total District 8 1 12,051 I 6.00 I Rockford 470 1 3.1% 0.09 Fairfield 612 I 4.0% 0.12 Latah 193 1.3% 0.04 Unincorporated - District 10 13,885 91.6% 2.75 Total Unicorporated 10 plus cities 15,160 I 3.00 Spangle 278 2.3% 0.07 Waverly 107 I 0.9% 0.03 Unincorporated - District 11 11,962 I 96.9% 2.91 Total Unicorporated 11 plus cities 12,347 3.00 I Total Officers District 10 and 11 6.00 Unincorporated-Dist 10 & 11 Total Small Cities 1.24 Total Commissioned Officers without SRO 77.50 Total Unincorporated without small cities 76.26 Based on 2010 Census Revised Exhibit 2 Small Cities Revised Exhibit 2-2012(page 4 of 8) Revised Exhibit 2 2011 Comm ORicerSumrnary I Spokane County sheriff s Office i Ty-le _ofAllocation: Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model - A-87 Commissioned Ducar Summary I I Based on 2410 Achmlls Commissioned Officers Dedicated to Local JurisdICtlons Spokane Valley Deer Park Millwood 0.89 Spangle 0.07 Rockford 0.09 Airway Heights Fairfield 0.12 Liberty Lake Medical Lake 4.50 Latah Waverly 0.04 0.03 Cheney Fairchild AFB _ Llnincorporate d County 7626 Total Costs Commissioned Officer Rate Total FTE 161.00 Dedicated FTEs excluding SROs 77.00 2.00 School Resource Officers 4.00 - 3.00 7.00 Total Dedicated FTEs 81,00 2.00 0.89 0.07 0.09 - 0.12 - 4.50 0.04 i 0.03 - - 79.26 168.00 Csteg rr2 Avg RMS&Cases 8,696.50 417.00 102,032.82 214.50 52,484.51 11.00 691'.51 40.00 9,787.32 - 24.00 - 237.00 13.50 3,303.22 5.50] - - 7,397.00 17,056.000 1,345.76 - - - _ 5,872.39 - 57,989.88 1,809,920.31 4,173,313.62 138,327 30.17 Total Investigative Dollars 2,127,885.90 K-9 S K-9 Calls 2,502 24 71 2 6 12 2 45 16 1 - - - 1,211 3,892.00 Total K-9 Dollars 444,621,23 4,264.95 12,617.15 355.41 1,066.24 2,132.48 355.41 7,996.78 2,843.30 177.71 - - - 215,202.36 691,633.02 138,327 5.00 1ntollel1 Bence Led Policing Dedicated FTEs excluding SROs 77.00 2.00 0.89 0.07 0.09 - 0.12 - 4.50 0.04 0.43 - - 76.26 161.00 Total Commute FTEs 181,929.55 4,725.44 2,100.98 159.59 219.75 - 286.14 - 10,63225 9024 61.43 - - 180,192.78 380,398.16 138,327 2.75 Total Investigative/K 9/Community Services Costs 2,754,438.68 111 02521 67,203.53 3,206.59 11,073.40 2,132.48 6,514.07 7,996.78 71,469.92 3,57120 1,40721 - - 2,205,394.72 - 205.92 Check OK Statistics for Avg RMS&Cases and K-9 from 2010 Actin's I _ .. - Revised Exhibit 2 2011 Comm ORicerSumrnary Revised Exhibit 2-2012(page 5 of 8) Spokane County Sheriffs Office Type of Allocation: Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model I A-87 Commissioned Officer nate and Allocation [ [ Based on 2010 Actuals 2012 Allocation of Commissioned Officer Charge Dedicated Investigative School SRO Total Dedicated Commissioned Community Sery Resource SRO Contract Net SRO Commissioned Officers Officer Charge K-9 Charge Officers Charge Revenue Charge Officer Charge Spokane Spokane Valley 77.00 10,651,148 2,754,437 4.00 553,306 82,584 470,722 13,876,307 Deer Park 2.00 276,653 111,025 - - - - 367,678 Millwood 0.89 123,003 67,204 - - 190,206 Spangle 0.07 9,344 3,207 - - - - 12,550 Rockford 0.09 12,865 11,073 - - - - 23,939 Airway Heights - - 2,132 - - 2,132 Fairfield 0.12 16,752 6,514 - - 23,267 Liberty Lake - - 7,997 - - 7,997 Medical Lake 4.50 622,470 71,470 - - 693,940 Letah 0.04 5,283 3,571 - - - - 8,854 Waverly 0.03 3,596 1,407 - - 5,003 Chaney - - - - - - Fairchild AFB - - - - - - Unincorporated County 76.26 10,549,466 2,205,395 3.00 414,980 61,936 353,042 13,107,904 Total All Jurisdictions 161.00 22,270,583 5,245,432 7.00 968,286 144,523 823,764 28,339,779 Sub-total Commissioned Officer Rate Total Commissioned Officers Serving Local Jurisdictions 205.92 2010 Actuals for Commissioned Officer Rate with Multipliers [ 138,327 Revised Exhibit 2 2011 Commissioned OfficerPllos Revised Exhibit 2 -2012 (page 6 of 8) Spokane County Sheriff's Office Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model Summary of Client Charges Based on 2010 Actuals Actual Settle and Commissioned Total Adjust Officer Other Charge PAID 2010 Charge Allocations for 2010 2010 CONTRACT Spokane - 1,619,802 1,619,802 Spokane Valley 14,230,687 2,429,245 16,659,932 16,563,012 96,920 Deer Park 527,903 170,574 698,477 635,363 63,114 Millwood 201,334 110,480 311,814 330,148 (18,334) Spangle 13,088 7,003 20,091 20,091 - Rockford 26,148 16,131 42,279 42,279 - Airway Heights 2,108 94,074 96,183 96,183 - Fairfield 24,488 15,151 39,639 39,639 - Liberty Lake 7,906 73,877 81,783 81,783 - Medical Lake 770,106 147,893 917,999 917,999 - Latah 9,591 5,295 14,886 14,886 - Waverly 5,287 2,428 7,716 7,716 - Revised Exhibit 2 2010 Settle and Adjust Revised Exhibit 2 -2012 (page 7 of 8) Spokane County Sheriff's Office Tyke of Allocation: Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model A-87 Summary of Client Charges Based on 2009 Actuals Summary -Charges to Clients Commissioned Total Officer Other Contract Budget Charge Allocations for 2011 Spokane - 1,463,947 1,463,947 Spokane Valley 13,442,670 2,322,781 15,765,451 Deer Park 493,287 134,120 627,407 Millwood 163,984 71,453 235,436 Spangle 11,226 4,439 15,665 Rockford 25,832 13,786 39,619 Airway Heights 2,198 76,106 78,304 Fairfield 22,427 10,264 32,691 Liberty Lake 3,846 66,014 69,860 Medical Lake 718,426 54,940 773,366 Latah 5,666 3,010 8,676 Waverly 5,351 1,852 7,203 Cheney - 11,812 11,812 Fairchild AFB - 5,393 5,393 Revised Exhibit 2 Small TownsTotal Budgetfor 2011 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model Summary of Client Charges Based on 2010 Actuals Summary-Charges to Clients Spokane Spokane Valley Deer Park Millwood Spangle Rockford Airway Heights Fairfield Liberty Lake Medical Lake Latah Waverly Cheney Fairchild AFB Unincorporated County Total County Responsibility/Other Cost Recovery Total Costs Net of Revenues Revised Exhibit 2-2012(page 8 of 8) Ty e of Allocation: Commissioned Total Officer Other Contract Budget Charge Allocations for 2012 - 1,657,074 1,657,074 13,876,307 2,452,851 16,329,158 387,678 123,975 511,653 190,206 85,935 276,141 12,550 3,465 16,015 23,939 10,232 34,170 2,132 96,329 98,462 23,267 7,291 30,557 7,997 73,570 81,567 693,940 83,934 777,873 8,854 2,850 11,704 5,003 1,060 6,063 2,021 2,021 4,247 4,247 13,107,904 1,935,933 15,043,838 28,339,779 6,540,766 34,880,544 40,261,412 40,261,412 28,339,779 46,802,178 75,141,956 2010 Settle&Adjust Total Carry Forward Contract Budget Including Carry Forward Monthly Billing 2012 96,920 63,114 (18,334) Revised Exhibit 2 Total Budgetfor 2012 1,657,074 16,426,078 574,768 267,807 16,015 34,170 98,462 30,557 81,567 777,873 11,704 6,063 1,368,840 47,897 21,484 1,335 2,848 8,205 2,546 6,797 64,823 975 505 Small Town With Maximum 10%Increase Per Year Over 2011 Budget Lower of 10%Max CCM 258,980 17,232 43,581 35,960 9,543 7,923 257,807 16,015 34,170 30,557 9,543 6,063 Final Total Contract Budget Monthly Including Billing Carry Forward 1,657,074 16,426,078 574,768 257,807 16,015 34,170 98,462 30,557 81,567 777,873 9,543 6,063 1,368,840 47,897 21,484 1,335 2,848 8,205 2,546 6,797 64,823 795 505 19,969,979 1,526,075 Spokane Valleyy 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 0 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 0 Fax: 509,921.1008 • cityhall®spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager Mayor Towey and Members of Council From: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst Date: December 13, 2011 Re: Amendments to Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement Introduction The current Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement was adopted and executed in August of 2010. Since that time several position adjustments have been made according to the terms of the agreement. Recently the legal department conducted a review of this agreement and recommended that such changes be approved by Council. The basis of this recommendation is the Revised Code of Washington chapter 39.34.080 that provides the power to enter into and amend interlocal agreements for service solely to the governing body,which in the case of the City of Spokane Valley is the City Council. At this time we are presenting all changes to the positions and services to Council for discussion and to schedule a revised Interlocal for formal motion consideration. These items have been previously presented to Council in the form of informational items and administrative reports. Also at this time we present a new request being made by Police Chief Rick VanLeuven and the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. This request is contained at the end of this memorandum. Summary of Changes to Positions and Services It is important to note that there is zero net change to the Dedicated FTE numbers assigned to the City of Spokane Valley. This adheres to the Council directive of no reduction in force for the City of Spokane Valley. Category I (Dedicated FTEs) Admin +.25 Lieutenant: This position was approved by Council in 2010. As this position only served nine months during 2010 the original commissioned officer worksheet only contained .75 full- time equivalent(FTE) for this position. That has now been updated to a full 1.0 FTE. Changes to Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement December 13,2011 Page 2 of 5 Category 2 (Shared Investigative Services) Major Crimes +1 Detective: Transferred from Sex Crimes to meet increased Major Crime workload. Sex Crimes -1 Detective: Transferred to Major Crimes. +1 Deputy: Formerly funded by Child Sex Predator Grant (Category 4). Grant funding. eliminated but position retained and funded by taking a deputy position from gang enforcement. Investigative Task Force (New unit combining Property Crimes Task Force and Investigative Services Unit (ISU)) -.75 Lieutenant: Position not changed but .75 of position is now funded by Federal Seizures (Cat. 4). -1 Detective: Transferred to Office of Professional Standards (OPS) in Category 3. -3 Deputies: Eliminated due to consolidation of units. CIU/DEC/JTTFIMeth%IDTF% (ISU removed, now part of Investigative Task Force) -1 Sergeant: Eliminated due to consolidation of ISU and Property Crimes Task Force. -2 Deputies: Eliminated due to consolidation of ISU and Property Crimes Task Force. Gang Enforcement -1 Deputy: Transferred to Sex Crimes Summary of Changes: Loss of 7.75 officers. No identified change to service due to consolidation of units and shifting of resources according to demand for service. Effect of changes will be tracked through performance measures. Costs to City were reduced approximately $519,000. Category 3 (Administrative Support Commissioned Officers) Command Staff -1 Undersheriff: Eliminated to fund Business Operations Director PIO (Public Information Officer) -1 Sergeant: Officer transferred to Training/OPS; PIO duties now shared by 3 officers with other FT duties. Training/OPS +1 Sergeant: Transferred from PIO +1 Detective: Transferred from Investigative Task Force • Changes to Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement December 13,2011 Page 3 of 5 Summary of Changes: No net change to officers in Category 3 but an added civilian position of the Business Operations Director adds approximately $75,000 in support costs. No identified change to service level. Category 4 (County Responsibility or Other Cost Recovery Method) DEA (Drug Enforcement- Unit eliminated) -1 Detective/Corp: Grant funding eliminated ISU Federal Seizures (New Unit) +.75 Lieutenant: Funding transferred from Category 2; duties are unchanged (Investigative). +.67 Detective/Corp: Funding transferred from WA Meth Grant (Cat. 4); duties unchanged. WA Meth Grant (Unit eliminated) -.67 Detective Corp: Grant funding eliminated but duties retained through Federal Seizures. Child Sex Pred Grant (Unit eliminated) -1 Deputy: Grant funding eliminated but duties retained and transferred to Cat. 2 Sex Crimes Unit. Summary of changes: Reduction of 1.25 officers. All services retained through other funding except DEA. Category 2 (NEW CHANGE) Intelligence Led Policing Change from Deputy to Detective/Corp Summary provided by Police Chief Rick VanLeuven Currently we have an open position in Category II under the Intelligence-Led Deputy. The deputy who previously held that position had extensive education and training that greatly suited him to perform those duties. Now that this position is vacated,we realize that the job tasks associated with this position should be that of a detective/corporal. If a detective were to be assigned to this position, he/she can start the tasks immediately, whereas we would need to train a deputy in investigative duties,which is really not aligned with his position of rank. This position provides a substantial amount of intelligence information to both unincorporated and Spokane Valley that is essential to our policing operations. So this position is definitely more suited for an investigator and needs to be filled as soon as possible so that we are not missing out on appropriate intelligence information for the safety of our community. In order to provide a detective to this position,there would be an increase of annual costs of$9,000,of which would be split$4500 for SV and$4500 for SO. It is the Sheriff's Office desire to make this change very soon. Keep in mind,this position is necessary to provide intelligence information for the safety and policing operations of our community. This is our intelligence-led- policing position that provides the analytical ability for our Property Crimes Unit as well as the rest of our Patrol Division to focus on emerging criminal trends to successfully work numerous cases and apprehend suspects,which Changes to Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement December 13,2011 Page 4 of 5 has been extremely successful in the City of Spokane Valley. This position is also the Regional Intelligence Coordinator of our area and a direct link to the State Fusion Center. Client Allocation Tab Direct Service Department 1 School Resource Officer 2 Extra Duty 3 ISU 4 Community Services 5 Detectives 6 Patrol 7 Reservists/Explorers 8 Traffic Investigations 9 Commercial Vehicle Enforcement 10 K9 11 Valley Administration Comm.Offc. 12 Contracts 13 Dispatch 14 Helicopter 15 Forenesic Unit 16 Crime check 17 Records 18 PropertyRoom 19 SCOPE 20 SIRT 21 Explosive Disposal-County Costs 22 Explosive Disposal-City of Spokane 23 DEA 24 Marine Patrol 25 Jail 26 Geiger Fund 415 27 Detention Services Fund 515 28 Civil 29 Dept.Emergency Management 30 f=alse Alarm Ordinance 31 ISU Seizures State 32 Sex Offender Registrations 33 Court House Security 34 City of Spokane Joint Use Direct 35 Federal Grants 36 County Local Grants 37 County Match Grants 38 State Grants 39 Traffic School 40 Communications 41 Downtown Garage Facililties Costs 42 LEOFF 1 Medical Costs Allocation Basis 2008 for 2010 To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate #of CAD Incidents Population by City #Forensic Submissions #Crime Check Reports #RMS Reports #Property Room Incidents SCOPE Volunteer Hours SIRT Incidents Pop by City Excl Spokane Pop by City Excl Spokane County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Rasp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery City of Spokane Pop Excl Spokane,Valley,Cheney,AH,LL Pop Excl Spokane,Valley,Cheney,AH,LL Pop Excl Spokane,Valley,Cheney,AH,LL Pop Excl Spokane,Valley,Cheney,AH,LL Pop Unincorporated Dedicated Commissioned Officers by Jurisd. Ded Comm Off ByJurisd w/o Valley Ded Comm Off By Jurisd w/o Valley,Deer Park Allocation Basis 2009 for 2011 To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate #of CAD Incidents Population by City #Forensic Submissions #Crime Check Reports #RMS Reports #Property Room Incidents SCOPE Volunteer Hours SIRT Incidents Pop by City Excl Spokane Pop by City Excl Spokane County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Rasp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery City of Spokane Pop Excl Spokane,Valley,Cheney,AH,LL Pop Excl Spokane,Valley,Cheney,AH,LL Pop Excl Spokane,Valley,Cheney,AH,LL Pop Excl Spokane,Valley,Cheney,AH,LL Pop Unincorporated Dedicated Commissioned Officers by Jurisd. Ded Comm Off By Jurisd w/o Valley Ded Comm Off By Jurisd w/o Valley,Deer Park Allocation Basis 2010 for 2012 To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate To Commissioned Officer Rate #of CAD Incidents Population by City 4 Forensic Submissions U Crime Check Reports #RMS Reports #Property Room Incidents SCOPE Volunteer Hours SIRT Incidents Pop by City Excl Spokane Pop by City Excl Spokane County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery County Resp.Other Cost Recovery City of Spokane County Resp.Other Cost Recovery To Commissioned Officer Rote To Commissioned Officer Rote _ County Resp.Other Cost Recovery Pop Unincorporated Dedicated Commissioned Officers byJurisd. Ded Comm Off ByJurisd w/o Valley Ded Comm Off ByJurisd w/o Valley,Deer Park CHECK if no Change in Basis ✓ ✓ LECAP Allocation Factors Tab Cost Pool 1 Administration 2 Changes in Accued Leave 3 Undersheriff 4 Countywide Jail 5 Countywide Costs Emer.Mgmt 6 Countywide SCOPE 7 Countywide City Spokane Facilities 8 Countywide Geiger 9 Countywide Equip.Vehicle Deprec 10 Garage 11 Countywide Building Usage 12 Countywide Facilities 13 Training 14 Gym Equipment 15 Professional Standards 16 LEOFF 17 Medical Lake Firing Range 18 Wash Rack Supplies 19 Fleet Lease 20 Countywide General Costs 21 Grant Administration 22 LEIS 23 Countywide Pros,Civil-Sheriff 24 Countywide Detention Services 7S r n ell•Inniirla r;rantc Allocation Basis 2008 for 2010 Adjusted Actual Operaing Exp(not CCAP) Total FTE's Total FTE's Countywide Jail Countywide Emergency Mgmt Countywide SCOPE Countywide City of Spokane Countywide Geiger Assigned Vehicles Assigned Vehicles FTE's assuming 25%for Patrol,Traffic,KS,5R0's,Disp. FTE's assuming 25%for Patrol,Traffic,KS,SRO's,Disp. FTE's excluding Jail and Geiger FTE's excluding Jail and Geiger FTE's including Jail and Geiger Reduced Comm Officers excluding Jail and Geiger Comm Officers excluding Jail and Geiger Assigned Vehicles Excluding Valley and Deer Park Assigned Vehicles Excluding Emmrgency Mgmt and Jail Operating Exp excluding Jail,Scope,DEM,Geiger Operating Expenditures for Grants IT Devices excluding MDCS combined Comm Officers Allocation Basis 2009 for 2011 Actual Operating`Exp.kgIdCorrections&CLAP DTG} Total FTE's Countywide Jail Countywide Emergency Mgmt Countywide SCOPE Countywide City of Spokane Countywide Geiger Assigned Vehicles Assigned Vehicles Excl Valley DEM and Jail Allocation Basis 2010 for 2012 Op Exp excluding CCAP,Detention,and JU Countywide Accrued Leave Total FTE's CHECK if no Change in Basis Countywide Facilities-Sheriff FTE's excluding Jail and Geiger FTE's excluding Jail and Geiger OOPS Cases Assigned Comm Officers excluding Jail and Geiger Comm Officers excluding Jail and Geiger Assigned Vehicles Excluding Valley and Deer Park Assigned Vehicles Excluding Emergency Mgmt and Jail Operating Exp excluding Jail,Scope,DEM,Geiger,&DTG Operating Expenditures for Grants IT Devices excluding MDCs combined Comm Officers Prosecutor Civil Hours Countywide Emergency Mgmt Countywide SCOPE Countywide City of Spokane Facilities Assigned Vehicles Excluding DEM Assigned Vehicles Excluding Valley and DEM Countywide Facilities-Sheriff FTE's Excluding Detention Services and DEM FTE's Excluding Detention Services and DEM OOPS Cases Assigned Comm Officers Excluding Detention Services Comm Officers Excluding Detention Services Assigned Vehicles Excl Valley Deer Park&Medical Lake Assigned Vehicles Excluding DEM Operating Exp excluding Scope,DEM,Detent Serv,&DTG Operating Expenditures for Grants IT Devices excluding MDCS combined Comm Officers Prosecutor Civil Hours Countywide Costs Detention Services Ooeratina Exe for Grants ✓ Original Commissioned Officer Worksheet Sheriffs Office-2010 Commissioned Officer Worksheet Total Commissioned FTE: 236.00 Total included in Commissioned Officer Charge: 217.67 Excludes those allocated along with administrative costs and those that are County responsibility. Category 1 Dedicated FTEs Note:"Unincorporated"here includes small cities. Admin Chief/Inspector Sergeant Lieutenant Patrol Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Detective/Corp. Deputies Traffic/CVEO Sergeant Detective/Corp. Deputies Property Crimes Sergeant Detective/Corp. Community Services Deputy Domestic Violence Detective/Corp. Deputy SRO Deputies Total Dedicated FTEs Unincorp Valley Medical Lake Deer Park Total 0.25 0.75 2 7 4 52 2 6 6 44 5 7 3 1 1 4 13 10 103 1 3 12 1 9 2 a 83.25 80.75 5 3 172 Dedicated FTEs excluding S 80.25 76.75 5 2 164 Category 2 Investigative/ Community ServicesIK-9 Major Crimes Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Sex Crimes Sergeant Detectives Property Crimes TF Sergeant Detectives Deputies 5 ISUICIU/DEC/JTTF/Meth%/DTF% Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Deputies Gang Enforcement Sergeant Detective/Corp Deputies Total Investigative Intelligence Led Policing Deputies Marine/Search Rescue Deputies 4 1.00 1.00 6.83 2.25 1.00 2.00 1.00 37.92 1.75 K-9 Deputies 5 Total Investigative 45.67 Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff U ndersheriffs PIO Sergeant TraininglOPS Lieutenant Sergeant Deputies Total Administrative 2 2 2 8 Category 4 County Responsibility! Other Cost Recovery Method Civil Lieutenant Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy 0.25 IDEA Detective/Corp DTF Detective/Corp Deputies Sex Off.Res.Verif. Detective/Corp WA Meth Grant Detective/Corp Sex Off Res.Verif_SA03 Detective/Corp. Child Sex Pred Grant Deputy Admin Sheriff Total County/Other 1.50 0.75 0.16 0.67 1.00 1 1 10.33 Current Commisioned Officer Totals Sheriff's Office-2011 Commissioned Officer Worksheet Total Commissioned FTE: 223.00 Total included in Commissioned Officer Charge: 205.92 Excludes those allocated along with administrative costs and those that are County responsibility. Category 1 Dedicated FTEs Note:"Unincorporated"here includes small cities, Unincorp Valley Medical Lk Deer Park Total Admin Chief/Inspector 1 1 Sergeant 1 1 Lieutenant - 1 1 Patrol Captain 1 _ 1 Lieutenant 2 2 4 Sergeant 8 6 14 Detective/Corp. - 6 6 Deputies 55.5 44 4.5 2 106 Traffic/CVEO Sergeant - 1 1 Detective/Corp. 2 1 3 Deputies 4 5 9 Property Crimes Sergeant - 1 1 Detective/Corp. 3 6 9 Community Services Deputy 1 1 2 Domestic Violence Detective/Corp. 1 Deputy 1 1 SRO Deputies 3 4 - 7 Total Dedicated FTEs 80.5 81 4Z 2 168 Dedicated FTEs excluding SROs 77.5 77 4.5 2 161 Category 2 Shared Services Investigative! Community Services/K-9 Major Crimes Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Sex Crimes Sergeant Detectives Deputies Investigative Task Force Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives CIUIDECIJTTFIMeth%/DTF Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Deputies s 1 4.84 1.00 0.25 3.83 0.25 Gang Enforcement Sergeant 1.00 Detective/Corp 2.00 Deputies - Total Investigative 30.17 Intellelligence Led Policing Deputies Marine/Search Rescue Deputies 1.75 K-9 Deputies Total Investigative/Support Sery 37.92 Changes to Commissioned Officer Worksheet(2) Comm Officer Worksheet Current Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff Undersheriffs PIO Sergeant TraininglOPS Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Deputies 2 2 1 2 Total Administrative 8 Category 4 County Responsibility! Other Cost Recovery Method Civil Lieutenant Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy DTF Detective/Corp Deputies 0.25 1.50 0.75 Sex Offender Registration Detective/Corp 0.16 Sex Off.Res.Verif.SA03 Detective/Corp 1.00 ISU Federal Seizures Lieutenant Detective/Corp Admin Sheriff 0.75 0.67 Total County/Other 9.08 Proposed Commissioned Officer Totals Sheriffs Office-2011 Commissioned Officer Worksheet Total Commissioned FTE: 223.00 Total included in Commissioned Officer Charge: 205.92 Excludes those allocated along with administrative costs and those that are County responsibility. Category 1 Dedicated FTEs Note:"Unincorporated"here includes small cities. Unincorp Valley Medical Lk Deer Park Total Admin Chief/Inspector I 1 Sergeant 1 1 Lieutenant - 1 1 Patrol Captain 1 1 Lieutenant 2 2 4 Sergeant 8 6 14 Detective/Corp. - 6 6 Deputies 55.5 44 4.5 2 106 Traffic/CVEO Sergeant - 1 _-- 1 Detective/Corp. 2 1 3 Deputies 4 5 9 Property Crimes Sergeant - 1 1 Detective/Corp. 6 9 Community Services Deputy 1 2 Domestic Violence Detective/Corp. 1 1 Deputy 1 1 SRO Deputies 3 4 - 7 Total Dedicated FTEs 80.5 81 4.5 2 168 Dedicated FTEs excluding SROs 77.5 77 4.5 2 161 Category 2 Shared Services Investigative/ Community Services/K-9 Major Crimes Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Sex Crimes Sergeant Detectives Deputies Investigative Task Force Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives CIU/DECIJTTFJMeth%IDTF% Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Deputies Gang Enforcement Sergeant Detective/Corp Deputies Total Investigative Intellelligence Led Policing Detective/Corp Marinel$earch Rescue Deputies K-9 Deputies 1 1 4.84 1.00 0.25 1 3.83 0.25 1.00 2,00 30.17 1.75 Total lnvestigative/Support Sery 37.92 Changes to Commissioned Officer Worksheet(2) Proposed Comm Officer Worksheet Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff Undersheriffs PIO Sergeant TraininglOPS Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives Deputies Total Administrative 1 2 2 1 2 Category 4 County Responsibility! Other Cost Recovery Method Civil Lieutenant Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy DTF Detective/Corp Deputies 3 0.25 1.50 0.75 Sex Offender Registration Detective/Corp 0.16 Sex Off.Res.Verif.SA03 Detective/Corp 1.00 1SU Federal Seizures Lieutenant 0.75 Detective/Corp 0.67 Admin Sheriff Total County/Other 9.08 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 28, 2012 Department Director Approval: IX Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information®admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Hotel/ Motel (Lodging) Tax Grants for Tourism Promotion — Round 2 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State Law PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: During the fall of 2011 a first round of the lodging tax award process was held culminating in a November 29, 2011 Council meeting where the following awards were made: HUB 42,600 Sports Commmiss 185,0001 Museum 3,9001 Center Place 30,000 261,500 The Council also instructed City staff to begin a second round award process to culminate with a February or March 2012 completion. BACKGROUND: Overview of City Lodging Tax Award Process In 2003 the City implemented a 2% hotel/motel tax, the proceeds of which are used to promote conventions and tourist travel to our City. The organizations to which the tax proceeds are distributed are ultimately determined by the City Council who receives a nonbinding recommendation from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is comprised of five members who are appointed by the City Council and the Committee membership must include: • At least two representatives of businesses that are required to collect the tax, • At least two people who are involved in activities that are authorized to be funded by the tax, and • One elected city official who serves as chairperson of the Committee The Advisory Committee makes its recommendations based upon a combination of written application materials and a presentation that is made to them by each applicant. The recommendations of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee are advisory in nature and nonbinding to the Council. The City Council may accept the recommendations in whole or in part. l\SV-FS21Userslrnca lhoun.Budgets\20121Lodging Tax12012 02 28 RCA Admin Rprt on Rnd 2 LTAC mtg.docx Summary of Round 2 • The City published a notice of the award process in the Valley News Herald, Spokesman Review and City website in early December 2011. • Applications were due at City Hall on January 6, 2012 and at that time the City received eight applications for a total of$447,500. • Applicant packets were sent to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee members on January 13, 2012. • Applicant presentations were made to the Committee on February 2, 2012 by: o Valleyfest o Spokane Valley Heritage Museum o Liberty Lake Rotary Club o Visit Spokane (Spokane Regional Convention and Visitors Bureau) o Spokane Valley Arts Council o Spokane County Fair and Expo • Following the presentations the Committee discussed the merits of providing funding to the applicants. Each Committee member then expressed their rationale for making the following allocation recommendations: _ Recommended Awards Amount Brenda Doug Peggy Lee Jeff Applicant Requested Grasse) Kelley Doering Cameron Fiman Average Valleyfest 50,000 15,000 0 35,000 0 0 10,200 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 5,000 1,100 11100 1 100 1,100 1,100 1,100 Liberty Lake Rotary Club 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Reg. C&V Bureau(Visit Spoken 275,000 268,800 275,000 200,000 275,000 275,000 258,760 Spokane Arts Council 50,000 0 0 27,100 0 0 5,420 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair& Expo Center 30,000 21,200 30,000 30,000 30,000 3Q000 28,240 440,000 306,100 306,100 l 294,200 306,100 306,100 303,720 Contingent upon requiring that a meeting be held In Spokane Valley between partners applying for lodging fax in order to discuss joint marketing opportunities. • Noteworthy here is that the 2012 Budget included an appropriation of$430,000 and that after deducting the $261,500 awarded in Round 1, there remains $169,200 for the Committee to award in Round 2 which would leave an estimated 2012 year end fund balance of$229,856. • Based upon Committee discussion from the Round 1 process, if the fund balance were drawn down by an additional $125,000 to provide total Round 2 awards of$294,200, the 2012 year end fund balance would decrease to an estimated $104,856 which should be adequate to cover: o Cash flow resulting from the one-month delay between when the tax is collected by a hotel and when it is remitted to the City. o The uncertainty of what actual revenues might be. o The need for additional money should an unexpected opportunity arise during the year. OPTIONS: The recommendations of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee are advisory in nature and nonbinding to the Council. The City Council may accept the recommendations in whole or in part. ItSV-FS21Userslrncelhoun lBudgets120121Lodging Tax12012 02 28 RCA Admin Rprt on Rnd 2 LTAC mtg.docx RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is required at this time. This topic will come back before the City Council on March 27, 2012, when a motion consideration will be requested. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2012 Budget includes an appropriation of $430,700 of hotel/motel tax monies from Fund #105. After Round 1 awards just $169,200 of this appropriation remains. If the Council were to award more than $169,200 then a 2012 Budget amendment would be necessary. The fund balance in Fund 105 is sufficient to cover Round 2 awards up to approximately $300,000. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: • A one-page summary of Fund #105 revenues and expenditures from 2003 through the 2012 Budget. • A one-page analysis of the amount of money available for Round 2 awards. • Minutes of February 2, 2012, Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting. 11SV-FS21Usersfmca lhoun4Budgets120121Lodging Tax12012 02 28 RCA Admin Rprt on Rnd 2 LTAC mtg,docx \\SV-FS2\Users\mcaihoun\Budgets\2012\Lodging Tax\2003 to 2012 actual and budget for 105 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Fund#105-Hotel!Motel Tax Fund Revenues,Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Actual for 2003 through 2010 - 2011 Adopted Budget and Updaged Estimate - 2012 Budget Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest Subtotal revenues Actual 2003 I 2004 I 2005 I 2006 I 2007 I 2008, I 2009 I 2010 2011 Estimated Budget _ Actual L 1/12/2012 2012 Budget 257,143 363,444 387,829 417,084 461,578 467,089 423,978 448,544 480,000 453,000 430,000 109 1,607 6,117 15,792 24,786 10,280 1,892 1,018 1,000 500 700 257,252 365,051 393,946 432,876 486,364 477,369 425,870 449,562 481,000 453,500 430,700 Expenditures Interfund Transfers-#001 CenterPlace 0 0 28,156 0 0 84,550 86,963 37,500 0 0 30,000 Tourism Promotion 35,425 450,383 250,014 296,912 483,506 525,021 375,202 362,302 500,000 496,000 400,700 Subtotal expenditures 35,425 450,383 278,170 296,912 483,506 609,571 462,165 399,802 500,000 496,000 430,700 Revenues over(under)expenditures 221,827 (85,332) 115,776 135,964 2,858 (132,202) (36,295) 49,760 (19,000) (42,500) 0 Beginning fund balance 0 221,827 136,495 252,271 388,235 391,093 258,891 277,596 272,356 272,356 229,856 Ending fund balance 221,827 136,495 252,271 388,235 391,093 258,891 222,596 272,356 253,356 229,856 229,856 Budget Alternative Assuming of Projected Fund Balance is Expended in 2012 Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest $125,000 430,000 700 Subtotal revenues 430,700 Expenditures Interfund Transfers-#001 CP 30,000 Tourism Promotion 525,700 Subtotal expenditures 555,700 Rev over(under)exp Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance (125,000) 229,856 104,856 \\SV-FS2\Users\mcalhoun\Budgets\2012\Lodging Tax\2012 Round 2 Requests and Awards CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2012 Lodging Tax Funding Requests and Awards Round 2 Remaining 2012 Round 1 for Budget Awards Round 2 Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 430,000 Investment Interest 700 Subtotal revenues 430,700 Expenditures Interfund Transfers -#001 CenterPlace 30,000 30,000 0 Tourism Promotion 400,700 231,500 169,200 Subtotal expenditures 430,700 261,500 Revenues over(under) expenditures 0 Beginning fund balance 229,856 Ending fund balance 229,856 Potential spend down of estimated fund balance 12E,000 Maximum available for Round 2 294,200 $ available 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Minutes of Meeting held February 2, 2012 Round 2 for 2012 Award Year The meeting was called to order at 8:45 am and in attendance was: • Committee Members Jeff Fiman, Peggy Doering, Doug Kelley, Lee Cameron and Committee Chair - Brenda Grassel. • City Staff comprised of Sarah Farr and Mark Calhoun. • Applicant presenters including Denise Pauling (Unlimited Marketing for Valleyfest) and Bill Burke (for Valleyfest), Jayne Singleton and Herman Meier (Spokane Valley Heritage Museum), Cheryl Kilday and Jeanna Hofmeister(Spokane Regional CVB), Emily Osborne and Mandy Degrosellier(Liberty Lake Rotary Club), Jim Harken (Spokane Valley Arts Council), Rich Hartzell and Erin Gurtel (Spokane County Fair and Expo Center) Brenda Grassel opened the meeting with Committee member introductions and Mark Calhoun then addressed the Committee and applicants on a number of issues including: • An explanation that although the meeting was open to the public there would be no opportunity for public comment at this time. He went on to explain that public comment would be welcome at the City Council meeting on February 28 and March 27 when this topic was brought before the City Council. • He noted the Regional Golf Consortium would not be making a presentation and could not be considered for funding because they had not yet received notification from the IRS that their application for a tax exempt status had been approved. • He provided an overview of the agenda and gave a brief explanation related to the financial information included in the Committee packet. He noted that based upon the 2012 Budget for the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund there remained approximately $169,200 for the Committee to award in Round 2 which would leave an estimated 2012 year end fund balance of $229,856. He explained that based upon Committee comments from the Round 1 process, if the fund balance were drawn down by an additional $125,000 to provide total Round 2 awards of$294,200, the 2012 year end fund balance would decrease to an estimated $104,856 which should be adequate to cover: o Cash flow resulting from the one-month delay between when the tax is collected by a hotel and when it is remitted to the City. o The uncertainty of what actual revenues might be. o The need for additional money should an unexpected opportunity arise during the year. 11SV-FS2lUserslmcalhounlBudgets120121Lodging Tax12012 02 02 LTAC meeting minutes.docx 2 Applicant presentations were then made: • 9:00 Valleyfest Peggy Doering, Denise Pauling, Bill Burke • 9:30 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum Jayne Singleton and Herman Meier • 9:45 Liberty Lake Rotary Club Emily Osborne and Mandy Degrosellier • 10:00 Spokane Convention and Visitors Bureau -Visit Spokane Cheryl Kilday and Jeanna Hofmeister • 10:55 Spokane Valley Arts Council Dr. James (Jim) Harken • 11:15 Spokane County Fair and Expo Center Rich Hartzell and Erin Gurtel • One applicant - the Spokane Valley Soccer Club who was scheduled to make a 10:50 presentation, did not show. Following the presentations the committee discussed the merits of providing funding to the organizations. Each committee member then expressed their rationale for making the following allocation recommendations: _Recommended Awards Amount Brenda Doug Peggy Lee Jeff Applicant Requested Grassel Kelley Doering Cameron Fiman Average Valleyfest 50,000 15,000 0 36.000 0 0 10,200 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 5,000 1,100 1,100 1.100 1,100 1.100 1,100 Liberty Lake Notary Club 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane Reg, C&V Bureau(Visit Spoken 275,000 268,800 275,000 200,000 275,000 275,000 258,760 Spokane Arts Council 50,000 0 0 27.100 0 0 5,420 Spokane Valley Soccer Club 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spokane County Fair& Expo Center 30,000 21,200 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 28,240 440,000 1 306,100 306,100 294,200 ' 306,100 306,100 303,720 Contingent upon requiring that a meeting be held in Spokane Valley between partners applying for lodging tax in order to discuss joint marketing opportunities. After further discussion Ms. Grasse) moved that the Committee accept the recommendations and this was approved through a vote consisting of 5 members, all in favor. Ms. Grassel then began a discussion regarding developing an award calendar for the 2013 award process and whether there should be one or two rounds. Mark Calhoun explained that the award process begins with developing a lodging tax revenue projection for 2013 and that he is reluctant to do so without 6-months of 2012 revenue history, which isn't available until the latter part of July 2012. He went on to explain that by waiting for this information it essentially forces the City into just a single round. The calendar the City has historically used is essentially: • Prepare application materials through August. \lSV-FS2lUserslmcathounlBudgets120121Lodging Tax12012 02 02 LTAC meeting minutes.docx 3 • Run notices of the award process through the latter part of August to early September. • Receive applications by the middle of September. • Prepare application materials for Committee review through the latter part of September and mail them to Committee members by September 30. • Applicant presentations to the Committee in mid-October. • No less than 45-days later, the City Council makes a final determination, which is the latter part of November. Ms. Grasse) commented that we don't really need two rounds but that we should consider setting the calendar back by two weeks to allow Valleyfest and Spokane County Fair and Expo time to apply with a complete application including the statistical information the Committee requires to make a decision. The Committee considered revising the calendar but ultimately decided to keep the timeline for the 2013 award process the same as the fall of 2012. Meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m. 11SV-FS21Users\mcalhounlBudgets120121Lodging Tax12012 02 02 LTAC meeting minutes.docx DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of February 22,2012; 10:00 a.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 February 29, 2012: City Hall at the Mall(10 a.m. 9 p.m.) March 6,2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 27] 1.Animal Control Update—Commissioner Mielke,Nancy Hill (30 minutes) 2. Revisions to Title 24 Building Code —Doug Powell,John Hohman (20 minutes) 3. Ordinance Regarding Franchises—Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 4. Charitable Solicitation in Right-of-Way—Cary Driskell,Chief VanLeuven (20 minutes) 5. Sprague Property Discussion—Mike Jackson ,Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force Memo of Agmnt Neil Kersten (20 minutes) 7. Temporary Use Permits—John Hohman (20 minutes) 8.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 9. Information Only: Draft Amended 2012 TIP [*estimated meeting: 155 minutes] March 13, 2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,March 5] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Amending Chapter 22.70,Landscaping—Karen Kendall (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance re Signage and Sale of Alcohol—Kelly Konkright (15 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Governance Manual Discussion—Chris Bainbridge (30 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] March 20, 2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,March 12] 1. Draft Amended 2012 TIP—Steve Worley (15 minutes) 2. GSI Annual Update—Robin Toth (20 minutes) 3. Sign Code Regulations—John Hohman, Scott Kuhta (30 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda [*estimated meeting: minutes] March 27,2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,March 19] 1.PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Amended 2012 TIP—Steve Worley (— 10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll minutes) (5 minutes) 3.First Reading Ordinance Sign Code Amendments—Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 4.Motion: Lodging Tax Allocations—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 5.Motion: Draft Amended 2012 TIP—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 6. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] April 3,2012,Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,March 26] 1. TIP Discussion—Steve Worley (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda Draft Advance Agenda 2/23/2012 3:55:52 PM Page 1 of 2 April 10, 2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 2] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Sign Code Amendments—Lori Barlow (15 minutes) April 17,2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 9] 1.Advance Agenda April 24, 2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 16] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Info Only: Department Reports May 1,2012, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 23] 1. Draft 2013-2018 Six-Year TIP—Steve Worley (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda May 8, 2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 30] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) May 15, 2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, May 7] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) May 22,2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 14] 1.PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2013-2018 Six-Year TIP—Steve Worley (-15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports May 29, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 21] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) June 5,2012, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 28] 1.Advance Agenda June 12,2012,Special Meeting: 8:30 a.m.to 4:00 p.m.Summer Council/Staff Retreat June 12,2012,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,June 4] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) 2.Motion Consideration: Adoption of Proposed 2013-2018 Six-Year TIP—Steve Worley (10 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: ADA Transition Plan Senior Housing Bidding Contracts(SVMC 3.—bidding exceptions) Shoreline Draft Goals and Policies Centennial Trail Agreement Sidewalks Contracts,Annual Renewals,histories,etc. Speed Limits,(overall system) Governor's Budget Reduction Alts,Review of Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment Graffiti,Code Enforcement,etc. Union Pacific RR Agrmnt, xing Improvement Costs Investment Accounts Manufactured Homes *time for public or council comments not included Mission Ave Design(Mission&Long ped. crossing) Prosecution Services Revenue Policy,Cost Recovery Draft Advance Agenda 2/23/2012 3:55:52 PM Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 28, 2012 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council approved CDBG project list on October 25, 2011. 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, 20% of which is passed through to our City by an agreement with Spokane County. Although Spokane Valley has a guaranteed set aside, the City must still participate in the same application process as all other agencies requesting CDBG funding. Projects must be "high priority" infrastructure projects, which include road, sewer and water projects. Spokane Valley submitted an application to the County in November, 2011 with the following proposed projects: Proposed CDBG Proiects: Estimated Costs 1. Sprague Avenue Resurfacing $430,000 (EB lanes, Havana to Fancher) 2. ADA Sidewalk Improvements TBD Spokane County subsequently notified the City that the Sprague Avenue project would not likely meet federal CDBG funding criteria. The attached memorandum discusses the issue in more detail and the status of the CDBG funding process. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager; Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Memo Spoka•R ., ne .0,00Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager; City Council From: Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager CC: John Hohman, CD Director;Neil Kersten, PW Director Date: February 28, 2112 Re: CDBG Project Update On October 25, 2011, City Council approved two projects for funding through the Spokane County Community Development Block(CDBG) Program, including the following: Proposed CDBG Projects: Estimated Costs 1. Sprague Avenue Resurfacing $430,000 (EB lanes, Havana to Fancher) 2. ADA Sidewalk Improvements TBD On December 12, 2011, the City was notified by Spokane County Community Development staff that the Sprague Avenue resurfacing project would not meet federal guidelines for CDBG funding. Although the project is located entirely within a low/moderate income area, the road does not serve an area that is primarily residential and is therefore not eligible for CDBG funding. Because similar projects have been funded in previous years, planning and public works staff thought that this project would qualify for funding as it provides access from nearby low/moderate income neighborhoods to shopping areas along Sprague, including the new Walmart store currently under construction. The Sprague Avenue project has been withdrawn from consideration for CDBG funding and the City's applications were revised to request funding for ADA sidewalk improvements along Sprague Avenue from Havana to Fancher ($115,410) and for ADA sidewalk improvements throughout the City's low/moderate income areas ($71,500). The CDBG project applications were reviewed by the Housing and Community Development Citizens Advisory Committee (HCDCAC). Spokane Valley's representative on the committee is Councilmember Woodard. The HCDCAC voted to fund only the Sprague Avenue ADA sidewalk improvements ($115,410) and voted to not fund the other ADA sidewalk improvements ($71,500). A public hearing on the HCDCAC recommended project list is scheduled for March 1, 2012. Following the public hearing, a final recommended project list will be forwarded to Spokane County Commissioners for final approval. CDBG funding must be used on high priority infrastructure projects benefiting primarily residential low/moderate income areas, including street, water and sewer improvements. Most streets within residential Spokane Valley neighborhoods are in relatively good condition due to full paving during the County's sewer program. In the future, the City may consider other options for CDBG eligible projects. Council may be interested to know that the HCDCAC recommends funding for other agencies serving Spokane Valley citizens, including the following: Carnhope Irrigation District—Water Main replacement $69,000 Spokane Valley Partners $23,075 Spokane Valley Meals on Wheels $40,000 There are also a number of social service entities providing services countywide that will receive CDBG funding (see attached Public Hearing Notice for all funding recommendations). Notice for a Public Hearing Preliminary Project and Funding Recommendations for Spokane County 2012 Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Program and Homeless Housing Assistance Act(HHAA) Funding The public is invited to attend and speak at a hearing conducted by the Spokane County Community Services, Housing, and Community Development Department and the Housing and Community Development Citizen Advisory Committee to obtain public comments on the Spokane County Community Services,Housing,and Community Development Department's: • Administration of the HOME and Community Development Block Grant Programs • Activities Recommended or Not Recommended for Funding in 2012 • Program Policies,Procedures and Priority Needs • Consolidated Plan Amendments These preliminary funding recommendations are open to public comment beginning February 1, 2012. The public may comment at the Public Hearing on March 1, 2012, or may forward their comments to the Community Services, Housing, and Community Development Department,312 W. 8th,Fourth Floor, Spokane,WA 99204,or via e-mail at tlandsiedel @spokanecounty.org. Public Hearing Date: Thursday,March 1,2012 Time: 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM Location: Spokane County Regional Health District-1st Floor Auditorium, 1101 W.College Ave.,Spokane,WA Listed below are the 2012 applicants,proposed projects,requested CDBG funding amount and preliminary recommendation. Recommended Recommended Requested CDBG HHAA Public Service Projects-County-Wide: Amount Amount Amount Catholic Charities-St.Margaret's Homeless Shelter $60,000 $60,000 Catholic charities-House of Charity $48,748 $0 Salvation Army-Emergency Shelter Operations $30,000 $30,000 SNAP-Homeless Shelter $42,655 $42,655 Volunteers of America-Hope House Homeless Shelter $31,500 $31,500 Open Gate-Homeless Services $34,135 $0 Coalition of Responsible Disabled-Handicapped Services $60,000 $0 New Hope Resource Center-Emergency Services $15,000 $15,000 Transitional Program for Woman $25,000 $25,000 Frontier Behavioral heath dba Spokane Mental Health-Care Cars $25,000 $0 Second Harvest Food Bank-Emergency Services $75,000 $40,000 YFA-Homeless Services $25,000 $25,000 Spokane County Medical Society-Project Access $46,150 $0 Lutheran Community Services-SAFeT $31,577 $19,483 YWCA-Alternatives to Domestic Violence $75,380 $51,473 Lilac Blind Foundation-Services for the Blind $12,000 $12,000 Common Wealth Agency-Subsistence Payment $30,000 $0 Interfaith dba Family Promise of Spokane_Homeless Services $34,372 $34,372 Public Service Projects-Cities and Towns: City of Cheney Cheney Outreach Center-Emergency Assistance $12,000 $12,000 City of Deer Park The Green House-Emergency Services $40,000 $20,000 Catholic Charities-Senior Nutrition Program $10,000 $10,000 City of Medical Lake Medical Lake Community Outreach-Emergency Assistance $7,200 $7,200 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Partners—Emergency Services $23,075 $23,075 Spokane Valley Meals on Wheels—Senior Nutrition Program $59,800 $40,000 Housing Projects-County-Wide: SNAP—Emergency Housing Repair $225,000 $125,000 Economic Development Projects—County-Wide: Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce—Micro-Enterprise $10,500 $0 SNAP Financial Access—Micro-Enterprise $50,000 $50,000 Infrastructure/Public Facility Improvement Projects—County-Wide: Spokane County Public Works Dept.-RID Assessment Grants $58,050 $58,050 Infrastructure/Public Facility Improvement Projects-Cities and Towns: City of Cheney City of Cheney—Street/Water&Sewer Improvements $88,390 $88,390 City of Deer Park City of Deer Park—Water&Sewer Improvements $198,718 $198,718 Town of Fairfield Town of Fairfield—Water&Sewer Improvements $134,862 $134,862 Town of Rockford Town of Rockford—Water&Sewer Improvements $184,367 $184,367 City of Spokane Valley Carnhope Irrigation District No.7-Water Improvements $69,000 $69,000 City of Spokane Valley—Street Improvement $387,500 $115,410 City of Spokane Valley—Street Improvements $71,500 $0 Planning and Administration Projects—County Wide: Spokane County CSHCD-Administration $265,010 $265,010 Total: $2,596,309 $1,487,385 $300,000 All projects propose benefit to lower income households in Spokane County, particularly the residents of the twelve participating municipalities and unincorporated areas. No lower income household or business is proposed to be displaced through activities funded with Federal CDBG dollars. If displacement should occur, assistance will be made available in accordance with the County's Displacement Plan. This plan is available for public examination in the Community Services, Housing, and Community Development Department, Fourth Floor, 312 W. 8th,Spokane,WA 99204. Spokane County actively supports fair housing efforts in the community in a positive, solution-oriented fashion. Housing programs funded by the Community Development Block Grant, Home Investment Partnership Program, Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re- housing Program,and Homeless Housing Assistance Act Program are administered to affirmatively further fair housing. Spokane County assures that grants will be conducted and administered in compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(42 U.S.C. 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 3620), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Orders 11063, 11625, 12138, 12432 and 12892, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794),the Americans with Disabilities Act(title II) and implementing regulations. The funding for these preliminary recommendations has not yet been allocated by the Federal government. Acceptance of the 2012 Spokane County Housing & Community Development Annual Action Plan by HUD and a contract between HUD and the County authorizing the County's Community Development Block Grant Program is a condition precedent to the County's funding of these projects. If you have any questions regarding the public hearing,2012 preliminary recommendations,the Community Development Block Grant Program, or want to attend the hearing, accommodations will be provided,to the maximum extent feasible,to meet the needs of non- English speaking, deaf and hearing impaired and visually impaired persons. Spokane County Community Services, Housing, and Community Development Department will make arrangements to provide an interpreter, a signer or a reader upon request, if such a request is made at least 72 hours prior to the Public Hearing. If you need additional accommodations,please call 477-2588 at least 72 hours in advance. � E SpCITY okane Valley PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT January 2012 AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION • Emergency After Hours Call-out— Senske • Engineering Services Support--Agreements with private engineering firms • Landscaping Contract— Spokane ProCare (Rebidding for 2012) • Litter and Weed Control — Spokane County Geiger Work Crew • Solid Waste - Regional Solid Waste Interlocal • Street Maintenance —2011 Signal, Sign & Striping County Interlocal • Street Sweeping —AAA sweeping • Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair contract—Poe Asphalt Paving Inc. • Street Maintenance (Pines & Trent) —WSDOT Interlocal • Vactoring Contract—MA Sweeping (Rebidding for 2012) WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/ http:i/www,ecy.wa.govlprograms/wgltmdllspokaneriver/dissolved oxygen/status.html http:llwww.spokanecounty.oral utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM Solid Waste Governance Task Force has completed a draft Interlocal Agreement for a Regional Solid Waste Management Alliance Agreement. The County will schedule a new Alliance meeting in early 2012 as a result of changes at the City of Spokane. STREET MASTER PLAN A report to council on the updated pavement management program is scheduled for February 7, 2012. CAPITAL PROJECTS (See attached Capital Projects Spreadsheet) STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works/Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for January 2012: Street and Stormwater Maintenance Items: • Snow removal operations. • Geiger crew continues with garbage pickup on arterials throughout the city. • Pothole patching as weather permits. "information in bold indicates updates 1 STORMWATER Small Improvement Projects These projects are individually estimated to be less than $30,000, to address street flooding problems and involve excavation work. Project bids received, Eller Corporation substantially completed construction of the 2011 Small Works Projects, final paperwork and closeout of the project is in process. Projects Currently in Design and/or Property Acquisition: 1. Bettman/Dickey Culvert/Ditch re-establishment -- Project to improve conveyance of stormwater from 14th to 11th. Site survey and geotechnical work completed, consultant working on 50% design drawings. New Small Works projects for 2012 to repair, replace or improve problems on the stormwater list are being considered for survey and design. Top projects include problems at 44th near Gillis, 13100 blk of E. 10th and 13600 blk of E. 4th. Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects These projects are estimated to be over $30,000, to address larger flooding and water quality problems, and/or make major improvements to bring systems closer to current standards. 1. Stormwater Decant Facility— Proposed to be located at the new maintenance facility. Decanting catchbasin debris would decrease costs in handling debris by allowing water to be drained and disposed separately. Applied for Ecology Stormwater Grant — see below under Grants. Received support from WSDOT to partner for a possible Regional facility that would serve existing needs in the area. 2. Sprague Avenue, Park to 1-90 swale project — Project to match cross sections of Sprague to the east and install bio-infiltration swales to replace existing faulty drainage system and improve aesthetics. Applied for Ecology Stormwater Grant — see below under Grants. 3. Sprague Avenue, Evergreen to Sullivan Road (CIP # 115) —stormwater is working to design and provide recommended improvements for stormwater systems to include in the Sprague Avenue Rebuild package to be constructed in Spring 2012. • Roadway Landscape Services 2012 Contract - Current contract ends December 2011 with no renewal options remaining. Bid proposal package went out on December 22, 2011. Bid opening occurred on January 17, 2012, with Ace Landscaping and Maintenance as the apparent responsive low bid; staff is verifying references and qualifications. • Vactor Services 2012 Contract - Current contract ends December 2011 with no renewal options remaining. Staff is drafting a new bid package for a 2012 contract. • Underground Injection Control (UIC) Assessment - Staff continues work on compliance requirements for the City's 7,350 drywells (UICs) and performing required assessments by February 2013. • Ecology Grant Status - 2011/2012 — Ecology has notified staff of an additional $50k of "pass-through" grant funding that will be available to the City in January 2012. Staff is considering to use this additional funding to offset sweeping and vactoring costs. Stormwater Retrofit Grant #G1100278 -- ($237k State/$79 City SW fund) Sullivan Road Bridge Drain Project (see also CIP #150). This project is on schedule and in design 'Information in bold indicates updates 2 phase. Easements have been acquired. Construction should proceed next summer with completion before October 2012. • Ecology 2012 Draft Municipal Stormwater General Permit Ecology has released draft municipal stormwater permits for review and comment for the Eastern Washington Phase II communities, which includes the City of Spokane Valley, for the next phase II permit that will become effective August 1, 2013 through 2018. City staff coordinated with stormwater personnel with the City of Spokane and Spokane County as well as other affected Eastern Washington Cities on a comprehensive list of comments which was relayed to Ecology on February 3, 2012. BRIDGE MAINTENANCE Sullivan Road W Bridge (#4508) over Spokane River: N.A. Degerstrom awarded contract, traffic diverted to northbound bridge, structural retrofit complete, crews to begin patching bridge deck week of Feb. 6. SEWER PROJECTS • 2011 STEP sewer projects — Carry over Green Haven 'C' (NE Area) — Carryover to 2012: Barker Rd.; Broadway (West) to approx. Appleway, and Alki, approx. 300' w/o Barker to Michigan Rd. TRAFFIC • 2011 Fall WTSC School Zone Beacon Grant The City has been awarded a grant for $30,000 ($7,500 per school zone) to install school zone beacons at Evergreen Middle, East Valley Middle, Bowdish Middle, and McDonald Elementary Schools, The beacons have been delivered and need to be installed by the end of March 2012. • HSIP Grant The Highway Safety Improvement Program grants were due October 28. Staff prepared applications to widen SR 27 at Grace Avenue, to make operational improvements to Argonne Road, and for citywide safety improvements such as upgrading regulatory signs and installing countdown pedestrian signal heads. GRANT APPLICATIONS New Call for Projects • New Freedom Funds The STA Board approved our Sidewalk and Transit Stop Accessibility project in the amount of $252,009. The grant has been approved. STA has drafted the agreement to award funds, public works and the city attorney are reviewing the agreement and coordinating with STA. 'Information in hold indicates updates 3 • Ecology Statewide Stormwater Grant The Washington State Department of Ecology announced $30M in grants to build stormwater projects. Staff proceeded with and submitted applications for two projects — the Sprague, Park to 1-90 Swale project and for a Regional Decant Facility. Draft offer list was posted January 27, 2012. The State Governor's office has proposed reducing the program to $8M putting the remaining $22M towards reducing the budget deficit. The City's proposed projects ranked 28th and 35th on the draft offer list and will not be funded under the $8M limit. • Ecology "Centennial" Water Quality Grant Staff proceeded with and submitted an application for a Centennial water quality grant to assist the City in ongoing needs in the Chester Creek riparian areas between Thorpe and Shafer Roads. This grant would be used in conjunction with a potential Chester Creek clean-out project. • FY 2011 TIGER Discretionary Grant Program USDOT announced the TIGER III program, a competitive grant program for transportation projects. $527 million is available for this program nationwide. We were not successful in getting the Sullivan Road W Bridge Project funded through this program. • 2012 TIGER Discretionary Grant Program USDOT announced the TIGER IV program, a nationally competitive grant program for transportation projects. $500 million is available for this program nationwide. Staff will prepare the pre-application due February 20, 2012. Staff will also review what it will take to revise our previous TIGER III grant application for the Sullivan Road W Bridge Replacement project to meet the new TIGER IV grant application requirements. • TIB Call for Projects Grant applications were submitted August 31. Notification of project funding was November 18. We received funding for the Mansfield Ave Connection project ($792,700) and the Sprague Ave Reconstruction -- Evergreen to Sullivan project ($3,091,900). • 2012 Federal Discretionary Grant Program FHWA announced a call for projects on November 10 with $29 million available nationwide in the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) program. Staff presented three projects to council that would fit the grant criteria for this program; Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail, Greenacres Trail, and a multi-use trail within the Old Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way. Council decided not to move ahead with the grant applications. • 2012 WSDOT Bridge Call for Projects The WSDOT is anticipating the availability of approximately $40 to $70 million of Federal Highway Bridge Program funds for local agency bridge projects. The purpose of the Federal Highway Bridge Program is to improve the condition of bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and preventative maintenance. Preventative maintenance is defined as steel bridge painting, scour mitigation, seismic retrofit, and deck/joint repair. Staff is evaluating the possibility of submitting an application for the resurfacing of the concrete deck on the Sullivan Rd Bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad (which is part of our Sullivan Road Corridor Project). This would be a preventative maintenance and preventative maintenance projects are funded at 100%. Applications are due May 4, 2012. Our Sullivan Road W Bridge Replacement Project is not eligible for this call for projects since we have already received federal funding through this program. 'Information in bold Indicates updates 4 o Ecology 2012 Municipal Stormwater Grants of Regional or Statewide Significance (NON-CONSTRUCTION) The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) is soliciting grant proposals for projects of regional or statewide significance to support implementation of the Municipal Stormwater General Permits issued in January 2007 and reissued for draft review in October 2011. The $2.2 million dollars available for this purpose is carry-forward funding provided by the Washington State Legislature to local governments to support stormwater permit implementation. For more information see: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1110088.1itml Staff coordinated with personnel from the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and other Eastern Washington communities on two proposals. One is for the development of a Low Impact Development manual for Eastern Washington and a second proposal would develop a Spokane area multi-media campaign to provide stormwater quality education to the public. *Information in bold indicates updates 5 Spokane Valley- January-12 Road Projects 0069 Park Rd Recon.#2 Brdwy& Ind.SRTC06-12 0123 Mission Ave- Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 0146 24th Ave Sidewalk Adams to Sullivan 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection Street Preservation Projects 0115 Sprague Ave Reconstruct-E'grn to S'van Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06-3 0061 Pines (SR27) ITS Improvements(SRTC 06-2 0159 University Road Overpass Study Stormwater Projects 0150 Sullivan Rd Bridge Drain Retrofit Other Projects 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 0148 Greenacres Trail- Design 0149 Sidewalk Infill 0154 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) TIB-SP FHWA- BR FHWA-CMAQ TIB-UCP FHWA-CMAQ FHWA-CMAQ FHWA-CMAQ Knutson Aldworth Amsden Knutson Knutson Aldworth Knutson Fisch Knutson Knutson Note 10/03/11 09/30/12 11/15/12 06/15/12 06/15/12 06/01/12 03/14/13 90 5 12 8 2 2 0 03/20/12 50 03/15/12 90 06/15/12 0 12/01/13 0 Dept of Ecology Aldworth 04/06/12 25 FHWA-STP(E) DOE- EECBG FHWA-CMAQ STA-FTA/N F Aldworth Aldworth Amsden Amsden 02/15/13 09/20/12 06/28/12 05/22/13 a 20 10 8 $ 352,002 $ 517,919 $ 175,260 $ 276,301 $ 292,000 $ 19,743,334 $ 1,026,000 $ 3,933,865 $ 1,290,636 $ 2,083,121 $ 250,000 $ 237,375 $ 745,000 $ 100,000 $ 770,500 $ 315,011 Design Total Project Complete %Complete Project # Design Only Projects Funding Manager Date PE Cost Road Projects 0069 Park Rd Recon.#2 Brdwy& Ind.SRTC06-12 0123 Mission Ave- Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 0146 24th Ave Sidewalk Adams to Sullivan 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection Street Preservation Projects 0115 Sprague Ave Reconstruct-E'grn to S'van Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06-3 0061 Pines (SR27) ITS Improvements(SRTC 06-2 0159 University Road Overpass Study Stormwater Projects 0150 Sullivan Rd Bridge Drain Retrofit Other Projects 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 0148 Greenacres Trail- Design 0149 Sidewalk Infill 0154 Sidewalk&Transit Stop Accessibility FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) TIB-SP FHWA- BR FHWA-CMAQ TIB-UCP FHWA-CMAQ FHWA-CMAQ FHWA-CMAQ Knutson Aldworth Amsden Knutson Knutson Aldworth Knutson Fisch Knutson Knutson Note 10/03/11 09/30/12 11/15/12 06/15/12 06/15/12 06/01/12 03/14/13 90 5 12 8 2 2 0 03/20/12 50 03/15/12 90 06/15/12 0 12/01/13 0 Dept of Ecology Aldworth 04/06/12 25 FHWA-STP(E) DOE- EECBG FHWA-CMAQ STA-FTA/N F Aldworth Aldworth Amsden Amsden 02/15/13 09/20/12 06/28/12 05/22/13 a 20 10 8 $ 352,002 $ 517,919 $ 175,260 $ 276,301 $ 292,000 $ 19,743,334 $ 1,026,000 $ 3,933,865 $ 1,290,636 $ 2,083,121 $ 250,000 $ 237,375 $ 745,000 $ 100,000 $ 770,500 $ 315,011 Road Projects 0005 Pines/Ma nfield, Wilbur Rd to Pines 0157 Sullivan Road West Bridge Temp Repairs Sewer Projects 0151 Green Haven STEP Traffic Projects 0133 Sprague Ave ITS 0136 Traffic Signal LED Replacement TIB-UCP City City Knutson Fisch Fisch DOE-EECBG Knutson DOE-EECBG Kipp 05/23/08 100 95 09/30/12 $ 6,626,700 11/11/11 100 0 04/01/12 $ 358,000 03/23/11 100 80 05/01/12 $ 620,000 03/04/11 100 52 12/31/12 $ 420,000 12/15/10 100 92 08/31/12 $ 90,000 Estimated Total Project Proposed %Complete Construction Project # Design &Construction Projects Funding Manager Bid Date PE I CN Completion Cost Road Projects 0005 Pines/Ma nfield, Wilbur Rd to Pines 0157 Sullivan Road West Bridge Temp Repairs Sewer Projects 0151 Green Haven STEP Traffic Projects 0133 Sprague Ave ITS 0136 Traffic Signal LED Replacement TIB-UCP City City Knutson Fisch Fisch DOE-EECBG Knutson DOE-EECBG Kipp 05/23/08 100 95 09/30/12 $ 6,626,700 11/11/11 100 0 04/01/12 $ 358,000 03/23/11 100 80 05/01/12 $ 620,000 03/04/11 100 52 12/31/12 $ 420,000 12/15/10 100 92 08/31/12 $ 90,000 0063 0106 0112 0129 0130 0131 0135 0147 0152 0153 Closeout Phase Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines RD West Pondersoa (STEP) Indiana Ave Extension South Greenacres(STEP) Corbin (STEP) Cronk (STEP) Flashing Yellow Arrow Installation Bike Lane Restriping Micaview STEP Broadway Ave Resurfacing/SW Upgrade CDBG City TIB- UCP City City City DOE - EECBG DOE - EECBG City CDBG Knutson Arlt Aldworth Fisch Iris Iris Kipp Kipp Fisch Knutson 05/15/11 05/06/09 02/18/11 03/03/10 05/05/10 04/14/10 02/16/10 06/01/11 03/09/11 05/15/11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 99 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 03/31/12 06/01/10 04/30/12 12/01/11 10/01/11 10/01/11 12/31/10 11/01/11 12/15/11 12/31/11 $ 932,850 $ 1,215,335 $ 2,082,000 $ 640,500 $ 705,000 $ 315,000 $ 34,210 $ 40,000 $ 280,000 $ 248,528 Estimated Total Project Proposed %Complete Construction Project # Projects in Closeout Phase Funding Manager Bid Date PE I CN Completion Cost 0063 0106 0112 0129 0130 0131 0135 0147 0152 0153 Closeout Phase Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines RD West Pondersoa (STEP) Indiana Ave Extension South Greenacres(STEP) Corbin (STEP) Cronk (STEP) Flashing Yellow Arrow Installation Bike Lane Restriping Micaview STEP Broadway Ave Resurfacing/SW Upgrade CDBG City TIB- UCP City City City DOE - EECBG DOE - EECBG City CDBG Knutson Arlt Aldworth Fisch Iris Iris Kipp Kipp Fisch Knutson 05/15/11 05/06/09 02/18/11 03/03/10 05/05/10 04/14/10 02/16/10 06/01/11 03/09/11 05/15/11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 99 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 03/31/12 06/01/10 04/30/12 12/01/11 10/01/11 10/01/11 12/31/10 11/01/11 12/15/11 12/31/11 $ 932,850 $ 1,215,335 $ 2,082,000 $ 640,500 $ 705,000 $ 315,000 $ 34,210 $ 40,000 $ 280,000 $ 248,528 MEMO TO: Mike Jackson, City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: February 21,2012 RE: Monthly Report January 2011 January 2012: January 2011: CAD incidents: 4,423 CAD incidents: 4,255 Reports taken: 1,865 Reports taken: 1,427 Traffic stops: 1,212 Traffic stops: 1,171 Traffic reports: 377 Traffic reports: 251 CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self-initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing January residential burglaries, stolen vehicles, traffic collisions, vehicle prowlings, and stolen vehicles. Also attached are trend-line graphs for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012: Citations, Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls, Self-Initiated Calls, Collisions, Persons Crimes, Property Crimes, and Sex Crimes. Also included is the January Crimes By Cities stats report. ADMINISTRATIVE: Chief Van Leuven and Lt. Lyons attended the All Officers Fire Meeting in early January. Lt. Lyons gave a presentation on SVPD's call load and staffing, and how those interrelate to calls for service and response times. Rick Grabenstein from the Attorney General's Office gave a presentation on "Crime Scene Preservation for First Responders." Two one-day trainings were given at the Sheriffs Office Training Center, which Chief VanLeuven attended. One was titled "Leadership Under Fire," and the other was "State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training" (SLATT). The U.S. Marshalls Office held an open house at the end of January, which Chief VanLeuven attended. Their offices are located at the Federal Building in downtown Spokane. Page 1 COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING: S.C.O.P.E. participated in the following events during the month of January: ➢ Center Place Open House ➢ Spokane Valley City Council Tour of SVPD Precinct ➢ S.C.O.P.E. Basic Training ➢ Edgecliff S.C.O.P.E. Chili Feed ➢ CERT (Community Emergency Response Team)meeting ➢ Operation Family ID meeting S.C.O.P.E. Volunteers (countywide) contributed 93,400 hours of their time in 2011. We hope to have 2011 annual reports available in February. January 2012 Volunteers Hours per station: Location #Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 14 637.50 146.50 784.00 Edgecliff 35 880.00 326.00 1,206.00 Trentwood 5 184.50 84.00 268.50 University 30 532.00 449.00 981.00 TOTALS 84 2,234.00 1,005.5 3,239.50 Volunteer Value ($21.62 per hour) $70,037.99 for January 2012 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 60 on-scene hours (including travel time) in January, responding to crime scenes, structure fires, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control. Of those hours, 17 hours were for incidents in the City of Spokane Valley. Total January volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 3; year-to-date total is 3 hours. The reports show activity of 9 call outs, which is slightly less than last year when we had 13. This is attributed to the "nice" winter we're having resulting in not many slide offs, accidents, chimney fires, etc. Sadly we lost SCOPE Volunteer Dick Ott in January due to an on-the-job slip-and-fall injury. Most encouraging is that we have 9 new members currently undergoing training. There were 37 reports of juveniles who ran away from their residence in Spokane Valley during the month of January 2012; all but 6 of those reports were settled with the juvenile having returned home. The Healing Lodge, which is a 45-bed adolescent (ages 13-17) residential chemical dependency treatment center funded by Indian Health Services and the State of Washington, had a large majority of the runaways this month. Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in the Spokane Valley in December totaled 14 and in January 21 with 5 and 4 respectively, vehicles eventually cited and Page 2 towed. Eighteen hulks were processed in December and 12 hulks processed in January. During the month of January, a total of 59 vehicles were processed. S.C.O.P.E. DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley #of #of Hrs #of Disabled #of #of Non- Vol. Infractions Warnings Disabled Issued Issued Infractions Issued January 7 120 13 - _ February - - - - _ March - - - - _ April - - - - _ May - - - - _ June - - - - _ July - - - - - August - - - - _ September - - - - _ October - - - - _ November - - - - _ December - - - - _ Total 7 120 13 - _ Spokane County #of #of Hrs #of Disabled #of #of Non- Vol. Infractions Warnings Disabled Issued Issued Infractions Issued January 5 24 6 - _ February - - - - _ March - - - - _ April - - - - _ May - - - - _ June - - - - _ July - - - - _ August - - - - - September - - - - -- October - - - - - November - - - - - December - - - - - Total 5 24 6 - - Page 3 OPERATIONS: Early Morning Pursuit-Wanted Felon Arrested - A high-speed police chase in early January ended about 4:30am when the suspect driving a stolen car lost control and crashed. Spokane Valley Police started pursuing the car driven by a 27-year-old male, after reports of a car prowl near Pines and Olive where one officer saw an individual in a stolen car. The chase went past Splashdown and then south on Argonne. The suspect then turned the wrong way onto Sprague Avenue and headed right toward a deputy. The deputy didn't want to have any kind of head-on collision, so as the male suspect was doing one of his swerves, the officer performed a pit maneuver again and ultimately ended up in the crash. The car the male suspect was driving was reportedly stolen from the South Hill a couple days earlier. Officers found stolen items in the car. The male suspect already had a warrant out for his arrest for 3rd Degree Felony Assault when he was taken into custody and booked into the Spokane County Jail for charges including Possession of Stolen Property, Attempting to Elude Law Enforcement, and Possession of a Controlled Substance in addition to misdemeanor charges. More charges could be added if the property found in his possession is determined to be stolen. Scrappers Caught in the Act - Employees at a business in the 2600 block of North Woodruff confronted two suspects during a work day in early January, when they were observed stealing items from the business yard. When an employee took pictures of the back of the vehicle with his cell phone, one of the male suspects grabbed the phone. The suspect also had a motor in his hand, holding it by the wires, taunting the victim to try to get his phone while the suspect was swinging the motor by its wires. The suspect then dropped the motor and began running, at which time the victim who had his cell phone stolen began chasing the suspect. The other male suspect had made his way to a vehicle and was now driving behind the victim chasing the first suspect. The victim had to jump out of the way to avoid being run over by the male suspect driving the vehicle, at which time the other suspect jumped into the vehicle and it sped off. The license number from the vehicle was identified to one of the suspects who was known to Deputy Morris. Deputy North-Jones and Morris were able to produce some viable suspect photos and the victims were able to positively identify the male suspects. Warrants were issued for the suspects and they were later arrested and booked into the Spokane County Jail 1st Degree Robbery and 3rd Degree Theft. The cell phone was recovered at a nearby business where the suspect had thrown it. Stolen Classic Recovered-Arrests Made - Spokane Valley Property Crimes detectives located a stolen 1936 Ford Coupe and a stolen motorcycle after obtaining search warrants for two separate Spokane Valley locations in mid-January. When the vehicle was stolen from his residence on the 21st of December, the victim of the Ford aided by family and friends began searching the internet for 1936 Ford parts for sale. After a considerable amount of time, they located ads on Craig's List and EBay for these classic car parts and easily identified some of the more custom ones. Additional information was provided by a western Washington citizen trying to restore a 1936 Ford after he read one of the internet ads and called the suspects. Suspicious of the low price and additional parts offered, he was able to locate an online article in the Spokesman Review regarding the stolen Ford and reported the incident to Spokane Valley deputies. This very specific information enabled detectives to conduct surveillance and gain the identity of the suspect. Detectives executed search warrants at a residence located in the 800 block of South Page 4 Steen and another residence located in the 9900 block of East 11th Avenue. A 36-year-old male suspect and a 47-year-old male suspect were arrested without incident and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Possession of Stolen Property 1St and Trafficking in Stolen Property 1St, both felonies. The 36-year-old suspect was booked for an additional felony of Theft of a Motor Vehicle. The classic Ford has been returned to the owner. Male Arrested for Trespassing After Too Much Alcohol — Officers responded to an early morning call for an attempted burglary. A homeowner reported that a male was at his front door attempting to gain entry. The suspect had also apparently tried to break into other homes, and continued walking down the street when he was unable to gain entry. As officers were on scene, they caught a glimpse of the suspect and approached him. Upon questioning the 20-year-old male, he told officers that he lived about four blocks from their location; however, when asked the street address, it was noted that he was further away from home than what the suspect thought. Officers noted he smelled strongly of alcohol, and had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. Officers contacted one victim who said he knew the suspect through a mutual friend and said they had been awakened with someone rummaging through a cupboard at the end of a hallway. They had apparently left a door unlocked and the male suspect had made entry, looking for"groceries." All the victims positively identified the male suspect and he was booked into the Spokane County Jail on 1st Degree Criminal Trespassing, Minor in Possession, and 3rd Degree Malicious Mischief. Dozens Arrested in Sweep - A multi-agency effort led to the arrest of more than two dozen people throughout the region in mid-January. A long-term investigation led by the Spokane Violent Crimes Gang Task Force culminated in a massive sweep in which law enforcement seized more than eight pounds of methamphetamine, 40 firearms, a grenade, an estimated $150,000 in currency and valuables, and 10 vehicles. "We need to send a message that we will not tolerate this type of activity in our community," said Spokane Valley Police Chief Rick Van Leuven. More than a dozen federal indictments unsealed on the day of the operation charge "members and associates of various gangs and drug organizations" with numerous counts of distribution of methamphetamine and other drugs. Some were charged as felons in possession of firearms. The operation targeting what authorities called organized criminal enterprises and gang activity across Eastern Washington and northern Oregon was dubbed Operation Old School. "These are very bad people doing very bad things to our children, and ultimately they are the ones hiring our children to do their dirty work, and it's our kids who are ending up in body bags," Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich said. Authorities executed more than 25 federal search warrants in connection with the arrests, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Rice. Those indicted on drug distribution charges face 20 years in prison or more, while the firearm offenses carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. "This has a direct impact on our quality of life, and we must eliminate that threat to our quality of life," Knezovich said. Authorities are still looking for more people in connection with the operation but have not released their identities. The operation involved more than 100 federal, state and local authorities. Page 5 High Speed Chase Ends with Crash Through Fence - A high speed chase in Spokane Valley on an early Monday morning in January led police to a trove of stolen goods. The Spokane Valley Police Department said it started when someone tried to steal a car near East Valley Middle School. Police said a neighbor called 911 and told dispatchers a person was trying to break into her neighbor's car. When police arrived, they spotted a suspect inside the car in question driving away. When they tried to pull the suspect over, he took off. The suspect sped north on Argonne and police had to use spike strips to get him to stop. Police said the suspect then slammed through a fence at Sargent and Indiana. Medics took the suspect to the hospital with minor injures. No other injuries were reported. While investigating, police found stolen property inside the car. Police plan to charge the suspect with possession of a stolen vehicle and attempting to elude. Additional charges will depend on stolen items found in the car. Residential Robbery — Officers responded to a call of a residential burglary where a handgun was also involved. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers were met by three victims who said an unknown male entered through an unlocked rear slider door, pointed a gun at them, and told them to get down on the ground. The suspect at first said he was a cop and then admitted he wasn't, but instead was a convicted felon. He also told the trio that a certain male had sent him to the residence because that male owed him money and knew that Nicole had received monies for financial aid for school. The suspect continuously yelled at the female to give him the money or he would shoot her. When she told him she didn't have any money, he grabbed a garbage bag and filled it with a PS3/games, her laptop, and purse. He then ran out the back door of the residence with the female victim's belongings, getting into a red Suburban and leaving the area. Detectives are investigating. Stolen Vehicle Crashes — The victim of a stolen vehicle reported to police that he had left his vehicle unlocked overnight with the keys inside and found the vehicle gone the following morning. In the early hours two days later, a citizen called in to report a car being prowled and the suspect getting into and leaving the area in a newer red wagon vehicle. Officers not far away saw the vehicle and called in the plate number, which came back as stolen. A pursuit began where the suspect drove the vehicle at speeds up to 75mph, but ended after the vehicle hit a fence and then ultimately collided with a tree. The suspect made his way out of the vehicle and put up his hands to surrender; he was taken into custody without further incident. Officers towed the vehicle to be searched, due to a large amount of stolen property located within. Identity theft items were also found on the suspect's person. After being treated at a local hospital for an injury to the suspect's nose sustained in the car accident, the male suspect was booked into the Spokane County Jail on one count of Attempt to Elude Police Vehicle and one count of Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. Armed Suspect Safely Taken Into Custody—In late January, a 43-year-old Spokane resident was arrested after he threatened an ex-roommate with a knife and physically resisted Spokane Valley officers during his arrest. At about 8:30 p.m. Officer Lamont Petersen and Officer David Lawhorn responded to a residence located in the 18700 block of East Valleyway Court for a report of the homeowner being threatened by a person armed with a knife. As the officers approached the residence, they found the front door open and they could see the victim and the 43-year-old suspect arguing inside. Unable to see a knife, but knowing the male suspect was reportedly armed with one, they began giving commands for him to show his hands which he Page 6 ignored. He turned, yelling at the officers as he aggressively walked toward them with his fists clenched. The male suspect, who is approximately 6' and 290 pounds, appeared to be reaching for his waist area as he physically resisted the officers during the initial struggle. Officer Petersen and Officer Lawhorn were able to gain control of the male suspect and took him into custody. The knife was located in the kitchen where the male suspect reportedly dropped it when he heard the officers arrive. The victim reported that the male suspect, an ex-roommate, pushed his way into the residence when he answered the front door. The male suspect who had been drinking with the victim earlier in the evening, began yelling about getting some clothing. During the argument, he said the male suspect picked up a knife from the kitchen,walked toward him and threatened to stab him. The male suspect was booked into the Spokane County Jail for a felony charge of Assault 2nd Degree Domestic Violence and misdemeanor charges of Obstructing Law Enforcement and Resisting Arrest. No one was injured during the incident. Spokane Valley Joins Traffic School Program - As of 1/12/12, citizens who have been issued traffic infractions by Spokane Valley Police now have the option of attending traffic school. The Spokane Valley City Council passed an interlocal agreement which enables most drivers issued traffic infractions by Spokane Valley Police to choose an educational class instead of paying a fine. Upon successful completion of the six-hour class, the traffic infraction will be dismissed and will not appear on the attendee's driving record. The Collision Avoidance, Reduction and Education School (C.A.R.E.S) is a completely voluntary program and drivers continue to have the options of admitting fault and paying the fine, contesting the infraction by pleading not guilty, or mitigating the infraction by pleading guilty with an explanation. Drivers who are eligible must apply for the class in person at the Public Safety Building and pay a fee of$124, which is used to fund the program. Certain violations, multiple violations and driver's license status may disqualify some applicants. The class is instructed by Spokane Valley and Spokane County deputies and class participation and discussion is encouraged. Eligible drivers may attend this program once every 18 months. Started by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, the C.A.R.E.S. program has received high marks from attendees. The first class was held in March of 2008 with the goal of reducing traffic collisions and increasing public safety by offering driving tips and traffic law updates and clarification. Additional information about eligibility and the C.A.R.E.S. program is located on our website at: http://www.spokanecounty.org/sheriff/content.aspx?c=2037 Page 7 Spokane County Sheriff's Office & Spokane Valley Police Department Proudly Present: CITIZEN ' S ACADEMY: Officer Involved Shooting (O.I.S) Incidents Join us and you will. . . ➢ Participate in hands-on Defensive Tactics training ➢ Learn about the tools your Deputies carry including live-fire demonstrations ➢ Hear about an officer involved shooting first hand from a Deputy ➢ Learn about the laws that govern Criminal Procedure and what threats justify the use of lethal force ➢ Meet and hear from the team of investigators that make up the Spokane Regional Investigative Response Team (Primary O.I.S. Investigators) ➢ Spend a shift with a SVPD or SCSO Officer as they enforce the law and respond to 911 emergency calls YOU WILL DO ALL OF THIS AND MORE!! WHEN: 8 Thursday Evenings April 5th -May 28th Class goes from 6:00pm to 9:00pm WHERE: SCSO Training Center-10319 E Appleway, Spokane Valley WA To APPLY: Call Deputy Pendell @ 477-6044 tpendell @spokanesheriff.org. *Applicants must be at least 21 years old and pass a background check. Students must agree to attend 7 out of the 8 sessions. 0 Lie Enrollment is limited! SHERIFF Sy Register Early!! .� WA. cove Page 8 2012 JANUARY CRIME REPORT To date: Yearly totals: Jan-12 Jan-11 2012 2011 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 BURGLARY 60 86 60 86 1027 936 725 753 584 714 FORGERY 76 26 76 26 593 341 297 354 365 334 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 133 95 133 95 1566 1183 1245 893 1,265 1,122 NON-CRIMINAL 11 84 11 84 160 917 892 944 839 811 PROPERTY OTHER 94 53 94 53 1126 837 933 828 890 982 RECOVERED VEHICLES 60 8 60 8 416 365 187 319 343 403 STOLEN VEHICLES 70 31 70 31 566 496 298 496 478 711 THEFT 227 153 227 153 2512 2365 2162 1,846 1,881 1,888 UIOBC 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 4 8 11 VEHICLE OTHER 18 0 18 0 195 3 5 7 3 3 VEHICLE PROWLING 91 111 91 111 1491 1395 920 1069 682 937 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 840 647 840 647 9,615 8,852 7,668 7,513 7,338 7,916 ASSAULT 86 76 86 76 963 895 927 869 853 846 DOA/SUICIDE 20 11 20 11 213 188 210 269 221 167 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 34 99 34 99 714 1297 1226 1063 874 736 HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 3 1 5 KIDNAP 0 1 0 1 15 16 21 16 23 22 MENTAL 30 14 30 14 253 289 310 360 350 425 MP 12 6 12 6 125 128 115 95 83 88 PERSONS OTHER 266 125 266 125 2484 1692 1621 1,354 1,337 1,159 ROBBERY 4 6 4 6 98 68 75 71 60 58 TELEPHONE HARASSMENT 13 11 13 11 162 153 159 95 73 83 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 465 349 465 349 4997 4727 4,667 4,195 3,875 3,589 ADULT RAPE 11 4 11 4 67 44 35 44 43 29 CHILD ABUSE 5 8 5 8 89 115 159 148 104 78 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 17 19 17 19 184 206 157 86 92 105 SEX REGISTRATION F 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 4 3 INDECENT LIBERTIES 3 0 3 0 17 8 10 11 18 15 CHILD MOLESTATION 0 6 0 6 19 47 35 66 46 69 CHILD RAPE 2 0 2 0 23 28 35 39 31 62 RUNAWAY 65 42 65 42 510 490 440 369 295 309 SEX OTHER 1 13 1 13 56 215 211 179 194 203 STALKING 1 0 1 0 19 18 15 21 17 17 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 34 20 34 20 341 215 175 142 152 177 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 139 112 139 112 1294 1387 1271 1,108 996 1,067 DRUG 44 68 44 68 519 541 670 838 807 665 ITF OTHER 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 TOTAL ITF 44 68 44 68 521 542 671 838 808 665 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 377 251 377 251 3569 3081 3,183 3,811 3,800 3,345 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 1,865 1,427 1,865 1,427 19,996 18,589 17,460 17,465 16,817 16,582 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Spokane Valley Self Initiated Incidents JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -M-2009 -I-2010 -0-2011 - -2012 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls ■,4 • • JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -M-2009 -I-2010 -0-2011 - -2012 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 SPOKANE VALLEY TRAFFIC COLLISIONS 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC • 2009 M 2010 -0 2011 -2012 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Spokane Valley Person Crimes JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -M-2009 -X-2010 -0-2011 - -2012 • • • • • • • O • • • • • I mu JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -M-2009 -X-2010 -0-2011 - -2012 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Charge Count from Tickets: Spokane Valley JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2008 • 2009 -X-2010 -0-2011 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Spokane Valley Sex Crimes c \i JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -M-2009 -I-2010 -0-2011 - -2012 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Spokane Valley Property Crimes , JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC • 2009 2010 -0 2011 -2012 tox r1 �rq . ,�m�r er 5Re Wabash Val fruit H ill San on 8 e Y Ilesl�j� ]�i,�l'i 11111HAEM irnamor or"14.111 111■ Lacrosse IILl:I�I�� MIME MC WI =2 r2 War �1 .a NKr 1!_R �� —s� 6 _-pl�11!■�� c'� 11l1111111111�: : �� 1:: II€I•Irr.r 11011 .■ .1� 1� Bal au Man sfiel. 4 -- Spokan 'I- 111 irl rra u al Park E S -5 alton a o° a Crest$ Granite Trent ell Eu Flo Pit Old Mill OUP 141112 IMIMIElLy �! �111�1�� iilr�r�� EXPa Catald Broa e �r M Rlyer" wk. Awn:1r ia611l19ne iberty Lake epo ald sue■ Il�1i milli mI■ i m rw , ° rrtnS.on lEYIENEEdiditml MS' 9th �_T,_= __-■■■ .� ■ �■ r1i RM ` r.Plies - m 1y P tic�i 1 iii-hiF 1 rliip 3hr . i1 mg� lImIllli 'ti 1 to 18th h 2 ti 25th 0th nea ru■MEn■•r th ie Cow. w RA?0 mole I0 ti'Ma_` _— \iilYl�a l � � Irl`n ■" E � _�_�� ■.11...1 mamma iv sr o' we Terre 1St nd °WSeW Traffic Collisions O 1 O 2 C 3 0 4 Low Medium Low - Medium High 0 0.5 I Miles I I I 2012 January Traffic Collision Hotspots Map Produced: 09 Feb 2012 .sr>.k_Ts Fru't H11 5a on n `ye A • •■ ■=.7.====r■L'.Iiniamw isemoria tiglaz f: MINIM l�I 1i,� ..L�■�i4fu� IMMEESEur rr' mow ii=i■� iLsto Martngo ]IIt■�'i* . 1 :1'1111-- a ■1i nil 11 • ,NWial__1_■171 OPT■ mI__FJ■i � 5� Oly 1 Ara FlOe�rof F. 4 Spokan M Lacr ss Indu tn.l'1rkA MEM INNEN... y •.•IP� oa 0 sa Crest`s Granite EuEu lid �IVF�s.@L 4 sec alley _ °�c��au u Rwer� Gra 'berty Lake �r_ i� iS _ �� rel�yy .�� :Ham 7 ,-. , IIII■. :ald ■✓'x1 1 71`• F _! /Ora Pit Old _ FM. �■!��-�7l ' ' am Miss-f m_gVII om Ca erMraW AP, MEM p 11311F■__ Ti_� I- IIE■:■�■■■t�I.LJ �• ■w ■ �y ■111<''�-��ii�Ylllw°� � � �iIL•L•7 r+[it � s�� ► _\ \PSm et ,� R�-N■U� 1■��r_ Broad i'S�1♦ fi_ rrtnao riI�■1 1 1irdir rrmvil'l -il� APO MU IM � 7.11H!, �I ■[.ice �C re:wil■'1 EIEW i IZE1 1111111§�s,, .1$ .....1=,.., , .warmr....1,„„.„4..,...„,... ,...iiilEMMTWAC it■Wk_SARIT UM mittg o�'�L,all ��Ttlm v......„ ...L.., ,...,`/1� �.� tt1,T , 11111 ■ �_ ,J ° 25th Eta ght ■1♦°sP ��57th ay- 3 th Rio 10 Echo le s,. to Corkery le 6 ery L 1 to MIRFPFP7Pre-.'1.111 Ls elley Lake o 6th 1`. 'It T. 4 gdle Terre e y 4 1 S F 8 9 9i re 8th 1st nd °'M'iew Residential Burglaries c O 2 Low Medium High 0 0.5 I Miles I I I 2012 January Residential Burglary Hotspots Map Produced: 09 Feb 2012 J T�! ole 0 sa Crest'' '° �ro n �� oiy 11111 `,�-Ilesl��]��'infl_WK; A • Marainiamw ■ W �r1 • 1.. -- 1111■ e;: 41113 �111,ii11�G.. 11 =w MI = II�MIIf :_o f: --N 0 9th e ide �v. Neac°+ INN ��O I1 -� - - 3r r Mansfiel. �pJ, '.JVKQI I • ��y°�'jver�'�;1■ - -11L'oglkl 2 •IT WI u - i :]Eri■�17�i�iiM1 an Lacr ss Indu to LigrkA MEM ■■■ y Park E � e�� alley -5 I- 5 x 3 111= � � J\ iR7 :r r i:f■7� Wham iIIEP 1 s0e,1l.LJ �- .■■ �y N� ro mi■1� ■�ir RS. •i^ +II II Ate!hope" r1 -i — — _ms==T ll■-- — —r . ==—II.rImLea ■--�-- -0° i■Ilia=. ■!!"� ron n APO A Broad 7O�•a Pit Old Missi r- _\ \PSrn et �� ev erside soon. Catald .44 IV Ineximigeprim 1�� i'■1 � ■■■�—■ -4116 Lake y m 6th V\iin ;ii J� 1� \�L' ii .69621 25th 3 th ■M 57th l NUM= Echo le es Corkery le w I0 RSe n ie 6 ery G x s. e Ott air a -- 1��j tir. Ell ra>6 1 `1.i11tY1— � ��rJ�1 �,� �IEfsv��.zII��R ° )/14.,� rim _°Erna_ CD 0 Ste 9 It 8th 1st nd °'M'iew Stolen Vehicles 0 1 2 3 4 Low Medium High 0 0.5 I Miles I 1 I 2011 December & 2012 January Stolen Vehicle Hotspots Map Produced: 08 Feb 2012 PCE g0.10V:T- m u9'.7°J' cm■ .0 1■11 _r rnolcae rmriEff.1 p= • 7 Clements San Mandahy i+ Sha Rub 8 fruit Hill 5a�on 1151tiketz_ k O ly 1i „ii.Clr Cam* ■■1'1.IIII�i1��:-:� 11 lam-7a 111 trap -� I' ILL � •yIr siffealM141 III-- ■�■ �� '�illy:■■■1��■�� - ■■ _ � ■ mmr� a�ni sInt_8°'-�� _ nr-rrw ll'�wl� Broad C•la1I�iill■■ 1■■[�IIR.7■� �II ■ ■ rT■ G9•11L•■mI1111� �A- rick -[-[tyy ■F1 Lacr ss Indu twri.■f'1rkA INNEN■■■ •IP� Erb -5 I- Oa 0 sa Crest`s Granite Eu IR■■ ear, ver�,r� �� ald i-✓ A■�■'■ um • _\ \PSrr�et o Catald• halal ■ Valley way =.L. let IrdRig1l � 11 1 C=!!■ - s:� IIIB�Sao UI 11—x=,■.��'�� --.-1Y_ ■■t■i. MOM 0 u helley ■ 41 M NM o`er ° 8 �� ■yy11��e_ � � p� Ilia ■[.■SI�79■ ',I F�� , r�lcuSIGA�..w�' EMICILLki■■j— ' Emiampt EimIZI2Ae mow _AI fif0:1IRI!!!U! ' 1=71�■ 25th 9411�' �1.■��_ 41 =mamma= �1agalm ■ a 11111 . liana' moA?' I O t?iLI �� R I ..r.,... „,.. In AP R n E Se dh f r �1 1■r�" Emirs •�°s. 54 j�� l 57th IIlliiilv■.fi Echo le 5 es Corker), le 6 ery e le Terre 4 horpe 46th Ste Pierce Emo MM+aw-ok II F an 9 x i It 1st nd 8th Vehicle Prowling c 0 2 - Low - Medium High 0 0.5 I Miles I I I 2012 January Vehicle Prowling Hotspots Map Produced: 08 Feb 2012 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 28, 2012 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business [' public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Raised Concrete Medians on Arterial Streets GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 9.05.010; RCW 35A.13 et seq.; WAC 308-330 et seq. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: A petition was submitted to the Council to consider removing a raised concrete median (also referred to as a channelizing island) on Appleway near the Barker intersection. This RCA discusses the nature of the City's authority to place such medians. Cities have exclusive control and management of their streets. Cities therefore owe the public an affirmative duty to keep their streets in a reasonably safe condition for ordinary travel. This includes reasonably designing streets and implementing traffic control devices to reduce or prevent reasonably foreseeable accidents. Raised concrete medians are installed as channelizing islands when needed to provide sufficient intersection left turn queue storage, or control the direction of traffic or turning behavior off of the street to abutting property, as well as from abutting property onto the street. When there is no turning lane median, left turns onto or off a street increase the likelihood of accidents. The chances of accidents increases the closer the turn is to an intersection (though not in the intersection) because traffic turning right has less reaction time to avert a collision. Also, the higher the volume of vehicular traffic, the greater the need for channelizing islands to prevent left hand turns near intersections to avoid accidents. The authority to determine whether to place channelizing islands/raised concrete medians is an administrative decision. Walker v. State, 48 Wn.2d 587, 589 (1959). In a city-manager form of government, the City Manager has authority over the administrative affairs of the City, to perform those duties delegated by ordinance or resolution, and to ensure all ordinances are faithfully executed. RCW 35A.13.080(1). Authority given to the City Manager is outside Council's legislative authority. RCW 35A.13.230. In addition, the City has adopted the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance (WMTO). SVMC 9.05.010. The WMTO provides that it is the City traffic engineer's duty to (a) determine the installation of traffic control devices, (b) to plan the operation of traffic on the highways of the local authority, and (c) to place traffic control devices when required, as well as when they find it necessary to regulate, warn, or guide traffic for construction, detours, emergencies, and special conditions. WAC 308-330-260 and 265. The City's traffic engineer determined that a raised concrete median was reasonably needed to prevent left hand turns within 240 feet of the Barker intersection on Appleway. This determination was within the traffic engineer's authority. Staff is currently investigating whether federal or state law design requirements mandate the installation of a concrete median, or whether staff has discretion to not install a concrete median, and if so, whether there are reasonable alternatives that provide a reasonable measure of safety under the circumstances specific to the Appleway/Barker intersection. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 28, 2012 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information [' admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending/Potential Litigation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I Move that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss pending/potential litigation, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: